I'm sure it did. Anything for sale, there is a sliding scale. The cheaper you pitch the price the more takers, and vice versa. It's not an unlimited scale, and if discounting, the trick is to sell at a price where the loss per item amounts to less than the extra income from extra sales.
As for the "what if", though, you'll never know, not really. You can make various comparisons etc. but ultimately there is no way of knowing how much better or worse off you actually would have been had you charged X instead of Y.
We at the Bulls are in pretty much the same position with regard to ticket prices. I suppose we work out how much income minimum we need from tickets, then set a price which we guess will raise that total, sit back and hope for the best. The problem is, we may not get the income level we wanted, but that doesn't mean the price set was wrong - it still could have been the optimum price to maximise income; as I say, there's no way of actually knowing for a fact.
What I do know is that Peter Deakin would never have done it. What they should do is think up ways that will make people think there is value in coming. If all you do is discount the tickets, then instead of bigging up your product and tryig to make it a must-see event, you're basically admitting your product was overpriced? The most profitable gigs are the ones where for whatever reason, the tickets are hot tickets, everybody wants one. It's not an exact comparison, but all Adele gigs are full, even though many in there are paying £500 or £1000 or more for tickets. That's ludicrous but if it is worth it to a punter who has a grand to part with it for that reason, then its his money. OTOH if the next evening they had Marwan Koukash singing the same set, the venue would be empty, even if tickets were free.