Video Kills Arena Stars

One of my favorite music charts is the "Billboard Boxscore" which calculates money generated from concert attendance. Over the last few years I have been noticing a disturbing trend. So called "sell-outs" are occurring but the attendance shrinks every year. Why are the attendance figures shrinking? It boils down to price...but more importantly, there seems to be no middle ground for prices. Each and every year more bands employ a mentality that they will not sell seats behind the stage in an arena...or they don't care about the lawn in amphitheaters. This is a grave mistake.

The biggest culprit of this drastic change in attendance has to do with the band's stage which comes directly as a result of ticket prices. Many of the stages are so big and contain screens which take up the entire backside of the stage which is a waste of space. My theory is that this is merely a way to disguise empty seats. Before you start emailing me about poor views from the balcony, you can still utilize screens as long as they are positioned above and behind the screen. U2 does it and I don't ever hear anyone complaining about the lack of high definition screens. Now, to many these seats behind the stage offer a lackluster view of the action as you stare at the performer's ass for the majority of the evening. Besides, who in their right mind would spend $100 for obstructed view? However, I must confess, some of the best shows I have ever seen have been from this vantage point. So why would I settle for these seats? It's simple economics; price.

Let's take the last few U2 tours for example. Here is a band who has sold every single seat that has gone up for sale on their last two world tours aside from 1,400 seats in Kansas City in December of 2001. How is this possible? Aren't U2's tickets really expensive? Yes, they are...but U2 also treats it's audience with an immense amount of respect and provides their fans with a first rate show. More importantly, they tier their tickets properly. Their ticket prices range from $45 to $160. That's a wide difference, but every single seat behind the stage is in the $45-$50 range. I saw four shows on the last tour from this vantage point and I'm glad I saw these shows. U2 is one of my favorite bands and I want to see every show they perform within driving distance of Chicago, but I am going to be honest, I couldn't fork over $1,000 for ten tickets. It wouldn't even be an option for me if I could only afford the mid-tier and upper tier tickets. However, I can afford $60 (the price of the ticket with service fees). Why in God's name don't other acts follow U2's model? I have no idea, but I can tell you that no matter how impressive some of these HD screens are, they can't compare to 3,000-5,000 screaming fans.

Not only does it add much needed voltage to the show, but it adds money to the band's pockets. A good example is the Allstate Arena, formerly the Rosemont Horizon in Chicago. A sellout without sales behind the stage is 12,000 and with those seats is near 18,000. That is a 6,000 seat difference. It's also been the difference between good and great shows. I once witnessed a Dave Matthews Band show from behind the stage and during the bridge in "Lie In Our Graves" the entire arena lit up their lighters and I can't tell you what a profound and powerful moment that was. During the same show, I watched drummer Carter Beauford pound his drums strikingly during the epic "Bartender"...all of the elements added up on this particular night and the end was result was indefinable but I can tell you that the crowd had a lot to do with it. Plus, not to mention I may not have even attended the show if I had not scored cheaper tickets behind the stage.

If every band sold 3,000 extra seats at $30 a piece, that would equal $90,000 in increased ticket sales. Multiply that times 50 shows and you have pocketed an additional $4.5 million. Not to mention how many more fans you may covert as a result of them being able to afford to see you live. While we're at it, let's say the average concert goer spends $5 on merchandise. That is an additional $15,000 in merchandise per show and over the course of 50 shows that equates to $750,000 in what is almost pure profit. Add that up and it's an additional $5.25 million in added revenue. For these million-dollar a show bands, it's like getting paid free for a week of work.

This isn't rocket science. Does anyone wonder why U2 sells more records than Aerosmith? It may have to do with those extra 3,000 people they play to nightly. It's almost as if the $90,000 is irrelevant because a band like U2 gives the ultimate commercial for two-hours which may make that fan return for future shows and will cause them to buy their albums. Bands need to get over appearing on television, it was hip and beneficial in the 1990's but the real action is on the concert stage and when you price your tickets at a price point that limits those who will see you, it will hurt your record sales. Artists are so fast to point the finger at record company's ridiculous prices for CD's and continually blame the advent of downloading, but do they realize they there's three fingers pointing right back at them when they do this? You never hear about Dave Matthews complaining about the loss of record sales because his albums continue to sell strongly and his yearly live series also sells well. Why? Maybe it's because his ticket prices are fair and the fans can afford a ticket and a few albums for less than $100. Every time Dave Matthews plays a concert he leaves money on the table. He could easily charge $125 for the seats closest to the stage, but he doesn't. Every year he comes to the Chicago area and plays to approximately 100,000 people. He usually sells out two nights at Alpine Valley (35,000 people per show) and does one night at another venue (this year he played Toyota Park where he had 27,000 attend). Heck, the Rolling Stones couldn't even pull those figures at their ticket prices.

What these artists don't realize is that they may be making more money for less work, but fewer people see your show as a result, fewer people are exposed to new music and fewer people become lifelong music fans. Dave Matthews has it right. He fills every seat at his concerts and keeps tickets priced fair. He doesn't need a High Definition screen that takes up the entire back of the stage to hide seats that can't be sold. Just this past weekend Van Halen sold out quite a few shows which will be their first with David Lee Roth in twenty-three years and they have chosen not to sell behind the stage. I can't figure this out, why? Why not prices these tickets in the $30-$45 range? I guarantee they will sell. I know of tons of mid-level music fans that would love to see Diamond Dave and Eddie bump heads on stage but won't pay $90 to sit in nosebleed seats. I'd dare say only Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones and the aforementioned U2 could get away with this.

As record companies become more and more irrelevant the responsibility of promoting records will fall to the artists. Sure they can hire a PR firm who will make up a sexy ad campaign for them but people know when they are being manipulated and even if they don't feel it when they buy their album, they'll feel the sting afterwards which will leave a permanent mark. However, the memories from a sweat drenched enlivening performance will be burned into their minds forever. It's time to take control of the industry and break free of the chains they have placed on all artists. Bring the music back to the people...and do so by making tickets more affordable and start selling seats that would otherwise collect dust. The artists that do will reap the financial, artistic and the best reward of all...a legacy that will be created by themselves.

Anthony Kuzminski can be found at The Screen Door

...end