Psychology on Cover Charges, why?

[aborgman]

Tickets, or $20 at the door are the same thing.

I disagree with that.

The band is a tribute, and say what you want about tributes, they can make great money, and never sell an album. They will never be national, and never be a household word.

Actually - a surprising number of tribute bands ARE national (or even international). Dark Star Orchestra, One Night of Queen, Zoso, Damage Inc., etc.

...and I'd argue that tribute bands do benefit from the "known entity" thing - in fact I'd say it's a large part of the reason tribute acts can do so well.

 

[john_g]

IME, the people that complain about a small cover charge like $5 planned on going to that bar or club to drink and meet friends, and oh by the way, there is a band playing tonight. In other words, they werent going to that particular place to hear a band play. When I was younger and playing in bands (the early to mid 90s) it was a totally different ballgame. Everywhere had live music and everywhere changed covers.

 

[c3powil]

In my limited time in music with bands that "play out", I feel the struggle. Even really good friends seldomly turn out for a show where a cover charge is mandatory. They all expect you to get them in "for free", as if struggling local bands have that kind of leverage.

I feel that, increasingly, the best way to make money in music is to have a large online presence. These days bands put out albums that have never set foot in a venue. People my age, 21-28, generally are not willing to pay 5 or 10 dollars for a local show, but will pay 100+ to see bands and artists that they have heard before on the radio. A select few of my friends buy online albums and most pay for Spotify, apple music, etc.

 

[fourstr00]

Would absolutely agree with going to secondary or tertiary markets. Fighting for a gig in Lincoln Park and $50 is way harder than booking in Joliet or Valpo for $500. It’s usually better attended, everyone’s happy to have you there, and because you’re from ‘out of town’ there’s an exotic quality that grabs interest for reasons I don’t fully understand.

 

[comatosedragon]

I have paid $200 to see a show (The Sword, in Richmond VA 2016). I was led to believe the tickets were sold out (from the venue's website), so I tracked down a pair on StubHub. Paid like $217 after taxes and everything. Easily one of my favorite bands, so I splurged.

We get to the show, and the bouncer is selling tickets at the door for $20 (!!!). I told him I was under the impression that tickets were sold out, and had to pay 200 for some online ......
The guy actually laughed at me, turned around and yelled at Kyle "Hey, I think this is your biggest fan here! He paid 200 bucks to be here!"

I felt like such an asshat of course, because I know the band got <<none>> of my money.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Most people aren’t going to a club to see a band. They’re going to drink, hang out, meet people, get lucky, etc. The best places for them to do that are the crowded, happening places. The most crowded, most happening places often start out as the places with no cover. At least from what I’ve seen.

I think people generally don’t like to gamble even $5 on whether they’re going to like the place, or the band.

If there’s a line to get in every Friday and Saturday then great, people will pay a cover with no problem. If it’s an “iffy” crowd kind of deal I think it’s best to let people in fee free

Just my opinion.

 

[socialleper]

I never "go out" to a club\bar unless I'm there to see the band. So a door charge makes sense. However, on the rare occasion that I am just out with a friend, if the closest bar has a cover charge because a cover band is playing, I'll keep walking. I'm not giving them money to have to yell over some hacks playing music that I don't want to hear in the first place.
I don't know about raising the price of drinks. They already cost too much. Beer has about a 100% markup on it. $5 for a generic American macrobrew is a crime. $10 for an imported Belgian trappist is highway robbery. The price of drinks at bars definitely limits the number I'm going to have in an evening.

 

[Bunk McNulty]

Most people aren’t going to a club to see a band. They’re going to drink, hang out, meet people, get lucky, etc. The best places for them to do that are the crowded, happening places. The most crowded, most happening places often start out as the places with no cover. At least from what I’ve seen.

I think people generally don’t like to gamble even $5 on whether they’re going to like the place, or the band.

If there’s a line to get in every Friday and Saturday then great, people will pay a cover with no problem. If it’s an “iffy” crowd kind of deal I think it’s best to let people in fee free

Just my opinion.

We go around and around with this, and I don't have a good answer. The crowd that follows Redhead is just as you describe: They come to hang out, meet people, get lucky, etc. We just happen to be their preferred soundtrack. There are a couple places we play where the cover is free or almost free ($3), and one place we play that charges $10. We fill up the place, regardless. The high cover place has music 7 nights a week and draws a crowd that comes to listen as well as carouse. Maybe that has something to do with it, I don't know.

The whole business leaves me scratching my head. People think nothing of dropping $5 at Starbucks, but they balk at paying for the band. It's funny, people will pay $100 to sit in a huge stadium and watch Taylor Swift from a quarter-mile away, mostly by looking at giant video monitors. Whereas for $5 you can walk right up to the bandleader maybe even dance with her while she sings. I think it's a much, much better experience for the money, but then I'm prejudiced.

 

[GroovyBaby]

I'm happy to pay a $5 cover for what might be a good band (assuming I don't know them). If I'm just stopping in for one drink, maybe paying a cover doesn't make sense. However, if I'm going to hang it just seems reasonable to pay a cover so that the band gets paid. I've been approached many times for nonpaying gigs because they would be "good exposure." No thanks. If the $5 cover really seems to turn too many people away from the door then raising drink prices to cover the band makes sense. It really isn't much to ask. How much are these same people paying on their cell phone?

 

[aborgman]

The whole business leaves me scratching my head. People think nothing of dropping $5 at Starbucks, but they balk at paying for the band.

1) Competition: Starbucks is providing a espresso machine coffee, and the same thing will still be $5 if you get it somewhere else. One bar wants a $5 cover to see their band, chances are the bar down the street doesn't.

2) Known entity: Starbucks is providing a known quality of coffee. That bar band may be the equivalent of the best coffee you've ever had, or it may be the equivalent of a big cup of diarrhea.

3) Priorities: By and large - people care more about that cup of coffee than a live band.

It's funny, people will pay $100 to sit in a huge stadium and watch Taylor Swift from a quarter-mile away, mostly by looking at giant video monitors. Whereas for $5 you can walk right up to the bandleader maybe even dance with her while she sings. I think it's a much, much better experience for the money, but then I'm prejudiced.

I agree - but I think it's pretty obvious from the economics of the situation that the general public does not.

 

[Steve]

I don't know why but, it is real. I probably see 20 people a night refuse to pay the cover of a wopping $2.
The staff just laughs it off. If they can't handle two bucks, nobody wants to wait on them anyway

 

[MCS4]

Has anyone figured out the weird psychology of people being cheap when it comes to seeing live music?

It's as simple as the fact that an increasing amount of people now think that "local" live music should be free. They might be happy to have music at the bar if they don't have to pay for it, but otherwise they'd rather either have a different band that is willing to play for whatever the bar will pay them without increasing prices or no live music at all.

There is a smaller subset of people who specifically enjoy going out to see live music and are happy to support the artist, but that mindset is decreasing among everyone else.

 

[BassAndReeds]

I don't know why but, it is real. I probably see 20 people a night refuse to pay the cover of a wopping $2.
The staff just laughs it off. If they can't handle two bucks, nobody wants to wait on them anyway

To piggyback on this. I imagine a cover charge is an easy way to weed out certain demographics of patrons. So, I would guess a band that works for clubs/bars that charge a $5 should appeal to the patron that can afford a $5 cover. I guess the same would be true for a $20 cover. What that is, I'm not quite sure. I'm not really a bandleader or part of an original band that has to deal with that. I live in a city. I've seen lines out the door for $20 cover charges, and no lines for $0 covers. So I don't think cover charges have much to do with audience attendance, unless of course your audience can't afford the cover charge of the bar you're courting.

 

[Steve]

I can think of about 50 things that would stop me from going into one bar or another, $2 cover ain't any of them

 

[sean_on_bass]

I can only speak for myself, but i am glad to pay a cover to see a band i am a fan of while enjoying some drinks. I however will not pay a cover to have the privilege of seeing a no name cover band hammer through tunes i mostly don't care for.

There are times and places to charge a cover, and other times you are shooting yourself in the foot. When certain places are charging a cover for certain acts, they are potentially driving away regular clientel who aren't particularly interested in the music but just want to enjoy some drinks/food.

I think when a bar doesn't charge a cover they need to know the increase in volume of sales will outweight the fee to the band. Sometimes the numbers add up and sometimes they don't. The band can also set out a tip jar to offset some of their own risk.

 

[sean_on_bass]

I have paid $200 to see a show (The Sword, in Richmond VA 2016). I was led to believe the tickets were sold out (from the venue's website), so I tracked down a pair on StubHub. Paid like $217 after taxes and everything. Easily one of my favorite bands, so I splurged.

We get to the show, and the bouncer is selling tickets at the door for $20 (!!!). I told him I was under the impression that tickets were sold out, and had to pay 200 for some online ......
The guy actually laughed at me, turned around and yelled at Kyle "Hey, I think this is your biggest fan here! He paid 200 bucks to be here!"

I felt like such an asshat of course, because I know the band got <<none>> of my money.

I live in Richmond and if this gig was at the venue i think it is i feel REALLY bad for you. Essentially a dive bar.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

It was at the Broadberry:

The Sword - Tickets - The Broadberry - Richmond, VA - September 28th, 2016


The same local bands that play in the cover charge venues play in other bars where I can see them for free, so I wait for them to play in a bar near home & go have some buffalo wings & a beer while I watch them do a few songs.
I simply will not pay a cover charge in a local bar. If they had a system where your cover pays for your first beer, then I'd be in, but they haven't thought of that or don't like the idea.

 

[sean_on_bass]

Ok not the venue i thought of but still sucks!

 

[el murdoque]

A venue I often play hosts most gigs outdoors and there's no way of charging bystanders. That's why around 2/3 of the show, two attractive girls with hats will go through the crowd (after being announced by the venue) and collect whatever people feel like giving. You'd be surprised how many twenties find their way into these hats.
Ususally, the bands are hired for a fixed sum, and quite often it is a lot more than what went into the hats, but It's a nice way for the venue to compensate. If the money does not have to come from additional drink sales alone,
They are able to hire higher priced bands.

 

[DavC]

back in the early 60's , i paid $5 a week for piano lessons ...

was my piano to practice on free .. ?? music books .. ?

and that's just the very very beginning of my costly life of music ... !

shut up and pay the cover .. !