3 ms·
They are actually Live Nation which before the merger was a spin off from Clear Channel. So they have all kinds of legacy venue usage rights and exclusive contr
by cmurf 11y ago
They are actually Live Nation which before the merger was a spin off from Clear Channel. So they have all kinds of legacy venue usage rights and exclusive contracts. It's so incredibly blatantly anti-competitive and yet the merger was allowed: Google, Microsoft, Intel, piles of companies were against the merger.
So it's not amazing at all. And then it's perfect for many entertainers because they can use Ticketmaster as a scapegoat for such high ticket prices and exclusivity.
- pedalpete 11y agoTo give people what the 'exclusive venue' right look like. If a venue uses ticketmaster, and breaks the contract, they can't sign with another ticket vendor for one year. That pretty much locks everybody else out of the market. Or the venue is going to have one very quiet year.
- acgourley 11y agoWhat if you sold those venues software that let them be their own vendor?
- s73v3r 11y agoIt wouldn't be anywhere as convenient as something like the online ticket vendors.
- Retric 11y agoThat's exactly the kind of thing that anti monopoly legislation prevents. So, my guess is those terms are not enforceable unless they have a specific end date. Also, TM is probably fairly lean and kicks back a lot of there margin to any of the major players.
- thwarted 11y agoIf a venue uses ticketmaster, and breaks the contract, they can't sign with another ticket vendor for one year. Can't sign with another vendor per the contract they just broke?
- pedalpete 11y agoBreaking in this sense being "does not renew" contract with Ticketmaster, the venue is not allowed to sign a contract with a new supplier for another year. They are not paying TicketMaster any longer, but they are open to a lawsuit if they sign with another vendor. It's like a one year non-compete.