[philistine]

> Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-devoted fans.

Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking. Assuming infrastructure is sufficient for each situation to be profitable is magical thinking.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking

The point is artists want to have their cake and eat it too. Any artist performing at a stadium could make a solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena while charging a similar (or lower) price. They don't because it's more lucrative to perform at a 70,000-seat stadium.

LiveNation is a monopolist. But they also give many market participants cover to charge more without offending their fans.

[toast0]

It would probably need to be a different show. Playing to a large stadium means you can afford more trucks and a bigger spectacle. If you're playing for 5,000 people, you've got to tone it down, or you won't make a profit.

[listenallyall]

who determines what is "a solid profit"? If an artist can sell 70,000 tickets, why should they limit themselves to 20,000? Do you work for 2/7 of your potential salary? And what about the 50,000 fans shut out of the show?

[philistine]

> Any artist performing at a stadium could make a solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena while charging a similar (or lower) price.

There you go, magical thinking again.