Why Musicians Are Manufacturing Sold-Out Shows

hhelsinkiandrew 3 days ago 57 commentsRead Article on bloomberg.com

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

78% Positive

Analyzed from 1361 words in the discussion.

Discussion (57 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

FatherOfCurses•10 minutes ago

As an antidote to this I would like to offer my experience in the industry in the mid-90's specifically around Garth Brooks.

I've never been a fan of his music, but at that time he really seemed to be focused on ensuring that as many regular fans got to see his shows as possible.

He limited the price of his tickets to I believe $25. This was when he was at the peak of his fame so he easily could have gotten away with charging much more.

Secondly he would often book a massive amount of dates in each city but only announce one of them. The next show in the block of dates would go on sale after the previous one sold out. It didn't fully stop scalpers but the unpredictable nature of how many shows in total there would be and when they would be on sale cut down on a lot of the scalping.

Again, not a huge fan of his music, but he seemed genuinely interested in helping his fans get to his shows.

scelerat•about 1 hour ago

There is a psychological hype effect which affects both audience and performers in a capacity room of any size. Whether it's 50 or 5000, if the room is full, you feel it, and it adds to the excitement, tension and maybe magic of the event. There's nothing worse than playing an empty room, and some of the best times I've ever had have been with a band and thirty people crammed into a living room.

zoogeny•32 minutes ago

As an aside, I've noticed an uptick in the amount of YouTube ads for music artists and their live shows. The amount of faux-organic hype being generated feels like it has increased recently, with those same artists who I have never heard of showing up on podcasts. It feels like a new era of payola.

Cthulhu_•about 2 hours ago

Marketing 101. I don't go to concerts often, but there was one last year. Tickets for the thursday show were sold out within minutes, but oh look, they tried Really Hard and revealed they were going to do an EXTRA show on the Friday!

(they already had it planned but wanted to make sure the first show on the less popular day was sold out first)

dtech•about 2 hours ago

Or they didn't want to commit to the extra shows until demand was clear

onlyrealcuzzo•about 1 hour ago

> Or they didn't want to commit to the extra shows until demand was clear

I think the whole point is that only Superstar Divas used to be able to operate like this.

Now, even "starving artists" are employing grey-area price-gouging techniques.

My anecdata is that concert fatigue is real.

I doubt this is going to bode well in the mid or long term.

My crystal ball doesn't work any better than anyone else's though...

javier123454321•about 1 hour ago

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean with concert fatigue? I've never heard of it and you're talking about it as though it's something that is so common, it is implied to be known.

mrkstu•about 2 hours ago

Wouldn’t you do Friday first in that scenario?

afavour•about 2 hours ago

Venue might be cheaper on the Thursday.

dheera•about 1 hour ago

I often see ads on Facebook for products where it says "selling out really fast" or "first batch already sold out" type of thing and my first mental response is "okay, I probably won't be able to get one then, I'll wait for your supply chain to catch up to the demand"

altacc•about 3 hours ago

In short, the author thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside: it inflates demand. Reality is probably that's one of the reasons only some of the time.

throw_m239339•about 3 hours ago

> thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside

Yeah, one of the most famous club in Berlin used to pull that trick, now it is about to close because the owners are not making enough money. People aren't fooled by these tactics anymore.

mikey_p•about 1 hour ago

This is pretty normal on some level. I used to work in audio production and one of the jokes is that the end of an artists career usually resembles the beginning. I.e. older musicians 'classic rock' etc being relegated to largely county fairs and casinos once they have reached the peak of their fame and are on the backside.

Also production costs do tend to balloon dramatically each time you jump from clubs -> theaters, theaters -> arenas, arenas -> stadiums, etc.

bluegatty•about 2 hours ago

I don't think that this is a primary dynamic for music. Partly, but not really to fans. I don't think fans are extra hyped because something sold out. It helps, but I don't think that's a motivating factor.

Within the industry - I can see that. Producers, managers, booking, PR, etc everyone loves the bandwagon.

And a big artists not selling as they would is kind of negative news, but I don't think that has anything to do with people respond to the next album.

fredley•about 4 hours ago

https://archive.is/92Xsy

CPLX•about 1 hour ago

I've been in and around the music business since the 90s. This is not new. There's even a term for it, it's called an "underplay".

Just a preference for the artist. If you go for bigger venues and stretch a little bit, you might end up filling it, and then you'd make more money. If you underplay, then you're guaranteed to have a good vibe at the show, which musicians care a lot about.

That's really, I think, the dynamic that most people use. There is an aspect of it that is public perception-facing, but I've been around a lot of musicians ranging from just starting out to household names, I think it's mostly a trade-off between those two options. Just about every musician prefers smaller venues because they're more fun to play, and less financial risk.

Like anything there are exceptions. For example, an artist who wants to headline Madison Square Garden for the first time might make a different choice. But I don't think the strategy is that much about cleverness. It's just about preference.

scottcorgan•about 1 hour ago

it's the same concept as sales at Kohls

xchip•about 2 hours ago

I'm sure this article could be a tweet.

Simulacra•about 4 hours ago

I don't think this is "sneaky" - to use the term from the article. Yes, on the one hand a band could maximize by playing in a larger venue, but maybe doing so diminishes the experience for more people. Smaller venues, greater precision, and budgeting, and a better experience for the audience seems like a win.

Not quite sure this is an issue that needs an article in Bloomberg

genghisjahn•about 3 hours ago

Maybe it’s the old man in me but I’d venture to say most things in Bloomberg don’t need to be in Bloomberg.

I’d love it if a news site said occasionally, “there’s nothing really news worthy today. Yesterday’s important stuff will do.”

Also I’m mad I can’t get tickets to see angine de poitrine in Philly.

parodysbird•about 3 hours ago

I see you don't subscribe to weekend papers. Mild, minor culture articles are perfectly normal and welcome for media outlets to carry for the people who pay to subscribe for their journalism.

grvdrm•about 3 hours ago

And from what I’ve experienced: bigger shows aren’t cheaper! Smaller for the win.

dhosek•about 3 hours ago

I’ve avoided arena shows for decades because they’re usually super-expensive and a less satisfying experience. Back in the 90s when I made a comment in the Discipline Global Mobile website about deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it, Robert Fripp himself reposted it in his online diary approvingly. I think I’m willing to go a bit higher than that on both these days (I’ll see a show in a large theater which I’m guessing is around 1–2000 seats and inflation and higher income has raised my threshold on what I’ll spend on tickets), but generally I find smaller venues to be the most satisfying to see live music. Plus, this is going to be more obscure or early-career acts so you get to be hipper than thou when you see them.

bombcar•about 3 hours ago

There’s always risks with putting on a show - and the financial risks of underselling may be on the band.

dfxm12•about 2 hours ago

In the era of venues, ticket sellers and resellers being one and the same, a show is never really sold out. It's a marketing tool, yes, but in the context of the "underplay", it's also a way to limit supply, thus increasing the price of the ticket in order to collect fees on that inflated ticket price as many times as possible.

throwanem•about 3 hours ago

Because Brooklyn is finished.

packersville•about 1 hour ago

Gross

throwanem•about 1 hour ago

Lol ok loser. Enjoy your $5000 a month roach pit

reactordev•about 3 hours ago

ffs, artists aren’t in control of these prices or venues. LiveNation is. Remember LiveNation? Yeah, those assholes.

lotsofpulp•about 2 hours ago

Livenation provides a useful role as a punching bag to the most popular artists. They need to seem accessible to the commoners, but their demand is so high, they can earn more money catering only to those willing to pay them the most.

kevinsync•about 2 hours ago

Yes, Live Nation and Ticketmaster literally serve as "the bad guy" in the transaction. The truth is, due to market realities, ticket prices (MSRP, not reseller prices) need to be high so that everybody gets their cut. All those fees people lose their minds about? Those more or less pay out the promoters, because the artists are too chickenshit to roll the full costs into their bare ticket prices, and unrealistic ticket prices signal to fans that the artist "really has their best interests in mind". But it's all smoke and mirrors lol, if promoters don't get paid, no shows happen; if no shows happen, venues don't get paid. If there are no promoters or venues, shows are dead and artists don't get paid.

Considering all of that, everybody in the chain prefers and benefits from sold-out shows for myriad reasons, and all live performance is theatre at its core anyways, so IMO what's a little extra theatre on top to make sure the shows go on in this year of our Lord 2026, where very little is cheap and affordable?

CPLX•about 1 hour ago

This is not a reasonable take on what's actually happening. It's never been a reasonable take, but posting this today after Live Nation has literally just been found liable by a jury shows deep confusion.

The ticket prices are not high because of market realities. They're high because of illegal monopoly behavior that inflates costs and then steals the money and gives it to Michael Rapino and his friends. The behavior of Live Nation has been shown to be much closer to organized crime than what most people think of as standard business practice.

There's extensive on-the-record testimony and an official federal court verdict backing up my side of this argument.

etchalon•about 1 hour ago

"Money. The answer is always money."