When the Rodriguez concert coming to Tucson on April 19 sold out nearly instantly, I have to say I was a little shocked. Sure, that show is a great get for Tucson following the documentary Searching for Sugar Man and a lot of press about the formerly-lost Detroit musician, but there are shows with great stories coming through town all the time that don’t get close to capacity. But still, there’s something really moving about his story and he’s an interesting songwriter, so there you go.
So, when shows sell out, especially as quickly as the Rodriguez show did, the people involved – the promoter, the band’s management, etc – are usually interested in finding out if they can find a way to see if they can sell more tickets. This is partially a financial concern, sure, but also just a desire to have more people see the show. Clearly there’s demand, so why not allow more people to see a musician they’re interested in, right?
That’s where the Rialto comes in with Rodriguez. Clearly, if any show should be moved to a larger venue, it’s this one. However, by some weird bit of evil synergy, that night, all of the larger venues are book (well, not the TCC Arena, but let’s not get crazy). Centennial, the Fox, the Music Hall, even the Reid Park bandshell are taken. So, they made arrangements for a stage outside of HUB and Playground. Sure, the people who bought reserved seat tickets would be inconvenienced a bit by the relocation, but often when this sort of thing happens, the original seats are just cancelled and a new sale (often with higher prices) is announced. These things happen, it’s a bummer, but they do happen.
One email goes out to ticket-goers from the Rialto explaining what’s happening: the original tickets (which were wildly underpriced at $23, as far as I’m concerned) would be valid, but for general admission now. Some seats would be available, first come, first served, but if you wanted a guaranteed seat, ticketholders would need to cough up an extra $17, which is should be noted is still a very good deal for this sort of show. Not ideal, but more people get to go, the artist (who was broke for years, remember) gets more money and the original ticketholders have two options, both of which still mean they get to go to the show.
Yeah, that didn’t go over well, people started to villanize the non-profit Rialto (an advertiser and many of the staff I’d consider friends, for what it’s worth), so another email goes out, explaining the situation and apologizing for the confusion and inconvenience. That should fix it, right? No, especially when the Star chimes in with this headline:
Yes, the show is moving and Rodriguez has fans, but no one is getting hit with a ticket increase – unless, that is, they want to pay more for a seat. I get it, you bought a ticket expecting a seat at that price, but things change. Frankly, Rodriguez’s people could pack up the whole show, cite “scheduling conflicts” and play for more money elsewhere. It has happened before and will happen again. The Rialto, which is hardly an institution fueled by caviar and largesse, is trying to make the best of an alternately great and challenging situation, but yet, the Star characterizes things in the worst way possible: EVIL VENUE SCREWS CONSUMERS, which is, again, not true.
[NOTE: The Star changed the headline to “Rodriguez fans meet seating obstacles after venue change,” although, and this might only matter to me, they didn’t note the previous headline on the page anywhere.]
Some people will be inconvenienced, but in the end, you get what you were paying for: an experience with a musician you care about. Other people get to have that too, who didn’t think they would. Also, the Rialto gets some money to book more shows, take more risks, get bands who usually skip town to come to Tucson. Rodriguez also makes more money, which shouldn’t be overlooked either. Seriously, stop complaining for a second and be appreciative. You might not get exactly what you want, but what you have left is still pretty great.
This article appears in Feb 14-20, 2013.
Regarding Rodriguez: Not Exactly, Tucson Weekly. People bought tickets for reserved seating at a concert; they are entitled to reserved seats at that concert. If the promoter wants to change the venue, fine, but they should do what they said they would. This looks like real sleazy practice to me, but then, business ethics is fast becoming one of the great oxymorons. I don’t expect I’ll be supporting the Rialto, now or in the future.
So let’s say you go to Best Buy and tell them you want to buy the Samsung TV that’s on sale for $300. Then when you get home you notice that there’s no remote. When you call, the Best Buy guy says, “Oh, the remote is an extra $75. That was in the fine print in our ad in the paper. If you don’t want to pay extra for the remote you can just get up and change channels manually.” Do you feel like you were screwed? Of course, I’m not implying that Best Buy would do this, but concert promoters seem to get away with just about anything these days and I just don’t think people should take it sitting down.
Totally agree with Pete459, this is just a screwing courtesy of the “lets make a bigger buck” Rialto. No other way to spin it..
Pete459: I guess they should have just moved the show and cancelled your ticket. They’re well within their rights to do so and that probably would have been easier for them. Your loss, however, if you choose not to support the Rialto. They’re putting on bigger and better shows now than ever before, so who are you really hurting by punishing a venue for trying to manage a situation.
Buzz: False analogy. When you buy a ticket to a show, you’re purchasing the opportunity to experience something, not a tangible item.
How many Rialto shows have Pete459 and Buzz attended in the last year? Or ever?
Yup.
Seriously? Who are you Dan Gibson? And who in the heck thought you could write yourself out of a paper sack and put together anything resembling a convincing argument? Wow, standards are slipping over there in Weekly Wonderland. You admit you are friends of the Rialto, you tip your hand that they advertise in your publication. Why should any one take you seriously? Furthermore, how is it that you cannot see the bait-and-switch here? How can you justify the Rialto or anyone offering a product for a price, then after you buy, changing the terms and the price? Happy little place in your fuzzy little world.
Perplexed, perhaps if you calmed down, you might realize that maybe, just maybe, it was the ARTIST’S decision to move the show to a different venue? And since no other venue was available, a decision was made, WITH THE ARTIST’S BLESSING, to do the show outside.
Seriously: the artist’s agent could have done a number of things to cancel the contract and refund everyone’s money and then move the show elsewhere (AVA? to the Fairgrounds? To Phoenix?) and then charge $50 a head. That didn’t happen. Would that have been preferable? I doubt it.
Dan: My analogy was based on the assumption that people who bought tickets for the show paid for reserved seats. Those are tangible items one rents for the duration of a show. If that’s not the case for this show, then I was misinformed. However, if the tickets do specify reserved seating, then this is a clear case of bait and switch.
When I read this article I thought it sounded like propaganda written by and for the Rialto. If a show sells out, then a show sells out. Celebrate it, don’t get greedy and screw the people who helped you to sell out. Fanboy Dan also failed to mention that the Rialto violated The Privacy Agreement by sending out everyone’s email publicly in a group email announcing the change. I fly sold out airplane flights all the time, but not once have they cancelled the flight and got a bigger plane, broken up my family’s seating and then resold tickets for the flight (like the Rialto did). Dan Gibson assumes that everybody can stand up at GA seating (like my 9 month pregnant wife and my 83 yr old grandparents who bought tickets the day of the show looking forward to seeing Rodriguez). Looks like the Rialto ultimately sold out on this one.
And then Dan Gibson makes this statement that sounds a lot like supply side economics to me, ” the Rialto gets some money to book more shows, take more risks…” Trickle down concert economics. Just let the Rialto screw us this once so we can get bigger, better acts. Rodriguez didn’t change the venue as Dan Gibson tries to imply, the Rialto changed it. I’ve been hearing the right wing write crap like this for years. This article just threw more fuel on the fire. The Weekly needs way better editorial review in order to weed out propaganda like this article.
Andy at FOG sounds like a writer for Fox News. Yes, the classic “put a question mark after an unsupported innuendo in order to spread lies and doubt,” while subtly villainizing AVA, the Fairgrounds and the evil city of Phoenix.
Mylob: Nothing personal, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. Understandable that you’re irked because you’re not getting what you expected, but that doesn’t mean the entire world moves based on your particular needs.
Perplexed: Yeah, what do I know about the music business and how it works?
Rodriguez is moving just down the street? Pfft, THANKS, Obama.
Star says concert moved to AVA.
SonoranWinds … We actually said that as well, and before they did (for what that’s worth): http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archi…
The Rialto has made right and broken even out of a mess. And what’s wrong with getting irked about not getting what you want, and were promised, when you pay your own money for a product that was agreed upon at time of purchase?