[MichaelCollins]

> The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone.

I don't understand why it wouldn't be. If a city has sufficient demand to sell out two or more concerts, aren't the later concerts still profitable? And it's less travel expense per concert. If there isn't enough demand to sell tickets for at least two concerts, then doesn't that mean most of the fans in that city have been satisfied by a single concert?

It makes sense to me that you'd schedule as many consecutive concerts in one city as you can as long as demand is high enough to make each additional concert profitable. That might be 9 concerts, or 2, or even a thousand concerts if you're talking about a city like Los Vegas.

[ninth_ant]

This was my thought as well. We keep hearing about how artists are struggling to make money on album sales thanks to the rise of spotify and the demise of CD sales. Wouldn't playing the same venue for a week+ means less inter-city travel, less work tearing up/down the stages, and a lot of income from steady ticket sales?

[mrWiz]

How do you decide that demand is high enough? Do you book the next stop in the tour a few days later assuming that demand is high enough for more shows, and then end up paying the roadies to sit around when the demand isn't high enough?

[MichaelCollins]

> How do you decide that demand is high enough?

Same way they decide if visiting a city is worth it in the first place? I'm not an event coordinator or tour scheduler so I don't know, but it seems like it should be possible.