Quote:
Originally Posted by rokenrola
the real figures from 1990-2014 are(because billboard did not include all bon jovi shows, top 3):
01. The Rolling Stones
Gross: $1,565,792,382
Attendance: 19,677,569
Shows: 538
02. Bon Jovi
Gross: $1,544,667,964
Attendance: 20,113,607
Shows: 934
03. U2
Gross: $1,514,979,793
Attendance: 20,536,168
Shows: 526
|
Where do you have these numbers from? The 356 shows added to the original figure have allegedly grossed $486 million, which accounts for an average of roughly 1.4 million. Seems quite inflated to me considering that the missing shows must primarily be from the nineties, as BJ boxscores have not been reported to Amusement Business very often back then. According to the few boxscores available, they must have averaged around $200,000 to $300,000 in US arenas in 1993.
What we do know for a fact is that more than half of ZooTV is missing in this list as well (Amusement Business not covering any shows outside North America prior to 1995) so approximately 3,000,000 in tickets, $100,000,000 in gross and 89 shows need to be added to U2's figures.
Quote:
Look, Creep (don't even need to have a go at you, hah) - I never denied that U2 is a 'slightly' bigger band. Go back to Faceman's post and see a perfect explanation of why that is. In fact, given how Bon Jovi never ever had a favourable review for anything they've ever done, it's amazing how well they have done (5th highest grossing act in the world since 1990).
But that's secondary. Since 1990 Bon Jovi have grossed $1,030 Million. U2 have grossed $1,514 Million (578 vs. 526 shows). Now take out the last tours each have done and suddenly they are both at around 800- 900 million with, again, a very similar number of shows. My point is that both these last tours have only been as successful because of their production. Now if Bon Jovi invested 1 million PER DAY in their tour we may be talking very different figures here with a completely different drawing power in any of the markets you mentioned. But if in the end, it doesn't make any money, why do it?
Right. And there isn't more to say about this. For every example of 'Bon Jovi did not sell out this' there is a counter example where U2 or the boss haven't either so I won't even attempt to go into it. But yeah, good old Bono NEEDS his massive penis extensions to draw the crowds. Don't get me wrong, so does Jon Bon Bon (especially with no Sambora) but really - we are talking about completely different levels of Marketing and Production. And that's the end of it.
|
Why do you think U2 360 has not been profitable? Because there was an article in 2009 that said the tour did not yet break even after the first leg?
The fact that U2's scaled-down Elevation tour (only six stadium-sized shows) was able to outgross Bon Jovi's Crush & One Wild Night Tour combined (two entire stadium legs in Europe) shows that stage production is not that crucial at all. I also doubt anyone in the world went to see the Joshua Tree tour or the Vertigo tour for their pretty conventional and actually boring stage productions.
The only reason BJ do not invest in stage productions like "The Claw" is that they do not have the drawing power to make up for the expenses. It's that simple.