Is "tiered" pricing for shows antithetical to the scene?

Did you ask Skippy?

“Like, you would take this festival to the various places, and it was a great idea, except, of course, by this point, it...it had reached Canada, the idea that all these festivals really should be free. 

Just in front of the festival, we received this leaflet, that told people to boycott buying tickets for this festival. And it said that, you know, you know, this is our music…$…is an outrageous fee and the festival should be free.

 As I recall, there were some people who were quite vocal about thinking that...the musicians should be playing...We should be playing for free, regardless of the expense that it takes for us to get there and...and the fact that we need to make a living, details like that.”

free bird is quating from Festival Express

travis scott likes that free spirtit acid test vibe.

That is just capitalism at work.  But it cuts both ways.  Go to cashortrade.org a day before the show and see the free market in action as folks who end up not being able to go unload their tix.

Go on stubhub at one of those events where they sell tickets up to like an hour before the start time, note the best unsold seats, and stub yourselves silly.

Scene? What scene is that?

It's all part of the "obscene"

>>.Go on stubhub at one of those events where they sell tickets up to like an hour before the start time, note the best unsold seats, and stub yourselves silly.

knew a guy who did that for NBA games.   Found himself next to some high profile people a few times mid court down in the front.   He used the my hands are full with beer and I can't reach my ticket routine.

At the end of the day, artists want to be paid for their work. Its unfortunate but reality that artists getting paid requires business models to sell the art to the masses. Artists rarely get the largest portion of the moneys earned, so yeah, that sucks. But the Grateful Dead sold tickets from the very beginning. Bill Graham was extraordinary at selling tickets to see them. THe moment tickets are sold, the "free spirit acid test" is gone, and tiered ticket pricing has nothing to do with it. Its business.

1984 minimum wage $3.35    
concert ticket  $13.50

2022 minimum wage $13.20

concert ticket $180.00 

Artist are not in short supply but seats are. 

>>>>concert ticket $180.00 

Who pays $180 for tickets?    Most I will pay is around $80.

wasn't there even a fee, or "donation" at least at those acid tests? my mistake if not, lol.

Regarding tiered experience... we went to the Plilladelphia Fillmore this past weekend for JRAD.

Shows were great, but the venue seriously oversells their actual floor capacity.

The venue is backfilled with all this extra lounge/midroom square footage, allowing them the "capacity" that they sell for.
But as far as the room the actual show is in, the GA downstairs get so full that it's absolutely insane.
There is an upgrade option, which gets you upstairs where it's like a normal venue. Some good GA areas for tier one upstairs, and good seat areas for tier 2. We upgraded both nights, because we were there for the show. Ability to dance/hear/see/enjoy was granted.

That said, this didn't feel like tiered experience, it felt like the difference between being able to enjoy the show at all, or not. So is this the new business model for upgraded tiers? Don't just make it better than normal experience. Make it the only tolerable experience. Definitely a smarter way to fill VIP, as well as making twice as much on the GA area(by selling twice as many tickets).

Sorry to rant. I realize festivals are a bit of a different ballgame, and that tiers of experience options may vary widely.

I saw one Dead & Company show in 2016, and none since. It's because their music is slow and the tickets too pricey, and I find it unethical to pay the amount they charge for the performance they provide.

so I understand what you are saying

I have no problem with tiered pricing. Supply vs demand, and all that. 

However, tiered pricing would have changed my experience.  For example, at one show, i sat between a urologist and a guy who told stories about smoking crack in front of his kids. Tiered pricing would likely make this situation impossible. 

It was a buck to get in at most of the Acid Tests - even the musicians had to pay.

Later, at the Carousel, it was the same deal.

Once someone didn't have a buck, but they did have, for some reason, and paid with - a raw, bloody, leg of lamb.

It went right into the till with all the dollar bills/

In the case of Days Between, aren't the tiers based on timing rather than perks? Like with Early Bird tickets, they're offering some incentive to buy tickets early so they get early cash. I think that's a fair trade.  It's a GA show so no partitioning of people depending on price you paid 

Interesting question: Did the GD get paid anything to do the acid tests?  My guess would be 'yes' but I don't know. Curious if any of you do. But, if as I suspect, Kesey and crew paid them something, it was their "scene" that decided to give that over to people without charge.

As for 'tiered pricing', I think about airlines prices, which have always been 'tiered' by class, but are increasingly tiered by time and perks too.  I think that, overall, it's a good thing because it allows some people to get in for a good price (below average), and those who can afford it can pay more (above average), if they have a reason to do so.  The people with the extra cash can obviously afford to lose it, and the folks who can't afford it can get in for cheap(er) if they make some sacrifices in terms of convenience.  The net marginal satisfaction would seem to increase then, right?  I think it's a net benefit overall, and I don't think it has anything to do with "the scene" which, as pointed out above, probably always involved people (or somebody) paying a fair price for the goods and services provided.

That said, I fly Southwest because there is only one class.  So what do I know?

>>> 2022 minimum wage $13.20

$7.25 in georgia

Everybody got an equal share of the till of one dollar bills - usually enough for breakfast and gas.

Want to know what's antithetical to the scene? $250 a ticket to see the Wolf Brothers at the Sweetwater.  Unless its benefits for a charity, get outta here

It's easy to blame promoters for gouging consumers, and they deserve some of the blame for sure, but without consumer demand, the promoters have nothing.

Want to know what's antithetical to the scene? $250 a ticket to see the Wolf Brothers at the Sweetwater.  Unless its benefits for a charity, get outta here<<

Isn't it? 

I saw a headline; didn't read the article.

FOM has gone 100% metaphoric.

#what

> might the nature of consumer demand be a product of how promoters slice, dice, and build better "mousetraps"?

Sure, promoters can attempt to gin up demand, but if enough consumers resist the urge to buy what's being sold, promoters will have to shift their sales strategies.

> FOM has gone 100% metaphoric.

Maybe, ned, but as for a sales pitch for a better mousetrap, I say that my cat is the only mousetrap I need.

How is this even an issue? 

The first "early bird" price of festival tickets is not the base price of the ticket. The final price is the base price and all early buying period prices are simply a discount to what the actual ticket price is. Pretty much since the start of commerce, discounts have been given for early orders of an item. If you take contract on a residence before ground is broken or while it is still being built, you get a discount on the purchase price. Tier pricing is actually tier discounting and if you wait until the end, you end up paying what you would have anyway. 

Sure ticket prices are high in general but the root cause of the rise in ticket prices is the fact that performers make almost nothing from sales of music these days. Most # 1 albums/singles don't generate enough revenue to cover production costs. Touring and merchandise revenue is the ONLY thing that keeps a full-time performer from living on the street. It used to be if you had a # 1 album you could count making some bank for a rainy day. Now that same # 1 album might pay out less than 10k in total. Want to slow the rise of ticket prices AND help artists to create better music? Buy their music, don't stream it. 

> the rise in ticket prices is the fact that performers make almost nothing from sales of music these days. <

Paul McCartney needs more money? At his age and with his fortune he should be givin the music away AND subsidizing his production.  What, I should be happy to pay big bucks just to keep some lighting guy who wanted the rock-and-roll-lifestyle-instead-of-a-boring-computer-software-job, employed? Screw that.

That old turd just cost me a bundle since he's on my wife's bucket list. (I'll skip that show thank you; she can take a friend.)

I get not needing to see Paul, but...

He "should" finance his own show to bring his music to the masses?  C'mon.  He could just retire and chill if he wanted to.

Jack - that's just a bit of fake indignation, however I believe there is a point to my reply to Mr Saddler in that 1) his point may not apply to richer than rich rock stars and 2) sorry, ya gotta change with the times and if your medium of performance or livelihood is no longer relevant, ya gotta adapt or .... shit I forgot what i was sayin...what were we talking about?

I believe there is a point to my reply to Mr Saddler in that 1) his point may not apply to richer than rich rock stars and 2) sorry, ya gotta change with the times and if your medium of performance or livelihood is no longer relevant, ya gotta adapt or

I agree somewhat to my point not applying as much to richer than rich rock stars. Most of them have that "rainy day fund" um...well funded already. As for #2, I agree that if you aren't making money from sales of your music anymore, you need to adapt. That's exactly what they are doing. They have adapted to touring as the primary source of income and have raised ticket prices to reflect that reality and change. 

Subsidizing 

So, are you saying that rock stars are somehow entitled to a guaranteed income of X millions of dollars, regardless of the demand and/or changing distribution of their past revenue streams? If I had been comfortably coasting along with a main FT job and a really nice PT supplemental gig which gradually fell off or ended, would I be justified to simply demand more out of my existing main FT job to make up for the loss? I get it that record sales are in the ditch and people are now streaming music for free or nearly free but how is that the fans fault? Who or what entities are streaming it and under what guise or legal avenue? And if it's not legal they should go after said streaming sources, not the fans. However, in the end, the market will determine whatever fans might be willing to pay to see any live show and artists attempting to boost those prices and margins would likely find out. I suppose they have "adapted" by simply trying to maximize whatever revenue streams may remain, hence we get to increased price tiering and "experience packages."

Follow the sports example, price the fan out of the arena, there are enough rich people to fill the arena 

^Done.

However this began likely started with some bean counting "business managers".

We should raise fabes minimum wage.  

So, are you saying that rock stars are somehow entitled to a guaranteed income of X millions of dollars, regardless of the demand and/or changing distribution of their past revenue streams?

Not sure how you got that out of what I posted??? Nobody is guaranteed any income from any "job." All I posted was that the drying up of recording sales income is a root cause of increased ticket prices for live shows. When the majority of us who frequent this message board started seeing live shows, tours were done to drive records sales mostly. As time passed, the audience demanded more from there shows...better sound, better lighting, etc. All those things come at a cost and those costs were covered by the recording sales income. Tours are now the primary income stream for performers. Those performers who do well on tours have invested even more in making those shows as fantastic as possible. This again costs money. So, ticket prices continue to rise. 

Regardless of the cost or lack of cost, streaming doesn't come close to paying bills. Everyone gets that. What I don't get, and many others in the biz don't get, is why those who stream almost never buy music that they love now? Buying a download or CD brings a lot more to the table and helps support artists that people enjoy. For the record, I don't subscribe to any streaming services and won't because they don't pay the artists anything near what they should. I do continue to buy CDs (not a digital download guy) and will continue to unless that changes. 

Everyone makes their own choices with where there entertainment dollars go and that's fine. All I have attempted to explain is why some things are the way there are now. Much like the above comment about sports, the established bigger acts continue to get the audiences as prices rise for tickets. The problem is those smaller acts that are getting started. They aren't able to tour at a lower ticket prices...to much overhead. It would end up that they make no money from recording sales AND no money from live shows which, in turn, will lead to them exiting the buisness to become accountants.. maybe for the next wave of bands so their experience can help them keep the music flowing. 

I understand your points, skifurthur, and while not necessarily disagreeing with you, I still mostly see it as a lame arguement for trying to maintain  whatever revenue streams used to be present and relevant that are no longer there. When most of us started seeing GD, for example, there was little glitz and flash beyond the music and it was all good. As many aging bands and artists have done, it may just be easier and more viable to just sell their catalogs rather than try to wring out whatever touring revenue may or may not exist by attempting to up-ding the remaining fans. Guaranteed margins more so seem to be in play than anything else which is just the private equity ownership model in a race to the bottom.