3 ms·

I'm confused, so like an artist would be paying 80% of his potential revenue ($100 vs. $500) in return for reputation shield? That's how valuable this service i

I'm confused, so like an artist would be paying 80% of his potential revenue ($100 vs. $500) in return for reputation shield? That's how valuable this service is?

taurath 8y ago
On a $50 ticket there is usually $20 in added “Ticketmaster” fees that go to the promoter and artist. That 40% increase is what Ticketmaster protects - the scalping sites mostly make money for scalpers, and also to unscrupulous venues who hoard tickets.
kbenson 8y ago
Artists' reputations may take a hit if they price their tickets overly high, as it's seen as gouging fans. Instead, Ticketmaster charged multiple hidden fees for each ticket, often including a venue fee, service fees, and other interestingly named fees that are different based on the event, venue, and tour (although all events in some tours might have a similar fee, some some venues might have a similar priced venue fee across all events...). Some of these are collected and go right back to the artist, promoter and venue. Fans are unhappy about this, but they place the blame on Ticketmaster, not the artist or venue. This is the reputation shield Ticketmaster offers. They take the blame for higher prices while passing a lot of those fees back to the artist and venue. They take a cut for processing the order, and probably a higher than normal cut for taking the negative PR, but both Ticketmaster and the artists and venues make more money in the end.
- stephenhuey 8y ago
  Yes, I recall hearing this reputation shielding explained on Freakonomics: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-screwed/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-scr...
- joshfraser 8y ago
  The kickbacks go mostly to the venues who then write Ticketmaster into their contracts, making it really hard for artists to find somewhere to play without Ticketmaster being the manditory ticketing provider.
neves 8y ago
Imagine if you charge 10 times more a fan from a rich city than the fan of other cities? They would feel discriminated.
- sombremesa 8y ago
  You should check out how much tickets to the Taj Mahal cost based on where you're from.
adrianmonk 8y ago
Is it possible that charging fair market value would torpedo a performer's reputation so badly that they can't sell tickets at all anymore? The industry is very competitive, so maybe they're afraid fans would abandon them for some other performer? If so, then 20% of something is better than 100% (or any percentage) of nothing. Or maybe they are looking at the total revenue picture, of which concert ticket sales are only one part, the others being record sales, private shows (at corporate events), TV appearances, and springboarding from musician into other entertainment roles like acting. Losing some money in one area out of all those might be cheap insurance to protect the others.

I'm confused, so like an artist would be paying 80% of his potential revenue ($100 vs. $500) in return for reputation shield? That's how valuable this service is?

taurath 8y ago

On a $50 ticket there is usually $20 in added “Ticketmaster” fees that go to the promoter and artist. That 40% increase is what Ticketmaster protects - the scalping sites mostly make money for scalpers, and also to unscrupulous venues who hoard tickets.

kbenson 8y ago

Artists' reputations may take a hit if they price their tickets overly high, as it's seen as gouging fans. Instead, Ticketmaster charged multiple hidden fees for each ticket, often including a venue fee, service fees, and other interestingly named fees that are different based on the event, venue, and tour (although all events in some tours might have a similar fee, some some venues might have a similar priced venue fee across all events...). Some of these are collected and go right back to the artist, promoter and venue. Fans are unhappy about this, but they place the blame on Ticketmaster, not the artist or venue. This is the reputation shield Ticketmaster offers. They take the blame for higher prices while passing a lot of those fees back to the artist and venue. They take a cut for processing the order, and probably a higher than normal cut for taking the negative PR, but both Ticketmaster and the artists and venues make more money in the end.

stephenhuey 8y ago
Yes, I recall hearing this reputation shielding explained on Freakonomics: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-screwed/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-scr...
joshfraser 8y ago
The kickbacks go mostly to the venues who then write Ticketmaster into their contracts, making it really hard for artists to find somewhere to play without Ticketmaster being the manditory ticketing provider.

neves 8y ago

Imagine if you charge 10 times more a fan from a rich city than the fan of other cities? They would feel discriminated.

sombremesa 8y ago
You should check out how much tickets to the Taj Mahal cost based on where you're from.

adrianmonk 8y ago

Is it possible that charging fair market value would torpedo a performer's reputation so badly that they can't sell tickets at all anymore? The industry is very competitive, so maybe they're afraid fans would abandon them for some other performer? If so, then 20% of something is better than 100% (or any percentage) of nothing. Or maybe they are looking at the total revenue picture, of which concert ticket sales are only one part, the others being record sales, private shows (at corporate events), TV appearances, and springboarding from musician into other entertainment roles like acting. Losing some money in one area out of all those might be cheap insurance to protect the others.