Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

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?

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

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!

Strat wrote:So we hate philantrhopy now? I cant keep up on how to save this drowning world!

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

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.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

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

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

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.

tragabigzanda wrote:And yes of course they’re a charitable band. I don’t think that carries the same weight that it used to

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:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

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?