BBC Verify debunks Rio concert numbers

[HeAteMyh3art 811]

Also look at Obama's inauguration (1.8 mil) and tell me Gaga's concert doesn't look bigger, please 

Edited July 14 by HeAteMyh3art

[NickiMinajStan 6,725]

I know an elderly Madonna stan intern was FUMING about it, and decided to post this . Give it up delicious, 2 million f-slurs, your fave could never

[Mister G 10,419]

It was recorded in the Guinness World Record. Whoever wrote the article let alone poses the question needs to get a life. They're just bitter they themselves can't even hold the attention of 2 and a half people.

[StrawberryBlond 14,819]

There are people who have performed to bigger crowds and no one questions them, but when Gaga plays to a smaller crowd, people are debating the veracity of the claims because how could it be possible? Typical. 

[Starmie25 18,361]

How rude 

[Scarlet Witch 1,626]

“Crowd density expert” lol get a REAL job

[Reject False Icons 4,769]

Why do you take this **** so serious, it is as equally unrealiable the oficial number as the BBC debunking, whatever it was is it that serious? It’s already passed 

[monketsharona 80,261]

They also denied Madonna's numbers if it makes you all feel better 

[HeAteMyh3art 811]

This just feels targeted, of course when women in music do astronomically well they have to get targeted, it's always the same bullshit from the media. Once again I hate Madonna but you're telling me she can't even get 1 million people on a free concert on the beach? That's bogus 

[dynamite 58,550]

5 hours ago, Scarlet Witch said:

“Crowd density expert” lol get a REAL job

I'd be too embarrassed to say that's my job I'd rather tell my family I'm a ****star 

[Starmie25 18,361]

27 minutes ago, HeAteMyh3art said:

astronomically

[Lava 3,423]

Why do the British try to ruin everything. 

[GoldenNovember 441]

On 7/17/2025 at 4:16 PM, Lava said:

Why do the British try to ruin everything. 

If I had to eat British cuisine everyday, I'd also try to ruin everyone and everything around me 

Edited 16 hours ago by GoldenNovember

[AyeshaErotica 1,685]

I've always known that 2.1 million is a marketing lie that's easily disseminated because people want to believe it. And I prefer to believe mathematics and a scientific approach.

The BBC is right: if it were 2.1 million, there would have to be 15 people per square meter for an area of 0.14 km², which wasn't the case. 650,000-800,000 is the closest to scientifically verifiable reality. The people on additional streets and balconies don't increase the number by more than an additional 150,000. A scientist from the University of Sao Paulo also concluded that Lady Gaga and Madonna had between 690,000 and one million visitors, no more, and that the public figures are inflated:

https://acessepolitica.com.br/usp-aponta-exagero-e-contesta-publico-de-21-milhoes-no-show-de-lady-gaga-no-rio/

English translation in spoiler:

Spoiler

Spoiler

The estimated attendance of 2.1 million people at Lady Gaga's concert, held last Saturday (3) on Copacabana Beach, has been questioned by a researcher from the University of São Paulo (USP). According to Mariana Aldrigui, a professor and tourism specialist, the figures released by the Rio de Janeiro City Hall do not reflect the venue's physical capacity. "If we consider all these obstacles and calculate with an acceptable number of 6 people per square meter, Lady Gaga's concert should attract a maximum of 1 million people," Aldrigui told Veja magazine. Limited Capacity and Exaggerated Estimates A recent Datafolha study reinforces the professor's analysis, indicating that Copacabana can accommodate a maximum of 1.2 million people, assuming an ideal scenario, without barriers. Aldrigui points out that, at outdoor events, the numbers are often inflated: "At events in open spaces, the crowds exceed the venues' physical capacity. In Rio's particular case, no one doubted the hype surrounding New Year's Eve, even when the number reached 50% of the city's resident population confined to the sandbar between Leme and Ipanema," she noted. Technical Calculations and Real Limits According to the researcher, technical calculations indicate a usable area of 2,000 m², with 80 meters of sandbar and approximately 50 meters of sidewalk and street. With 6 people per square meter, the total would be 1.56 million people, without any allowance for unusable space. She also questions the estimate of 1.6 million people for Madonna's May 2024 concert: "The reported number of 1.6 million would be twenty times the capacity of the Maracanã stadium," she compared. For Aldrigui, a more realistic estimate for both Madonna and Lady Gaga's shows would be between 690,000 and 1 million people. Television Viewership for the Event While the official audience figures for the "Everybody in Rio" event are still being reviewed by specialized institutions, the television audience data has already been released: In São Paulo, the broadcast averaged 12 points—29% less than Madonna's show, which had 17 points; Each point is equivalent to 199,000 viewers, meaning approximately 2.4 million people watched Lady Gaga on TV in São Paulo; In Rio de Janeiro, peak audience figures reached 21 points, representing approximately 4.18 million viewers.

 

And the BBC is also right that the Rio city authorities don't provide any data, no calculations as to how they arrived at the number, nothing of the sort, nothing verifiable, just the number.

The Rio city authorities are lying to people because a larger number brings attention and free advertising for the city, which can be converted into money and they wanna have money.  So they spread unrealistic, inflated numbers. And once you start lying and overestimate Madonna's concert, you have to overestimate subsequent concerts as well and keep pushing the number for new headlines.

This topic is a prime example of the findings of psychology: if people are loyal and fans, they want to believe in what makes their idol appear the greatest, record-breaking, and are immune to scientific facts and collectively deny reality. Scientific facts are accepted if they are pleasing and fit their worldview, and if they don't, they are rejected. This topic is a prime example of the confirmation that we live in a post-factual society.

 

700,000 is already a big number to be proud of. I don't know why people feel the need to lie to themselves and insist on 2.1 million instead of finding peace with a true number, which is also great and wonderful. 650,000 is equivalent to the population of the city of Boston, which is already big. That's a Boston, an entire Boston, on the beach in Rio. In 2005, that would have been gigantic, but in 2025, that doesn't seem good enough anymore. Nowadays, everything has to be superlative: bigger, higher, better, newer, unique, clickbait and distorted facts everywhere.

It doesn't make much sense to compare Gaga's concert with Obama's inauguration.  Incidentally, Obama's figure of 1.8 million was also subsequently questioned by three experts, who estimated it at between 750,000 and 1.2 million, and considered the official number to be excessive and lacking plausible verification. The estimate proved difficult because satellite images were available, but not at the peak of the event's popularity, and the event took place at multiple locations. And likewise, many people wanted to believe the 1.8 million number and many experts probaby did not dare to dispute it because they feared to appear racist.

But in any case, no, 1.8 million didn't actually see Obama live in person, hundreds of thousands either only on screens or via loudspeakers because they were too far away from Obama. Whether that counts as "being there live" is a philosophical question. Likewise, a million Gaga and Madonna fans wouldn't actually see Madonna and Gaga, even as small objects, because they would be several hundreds of meters away, if the number would really be 1.6-2.1 million.

So Gaga had 2.1 million visitors? No.

Is 700,000 still a lot, and is it one of the biggest concerts ever? Probably yes.

[JoanneMonster 9,025]

9 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I've always known that 2.1 million is a marketing lie that's easily disseminated because people want to believe it. And I prefer to believe mathematics and a scientific approach.

The BBC is right: if it were 2.1 million, there would have to be 15 people per square meter for an area of 0.14 km², which wasn't the case. 650,000-800,000 is the closest to scientifically verifiable reality. The people on additional streets and balconies don't increase the number by more than an additional 150,000. A scientist from the University of Sao Paulo also concluded that Lady Gaga and Madonna had between 690,000 and one million visitors, no more, and that the public figures are inflated:

https://acessepolitica.com.br/usp-aponta-exagero-e-contesta-publico-de-21-milhoes-no-show-de-lady-gaga-no-rio/

English translation in spoiler:

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

The estimated attendance of 2.1 million people at Lady Gaga's concert, held last Saturday (3) on Copacabana Beach, has been questioned by a researcher from the University of São Paulo (USP). According to Mariana Aldrigui, a professor and tourism specialist, the figures released by the Rio de Janeiro City Hall do not reflect the venue's physical capacity. "If we consider all these obstacles and calculate with an acceptable number of 6 people per square meter, Lady Gaga's concert should attract a maximum of 1 million people," Aldrigui told Veja magazine. Limited Capacity and Exaggerated Estimates A recent Datafolha study reinforces the professor's analysis, indicating that Copacabana can accommodate a maximum of 1.2 million people, assuming an ideal scenario, without barriers. Aldrigui points out that, at outdoor events, the numbers are often inflated: "At events in open spaces, the crowds exceed the venues' physical capacity. In Rio's particular case, no one doubted the hype surrounding New Year's Eve, even when the number reached 50% of the city's resident population confined to the sandbar between Leme and Ipanema," she noted. Technical Calculations and Real Limits According to the researcher, technical calculations indicate a usable area of 2,000 m², with 80 meters of sandbar and approximately 50 meters of sidewalk and street. With 6 people per square meter, the total would be 1.56 million people, without any allowance for unusable space. She also questions the estimate of 1.6 million people for Madonna's May 2024 concert: "The reported number of 1.6 million would be twenty times the capacity of the Maracanã stadium," she compared. For Aldrigui, a more realistic estimate for both Madonna and Lady Gaga's shows would be between 690,000 and 1 million people. Television Viewership for the Event While the official audience figures for the "Everybody in Rio" event are still being reviewed by specialized institutions, the television audience data has already been released: In São Paulo, the broadcast averaged 12 points—29% less than Madonna's show, which had 17 points; Each point is equivalent to 199,000 viewers, meaning approximately 2.4 million people watched Lady Gaga on TV in São Paulo; In Rio de Janeiro, peak audience figures reached 21 points, representing approximately 4.18 million viewers.

 

And the BBC is also right that the Rio city authorities don't provide any data, no calculations as to how they arrived at the number, nothing of the sort, nothing verifiable, just the number.

The Rio city authorities are lying to people because a larger number brings attention and free advertising for the city, which can be converted into money and they wanna have money.  So they spread unrealistic, inflated numbers. And once you start lying and overestimate Madonna's concert, you have to overestimate subsequent concerts as well and keep pushing the number for new headlines.

This topic is a prime example of the findings of psychology: if people are loyal and fans, they want to believe in what makes their idol appear the greatest, record-breaking, and are immune to scientific facts and collectively deny reality. Scientific facts are accepted if they are pleasing and fit their worldview, and if they don't, they are rejected. This topic is a prime example of the confirmation that we live in a post-factual society.

 

700,000 is already a big number to be proud of. I don't know why people feel the need to lie to themselves and insist on 2.1 million instead of finding peace with a true number, which is also great and wonderful. 650,000 is equivalent to the population of the city of Boston, which is already big. That's a Boston, an entire Boston, on the beach in Rio. In 2005, that would have been gigantic, but in 2025, that doesn't seem good enough anymore. Nowadays, everything has to be superlative: bigger, higher, better, newer, unique, clickbait and distorted facts everywhere.

It doesn't make much sense to compare Gaga's concert with Obama's inauguration.  Incidentally, Obama's figure of 1.8 million was also subsequently questioned by three experts, who estimated it at between 750,000 and 1.2 million, and considered the official number to be excessive and lacking plausible verification. The estimate proved difficult because satellite images were available, but not at the peak of the event's popularity, and the event took place at multiple locations. And likewise, many people wanted to believe the 1.8 million number and many experts probaby did not dare to dispute it because they feared to appear racist.

But in any case, no, 1.8 million didn't actually see Obama live in person, hundreds of thousands either only on screens or via loudspeakers because they were too far away from Obama. Whether that counts as "being there live" is a philosophical question. Likewise, a million Gaga and Madonna fans wouldn't actually see Madonna and Gaga, even as small objects, because they would be several hundreds of meters away, if the number would really be 1.6-2.1 million.

So Gaga had 2.1 million visitors? No.

Is 700,000 still a lot, and is it one of the biggest concerts ever? Probably yes.

you must be fun at parties… 2.5 million that’s it no need to overthink it