> The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone.
I think a big part of the problem is: it's challenging to estimate the demand for events. It's just less risky to consistently underestimate than over estimate. A sold out venue is annoying to fans who can't attend or who have to play a lot. But an under-attended event can be financially bad for the performer (depending on how deals are structured).
Combine that with the limited number of venues that can accommodate large audiences, and I think it's generally not surprising that this is a persistent problem.
I think there is a good solution; it just takes more work on the part of the performer: ticket pre-pre-sales. If the performer can "sell" all/most of their tickets before they even start talking to Ticketmaster, that should give better control over pricing since they can "rightsize" the number of performances they do in each place.
You’re right. The strategy Brooks is taking (based on what the linked article in the linked article says) is that he announces a set of shows. If they sell out and the secondary market prices are very high, he adds another set of shows. And then keeps doing that over and over again.
The problem for his fanbase is that there is no reliable way of knowing whether another set of shows is going to be added. So you have to gamble on whether to wait for another show to be announced or to buy the tickets on the resale site.
Some factors affecting the situation include the fact that the band is scheduled to be in another city on some near-future date, as well as the fact that the venue is scheduled to host a different band/event on a near-future date.
The Garth Brooks solution isn’t really a solution but it does make things a little better.
Pre-pre sales are also something that will help, as you mention.
But ultimately, without some sort of legislation, there is almost certainly no solution to the “problem” of a band choosing not to maximize revenue.
The absolute amount of logistics required for a show is tremendous, and if you look at a tour schedule you'll often see that it's absolutely packed - no time to add in extra shows if others sell out.
This is why the artists will have fan clubs and such, it can greatly help them determine what they could sell and how many shows. Sometimes you can switch to another venue in the same city, but that only works when they're both owned by the same company, usually. And it other cases you can open up more "seating" but that really only works when playing to stadiums.
I noticed when Rammstein announced their European tour recently, there was one show listed in Denmark. On the day tickets went on sale, there was a second date at the same stadium.
I think a big part of the problem is: it's challenging to estimate the demand for events. It's just less risky to consistently underestimate than over estimate. A sold out venue is annoying to fans who can't attend or who have to play a lot. But an under-attended event can be financially bad for the performer (depending on how deals are structured).
Combine that with the limited number of venues that can accommodate large audiences, and I think it's generally not surprising that this is a persistent problem.
I think there is a good solution; it just takes more work on the part of the performer: ticket pre-pre-sales. If the performer can "sell" all/most of their tickets before they even start talking to Ticketmaster, that should give better control over pricing since they can "rightsize" the number of performances they do in each place.