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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a musician myself, I can 100% confirm this. For me personally, small gigs are often the most fun because the audience is very close and you can actually see/hear the reaction of individual people. Noticing one or two excited audience members can already make a difference. Conversely, a Jazz musician once told me that seeing me in the front row, visibly enjoying his performance, fired him up. Also, in a small venue it is much easier to hang out with the audience after the concert.
One of the most fun gigs I had was a garage concert at a friend's place in Luxembourg we did on our way to a festival. The fact that weed had just been legalized in Luxembourg certainly contributed to a very receptive and enthusiastic audience. We ended up repeating our whole set :-D
The best concert experience I ever had was in the mid-90's. I went to a medium level band (frequent radio play at the time, but you probably wouldn't recognize the name now) at a smaller venue. But I guess nobody really promoted the show at all. Only 8 people showed up for the audience. The band didn't seem to care and rocked it anyway. During their most popular song the singer got down off the stage and passed the mic around, we all sang karaoke style.
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.
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.
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.
There has been a huge shift in why musicians do live shows and with it a shift in how they price them.
25 years ago, I did an odd job taking calls for Livenation for a U2 Show. While not cheap, ticket prices were well below market value and strict purchase limits in attempts to curb scalpers.
Today the same venue starts auctioning tickets when nearing sold out and ticket master runs a scalping service.
My explanation is back when records was big business, tours were seen as more of a promotional tool. Today very few artist makes sustainable money off of record sales or streaming so music sales is more of a promotion for other services, the main one being live shows.
How am I supposed to know if I want to sign up for Bloomberg if I can't read any of the article, then accept cookies, and then get two nag screens? Dumbass website.
24 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 53.8 ms ] threadNot quite sure this is an issue that needs an article in Bloomberg
(they already had it planned but wanted to make sure the first show on the less popular day was sold out first)
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.
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.
One of the most fun gigs I had was a garage concert at a friend's place in Luxembourg we did on our way to a festival. The fact that weed had just been legalized in Luxembourg certainly contributed to a very receptive and enthusiastic audience. We ended up repeating our whole set :-D
Also production costs do tend to balloon dramatically each time you jump from clubs -> theaters, theaters -> arenas, arenas -> stadiums, etc.
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.
25 years ago, I did an odd job taking calls for Livenation for a U2 Show. While not cheap, ticket prices were well below market value and strict purchase limits in attempts to curb scalpers.
Today the same venue starts auctioning tickets when nearing sold out and ticket master runs a scalping service.
My explanation is back when records was big business, tours were seen as more of a promotional tool. Today very few artist makes sustainable money off of record sales or streaming so music sales is more of a promotion for other services, the main one being live shows.