Ticket Prices

[rangersfan]

Can someone please help me out?
I know Mr. Buffett needs a great deal of $$$ to support his lifestyle.
But why does a ticket in the first row, cost the same as it does in the last row.
I was thinking about going to the Tampa show with my wife, but $316 for 2 tickets in the last row,
seems kind of ridiculous.
The sad thing is, if you listen to Mr. Buffett's ( I call him Mr. Buffett because he seems more like a businessman than an entertainer these days) songs, he talks about living the free and easy lifestyle, and doing everything for his fans.
I think this year, just the parking lot will have to do.
Would Bruce Springsteen charge you the same price for a ticket in the first row, as he would for the last row.
And please dont tell me that it is not up to the artist, its up to the facility. At this point in Mr. Buffett's career, he has enough clout to influence ticket prices

[LIPH]

Can someone please help me out?
I know Mr. Buffett needs a great deal of $$$ to support his lifestyle.
But why does a ticket in the first row, cost the same as it does in the last row.
I was thinking about going to the Tampa show with my wife, but $316 for 2 tickets in the last row,
seems kind of ridiculous.
The sad thing is, if you listen to Mr. Buffett's ( I call him Mr. Buffett because he seems more like a businessman than an entertainer these days) songs, he talks about living the free and easy lifestyle, and doing everything for his fans.
I think this year, just the parking lot will have to do.
Would Bruce Springsteen charge you the same price for a ticket in the first row, as he would for the last row.
And please dont tell me that it is not up to the artist, its up to the facility. At this point in Mr. Buffett's career, he has enough clout to influence ticket prices

It's so cute that people still believe that.

[drunkpirate66]

Can someone please help me out?
I know Mr. Buffett needs a great deal of $$$ to support his lifestyle.
But why does a ticket in the first row, cost the same as it does in the last row.
I was thinking about going to the Tampa show with my wife, but $316 for 2 tickets in the last row,
seems kind of ridiculous.
The sad thing is, if you listen to Mr. Buffett's ( I call him Mr. Buffett because he seems more like a businessman than an entertainer these days) songs, he talks about living the free and easy lifestyle, and doing everything for his fans.
I think this year, just the parking lot will have to do.
Would Bruce Springsteen charge you the same price for a ticket in the first row, as he would for the last row.
And please dont tell me that it is not up to the artist, its up to the facility. At this point in Mr. Buffett's career, he has enough clout to influence ticket prices

It's so cute that people still believe that.

Adorable. I almost want to frame this thread.

[jbfinscj]

Can someone please help me out?
I know Mr. Buffett needs a great deal of $$$ to support his lifestyle.
But why does a ticket in the first row, cost the same as it does in the last row.
I was thinking about going to the Tampa show with my wife, but $316 for 2 tickets in the last row,
seems kind of ridiculous.
The sad thing is, if you listen to Mr. Buffett's ( I call him Mr. Buffett because he seems more like a businessman than an entertainer these days) songs, he talks about living the free and easy lifestyle, and doing everything for his fans.
I think this year, just the parking lot will have to do.
Would Bruce Springsteen charge you the same price for a ticket in the first row, as he would for the last row.
And please dont tell me that it is not up to the artist, its up to the facility. At this point in Mr. Buffett's career, he has enough clout to influence ticket prices

It's so cute that people still believe that.

It's no longer about the music?!?

[spucketts]

I believe the venues set ticket price and its a similar policy for all shows. Scalpers are different, they gig you for near vs far.

At Atlanta's Lakewood amphitheater it's even worse, the back rows that cost the same as the front row aren't even covered which is nice if it doesn't rain. 'Course we don't get a show there this year and have to pay almost $500 for a pair of back row seats at Chastain...which has no roof at all!

[urlcenter]

I believe the venues set ticket price and its a similar policy for all shows. Scalpers are different, they gig you for near vs far.

At Atlanta's Lakewood amphitheater it's even worse, the back rows that cost the same as the front row aren't even covered which is nice if it doesn't rain. 'Course we don't get a show there this year and have to pay almost $500 for a pair of back row seats at Chastain...which has no roof at all!

The venue do set the prices which are in part based on the performers appearance fee, which in the case of Jimmy Buffett is a seven figure fee

[FunkHouse9]

Can someone please help me out?
The sad thing is, if you listen to Mr. Buffett's ( I call him Mr. Buffett because he seems more like a businessman than an entertainer these days) songs, he talks about living the free and easy lifestyle, and doing everything for his fans.

More like the people who write the songs on his new albums write lyrics about that.

[surfpirate]

Firstly. Welcome to BuffettNews. We always need new people. Please stick around and participate.
Secondly. We all take turns being the one welcoming respectful greeter each day. Today is my day.

[Tiki Torches]

If Kid Rock can do it, Buffett can. Quite obviously, he choses not to. And yes, the story below is from last year but the principle still applies. Kid Rock is also not the first to take a stand against high ticket prices; Aerosmith, the Black Crowes, Green Day, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, etc. have all taken similar stands in the past. In the mid-90's, when the Eagles started the whole $100+ for a ticket because this might be the last time you get to see us thing, Page and Plant purposely priced their tickets much lower ($35) as a direct response. Some artists look out for their fans, some see dollar signs.

Kid Rock Takes 'Pay Cut' With $20 Tickets on Summer Tour

[Rabbitz]

If Kid Rock can do it, Buffett can. Quite obviously, he choses not to. And yes, the story below is from last year but the principle still applies. Kid Rock is also not the first to take a stand against high ticket prices; Aerosmith, the Black Crowes, Green Day, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, etc. have all taken similar stands in the past. In the mid-90's, when the Eagles started the whole $100+ for a ticket because this might be the last time you get to see us thing, Page and Plant purposely priced their tickets much lower ($35) as a direct response. Some artists look out for their fans, some see dollar signs.

Kid Rock Takes 'Pay Cut' With $20 Tickets on Summer Tour

Buffett may well 'be able to do it' but maybe he doesn't 'want to do it'?

It seems to me that for every punter who doesn't buy an 'over-priced' ticket, there appears to be more that will buy that ticket - this is evidenced by the sell out shows and the regular gripes on threads about missing out on tickets.

So why 'should he do it'?

Music is first and foremost a business. Those artists who are in it 'for the art' or 'in it for the fans' are usually described in magazine articles as "struggling musicians" or "former stars".

It seems that plenty of venues are willing to pay Buffett Inc their requested appearance fee, and plenty of people are willing to pay the venues large slabs of cash to visit the venue and see Buffett Inc perform. The market has spoken and at the moment it continues to be a winning business model.

Currently demand outstrips supply, so prices are high.

I say more power to Buffett Inc if they can maintain the ride during, what we are told, are difficult economic times.

Oh, and despite it not being my day to do so, Welcome to our part of the interwebs Rangersfan!

[Tiki Torches]

Music is first and foremost a business. Those artists who are in it 'for the art' or 'in it for the fans' are usually described in magazine articles as "struggling musicians" or "former stars".

Except folks like Kid Rock, Pearl Jam, Green Day, the Black Crowes, etc. don't fit either of those two descriptions. You want to pay exorbitant ticket prices? Go right ahead. They may be few and far between but I'm more of a fan of actual artists than "entertainers" who are in it solely for the financial rewards who could give a sh*t about their fanbase.

[Rabbitz]

Except folks like Kid Rock, Pearl Jam, Green Day, the Black Crowes, etc. don't fit either of those two descriptions. You want to pay exorbitant ticket prices? Go right ahead. They may be few and far between but I'm more of a fan of actual artists than "entertainers" who are in it solely for the financial rewards who could give a sh*t about their fanbase.

I guess that is where our views diverge.

After more than 30 years in and around the industry (albeit a smaller industry here in Australia) I really don't give two hoots about the performers* and their claimed "artist status".

I listen to music that I like and that I somehow connect with. The Buffett "trop rock" thing speaks to me as I have and do travel extensively through small Pacific island nations. The knowledge and the excitement of having another island getaway on the horizon helps keep me sane while I am dealing with the real world.

I know and I don't care that Buffett is no longer the poor travelling troubadour with sand between his toes, THC in his system and a whimsical view of the world.

I can still allow myself to buy into the dream. I feel sorry for those that can't .

You may characterise the actions of some artists as being for the fans - you may be right, but I temper that with the thought that the action may not be entirely philanthropic and unselfish. Experience tells me that a good cynical marketing ploy to revive flagging popularity can look very much like philanthropy.

*This, of course, does not hold true when I am working for a particular performer or performers. In that case they are the most important people in the world and their world view is invariably correct. Well, right up until the point where I am paid for my efforts and can go on my merry way. (Its funny how we all become cynical in the end)

[jbfinscj]

Except folks like Kid Rock, Pearl Jam, Green Day, the Black Crowes, etc. don't fit either of those two descriptions. You want to pay exorbitant ticket prices? Go right ahead. They may be few and far between but I'm more of a fan of actual artists than "entertainers" who are in it solely for the financial rewards who could give a sh*t about their fanbase.

I guess that is where our views diverge.

After more than 30 years in and around the industry (albeit a smaller industry here in Australia) I really don't give two hoots about the performers* and their claimed "artist status".

I listen to music that I like and that I somehow connect with. The Buffett "trop rock" thing speaks to me as I have and do travel extensively through small Pacific island nations. The knowledge and the excitement of having another island getaway on the horizon helps keep me sane while I am dealing with the real world.

I know and I don't care that Buffett is no longer the poor travelling troubadour with sand between his toes, THC in his system and a whimsical view of the world.

I can still allow myself to buy into the dream. I feel sorry for those that can't .

You may characterise the actions of some artists as being for the fans - you may be right, but I temper that with the thought that the action may not be entirely philanthropic and unselfish. Experience tells me that a good cynical marketing ploy to revive flagging popularity can look very much like philanthropy.

*This, of course, does not hold true when I am working for a particular performer or performers. In that case they are the most important people in the world and their world view is invariably correct. Well, right up until the point where I am paid for my efforts and can go on my merry way. (Its funny how we all become cynical in the end)

I couldn't have said it any better.

[lime rickie]

I love that the OP "newbie" [wink] joined BN all the way back in 2007 and his/her very first post, seven years later, is this.

[jbfinscj]

I love that the OP "newbie" [wink] joined BN all the way back in 2007 and his/her very first post, seven years later, is this.

I noticed that too

[lime rickie]

I love that the OP "newbie" [wink] joined BN all the way back in 2007 and his/her very first post, seven years later, is this.

I noticed that too

[Tiki Torches]

I also listen to musicians that I like but I'm much more likely to defer to artists that look out for their fans (especially in regards to ticket prices) than ones that are just out to make a buck.

[lime rickie]

I feel the same way about the Rangers.

[SMLCHNG]

Frankly I don't care about a musicians personal life, or what they do in business or otherwise. None of my business. If I like their music? I listen or buy. Plain and simple.

[Tiki Torches]

$100 for tickets to see a band that was pricing their tickets so high on the premise that this might be you last chance to see them and twenty years later they're still touring vs. Page & Plant charging $35 to make it more affordable for their fans (and as a f*ck you to the Eagles for being so greedy), that's a pretty easy decision to make for me. I'm no Kid Rock fan but I find it very admirable of him to have priced his tickets at $20 with no extra fees for his tour last summer. Same for String Cheese Incident for buying up a bunch of their own tickets so they could sell them back to their fans at a much more reasonable price. You folks that want to pay through the nose for tickets, have at it. I won't. I'm going to support the artists that actually look out for their fans.