Why Musicians Are Manufacturing Sold-Out Shows

(bloomberg.com)

37 points | by helsinkiandrew 3 days ago

9 comments

  • Cthulhu_ 41 minutes ago
    Marketing 101. I don't go to concerts often, but there was one last year. Tickets for the thursday show were sold out within minutes, but oh look, they tried Really Hard and revealed they were going to do an EXTRA show on the Friday!

    (they already had it planned but wanted to make sure the first show on the less popular day was sold out first)

    • dtech 36 minutes ago
      Or they didn't want to commit to the extra shows until demand was clear
      • mrkstu 15 minutes ago
        Wouldn’t you do Friday first in that scenario?
        • afavour 0 minutes ago
          Venue might be cheaper on the Thursday.
  • bluegatty 12 minutes ago
    I don't think that this is a primary dynamic for music. Partly, but not really to fans. I don't think fans are extra hyped because something sold out. It helps, but I don't think that's a motivating factor.

    Within the industry - I can see that. Producers, managers, booking, PR, etc everyone loves the bandwagon.

    And a big artists not selling as they would is kind of negative news, but I don't think that has anything to do with people respond to the next album.

  • altacc 1 hour ago
    In short, the author thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside: it inflates demand. Reality is probably that's one of the reasons only some of the time.
    • butlike 27 minutes ago
      It may have been true in a bygone era when it was a crapshoot to "wing" plans and change mid-adventure, when the people standing in line couldn't just check the slab in their pocket to find alternative options such as venues without a line.
    • throw_m239339 1 hour ago
      > thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside

      Yeah, one of the most famous club in Berlin used to pull that trick, now it is about to close because the owners are not making enough money. People aren't fooled by these tactics anymore.

      • gHA5 1 hour ago
        Which club?
        • butlike 27 minutes ago
          I assume Berghain
          • piva00 26 minutes ago
            Berghain has always been packed though, they don't have issues with getting audience.
    • mondomondo 1 hour ago
      [dead]
  • fredley 2 hours ago
  • xchip 21 minutes ago
    I'm sure this article could be a tweet.
    • voxadam 15 minutes ago
      The article is around 1,460 words long, that's a very long Tweet.
  • dfxm12 32 minutes ago
    In the era of venues, ticket sellers and resellers being one and the same, a show is never really sold out. It's a marketing tool, yes, but in the context of the "underplay", it's also a way to limit supply, thus increasing the price of the ticket in order to collect fees on that inflated ticket price as many times as possible.
  • throwanem 59 minutes ago
    Because Brooklyn is finished.
  • reactordev 1 hour ago
    ffs, artists aren’t in control of these prices or venues. LiveNation is. Remember LiveNation? Yeah, those assholes.
    • lotsofpulp 54 minutes ago
      Livenation provides a useful role as a punching bag to the most popular artists. They need to seem accessible to the commoners, but their demand is so high, they can earn more money catering only to those willing to pay them the most.
      • kevinsync 7 minutes ago
        Yes, Live Nation and Ticketmaster literally serve as "the bad guy" in the transaction. The truth is, due to market realities, ticket prices (MSRP, not reseller prices) need to be high so that everybody gets their cut. All those fees people lose their minds about? Those more or less pay out the promoters, because the artists are too chickenshit to roll the full costs into their bare ticket prices, and unrealistic ticket prices signal to fans that the artist "really has their best interests in mind". But it's all smoke and mirrors lol, if promoters don't get paid, no shows happen; if no shows happen, venues don't get paid. If there are no promoters or venues, shows are dead and artists don't get paid.

        Considering all of that, everybody in the chain prefers and benefits from sold-out shows for myriad reasons, and all live performance is theatre at its core anyways, so IMO what's a little extra theatre on top to make sure the shows go on in this year of our Lord 2026, where very little is cheap and affordable?

  • Simulacra 2 hours ago
    I don't think this is "sneaky" - to use the term from the article. Yes, on the one hand a band could maximize by playing in a larger venue, but maybe doing so diminishes the experience for more people. Smaller venues, greater precision, and budgeting, and a better experience for the audience seems like a win.

    Not quite sure this is an issue that needs an article in Bloomberg

    • genghisjahn 1 hour ago
      Maybe it’s the old man in me but I’d venture to say most things in Bloomberg don’t need to be in Bloomberg.

      I’d love it if a news site said occasionally, “there’s nothing really news worthy today. Yesterday’s important stuff will do.”

      Also I’m mad I can’t get tickets to see angine de poitrine in Philly.

      • parodysbird 1 hour ago
        I see you don't subscribe to weekend papers. Mild, minor culture articles are perfectly normal and welcome for media outlets to carry for the people who pay to subscribe for their journalism.
    • grvdrm 1 hour ago
      And from what I’ve experienced: bigger shows aren’t cheaper! Smaller for the win.
      • dhosek 1 hour ago
        I’ve avoided arena shows for decades because they’re usually super-expensive and a less satisfying experience. Back in the 90s when I made a comment in the Discipline Global Mobile website about deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it, Robert Fripp himself reposted it in his online diary approvingly. I think I’m willing to go a bit higher than that on both these days (I’ll see a show in a large theater which I’m guessing is around 1–2000 seats and inflation and higher income has raised my threshold on what I’ll spend on tickets), but generally I find smaller venues to be the most satisfying to see live music. Plus, this is going to be more obscure or early-career acts so you get to be hipper than thou when you see them.
        • raddan 53 minutes ago
          When I was a teenager in the 90's I managed to score tickets to what was probably one of Pink Floyd's last tours. If I recall correctly, a ticket cost $40, which was pretty steep for a kid with only a paper route. Still, I was very excited--it was my first concert without my parents--but the experience was terrible.

          The show was in a stadium. The sound was terrible. Everyone around me was smoking pot. I was so far away that the musicians were barely visible. The only consolation was that Pink Floyd had a great lights show and a big movie screen behind them showing flying pigs and things like that.

          I went to one more stadium show after that--The Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage--and it was somehow worse. The sound was deafening but also unintelligible.

          There are many musicians I would love to see, but the big show experience is awful. Fortunately, I have since seen many, many shows in smaller venues. I fondly remember watching Low play in a candlelit (!!) venue with audience members sitting/laying (!!!) on the floor. Way, way better, and definitely hipper than thou.

          • grvdrm 15 minutes ago
            Feel exactly the same way. I start going to shows in the late 90s - once in high school. All small venues.

            I started going to more shows in college (mostly jam) and then even more as an adult with just a smidge more money.

            Two shows stick out as particularly bad:

            1. Dave Matthews Band - Fenway Park. There is no way to correct all of the oddities (and charm) of the place. The sound was terrible. I enjoyed the show anyways, but it was the worst sound quality I had seen for $90.

            2. Phish - Fenway Park. Sound terrible too. From what I saw, the Phish show is folks listening to the music and folks doing whatever-else to the music. I enjoyed being with friends and people watching but nothing else. Luckily, scalped tickets were cheaper once the show started.

            In contrast, went to many shows at Cambridge House of Blues, Boston's Paradise Rock Club, and many other similarly sized venues. Best sound, best experiences.

            Lucky now to live near the Capitol Theatre in Port Chester NY - a true gem among all the other venues around.

        • magicalhippo 49 minutes ago
          > deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it

          I've reached a similar conclusion. I've broken my rule a few times, but just about all of them just reinforced my belief in my rule.

          Here I tend to aim for venues where the tickets are $25-35. I'll order a couple and invite someone. I've had some of my best concert experiences this way, surpassing the large concerts I've been to by orders of magnitude.

          I also find that in most cases, the sound is much better at smaller venues. That is, there are good spots and bad spots, but you can easily move around to a good spot and then it's really good. The large 2000+ venues I've been to have never had good sound, just decent at best.

    • bombcar 1 hour ago
      There’s always risks with putting on a show - and the financial risks of underselling may be on the band.
      • dhosek 1 hour ago
        It really depends. If there’s a promoter involved, they will give the band a guaranteed paycheck and collect the door for themselves. This is a big part of why merch sales are so important for touring groups. This is where they make most of their profits from the tour.