Woodstock 94--The Investment



woodstock.75: Woodstock 94--The Investment



woodstock.75.0: Tom Mandel (mandel)  Sun 14 Aug 94 12:35

 
 Will Woodstock 94 break even or lose money?


woodstock.75.1: Tom Mandel (mandel)  Sun 14 Aug 94 12:38

 
 Since this IS a commercial venture, I'll be curious to see
 if it actually makes its backers money.  The original Woodstock
 did not although I believe costs were eventually recovered
 through record and movie revenues.
 
 As I understand it, that's the plan here too, since ticket
 sales would have brought in no more than $25 million and
 production costs were well over $50 million.
 
 Who is backing this, btw?  Is there any info about who
 the silent partners are?
 
 The main commercial impact of Woodstock I, btw, was that
 it made producers and artists realize that there was
 a venue for very large concerts, eg., stadiums and the
 like, a venue that had only been used prior to 1969
 on a few occasions.  I'm not sure this was a good thing, but
 what the hell.


woodstock.75.2: Are We Really? (really)  Sun 14 Aug 94 13:16

 John Scher is definitely one of the investors.  From what I read in 
 the newspaper this morning, he is the President of Polygram Diversified 
 Ventures and credited with being the concert organizer.  Scher is the
 equivalent of Bill Graham on the east coast.
 


woodstock.75.3: Max Yasgur's Ghost (axon)  Sun 14 Aug 94 14:04

 
 what i don't understand is why pepsi didn't just give the stuff away.
 whatever revenue they've recovered from site customers is a drop in
 the bucket compared with the ill will their mercenary tactics have
 engendered.  they could have dealt coke a crippling blow just for a
 few million bucks.  stupid.
 
 i think the promoters must have been in a bind with the vendors.
 they had to make sure they have people who could handle the job, andf
 they must have wanted guarantees that people wouldn't be allowed to
 bring in their own food.  so the promoters lied about it and are sort
 of off the hook with both sides.  clever.
 
 the PPV is a great deal, btw.  the value in concert footage for the
 money is excellent.  i'll probably never watch the NIN or Metallica
 segments again, but the rest has been great.  no real surprises (yet),
 just great music and lots of it.  decent production values, although
 the mix on some segments was weird.  i thought levon helm was going to
 *eat* the stage mixer . . .
 
 


woodstock.75.4:   (heynow)  Sun 14 Aug 94 15:44

 I would think that the concessions will more than help them to break even.
 Break even? What am I talking about? With the Polydorks trying to run this
 it's a money, money, money venture all the way.
 


woodstock.75.5: aud (dam)  Sun 14 Aug 94 18:43

 this was supposed to be the biggest draw in music ppv ever, so i'd
 assume that at $50 a pop it's bringing in a bundle, being available
 all across the US and in 30 other countries...
 
 ...then there'll be the video, the Cd and the CD-ROM...


woodstock.75.6: Alan Feldstein (fiddle)  Sun 14 Aug 94 18:44

 I'm not so sure the buy rates will be all that great for the PPV,
 aud/dam..time will tell...


woodstock.75.7: Tom Mandel (mandel)  Sun 14 Aug 94 20:46

 
 It will be interesting to see what it is...the non-random sample
 here suggests that quite a few people bought the package.
 \.


woodstock.75.8: David Dalto (dd)  Sun 14 Aug 94 21:43

 Absolutely _nobody_ I know who isn't here bought it.


woodstock.75.9: we (justride)  Mon 15 Aug 94 11:50

 From what I've read, the promoters will lose on the tickets
 and concessions, come close to breaking even after the PPV
 is factored in, and then make money on CD's and videotapes.
 Or something like that.


woodstock.75.10: Are We Really? (really)  Tue 16 Aug 94 09:07

 According to the New York Times, Woodstock is a Bust on Pay TV.
 Fewer than 1% of the 24 million cable television subscribers ordered it.
 According to an informal survey of cable companies around the country,
 sales lagged behind those of popular prize fights and behind the
 Rolling Stones "Steels Wheels" tour and th Judds' farewell performance.
 


woodstock.75.11: Merrill Peterson (merrill)  Tue 16 Aug 94 09:11

 Let's see 200,000 @ 50.00 = $10,000,000. That's a bust? I guess if they 
 expected to rake in $25,000,000 it's a bust.


woodstock.75.12: we (justride)  Tue 16 Aug 94 09:23

 Yeah, I read that article too. Re: the $10M, article mentioned
 that the cable companies get half, with the rest being split
 between the distributor and the producer.


woodstock.75.13: otis (nycjag)  Tue 16 Aug 94 09:31

 i don't think cable cos get *half* of what the ppv takes in. unless this was
 a special deal...
 
 the other thing i wonder is that they are giving refunds to those who got
 turned away with tix due to overcrowding. for the  most part, they stopped
 checking tix sometime on sat. don't you think that the people who got in
 without getting their tix checked are gonna ask for refunds, too?


woodstock.75.14: we (justride)  Tue 16 Aug 94 09:33

 Funny, I heard on CBS radio this morning that there weren't going
 to be any refunds.
 
 Re: the PPV $, just quoting the NYT. They stated that that's
 how PPV splits are generally done, not that it was specific
 to this event.


woodstock.75.15: otis (nycjag)  Tue 16 Aug 94 11:14

 hmmm. scher said during a press conf when it was announced that the gates
 were closed on sat that people with tix would get refund and details would
 be announced this week


woodstock.75.16: Are We Really? (really)  Tue 16 Aug 94 14:49

 I think MTV was probably the big winner.  Those of us who didn't order
 the Pay Per View watched MTV to get the feeling and visuals of what was
 happening...
 


woodstock.75.17: Ruler of the (cosmos)  Tue 16 Aug 94 14:50

 Another item to add to the TMaster lawsuit pile if they don't refund


woodstock.75.18: Alan Feldstein (fiddle)  Tue 16 Aug 94 16:34

 Oh, if Scher doesn't give refunds, this will be the class action suit of the
 century..and nor just for ticket costs, but for associated costs and
 damages..


woodstock.75.19: otis (nycjag)  Wed 17 Aug 94 05:31

 scher said sat in a press conf that refund details would be given this week!
 I *heard* him say it with my own ears...


woodstock.75.20: we (justride)  Wed 17 Aug 94 08:15

 I was passing along one radio report that I heard the morning after
 the festival; it was obviously premature, although it did quote the
 promoters. I never doubted the veracity of your posts, Jeff.
 
 I read in the NYT this morning that the town of Saugerties received
 $5.05 from every ticket sold; since approximately 150,000 attendees
 never purchased tickets, the town is going to seek additional $ from
 the promoters.


woodstock.75.21: otis (nycjag)  Wed 17 Aug 94 08:58

 yeah, I knew that warren. I read the same thing in quotes that they were not
 giving refunds... but I am doubting the rpoerters...time will tell..
 
 be tought to collect all of that extra cash. no way to *prove* how many
 people without tix go in an dseveral with tix did not get in., they may just
 say they cancel each other out


woodstock.75.22: we (justride)  Wed 17 Aug 94 09:18

 Right, but I think the town is saying that they should get their $
 based on attendance, regardless of who had tickets and who didn't.
 


woodstock.75.23: otis (nycjag)  Wed 17 Aug 94 09:57

 gotcha
Note: this conference page was created as part of the historic WELL Woodstock Internet booth, in 1994, by the community at The WELL and on site at Woodstock II. All posts were used with express consent of their authors, and some were also published in a Woodstock II book. The design is intentionally left at its primitive original state.
See the main Woodstock project page for more of the backstory.
Italic footnote comments made February 2001.