From my quick look at the source, this headline is just plain wrong. They simply multiply concert attendance by ticket price and call that Swift’s earnings. I’m assuming that other people need to be paid from those sales- like, I dunno, the production team, the dancers, the suppliers of staging, the ticket distributor, the cleanup crew, the people who make the lunch for the crew, the people who supply the ingredients for the lunch, the people who co-ordinate the vehicles that deliver the ingredients, the website design team, the stadiums themselves…
Without weighing in on the subject of TS being a billionaire, it’s just a terribly written article. Essentially just repeats the same phrases over and over about a handful of different states.
Also, where the fuck did they get an average lifespan of 47.9 years???
> residents would still need to work a whopping 215 years, or 4.59 lifetimes…
215 / 4.59 = 47.98
My mistake. It didn’t click for me that the article is talking about working years, not lifespan. Still a shittily written article.
Believe it or not, you don’t work your whole life. If you start working at 19 and work until retirement age(67) that’s 48 years
It’s probably LLM (“AI”) generated. As we all are probably aware now, it’s anything but intelligent. It just says bullshit confidently. The average lifespan number probably comes from some third world countries wiki page or something, but it doesn’t understand context and just uses pattern matching to fill in the next expected word. It doesn’t know what the information came from or how to apply it to other information.
Ticketmaster takes something like half straight off the top. Then there’s a separate venue owner much of the time, concessions, technical staff, security, medical, and finally Swift’s staff who build the stage and maintain her equipment, any other talent on stage and then, the last person to get paid is Taylor Swift.
It does specifically say revenue of a single show. Which as far as I’m concerned would include all ticket sales even if the proceeds from those sales don’t entirely go to Taylor. Though I do agree the headline is a bit disingenuous. If I’m being generous I’d say they’re referring to Taylor Swift the money making apparatus and less so Taylor Swift the person.
They repeatedly say “Taylor Swift earns”. If they were concerned at all about presenting information properly, they would say “gross income from a Taylor Swift concert”. It’s outrage clickbait, through and through. While I agree that Swift makes an outrageous amount of money, that outrage should be based on fact, not hyperbole.
