1

Concerts are now a luxury item.

The heyday of classic rock is over, when boomers and gen-X'ers went to multiple shows a year, sometimes a month, for under ten dollars. Now you don't go to a show on a whim, it's a splurge.

As for the economics of the country, I point you to this story in today's "New York Times":

"Consumers Spent More in April Despite High Gas Prices - Retail sales rose 0.5 percent despite higher prices for gas, food and other goods. But there are signs consumers are under some strain."

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/business/retail-sales-consumer-spending-april.html

So if you're pointing to the general financial situation of the country for a decline in ticket sales, that doesn't fly.

Then again, if concerts are luxury goods...

That market is hazy. Luxury goods sales have been down for two reasons, higher prices and the collapse of the market in China. Then again, Burberry's sales are up, but they were way down previously. But LVMH just sold off Marc Jacobs, trying to wrest control of a portfolio that became so large as to be unmanageable, at least in the eyes of investors.

So...

This is not the way the concert business was perceived in the past. Acts started in clubs, then graduated to theatres and ultimately to arenas, assuming they had success. And success was driven by the efforts of the record company promoting your tunes and the quality of your live show and its connection with fans.

But now, successful acts start in arenas. Are Olivia Dean tickets so hot because she's such a great performer? No, she's barely worked in America, and sales are based on the records.

But let's go back to the club level. Clubs are challenged, and one of the main problems is attendees don't want to consume alcohol. Is this a change in mores, or price?
I
point you to this article in the "Wall Street Journal":

"Drinks Are So Expensive That Grown-Ups Are Pregaming Like They Did in College - Americans are turning to the tradition to stretch their dollars—and their buzz"

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/drinks-are-so-expensive-that-grown-ups-are-pregaming-like-they-did-in-college-825aab34

The alcohol tastes the same whether you consume it at home or in the club, arguably the drink is superior at home, where you can pour more alcohol to mixer. So why not tank up before you go?

But you can't see the band at home. Twenty five years have taught us that video broadcasts of concerts are not a significant business, in other words, you've got to be there.

It's all about being there, but where do you have to be?

2

In addition to rising costs, for both performer and ticket-buyer, the concert business now resembles the country at large, especially on the internet, where winner takes all. Today people just don't consume the talent that comes to their market, they'd rather travel to experience those acts they really want to see.

You see the internet allows for a million voices, but in a competitive marketplace, where everything sits right alongside another, a few stand out, and they get all the dollars. No one has been able to compete with Google or Amazon yet. Sure, you can search on Bing or DuckDuckGo, but very few people do. And when you buy from Amazon...you trust the company and delivery is fast and cheap and... Do you really need something almost as good from a less known competitor? That's how it is in music, even if you could save a buck or two, do you want to see any but the best acts?

But what are the best acts?

That world has changed too.

MTV created a monoculture in the eighties. If you were on MTV, everybody knew your name around the world, there was demand. So if you were one of the few acts that reached that pinnacle, whose videos were shown, you would sell tickets. How many? That's another question. But once again, forty years ago you started small and cheap to test the waters, now you go full bore.

And if there is demand, if people click with the act, there's no price that is too high for a ticket.

But the ubiquity of the pre-internet era has been lost.

Legacy media keeps trumpeting acts in the Spotify Top 50 that ultimately have a small footprint, most people don't know them. Then again, there are a hundred million more people in America than there were fifty years ago, and the buildings are not getting any bigger. So when you sell out arenas you believe demand is massive and wide, when this is oftentimes untrue. Whereas in the past...

Forget the classic rock acts, Coldplay had video hits before that paradigm died twenty-odd years ago. They haven't had a universal tune since, but they sell out stadiums all over the world, it's nearly unfathomable.

Then there are hitmakers du jour who are hot and sell a lot of tickets and there's this misimpression that demand is deep and wide and they move to larger buildings and find out the demand is not there.

And, in a hit-based market, hits matter. In the album era of yore, you built fans over multiple LPs and tours. Sure, fans wanted to hear the hits, but they wanted more than that. And those acts can still sell tickets today. Whereas most of the Spotify Top 50...if there are no more hits ticket sales drop off.

3

So it's a business. And at the club level, it's challenged. We keep hearing in the U.K. and U.S. that clubs must be saved. But when was the last time a band made it on a purely live basis, from demand in clubs all the way to arenas? Of course there are exceptions, but the average punter does not want to go to a club to see a developing act. They'd rather pay much more to see a hit act which they are desirous of seeing.

And record companies don't subsidize club tours like they used to, they're not convinced these sell records/streams, which is how they make their money. If you start small, you may stay small.

Now as we start moving up the food chain, and the truth is the definition of these venues has changed, what were once called theatres are now called clubs, but... Those who can sell a thousand tickets give or take, usually their recording income is small, so they depend upon the road. And therefore they return to markets much more frequently than they used to, they need the money. And none of these shows are cheap, even if they're not exorbitantly expensive, but at what point do you say you've seen the act enough at these prices?

And when you get to the arena level... No one goes who isn't into the act. No one goes on a whim.

So there's always demand. People want to go to shows.

But live music? That used to be a staple of society, ubiquitous. But to a great degree it's been replaced by records. People would rather hear the hits than wannabes doing inferior covers or playing unknown originals. So the concept of going to the bar/club to hear a new band... The demand is just not there like it was in the old days.

4

So, as I've said previously, there's a seemingly unlimited demand, at high prices, for desirable acts. And then you've got the problem that perceived value is so high that tickets, although expensive, are UNDERPRICED!

But if you look at concerts like luxury goods... They're even more exotic than luxury goods, because when the show is over all you've got is your memories, you still don't have your designer handbag.

This is not like yesteryear, where an act could be regionally successful, sell tickets somewhere and almost none in another place. If you've made it to the arena level, the internet has spread word across the nation, business is either strong, or weak.

And all the metrics of yore are useless. Past history is helpful, but not definitive. The marketplace can change just that fast. And it has always been fluid, but if you built an act up over time, via multiple albums and tours, you didn't expect demand to evaporate, it could decline, but not go to zero. But today, was the act just the flash of the moment?

And was the moment more press-driven than music-driven, was there momentary mania?

And then there are the acts whose fan base is rabid, but narrow. Like BTS and the rest of the KPop acts. Their fans are diehard, but seemingly everybody else shrugs. And for all the people dying to get into the Eras show, there are those who wouldn't attend a Taylor Swift show even if it was free. And sure, there have always been people who don't like certain acts, but the big acts had much more mindshare, you'd heard their hits, now sometimes people reject acts based on image, they've never even heard the music.

5

So how much demand is out there?

Well I ask you, other than recent hitmakers, how many acts have a history, a long career of success? We can point to Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga. But if we cast the net wider we oftentimes find acts had a moment, and is that enough to sustain demand? Probably not, not in these venues at these prices.

Nobody used to balk at the price of concert tickets. They weren't that expensive, they were not a luxury good. But now, desirable show prices are stratospheric, you really have to ask yourself if it's worth it.

And the truth is it's worth a lot to many people.

6

So, what do we know...

Is there really blue dot fever? Well, it's hard to calculate demand, so many shows go up, the marketplace is muddied with multiple offers. So on sale demand might be high, but if you don't go clean immediately, there's a good chance tickets will sell close to the date, or not. In between, there will be a trickle.

But it appears that the economy might not be having an effect on people's spending. Unless you consider concerts a luxury good. And you can't buy a Rolex at retail, the market is that hot, like it is for today's superstars, but the rest of the high-priced wares... They're a stretch financially, and many people do not want to make that stretch. Furthermore, how important is it to have a luxury good? The ace in the hole for concerts is they're a unique experience, one and done, which come with bragging rights, but they are not the only experience that delivers this.

So, the economy's effect on ticket demand...it's murky.

But it's clear that demand is sky high, driving ticket prices up, for an ever fewer number of acts.

And people have unlimited cash available to see these acts, but they may only want to see these acts.

And as far as building new acts that sustain, that become legacy acts, that's become harder than ever to do. If for no other reason than it's harder than ever to reach people in the marketplace, never mind on a regular basis.

Now in the old days, prior to the blue dot availability on Ticketmaster, the public had no information. We can now judge ticket demand just like we can judge the demand for recordings via the statistics on Spotify. This is the information era, and we're not going back to a more opaque world.

As for cancellations, acts have always lied/made excuses when tickets don't sell. It's just that when this happens now, especially to more than one act, word of these cancellations can spread online and gain traction.

So...

7

The concert business has changed. Ticket prices are never coming down, because of the demand. As for lowering them for shows that aren't doing boffo at the b.o...do you really want to spend hours listening to an act you don't love, who might only have one track you know? No.

So there's a peak. How many acts are at that peak and what is the exact demand.

And then there's the issue of ticket price.

If the demand is there, which it is for many acts, the issue in pricing is not how to make it lower, but how do you make it high enough to squeeze out the secondary market, because despite all the consumer complaints, fans end up going, just to be in the building. You need to ignore the bitching. People bitch about the price of cars, but once they've spent north of 50k, most people will testify how much they love their automobile.

So the bottom of the market is ever more hollow.

And there are wannabe superstars who are playing bigger buildings than they should and pricing tickets too high.

But then there are acts that could play seemingly ad infinitum. Look at Harry Styles and Madison Square Garden. He's doing thirty shows, with some tickets priced as low as fifty bucks. But it's easy to spend four digits in the secondary market. And, once again, this is for THIRTY SHOWS!

The acts of yore never did thirty show residencies. Demand was not there. There were other acts of an equal status touring and the act would probably come to your neighborhood if you wanted to see them anyway. But how many Harry Styles's are there? People are traveling from across the country, across the world to go... Forget ticket prices, they may just be a fraction of the overall spend.

They need to be in the building just that much.

Doesn't matter that you don't need to be in the building, that you don't want to pay those prices, enough people do.

But when you go down the food chain, many people do not.

And the irony is when you go down far enough, tickets are not very price sensitive, people just don't want to go. They see it as an off brand show, not a must-go. It's the difference between a BMW or Mercedes and a Cadillac. Remember when Cadillac ruled the road? No more, the German cars were always better but now everybody knows and would rather spend more for something that's a better driving experience that will impress people. Doesn't matter what Cadillac constructs, it's too late, they've squandered the company's good will.

It's the same with acts, assuming they had any good will to begin with.


--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1

If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=828178025010391a0f83cf7802ae715b

To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=828178025010391a0f83cf7802ae715b