9 minutes ago, Worm said:

I think these arguments actually disguise and conceal an uglier side to the current touring dynamic that people often overlook. Since major artists have started selling their tickets for astronomical prices when they do have the star power - and in some cases using things like dynamic pricing to squeeze every last dollar they can out of their fans, leveraging all of the demand that they have - they're effectively using their positions as market leaders to say to fans "you can afford to see me in concert if you only see me in concert".

In 2026 the idea of utilising your disposable income to see a range of artists live has become pretty intractable, even if cheaper tickets for smaller acts were routinely available. Much of the consumer spend has been concentrated on the biggest of the big now that those acts have realised what they can get away with charging, leaving little room for anyone else in the touring world. Sadly, spending hundreds and hundreds just to see your fave live (and no one else) has become the new norm, and I don't think this is a problem that will go away if smaller artists just 'become more realistic' with their prices.

Some of the cancelled tours had $50 or lower tickets. They were cheap enough that fans definitely could see them regardless of how much they spent on other artists.

People do have the disposable income for a ***** Cat Dolls ticket. But the amount that want too, is very small . Not an arena size amount.

1 hour ago, cat1867 said:

Meghan Trainor in arenas was alway going to struggle to sell

Incorrect. She toured arenas for her timeless tour it was successful. She generally canceled because she just had a baby etc.

It's just the act who had no business doing large venues in the first place, that are canceling.

The big acts are still charging you an arm, a leg, your first born and your eternal soul for good average seats - and selling out.

I am confused to this day why people are willing to spend so much money on a concert ticket the last 4 years.

$170 and fans call it the cheap tickets. $250 for nosebleeds. Fighting for the good VIP seats when dynamic pricing is on, and pay $600 up to $1000. For 2 hours of live music.

Tbh, good.

I hope this drives ticket prices down the drain.

3 hours ago, cat1867 said:

Tours for actually popular artists are still selling out despite high prices (Harry, Olivia)

exactly. Taylor, Ariana, Billie, Beyonce, Gaga, The Weeknd...

the others who are cancelling are just booking too big venues they cannot fill. acts who are actually popular don't have any troubles...

It's too expensive and the venues many artists book are way too big for their audience.

I don't get how some spend thousands of dollars on a concert, it's insanity to me. Even if you had that kind of money, is it that serious ? I know some crazy fans are willing to spend that amount, but most casual listeners won't. So you end up with a bunch of unsellable tickets. Supply and demand.

2 hours ago, Worm said:

I don't think this is a problem that will go away if smaller artists just 'become more realistic' with their prices.

Especially because smaller artists are realistic with their prices. Many artists I like that aren't huge mainstream pop stars, their tickets are around $30-50. I think that's fair prices where I live.

I think social media created massive FOMO around concerts and fanbases has become more cult-y the last couple of years, so some people think they have to be there at any price.

I'm sure this isn't a new thing but when did people start touring twice in roughly the same markets for the same music? I didn't even know Posty was doing that before someone pointed it out

1 hour ago, Peak Now said:

I'm sure this isn't a new thing but when did people start touring twice in roughly the same markets for the same music? I didn't even know Posty was doing that before someone pointed it out

I blame Coldplay for this

13 minutes ago, PoisonedIvy said:

I blame Coldplay for this

Oh if we're going there let's blame Billy Joel

The simple answer is overestimation of demand. Some of these artists have no business booking 30-date arena legs. Look at the upcoming Doja Cat tour, some dates aren't even 30% sold because they overestimated her actual demand. If the tour had half the stops, or if it was entirely in theaters, this problem wouldn't exist or it certainly wouldn't be as catastrophic.

$$$$$

Have you seen ticket prices these days? I don't think it's absurd to expect more if you're paying more

Edited May 23May 23 by Lemonaade

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that the post-pandemic hunger is gone, and people are only turning to artists they genuinely want to spend their money on. Especially in this economy, nobody wants to be ripped off. It's also clear that for some artists, social media hype and streaming numbers have a deceptive effect on their popularity. Very popular artists like Taylor or BTS won't be affected by the blue dot fever. BTS fans are happy with the prices, and with the Weverse system, which allows only fans to access pre-sales, is a great convenience. The fact that they don't use dynamic pricing is also a huge plus.

The thing I kinda of hate about concerts these days is it's just the artist, maybe a band and a massive screen that's it, no actual stage design.

People are broke. Also I'm sure the touring production companies are starting to charge more with how expensive oil is in the US now, so artists are cutting corners and maximize profits. It's all just late stage capitalism.

8 hours ago, Peak Now said:

I'm sure this isn't a new thing but when did people start touring twice in roughly the same markets for the same music? I didn't even know Posty was doing that before someone pointed it out

A lot of legacy country acts do tours every summer new music or not, so I think the touring companies are trying to see if this will translate over to other genres. I remember the Kenny Chesney concert was always a big event every year because the crowds would tailgate before and absolutely trash the city to the point where they had to ban tailgating outside of the stadium

13 hours ago, Worm said:

I think these arguments actually disguise and conceal an uglier side to the current touring dynamic that people often overlook. Since major artists have started selling their tickets for astronomical prices when they do have the star power - and in some cases using things like dynamic pricing to squeeze every last dollar they can out of their fans, leveraging all of the demand that they have - they're effectively using their positions as market leaders to say to fans "you can afford to see me in concert if you only see me in concert".

In 2026 the idea of utilising your disposable income to see a range of artists live has become pretty intractable, even if cheaper tickets for smaller acts were routinely available. Much of the consumer spend has been concentrated on the biggest of the big now that those acts have realised what they can get away with charging, leaving little room for anyone else in the touring world. Sadly, spending hundreds and hundreds just to see your fave live (and no one else) has become the new norm, and I don't think this is a problem that will go away if smaller artists just 'become more realistic' with their prices.

Very correct and something that many people haven't yet grasped. As the Harrys, the Gagas, all the top touring artists charge hundreds even thousands of dollars for a ticket, they're not the ones suffering from that decision because they're big enough to always "justify" their price. But when you spend £500+ on one show, are you really gonna want to spend even £50 (or less) on a smaller artist during a cost of living crisis - especially when considering you may have to travel and pay for accommodation too - which is always price gouged whenever shows are announced.

Yes overcharging and overestimating demand are causes too but we're kinda ignoring the underlying root cause here.

11 hours ago, nick_rod said:

Tbh, good.

I hope this drives ticket prices down the drain.

I'm afraid it won't because generally the artists that are suffering or cancelling are the ones that already had cheap or realistic tickets, while the ones that are having successful tours are the ones charging 3 or sometimes 4 digit prices and they will feel even more secure in doing so because of their success.

11 hours ago, Soul Grabber said:

Especially because smaller artists are realistic with their prices. Many artists I like that aren't huge mainstream pop stars, their tickets are around $30-50. I think that's fair prices where I live.

I think social media created massive FOMO around concerts and fanbases has become more cult-y the last couple of years, so some people think they have to be there at any price.

All of this. I'm glad I don't care for most of ATRL's scamming faves. I've only had three concerts more than £80 so far since 2023.

My highest price was P!nk for £180 in 2024 which I still think is very high but it's not American-level pricing at least. I'm disappointed with Kacey Musgraves tbh bc I bought for her tour next year and got charged £145 when her last show was a third of that... arena vs theatre yeah but like come on?? you're charging more than Shania, girl...

Upscaling the venues. A few people got lucky in the post-Eras/Renaissance boom to play to bigger houses than normal and now it has become bog-standard for people with little to no buzz outside of their core following to book venues they can't fill.

Add to it that prices have not dropped even when people were asking for that to happen before Taylor and the economy being in shambles creates an entirely predictable issue that is now staining artist's brands when their teams should know better. It doesn't make sense either given that festivals are now buzzier than ever and a good set can easily go viral and push visibility for an artist more than expensive production they can't sustain across multiple months.

Acts who aren't Beyonce/Taylor/Gaga/Ariana, shouldn't be booking venues that are meant for A/God-Tier artists who can sell these venues out.

In my city, you have acts that should be performing at intimate concert halls with a capacity of ~4000 people, scheduling themselves at our 20,000 person amphitheater and then charging $300+ for the seats that aren't lawn. It's a tad ridiculous the confidence some of these acts are getting thinking because they have one top-twenty hit, or had a few hits in their peak from 10+ years ago, that it suddenly means they can play in the big leagues.

I hope a lot of these artists get humbled and realized bigger venues /=/ better.

Fewer and fewer people will be spending hundreds of dollars on concert tickets, along with associated costs, whenever gas prices are what they are and overall inflation is what it is. Going to a concert is a luxury and a lot of people are cutting that out, who would otherwise go.

Over the years, some acts have claimed that they're "worth it." They're going to be humbled really quickly whenever people have to decide between that and paying their rent, putting food on their table for their families, fueling their vehicle, etc. As we're already seeing. People are becoming increasingly selective regarding who they spend money on, and for what.

I really wanted to go see Lady Gaga's last tour but my broke ass just couldn't justify the money. The industry has been dangerously unstable since covid times. It may be working still right now for the bigger artists but some are just being humbled hard. Tickets when music was selling better back in the day used to be around £30 and the shows were generally more impressive. Not many still put on a show to that level and those that do put their fans into debt for it.

Zayn pioneered the 2-for-1 event experience