Once upon a time, most artists performed live to promote new albums. For most acts, the real money was in music sales, so they went “on the road” with schedules and strategies to maximize them.
These days, the live business is on its own, with higher ticket prices, side businesses such as merchandise and VIP seating, and schedules, as well as strategies of its own. So creators at all levels of popularity are starting to realize that it may no longer make sense to tour the entire country or world to promote a new release. In some cases, there isn't even one. In others, a browse can enhance an entire directory. The old touring model focused on building an audience, which meant artists played cities where they weren't as popular. Now touring is a revenue stream, so many artists are doubling down to play more shows in cities where they are already big.
The economics of touring mean that acts rack up costs every day they're on the road, but only make money when they're playing — so it makes sense to play longer shows, in fewer places, with fewer days off. MetallicaM72's tour included two-night engagements and a no-repeat promise to entice fans to see both. The international legs of Taylor Swift's Eras tour featured more shows in fewer places — covering Asia with four shows in Tokyo and six in Singapore, and the Nordic region with three in Stockholm. The natural end of that thought is a residency, or several of them, and Adele took the summer off from her Vegas residency to play 10 shows in Munich at a purpose-built 74,000-capacity venue. Why go to the fans when the fans can come to you?
As it happens, this solves another problem with the tourism business. As increasing competition for concert dollars inspires more elaborate productions, costs are skyrocketing — and many of them involve transportation and set-up rather than a performance per se. For Metallica, much of the cost is “loading” — moving and building a donut-shaped stage with a standing position in the middle, plus eight towers of speakers and screens that weigh 11 tons each. The resulting costs, involving 87 trucks and several days of installation, make individual performances difficult. Adele's show in Munich used what is said to be the world's largest video screen, as well as fireworks, confetti, smoke, fire and a string section. As expensive as this is to build, imagine the cost of moving and repositioning it a few times a week? How many venues still have room for a 220 meter wide screen?
Performing more shows in fewer places also makes it practical to show events rather than just concerts. Touring artists have to compete with festivals, which give fans a lot of acts for their money, plus an experience to remember — and, not coincidentally, share on social media. An unforgettable production, whether it's the world's largest screen or 11-ton speaker towers, can do the same. Personally, I don't think Metallica or Adele need any of this – I'd be just as happy to see either in a club, in front of a brick wall – but bigger productions seem to create a sense of FOMO.
Fans have certainly shown their willingness to travel. When I saw Metallica last year in Hamburg, most of the audience came from other German cities to see both shows. Swift's European tour debut in Paris was packed with fans from the US and Canada who realized that tickets there and a trip to France cost about the same as return tickets. For some fans, Swift's show is a vacation — Paris is just a must-see on the way there.
In raw economic terms, concert travel essentially redistributes costs from acts to fans — artists travel less, so concertgoers travel more. Most people don't want to pay more than a certain amount for a concert ticket, but they seem more willing to spend on related trips. (I just spent about $300 to go to Stockholm to see Bruce Springsteen, which seems like a lot to spend on a ticket, even though I actually went to see the show.)
There are other costs and benefits. Younger fans can't always travel alone. And as several European publications pointed out in their coverage of Adele's residency, that's not exactly good for the environment. (I think it makes more sense to tax travel than to object to a certain type of travel.) Residencies can also be more enjoyable for artists – no songs about how great it is to cross the US on a tour bus. Flexibility is also nice: Munich is much nicer in the summer than Las Vegas. Playing a few nights a week makes family life easier.
As much as I loved the Metallica and Adele shows, I think I still prefer the old model — although it's easier for me to say that because I'm lucky enough to live in a big city. I think there is still long-term value in building a fan base the hard way. And I worry that fans who spend more money traveling to concerts will end up seeing fewer shows as a result. None of this changes the economics of the tour, however, and running a profitable and artistically effective tour means understanding this.
from our partners at https://www.billboard.com/pro/adele-metallica-trend-concert-residencies-touring-fewer-cities/
