BBC Verify debunks Rio concert numbers

[Head Empty 25,088]

10 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

The BBC is right: if it were 2.1 million, there would have to be 15 people per square meter

Maybe they're not taking into account that Gaga's monsters are, as a matter of fact, little 

[elsamars 370]

1 hour ago, JoanneMonster said:

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

What an odd response. Everything they said is true and scientific.

Refuting science is a cult behavior.

[JoanneMonster 9,028]

1 hour ago, elsamars said:

What an odd response. Everything they said is true and scientific.

Refuting science is a cult behavior.

lmao girl who cares about science here, it’s a concert, if we say 2.5 million its worse for gaga haters, thats about it. “refuting science” lmao its a stan war not a vaccine 

you are taking this too seriously no one really cares

[nATAH 48,873]

mind you, that user also said artists shouldn't own their masters so

[Addison Rae 16,635]

no bc we need the madinosaurs to start counting the individual audience members chile…

[banjosnap 365]

6 hours 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.

For this, you would have to only count feet-on-sand. That's not what we saw.

[auraa 55]

so, what's the truth? 

[BUtterfield 8 41,385]

7 hours ago, Head Empty said:

Maybe they're not taking into account that Gaga's monsters are, as a matter of fact, little 

My name… my name is Bella Hadid

[AyeshaErotica 1,704]

5 hours ago, nATAH said:

mind you, that user also said artists shouldn't own their masters so

I wrote that they should be co-owned among all parties involved, 33% for the mainstream artist/band, 33% for the producers and 33% for the record label. Not zero for the mainstream artist, and 100% for small, independent on-their-own-artists

As another user wrote, the record label makes an investment in several artists, most of whom remain unsuccessful, and the one successful one then subsidizes other, less successful artists and subsequent artists. And as I wrote, if an artist receives full rights, the likelihood of them receiving major promotion and their chance of even becoming very famous decreases. It's questionable whether Taylor would have ever achieved this level of fame if she had full rights from the start. There would be less incentive for the record label to invest in her, and she would therefore be perhaps less successful because fame largely depends on a global label to promote you.

The record label covers hotel costs, meals, and connects the artist with potential producers. You have to get in touch with them somehow. The record label provides an entire infrastructure. It pays people for makeup, for promotional strategies, for arranging radio interviews. It organizes and plans, and it connects the artist with relevant players in the music world. They send representatives to H&M, McDonald's, perfume departments, etc., and their advertising people discuss trade deals with their people. A lot happens behind the scenes. It is about covering these costs, too, from which fans benefit, too.

With reference to movies in which the actors don't have full rights either of the movies they appear in, but get credited, too

And that this is just my opinion

But this is off-topic and shouldn't be talked about here now

 

Edited July 21 by AyeshaErotica

[Monsta217 218]

13 hours 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.

 

I dont care if its 700k, 2 million, or 10 million, Im fine with either as long as its the truth and its handled fairly across all artists who have had concerts in Copacabana but that is not what is happening here.

What bothers me here is that Copacabana has 5 out of the top 10 most attended concerts in history, and which is the first one to get questioned? Which one has the BBC hire an expert to debunk its numbers? Where were they when Madonna was there? In NO other concert has there ever been someone going "hmm, I wonder if thats true, lets hire an expert to check it out"..

If the article was about all of the concerts there being inflated, I would be fine with it because it doesn't change what it means for Gaga. But targeting it towards her is not respectable journalism. The video and article don't even mention any previous concert, its all about Gaga's.

If Madonna had 600k, Gaga had 800k and Rod Stewart had 1 million, it makes no difference to the numbers we have now. Gaga would still have the solo female record and noone could question it. But only mentioning hers, puts HER reputation on the line.

Edited July 21 by Monsta217

[Scarlet Witch 1,632]

13 hours 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.

Girl be quiet

[nATAH 48,873]

6 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I wrote that they should be co-owned among all parties involved, 33% for the mainstream artist/band, 33% for the producers and 33% for the record label. Not zero for the mainstream artist, and 100% for small, independent on-their-own-artists

As another user wrote, the record label makes an investment in several artists, most of whom remain unsuccessful, and the one successful one then subsidizes other, less successful artists and subsequent artists. And as I wrote, if an artist receives full rights, the likelihood of them receiving major promotion and their chance of even becoming very famous decreases. It's questionable whether Taylor would have ever achieved this level of fame if she had full rights from the start. There would be less incentive for the record label to invest in her, and she would therefore be perhaps less successful because fame largely depends on a global label to promote you.

The record label covers hotel costs, meals, and connects the artist with potential producers. You have to get in touch with them somehow. The record label provides an entire infrastructure. It pays people for makeup, for promotional strategies, for arranging radio interviews. It organizes and plans, and it connects the artist with relevant players in the music world. They send representatives to H&M, McDonald's, perfume departments, etc., and their advertising people discuss trade deals with their people. A lot happens behind the scenes. It is about covering these costs, too, from which fans benefit, too.

With reference to movies in which the actors don't have full rights either of the movies they appear in, but get credited, too

And that this is just my opinion

But this is off-topic and shouldn't be talked about here now

 

[AyeshaErotica 1,704]

10 hours ago, Monsta217 said:

I dont care if its 700k, 2 million, or 10 million, Im fine with either as long as its the truth and its handled fairly across all artists who have had concerts in Copacabana but that is not what is happening here.

What bothers me here is that Copacabana has 5 out of the top 10 most attended concerts in history, and which is the first one to get questioned? Which one has the BBC hire an expert to debunk its numbers? Where were they when Madonna was there? In NO other concert has there ever been someone going "hmm, I wonder if thats true, lets hire an expert to check it out"..

If the article was about all of the concerts there being inflated, I would be fine with it because it doesn't change what it means for Gaga. But targeting it towards her is not respectable journalism. The video and article don't even mention any previous concert, its all about Gaga's.

If Madonna had 600k, Gaga had 800k and Rod Stewart had 1 million, it makes no difference to the numbers we have now. Gaga would still have the solo female record and noone could question it. But only mentioning hers, puts HER reputation on the line.

The researcher from Sao Paolo University linked in my post has done it for both Madonna and Gaga and noticed a general trend towards inflated numbers in outdoor events [in Rio de Janeiro].

Other concerts have also been questioned, but by other sources, by sources that don't check every single open-air concert. Everything is somehow arbitrary in this world.

BBC is left-wing, so is its ideological ally Lady Gaga. This is not Fox News casting shade on Biden's inauguration numbers for ideological reasons. There is no reason to assume BBC would have an anti-Gaga bias. They reacted to a reader request and the discrepancy between Gaga's number and her real number is particularly striking and higher than other artists in total numbers and of course this arouses the biggest suspicion, while I don't deny that other numbers arouse big suspicion, too.

Why are you mad at BBC and not mad at the Rio authorities for spreading fake numbers in first place? This is the fault of the Rio authorities, not BBC.