Friday, April 21, 2006

Rocknomics?

Today I waltzed over to the Warsaw here in Greenpoint to try and get a $13 ticket for Band of Horses, they didn't have them available, so I logged on to Ticketmaster and accepted that I'd have to pay a buck or two as service charge. The service charge was 40% on top of the face value! I recoiled in disgust.

Meanwhile just down the road at Princeton, Professor Alan Krueger has been studying the economics of the concert business. BBC Profiles him in this excellent article, and lays out some of his conclusions.

"Before the advent of illegal downloads, artists had an incentive to underprice their concerts, because bigger audiences translated into higher record sales, Professor Krueger argues.

But now, he says, the link between the two products has been severed, meaning that artists and their managers need to make more money from concerts and feel less constrained in setting ticket prices.

Professor Krueger says this tendency was spotted by David Bowie, who told the New York Times in 2002 that "music itself is going to become like running water or electricity".

Bowie has advised his fellow performers: "You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring, because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left."


Though I challenge the idea that the rise in illegal downloads directly caused with the exorbitant ticket prices (correlation doesn't equal causation. plus, what about the greedy record labels and the greedy artists and the cost of gas and the rising cost of utilities and and and),but I definitely agree that touring is increasingly becoming the primary income source for most artists. I also think that the internet is helping to bring people out to shows and spread the word about bands even before they hop into the van. I've gone to many a show on the suggestion of a music blogger, and I know many others who do as well. I'm tired of everyone passing the buck on why the fans are getting hit in the pocket: bring us good music and a great stage show at a reasonable price and we will pay....well, unless--of course--we can get on the list...(anyone from Band of Horses out there?).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ive been talking for years about the importance of bands not named Metallica or Britney to use the web to their advantage.

How in the hell would a band like Band of Horses sell out 2 shows on one record with no radio play in the area? They owe this success to the web.

I downloaded some mp3's off the record and bought it twice.

Quite frankly whoever told this band they should charge $13 to pour their heart and souls out in new york made a massive undersell.

$13 wont even buy you 2 beers at a baseball game. I mean would a $30 cover charge have kept this show from selling out Bowery? I think not.

Bowie's right. Artists need to captialize on their live show. The recorded version will create the interest and you can make some dough. The live show is where you make the killing.

$13 is a bargain. YOu can buy 3 hot dogs at yankee stadium for that.

Camille Acey said...

hey anonymous--

quite honestly i bet the band didn't expect such a massive surge of interest (the internet makes it hard to really gauge these things accurately). their booking agent was probably trying to be conservative and they are probably getting a meager guarantee with some small backend because john at bowery thought he was taking a risk on them. i bet they probably even thought bowery ballroom might be pushing it. i mean, clap your hands say yeah is still doing bowery, and they've got a ton more buzz than BOH. while a $30 ticket might not have been as prohibitive, I think that BOH will get more of a curious crowd of potential converts at the $13 mark. I'm going for the opener, Mt. Egypt, but I've downloaded a few BOH tracks and am ready to be convinced by their live show.

Not sure why music and sports are being compared here...I wouldn't drop a single red cent to see ANY sporting event.

Anonymous said...

I didn't take Bowie's comment to mean illegal downloading is behind the rise in ticket prices and the increased need for touring.

It could very easily apply to music subscription services like Rhapsody or Yahoo. Or it could apply to XM or Sirius.

His point, I think, is that music is going to be so ubiquitous and inexpensive that for-sale music will cease to be a premium item from which artists can expect to make money. Touring will become the premium item.

One thing not mentioned in this article, which changes the dynamics of the situation: Except for Madonna, those artists who charge top dollar for concerts don't sell many albums. Bowie's statement ignores the fact that those most able to put 20,000 asses in the seats are in the twilight of their sales career, and thus arent going to make money off their CDs anyway (unless they have a great deal, or put out the album on their own label).

The mentions of sporting events hits upon an important aspect of consumer behavior: Music events and sporting events come from the same entertainment budget. Not for me, not for most people I know who go to a dozen or more concerts a month. But for those people who hit a concert or maybe two per year, I'd say concerts and sporting events are coming from the same mental budget.

Camille Acey said...

Hey Glenn --
It was my understanding that much of the revenue for major labels was back catalogue, am I wrong? I thought this was (cha-ching) money in the bank for those aging acts.

Oh and thanks for re-framing the sporting event comparison, I sometimes forget that we who go to dozens of shows a month are in the extreme minority.