Jump to content

Witness Tour Boxscores | Pollstar: 76.9M


rihsus

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Rusty said:

Literally the same essay, in which you act like there's numbers for shows that there isn't. The $670K per night is Pollstar's own YE average from 2017 (majority of the NA dates). This isn't a lie, the totals are on their site still. 

 

And since it seems you're (to use your term) a little slow, to help you understand: me saying we need reliable numbers for averages means the actual numbers, not made up numbers because you have a portion of the shows.  There's literally another Kat in  here saying it's $104M (based on some Forbes number? :rip: ) while you spout off a cool $120M estimate from a wordpress blog, and yet I'm the one making up numbers :ahh: 

 

Pollstar YE numbers: $83.4M for 94 shows. The biggest gross and show count we have from source. Oblivia really ****ed you guys up.

 

We're on ATRL. **** or get off the pot, acting like stanning is so terrible and yet you're here in the charts section :ahh:An Oblivia tea.

It doesn't matter which random numbers do you use, the tour will still remain with $71 million gross in 67 shows (missing 46 dates) with $1.060 million gross average. It clearly grossed over $100 million and your lies about a $670,000 average were exposed.

Edited by merlls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • rihsus

    56

  • ViviLittleM

    42

  • beatinglikeadrum

    27

  • DoubleRainbow!

    17

16 minutes ago, Jjang said:

...And Pollstar is known for significantly under-estimating box scores. For example, they reported $4m average for Taylor's Reputation Tour in Europe when in reality the average was $4.5m 

 

DiOX0SEX4AAawqO.jpg

 

Leg 1: North America - $68.7m (9 dates) - (Billboard)

Leg 2: Europe - $24.4m (6 dates) -$4.07m avg. per date - (Pollstar's estimation) which Billboard later corrected into $27m and $4.5m avg. per date.

Leg 3: North America - $11.5m (2 dates) -$5.75m (Billboard)

 

Witness: The Tour grossing $100m+ is highly likely to be accurate.

This isn't wrong, but the highest number from source is $84.3M. No other base adds in cash for dates where there's no data, if its not reported or in one of these total estimates, it doesn't exist. Extrapolating definitely isn't statistically relevant considering among the reported dates the distribution varies pretty massively.

 

2 minutes ago, merlls said:

It doesn't matter which ramdom numbers do you use, the tour will still remain with $71 million gross in 67 shows (missing 46 dates) with $1.060 million gross average. It clearly grossed over $100 million and your lies about a $670,000 average were exposed.

It's clear where the $670K comes from following Pollstar's average of 42 shows generating $28.1M in 2017. Glad to see you've stopped peddling the $118M+ number you've insisted is accurate despite showing ZERO reliable source other than a fan blog that extrapolates massively from a portion of the shows :rip: Oblivia stats aren't useable here.

 

Witness: The Tour - $70.99M or $83.4M. Take them or leave them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rusty said:

This isn't wrong, but the highest number from source is $84.3M. No other base adds in cash for dates where there's no data, if its not reported or in one of these total estimates, it doesn't exist. Extrapolating definitely isn't statistically relevant considering among the reported dates the distribution varies pretty massively.

 

It's clear where the $670K comes from following Pollstar's average of 42 shows generating $28.1M in 2017. Glad to see you've stopped peddling the $118M+ number you've insisted is accurate despite showing ZERO reliable source other than a fan blog that extrapolates massively from a portion of the shows :rip: Oblivia stats aren't useable here.

 

Witness: The Tour - $70.99M or $83.4M. Take them or leave them!

 

Those are Pollstar reported numbers which is not an official source (like you claimed). As the Pollstar site itself states: it is a self proclaimed estimation based on research which almost always tends to be an under-estimation when compared to BB's official numbers - which is an important point that you're avoiding.

 

Even if we go by these numbers and calculate the final gross according to the provided average we end up with $102m. But that's based on an estimation program that is most likely under-estimating the gross. So no, it's not far fetched to claim this tour passed the $100m mark or that it averaged $1m per date.

Edited by Jjang
added a dote and fixed a grammatical issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jjang said:

 

Those are Pollstar reported numbers which is not an official source (like you claimed), As the Pollstar site itself states: it is a self proclaimed estimation based on research which almost always tends to be an under-estimation when compared to BB's official numbers - which is an important point that you're avoiding.

 

Even if we go by these numbers and calculate the final gross according to the provided average we end up with $102m. But that's based on an estimation program that is most likely under-estimating the gross. So no, it's not far fetched to claim this tour passed the $100m mark or that it average $1m per date.

I'm avoiding nothing no matter how much bolded text you use - if there's a source for higher than $83.4M, great. But nobody has one. That's the point, it's been the point from the start. We could add random cash to Gaga or Rihanna  tours for missing dates from Pollstar or Billboard, but we don't. The numbers aren't reported and therefore don't exist in the public space.

 

Saying 'the tour likely made this' isn't anything more than speculation. Saying this random $102M is 'likely an underestimation' has zero validity because the number itself is literally made up.

 

And we use Pollstar because half the time boxscores aren't sent to Billboard for tons of tours. They get some dates, so their numbers are semi-reliable and certainly have more weight than somewhere like Forbes or a random wordpress blog.

Edited by Rusty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Raspy said:

We love a dedicated kat

Welcome to the family:hug:

ESPz8gX.gif

I (like the rest of the world) liked Katy pre-2014!

 

LUgJIwl.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rusty said:

I (like the rest of the world) liked Katy pre-2014!

 

LUgJIwl.gif

Still not ready to come out as a dedicated kat? Sorry then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rusty said:

I'm avoiding nothing no matter how much bolded text you use - if there's a source for higher than $83.4M, great. But nobody has one. That's the point, it's been the point from the start. We could add random cash to Gaga or Rihanna  tours for missing dates from Pollstar or Billboard, but we don't. The numbers aren't reported and therefore don't exist in the public space.

 

Saying 'the likely made this' isn't anything more than speculation. Saying this random $102M is 'likely an underestimation' has zero validity because the number itself is literally made up.

I'm not arguing about other sources, nor am I making definitive statements (which again, is what you're doing here). :rip: I'm saying that the only available source most likely reported an under-estimation while you claimed they were official numbers. 

 

Yes it's a speculation but one made after learning the given data and logically inferring a conclusion based on the pattern behavior of that information. :rip: So yes it's a speculation but it's far closer to the truth that you're trying to convey (which is your claim that if Pollstar didn't report an estimation - the concert never happened. I mean, how is that logical?). 

 

So what you're saying is that if Gaga's next tour was consistent of 100 dates and it made $99m based on 50 while the remaining 50 were not reported then Gaga grossed no more than $99m? :cm: Good to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jjang said:

Yes it's a speculation

A big OGH essay that means nothing  considering this. No Gaga touring stats are extrapolated, even her residency shows are reported each time they're completed. A bizarre comparison about Lady Gaga's touring on your part!

 

Katy's team didn't report this tour,  likely due to poor returns compared to the Prism tour. The end result is the figures I posted, both are Pollstar. Good to see Madge stans taking such an interest :rip: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rusty said:

A big OGH essay that means nothing  considering this. No Gaga touring stats are extrapolated, even her residency shows are reported each time they're completed. A bizarre comparison about Lady Gaga's touring on your part!

 

Katy's team didn't report this tour,  likely due to poor returns compared to the Prism tour. The end result is the figures I posted, both are Pollstar. Good to see Madge stans taking such an interest :rip: 

You didn’t reply to what I wrote. 

 

So now you’re the one speculating and making empty assumptions about why they weren’t reported, huh. So it’s only valid when you do it?

 

It’s funny you mention Prismatic tour cause 

Pollstar - $25.8m from 35 shows (2015)

Billboard - $41.7m from 25 shows (2015)

 

Notice a pattern? :) 

 

Just admit you were clocked and move on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jjang said:

You didn’t reply to what I wrote. 

 

So now you’re the one speculating and making empty assumptions about why they weren’t reported, huh. So it’s only valid when you do it?

 

It’s funny you mention Prismatic tour cause 

Pollstar - $25.8m from 35 shows (2015)

Billboard - $41.7m from 25 shows (2015)

 

Notice a pattern? :)

 

Just admit you were clocked and move on.

 

In your own words:

 

5 hours ago, Jjang said:

nor am I making definitive statements

 

Yes it's a speculation

 

So yes it's a speculation

Move on with your speculation, Madge stan. We don't make up grosses for any artists, no matter how much it might make Madonnanation salivate in some sort of anti-Gaga sort of fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rusty said:

In your own words:

 

Move on with your speculation, Madge stan. We don't make up grosses for any artists, no matter how much it might make Madonnanation salivate in some sort of anti-Gaga sort of fashion.

No one is “making up” grosses. We’re estimating... you know, that’s the same method Pollstar uses. :cm:

 

The numbers you claimed were official are actually made up estimations so this whole conversation is about studying the data we have in hand and infer a conclusion - but suddenly you want to block a discussion (on a board devoted for discussions) because you’re uncomfortable with the reasonable claim of this tour grossing over 100 million ‘cause you’re a pressed LM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That stubborn user :rip:

 

 

WTT GROSSED MORE THAN $100M and that's all we know :clap3: 

also 91% sold-out :clap3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jjang said:

No one is “making up” grosses. We’re estimating... you know, that’s the same method Pollstar uses. :cm:

 

The numbers you claimed were official are actually made up estimations so this whole conversation is about studying the data we have in hand and infer a conclusion - but suddenly you want to block a discussion (on a board devoted for discussions) because you’re uncomfortable with the reasonable claim of this tour grossing over 100 million ‘cause you’re a pressed LM. 

Kiii, a Madge Stan OGH talking about discomfort over another artist. This all stemmed from someone asking how much the tour made. The answer: $71M or $84.3M depending on which Pollstar numbers you use. That’s literally it. Discuss away imagined numbers, but they don’t exist, no matter how much Kats or Madonnanation might wish they did :rip: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rusty said:

This all stemmed from someone asking how much the tour made. The answer: $71M or $84.3M depending on which Pollstar numbers you use

Once again, no. :rip: How can one make it simpler...

That does not answer the "how much did the tour make?" question, that answers "how much did Pollstar estimate the first 92 dates made" question. :rip: 

So no

- Pollstar's estimations are not real numbers (which shockingly enough, you're still not admitting despite claiming otherwise earlier). 

- Just because BB / Pollstar didn't report the remaining shows does not mean that they didn't exist or that they didn't make money. :priceless:

- This is a board devoted entirely to discussing charts, numbers and estimations. If you're uncomfortable with that then exit.

- For all we know, Pollstar and Forbes' are equally reliable as they both base their reports on "extensive research and estimations". 

- You know that in reality this tour grossed $100m+ but you're just pressed because it doesn't justify your narrative.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jjang said:

Once again, no. :rip: How can one make it simpler...

That does not answer the "how much did the tour make?" question, that answers "how much did Pollstar estimate the first 92 dates made" question. :rip: 

So no

- Pollstar's estimations are not real numbers (which shockingly enough, you're still not admitting despite claiming otherwise earlier). 

- Just because BB / Pollstar didn't report the remaining shows does not mean that they didn't exist or that they didn't make money. :priceless:

- This is a board devoted entirely to discussing charts, numbers and estimations. If you're uncomfortable with that then exit.

- For all we know, Pollstar and Forbes' are equally reliable as they both base their reports on "extensive research and estimations". 

- You know that in reality this tour grossed $100m+ but you're just pressed because it doesn't justify your narrative.

 

 

The fact that you're saying the bolded part shows you're literally just acting dumb (I hope :rip:). Of course the unreported shows made money, the point is we don't know how much. The two Pollstar estimates are $71M and $84.5M for 67 and 94 shows respectively.

 

Feel free to continue to talk circles around how reliable/unreliable they are (and apparently despite decades analysing touring are merely just as good as touring data-devoid Fobres :rip:), but when asked how much it made, those are the numbers we've got. Anything else is, as you put it:

 

On 9/27/2019 at 6:16 PM, Jjang said:

speculation

 

Edited by Rusty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rusty said:

The fact that you're saying the bolded part shows you're literally just acting dumb (I hope :rip:). Of course the unreported shows made money, the point is we don't know how much. The two Pollstar estimates are $71M and $84.5M for 67 and 94 shows respectively.

 

Feel free to continue to talk circles around how reliable/unreliable they are (and apparently despite decades analysing touring are merely just as good as touring data-devoid Fobres :rip:), but when asked how much it made, those are the numbers we've got. Anything else is, as you put it:

 

 

Once again, you're repeating what I already said I agree on. :priceless: I never tried to argue that there are reported numbers "out there" beside Pollstar's estimations. We both agree on that. What we don't agree on is the sentiment that it's ridiculous to discuss and rationally (!) infer our own estimations just because apparently that's absurd according to you when this whole charts board is devoted to these type of discussions. If you're not interested in engaging with us in a discussion regarding the full gross (and maybe then respectively tackle our own methods of calculations and estimations) then you have nothing to do in this thread but blocking its' sole purpose. So please exit. 

 

Amazing how you're trying to turn this talk against me. :priceless: Jesus, just admit you were clocked and move on: you're the one who claimed Pollstar's numbers were official. So you're attacking me for questioning that statement based on cold ass evidence? Oh wait, is it because I'm an "OGH" ? :priceless:

 

Go to page 24 - if you still believe Pollstar is reliable. :priceless: They themselves admit that they make up box scores. The same ones that you called official.:celestial5:

Edited by Jjang
added another paragraph and fixed something grammatically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jjang said:

Once again, you're repeating what I already said I agree on. :priceless: I never tried to argue that there are reported numbers "out there" beside Pollstar's estimations. We both agree on that. What we don't agree on is the sentiment that it's ridiculous to discuss and rationally (!) infer our own estimations just because apparently that's absurd according to you when this whole charts board is devoted to these type of discussions. If you're not interesting in engaging with us in a discussion regarding the full gross (and maybe then respectively tackle our own methods of calculations and estimations) then you have nothing to do in this thread but blocking the sole purpose of this thread. So please exit. 

 

Amazing how you're trying to turn this talk against me. :priceless: Jesus, just admit you were clocked and move on: you're the one who claimed Pollstar's numbers were official. So you're attacking me for questioning that statement based on cold ass evidence? Oh wait, is it because I'm an "OGH" ? :priceless:

 

Go to page 24 - if you still believe Pollstar is reliable. :priceless: They themselves admit that they make up box scores. The same ones that you called official.

Giant essay, I'm sure it's filled with amazing new numbers :rip:

 

I do see you continually say I called Pollstar official... I doubt you'll find that in my posts since it didn't happen (maybe you go that info from Forbes?), but they're the most reliable when we don't have Billboard boxscores. You're now spinning in circles to overcorrect... what a Eurovision performance-sized mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rusty said:

Giant essay, I'm sure it's filled with amazing new numbers :rip:

 

I do see you continually say I called Pollstar official... I doubt you'll find that in my posts since it didn't happen (maybe you go that info from Forbes?), but they're the most reliable when we don't have Billboard boxscores. You're now spinning in circles to overcorrect... what a Eurovision performance-sized mess. 

From this page lol:

Quote

to help you understand: me saying we need reliable numbers for averages means the actual numbers, not made up numbers because you have a portion of the shows

Pollstar themselves said they make up numbers. So the "actual numbers" you're basing your arguments on are in fact, themselves, mere guesses. They've been terribly wrong with their estimations during The Prismatic Tour, Taylor's European leg and their work on Madonna's / Rihanna's tours was a straight up catastrophe. So no, you are not here to have an honest discussion about "reliable" and "actual" numbers, even after getting confronted about it.

 

I already told you - if your argument is that the $84m figure is the only reported figure out there, then I agree with you. We have nothing to discuss if that's all you want to say. 

 

But if you're here solely for the purpose of blocking discussions regarding the remaining dates then you're transparently uncomfortable with the notion that this tour grossing $100m is extremely likely and you're aggravatingly attempting to block that (once again, extremely rational and not a fairytale liek you're trying to claim) conclusion as we can all clearly see.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 2/25/2018 at 7:27 AM, katykater said:

Enjoy your fave's post-peak tour milking the momentum of her peak. Her tour will do well like BTW:B, PWT,... did well. Once the GP not only let the singles drop faster than rockets speeding down to the ground, her next tour would struggle to find 100 million dollar and sell out single arena dates in the US like everyone else. Because it takes her base and supporters a few years to realise that it isn't worth it to support her, to spend on her,... We have seen other tours experiencing sharp decline and soon it's your fave's tour. It's a matter of time. Without being established in 10+ non-English-speaking European countries, she is the most vulnerable of the pop girls. More vulnerable than Janet to the whims of the fickle Americans and they have decided to throw her out like Meghan was only used for 1 pop era.

The way this aged like milk :rip:

gd4nxJp.gif

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.