[Javier]

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?

I don't get that either. Maybe he was talking about the appeal that both bands have, U2 having more appeal due to how many markets they cover and appeal to. But in the US, Who Says was the bigger song, on any other place in the world?? Well, Who says isn't liked very much.....

[creep]

They're not comparable tours. U2 hadn't toured worldwide for three years prior, Jovi barely took time off.

Bon Jovi chose more shows. U2 chose bigger stages. Nuances.

Bon Jovi touring more often is not really a viable explanation for the fact that U2 are a bigger touring act. Look at the Latin American figures. U2 had previously visited Latin America in 2006. Bon Jovi's last visit had been some time in the nineties. So decreasing demand due to overtouring is not at all an issue here and U2 still vastly outgrossed BJ:

U2 2011
Attendance: 802,264
Gross: $83,721,355
Shows: 10
Average Gross: $8,372,136
Average Attendance: 80,226
Average Ticket: $104

BJ 2010
Attendance: 245,295
Gross: $20,935,176
Shows: 6
Average Gross: $3,489,196
Average Attendance: 40,883
Average Ticket: $85

The same goes for any other market U2 have been touring more frequently than Bon Jovi (Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Wales...) and countries that both artists have visitied for the first time or after a long period of time (South Africa, Croatia, Turkey, Greece). This "touring more often" issue is certainly not a sufficient explanation for U2's superiority in terms of touring, as it is invalid for so many markets.

As for the US, touring an arena every two years in a particular city, serving a core base of approximately 15,000 - 17,000 each time, might slightly reduce your drawing power on the long run but do you really think Bon Jovi would be able to play, for instance, Rose Bowl or Cowboys Stadium if they waited another 4-5 years before touring? In fact, they have never once in their career been able to tour stadiums in the US comprehensively. U2 have multiple times in their career, so have the Rolling Stones, Bruce or Pink Floyd - For BJ, however, it's always been a handful of shows in the northeast. Don't you think there's a reason behind this other than "So they chose to play more small shows instead"?

[DevilsSon]

Originally Posted by creep

Bon Jovi touring more often is not really a viable explanation for the fact that U2 are a bigger touring act. Look at the Latin American figures. U2 had previously visited Latin America in 2006. Bon Jovi's last visit had been some time in the nineties. So decreasing demand due to overtouring is not at all an issue here and U2 still vastly outgrossed BJ:

U2 2011
Attendance: 802,264
Gross: $83,721,355
Shows: 10
Average Gross: $8,372,136
Average Attendance: 80,226
Average Ticket: $104

BJ 2010
Attendance: 245,295
Gross: $20,935,176
Shows: 6
Average Gross: $3,489,196
Average Attendance: 40,883
Average Ticket: $85

The same goes for any other market U2 have been touring more frequently than Bon Jovi (Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Wales...) and countries that both artists have visitied for the first time or after a long period of time (South Africa, Croatia, Turkey, Greece). This "touring more often" issue is certainly not a sufficient explanation for U2's superiority in terms of touring, as it is invalid for so many markets.

As for the US, touring an arena every two years in a particular city, serving a core base of approximately 15,000 - 17,000 each time, might slightly reduce your drawing power on the long run but do you really think Bon Jovi would be able to play, for instance, Rose Bowl or Cowboys Stadium if they waited another 4-5 years before touring? In fact, they have never once in their career been able to tour stadiums in the US comprehensively. U2 have multiple times in their career, so have the Rolling Stones, Bruce or Pink Floyd - For BJ, however, it's always been a handful of shows in the northeast. Don't you think there's a reason behind this other than "So they chose to play more small shows instead"?

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.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...nes?page=0%2C1

[rokenrola]

Originally Posted by DevilsSon

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.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...nes?page=0%2C1

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

[creep]

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.

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.

[DevilsSon]

Originally Posted by creep

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?

Just some basic math man.
Paul McGuiness stated:
“The overhead is about $750,000 daily, whether we play or not. That’s just to have the crew on payroll, to rent the trucks, all that."

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.

Originally Posted by creep

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.

Right. Let's leave it at that. That statement alone almost made me spill my coffee laughing. Not worth wasting time on a discussion with someone who is quite as short-sighted (to not say something else) and write that, given everything else that was posted in this topic. Take that tour out, and take Bon Jovi's only big production tour out as well (Because we Can) and suddenly both have grossed the same (despite Jovi being the youngest band in that top 5, despite Jovi having a hair metal heritage, despite Jovi never being adored by media, despite Jon not headlining newspapers for saving Africa etc).

[Supersonic]

Aloha !

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.

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.

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

[creep]

Just some basic math man.
Paul McGuiness stated:
“The overhead is about $750,000 daily, whether we play or not. That’s just to have the crew on payroll, to rent the trucks, all that."

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.

Yeah, those 750,000 account for all costs while being on the road. They do not apply for the 308 day gap between Leg 2 and Leg 3. The three claws reportedly costed them about $25 million each, add another $20 million for the basic stage and the video and sound systems. So we're dealing with roughly $95 million of fixed production costs. You should do your maths again based on these factors. Rest assured that Live Nation and U2 knew exactly what they were doing.

Originally Posted by DevilsSon

Right. Let's leave it at that. That statement alone almost made me spill my coffee laughing. Not worth wasting time on a discussion with someone who is quite as short-sighted (to not say something else) and write that, given everything else that was posted in this topic

In some individual markets they could probably pull something like that off. I’m thinking about NJ, London, maybe also Australia. But a world tour with a stage like 360 would in no way be feasible. Just consider three striking examples (that list could be endless):

Sao Paulo
U2 2011
Estadio do Morumbi
269,492
$32,754.065
3 shows

BJ 2013
Estadio do Morumbi
63,198
$5,695,137

Barcelona
U2 2009
Camp Nou
182,055
$19,825,467
2 shows

BJ 2011
Estadio Olimpico
39,992
$3,021,325

Brussels
U2 2010
Koning Boudewijn Stadium
144,338
$15,074,746
2 shows

BJ 2008
Koning Boudewijn Stadium
31,041
$2,517,796

Do you really think they could have had figures like U2 in these venues with a similar stage production? Just to get this straight, you characterize Bon Jovi as some down to earth band who do not care to play in the big league, having no intention to be remembered as one of the biggest bands ever and thus they deliberately refuse to do mega tours on mega stages like the Rolling Stones and U2 but, of course, could do so if they wanted to (supported by the outrageous assumption that such tours do not make that much money anyway). I’m not sure who is short-sighted here

[rokenrola]

Originally Posted by creep

Yeah, those 750,000 account for all costs while being on the road. They do not apply for the 308 day gap between Leg 2 and Leg 3. The three claws reportedly costed them about $25 million each, add another $20 million for the basic stage and the video and sound systems. So we're dealing with roughly $95 million of fixed production costs. You should do your maths again based on these factors. Rest assured that Live Nation and U2 knew exactly what they were doing.




In some individual markets they could probably pull something like that off. I’m thinking about NJ, London, maybe also Australia. But a world tour with a stage like 360 would in no way be feasible. Just consider three striking examples (that list could be endless):

Sao Paulo
U2 2011
Estadio do Morumbi
269,492
$32,754.065
3 shows

BJ 2013
Estadio do Morumbi
63,198
$5,695,137

Barcelona
U2 2009
Camp Nou
182,055
$19,825,467
2 shows

BJ 2011
Estadio Olimpico
39,992
$3,021,325

Brussels
U2 2010
Koning Boudewijn Stadium
144,338
$15,074,746
2 shows

BJ 2008
Koning Boudewijn Stadium
31,041
$2,517,796

Do you really think they could have had figures like U2 in these venues with a similar stage production? Just to get this straight, you characterize Bon Jovi as some down to earth band who do not care to play in the big league, having no intention to be remembered as one of the biggest bands ever and thus they deliberately refuse to do mega tours on mega stages like the Rolling Stones and U2 but, of course, could do so if they wanted to (supported by the outrageous assumption that such tours do not make that much money anyway). I’m not sure who is short-sighted here

U2 are pop rock band,more pop than rock, have mega stages because their music is not for stadium shows,most of their songs for sure,it is easy slow music,so they hide and cover music flows with big stage,same thing is with Stones. Bon Jovi is already one of the biggest bands in the world,can compared them with U2,two different worlds,music,I love U2,wached them in Zagreb just like Bon Jovi and they cant even compared live,U2 are to slow with big lights and stage but Jovi blowns them away big time.

[Rdkopper]

Let me just shed some light here on the US with both songs, U2's and Apple's combined early promotions / successes, and the Billboard music charts.

Before the I-Phone and the I-Pad, the big Apple product was the I-Pod / I-Tunes. This product is what really put Apple back on the map. When they rolled this out, they truly promoted the shit out of it. They used Vertigo which was the newest single from U2 at that time. They even had a special i-pod made to resemble the color scheme of their newest album. Attached below is the log version of the commercial that was played constantly.

iPod iTunes Vertigo U2 - YouTube

The constant airplay of this commercial, catapulted the single, which then catapulted the album. I believe the album sold a million copies within it's first week here in the US which was not as common anymore during those times.

What used to drive the Billboard charts were 'Single' sales in combination with radio air-play. Obviously during these times, I-tunes wasn't even a consideration just yet. This was just the beginning for them. Also illegal downloading using media such as Napster was big for downloading individual songs... Downloading a full, new album wasn't as common just yet. So because of this as well as other things too, people weren't buying 'singles' anymore. You could have a huge hit with constant radio play and only chart at 33 because you are missing the 'single' sales... The radio companies made shit off singles anyway so now the main purpose of the single was to promote the album when prior, it was made to do both. Back when albums were good, people would buy 4 or 5 singles, then say F it, and buy the entire album because entire albums were made so good.

Once you add all this together, U2's and Apple's promotion was the perfect storm and they really got the current music scene right. It looks like they are trying to work together, 10 years later, to capture that magic once again.

In my opinion, U2 isn't as current as they were 10 years ago. Vertigo was a great catchy, almost made for a commercial type of song as opposed to this newest single. And I think this logic is just stupid.

As far as Who Say goes... It was the second single off of HAND. It opened doors for a new country artist Jennifer Nettles and Sugarland but more so added a whole other element of fans to the song. Who Says was a Jennifer Nettles hit amongst county fans, not Bon Jovi. And Jon should have recognized that and left it as that instead of doing Lost Highway. However, lets give credit where credit is due. Jon and Richie wrote a great song, got the perfect person to sing on it (unfortunately, we've all heard the Keith Urban Version) which then opened doors for a whole other market. Perfect!

The song by itself, sung buy Jon, wouldn't have done much better than HAND.