are Radiohead hypocrites?
taking a stance against secondary ticket sellers charging fans an arm and a leg whilst themselves forcing people to pay sky-high prices?
i'm going to go with 'No'.
- Relevant artist taggings:
- Sweet Jane Andrews Lane Theatre Saturday October 17th @ 10.30pm »[x]
- Thievery Corporation »[x]
- Totally Boring »[x]
- Suckers »[x]
- Micropenis »[x]
- Dick4Dick »[x]
- The Rank Deluxe »[x]
- Gwen Stefani »[x]
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
i
say yes.
No
Unquestionably
Yeah, probably
but I'm not too fussed either way
yeah, i'm not going either.
You can't really say unless you know how much money they're making
the anti touting stuff adds money, as does transporting all their gear 'greenly' and I imagine they pay their crew pretty well.
While I'd be shocked if they weren't making a decent chunk of money from this, I imagine if they knocked £20 off ticket price and kept all the anti-tout, green stuff etc it probably would become heavily loss making.
Wrong. They are definitely making a lot of money from this. Trust me.
show your working
2 + 2 = Seventy quid
Hmmm
I'd be genuinely interested to see your working, not saying I don't believe you, but if we're saying a band of Radiohead's stature maybe 'ought' to be charging £30-£50, it just strikes me that all this extra stuff they do must boost their overheads significantly.
It'd be good if they noted the outcry and explained it at some point.
Probably
But I love 'em despite it.
YEs
But it's not a crime
and it's been like this for ages. My scales-from-eyes moment came as I walked towards Victoria Park (tents shows, not the recent ones) after they'd gone on and on and on about avoiding sponsorship and No Logo and The State We're In and blahblahblah and seeing all the massive Virgin Cola signs everywhere. Ah well.
No
They have to make tough choices and difficult decisions that you really wouldn't understand.
Yes
I have to make tough choices and difficult decisions that Radiohead really wouldn't understand.
They might be hypocrites, but not about ticket pricing
Even though the tickets seem to be expensive at around the £70 mark, which seems high, the truth is that compared with demand, that seems below the market price for this show. In other words, Radiohead could probably charge (for example) £90 per ticket for this show and still sell every ticket.
Assuming they're aware of this, that means they've decided it's fairer to price the gig at £70 even though they could charge everyone £20 more - they've given fans a discount on what they would pay if they had to.
When touts buy tickets at the subsidised price of £70 and then on-sell them at the market price of £90, they essentially grab that £20 per ticket that Radiohead have spared the genuine ticket purchasers for themselves – and not by providing any value, but by the rent-seeking behaviour of obstructing the legitimate sales mechanism from band to fan by trying to remove as many tickets as possible from genuine sale to shift to their secondary market.
It’s reasonable for Radiohead to be against touts buying up the tickets, because it makes ticket prices less fair for the genuine ticket buyers, and wastes the `subsidy` Radiohead have provided to their fans by instead unwillingly giving it to the touts.
Erm...
So instead of ripping us off massively, we should be pleased they're just pocketing the extra stuff they added on on top for themselves?
If they turn around and give £100K to charity, then yeah, well done lads. Until then, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that.
And it won't stop touting at all. A cursory look on ebay sees dozens of these tickets on sale for anything of £100 to £300 each. It's just proportionally inflated the price even more.
Are the tickets numbered?
I would have thought that promoters have the power to cancel any tickets that appear on resale sites, should they wish to.
Yeah I would have thought so too
The ones for sale list the blocks, rows and rough area but not the specific seats, probably to avoid this being the case...
It's paperless
People will buy these tickets from touts and will get to the venue and not be allowed in because they won't have the corresponding ID. They will then phone the ticket company the touts bought them from who will tell them there's nothing they can do. Bollocks to them though, the terms were clear enough that I knew about them and I didn't try to get a ticket. If you don't want to get ripped off by touts, don't buy a ticket from a fucking tout
Ah I see...
People must have ways around it though? They did this at Glasto and at least 3 of the people I spent a large part of the weekend with all got in working around this system. Are they honestly going to check 10,000 tickets on the night?
Not that it matters to me. I've never bought from a tout and never will do.
(Unless it's an R.E.M. reunion gig perhaps...)
(a) They aren't ripping people off though
If they charge £70 and you are willing to buy £70, then it's a fair exchange. If you were willing to pay £90 but only had to pay £70, then you've done a good deal for yourself.
That deals with your first sentence.
(b) Regarding your third paragraph, touting is profitable because people are prepared to pay more than the face value of the ticket. The face value price will have had a psychological effect on people's perceptions of what a fair price for a ticket to this show is worth, but you can't inflate the price beyond what people are willing ultimately to pay. If the ticket price is £70 but most people would pay £100, there's a lot of margin for touts there (who as I said above, are essentially stealing value not so much from Radiohead, as from the fans who Radiohead have tried to subsidise). If the ticket price is £100, there's a lot less margin for touts and a greater majority of people buy tickets directly from the band for the intended price.
(Re your second paragraph, it's not a matter of opinion about whether or not they're worthy, I'm just describing the economic effect of charging less for a ticket than they could).
But surely with (a) you're presuming that the average fan IS happy to pay £90 for a ticket?
Which is quite a leap?
Admittedly I know several hardcore Radiohead fans who own every limited edition release and travel around Europe to see them so I'm sure some would. But still... just seems like a big assumption?
I think I need to check what's so revolutionary about this system to bring down the touts. From what I've read, it's just the same as what the average big gig / festival now does, unless the band plan on refunding people the added on costs?
Based on how quickly these tickets are selling / have sold, I'm guessing (reasonably) that the price could be higher and the gig would still sell out
the exact figure of £90 is just an example. (Also, the `average` fan wouldn't need to be happy to pay £90, just enough fans to buy all the tickets available to this particular concert).
(I don't even know the details of what if anything they're doing about touts to be honest - I just wanted to make the point that the gigs can't be definition be a rip off if people are voluntarily paying to go to them as a leisure choice)
I would love it, LOVE IT, if they came out with this as the official reason
Imagine :D
Blares hypocrites
The laws of supply and demand just describe the interaction between price supply and demand and show the maximum at each point, that in no way means that anyone *should* set their prices according to that optimum,. Most people put a reasonable mark up on what they sell not find the maximum, especially in live music it's not like they are selling raw minerals or something. They are effectively pricing out their lower income fans and for such an obviously left leaning band that is hupocritical
*blates
the question was whether they were hypocrites for taking a stand against secondary sellers
Also they aren't pricing out lower income fans if the whole point is that touts grab all the tickets and price out lower and medium income fans.
When have touts ever grabbed all the tickets even if they some how managed it they wouldn't sell them all at that inflated price because it is only a small proportion of people willing to buy at that price which touts rely on, if too many touts by tickets supply and demand kicks back in and the price would lower. Of course it is hypocritical, touting is bad because some people pay over the odds, by which I mean the conventional price of these things which is way below£70, by pricing it that high they are pricing out anyone not willing to pay £70 and taking a share of what would have been the touts, for the customer the negative consequences of paying over the odds is the same regardless of whether it's by touts or the band but by doing this it has actually hit those lucky enough to get tickets rather than just those that missed out. They were against touting because it ripped off fans and then ripped them off themselves=hypocrites. Think they're just lazy they know they could sell at the normal price and play night after night instead they decided they could just play a few at this price and make the same
Either they were against touting in principle as its money for nothing, or they were against it because of rip off prices for their fans, now they have set rip off prices themselves, not as rip off as touts but some way towards I and applying to all ticket holders. I know up there you say it's not a rip off if people pay that but that's only from the point of view of those who are buying, all those priced out fans out there can't pay that much need to be taken into account
Clearly they are against it in principle as touts take extra money from fans without providing any value
You seem to be suggesting that high prices are unfair to people with low incomes. I appreciate that, but these shows aren't cheap to put on, and there would need to be a way of providing cheaper tickets to those in genuine need. There's no reason that people who can well afford a big gig at £70 should get a ticket for £20 just so a few poorer people can go as well - that would make the entire venture unaffordable.
Perhaps bands should offer concessions to people on low incomes? Not fussed myself, and it wouldn't be easy to operate, but it would show some generosity.
big gigs cost more than little gigs but they also have a much larger attendence which should offset a bit of that and mean prices dont vary that much, whilst I assume it isn't linear and the costs per person at a big gig may well be a little more that at little ones justifying a higher price £70 seems way higher than it should be, radiohead are free to set prices however they want but people are free to judge them harshly.
im not advocating the price be set at a level that makes the venture unaffordable, I think it should be set at whatever the cost is to set up plus what ever the conventional mark up is, id estimate to be around £50
But you're just plucking that figure of £50 out of the air - show some working and maybe we'll talk
And you've still got the issue (which this thread is actually about, NOT the price of the tickets themselves) of touts having a great incentive to buy up and sell for double that price - which as I've said, I don't think it's hypocritical to object to.
i'm basing it on that's how much coldplay charge. It may not be hypocritical to just object to touts profiting on principle but I don't think ive ever seen the debate framed in that way. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048693&c=1
'In recent years however, the band's enjoyment of their own shows has been marred by the knowledge that a great many of their fans have been obliged to pay well over face value for their tickets'
that statement seems to imply that it is the 'well over the face value' for the 'fans' that bothers them, rather than the idea someone is making profit off them. And then they go and set the face value well above the comparable rate seems hypocritical to me if they were really converned with cost to fans
``that statement seems to imply that it is the 'well over the face value' for the 'fans' that bothers them, rather than the idea someone is making profit off them. And then they go and set the face value well above the comparable rate seems hypocritical t
They ARE objecting to fans paying above face value. Your entire argument seems predicated on the mistaken idea that there is something invalid about Radiohead's face value price for these shows.
There is no reason they should cost exactly the same as Coldplay. £70 is obviously a reasonable price for a Radiohead gig, given how fast those tickets have flown out the door.
No, reasonably priced would be the cost to put on the show plus whatever the conventional mark up is, the fact they can sell at that price is irrelevant they will sell out at that price because they can rely on those who can afford it, the small number at the high price low supply part of the curve, and not need those they've priced out because they've limited supply. For a band who claim to care about cost to fans using the fact that demand far outweighs supply to their advantage and settling on such an unconventionally high figure which 70 is, is abit rich. Again supply and demand is not a guide to how prices should be set but a limit on how they can be set, if they did care about cost to fans it would be lower
I really dont see the ease with which they are selling at this price as being in anyway linked to whether it is a reasonable price, there will always be some people willing to pay more than others.
Say there was a record label, they put out music on vinyl, they normally sell at the cost to them plus a reasonable industry profit margin, say they start selling a record and it sells really quickly, they realise that the pressing will easily sell out, would it be 'reasonable' for them to massively up the price rather than selling it at the normal price for an album, would it be hypocritical if they did that after speaking out about people buying up their records just to sell them over the odds to fans on discogs and ebay
``I really dont see the ease with which they are selling at this price as being in anyway linked to whether it is a reasonable price``
Well, it immediately disproves your suggestion that the price is too high. Apart from your aside that poorer people miss out, which is true, but nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
As for your record label hypothetical - it doesn't really work as an analogy because live experiences (which happen once at a point in time) are not the same as physical media holding recordings which exist across time; with the consequence that there is a legitimate resale market for records which serves a purpose not entirely served in the primary market (whereas the secondary market for tickets provides virtually no benefit to anyone apart from cheating touts).
You seem really fixated on the factors that allow then to sell at this price rather than the real world context this, whether they can sellout at a high price has no connection to whether that is a fair price, they've spoken out about not wanting fans overcharged and set the price at £70 which to my knowledge is well above the going rate . I find the idea that it is only the principle of fans being over charged face value rather than the negative financial impact this leads to completely bizarre
I'm not fixated
I'm just explaining for the benefit of people like you who don't understand and are confused.
I do understand your argument I just think it is wrong. being able to sell at a price =/= that price being a fair price
A price at which the performer is willing to play and the fan is willing to pay to view?
Can't think of a better definition of a fair price to be honest.
Nah it is the price a well off subset are willing to pay, there will always be some people willing to pay whatever it takes, if a band cared about expense to fans like radio head claimed to they would set it at a price that covered their costs and provided a decent reward for their efforts, yes some would be diverted to touts but the net cost to the attendance as a whole would be lower,70 is well beyond that which is fine if that's what they want to charge but they can't claim to care about cost to fans as they have done
*...efforts, rather than take advantage of the limited supply to extract more money from that well off subset
If you don't like the label comparison
How about if bands just took all the tickets and sold everyone on eBay and let supply and demand set the price, if it was a smaller gig than demand it would sell out and much inflated price, would that be reasonable
Hypothetically if the high cost of these tickets is because of an unusually high profit margin would you really not see that as hypocritical of a band claiming to be bothered about touts cost to fans?
For the last time, no
You're just asking me the same question over and over. Bands can charge whatever they like, because they're the ones putting on the event. If a fan pays the face value ticket price, then all that money is going towards the event itself, whether it be venue hire, crew requirements or money for the band playing.
Touts have not contributed to the show in any way. Therefore if they buy tickets out from under genuine fans and whack £20 on top then money from fans is going towards people who have nothing to do with the event.
If you can't see the difference between those two then I don't know what else I can say.
(And yes, sigh, I know you think Radiohead charging £70 is unfair to you because they're your heroes and just because they're one of the most popular bands of all time shouldn't allow them to charge one cent more than your imaginary `fair` price, so please don't say that again.)
I dont care for radiohead at all,never have.
they have not said it is the touts lack of contribution that bothers them, it is that some fans have had to pay over the odds that bothers them. Now I know you disagree, but I and many people dont see the problem with touts being soley one of principle, the underving touts getting something for nothing, but also practically one of making gigs expensive and unaffordable. Radiohead have said they are bothered about the problem of touts and I dont think it is strange to assume the later element is the main problem most people have with it, to then go on and put a show at £75 which they could easily charge less for (guns and roses are £20 cheaper at the same venue, and they are ridiculously excessive rock monster band, almost everything at that venue is cheaper) is in my opinion hypocritical, I accept that in your opinion it isn't, but for me unless their anti tout stance had been explicitly we object to touts on principle, rather than mentioning the welfare of fans, then it is hypocritical, because when talking this way about fans unless you actually talk about real cost to them then its a meaningless abstract problem, you have to quantify why its wrong in cost.
I still think the record label analogy is valid, first pressings, records get sold at cost plus generally accepted profit margin, even though the labels could use the limited quantities to sell at discog prices themselves if they wanted, get the same amount the 2ndary market is getting, by your standards that would be ok because if something sells at the price it is set at then that makes it an ok price to sell at apparently, thats the bit I disagree with most, might make a good diagram in an economics text book but it is not how prices are set in the real world
The cost of tickets isn't the same issue as touts leaching profit from an exchange they aren't invited to
Might be an issue worth discussing, but a different one to the one in this thread.
The record analogy is invalid as I've already explained.
`` might make a good diagram in an economics text book but it is not how prices are set in the real world``
It appears it is how prices are set in the real world though, since that's what you're complaining about.
Don't think it is, may be how radio head set their prices but not many others, most go for the same ball park as others at the same venue, that's why this stands out it is so unusual, and I still think their anti tout stance comments implied concern for cost to fans in real cost terms as well as principle and still think that is the usual way the problem is talked about. Radio head can charge whatever they want, but if they do and claim to care about fans being ripped off then I will always find that hypocritical
We should stop discussing this though as neither of us accept each others assumptions and definitions
It's nothing to do with `liking` the label comparison
you bought it up, and I'm just pointing out that it's a flawed analogy.
``reasonably priced would be the cost to put on the show plus whatever the conventional mark up is``
What does it cost to do the show? What is the conventional markup for a Radiohead show? How is the `conventional` markup determined?
``For a band who claim to care about cost to fans using the fact that demand far outweighs supply to their advantage and settling on such an unconventionally high figure which 70 is, is abit rich.``
I'm pretty much sick of repeating myself to your posts which don't seem to take anything in, but here goes: They don't care about the cost to fans, they just care that fans only pay the price printed on the ticket. Okay? And again, £70 is not really unconventionally high when you consider the cost of most gigs at the O2 by very popular artists and the fact that Radiohead is nigh on the most revered rock band of the last two decades.
It isn't hypocritical for Radiohead to expect to make money from this show and not expect touts too
Radiohead are the ones playing the show, you see. The touts aren't performing on stage. You don't seem to have made this distinction when you claim that Radiohead are essentially ripping off fans in the same way that touts do. You actually use the phrase ``...[Radiohead are] taking a share of what would have been the touts (sic)...``.
To be clear, touts are a rip off because they charge more than the face value price by buying tickets under false pretences, meaning that fans must pay more than the band wants to charge. Bands do not rip fans off by setting prices that fans are willing to pay. More popular bands can legitimately charge more money than less popular bands. You're right that poor people can't afford this, but nor can they afford any big gigs, whether £70 or £40.
Ok if radio heads problem with touts was because they are making money off the back of the band then they are not hypocrites. If they were concerned with touts because of the cost to fans, the way most people frame the issue and the way they don't come off as self serving, then they are hypocrites. Either way they come off badly.
Ok if radio heads problem with touts was because they are making money off the back of the band then they are not hypocrites. If they were concerned with touts because of the cost to fans, the way most people frame the issue and the way they don't come off as self serving, then they are hypocrites. Either way they come off badly.
``if radio heads problem with touts was because they are making money off the back of the band then they are not hypocrites.``
Yep.
either way they come off badly
...
Yes. No reason to charge those prices- I noticed Blink 182's arena tour was priced at £33 a ticket for example. I think it's clear that Radiohead have pushed ticket prices as high as possible in each country (australia- £91 a standing ticket) to make as much money out of fans as possible. Fine, as it is a business to them, but pretending otherwise is a bit silly.
Maybe if they weren't so busy giving albums away they could afford to charge less
Say £15 or £13 Students and the over 60's (kids under 6 go free)
They made an average of £10 an album on In Rainbows if I remember correctly
Is that gross receipts or net profits?
£70 is an incredibly large amount
in my opinion. It's a far higher profit margin than most large guitar bands charge. Linkin Park's last tour were about £40 for example. I would expect Radiohead to morally be above the argument that something should be sold at the highest possible amount you can get for it, which is the crux of the anti-tout argument but £70 isn't far off that.
I'm not a massive fan, but have always really respected their politics as they always make sure they know what they're talking about before they open their mouths. Also think the tout thing REALLY needs addressing. Am interested to see how this develops.
Linkin Park?
Are they in the same field of popularity as Radiohead? Because you may as well compare the cost of that Linkin Park gig to the the £15 or whatever I spent seeing Hot Snakes' reunion gig at The Garage and ask why Linkin Park were raking it in.
There's two separate issues here
1) Pioneering a possible new way of combating touts: very good, especially if lots of other bands take it up
2) Charging an obscene amount for their tickets: not good. I'm not suggesting they should only be a fiver or something like that, but to be charging way above and beyond what practically every artist is asking for is ridiculous. Unless they can somehow prove that they're doing some kind of production that has never been done, that needs this kind of money to make it happen, then there is no call for it. If the tickets had been £35-£40, I'd still have thought this was quite a lot of money, but although they'd have been making a fortune we still wouldn't be having this discussion.
If you must rip your fans off, do it with the merch and give them the choice of buying it or not - this seems to be what most bands do. And explains why I haven't bought band merch in over 10 years.
Where has this idea come from that Radiohead are charrging more than other artists come from?
Madonna, Beyonce etc charge more.
Don't Coldplay, Kings Of Leon, Killers charge about this much?
bearing in mind Radiohead charged £40(ish)* for the Old Trafford gig
I think that much of a price hike is pretty unreasonable.
* I don't know exactly how much the OT gig cost, I'm just going off what my mate said.
Old Trafford was £42.50
They've taken the piss with this massive price hike.
Paperless ticketing is fraught with problems too. I work in the business and it will never actually work. It's already been banned in New York because it stops consumers rights to transfer tickets. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/who-owns-my-ticket.html
No it hasn't been banned
I went to Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead both last year and they were paperless
Consumers don't have a right to transfer tickets
You're not buying a piece of paper that says you can get in to a gig, you're buying entry to the event to the cardholder
Not disputing that BUT it hasn't been banned
In the grand scheme of an already tedious thread this is not really relevant
No I know
That was a reply to BunkMoreland not you. If anything ticketing companies are pushing for more paperless ticketing, lowers overheads for them
Stone Roses tix weren't that much
and those gigs are purely about the money!
And at least they'll play some fucking hits!
They're touring their most recent album
Stop complaining when that's what they play!
What part of 'Play the hits' don't you understand?
Sure, wiffle about playing some of your latest album tracks so people can nip to the bar/toilet/fag break or what have you, but if you're paying £70 to see Radiohead then the better play 'Creep'.
I'd much rather go and see 8-10 small-medium sized bands for the money
I bet I'd enjoy most of them more than seeing a gig in the MEN, even if it is Radiohead. Horrible venue, horrible price.
This is exactly why I am not going
For the price of one Radiohead ticket, I can get a pair of ticket for Moonface, Beach House and Grouper and have enough change for a pint at each (I haven't actually done the math, but you get my point).
threads about radiohead are never going to end are they?
ever - we're stuck with them forever.
sorry i'm only just realising this.
they're a very big band
this is a music forum
Tickets are worth what people want to pay
Radiohead knows its fans are obsessed with them and will pay outrageous amounts - they deserved to be ripped off. They don't want anyone else fucking their fans, they want to do that for themselves! This is all about protecting THEIR profits. From the band who let fans name their price of an album lol. That was more about publicity than the concept. It did nothing for upcoming artists who are expected to give away music of free ever since. It made them heroes at the expense of voiceless smaller artists. It's a bit like the CEO of McDonalds coming up with the concept of giving away burgers. But blissfully unaware of all the small restaurants nearby and sending them out of business. The CEO drives home to his mansion, patting himself on the back for running a great promotion and ignorant to trail of destruction as he laps up all the arsekissing fan mail. Their greed isn't surprising to me.
Comparing Radiohead to McDonald's
Nothing like bizarre comparisons
In terms of size compared to small unsigned bands
...and also detachment from being a poor startup band in Y2K+
It's a perfect comparison.
Both of them have worked out how to use the brand to maxmise income.
Hmmm
There are some big questions to be asked that can't be answered by "well it's not as expensive as U2" but I think you have to be very cautious when making assumptions about people's motivations.
This post is mental
you'd think Radiohead were Colonel Gaddafi the way this goes on.
now who's coming across as 'mental'?
you
The reason a lot of upcoming artists who are expected to give away music of free
is because a lot of other upcoming artists give away music for free.
Hmm, I meant to fix the copied and pasted bit before I posted...
...
Agree with the above comment so much.
Are people on DiS somehow convinced Radiohead never got bigger than they were in 1996?
I mean, fuck me, they may not be U2 big in terms of popularity but they're still a HUGE deal as a band, much bigger than most others and also don't have the backing of a label for their touring, who I'd imagine generally can set up a lot of ways to make money back via adverts and product placement, etc.
I reckon coldplay are pretty comparable size wise
theirs were £49 general admission
I was ready to defend them...
...but the prices are a bit.. it's a LOT of money. Last couple of times I've seen them they've been a bit ordinary. Enjoyed myself and everything but nothing really jawdroppingly astounding and I'm a HUGE fan.
The big tent one in Glasgow Green before Kid A came out was pretty great, as was the one before Hail to the Thief came out at Edinburgh Corn Exchange.
In summary I'm not really bothered about seeing them again unless it is a wee intimate gig which seems unlikely that I would ever get tickets for it.
regarding touts
The amount that the average person is willing to pay might be up to 100 quid but there will always be people who are willing to pay more. That's the problem - regardless of money, tickets are taken from those who would be happy to pay face value. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with me here tho.
Exactly
Radiohead thought 'now the touts aren't getting anything we can take the piss and push up the price'. Or at the very least are punishing their fans because of the touts. Their marketing is much better than their music to be fair, lol. Arrogant of them to stop people from buying something and reselling it. What if they fall ill with £200 worth of tickets? They've always been good at these kind of things, jumping on the grudge bandwagon, then the IDM bandwagon, then the dubstep bandwagon. They know how to innovate their strategy to get the hype and the £££££££££.
*grunge.
Say what you want about their ticket prices
but Radiohead don't jump on bandwagons.
Oh yes they do.
They are never innovators (expect in their marketing). They write good, sometimes amazing songs but aren't that original, they are just better at getting on the bandwagon before other bands which makes them seem edgy. Sorry to pop your bubble but they are the rock version of Madonna.
Yay! New troll!
Its not trolling...
because I also complimented them. Don't troll me.
``punishing their fans``
You are actually a giant moron.
prat
The only problem Radiohead have as far asI c is that people wrongly assume them to b
Will try again. The only problem Radiohead have as far as I can see if people wrongly put them on a pedestal as spokespeople for anti-Capitalists.
They're actually pretty much the model of how to be a successful capitalist alternative band. They're business people who've honed how to make as much money as possible through their money and use their relationship with their fans to maximise every income stream, create fierce brand loyalty and neutralise any financial competition for their slice of a market.
They're absolutely superb business people who've managed to do well out of a system where many bands struggle by adoptiong and utilising capitalist approaches. Which is fair enough if that's what they want to do.
It's not really their fault if people see them as some sort of crusading spokespeople against the exact system that they exploit.
More, it's not really their fault
if people assume that just because you express some left-wing opinions on one subject you must be some sort of hard-line communist for them to live vicariously through.
(Oh and I'd say for accuracy they've probably made 'more money than necessity demands', but who knows if they've made as much as possible!)
I'd accept the correction.
But, yeah, people see they've got certain values (e.g. not liking George W Bush or Neoconservatism) and ascribe a load more values too.
Nah, the admiration of a player of this quality on an indifvi
they got some
big ideas
they got some
big fucking bank accounts after this tour
You're telling me they're rich?
This news stuns me.
...
A lot richer after charging up to twice as much as other bands playing arenas!
Except lots of acts charge that much for arena gigs
You've just quoted Blink 182 as a comparison (and someone else said Linkin Park), but that doesn't mean Radiohead are ripping people off far more than the average act does for an arena gig.
It seriously seems that people have no idea how big a band Radiohead are.
..
I don't really get this comment. How do you mean?
I'm American, and this doesn't seem to apply to me.
Through Radiohead's WASTE pre-sale, I was able to purchase 4 tickets for a total of $76.45 apiece. One of them is in the PIT, 3 of them are likely going to be in the front 10 rows.
Personally I feel that, while these are expensive by true "indie" standards... for a band of this caliber and popularity? They're right in line, if not a little cheap. Of course, I didn't have to deal with A. Ticketmaster (legal scalper) or B. illegal scalpers.
what i don't get
is that if people are right that radiohead are deliberately price-gouging, then why are the US and European shows priced as relatively cheap as they are? if they were evil people out to build up massive piles of gold, it would make more sense to hike the prices for all 50 of their shows, not just 3 in england.
surely this implies that the issue is muddier than straight gouging - there must actually some barrier (sponsorship/label) inherent in the UK promoter cartel.
also - tickets are exactly the same price as the watch the throne tour. that seems like parity right there.
and in Australia the prices seem to be even higher than the UK gigs
Rather puzzling geographical disparity.
well i think thats the point
kinda makes me think something else is going on with supply/demand/venues/promoters/logistics than just thom yorke sitting down and decreeing "make me as rich as possible".
Don't think bands play Australia much, don't think radio head have been there for a decade, they can probably get away with charging whatever they like, is it still recession free over there too
recession free?
*packs bags*
But what confuses me about the pricing is that
here in New Zealand I bought tickets for £71 each whereas just over the ditch Australians have to pay £90. This seems a little ridiculous, and I don't think the "haven't played there in years" argument holds because they haven't played in NZ for 14 years! As opposed to having played in Australia in '04.
Aussie gig prices are about that much anyway
Robluvs can correct me but from my time there the big hitters charge that in line with the 40 / 50 quids over here. Australia is a very expensive place. I think I paid the equivalent of 30 quid for a Sleigh Bells ticket in a tiny club show in Sydney this time last year.
I know they are super successful but the realities fans to shows concentration is probably highest in the uk so basically they can get away with it here like proper little capatalists
All the full price tickets sold out.
Some cheap (~£50) seats went on sale.
I didn't look, but I assume no mention of this at point of sale?
Shitter seats but the ones offered when I looked weren't TERRIBLE tbh.
My twopenneth....
As has been said - the basic issue is that the cost is greatly higher than other bands of similar size and just outside of people's comfort zone for an evenings entertainment.
I wonder to what extent the band have had an input to these decisions versus them being made by management and ticket agencies. I know in some scenarios the band are intimately involved and in other cases the management says 'happy with X quid for these gigs?', the band say yeah and then the business men work out how to achieve that.
I have paid more for gigs where I can see there is a corresponding increase in costs. Gaga, Madonna etc or someone with a hundred backing dancers, flashy visuals, entourage of thousands etc then I can see there is an increased cost to return the investment. I can't see this scenario for a Radiohead gig.
My nightmare is that the cynicism of the supply and demand argument above is true and that there's people, if not the band themselves then their associated 'industry money-makers', thinking we can charge more cos the fuckers will pay it regardless. It reeks of exploitation but I wouldn't be surprised...
``the cost is greatly higher than other bands of similar size``
As Theo among others has started repeatedly, this isn't true. People have a strange idea that Radiohead aren't one of the absolutely most famous `rock` bands in the world. They are not Animal Collective. Not to mention they don't play all that often so are a rarer prospect than Coldplay or whoever.
I don't see that the supply and demand `argument` is cynical - it's a description of facts, not a moral take.
utter drivel
utter drivel
thanks for sharing
really, hope you come back to this site within the next few decades.
Are Radioheading for a fall?
Glad this is still a running joke
Nice work
better than any of your posts
That running joke was started by one of my posts
I don't know about hypocrites ...
but they're boring as hell
14500 x 70 = £1,015,000
(these figures may be wrong, i dunno)
you should probably have gone for
'i might be wrong'. serious radiohead super fan fail
You know they don't get every penny of ticket sales though
right?
The high seriousness with which you people continue to regard this average-as-fuck pop band
is hilarious and touching.
weird that people have different opinions to you on the internet huh?
No, not weird at all
But as I say, kind of cute the way you guys all fall over yourselves every time Radiohead so much as fart, as though it's the fucking Second Coming
I have a seating ticket and that cost £52.50 including booking fee
cheap as chips.
Yeah but you'll be able to see fuck all and get vertigo.
The people complaining about the venue and going on about where you saw them 10 years ago:
You do realise they've scaled down from the big outdoor shows on the last tour, right? If they played Shepherds Bush Empire again you'd have a very slim chance of getting a fucking ticket.
Stop being a dickhead.
simple. dont open thread if not interested. but uv got ur rise now
one of the most boring threads I've ever read*
well done everyone
*I didn't read it
I LIKE YOU ANAL_SCHWARZENEGGER
Radiohead
if i were in a band as big as radiohead
i would seriously milk it for all it was worth.
something > something > something
can anyone describe how Radiohead tour their equipment 'greenly'?
Something to do with shipping stuff rather than flying it
and having duplicates of some of their equipment in storage on different continents. I think.
some stuff here
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/05/details-emerge/
But yeah, no air freight, general reduction of 'footprint'... I seem to remember they use LED light displays for their sets/screens because it uses a lot less energy.
That idiot with the Radiohead bear tattooed on his tit must be feeling pretty stupid
You know, now that they've been exposed as HYPOCRITES
That's me!
And yes, I feel awful about myself.
what if rh were dogs?
what if
what if
Which of the 10 Commandments do you reckon The Radioheads break on a daily if not weekly basis
The one about not taking the Lord's name in vain is a definite. I mean what are the odds that if Phil dropped a cymbal on Jonny's foot, Jonny wouldn't say "Jesus" or "for God's sake, Phil". The hypocrisy just fucking sickens me.
Anti-gay hate group calls Radiohead "freak monkeys with mediocre tunes"
"You try to get the people to look at the nonsense and not at the wrath of God that abides upon them. "Look at the circus monkey over there and the fluffy setting, blah, blah..." Meanwhile, God is undoing this nation and effecting all of your lives, with the moth that quietly eats the very fabric of your national garment. Radiohead is just such an event."
http://pitchfork.com/news/45714-westboro-baptist-church-protests-radiohead-show/
just remembered this thread
fucking brilliant work
Don't you just want to line all the Radiohead fans in the world and give them a massive wedgie