Someone please explain this to me

sweetcell wrote:
if you were going to the club that often, why didn't you buy at the box office?  no fees.  your 65% argument doesn't hold up… if you love music that much, you don't let a few dollars in fees stop you - you find a way to get around those fees  (ex: buy directly from box office).

Frank wrote:
I don't go to fast food places but I'm sure they don't charge you extra for the convenience of using the drive thru……………….or do they?

They don't charge extra at the hardware store for the convenience of using the self check-out.

unfortunately you aren't comparing apples to apples.  in the case of the drive-thru or self-checkout, those are services being provided by the same business (the restaurant or the hardware store).  in the case of online ticket sales, venues need to contract the services of a ticketmaster, or ticketfly, etc.  these guys don't work for free.  it's a lot more expensive to sell tickets through them, and there aren't any upsides to the business to offset the cost (in the case of drive-thru, you're increasing business.  for self-check out, you can cut employees and hopefully increase business). 

the venue can do two things:
1) eat the charges
2) not sell online.

#1 isn't going to happen, there isn't enough money floating around in ticket sales to absorb that cost.  and #2 would piss off customers.  how happy would you be if the only place to get 930 tickets was at the 930 club?  what, you wouldn't like it?

and for those for whom convenience fees are a mortal stain on their souls: stick it to the man and BUY YOUR TICKETS AT THE CLUB.

I stopped going to shows as often because the shows I wanted to see I bought online ahead of time…bent over and took the service without the KY. So I stopped going as often because my entertainment funds were being used up by service charges. End result. 930 and up and coming bands did not get the pleasure of my attendance. It actually was about a 65% drop.

The charges are what they are….pay up or don't go. My point is it's not a "convenience' charge if there's no option to 'inconveniently' buy the tickets. Which I believe was the point of the original poster.

sweetcell wrote:
AND THAT "BULLSHIT EXCUSE" WAS THAT IT WAS AN ONLINE-ONLY PRESALE AS REQUESTED BY THE BAND.  DEAL WITH IT.

THE BULLSHIT EXCUSE WAS THAT THE BAND WANTED THE ABILITY TO GET TICKETS INTO THE HANDS OF THEIR FANS BEFORE THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I AM A FAN OF THE BAND SO I WANTED TO GET A TICKET IN MY HAND AT THE BOX OFFICE.

Why is this so hard for you to deduce?

IT WAS AN ONLINE-ONLY PRESALE AS REQUESTED BY THE BAND. Therefore, you must pay the fees  :P

Thousand wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
AND THAT "BULLSHIT EXCUSE" WAS THAT IT WAS AN ONLINE-ONLY PRESALE AS REQUESTED BY THE BAND.  DEAL WITH IT.

THE BULLSHIT EXCUSE WAS THAT THE BAND WANTED THE ABILITY TO GET TICKETS INTO THE HANDS OF THEIR FANS BEFORE THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I AM A FAN OF THE BAND SO I WANTED TO GET A TICKET IN MY HAND AT THE BOX OFFICE.

Why is this so hard for you to deduce?

According to new book:

…… The biggest reason add-on ticket fees vary so wildly is that the artists themselves are now dictating how much extra income they want from those fees.

It?s true they could just as easily raise their face value ticket price but then they might look greedy to their fans. It?s much easier to let the public blame TicketBastard or the promoter for the incomprehensible fee gouging. And besides, this way they can often cheat their own agent out of commissions on this income. It?s all about mystification and misdirection and is the real reason why all-inclusive ticket prices have not become the norm.

http://www.pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2011/06/14/770958.aspx#bottom

This helps to back up my suspicion as to why the U2 parking is so outrageous! Leave it to that bloated globalist ass-kisser Bono to pull a stunt like that.

Well the artists have to make their money somehow.

They're certainly not making money off of albums these days.

^ Rhett, it's U2. I would venture to say that their contracts are such that they get their heavy loot whether or not the record sells. Besides, lots of people do like them and buy their records.

Believe it or not, there are lots of us who still buy our music in some form or another. It's just that many of our purchases aren't necessarily counted by the big labels due to preferring (real) independents and DIYers.

Suspect that you were being facetious but can't tell in the written form.

I wasn't being facetious.

The pollstar article that I was referring to never mentioned U2.

Jaguar wrote:
^ Rhett, it's U2. I would venture to say that their contracts are such that they get their heavy loot whether or not the record sells. Besides, lots of people do like them and buy their records.

Believe it or not, there are lots of us who still buy our music in some form or another. It's just that many of our purchases aren't necessarily counted by the big labels due to preferring (real) independents and DIYers.

Suspect that you were being facetious but can't tell in the written form.

James wrote:
The pollstar article that I was referring to never mentioned U2.

That's true. I was mixing up my threads. Sorry about that. I do wonder though whether it's really the artists or the labels as the artists' representatives who are making this claim. Probably a mix of both.

YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

walkonby wrote:
YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

The public still holds all the power…..stop buying their shit or paying to see them play and they will have to get a real job.

That will never happen though because Joe/Josephine Public are morons.

You do realize that many people have stopped buying music, right?

Frank wrote:

walkonby wrote:
YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

The public still holds all the power…..stop buying their shit or paying to see them play and they will have to get a real job.

That will never happen though because Joe/Josephine Public are morons.

James wrote:
You do realize that many people have stopped buying music, right?

Frank wrote:

walkonby wrote:
YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

The public still holds all the power…..stop buying their shit or paying to see them play and they will have to get a real job.

That will never happen though because Joe/Josephine Public are morons.

Still go to see them though….and pay the service fees, then bitch about them constantly. If people bitched with their wallets instead of their mouths these charges would drop significantly.

Agreed. I'm with you. Prices go up, that means I see less shows. Plain and simple.

The problem is people think they are entitled to everything they want, regardless of prices. Especially DC people.

Frank wrote:

James wrote:
You do realize that many people have stopped buying music, right?

Frank wrote:

walkonby wrote:
YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

The public still holds all the power…..stop buying their shit or paying to see them play and they will have to get a real job.

That will never happen though because Joe/Josephine Public are morons.

Still go to see them though….and pay the service fees, then bitch about them constantly. If people bitched with their wallets instead of their mouths these charges would drop significantly.

Frank wrote:
If people bitched with their wallets instead of their mouths these charges would drop significantly.

100% with you on that one.  would make this board a hell of a lot more tolerable, too.

sweetcell wrote:

Frank wrote:
If people bitched with their wallets instead of their mouths these charges would drop significantly.

100% with you on that one.  would make this board a hell of a lot more tolerable, too.

well . . . who wants THAT!?

Somebody please explain to me what Katy Perry sees in Russell Brand.

inbred features?

James wrote:
Somebody please explain to me what Katy Perry sees in Russell Brand.

Indeed. The man is ugly.


And that movie he made had to be one of the most unfunny comedies I've ever seen.

Vas wrote:
inbred features?

James wrote:
Somebody please explain to me what Katy Perry sees in Russell Brand.

walkonby wrote:
YOU THE PUBLIC, FUCKED UP THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ARTISTS.  NOW THEY FUCK OVER YOU.  SO FUCK YOU.

For some reason all this take makes me think of is the Nihlists in Big Lebowski dancing around going "I FUCK YOU! I FUCK YOU!"