Yes, but that represents a very small minority of artists. Most lose a lot of money or break even if they're lucky. Check out this article by Pomplamoose, who are a relatively successful band.

https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-...

I find this to be a good examination article regarding the now infamous Pomplamoose tour breakdown:

http://www.artistempathy.com/blog/the-pomplamoose-problem-ar...

I think that doing only 24 tour dates as a mid-popularity group, while not exactly managing costs well, to be an obvious setup to lose money. If they want to treat it like a business, they're doing a terrible job of running a business.

No, a terrible job of running a business is what Amanda Palmer did by trying to pay musicians in beer. I'm not a Pomplamoose fan or advocate, but they capitalized better than most could hope for - you know, like The Rembrants? I think you're arguing from a highly biased outlook in that you cite 1% of artists which cater to a monied audience (teenagers dependent on parents, Baby Boomers who have achieved success to afford $50-250 tickets) specifically to discount the realistic percentage that 80% of artists who make any money doing music don't actually make a living doing it.

> while not exactly managing costs well

In what way did they not manage costs well? Even if they pick up 10% across the board, they're still not making money.

Per diem of $20. Not per meal--per day--$20 for 3 meals.

$5K for insurance--we paid that for a group with WAY less liability.

$125 per day for hotel room. Okay, that's about the only thing that might be a little high. But you aren't going to find much under $80 that isn't a dump--and you're packing 2 people per room. Even if that line item is 50% high, they're still not making money.

There is very little I would call fat on this breakdown.