stip wrote:I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall the explanation about the expense ticket prices thing on the SOLAT podcast:
1. Yes pearl jam's tickets are more expensive than they used to be, and increased faster than inflation, but they are below what they could be charging and many comparable artists
2. Ticket master does dynamic pricing for a certain percentage of tickets (they keep raising the price to whatever level a fan will pay. So that's where 900 tickets come from, and if no one buys them they go back down)
3. Pearl Jam's number was 10% dynamic pricing, which is on the low end of available seats
4. Ticket master maintains a fan to fan resale (not every artist has this) to support direct resales of tickets with no additional markups
It doesn't make tickets cheaper, but I do recall these explanations taking some of the sting out of that story. This was from a guest knowledgeable about this stuff, but it's the only source I heard
5. They can opt out of dynamic pricing but choose not to
what if you learned that the band didnt make money touring till about 2003/2006. WOuld that change your view about them trying to get some of dat?
Not remotely. They’re all Ultra High Net Worth individuals. And I’m increasingly skeptical of philanthropy as the best way to solve problems, because for the capital elite it holds a tax advantaged line on their portfolio.
How many TVs do these guys need?
I mean, at least two - three i imagine
Trag and Strats friendship about to end when he learns hes about to buy a new 85 inch tv so we have two tvs at the house!
stip wrote:I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall the explanation about the expense ticket prices thing on the SOLAT podcast:
1. Yes pearl jam's tickets are more expensive than they used to be, and increased faster than inflation, but they are below what they could be charging and many comparable artists
2. Ticket master does dynamic pricing for a certain percentage of tickets (they keep raising the price to whatever level a fan will pay. So that's where 900 tickets come from, and if no one buys them they go back down)
3. Pearl Jam's number was 10% dynamic pricing, which is on the low end of available seats
4. Ticket master maintains a fan to fan resale (not every artist has this) to support direct resales of tickets with no additional markups
It doesn't make tickets cheaper, but I do recall these explanations taking some of the sting out of that story. This was from a guest knowledgeable about this stuff, but it's the only source I heard
5. They can opt out of dynamic pricing but choose not to
what if you learned that the band didnt make money touring till about 2003/2006. WOuld that change your view about them trying to get some of dat?
Not remotely. They’re all Ultra High Net Worth individuals. And I’m increasingly skeptical of philanthropy as the best way to solve problems, because for the capital elite it holds a tax advantaged line on their portfolio.
How many TVs do these guys need?
I mean, at least two - three i imagine
Trag and Strats friendship about to end when he learns hes about to buy a new 85 inch tv so we have two tvs at the house!
philanthropy has always been a right-leaning practise: charities (especially food banks) are fiercely promoted by the Conservatives here because they do nothing to question or fix problems Conservatives are creating; they just mop up some of the mess and make the right people look humane (and the left saying they're not good enough and calling for an equitable social system look like extremist monsters)
Last edited by Ms Harmless on Sat March 23, 2024 7:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Strat wrote:So we hate philantrhopy now? I cant keep up on how to save this drowning world!
philanthropy isn't nothing in terms of value; it's better than nothing; but neither is it a great sacrifice or commitment to active change for rich people; I would rather PJ be a known charitable band than not
stip wrote:I'm working off of memory here, but if I recall the explanation about the expense ticket prices thing on the SOLAT podcast:
1. Yes pearl jam's tickets are more expensive than they used to be, and increased faster than inflation, but they are below what they could be charging and many comparable artists
2. Ticket master does dynamic pricing for a certain percentage of tickets (they keep raising the price to whatever level a fan will pay. So that's where 900 tickets come from, and if no one buys them they go back down)
3. Pearl Jam's number was 10% dynamic pricing, which is on the low end of available seats
4. Ticket master maintains a fan to fan resale (not every artist has this) to support direct resales of tickets with no additional markups
It doesn't make tickets cheaper, but I do recall these explanations taking some of the sting out of that story. This was from a guest knowledgeable about this stuff, but it's the only source I heard
5. They can opt out of dynamic pricing but choose not to
what if you learned that the band didnt make money touring till about 2003/2006. WOuld that change your view about them trying to get some of dat?
Not remotely. They’re all Ultra High Net Worth individuals. And I’m increasingly skeptical of philanthropy as the best way to solve problems, because for the capital elite it holds a tax advantaged line on their portfolio.
How many TVs do these guys need?
I mean, at least two - three i imagine
Trag and Strats friendship about to end when he learns hes about to buy a new 85 inch tv so we have two tvs at the house!
You’re not UHNW though, there are different expectations. These guys have a massive amount of power and seem increasingly disinterested in how they use it.
I’m not sure what the ideal model would look like. Something like the Patagonia purpose trust model id think, where royalties go to a portfolio of green/socially conscious companies to drive growth of solution to big problems. License the songs for big bucks to Hollywood. Running in a Nike ad, with the licensing fee going towards positive impact.
Keep ticket prices fair and pay your fucking poster artists. And stop hogging line time at the vinyl pressing plants, that’s abusive.
Your second point is the only reasonable frustration, in my simple opinion.
Strat wrote:So we hate philantrhopy now? I cant keep up on how to save this drowning world!
philanthropy isn't nothing in terms of value; it's better than nothing; but neither is it a great sacrifice or commitment to active change for rich people; I would rather PJ be a known charitable band than not
Strat wrote:So we hate philantrhopy now? I cant keep up on how to save this drowning world!
philanthropy isn't nothing in terms of value; it's better than nothing; but neither is it a great sacrifice or commitment to active change for rich people; I would rather PJ be a known charitable band than not
She gets it
So you agree that PJ is a known charitable band?
I just mean that she gets the difference between philanthropy and impact investing.
I understand your point, dont get me wrong. But just because pearl jam doesnt get Grade A+ on it, does not negate the good they have done and continue to try to do. Regardless of Watt producing their album
PJ has been selective about the causes they championed from the year dot, and I find a similar selectiveness in their detractors (what they supported "back then" wasn't everything, and what they're seemingly ignoring now -- Ticketmaster -- isn't everything either); I like their music (mostly), they do some cool stuff ("pro*choice!"), they do some questionable stuff ("mosquito bites!")
Ms Harmless wrote:PJ has been selective about the causes they championed from the year dot, and I find a similar selectiveness in their detractors (what they supported "back then" wasn't everything, and what they're seemingly ignoring now -- Ticketmaster -- isn't everything either); I like their music (mostly), they do some cool stuff ("pro*choice!"), they do some questionable stuff ("mosquito bites!")
Strat wrote:So we hate philantrhopy now? I cant keep up on how to save this drowning world!
philanthropy isn't nothing in terms of value; it's better than nothing; but neither is it a great sacrifice or commitment to active change for rich people; I would rather PJ be a known charitable band than not
She gets it
So you agree that PJ is a known charitable band?
absolutely; if I truly believed they were selfish fatcats I wouldn't be here; I have a life long love for these deeply flawed, rich old men, just like the love I have for my own dad (but I don't always wanna talk to my dad and sometimes we are fiercely in opposition ideologically); I'm OK being a fan mostly based on what they once meant to me; I'm still alive, and I'm not sure I would be without them
