3 ms·

Ed Sheeran Is on Track for the No. 1 Concert Tour of All Time. Here’s How

9 points by jkuria 7y ago

doug3465 7y ago
He played the most shows, by a lot. That's the bulk of it.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Another article of substance from the WSJ
  - bardworx 7y ago
    I find WSJ to be a pretty great place for journalism, as long as you stay away from their opinion section. Do you see it differently? And if so, why?
    - anbop 7y ago
      I mean this article and its moronic title do not support the claim of “pretty great place for journalism,” even though it might be that in other articles it publishes.
agumonkey 7y ago
Not too far off and reminiscent of Louis CK cheap and straightforward business practices regarding tickets.
ikeboy 7y ago
Charging below market price and keeping the market from clearing by blocking secondary sales is a weird strategy. If you don't want to provide enough tickets to clear the market at your chosen price, and you don't want to raise your price, fine. But why is "luck" any better of determinant of which person gets the ticket than "had a higher willingness-to-pay"?
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  One possibility is that he wants to make sure that large numbers of not-as-wealthy fans think of him as their dude, and playing to audiences of rich people could tarnish his brand image. Or, he just thinks not rich people should be able to see his shows. Or, he doesn't like playing for an audience that feels entitled because they payed a lot, and he gets a better vibe in the audience if it's full of people who aren't wealthy-entitled-types. Or something else, but that's several possibilities. Edit: I never heard of this guy before now, so I don't know if any of these guesses are the reality.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Rich people, i.e. people who can afford $200 for a ticket instead of $100? I don't think the market clearing price is anywhere close to double the cost. The article implies they could easily get 10% more. That's not the difference between rich and not-rich.
- PunchTornado 7y ago
  because luck is random having money to pay is not
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Why is random better?
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      Because everybody is equal.
      - closeparen 7y ago
        But they’re not equal, they’re bifurcated into winners and losers, just like in the market.
        7y ago

9 points by jkuria 7y ago

doug3465 7y ago

He played the most shows, by a lot. That's the bulk of it.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
Another article of substance from the WSJ
- bardworx 7y ago
  I find WSJ to be a pretty great place for journalism, as long as you stay away from their opinion section. Do you see it differently? And if so, why?
  - anbop 7y ago
    I mean this article and its moronic title do not support the claim of “pretty great place for journalism,” even though it might be that in other articles it publishes.

agumonkey 7y ago

Not too far off and reminiscent of Louis CK cheap and straightforward business practices regarding tickets.

ikeboy 7y ago

Charging below market price and keeping the market from clearing by blocking secondary sales is a weird strategy. If you don't want to provide enough tickets to clear the market at your chosen price, and you don't want to raise your price, fine. But why is "luck" any better of determinant of which person gets the ticket than "had a higher willingness-to-pay"?

rossdavidh 7y ago
One possibility is that he wants to make sure that large numbers of not-as-wealthy fans think of him as their dude, and playing to audiences of rich people could tarnish his brand image. Or, he just thinks not rich people should be able to see his shows. Or, he doesn't like playing for an audience that feels entitled because they payed a lot, and he gets a better vibe in the audience if it's full of people who aren't wealthy-entitled-types. Or something else, but that's several possibilities. Edit: I never heard of this guy before now, so I don't know if any of these guesses are the reality.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  Rich people, i.e. people who can afford $200 for a ticket instead of $100? I don't think the market clearing price is anywhere close to double the cost. The article implies they could easily get 10% more. That's not the difference between rich and not-rich.
PunchTornado 7y ago
because luck is random having money to pay is not
- ikeboy 7y ago
  Why is random better?
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    Because everybody is equal.
    - closeparen 7y ago
      But they’re not equal, they’re bifurcated into winners and losers, just like in the market.
      - 7y ago