Not every venue was sold out. Does that mean that it was not a success? Does the fact that so many people tweeted it was the best concert they had ever attended mean it was successful?
Well...I'm talking about it in financial terms. If a venue didn't sell out there is a good chance they lost money after all expenses are paid. That would not be a "success". it looks like most dates were not sell-outs.
PrimeJiveUSA wrote:
Well...I'm talking about it in financial terms. If a venue didn't sell out there is a good chance they lost money after all expenses are paid. That would not be a "success". it looks like most dates were not sell-outs.
Not true, the venues are hired to the promoter. Even if they were only half full they'd still be in pocket.
On a tour like this it's the promoter who stands to win or lose. Normally the artist is paid an agreed amount, either per venue or for the whole tour. It's then up to the promoter to make the figures work in their favour. The ticket pricing for Queen started off very high, then in some cases was lowered, but a shed load of tickets were shifted even if the tour didn't sell out. No one was out of pocket on this tour.
Vocal harmony wrote:
On a tour like this it's the promoter who stands to win or lose. Normally the artist is paid an agreed amount, either per venue or for the whole tour. It's then up to the promoter to make the figures work in their favour. The ticket pricing for Queen started off very high, then in some cases was lowered, but a shed load of tickets were shifted even if the tour didn't sell out. No one was out of pocket on this tour.
Yep. When a promoter takes this kind of show on, it's his shirt to lose - not the band's.
With current ticket prices, nostalgia tours of the old bands of this stature are all making a killing, even if they don't sell out.
A venue only needs 3/4 full max to be in profit, like everything in life there is a health margin built in.
Looking at the numbers Queen can sit back and certainly say the tours are a success financially and critically by all accounts, I can see why they want to keep going
PrimeJiveUSA wrote:
Sweet Caroline
I want the tour to have been a success but these numbers aren't very impressive I'm afraid.
They sold 350,000 out of 375,000. 93% of tickets sold. How is that not a success? Lots of people made a shedload of money from ticket sales alone. Did you see the line ups for merchandise? That's an extra vault of gold right there. You are so wrong on this. Everyone with a financial stake in this tours success will be very happy, I bet pretty much every bonus payment got triggered too.
So...if the concerts only sold 40% of tickets the band makes the same as they would if they had sold 100%.? It's the promoter that stands to win or lose?
PrimeJiveUSA wrote:
So...if the concerts only sold 40% of tickets the band makes the same as they would if they had sold 100%.? It's the promoter that stands to win or lose?
Usually a band of Queens size get either a percentage of ticket sales but with a guaranteed hefty minimum, or a set fee plus bonuses depending on how many tickets are sold. I imagine queens guarantee was around 500,000 per show, possibly more. The band are responsible for the cost of the crew and all the touring expenses which for a tour that size probably run to six figures per day so a day off is expensive. Healthy profit in it though. Im sure Brian and Roger are a few million better off each now than they were.
Looking at the figures I would guess the promoters made a profit everywhere except Vegas, Kansas and uncasville. The uncasville show is particularly weird, unless Queen did the show for a smaller fee I don't see how the promoter makes money there. Possibly Queens fee was for the whole tour but playing a less than 7000 seat venue seems odd.
The only way to view the tour as a failure financially is to look at how much Coldplay are earning and see how well they are doing in comparison but there is no way the band haven't come out of this very well financially, and I'm sure Adam Lambert just had his biggest ever pay day too.
I am of course assuming the spreadsheet is accurate and not just random figures plucked from someone's eyebrow.
To make a 7,000 seater work, I would guess that the arrangement Queen had on this tour (and a don't know for certain) was that they were either paid a flat rate for the whole tour, or they were paid a percentage per venue capacity.
Of course some shows are not as expensive to stage as the appear. a few years ago Peter Gabrial toured UK arenas they were either sold out or close to it except one. The show in an 11,000 capacity hall sold 4,500 but the show didn't lose money.
So judging what Queen made and how successful financially the tour was is next to impossible without exact figures, I'm sure Jim Beach will be willing to help!!
Bands make so much profit from merch on tours these days that it's farily hard to make a loss on tour, they are planned long in advance and most promoters will only put one on if they know they will sell.
it's hard to totally sell out a gig because you are always left with a few single seats here and there, but Queen will have no problem making a vast profit from these tours, from ticket, CD, DVD, T Shirt and Mug, Program, Poster etc the tour will have broken even just over half way through