[HN Gopher] Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Li...
___________________________________________________________________
Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation
Author : winstonprivacy
Score : 666 points
Date : 2024-04-16 00:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Good. Finally something being done about this venue/ticket cartel
| mtillman wrote:
| I paid $300 in fees on Sunday for two $365 tickets. Excited to
| see how this goes.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You paid nearly $1k for 2 tickets to a show? To me, you are
| part of the problem as acting as an enabler for these prices
| to be seen as acceptable.
| kimbernator wrote:
| Seems harsh to blame somebody for simply paying to do
| something they enjoy when the alternative is just not doing
| it. Blame the monopoly, not the consumer.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It takes two to tango. You're conflating this with victim
| blaming. This is a willing party willing to continue the
| cycle of the problem. For those making the decisions on
| "is it too expensive", then by definition it is not has
| stadiums continue to be filled by people participating in
| the fleecing.
|
| Someone with money can spend their money however they
| want. They can gamble it, they can snort it up their
| nose, they can invest it, they can do WTF they want. If
| what they do with the money contributes to the problem,
| then they are still part of the problem.
| orangecat wrote:
| What is the actual problem here? If someone is willing to
| pay more for a ticket than you are, by what principle
| should the venue or performer be obligated to instead
| sell it to you at a lower price?
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I think we have a duty as consumers not to reinforce
| anti-consumer behavior, when at all possible.
| kimbernator wrote:
| High prices and high profit margin are not in and of
| themselves anti-consumer, otherwise every luxury brand
| would be considered anti-consumer. If people will buy the
| tickets at the prices marked, why should they lower them?
| If they push prices high enough that the demand curve
| starts to dip, they will rationally correct for that.
|
| The only anti-consumer force at play is the monopoly
| power Live Nation is granted to dictate the price of
| tickets. There's very little that can be done via boycott
| when it comes to monopolies.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Unofficially, sure. But officially, the FTC is in charge
| of protecting consumers from abuse. I'd love to see them
| step in and regulate this space.
| mtillman wrote:
| It's not like there's another option, which is why the
| DOJ probably has a case. If you want to attend certain
| games it's a) be a season ticket holder or b) pony up to
| a monopoly.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| i would love to see a picutre of you receipt because i
| frankly dont believe you
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| I would like to see a picture too, but it wouldn't surprise
| me. The highest I've actually paid is $44.58 per ticket in
| fees. But I've seen $50 fees and not purchased.
|
| Here's a screenshot of my receipt from that one:
| https://i.imgur.com/7mesmdj.png
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Gotta love the "Delivery fee" on tickets that will be
| emailed to you.
| ajkjk wrote:
| It's a pretty standard experience?
| mtillman wrote:
| Actual prices for golden knights Playoff game 1 (check
| stubhub right now if you want a proof point):
| $407.09/ticket x2 because going alone isn't as fun, and
| $290.91 in fees. So my numbers above are a bit low from
| what I actually paid.
|
| Edit: cardinals tix were $135.91ea x2 and $100.09 in fees.
| trellos wrote:
| My only complaint is why this took so long.
| seatac76 wrote:
| Finally. Between the market dominance via Live Nation and
| Ticketmaster merge. The venue exclusivity contracts they insist
| upon. They are a grotesque monopoly.
| boringg wrote:
| Couldn't agree more - all they did was aggregate market power
| then extract grotesque rents. Truly a terrible company.
| busterarm wrote:
| They are but the DoJ is getting involved 30 years too late.
|
| They crushed all of the meaningful competition that long ago.
| Even breaking the company up into parts wouldn't suddenly fix
| the industry.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Well that's good. Antitrust action isn't meant to suddenly
| fix anything overnight.
| xp84 wrote:
| If the Live Nation one could be undone, and we could ban TM
| from operating venues and LN from selling tickets, and ban TM
| from having exclusive deals or sharing any of their "fees"
| with anyone else in any way, it'd be a start.
| choilive wrote:
| Correct, but it would give an actual market opportunity for
| new competitors.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| It will allow room for ticketing companies to actually exist
| though. Right now it's basically just livenation and a long
| tail of smaller companies, many of which got swallowed up by
| eg; eventbrite.
| xyst wrote:
| Jd was in fact involved. They green lit the merger!
| fnfjfk wrote:
| Lots of music venues in NY use an app called "DICE",
| Eventbrite is also a thing
| sofixa wrote:
| And Weezevent is quite popular in some European countries.
| Centigonal wrote:
| If they get split up, I predict we'll see everyone from AXS
| to Seatgeek to some Stanford blockchain bros with VC funding
| jumping into the market _immediately_.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Most of the venues, behind the curtain, are Live Nation owned
| too.
| xnx wrote:
| Without the Live Nation monopoly, tickets prices should stay the
| same, but the split between venue, artist, and ticket service
| should change, right?
| waveBidder wrote:
| Concivably the number of shows/tickets might increase and the
| price decrease, since setting the price above the market rate
| is one of the inefficiencies that monopolies introduce.
|
| For artists who are maxing out their # of shows and selling out
| you're right though.
| asciimov wrote:
| Everybody would be making the same, but it would be apparent
| that your favorite band is the one asking too much for tickets.
| treflop wrote:
| Probably not. The fees get split between them already.
|
| What would be nice would be having independent venues that
| aren't all selling the same canned water and ticket prices
| showing the fees.
| teeray wrote:
| The fees alone are one thing. But the fees that are _a
| percentage_ of the purchase price are quite another. That
| transforms them from fees into a tax.
| ryandvm wrote:
| That's an interesting distinction. You shouldn't be able to
| call it a "fee" if the cost that it purports to cover does not
| increase with the cost of a ticket.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| Why not? Is there a definition of "fee" that dictates this?
|
| Presumably the _average_ fee is the cost to provide the
| service (including the profit they want to make on it). So
| the more expensive tickets subsidize the cheaper ones.
| burkaman wrote:
| Actually yes, some dictionaries (like Merriam-Webster)
| define fee as "a fixed charge"
| sahila wrote:
| That doesn't preclude a "fixed percentage" in my reading.
| It could be either a fixed percentage or dollar amount.
| lesuorac wrote:
| If anybody is curious what "a fixed charge" is, an
| example given by Merriam-Webster is Taxes as well as
| Interest.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed%20charge
| lesuorac wrote:
| I don't think it's good to be calling non-government charges a
| tax.
|
| Fee or Commission works fine here. The line item for
| sellers/buyers agent isn't "tax" when you buy/sell a house
| despite it being a percentage.
| rokkitmensch wrote:
| Let's go the other way! Any of these corporate entities that
| control am entire vertical were produced by the centralizing
| logic of the US economy and legal landscape. Boeing is but
| the USG's plane manufacturing division, masquerading as a
| public company. Live Nation is the defacto ticketing
| provider. As government (created, controlled) entities, it's
| entirely reasonable to me to call this a tax.
| failuser wrote:
| Boeing is not the only airplane manufacturer in US. If you
| look how it operates, it runs the government's civil
| aviation, not the other way around. FAA has basically
| trusted Boeing to self-certify everything. It looks like
| without government interventions the only outcome is total
| monopolization.
|
| It's really funny that anti-governmental slogans of the
| ideological fights of the Cold War during which US
| Government was way more powerful than it was not got into
| the brains of so many people. As someone who grew up in
| USSR that's really funny to observe.
| rokkitmensch wrote:
| It's a cheap example, banks might have been better what
| with the obviously costly AML/KYC and bookkeeping
| requirements (not that these are bad, merely that they
| tend to centralize and concentrate actors so the fixed
| costs can be amortized more efficiently over a greater
| number of clients).
|
| Airframe certification is so costly that nobody's making
| new ones would be the counterargument re Boeing, but like
| I said they're a cheap example.
|
| More broadly, "regulatory capture" is another driver of
| the centralizing black hole at the heart of the USG.
| alexb_ wrote:
| > Fee or Commission works fine here. The line item for
| sellers/buyers agent isn't "tax" when you buy/sell a house
| despite it being a percentage.
|
| This is actually equally as cancerous - there is a reason
| realtors have one of the biggest lobbying groups in America.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Let's call it what it really is - rent
|
| They're rentseeking
| quesera wrote:
| That's not what rent-seeking means.
|
| They're just charging exorbitant fees to a customer base
| with no alternatives.
|
| Like prison phone companies.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That's not what rent-seeking means.
|
| > They're just charging exorbitant fees to a customer
| base with no alternatives.
|
| The term for that is "monopoly rent", it is a subtype of
| economic rents (which are distinct from, but overlap,
| "rents" of goods or services for a finite time as
| distinct from sales.)
|
| Actions taken in pursuit of economic rents are called
| "rent-seeking".
| quesera wrote:
| Rent-seeking is profiting from position without adding
| value.
|
| Rent-seeking is not merely pricing your product as high
| as the market will bear.
|
| Ticketmaster adds value. They just charge exorbitant
| fees.
|
| ...
|
| Edit: But OK, you can argue that their full vertical
| integration (ticketing-venue-artist management) is
| maximizing their position for the furtherance of
| increasing their fees, and that _would_ be rent-seeking.
| I don 't see it that way, but I won't argue against
| interpreting them as a coercive monopolist, which is
| close enough.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Rent-seeking is profiting from position without adding
| value.
|
| No, that's "economic rent", of which monopoly rent is an
| extensively-studied subtype. (Monopoly _is_ position.)
|
| Rent-seeking is _pursuing_ economic, including monopoly,
| rents.
| EasyMark wrote:
| How's that working out for the realtor's association these
| days with recent court decisions? I think those show that
| it's a bad idea as well. A nominal fee is one thing, but
| ticketmaster has been milking it for decades and continuously
| getting worse and worse about it.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Probably pretty well, IIUC they're "just" dropping from 6%
| to 4% for in many cases just opening a door. Hell,
| Ticketmaster is probably happy that Realtors can still
| maintain their listing monopoly.
|
| I'm not going to claim Ticketmaster is charging a "honest"
| amount but I will claim it should be called a "fee" and not
| a "tax".
| ponector wrote:
| Then tips are taxes as well?
|
| Fee is a fee, no matter it is fixed sum of percentage. Same
| with taxes - they are not always a percentage.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Tips kind of makes sense though. Cost is generally related to
| number of dishes/amount of work/level of service expected.
| It's hard to imagine how Ticketmaster does anything more for
| more expensive tickets. I mean, credit card fees would be a
| sliver of it, and I guess fraud costs could be proportional?
| eadler wrote:
| https://archive.is/VRODM
| pianoben wrote:
| Better (30 years too) late than never!
| 39896880 wrote:
| Who approved the Ticketmaster / Live Nation merger to begin with?
| makestuff wrote:
| The merger was completed in 2010, so the Obama administration.
| However, the country was coming out of the great recession and
| the last thing the administration needed was bad PR for
| "stopping a merger that would prevent people from losing their
| jobs".
| CPLX wrote:
| Your first sentence here is correct.
|
| The second sentence is ridiculous. The Obama administration
| was pro-monopolist basically across the board for eight
| straight years. The record is pretty easy to understand.
| paxys wrote:
| Yup. We are in our current predicament because the previous
| 4 or 5 administrations, whether D or R, have let
| corporations run amok with M&A and general anticompetitive
| behavior, offering only token resistance. Biden has finally
| signaled a shift in the last year or two, but it remains to
| be seen how far these actions will go (and how much
| Congress and the courts will allow).
| ryandvm wrote:
| This is because corporations are permitted to influence
| politics with money. This is an absurd predicament.
|
| The more money you allow into politics, the more politics
| becomes about money.
| gorbachev wrote:
| To be fair, TicketMaster has been pioneering anti-
| competitive practices for as long as it has existed, long
| before the merger with LiveNation.
| cdme wrote:
| It's been downhill in a lot of ways since Reagan's
| administration.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > The Obama administration was pro-monopolist basically
| across the board for eight straight years.
|
| It might be more accurate to say that rubber-stamping
| mergers maxed-out under the Obama DoJ.
| Comcast - NBCUniversal (2011) AT&T -
| T-Mobile (2011) Express Scripts - Medco
| Health Solutions (2012) Google - Motorola
| Mobility (2012) Anheuser-Busch InBev -
| Grupo Modelo (2013) US Airways - American
| Airlines (2013) Oracle - Sun Microsystems
| (2010) Comcast - Time Warner Cable (2014)
| Heinz - Kraft Foods (2015) AT&T - DirecTV
| (2015)
|
| Administrations before and after were almost-but-maybe-a-
| tiny-bit-less eager to approve competition+job killing
| mergers.
|
| What DoJs were not eager to do was push back against
| pressure from Elected Congresspeople who 1) held DoJ purse
| strings and 2) had elections that needed funding.
| paxys wrote:
| The policies were largely unchanged before and after.
| What was unique about this period was quantitative easing
| & lowering of interest rates to ~0. Companies were
| suddenly flush with cash and had nothing to do with it,
| because keeping it in the bank wasn't an option. So they
| went on a shopping spree.
| tzs wrote:
| The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile was cancelled
| after the Obama DoJ said they were opposed and filed a
| lawsuit to stop it.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| That's a good catch. It's what I get for relying on
| GPT3.5+memory -enough time to properly vet the results.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Related: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-
| documents-u... ("BIG by Matt Stoller: Explosive New Documents
| Unearthed On Live Nation/Ticketmaster")
| to11mtm wrote:
| Thanks for this, it provides a huge level of context as to how
| bad things really are and lays it out in a fairly decent way.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Much of this is voodoo accounting since Live Nation through
| intermediary own most of the venues, promoters, services,
| security, catering and so on.
|
| It's just using their vertical integration and monopoly to move
| as much money onto their books and increase ticket prices and
| margins.
|
| Shady.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| move as much money onto their books and increase ticket
| prices and margins
|
| If we assume their actions don't reduce the supply of
| shows+seats, the impact might fall only on artists and
| venues. i.e. it's possible that prices paid by fans would be
| same with or without these schemes.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Consumers care about the final ticket price. So if TM
| charges less fees the artist can just charge more face
| value until they reach the same equilibrium. Anyone that
| thinks consumers will be paying less is deluded.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Or ticket prices and fees will stay the same, and
| artists' share of fees will go up (it's not zero today).
| crabmusket wrote:
| After having read the history of Standard Oil, any time I see
| the word "rebate" I now think something shady is definitely
| going on.
| hn8305823 wrote:
| How bad do you have to be before the Gov files an antitrust suit
| these days?
|
| IE/Netscape bad or this apparently.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Biden admin has been on an antitrust tear. Most of the big tech
| companies have had cases filed against them.
| paxys wrote:
| Plenty of big corporate mergers have been blocked as well
| (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-
| as-b...)
| cdme wrote:
| Appointing Lina Khan is one of the best things he's done.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| Wake me when executives start getting double digit year
| jailtimes. Until then, I'm convinced nothing has nor will
| change.
| andjd wrote:
| One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get
| a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the
| artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to
| fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is
| willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices,
| and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they
| would in a highly competitive market for ticketing services
| because they provide that "service".
|
| Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to
| go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially.
|
| Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society.
| In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing
| transparency.
| CPLX wrote:
| They aren't just fleecing fans they're also ripping off other
| participants in the market especially competitors. Matt Stoller
| has written a lot of detail about this.
| boringg wrote:
| No way - get rid of them and there will be more competition in
| the market better pricing and maybe a less homogenous (and
| terrible) experience.
| xp84 wrote:
| Yes, it seems like in 1985 Ticketmaster and the couple of big
| competitors they gobbled up (I recall there was at least one
| other called Bass) could justify their existence decently.
| The operated brick and mortar locations where you could buy
| tickets, as well as a call center where you could call in to
| buy tickets. Today though, arguably without their many
| tentacles like Live Nation that guarantee them a cut of
| everything, they have no moat at all. Oh gee, if only we
| could figure out how to charge credit cards, show a seat map
| for you to pick your seat, and print barcodes on paper /
| email a barcode to attendees. So yes, I would expect that
| relative to verticals where things require actual ingenuity
| or skill to do a good job, it would be easy for people who
| operate venues to either just roll their own ticketing
| systems, or contract with dozens of vendors who would compete
| on their value. Of course, venue owners who are not
| themselves part of Live Naton itself could do this today, but
| the gross agreements where ticketmaster inflates fees and
| splits them with everybody in order to gain an exclusivity
| contract makes this uncommon. The whole thing is so corrupt
| and greedy it's sickening.
| EasyMark wrote:
| I would love to see them busted up into 4 or 5 companies
| btown wrote:
| An artist might want to opt out of this, though. They might
| think, and reasonably so, that the optics of having affordable
| tickets - even if they make less overall - is better for their
| brand identity and long--term benefit.
|
| That LiveNation has created a de facto system where they cannot
| opt out of their price setting is at the heart of the entire
| matter.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| Affordable tickets requires a way to combat scalping, which
| in turn butts up against freedom to resell/transfer tickets
| after purchase. It's a hard game to win whenever scarcity and
| economics are involved.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Radiohead does this, banning scalping and limiting
| prices/supply. It seems to work out pretty well with the
| fan base. May be due to the band having obsessive and
| largely left-wing fans
| tayo42 wrote:
| How did they stop scalping?
| codazoda wrote:
| They have tried a bunch of methods like demand based
| pricing, ID verification, electronic tickets, and
| lotteries. I suspect these things only work a little and
| each has its own problem side-effects.
| chefandy wrote:
| Bands with the clout and fans lined up down the block the
| day before ticket sales open (e.g. Radiohead, The Cure,
| Pearl Jam) can do these things, and I'm glad they do. For
| the vast majority of acts- even well-known ones- it's
| absolutely not an option.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think pretty much any act popular enough to headline at
| a large LiveNation venue can do this. Not even all that
| is necessary: just ID verification. Require each ticket
| to be associated with a real person's name at the time of
| purchase (and the ticketing platform should make it
| easier for people to find tickets next to or at least
| near their friends when they have to buy in separate
| orders).
|
| Tickets aren't transferable. Ticket purchasing platform
| has a marketplace where people can resell tickets to
| others if they can't attend, and sale price is capped at
| whatever they paid in the first place. (Or the ticket
| issuers can partner with something that already exists,
| like StubHub, and contractually require the price caps.)
|
| Each attendee must present their ID to enter the event.
| Names must match, no exceptions. I don't love the idea
| that you can't anonymously attend a concert (by walking
| up to the ticket counter and paying in cash, assuming any
| large venues even have box offices anymore), but I think
| the benefits of this scheme for the majority of
| purchasers far outweigh that negative.
|
| This isn't hard. It's almost as if someone in the chain
| _likes_ scalpers...
| chefandy wrote:
| Indeed, the problem would not be difficult for LiveNation
| to solve.
|
| Those acts are still the minority of things they book.
| Within maybe 30 miles of where I live, there are probably
| 15 big venues that house huge acts like that, but
| hundreds of smaller clubs, event spaces, halls, theaters,
| etc that use LiveNation. I used to work at a bouncer at a
| little rock club with like a 250 person capacity and they
| used them for ticketing.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Most venues in NYC seem to use an app called dice for
| ticket distribution. You can only resell on the app and
| only at or below the original price. Not foolproof, but
| seems to work pretty well in nyc, but in a less populated
| area might be hard if people cant sell the tickets and
| start complaining.
| freejazz wrote:
| Lol most NYC venues do not use dice.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| most of the ones I go to :shrug:
| teeray wrote:
| Robert Smith also came down hard on this, and as a
| glorious result, we saw The Cure for like $30/head last
| summer.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Combatting scalping is the easiest thing ever. Just put the
| name of the attendee on each ticket and if you want to be
| nice you can have a buyback period until a certain date
| before the show, where the venue purchases back your ticket
| if you can't go.
| lolinder wrote:
| And then what, check the ID of 50k people at the door?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Why not? They check hand bags anyway. Even if you don't
| check everybody it is a huge deterrent to scalpers if the
| buyer can not be sure that they will be allowed in.
| Imagine paying for expensive tickets, travelling a long
| distance, paying for a hotel room etc. And then you're
| not getting in to see the show.
| ysavir wrote:
| Would it have to be more or less speedy than an airport's
| TSA line?
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| The work of checking IDs is mostly done in US venues
| already, for 21+ drinking wristbands. It would have to be
| done differently, for sure, but a good portion of that
| labor is already being incurred.
|
| More likely, the venues don't have much economic
| incentive, if any, to reduce ticket reselling and
| scalping.
| pants2 wrote:
| This is what Comic Con does but it's more like 130,000
| people
| toofy wrote:
| nope, they would check like 20% to 30% of them. i've done
| work for a few non-profit performance organizations and
| this seems to be fairly effective in putting a large dent
| in reseller markets for non-transferable tickets.
|
| resellers really don't enjoy cc charge backs to pile up
| on their accounts.
| fnfjfk wrote:
| Yes? They already do this at music venues to card people
| for putting wristbands or Xs on their hands.
| quesera wrote:
| They already check IDs of every entrant.
|
| Also, in the US, your driver's license has a 2D barcode
| on the back which encodes your name.
|
| The venue ticket has a QR code or similar which could
| also encode your name.
|
| They already scan the venue ticket QR code. They could
| also scan your ID barcode, and beep differently if the
| names do not match.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. Adding an ID check to a ticket check and
| often a bag check and sometimes metal-detector wand check
| seems pretty minimal to me. Or have people scan their IDs
| themselves when they scan their tickets; pretty much
| every driver's license and state ID in the US has a
| barcode thing on the back. Of course have enough staff at
| the gates to deal with the exceptions or when things
| don't work right.
|
| Regardless, this already happens: I went to a concert at
| Chase Center last year, and they were checking everyone's
| IDs, not even just a random sampling of them. When I went
| to EDC in Vegas last year, they were checking IDs at the
| shuttle stops on the strip. I believe they were only
| doing that for age verification, but if the ID is already
| out, that can easily turn into identity verification.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Current ticketmaster tickets are electronic and often can
| be resold only on their system (depending on what the
| artist/venue has chosen as a restriction). Of course their
| system could limit the resale prices of the ticket, to the
| original price or a set percentage above it. They already
| take a bite of each resale I believe.
|
| They have already built the electronic ticketing and
| transfer system that would allow them to prevent resale of
| tickets at a profit, the system is done. They just choose
| not to use it that way (and I'd guess artists/labels/venus
| are in on this too -- what the ticketmaster system does
| make possible is for them all to take a bite of the scalped
| ticket resale price!)
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Not only does their system make it possible, they teach
| their "partners" (scalpers) how to buy and sell more
| tickets, and the fees are usually even higher on those
| secondary sales, so this is very lucrative for
| tickermaster (and the scalpers).
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ticketmaster-resellers-
| las-...
| billywhizz wrote:
| afaik, scalpers will often be selling tickets that have
| been bought speculatively in large blocks during pre-sale
| or when sale starts. this is a whole very complex side
| industry in itself, and being able to get those large
| chunks of cash up-front/early is beneficial for the
| artists/promoters/venues for lots of reasons. obv. this
| doesn't really apply to a super popular artist who is
| going to sell out on the first day, but there are very
| few artists/performers who do that.
|
| so. as mentioned above. it's a hard problem to solve. if
| you think about it purely as a market/exchange then it's
| not dissimilar to how market-makers, arbitrageurs and HFT
| systems keep the market "efficient".
|
| there's a good writeup here. https://www.404media.co/why-
| scalpers-can-get-olivia-rodrigo-...
| rcyeh wrote:
| Interesting! To translate to the language of stock and
| bond offerings:
|
| TicketMaster ~ bookrunner/sponsor; scalper ~ underwriter;
|
| The general population cannot participate in IPOs, just
| like we cannot buy primary-market tickets to popular
| shows.
| chefandy wrote:
| And this is another area they're part of the problem. Not
| only do they have a resale platform, they've also been
| caught placing tickets directly on the resale market.
|
| https://pitchfork.com/news/live-nation-admits-placing-
| concer...
| Kailhus wrote:
| You are correct, the ticket prices will be agreed between the
| promoter/venue (LN) and artist/manager via the booking
| agents.
|
| The venue, often LN, will charge a base rate then everything
| else goes on top.
|
| There are several other factors at play that lead to higher
| ticket prices which often comes down to the artist and its
| tour production being very expensive rather than pure greed
|
| More often than not the deals are worked out on a 70/30 or
| 80/20 in favour of the artist and split after breaking even
| on most mutually agreed costs (ads etc), or a bigger artist
| flat fee which is risky for them.
| flightster wrote:
| Sounds identical to health insurers. We need a new word for
| this arrangement. "Cartel" probably comes the closest but
| doesn't feel quite right.
|
| It's like a cartel but it's lead by one "extractor" (front of
| house, Ticketmaster in this case).
| voisin wrote:
| "Cartel" doesn't preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et
| al.
| flightster wrote:
| You are right, but in in his "cartel", everyone was working
| for him. Kind of a monarchy. I feel these cartels are more
| of an actual oligarchy where each player has a separate
| role that gives it power instead of just reporting up to
| Pablo.
|
| Taking the insurance example you have the "suppliers"
| (doctors, drug companies and device companies), the "venue"
| (hospital) and the "extractor" (insurer).
|
| Similarly you have the "suppliers" (musicians), the "venue"
| (the venue I guess) and the "extractor" (Live Nation and
| Ticketmaster). No obvious mapping to the record labels,
| recording studios or (biggest of all) streamers but
| hopefully some similarities are present.
|
| I feel like Escobar, the Sinaloa Cartel, etc, are much more
| top-down.
| newsclues wrote:
| I'm not so sure about Escobar, some people have suggested
| the Ochoa family was really running things behind the
| show.
| choilive wrote:
| Collusion comes to mind. A group of companies colluding
| likely has a leader.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Health insurers tend towards regional monopolies or
| duopolies.
| hedora wrote:
| Fire insurance in California is moving towards control by a
| government-mandated cartel. All the insurance companies have
| to take partial ownership of the California FAIR plan
| company, and they share in its profits.
|
| For what it's worth, they refer to themselves as a
| "syndicate".
|
| CalFAIR charges 2-3x market rate premiums (for similar houses
| in the same area insured by the companies that own CalFAIR --
| this is on top of charging more due to risk), and then
| refuses to pay out when your house is damaged, engages in
| lowballing, etc, etc.
|
| Since all the insurance companies that are "competing"
| against them own stakes in it, the moral hazard should be
| obvious. Predictably, CalFAIR's market share has been rapidly
| increasing in recent years. They're supposed to be temporary
| insurance of last resort, but they've climbed to over 3%
| market share.
|
| https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/california-insurance-
| crisi...
|
| https://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/
| voidwtf wrote:
| If I understand correctly Ticketmaster is still the one
| creating this problem, they demand exclusivity in their
| contracts which often means the venue has no choice if they
| want to participate in a large enough market to continue
| operating. Similarly artists have trouble securing large venues
| if not participating in their scheme.
|
| This is the problem with most 'monopolies', they reach a
| certain critical mass where they can no longer be dealt with on
| even footing. You are at their mercy as a vendor and as a
| customer. You can often argue that 'choice' exists, but what
| choice is it really? Taylor Swift isn't going to come play at
| our local music house/bar.
| calgoo wrote:
| Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a venue in
| each location if she wanted, so that not an issue. If Taylor
| and a few other large artists gave the middle finger to
| ticketmaster and basically created their own ticket system, i
| promise you that they would have enough pull to basically
| solve this. However, like you said, thats not in their or
| their labels interest.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| stadiums are multibillion dollar affairs that take years
| and lots of public financing. SoFi stadium was $5.5B. https
| ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_stadium...
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| SoFi was entirely privately funded, as far as I know.
| Public funding for private stadiums is less popular than
| it used to be
| TheGRS wrote:
| Just being devil's advocate since I also don't
| necessarily agree that TSwift could build a venue in
| every market, but there are plenty of large-scale events
| that use open fields and tents and aren't going to cost
| billions to setup.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's how I took it, if she wanted to rent out a field
| and import equipment, she'd still sell out, and at
| whatever price she wanted to charge.
| ysavir wrote:
| Of course, then it also falls to her and her team to
| handle permits, hiring employees for the concert (and
| this would be a one time thing for those employees?),
| training, arranging materials, foods, and anything else,
| figure out parking and transportation, manage any
| necessary insurance, and whatever else is needed.
|
| A venue is more than having a place, it's having
| everything necessary to handle an immense volume of
| people gathering, acting, and dispersing from a single
| location in a safe and orderly fashion.
| xarope wrote:
| Cirque du Soleil does this. They always setup their own
| venue on an open ground, but I think that's more for
| consistency of their layout and apparatus.
| TheGRS wrote:
| Again though, there are plenty of events that already do
| this and have people for handling logistics. And indeed
| people with temporary jobs involved.
| datascienced wrote:
| With Tay's wealth she could buy/build a stadium or two
| for sure! Maybe 10 smaller ones.
|
| But to build / buy thousands with a real estate value in
| the 100s of billions you would need something like a EFT.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _stadiums are multibillion dollar affairs that take
| years and lots of public financing_
|
| That's a 70,000-seat stadium [1][2]. Arenas (5 to 20k)
| can be built for a few hundred million [3].
|
| Unfortunately, that would mean either nosebleed ticket
| prices or rationing tickets to fans. The former would
| earn the fans' ire. The latter reduce the artist's
| revenue.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi_Stadium
|
| [2] https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
| binaries/5174...
|
| [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/business/concert-
| halls-li...
| gosub100 wrote:
| Then you'd get into lobbying, I'm sure.
|
| Ticketmaster: _oh the tragedy, our shareholders..they
| might not get as much profit! housing! think of the
| homeless! if you build this arena, it will sit dormant
| 95% of the year, this space could be used to house
| homeless, so VOTE NO! on question 45 to protect $CITY 's
| homeless!_
| brandall10 wrote:
| Just a FYI, "nosebleed" means the cheapest tickets - ie.
| the highest up/furthest away from the stage. It's a
| mountain climbing term related to suffering literal
| nosebleeds at high altitude.
| BillSaysThis wrote:
| a) She could not and b) that leaves the exclusive contracts
| TM already has in place as the barrier.
| paxys wrote:
| Yeah why does Taylor Swift not simply build multi-billion
| dollar stadiums in the middle of hundreds of cities across
| the country? Is she stupid?
| ascorbic wrote:
| They obviously don't need to be multi-billion dollar
| stadiums. They can be temporary structures or outdoor
| areas. 120k people watched Elton John on the main stage
| at Glastonbury last year, twice as many as attended most
| of the dates for the Eras tour. While not everywhere will
| have a space that's suitable for a 40-60k outdoor stage,
| a good number will.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Out of anyone, anywhere, Taylor Swift should be able to
| bring in a full stadium crowd even in the middle of
| absolutely nowhere.
| 015a wrote:
| The artists are not generally the ones who select who to
| sell tickets through; its the venues.
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a
| venue in each location if she wanted, so that not an
| issue."_
|
| ABBA actually built their own venue for their ongoing "ABBA
| Voyage" shows in London[1]. That's a residency, though. I'm
| not sure about the viability of doing it for a world tour!
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA_Voyage
| NickC25 wrote:
| I think Pearl Jam did something very similar to that IIRC
| with regards to ticketing and re-selling.
|
| It was a hit with their fans, but the problem is that only
| so many acts have the ability to do so (and as you say -
| it's actually not in their best fiscal interest, so you're
| going to self-select even further).
|
| Ticketmaster willingly plays the bad guy role, and makes a
| fuck ton of money in the process.
|
| That said, the vertical integration it has with Live Nation
| should be considered a monopoly, and trust-busted as such.
| davidgh wrote:
| To be sure, Live Nation owns and / or operates many of the
| venues. They also provide management services to artists. So
| it's not that TicketMaster demands exclusivity from the
| venue, they #are# the venue.
| oldandboring wrote:
| And in court they will probably argue that this is vertical
| integration that creates savings they pass along to the
| consumer. DOJ will likely argue they are pocketing it.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Has the DOJ ever won an argument against just vertical
| integration in the entire history of the US?
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| This is a most beautiful question. Perhaps the baby
| bells? That's about all I can think of
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The baby bells were split horizontally by region so I
| wouldn't count that.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| That was splitting one level of the vertical integration,
| really.
| chongli wrote:
| If isn't just vertical integration. It's also abuse of
| monopoly power. I'm sure the DoJ won't have any trouble
| showing how much market share TM/LN have.
|
| I think the real issue is the limited supply of tickets
| to the most popular shows. Supply and demand dictates
| that the prices for these limited goods be very high, yet
| social norms discourage artists from charging the true
| market value for their tickets (fans will rebel against
| their favourite artist for perceived greed). So TM
| provides an effective reputation-laundering service to
| the artists and collects a hefty fee for it. If the DoJ
| were to win their case and succeed in breaking up the TM
| monopoly then I bet the extra revenue would go to some
| other ticket brokers, not to the artist or into
| consumers' pockets.
| mattnewton wrote:
| It's partly this but also the artists benefit in other
| ways from large strata of their fan base being able to
| attend live shows, but merch in person and mingle with
| each other. The venue and Ticketmaster only benefit from
| the ticket sales.
| mlinhares wrote:
| Scalpers are also a source of guaranteed sales, so you're
| diluting the risk of a concert because someone is already
| buying up all seats already for you and running the risk
| of not being able to sell them at a higher price later.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| DOJ won against Paramount _et al._ in 1949. Consent
| decrees were in place for over 70 years.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/atr/paramount-decree-review
| OccamsMirror wrote:
| It is a very different world than the world of 1949.
| bradchris wrote:
| The Paramount Decrees way back in the 1940s/1950s: that's
| why Hollywood studios cannot produce movies _and_ own the
| theaters which exhibit them. It 's also similar to the
| (much more complex) reasons TV Service Providers
| (DirectTV, Spectrum, XFinity et. al) are separate from TV
| Networks, and why you don't see Disney trying to buy,
| say, DirectTV. Of course, streaming upended almost all of
| that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's also similar to the (much more complex) reasons TV
| Service Providers (DirectTV, Spectrum, XFinity et. al)
| are separate from TV Networks
|
| Tell me more about how the "TV Service Provider" Xfinity
| (a subsidiary of Comcast) is separate from the various TV
| networks run by NBC Universal, LLC (a subsidiary of
| Comcast).
| kelnos wrote:
| You seem to be correct about the studio/theater bit, but
| Comcast owns both NBC and Xfinity, so clearly that bit of
| intended separation ain't working.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| DOJ won against A&P in 1946 and again on appeal in 1949.
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473571/united-
| states-...
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2311543/united-
| states-...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Yes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
| gorlilla wrote:
| Ah yes, that one[0].
|
| [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/
| lcy7zc/a...
| inlined wrote:
| Yes, against Hollywood. Before then you could only see a
| Fox movie at a Fox theater
| tensor wrote:
| I think that exclusivities are a huge source of market
| problems in general. They are often used in these ways to
| create sorts of monopolies and drive prices artificially
| high.
|
| Beatport, a service that sells music for DJs, has started
| doing exactly this sort of nonsense. They now have
| "exclusive" tracks for twice the price, and I would guess
| that the artists also get a portion of the increased profits.
| However, for consumers the only change is less choice and
| DOUBLE the price. Seems very similar to what ticketmaster is
| doing. I have no idea if they force artists to make all their
| tracks exclusive if one is, but no doubt that is the next
| step.
|
| There has got to be a better solution here as it doesn't seem
| very reasonable to literally be doubling and tripling prices
| like this. And at the least, if an artist is going to do
| that, it should be transparent and not hidden under the guise
| of an exclusivity.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _artists have trouble securing large venues_
|
| Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-
| devoted fans. Unfortunately, if you do that, it's tough to
| become a billionaire. (Analogy: wineries. On the 4 x 4 of
| size and price point, you have wines positioned in each
| quadrant.)
|
| TicketMaster is, or more accurately its exclusivity
| requirements are, the root of the problem. But everyone
| around them--from the municipalities that publicly finance
| and permit exclusivity deals by these stadiums to the artists
| who perform at them--are profiting from and complicit in the
| market failure. (Ethically, not legally.)
| oldandboring wrote:
| > Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your
| most-devoted fans. Unfortunately, if you do that, it's
| tough to become a billionaire.
|
| If you do that, it's tough to make any money at all. If
| you're, say, Dave Matthews Band and you have 50,000 people
| who want to come to each show, and you start saying you'll
| only play to 1,000 people at a time, the economics start
| going sideways. The size of the band has to shrink and/or
| the cost per ticket has to go way up. The
| secondhand/scalper market sends tickets sky high.
|
| Ticketmaster/LiveNation allows big acts to fill big venues,
| which (despite how it may feel sometimes) actually makes
| the show available to more people at a lower price.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you 're, say, Dave Matthews Band and you have
| 50,000 people who want to come to each show, and you
| start saying you'll only play to 1,000 people at a time,
| the economics start going sideways_
|
| There are plenty of 5 to 20k-seat venues that would be
| fine.
| smrq wrote:
| I don't know about your city, but Live Nation has been
| eating those up around here. I go to these kinds of
| venues exclusively, and over the last decade have gone
| from zero shows sold through Ticketmaster to maybe 50/50.
| At least the bar shows are safe, but those economics are
| obviously not fine.
| jimbokun wrote:
| It's tough to pay your rent only playing smaller venues,
| let alone becoming a billionaire.
| philistine wrote:
| > Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your
| most-devoted fans.
|
| Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking.
| Assuming infrastructure is sufficient for each situation to
| be profitable is magical thinking.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking_
|
| The point is artists want to have their cake and eat it
| too. Any artist performing at a stadium could make a
| solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena
| while charging a similar (or lower) price. They don't
| because it's more lucrative to perform at a 70,000-seat
| stadium.
|
| LiveNation is a monopolist. But they also give many
| market participants cover to charge more without
| offending their fans.
| toast0 wrote:
| It would probably need to be a different show. Playing to
| a large stadium means you can afford more trucks and a
| bigger spectacle. If you're playing for 5,000 people,
| you've got to tone it down, or you won't make a profit.
| listenallyall wrote:
| who determines what is "a solid profit"? If an artist can
| sell 70,000 tickets, why should they limit themselves to
| 20,000? Do you work for 2/7 of your potential salary? And
| what about the 50,000 fans shut out of the show?
| EasyMark wrote:
| That's still not a reason for the government to not bust up
| their rackets. It's about time someone stepped up and did
| something. I was hoping would be state based like Texas or
| California, but I'll take action from the feds I guess.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not a reason for the government to not bust up their
| rackets_
|
| Nobody in this thread has argued against enforcement.
| kelnos wrote:
| Perhaps not, but your comment was a bit ambiguous as
| written. Telling an artist "tough luck" if they can't
| book a larger venue without TM/LN feels like saying there
| isn't really a problem to be solved here.
| TheGRS wrote:
| Yes, I think they have leveraged their power to keep the
| situation in their favor and not let a competitor come up. I
| don't really see a reason we couldn't have 4-5 ticketmaster
| type companies that still do some of the BS stuff we all
| hate. The whole thing where Ticketmaster will refuse other
| artists if your venue doesn't use them is very monopolistic.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Yeah every large venue, even if they were 100% independent,
| by default has a monopoly within some distance. And their
| management can access granular population density, income,
| etc..., data too, so they would all just price roughly the
| same modulo venue quality and expected demographic within X
| travel time. Regardless of where the artist chose to
| perform.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > they demand exclusivity in their contracts
|
| Right off the bat, exclusivity clauses shouldn't be legal,
| it's the definition of anti-competitive.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| I don't know where you live, but since this is about US
| law, this has no basis. This goes against the very 1st
| amendment of the US constitution.
|
| Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of
| speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court
| has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when
| they join with others.
|
| The only way you can take this position is IF one of the
| parties is subject to antitrust action. Which in this case,
| it is. So we have to trust antitrust!
|
| That being said, I think that is certainly valid to argue
| for antitrust action to be automatic - so enforcement is
| not wholly dependent on subjective criteria.
|
| I'd like to see what you think is viable.
| kelnos wrote:
| Your comment seems to contradict itself. Freedom of
| association is constitutionally protected... but it's ok
| to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust
| action?
|
| I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do live in
| the US, and unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are
| pretty common. What is fundamentally different between
| banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity
| clauses?
|
| Also I feel like you kinda have it backwards: an
| exclusivity clause _restricts_ someone 's freedom of
| association. While that's not automatically illegal
| (since 1A only applies to the government), exclusivity
| agreements like the ones we're talking about go against
| the spirit of the idea of freedom of association.
|
| So yes, I'm totally fine with banning exclusivity clauses
| in contracts (maybe not in all cases; I'm sure there are
| times when they might be appropriate), and I don't think
| there's really any conflict with 1A. IANAL, of course.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| >>> but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to
| anti-trust action?
|
| The 1st amendment is not absolute if there's competing
| laws against it. Which i believe is your point, or at
| least helps your argument as you will see below.
|
| >>> unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty
| common.
|
| Agreed, for the same reason that it is illegal to sell
| your body parts. This is because the illegal provisions
| (freely entered between consenting adults) would be in
| direct conflict with another established law, and the
| constitutionality of said law would have been brought up
| in front of (higher) courts to debate whether X type of
| association does not run afoul of other rights.
|
| >>> What is fundamentally different between banning non-
| compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?
|
| There's nothing fundamentally different except the former
| is now law, under the 13th amendment [1]. The latter has
| yet to do so. So you could be correct. The 13th amendment
| is a better pillar vs going strictly against the 1st
| amendment for (reasons).
|
| [1] https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/02/rebecca-
| zietlow-13...
| sofixa wrote:
| > Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom
| of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme
| Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech
| only when they join with others.
|
| Freedom of association like... an exclusivity clause?
| mcmcmc wrote:
| You know LiveNation owns TicketMaster right?
| lokar wrote:
| Villainy as a service
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Yes, but also, many of those venues ARE Ticketmaster. From the
| Ascend Ampitheatre in Nashville to the Gorge in Washington,
| Live Nation owns like 150 major and minor concert venues.
| They're often kicking back to themselves.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and
| Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as
| possible_
|
| yes, but they are in cahoots with the fans to fleece the fans.
| Fans are willing to pay big money to see these shows, that's
| who pays the high prices. If fans didn't pay the high prices,
| the prices would drop.
|
| Your comment (the word fleece) suggests you are at least
| somewhat judgmental about "greed": this type of judgment is why
| bands try to pretend that they sell the tickets for a "fair"
| price, and that's what creates the 2ndary market, and that's
| what creates the kickbacks and the need for a scapegoat.
|
| you expect to pay a high price for a Picasso at auction. You
| should expect also to pay a high price for sellout, SRO, line
| around the block shows too. Who should collect that money? fans
| who got in first? fake fans who pretended to be fans to get in
| first? People who are attracted by the arbitrage price
| differential? Or, I dunno, how about Picasso? The band.
|
| The biggest fans in football, season ticket holders who slog
| through all the bad seasons, frequently sell their superbowl
| tickets when the price gets high enough. They'd rather have the
| money, that's the nature of money, and people.
| crabmusket wrote:
| This entry in Matt Stoller's newsletter goes into a lot of
| detail on how this works:
| https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u...
|
| > It's easy to believe the worst about Live Nation, they have a
| bad reputation. But the reason I buy this particular story is
| because it is consistent with the behavior of many dominant
| middlemen firms in our economy, from pharmacy benefit managers
| to Amazon to big banks securitizing mortgages in the financial
| crisis. As monopoly scholar Kate Judge noted, such dominant
| middlemen use fees and kickbacks, hidden via a complex maze of
| subsidiaries and overlapping lines of business, to extract in
| ways that are hard to see. In Live Nation's case, it's clear
| they are generating a great deal of revenue, but somehow show
| low margins for many of their products. Hiding the price hikes
| is important, because monopolization is harder to prove that
| way.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| This is a pretty good write up. It's off the mark on one
| point.
|
| The artists aren't upset with their take. If they are it's
| because their own management has their hands deep in pockets,
| or just plain suck. Live Nation knows dam well who butters
| the bread.
|
| The history of Live Nation is that it is the decedent of bill
| graham presents. You might want to go look at the history of
| bill. There is a statement about his funeral, and it having
| the longest lines of stretched black limos in SF history.
| It's probably true. Bill made everyone money, himself
| included as a "promoter" and every penny of that came from
| fans.
|
| The music industry has been doing its own version of pay to
| win / loot boxes since the 70's. When they break up LN (if?)
| its just going to get worse as the greed is gonna just be
| right out in the open. The lesson of the last decade is that
| you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will
| make tickets non transferable and just auction them off...
| the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in
| price.
|
| It's greedy fucks all the way down.
|
| P.S. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I speak from
| having spent a few years working in the industry. Find
| someone who works in "music" like that and it's the same
| nonsense as game devs, long hours and shit money cause people
| are passionate...
| kelnos wrote:
| > _The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN
| /TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets
| non transferable and just auction them off... the new
| starting bid will be the same as the current all in price._
|
| That's fine, though, and arguably better. Right now the
| consensus among concert-goers seems to be, "man, this is
| all expensive, but looks like I'm getting screwed by
| [TicketMaster | the venue]; I bet $ARTIST thinks this sucks
| too". For artists who want to charge an arm and a leg to
| see them perform live, pricing a lot of people out, that
| ire should be directed at the artists, where it truly
| belongs.
|
| And maybe that drives some fans away, and that's what
| artists need to see happen. But I don't believe that all
| artists who play ball with LN/TM are greedy like that.
| Certainly some are, and maybe even _most_ are. But those
| who are not... well, they should be able to play in huge
| venues across the country and charge less for admission if
| they want to.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> pricing a lot of people out, that ire should be
| directed at the artists
|
| https://harrystylestour.us/vip/
|
| Chris Brown is 1000 bucks too... (you can find that link
| with ease, and the funny blow back)
|
| I know you're looking at that and thinking "these must
| not be that popular".
|
| The concert industry has been harpooning whales since the
| 90's and the internet only made it more lucrative.
|
| >> But I don't believe that all artists who play ball
| with LN/TM are greedy like that.
|
| Touring, merch, licensing... These are the ways artists
| make money. Music is basically free. Price is a function
| of popularity, no one is going to leave money on the
| table, ever.
|
| >> charge an arm and a leg to see them perform live,
| pricing a lot of people out ... be able to play in huge
| venues across the country and charge less for admission
| if they want to
|
| This is from 89, from a mid level artist at a small
| venue: https://archive.is/moWdH
|
| Sometimes the prices are so dam high that you only even
| care about half the venue and then you paper over the
| rest... It's kind of common for a large venue to just get
| asses in seats and sell beer and tshrits if they can.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| > One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often
| get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees
|
| Ya, sure, but you also have to remember that Live Nation often
| owns the venues, and manages the artists.
|
| So what you're kind of saying is "venues(Live
| Nation)/artists(also Live Nation) get a kickback of part of the
| Ticketmaster (also Live Nation) fees".
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Not artists. Venue owners, yes. Artists, no.
|
| Venue owners have a choice of ticket sellers, artists do not.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Concerts aren't a necessity. As much as Ticketmaster/LiveNation
| "fleece" fans, secondhand sellers a/k/a scalpers do it even
| more. The demand is there, if the prices were too high the
| tickets would not sell.
|
| If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't go.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| So monopolies and oligopolies are okay as long as it isn't
| for a life necessity?
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't
| go.
|
| Yep, that's what I do.
|
| What you are failing to address is the artists being harmed
| by not participating in this 'fleecing' scheme.
|
| https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-
| taki...
| bjclark wrote:
| And if you disbelieve this or want to see proof, check out Live
| Nations 10-k from 2015.
|
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000133525816...
|
| "Ticketing. Our Ticketing segment is primarily an agency
| business that sells tickets for events on behalf of our clients
| and retains a fee, or "service charge", for these services. We
| sell tickets for our events and also for third-party clients
| across multiple live event categories, providing ticketing
| services for leading arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters, music
| clubs, concert promoters, professional sports franchises and
| leagues, college sports teams, performing arts venues, museums
| and theaters. We sell tickets through websites, mobile apps,
| ticket outlets and telephone call centers. During the year
| ended December 31, 2015, we sold 69%, 21%, 7% and 3% of primary
| tickets through these channels, respectively. Our Ticketing
| segment also manages our online activities including
| enhancements to our websites and bundled product offerings.
| During 2015, our Ticketing business generated approximately
| $1.6 billion, or 22.6%, of our total revenue, which excludes
| the face value of tickets sold. Through all of our ticketing
| services, we sold 160 million tickets in 2015 on which we were
| paid fees for our services. In addition, approximately 297
| million tickets in total were sold using our Ticketmaster
| systems, through season seat packages and our venue clients'
| box offices, for which we do not receive a fee. Our ticketing
| sales are impacted by fluctuations in the availability of
| events for sale to the public, which may vary depending upon
| event scheduling by our clients. As ticket sales increase,
| related ticketing operating income generally increases as
| well."
|
| $1.6b of revenue selling 297m tickets. $5.79 per ticket. So you
| are paying $20 fees on a ticket, who do you think gets that
| money if it isn't Ticketmaster?
| deelowe wrote:
| Well something is going on. I used to go to concerts all the
| time when I was younger and they were far far cheaper than
| what they cost today even when accounting for inflation.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| 1/3 to TM, 1/3 to Artist, 1/3 to Venue.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| >Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going
| to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change
| substantially.
|
| >Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for
| society. In order for market forces to work well, you need
| pricing transparency.
|
| I agree: fair pricing is better than bullshit pricing with
| hidden fees and surcharges. It's the same with tipping at
| restaurants: it's better to just have the actual price printed
| clearly and advertised, and that's the price you pay, instead
| of advertising a lower price and then having to do mental math
| to figure out the real price at the register.
| tuututu wrote:
| Oh yeah. I remember Trent Reznor writing an angry social media
| post about this probably ten years ago, more or less explaining
| it all. Ticketmaster only sells a small portion of a show's
| tickets through their official website. Most go straight to
| "aftermarket" outlets that Ticketmaster indirectly controls,
| and artists know about this and take their share of the markup.
| jen729w wrote:
| It might have changed in the last 10 years, and it might be
| different in the USA, but in 2010 when I put on a large theatre
| production and had to use Ticketmaster, there was _no way_ a
| 'kickback' was part of the equation.
|
| Exactly the opposite, in fact. Did you know that Ticketmaster
| has _two_ fees? One is the 'outside' fee that you, the punter,
| sees. So you think I'm getting $100 and you're giving
| Ticketmaster another $10.
|
| In fact there's also an 'inside' fee that Ticketmaster charges
| me. So of that $100, they also take $10 from me.
|
| Of course for this you get all sorts of services, right? Tools
| to manage seating, allocations, reservations, price varieties,
| and so on? Nope. Not a goddamned thing.
|
| I despised having to work with them.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This is already a solved problem- look at how airline seats are
| handled.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Can you expand on this? It seems to me that a major difference
| between flight tickets and concert tickets is that when an
| airline overbooks they can switch you to a later flight.
| However, most concerts only perform once in a given city.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What is overbooking and why does it happen? From what I can
| tell, overbooking is entirely preventable and done to
| maximize profit. Just don't do that?
|
| Hotels operate in a similar fashion as well.
| kaibee wrote:
| Could sell two classes of tickets, one that is garunteed and
| one that might be overbooked. If you show up and find out
| you're overbooked you get a credit for another show (maybe
| even at some multiplier?). Basic Supply/Demand suggests that
| reducing the price means more demand, ie: more people going
| to go see shows, but would need to see it in practice to know
| for sure.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I think they are referring to the ability to resell your
| ticket.
|
| In the airline model, your ticket is tied to your identity.
| If you don't want to use it, you get a refund instead of
| selling it.
|
| You can also choose a ticketing agent instead of being forced
| to use just a single outlet.
|
| In the concert model, you (or a complex entity) buys as many
| tickets as you can get your hands on from the only seller,
| and if you don't plan on using the tickets sell them for
| multiples of what you paid via a shady network of reselling.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| No. I'm referring to the fact that I can book the same
| airline seat through dozens of companies because of the
| airline GDS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distribution_system
|
| Why not this but for concert seats?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The venue is necessarily a centralizing agent, whereas
| airlines necessarily have to use decentralized agents (or
| did when GDS was invented). The decentralizing of event
| tickets is artificial.
|
| There isn't a lot of obvious utility in allowing anyone
| in the world to buy a concert ticket (unless you _want_
| speculative resellers in your ecosystem). For people
| travelling to an event, that 's what the will-call window
| is for, and it requires a matching ID. Whereas airlines
| cannot reasonably maintain a network capable of selling a
| ticket to anyone worldwide despite their being a very
| good set of reasons for that to happen.
|
| This probably also explains why airlines allow
| independent agents, but no reselling. The original market
| (pre-internet) required it, but the airlines didn't
| really want to sacrifice their margin to speculative
| resellers (scalpers).
|
| Concerts used to be sold in a centralized way (you could
| buy tickets to a specific show at one of a few authorized
| venues, in person). This worked fine before the internet,
| since it meant that fans stood on equal footing with
| speculative resellers. If I want to scalp tickets, I have
| to go stand in the rain with the fans, and I can't buy 50
| tickets since the sellers won't sell more than a few at a
| time.
|
| Contextualized with how the different industries were
| created, we can see why GDS made sense at one point, but
| doesn't really anymore, and why it would never make sense
| for event ticketing.
| paxys wrote:
| Yeah, let's just put TSA checkpoints at the entrance of every
| concert venue. Problem solved!
| lesuorac wrote:
| Honestly, I'd rather have TSA than the normal security. At
| least then you can bring bags in.
|
| There's like 50+ lines at an event, if TSA had 50+ lines then
| the airport would be so much faster.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| No, I'm not talking about the TSA. I'm talking about how you
| can buy airline tickets through a number of different
| entities because they've cooperated on a system.
| triceratops wrote:
| I want to make a Jefferson Airplane joke here but I don't know
| how.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _This is already a solved problem- look at how airline seats
| are handled._
|
| you want to solve the problem of airline tickets, let people
| resell their tickets to other travellers.
| kevmo wrote:
| When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a
| monopoly?
|
| Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to
| stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the
| government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few
| years later?
| leereeves wrote:
| I believe it was the breakup of AT&T on Jan 1, 1982 (the result
| of a suit started in 1974).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
| mywittyname wrote:
| Which is nuts. The DoJ needs to take a battle ax to
| Ticketmaster to set an example. They need to prove that they
| are still willing and able to throw down if necessary. TM is
| a disposable target, they don't build anything critical to
| the economy or national security. They could be deleted from
| the earth and dozens of replacements would spring up in a
| week.
|
| TM is so hated that, if the DoJ goes for the jugular and
| misses, there might be appetite for Congress to re-empower
| the DoJ.
|
| Monopolies aren't just anti-consumer. They can strangle the
| country's ability to innovate and compete in a global
| marketplace.
| xp84 wrote:
| So true. I wish that we could just have corporate death
| penalty by referendum. If 85% of the voting public agrees
| your company is net bad for our society, and there is no
| national security reason to save it, nationalize it and
| liquidate it and use the proceeds to fund consumer
| protection regulation. Perhaps if shareholders stood to
| lose their entire investment by being deleted like this,
| they would find themselves hesitant to do outright evil
| things.
| crabmusket wrote:
| > Monopolies aren't just anti-consumer. They can strangle
| the country's ability to innovate and compete in a global
| marketplace.
|
| This. As a small business owner I'm much more interested in
| the effects of monopoly on industries than on consumers.
| After all, most people have jobs, right? They feel the
| effects of monopoly at work, as well as at home.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Yes this is basically correct. The lawsuits can also drag out
| for years. They can be avoided by late changes - for example
| Microsoft just removed Teams from Office bundles, and will get
| away with having caused damage to users and competitors for
| years. Congress has avoided the responsibility of passing new
| harsher antitrust legislation that simply skips the lawsuits
| and goes straight to fines.
| roblabla wrote:
| > Congress has avoided the responsibility of passing new
| harsher antitrust legislation that simply skips the lawsuits
| and goes straight to fines.
|
| How would that work? Do you have some example of proposed
| legislation around this?
| redserk wrote:
| While maybe not pertinent to Ticketmaster...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMERICA_Act
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choic
| e...
| beart wrote:
| There is a recent story where they are attempting to preempt
| the creation of a monopoly in the grocery sector.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-albertsons-m...
| xp84 wrote:
| yeah, these geniuses are really doing a good job there. last
| time they "blocked" a grocery merger, the divested stores
| were sold to basically a mom and pop operation (haggen) who
| had no idea how to run a large chain and immediately went
| bankrupt, and most of the stores either stayed empty or were
| later re-bought by the big bad merged company they were
| supposedl reining in! Wow, big win for consumers who now have
| not only fewer chains to shop at, but literally fewer stores
| too! The same will happen again. Consumers will be the only
| ones to suffer.
| jprd wrote:
| Your stance is that preventing monopolies, as required by
| law, is _bad_ for consumers?
|
| Historically, what do monopolies do when they capture a
| market is the opposite of lower prices and increase choice
| for the consumer.
| riffic wrote:
| The Bell system in the 1980s?
| treflop wrote:
| They prefer to block monopolies before happening by blocking
| mergers.
| enahs-sf wrote:
| Went to buy tickets for a show on ticketweb and saw it's now
| owned by Ticketmaster. This has been a long time coming at this
| point.
| calciphus wrote:
| Ticketweb was bought by Ticketmaster 24 years ago.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| tfw your daughters weren't able to get good tickets for the Eras
| Tour, but you're Merrick Garland :)
|
| edit: it's a joke y'all, obviously they got great tickets with
| those family and Ivy League connections
| sleepybrett wrote:
| long overdue
| maxclark wrote:
| Good
| methodical wrote:
| My horror story of Ticketmaster; I recently bought standing-room-
| only tickets on short notice (<1wk) for an event near me,
| declining the additional fee to be able to refund my tickets.
| After more discussion with the others I was going with, I bought
| seated tickets instead through SeatGeek. Understanding I declined
| the ability to refund, I attempted to sell my tickets, but their
| system kept encountering an internal error preventing me from
| selling the tickets.
|
| I reached out to support for assistance, and after several days
| of wasted time and run-around, they finally sent my issue to
| their engineering team saying they'd get back to me in 5 business
| days. Keep in mind I said I bought these tickets a week before
| the event, and they'd already wasted a few days giving me the
| run-around, functionally meaning I wouldn't be able to sell my
| tickets.
|
| I attempted to charge back the purchase since they did not
| provide what I paid for (tickets I could sell), and they fought
| me and won somehow.
|
| So thanks Ticketmaster, for sucking me out of hundreds of dollars
| for nothing more than bytes in your database that I couldn't do
| anything with. I hope they go bankrupt.
|
| For anyone who is in my shoes and hasn't used Ticketmaster yet
| and might be tempted to give them a chance thinking all of these
| horror stories are just unlucky people- don't. I was naive to
| think that all of those companies with bad reputations are just
| the loud minority but Ticketmaster is the only one I've had the
| misfortune of finding out is seriously awful. Use SeatGeek or
| countless other platforms instead. Gun to my head to use
| Ticketmaster again I'd probably take the lead instead.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _I attempted to charge back the purchase since they did not
| provide what I paid for (tickets I could sell), and they fought
| me and won somehow._
|
| This has happened to me twice now (though not with
| TicketMaster) and I was 100% in the right, and I lost. When I
| mentioned it on HN I was met with a lot of doubters. I think
| something has really changed regarding chargebacks.
| methodical wrote:
| They most definitely have some BS in the fine print about how
| they're not responsible for their awful system, as CYA for
| things like this. Truly scum of the earth.
| to11mtm wrote:
| If I had to guess, it is probably in their fine print, and
| the ability to pay for a refund would be a further
| refutation in a chargeback case.
|
| That the ticket could not be sold via their system for
| whatever reason, is not a 'simple' act, although TBH maybe
| they should write to the DOJ or whatever... given some of
| the other stuff they've been caught doing, it would not at
| all surprise me to see some `if (!ticket.HadRefundOption)
| throw` hidden in their sales system.
|
| TBH OP (Not a lawyer, not legal advice) you could always
| try small claims, they might not even show up and then you
| can collect a default judgement
| codecutter wrote:
| You may win the judgement in small claims court, but how
| will you collect? That is another dilemma.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Isn't this where the hilarious "sheriff showed up at the
| office, graciously giving them 30 minutes to cut a check
| before he started to confiscate the chairs" stories come
| from?
| PeeMcGee wrote:
| What would be the problem? I imagine it'd be
| straightforward but I'm naive about this stuff.
| toast0 wrote:
| Given that ticketmaster and live nation own venues all
| over the place, you should have somewhere for a sheriff
| to enforce a judgement.
| pixl97 wrote:
| > how they're not responsible for their awful system,
|
| Yea, this is something that has to be protected by consumer
| rights laws. Otherwise companies will be like "It's
| unfortunate we have a monopoly, but fuck off and give us
| your money. Thank You. Your case has been closed".
| op00to wrote:
| 100% chargebacks have changed in the last 2-3 years. I had a
| vendor send me the wrong part and refuse a refund. Even
| showing that they sent the wrong part despite ordering the
| correct part, my chargeback was denied.
| to11mtm wrote:
| I think a lot of banks have gotten weary of chargeback
| scams and taking the brunt of Amazon's binning practices.
|
| Frankly, I'd think it better if they just cut off those bad
| retailers from the system, which is where the failing is.
| Alas, monopolies in -that- sector as far as I know prevent
| a single bank from doing a whole lot, especially when it's
| a vendor that does so much volume that all the legitimate
| chargebacks won't risk their standing with the payment
| processors.
| ikiris wrote:
| Chargebacks are only as aggressive as the bank's
| customers are willing to enforce by leaving / suing
| against the vendor's level of customer expectation of
| service. Outside of a vocal minority, no one is going to
| want a card that doesn't work on amazon.
|
| The playing field has been rapidly shrinking, and the
| customer base is much more stressed and unwilling to
| fight.
|
| Not to mention that's also roughly around the timeframe
| that binding arbitration really got pervasive.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I'm not sure why. In many cases the merchant is charged a
| chargeback fee regardless of whether they are in the
| right or not. The bank gets paid either way.
| lolinder wrote:
| > taking the brunt of Amazon's binning practices
|
| Amazon has a lot of flaws, but I've never once had an
| issue returning an item for a full refund. I'm sure
| chargebacks are up in recent years, but I'm not sure it's
| Amazon that's to blame.
| 93po wrote:
| i think this is a reference to amazon's co-mingling of
| inventory regardless of where it came from, which results
| in businesses selling legitimate items having customers
| that get sent counterfeit goods.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| which bank if you feel free comfortable sharing?
| freedomben wrote:
| It was USAA. I don't know if this matters, but it was a
| Visa card.
|
| For the record I'm very pleased with USAA overall and I
| think quite highly of them.
| lolinder wrote:
| Subjectively, I've seen a lot more conversation on the
| internet in the last few years about people using
| chargebacks, often in contexts where it's obvious to me as an
| outside observer that they're abusing the system by doing
| chargebacks compulsively without even trying to resolve
| things with the merchant.
|
| It wouldn't surprise me if we're seeing a tragedy of the
| commons: chargebacks were easy as long as people were
| inculturated to use them as a last resort. Now that enough
| people reach for them first, banks have to look at each one
| more closely and they're going to err in the direction that
| takes less work.
| ipqk wrote:
| I think a lot of people have been abusing chargebacks (e.g.
| "I didn't like the item, so I chargedback rather than
| returning it") and they clamped down on it, and it affects us
| normal people moreso.
| nugget wrote:
| Have you considered pursuing them in small claims court?
| methodical wrote:
| As much as I'd love to stick it to them, I haven't looked
| into it at all, assuming I'd have to pay more for legal
| counsel than the tickets were worth.
| michael_michael wrote:
| Legal counsel isn't allowed in small claims courts. It's
| just a question of whether it's worth your time.
|
| edit: Ha! Here is a guide on how to sue Ticketmaster:
| https://fairshake.com/ticketmaster/how-to-sue/
| methodical wrote:
| At least where I live (Texas, United States) from what I
| saw it's allowed to have legal counsel, although it may
| be uncommon. I'll have to look into the process more and
| see if there's anything I can pursue.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Actually, I'm forgetting...
|
| Did you possibly agree to binding arbitration for all
| disputes?
|
| I can't believe I forgot -that- loophole _facepalm_
| m463 wrote:
| I vaguely recall in california you can opt-out of
| arbitration within 30 days of a contract. don't know if
| there are details or if that is still the case.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Time and potentially some filing/service costs. You may
| be able to claim some of those as well (When I almost had
| to sue for a security deposit, in that Jurisdiction I
| could get some filing fees but not service costs for
| whatever reason...)
|
| That said, if they don't show up, you'll get a default
| judgement. And if TM doesn't pay, they can have fun with
| it if there is an office nearby. A while back someone got
| a judgement against a bank, they didn't pay out. He came
| by with the sheriff and they started loading up
| chairs/etc when they hesitated to cut a check. :)
|
| Or, whatever other 'collection' action you may have to
| motion for after the fact if they don't pay.
| tzs wrote:
| > Legal counsel isn't allowed in small claims courts.
|
| That's only true in a handful of states. Most allow you
| to bring a lawyer.
|
| Small claims courts will generally have simpler and
| friendlier procedures so that even if a lawyer is allowed
| you will be fine without one in most cases.
| exclusiv wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but maybe a CLRA suit if you are in California.
| As I understand it - you may be able to get attorneys fees and
| punitive damages.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| So you didn't purchase ticket insurance, you got the tickets
| you paid for (which they can allow you to sell, at their
| discretion) and you filed a chargeback... why is that
| Ticketmaster's problem? Like it sucks, to be sure, and
| Ticketmaster is awful, but I'm not sure why that chargeback
| would be considered legit.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| If the tickets were sold as marketable (it sounds like they
| were) but were not in fact marketable, that's a problem.
|
| If they were sold as marketable pending function(situation)
| with the implication that function(situation) was not simply
| "return false" but it turns out that function(situation) was
| actually "return false," that too is a problem.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| The only relevant monopoly for a Taylor Swift concert is Taylor
| Swift. Fans would use any platform to buy to tickets for any
| venue in any city.
| viraptor wrote:
| True in theory, but because of exclusivity deals with venues,
| they can't use "any venue". Basically at the level of Taylor
| Swift, she would have to create her own arenas for this to
| work. She could well do it one day though...
| calgoo wrote:
| She is big enough to build her mega-church like venues, or
| just rent a mega church. The has way to many of those anyway,
| so some actual use might come from them. The important thing
| would be for Taylor and a few others to give the middle
| finger to live nation / ticketmaster, but like mentioned
| earlier, its not in her or her labels interest.
| sahila wrote:
| Even if it is in her interest to not deal with
| Ticketmaster, her business is performing life music. She as
| her team aren't trying to create work for themselves to
| screw TM, they want to do what they do. Imagine trying to
| set up logistics at a venue/church which has never held a
| large concert before.
| m348e912 wrote:
| Have you ever been to a mega church? They basically are a
| large concert. Not the 80,000 people kind, but of the
| size that would rival a decent percentage of touring
| acts. Lakewood church in Houston has 45,000 attendees a
| week.
|
| I think the church idea is a brilliant TM workaround,
| until they lock that up too.
| edm0nd wrote:
| TicketMaster announces ChurchMaster in the year 2027.
| vel0city wrote:
| Lakewood Church isn't a normal church building. It
| literally was multi-purpose sports arena (Compaq Center,
| hosted the Rockets, Areos, and arena football, hosted
| concerts for ZZ Top, Shakira, Kid Rock, Nelly, AC/DC,
| Metallica, Prince, Michael Jackson, and many other
| notable artists) until 2003. So its got more in common in
| its bones to a sports arena than a typical church.
|
| Also, yes, a giant ultra megachurch like Lakewood might
| get 45,000 attendees a week. That's usually split between
| a few services each of which is like 90 minutes long. So
| like maybe 18k people peak. The average Taylor Swift
| concert has 72,000 people in the stadium for several
| hours.
|
| Also, while yes a large church probably has a cafe or
| something similar, its usually not equipped to provide
| food for 70,000 people. Nor bathrooms for said 70,000
| people, as most people going to the church are once again
| only there for like 90 minutes instead of several hours.
| olliej wrote:
| Average Taylor swift concerts are 80000+, your example of
| the biggest available facility is both atypical (it was
| originally a non-church facility) and it's still smaller
| than small concerts.
|
| This is before we get to the notoriously censorious and
| fragile beliefs of the people operating those facilities.
| olliej wrote:
| Mega churches do not have anything like the capacity
| required for folk like Taylor swift, etc
|
| Not in capacity of people nor production facilities.
|
| The whole reason for this suit is that essentially the same
| outfits doing ticketing have exclusive licenses with the
| majority of facilities that can support the big acts.
| xp84 wrote:
| Of all the people to do so, I wouldn't put it past her
| motivation nor her persistence to accomplish this. If there's
| anything she seems to hate to the point of outright spite,
| it's unfairness. Look at how she re-recorded her entire
| library basically out of spite just in order to
| systematically devalue what Scooter Braun managed to (pretty
| shadily) wrest from her control. I thoroughly admire that
| level of revenge.
| Aunche wrote:
| I don't see why exclusivity deals with the venues have
| anything to do with the price customers pay though. That only
| changes how this revenue gets distributed. The price of a
| good is generally going to be the intersection between supply
| and demand. If Taylor Swift _really_ wanted to, I 'm sure she
| can negotiate with Ticketmaster and venues to cap tickets at
| $100 and take measures to prevent scalping.
| paxys wrote:
| Except there are only 3 venues in the metro area that can
| accommodate such a concert and all of them have exclusive
| contracts with Live Nation. So what are Taylor Swift and her
| fans supposed to do?
| bangaroo wrote:
| this is all well and good but i know from personal experience
| that all the secondary marketplaces (stubhub, seatgeek) are
| pushing to do this (literally lobbying the government actively)
| because it helps them more easily do their secondary market
| selling. ticketmaster is a grotesque monopoly, but the secondary
| marketplaces are worried that ticketmaster will consolidate too
| much industry control through their vertical integration and make
| it harder for them to play a role in the industry as well.
|
| the biggest problem in the industry is not necessarily
| ticketmaster; it's ticketmaster combined with the gigantic,
| largely-hidden world of ticket brokers who have an entire
| ecosystem of tools and tactics (as well as relationships with
| promoters) that allow them to buy tickets to high demand events
| with greater rates of success than real customers and then jack
| up the prices astronomically with literally no oversight.
| breaking up ticketmaster will do little to stop the insanity of
| the ever-increasing prices of tickets, nor will it make it any
| easier to get tickets to an event you want to go to. it will just
| change the balance of who is likely to screw you.
|
| all the secondary marketplaces basically sell the same inventory
| and mask that fact by pretending they don't. tons of the
| inventory that exists on them is just arbitrage (or zone)
| inventory designed to trap you into paying way more than face
| value for a seat you can't even choose. there's an entire cottage
| industry (enabled by a little-known player called ticketnetwork)
| of websites that walk a fine line of pretending to be the
| official box offices for venues trying to confuse and trap
| consumers into paying over face value for tickets. the pricing
| models on the secondary markets (and this includes ticketmaster)
| are basically designed to obfuscate the fact that they're all
| selling the same inventory and either boost the upfront cost and
| reduce fees or show you a cut-rate price for the ticket and then
| make it up with fees.
|
| i totally agree that it is a Net Good that ticketmaster does not
| control the venue, the promoter, and the primary sale of the
| ticket. making it easier for venues to shop around for ticket
| providers is a Good Thing. but without broader market regulation,
| the fundamental problem won't get any better.
|
| edit: just to explain this a little further, the fact that the
| secondary marketplaces aren't the sellers is really the thing
| that makes everything so complex. the people who control the
| prices of the tickets on the secondary marketplace aren't the big
| players (stubhub, seatgeek, etc.) but the brokers who then
| broadcast their inventory at prices _they_ set to all the
| marketplaces simultaneously. there's not really an opportunity
| for competition in this space - brokers actively collude (there's
| a big paid forum called shows on sale where they all talk about
| upcoming ticket onsales and trade presale codes and intel for
| getting tickets.) because of this, "enabling more competition"
| won't change prices past the time that the primaries sell through
| their inventory, and the brokers will always have an edge when it
| comes to gobbling that up.
| busterarm wrote:
| This needs to be seen more widely and is entirely true. I had
| friends who worked in ticket brokering and the depth and
| collusion of that market is a fascinating rabbit hole. In fact
| a lot of what happens is probably illegal.
| thrownaway561 wrote:
| about time
| calgoo wrote:
| So in my opinion, the fans suing ticketmaster should sue Taylor
| Swift for using ticket master. Then she can sue her music company
| for doing business with ticket master. its not like selling
| tickets is not a solved problem, so why are we even bothering
| with this BS and just not using another service? O the music
| labels like them because they get sweet deals? Well again, sue
| Taylor Swift and the label, not the shitty ticket sales company.
| realce wrote:
| > why are we even bothering with this BS and just not using
| another service
|
| Considering it's an antitrust suit, the answer should be self-
| evident.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think it would be easier to get some Taylor Swift fans to
| chew their own arms off than it would to get them to sue her
| for anything. I've never known a group of people that better
| fit the word "fanatic" :-)
| wvenable wrote:
| > so why are we even bothering with this BS and just not using
| another service?
|
| Because the venues are locked into exclusive contracts with
| Ticketmaster. This is why them being a monopoly is bad.
|
| Many bands in the 90s attempted to work around the system and
| they all ultimately failed.
| paxys wrote:
| While I 100% support this action, I feel like people are going to
| be disappointed to find that if/when the dust settles and Live
| Nation is reined in (big if), tickets for the Taylor Swift
| concert or the NBA finals aren't suddenly coming down to $50.
| With a growing population, people with more disposable income and
| more interest in such events in general the fundamental economy
| of live events is very different than what it was 30 years ago.
| The sticker price is usually very close to the market value of
| the ticket, and often a lot less (hence all the scalping).
| freedomben wrote:
| Yep. I despise TM and think this needs to change, but the only
| thing it's going to fix (from the consumer's perspective, not
| the artists et al) is the abysmal and abusive customer service
| (that doesn't really exist), not the high prices. The prices
| are pretty much exactly what the market will bear, and that
| will be true no matter who the middleman is.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| no they arent. the prices are significantly below market
| value which is why scalping exists. If Taylor Swift actually
| used market pricing then tickets would be thousands of
| dollars, but then people would whine that Taylor Swift is
| greedy, so instead they set some arbitrary "acceptable"
| ticket value and pawn all the blame on scalpers and
| Ticketmaster.
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes that's a fair point, although Taylor Swift is somewhat
| of an exception/corner case. Some of the huge acts do sell
| cheaper than market rate for other reasons, but most of the
| events they sell for are not.
|
| It's also worth noting that sometimes things change after
| prices have been set. For example, a baseball game in which
| tickets were sold but now there's a lot of attention/love
| suddenly and unexpectedly on the team (maybe they just
| pulled off a big upset or something) so "market rate" for
| tickets jumps much higher than what it was immediately
| before that when the tickets were sold. They weren't
| originally trying to price lower than market rate. Also the
| pricing they do for market rate is calculated to optimize
| for maximum revenue which includes some balance of selling
| max number of seats but only until the delta of additional
| sales means a net loss of revenue (i.e. you can sell every
| seat for $1 but that would make a lot less money).
| xp84 wrote:
| I think we'd still be happy enough if the ticket prices were
| disclosed up front, and if they weren't being inflated by
| everyone (artists, venues (Live Nation), and Ticketmaster) all
| working together to raise prices. If this gross company were
| smacked down hard enough, there would be meaningful competition
| possible. With TM owning most venues or having exclusive rights
| to them under contract, no serious competition is possible, so
| markets don't exist. Therefore no market pressures to correct
| excessively high prices.
| ayakang31415 wrote:
| Japan has fantastic ticketing system that has reasonable ticket
| price that is fixed, and no scalpers can buy all the tickets
| because it is a lottery system.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| So rationing? I wouldn't call that fantastic. Why should
| someone who's barely interested but willing to go for $10 more
| deserving of a seat than a super fan willing to save up to
| shell out $150 for a seat?
| drewg123 wrote:
| I spent many all-nighters in freezing cold temps in Buffalo
| NY waiting in line on a sidewalk for the ticket office to
| open in the mid 80s. It was unpleasant, but fair.
|
| I think artists should reserve a small fraction of their
| seats for "real" fans that are willing to do something like
| this. Make the tickets obtained this way non-transferable to
| prevent scalping.
|
| Heck, a "solution" to scalping would be to implement the
| above, and sell the rest of tickets via an auction, so the
| artist captures the revenue and doesn't leave room for the
| scalpers to make money.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Why should a rich fan get priority over a poor superfan?
|
| Every system has its tradeoffs.
| alkonaut wrote:
| The best systems are the points based systems where fans
| are rewarded for being fans. E.g. people who had seen all
| Chiefs games for 3 seasons would be allocated a higher
| chance of getting a Superbowl ticket. What you don't want
| is people flying in for finals and paying $10k to see just
| the final game.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| My point is that it depends what you are optimizing for.
|
| Your system is fantastic if you want to make sure that
| people who have invested the most money in the past get
| priority over those willing to pay the most for a future
| game. It still works against fans who can't afford season
| tickets. With your system a corporate lawyer that buys
| season tickets to hand out as perks to clients will get
| priority over a "true" fan who can only afford to go to
| three or four games a year.
|
| As I said, EVERY system has its tradeoffs.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yeah there is no perfect system. And money will always
| give an advantage. Compensating for that and validating
| that people not just bought 3 seasons worth of tickets
| but actually watched the games, would mean checking id:s
| (Which also has downsides).
|
| I do think the loyal fan systems with their drawbacks are
| still much better than the purely market economic
| approach. In the example of Super Bowl, the people who
| wanted to be sure to get tickets would need to have
| season tickets to _all_ teams. The only resource we are
| awarded fairly is time. Estimating how much time we
| dedicated to the team /artist is fair game.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| because theyre willing to pay more
| redserk wrote:
| I'd be willing to chill next to the barely interested person
| instead of the superfan depending on the performance.
|
| In the span of 1 comment I'm now sold on lottery rationing as
| my preferred option here.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Lotteries aren't rationing, but are similarly useful when
| supply growth is constrained and are both considered more
| fair ways of distribution that letting the price spike limit
| access to only the rich.
|
| The problem with this approach is how the price fixing that
| can be involved blocks the signal needed to tell the market
| to modify supply. When supply is meant to be fixed, this
| isn't an issue.
|
| In this particular case, the Japanese law wasn't clearly
| explained or referenced. My best guess for the reference is
| the law Japan passed before the Olympics to ban the resale of
| many tickets at more than their list price. This isn't price
| fixing so much as an anti-speculation measure. This does also
| have the effect of making a lottery needed for many tickets
| as the secondary market can't balance supply and demand.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I'm as glad as anyone else to see an abusive company get some
| scrutiny, B U T . . .
|
| Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still
| giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond?
| They are not being financially incentivized to change their ways.
| This feels a lot like the video gamer who hates Video Game
| Company XYZ with the passion of a thousand suns, yet like
| clockwork buys their video games again and again.
|
| Show tickets aren't even a necessity. They're not like food and
| water--nobody has to buy them. Each and every dollar Ticketmaster
| collects is from a fan making a voluntary purchase of a luxury.
| Purchasing _from a company that abuses them_.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they 're
| still giving them their money, so how are they supposed to
| respond?_
|
| This is why monopoly is a market failure. There isn't a market
| mechanism that can correct this.
| failuser wrote:
| Potentially, a big player with money to burn can undercut
| them, but it does not look like that's going to happen.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a big player with money to burn can undercut them_
|
| Unclear. There are limited cities that can support a
| 30,000+-seat stadium. Most of them have some already.
| Unless there is _way_ more demand for these venues than I
| realise, I 'd also guess they're close to saturation,
| _i.e._ adding another venue would result in lower
| utilisation.
|
| This natural monopoly in large concert venues creates a
| condition where winning is Pyrrhic, since it results in no
| profits for everyone playing.
| failuser wrote:
| Take losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their
| place.
| dugite-code wrote:
| I believe a big problem is many venues have either lock
| in contracts, or are outright owned by live nation
| directly or indirectly.
| kxrm wrote:
| > Potentially, a big player with money to burn can undercut
| them
|
| I guarantee you that Ticketmaster's pockets are much
| deeper. They have entrenched themselves. This romantic
| notion that consumers should strike against situations like
| this or that smaller players should find edges in are just
| not realistic to me because of the entrenchment, coercion
| and scarcity at play here.
|
| A very popular band in the 90s tried to fight Ticketmaster.
| They failed. So I just don't understand this narrative in
| the face of all the evidence that these tactics just don't
| or won't work.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/1994-pearl-jam-took-
| ticketmaster-2300...
| failuser wrote:
| I'm talking about someone like a big venture capital fund
| or a big bank. Or someone like Saudis. That's a lucrative
| field. Ironically, any company doing this will want to
| take the place of monopoly, not increase competition in
| the long run.
| kxrm wrote:
| I don't see it. There are far better investments than
| going after Ticketmaster. As soon as you enter this
| market you are fighting a giant that has a $1 Billion war
| chest not to mention very favorable venue holdings that
| they can immediately use as leverage to destroy you.
| nektro wrote:
| totally agree. I think one other angle to potentially consider
| is that, like many other things in the industry, this has an
| outsized impact on smaller artists. singers make most of their
| money through touring so fans might be more inclined to wade
| through live nation's scheming in order to support artists with
| a smaller base.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Smaller artists don't make any money. There is no long tail.
| There's no working artist. For every 1 person you are
| thinking of, in the 10k to 300k monthly listeners range,
| there are 19 who are taking money they inherited or earned
| somewhere else, and transferring it to "music," and sometimes
| that transfer winds up as surplus to their fans, and
| sometimes that transfer goes to Spotify and
| LiveNation/Ticketmaster. You could abruptly stop going to
| shows of smaller artists, and nothing would economically
| change. It's a complete fantasy. I mean, it's an attractive
| narrative, it has some arithmetic to it, but c'mon, this is
| the status quo for all non-guilded creatives: the money that
| they earn is so little, it doesn't really matter. It matters
| from the point of view of the aesthetics of being A Consumer
| Who Supports Small Artists, but it doesn't matter
| economically in any sense.
|
| Breaking up LiveNation/Ticketmaster would wreck the biggest
| artists, not little ones. Really we should be asking: What
| has Taylor Swift done for small artists? Whom has she
| featured on her tracks? Ed Sheeran, Bon Iver, Brendon Urie,
| Haim, Maren Morris... You might not have heard of Maren
| Morris, but she has millions of monthly listeners on Spotify.
|
| The problem with what the Justice Department is proposing has
| similar energy to many of their efforts in the creative
| industries: they don't know what their fucking side is. They
| think it's "consumers." Man, if only it were so simple.
| Clent wrote:
| When did seeing a live event become a luxury?
|
| Live events have been the norm throughout history.
|
| The fact that it can now be classified as a luxury speaks to
| the need for drastic change.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _When did seeing a live event become a luxury? Live events
| have been the norm throughout history_
|
| As a luxury. Put on by a Roman politician running for office,
| or as a rare treat travelling through town.
|
| Also, caveat: TicketMaster has a monopoly on ultra-large
| venues. You can see small bands and plays without ever
| touching TM.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| people somehow feel like the they have right to see a Taylor
| Swift concert for $40 but if you suggested that SuperBowl
| tickets should be $40 everyone would look at you like youre
| crazy.
|
| Seeing a live event is not a luxury. Seeing the most popular
| entertainer in the world in a giant stadium is a luxury.
| selectodude wrote:
| Sure, but the economist would say that Taylor Swift should
| have made every penny of the $300 ticket cost. Live Nation
| getting even a penny is the market failure, not the cost of
| the ticket itself.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Why would the economist say that? If Taylor swift made
| every penny, then what reason would the business that
| operates the venue have to operate?
| bombcar wrote:
| Some people would like to see _all_ the ticket money go
| to Taylor, and then _she_ pays for the venue, credit card
| fees, and such herself.
|
| As it is, those get funneled off earlier in the process,
| and people get annoyed.
| vel0city wrote:
| But why would Swift (or other artists for that matter)
| want to start their own ticket processing companies?
| They're not, they're going to want to contract that out.
| And if you're going to contract out the ticket processing
| from the get-go, _they 're_ the ones literally collecting
| the money from people buying tickets in the first place.
|
| And I really don't get your example with credit card
| fees. You're suggesting the credit card processor not
| collect the fee at the point of sale and instead send all
| the money straight to Swift's bank account and then
| expect her to turn around later and cut a check? How is
| that more efficient than just having them collect their
| fee at the point of sale? It is just shuffling money and
| complicating it unnecessarily.
|
| And once again, would most artists really even want to
| personally get involved in handling all the mechanics of
| who pays who when and how? I doubt it, they'll once again
| probably just contract that part out as well. They have a
| lot of work _they_ need to do as the performer to get
| ready for the show. So once again it 'll still just be
| some middleman they hire to do all this financial
| plumbing.
|
| I agree, it looks like there's a certain level of
| monopoly with TM/LN in this space, and it sounds like
| artists pretty much need to take the whole package or
| none of if the artist wants to play at major venues.
| Maybe allowing these things to split up and be a bit more
| competitive will reduce prices, make things better for
| the artists, or whatever. Maybe forcing these people to
| separate just creates more friction and it gets harder to
| put on a big show or ends up more expensive overall.
|
| In the end, these middlemen will continue to exist in
| some form because they _do_ provide value, especially at
| the scale of putting on a show for many tens of thousands
| of people.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's what people want, so they feel better about things.
| It's pointless and silly, because it's all fungible.
|
| _In general_ the public doesn 't like how the sausage is
| made, and if you reveal parts of the making they get
| angry about it - even if everyone involved basically
| agrees it's for the best.
|
| (Ask the random Swift fan how much the A/V company is
| paid to manage the equipment and they'll probably be off
| by an order of magnitude or more - the most famous
| example of this kind of thinking is "I can make eggs at
| home, how come a restaurant is so expensive?")
| vel0city wrote:
| Ok, so the government smashes LiveNation to bits. There's
| still going to be some contractor that gets paid to
| handle the ticketing and promoting and dealing with
| venues and what not. Its not like Taylor Swift alone is
| the one printing out the tickets, scanning them, managing
| the online marketplace for resales/transfers of digital
| tickets, dealing with venue contracts, managing
| concessions agreements, etc.
|
| Maybe TM/LN are an abusive monopoly in their current
| position. Maybe they're too integrated in the whole
| market. Sure sounds like it. But even then Swift isn't
| getting the full $300 of the ticket cost while the
| hundreds of other people involved in getting the show
| together get $0.00.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > When did seeing a live event become a luxury?
|
| It did not. Lots of live events happening all the time
| everywhere for very cheap, even free. Look around local bars
| and clubs.
|
| Probably not going to find top performers for cheap though.
| kxrm wrote:
| > Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still
| giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond?
| They are not being financially incentivized to change their
| ways.
|
| That's a monopoly. The actual product being a luxury item has
| no bearing on whether a business practice is damaging to
| consumers. If I have no other choice but to buy tickets for a
| show through TM, I can't easily avoid them to choose a better
| service.
|
| Frankly breaking up Ticket Master is something that should have
| been looked into decades ago.
| ryandrake wrote:
| You have a choice to not buy the ticket. This is like hating
| De Beers yet buying diamonds from them. Monopoly on a non-
| necessity: anyone can opt out.
|
| If they are breaking the law, the government should throw the
| book at them and yea they should have done it long ago, but
| _also_ people should stop giving money to a company they
| hate, regardless of whether they are a monopoly.
| kxrm wrote:
| > You have a choice to not buy the ticket. This is like
| hating De Beers yet buying diamonds from them. Monopoly on
| a non-necessity: anyone can opt out.
|
| I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of a
| consumer's options. Is your argument that I should have the
| fortitude and knowledge to opt out of coercive economic
| relationships? Why should I, as the consumer, bare the
| brunt of the responsibility for holding a corporation
| responsible for their misdeeds when they utilize their
| scale and volume to nullified my actions? Do I, as an
| individual, have any sway over corporate decision making
| when my fellow consumers do not have that fortitude or
| knowledge?
|
| I do not agree that every scenario of corporate abuse
| should fall on the consumer to hold the corporation
| accountable because we are on unequal footing. This is
| regardless of the product being offered. These particular
| companies are taking advantage of shell games to keep
| customers in the dark on how they are being abused. I, as a
| simple consumer, withdrawing my dollars have no weight on
| the scale.
|
| You really should read up on how Pearl Jam tried to fight
| Ticket Master in the 90s and lost popularity because they
| were effectively unable to host a show for years.
|
| If Pearl Jam wasn't able to defeat Ticket Master, I find it
| laughable that you think individual consumers have any more
| weight in this matter.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I've indeed refused to use TM since 2020 or so, due to
| their auction pricing raising good ticket prices ~400%,
| eliminating the option of paper tickets, and making it
| increasingly impossible to see a show anonymously.
|
| Know what effect it has had on them? That's right, zero. As
| consumers, we're not even gnats on an elephant's toenail in
| our ability to affect the outcome. Maybe you'd like to
| brainstorm another solution.
| newsclues wrote:
| The luxury of happiness.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean no...
|
| There is no reason to behave like we exist in a low trust
| economy for any non-essential service when these 'non-
| essential' services are a massive portion of our total GDP.
|
| Really, to follow your over libertarian line of thought it
| would be ok to say "Oreo's don't need to follow food safety
| laws because Oreo's aren't a necessity, you can buy bread and
| water". Instead we apply food safety laws to all food products
| so you don't play cancer russian roulette.
|
| And the same should go for service transactions. I shouldn't
| have to find out that the one company that seems to own all
| venues is a monopolistic bastard that will fuck you over.
| Instead I should elect a representative government that
| punishes the living fuck out of companies that try to behave
| like that so the general consumer saves massive amounts of time
| and money thereby benefiting society.
| qwertygnu wrote:
| Apologizing on behalf of exploitation is unbelievably weak.
|
| What do you like to do?
|
| Bike? What if one company controlled all bike sales and bike
| lanes, bikes costed $20,000 and you needed to pay every time
| you go on a ride?
|
| Programming? What if one company controlled all computer sales
| and internet access, they costed $50/hour to use and each
| program is another $10/hour and it costed another $200/month to
| host anything publicly?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| There are people in the comments here giving you a hard time.
|
| I agree with you. People are talking about Oreos and biking and
| shit. You know, Oreos have calories, bikes move you around the
| world. Just don't buy the fucking tickets anymore. It's that
| simple.
|
| There are a million ways to monetize. If you stop going to live
| shows music won't die. Maybe huge pop acts will.
| crabmusket wrote:
| So I should... punish the artists I like as a protest against a
| monopoly they are not responsible for?
| blahedo wrote:
| I _don 't_ buy tickets from them. I'd like to go to shows, and
| I do go to some smaller shows where I can buy tickets directly
| from the venue. But I don't support Ticketmaster. So I go to
| less shows than I like.
|
| ...does that make me more morally qualified to complain than
| other people? Why?
| throwmeaway67 wrote:
| Throw away account or i'll probably get sued. I have worked for
| both Ticketmaster and Viagogo (on the record, fuck Eric Baker!).
| I lasted 2 days at Ticketmaster and a whole morning at Viagogo
| and decided I'd be better off being unemployed. Both companies in
| the early days were out there to scam people and make as much
| money as possible by strategically ignoring claims and driving
| costs down. One is less visibly scammy than the other now and
| that's the one you're all complaining about. They know what they
| will get away with.
|
| The whole ticketing space is run by narcissistic assholes who
| should be in jail.
| xyst wrote:
| What's interesting here: 14 years ago, the US Justice Department
| green lit the merger under the assumption live nation and
| Ticketmaster would place nice
|
| > On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Justice Department approved the
| merger pending certain conditions.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_Entertainment
| EasyMark wrote:
| Probably time they should rectify that mistake, since they were
| clearly wrong about it.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I've said it before and I'll say it again: kill the secondary
| market. Live nation should be broken up but a big driver of cost
| is the scalpers/hedgers who buy out everything and put it on
| StubHub.
|
| Just make all sales final. Check IDs at the door, or use
| technology to speed up identity verification (mail out rfids,
| etc). Sucks if you get sick or whatever, just like many things in
| life where you cancel last minute. It'll substantially decrease
| cost due to these bottom feeders.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a big driver of cost is the scalpers /hedgers who buy out
| everything and put it on StubHub_
|
| Not true.
|
| About "10% of [performing arts] tickets sold in the primary
| market are later re-sold by ticket scalpers," increasing to
| "20-30% of top-tiered seats" [1]. Banning scalping increases
| attendance but results in "fewer distinct productions...shown
| in metropolitan areas or states that require ticket resellers
| to be licensed or that prohibit resale above face value."
|
| Empirically, markets with scalpers have _lower_ ticket prices
| [2], though this has been studied more in sports than the
| performing arts. Which makes sense. Scalpers _de facto_
| underwrite the seller 's risk.
|
| [1]
| https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Economics/Chi...
|
| [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/27698042
| crabmusket wrote:
| > Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices
| [2]
|
| I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the
| abstract talks about _ticket window_ prices. Do they analyse
| the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which
| includes prices paid to scalpers? Or am I misunderstanding
| the term "ticket window"?
|
| As a lay person, my gut asks: if scalpers don't cause
| attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average
| attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers?_
|
| Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the
| "weighted average of seats normally available to the
| public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.)
|
| > _if scalpers don 't cause attenders to pay more overall,
| then why do they exist?_
|
| Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the
| seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can
| absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay
| more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less.
|
| [1] https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999
| hervature wrote:
| The scalper is trading volatility (they may or may not sell
| the ticket for a higher price) for the opportunity of a
| return. The venue is getting the opposite side of the deal.
| Guaranteed income now.
| crabmusket wrote:
| But if, on average, scalpers didn't get their payout,
| then they wouldn't take the risk right? Unless scalpers
| as a class are economically irrational?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if, on average, scalpers didn 't get their payout,
| then they wouldn't take the risk_
|
| The point is they can get their pay-out while the
| venue/artist _and_ consumers win. Scalper gets paid.
| Venue and artist get stability. Consumer who buys from
| the scalper gets availability. And the other 90% of
| consumers get cheaper prices.
| crabmusket wrote:
| I see, I guess that makes sense in theory.
| matwood wrote:
| Yeah, I used to get great tickets and good prices from
| scalpers for football and basketball games. Scalpers only
| work when the demand is so far above the supply. See Taylor
| Swift. The way to kill scalpers is to do more shows, but she
| doesn't want to play to a 1/2 full stadium. She'll never do
| enough shows to completely satisfy demand which will keep
| prices high.
| crabmusket wrote:
| > Just make all sales final.
|
| Couldn't you mandate tickets must be sold back to the original
| seller if you e.g. can't make it to the event? Rather than to a
| third party?
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Or just limit the markup. Since it's all digital, they know
| the original price of the tickets.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| That's what we do here in Norway. They introduced a law
| saying you can't resell tickets for more than the original
| purchase price.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| My whole life, scalpers have always come thru when I didn't
| plan far ahead.
|
| We don't need any more surveillance, data-mining and sales,
| thank you. Your stated cure is worse than the disease.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| The Justice Department is preparing to sue Live Nation
|
| Interesting! The specific claims the department
| would allege couldn't be learned.
|
| Hmm... maybe let's wait until we see what the claims are.
| SSLy wrote:
| thank god, they're also a menace in europe.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Worth noting that in the UK at least, Live Nation have an
| effective monopoly on:
|
| - ticket sale - ticket secondary markets - they own most of the
| venues - they run the security (showsec) - they run the tour
| buses and logistics
|
| And so on. So when they raise ticket prices and claim costs are
| going up, it is their own costs.
|
| They're criminals. No more. No less.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| I used to work in this space.
|
| If the DOJ breaks up live nation the only group who gets screwed
| is the consumer. The sort of artist who is big enough to use live
| nation also wants a pay day for going on tour. They want the
| door, they want to sell their merch, they want a cut of the 20$
| beer you buy. There might be 1 or 2 artist left who dont want to
| see you gouged on the ticket but that might not even be true any
| more.
|
| Liven nation goes away. The venues are going to remain as a
| single company, the concessions are going to cost just as much.
| Ticketing might be phone/app only.
|
| Every concert will turn into an auction. Want to get in front of
| the line. Pay 100 bucks to join a fan club. Want to cut that
| line, pay a 1000' bucks for a meet and greet and decent seats.
| Other wise wait, and bid. And that bidding is going to be ugly...
|
| Fans are an interesting group of people. They tend to think with
| their heart and not with their head.... Dont believe me, we were
| selling hats and shirts at concerts long before video games. If
| you're willing to pay 5 bucks for a virtual good then 50 for a
| tshrit doesn't seem bad.
| bombcar wrote:
| As long as shows are sold out, the fan is getting screwed.
| Where else is money coming from?
|
| Actually allowing auctions for tickets might make it so they
| can make money directly and not bother ... .ahahaha I can't
| even write it.
| shae wrote:
| I think that's great, I'll be able to afford to see the small
| artists again without paying a huge amount of overhead.
| volleygman180 wrote:
| Everything you're describing is our current reality already.
| The only difference I'm noticing is that Platinum Pricing
| doesn't exist.
|
| In that case, that is a better future for consumers, because
| right now, Platinum Pricing is where we _really_ get screwed.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Even if they don't break them up, there needs to be some limits
| and regulations as this scene is getting obscene:
|
| 1. I thought scalping was illegal? Maybe that has changed, or
| maybe there's a big loophole, but most of the big ticketing
| apps have essentially legalized scalping and they even have
| conventions for their "partners" (scalpers) where they
| entertain them and teach them how to buy and sell more tickets.
| Since the ticketing apps take massive fees on each ticket, more
| secondary sales benefits the ticketing company even more.
|
| 2. If scalping is still illegal, there needs to be a limit on
| the price hike for secondary sales. Clearly, someone who bought
| 50 tickets to a concert was not planning to use them all. This
| is a scalper. Since they could create many different accounts,
| it's hard to determine who is a scalper and who isn't. Either
| way, if you can't go to the concert and you want to resell
| them, then a max increase for your time to relist the tickets
| is fair for everyone.
|
| 3. There needs to be a limit on service fees. There's no reason
| why the service fee for selling an online ticket should be $50
| PER TICKET. Sure, it's not always that high, but that's how
| high I've seen it in the past couple years. I can ship a cell
| phone across the country in 5 days for $5 and it is profitable
| for the service provider. There's no reason the efforts to
| furnish a digital ticket should cost more than that. It's
| clearly a hidden fee that is there as an additional profit
| center.
|
| 4. Not only do the ticket primary ticketing companies own the
| primary sales, they also own the secondary sales. So, for
| example, they can take a $30 fee PER TICKET on the primary
| sales and then they also get that $50 PER TICKET fee on the
| secondary sale of each same ticket. Then if that ticket gets
| sold again, they can get another $50 PER TICKET. It's
| absolutely insane.
|
| 5. Most major venues have exclusive deals with the major
| ticketing companies. So, if a large band/artist wants to play
| at a large venue and they don't want to charge their fans huge
| fees or allow scalping, they have no choice -- that venue has
| signed a deal and the artist has to use the venue's ticketing
| partner.
|
| 6. Some tickets aren't sent until just days before the event.
| If I bought tickets today, and they're charging me a $50
| digital ticket fee, those tickets should be available to me
| immediately. Again, I can ship a cell phone across the country
| in 5 days for $5, there's no reason digital tickets should be
| withheld for months when a $50 fee was paid.
|
| 7. There's no transparency. Since it's so obscene, it's time
| for transparency. At a minimum, I should be able to see how
| many tickets for each event the person I'm buying the tickets
| from has sold in the past year.
|
| I know there are more issues, these are just the ones off the
| top of my head.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Another issue: the venues, the artist, etc sometimes get a
| piece of the fees, the resale tickets, etc. The ticket seller
| should not be allowed to share revenue from anything besides
| the initial ticket sale.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| It wouldn't be hard to use some combination of auctions and
| lotteries to give everyone a legitimate chance at getting a
| ticket at a reasonable price, and extract maximum money from
| the people that have money to burn.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| This exists today... you can buy several tiers of tickets on
| Ticketmaster and the ability to even access those tickets
| depends on other status.
|
| Today we see Ticketmaster adding numerous fees and using anti-
| competitive venue and artist lock-in to avoid the industry
| having competition.
|
| I have been to over 100 concerts in the last 2 years and I
| can't say I have noticed any additional value or ease by using
| my tickets through Ticketmaster (I actually use DICE a lot
| which at least has a simple resale process for FV and shows
| full cost)
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Ticket master sucks, but it's gonna be worse.
|
| Doing onsales is pretty hard, your basically making every one
| stand in line all be it virtual.
|
| No one wants to deal with that. The current all in price is
| just going to become the "minimum bid" put down more money
| and possibly get better seats. When ever one has bids in,
| then close them and run an algorithm to distribute seats and
| start charging cards. The tech is cheaper, you cut out
| scalpers for the most part and every one makes more money.
|
| Ticketing can get worse and it probably will.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| > Ticket master sucks, but it's gonna be worse.
|
| So what makes it better? Should we be thankful for the
| current status quo?
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> So what makes it better? Should we be thankful for the
| current status quo?
|
| Taylor Swift cleared a billion dollars at the box office
| (that's tickets) she's gonna walk away with half that.
|
| There are countries with GDP's that small. Taylor Swift
| made so much money selling tickets that she could be a
| micro nation. Thats not t-shirts, that's not concessions,
| that's not kickbacks. Thats half a bill on just tickets.
|
| Look at an artist like Dave Mathews. Who went out of his
| way to have his own ticketing and merch platform (Music
| Today)... Now it is a "presale" for Citi Customers...
|
| When money fell out of the sales of physical media
| concerts, merch and licensing were the only avenues left
| to make money. When artists get big they cash out, the
| fans pay for that...
|
| I dont think the status quo is going anywhere, sadly.
| Like loot boxes and pay to win games the genie is out of
| the bottle, the only thing you can control as a consumer
| is your own spending. That might mean going to local
| shows or staying away from major artists...
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Excellent, you agree that it is bad now. The only thing
| that will make it better is non-exclusivity with venues and
| no monopoly power in ticketing systems. Then people can
| iterate and appeal to customers for their purchasing power.
|
| As I said before, no problem paying more for tickets if
| artists feel this is how they make money, but none of this
| scammy fee-based structure where I am charged 20% of my
| ticket value as a convenience fee due to getting it
| virtually (lol?)
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" The sort of artist who is big enough to use live nation
| also wants a pay day for going on tour. They want the door,
| they want to sell their merch, they want a cut of the 20$ beer
| you buy."_
|
| This is true, of course, but the rest of your claims are pretty
| speculative. Big bands were touring long before the
| TicketMaster monopoly became a thing.
|
| A competitive marketplace benefits both suppliers (ie: the
| bands) as well as consumers. Why wouldn't a band want to play
| several ticketing companies off against each other to see who
| can offer them the best deal? It's also not in a band's best
| interest to rip off their own fans: they want to keep tickets
| cheap enough to make sure that the stadiums get filled.
|
| In Europe there is a much more competitive market in the
| ticketing/events space, where LiveNation/Ticketmaster competes
| against multiple big players like Eventim, AXS, See Tickets, as
| well as innumerable secondary and resale-market ticketing
| companies like Viagogo/Stubhub, DICE, Ticketswap, etc. And
| there's certainly no shortage of big bands on tour.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> This is true, of course, but the rest of your claims are
| pretty speculative. Big bands were touring long before the
| TicketMaster monopoly became a thing.
|
| Ticketmaster is the result of consolidating all the regional
| ticking systems that existed back when printing and retail
| sales were a thing. This lawsuit is against Live Nation, that
| Ticketmaster is a part of... It's the evolution of what Bill
| Graham started. Your thinking ticket master is the problem
| but promoters are the ones maximizing value from ever aspect
| of the experience.
|
| Bill Graham made EVERYONE money, and it all came from the
| fans...
|
| >> Why wouldn't a band want to play several ticketing
| companies off against each other
|
| Ticketing is a zero sum game... You dont really need paper
| tickets or local markets. If ticket master dies ... "oh no
| were auctioning tickets now the other tech is hard" is going
| to the excuse.
|
| >> It's also not in a band's best interest to rip off their
| own fans... There are two artists who give a shit about this.
|
| I did point that out, there are a few... but there aren't
| many. The only money is in touring and licensing. There are
| lots of artists who say this, and push low "ticket prices"
| and take their cut of the "high fees". The only ones who give
| a shit: non transferable tickets. It cuts out the secondary
| market (and means they, or their promoter, can sell there
| themselves...
|
| >> In Europe there is a much more competitive market in the
| ticketing/events space... And there's certainly no shortage
| of big bands on tour.
|
| It isnt that much different. AEG is 2nd after LN/TM and owns
| O2 they also own AXS, and Eventim, independent but now into
| venues in joint deal with AEG... It's a bit of an insestuous
| circle jerk not as "free" as it appears.
|
| Europe as a market is still a region in America. Taylor Swift
| is doing as many dates in Indiana as she is in any EU city...
|
| >> secondary and resale-market ticketing companies like
| Viagogo/Stubhub, DICE, Ticketswap
|
| Here is the well known inside secret, why do shows still have
| "promoters" instead of marketing departments? Because lots of
| these secondary sales were never primary sales.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Even if I take at face value everything you put in your
| comment, what is the problem? You seem to be arguing "Popular
| artists will want to be paid what the market is willing to
| bear!!" And??? I'd rather the artists get paid than
| Ticketmaster.
|
| Besides, in my experience, I've seen that artists generally
| _don 't_ actually want this (at least solely), because they
| want their concerts to be populated by passionate fans as
| opposed to just rich fucks that tend to be more boring as
| audience members. Don't a bunch of artists have deals where
| longtime active members in their fan clubs get first access to
| tickets so that they don't have to pay more on scalper sites?
| op00to wrote:
| I just stopped going to big shows. I'll see a crappy cover band
| for a fraction of the price and have about as much fun. I think
| I've seen everyone still alive that I care to see!
| thesagan wrote:
| They may be a monopoly, but fans are willing to pay to see
| LiveNation concerts. Acts and venues go with it. I've found there
| so many other options out there for entertainment lately that I
| haven't gone to a concert in 20 years! In a way I kind of like
| what Ticketmaster is doing, I wish I could get a cut.
|
| (Seriously though, we have so many olig/monopolies I've lost
| count. Sad.)
| giobox wrote:
| When this merger was first announced over a decade ago, it became
| like mandatory teaching in Competition Law classes for Law
| students in the UK.
|
| Much of the legal community at the time was convinced there was
| no way in hell the original merger would be approved. Even at
| that time LiveNation controlled an astonishing percentage of the
| live music venue market - which when paired with ticket master's
| near total dominance of live music ticket sales... this was one
| of the seemingly simplest competition law cases in years. Then
| the deal was approved, of course.
|
| I am not surprised in the least it's finally getting anti-trust
| attention.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I remember chatting with a band in ~2005 about how monopolized
| the live music space was. Insane that that was pre-merger.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| "Live Nation's a monopoly"
|
| one of my favourite songs
|
| https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/clydelawrence/falsealarms.ht...
| resolutebat wrote:
| Here's the (2018) viewpoint of somebody who actually owns and
| operates a concert venue in SF:
|
| https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2018/01/31.html (HN
| referers banned, so cut & paste into a fresh tab)
| mattmaroon wrote:
| That's a really good article, though I can assure him TM
| doesn't sell the alcohol. Unimportant, just the only one I know
| about first hand.
| sexy_seedbox wrote:
| I remember hating ClearChannel as a teenager.
| Bloating wrote:
| just in time for an election year I'm sure its just my
| imagination, but seems like the moment tickets go on sale most of
| the good seats are being resold through an official reseller. Its
| almost like live nation might be scalping their own tickets.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Really wish they'd bring back hard tickets. Over the past 20
| years I've simply shown up at a concert or sporting event day-of
| dozens of times and managed to score good-to-great seats, often
| for very fair prices, with a success rate that I would estimate
| around 75-80%.
|
| In the past year, I've tried this a few times and there is simply
| nobody selling tickets near the venues at all.
| tzumby wrote:
| Cory Doctorow put this all into perspective so well in a podcast
| I listen to a while back
| https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/bonus-cory-doctorow-knows...
| recroad wrote:
| I'm glad to see this. I run jumpcomedy.com which provides
| ticketing/event management services for comedy shows (or pretty
| much anything but focused on comedy) and this industry is
| dominated by a few big players that charge exorbitant service
| fees which customers have no choice to pay because these are
| exclusive deals.
|
| I've gotten smaller clubs and comics to hop over, and got one big
| tour to join, but when it comes to the well-known artists, they
| are contractually bound to go with the big companies. I'm very
| happy someone is taking action.
| nojvek wrote:
| If there is a clear monopoly. It is LiveNation. Ticket master is
| robbery in daylight. Those jank fees. Oh man, they have no shame.
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| I've never cared about anything less than I care about the price
| of stadium concert tickets.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| So, a little context as to how the live events industry works,
| because it is not how most would assume.
|
| First, you have the venue. The venue has an owner. This may be
| the owner of the sports team who plays there, a company that's
| entirely unrelated to the venue, a city or other government
| entity, or whoever else. *
|
| Then you have the show you are buying a ticket for. This show may
| be a sports team, or it may be a concert or other live act. If a
| sports team it's probably got the same owner as the venue, but if
| a concert or other live act you have...
|
| Promoters. Promoters rent the venue, pay for the show (i.e. they
| pay the band their fee to come play), sell the tickets, staff all
| the parts the venue doesn't, and pocket the difference. The
| promoter takes a risk, in that if they pay Major Act $1m and
| spend $500k on marketing/the venue/staffing and nobody shows up,
| they lose $1.5m. The band and venue still get paid.
|
| The ticket platform. This platform sells the tickets for the
| event and adds their service fee. That service fee is generally
| used in part to pay the venue for the exclusive rights to sell
| tickets at the venue to the venue owner. That is both obviously
| valuable (fans can either pay your fee whatever it is or not go)
| and an obvious monopoly (if there were two ticket platforms
| selling for the same event the same seat would likely get sold
| twice sometimes).
|
| Where this gets dicey: Live Nation (which owns Ticket Master) is
| both the biggest promoter and a ticket selling platform. Both by
| far. In fact they pay for exclusive rights to more than 80% of
| large venues. Most states only have a few venues that can do
| major acts (20,000+ seats), and a major act has essentially no
| alternative but to either play Live Nation venues, or play
| smaller evenues where independent promoters will pay them smaller
| fees.
|
| Artists hate this system because it gouges their fans and
| arguably reduces their rates (there isn't a thriving market of
| promotors because most of them can't even use most big venues)
| but since Pearl Jam lost trying to break it up 30 years ago (when
| they were separate entities and TicketMaster had just as big a
| monopoly as now) they've not bothered to sue. Fans hate this
| system because they get gouged coming and going. It works well
| for Live Nation and the venues, obviously, though the venues
| still would be fine as they have very little competition. In my
| area there are two viable venues in the summer for a 25,000
| person concert and one in the winter, and we're bigger than most.
|
| Live Nation can use the vertical integration (they get both the
| promoter's share of the ticket revenue and the ticketing fee) to
| buy up most venues. And by buy up I mean either pay for exclusive
| contracts too, or just purchase outright.
|
| It's been pretty clearly in violation of anti-trust laws for
| decades. TicketMaster before the merger and the combined entity
| now. I don't know how they've gotten away with it for so long,
| and they should undo the merger they never should have allowed to
| begin with.
|
| *Unrelated but interesting: the venue also sells the rights to
| services inside the venue, like merchandise and, most
| lucratively, food and beverage. Third parties buy the rights to
| sell all of the food and drinks for very large sums. So a venue
| owner is responsible for relatively little of the work that goes
| on inside the venue. Someone else sets up the shows, pays for
| everything, sells the tickets, sells the food and drinks, etc.
| Animats wrote:
| Well, duh. This should have happened two decades ago. Nobody
| should be able to have a cross-monopoly in artists, ticketing,
| and venues.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-17 23:02 UTC)