Aloha !
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovifan93
Sorry, but I think you contradict yourself here. According to your post, Vertigo/U2 covered more individual markets than Who Says/BJ, but in the markets that both covered, Who Says did better, including the Billboard Hot 100, which, if I read your post correctly, is the most important one, since it compiles an average of all different markets.
So how do you come to the conclusion that Vertigo was bigger based on the "evidence" you presented?  |
No, the Billboard Hot 100 is no longer the most important one. Ever since the American market changed so much in the early nineties it's no longer a benchmark as to what's really the most popular for a target audience. It's merely an indication as to how well a single is doing overall, and a song either charting on 23 or 31 doesn't matter much. Besides that, It's My Life only charted at 33 on there, but it stayed on the chart for so long that the record company decided not to release a follow up just yet.
The American market is quite different compared to the one in Europe. In Europe you've got the odd classical music station, some schlager stations, and the rest is either Adult Contemporary radio, Classic Pop radio or just Hit radio in general. There aren't many stations dedicated to a specific genre here where as in America the Southern states are very dedicated to country music, so it's mostly country music stations there. What's popular on the Billboard Hot 100 chart won't matter much - Everyone's listening to country music anyway.
However, when you're capable of covering most other markets (Dance, Alternative, Modern Rock) you're doing a better job than just doing well on the country chart. Bon Jovi did an insame amount of bragging about scoring the number 1 single on that chart, but U2 did the same thing with Vertigo, just on another chart (Alternative). And then there's the Dance chart where they also did quite well on, meaning another market is reached.
If your song however doesn't chart, it means it's pretty much non existant on certain radio station's playlists. Not charting on the Modern Rock chart means it most likely wasn't added to the playlist, let alone gathered any attention from listeners. Considering how Bon Jovi are a pop band but need their core audience from the eighties to still fill the arena's in America, such markets are important as that's what their audience is listening to. The Billboard Hot 100 chart is only interesting for scoring a new audience, much like the country chart gathered them a new audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creep
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.
|
The scaled-down Elevation tour alone had 113 shows. The Crush and One Wild Night tour together had 93 shows. Considering how both tours had seperate stages, crews it's no wonder they outgrossed it with one tour. Besides that, the Crush and One Wild Night tours were done long before AEG got involved and turned Jon into the obsessed business man of today. U2 had already turned into a money making machine long before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsSon
Anyhow - Given how the tour lasted for about 760 days overheads alone would have added up to about 570 Million. Now add everything else such as building the stage, TEMP workers and all other variable costs (which are not part of that estimate) you can easily see the costs of it going up to 700 million. Now given it has grossed about 740 million...I'd be surprised it has broken even.
|
I'm sure you're better with numbers than I am, but would overhead costs be the same when the band isn't touring? I mean, there's a gap between October 28, 2009 and August 6, 2010. I don't really think the band had to pay for 750.000 a day when the stage was pretty much stored in a storage facility. They weren't exactly renting a crew then either.
Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan