6 ms·

Ticketmaster is "chosen" because most venues are owned and operated by Live Nation, who in turn owns Ticketmaster. Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict o

Ticketmaster is "chosen" because most venues are owned and operated by Live Nation, who in turn owns Ticketmaster. Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict of interest? Yes, and yes. Most acts don't really have the ability to set their own pricing. Those that do either are huge acts, who kind of have to go to Live Nation venues (because an act like Taylor Swift can't really go to tiny venues when she could sell out a stadium) or are tiny, local bands or artists in niche genres that don't really play venues larger than clubs or bars.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I don't understand - why can't a venue run its own tickets?
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  It's the same people. The venue is not independent. It's not that they can't, they don't want to.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I mean what's wrong with the same company owning the venues and the ticketing site for the venues?
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      Oh, nothing really I guess? Before TM, they were the same since it was the venues selling their own tickets? The problem is really having a monopoly on venues and also owning the acts playing in them.
    - NickC25 4y ago
      Nothing, in theory. However, in practice, lots of things. The problem is that since Live Nation is a huge company, they have investments in a lot of record labels and can use that as leverage to force artists to tour exclusively in their venues. Think of it almost as a modern-day payola system: Artist needs to tour. Label needs to pay for that tour, in some cases a lot of capital is required up front, and a certain amount of profit needs to be made from that tour as well. Live Nation steps in and says "hey, since we own a portion of your label, we can front you a lot of that money (or waive our venue fees entirely) if you only play shows in our venues". Label says "well, shit, my hands are tied" and that's how it works.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Ah, okay. Perhaps it's more that the venues (part-)own the labels than that they own the ticketing systems? I guess this is the same problem that any location/property-based situation has: incumbents have a huge advantage.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  An artist on a national tour won’t go there. They will only go to Ticketmaster events.
olalonde 4y ago
I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that... I've commented elsewhere in this thread, but no, that's not a complete list. Live Nation owns many more venues than that, and there are even more that it has exclusive contracts with. It has also illegally[0] used its market power to retaliate against independent venues that work with other ticketing systems, forcing them to use Ticketmaster. It is virtually impossible to be a performing artist with a decent following and go on tour without being subject to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and everything that follows from that. [0] as determined by the DoJ
- NickC25 4y ago
  Note the size of those venues. The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation. Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. The latter is a much larger set, and it includes the very Blink-182 tour that spawned this article.
    - NickC25 4y ago
      >Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. Exactly! The exclusive contracts thing terrifies me. There are a lot of venues that Ticketmaster/LiveNation don't own outright, but have exclusivity / quasi-exclusivity deals with, and those venues include a vast majority of the largest multi-use venues in the country, such as stadiums or arenas. Live Nation can front some of the building costs or maintenance costs for a bunch of large venues and it costs them nothing in comparison with the profits they get in return. Practically every sporting event I've been to in the US has had me use Ticketmaster in some way. This includes NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, ATP (tennis), MLS, and even college sports. They are everywhere!
duped 4y ago
LiveNation only owns a few dozen venues, and it owns fewer than AEG. They also don't own venues big enough for acts like Taylor Swift, most of them are small to mid sized concert halls. The major acts are selling out stadiums and arenas, none of which are owned by AEG or LiveNation.

robertlagrant 4y ago

I don't understand - why can't a venue run its own tickets?

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
It's the same people. The venue is not independent. It's not that they can't, they don't want to.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I mean what's wrong with the same company owning the venues and the ticketing site for the venues?
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    Oh, nothing really I guess? Before TM, they were the same since it was the venues selling their own tickets? The problem is really having a monopoly on venues and also owning the acts playing in them.
  - NickC25 4y ago
    Nothing, in theory. However, in practice, lots of things. The problem is that since Live Nation is a huge company, they have investments in a lot of record labels and can use that as leverage to force artists to tour exclusively in their venues. Think of it almost as a modern-day payola system: Artist needs to tour. Label needs to pay for that tour, in some cases a lot of capital is required up front, and a certain amount of profit needs to be made from that tour as well. Live Nation steps in and says "hey, since we own a portion of your label, we can front you a lot of that money (or waive our venue fees entirely) if you only play shows in our venues". Label says "well, shit, my hands are tied" and that's how it works.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Ah, okay. Perhaps it's more that the venues (part-)own the labels than that they own the ticketing systems? I guess this is the same problem that any location/property-based situation has: incumbents have a huge advantage.
brianwawok 4y ago
An artist on a national tour won’t go there. They will only go to Ticketmaster events.

olalonde 4y ago

I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chimeracoder 4y ago
> I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that... I've commented elsewhere in this thread, but no, that's not a complete list. Live Nation owns many more venues than that, and there are even more that it has exclusive contracts with. It has also illegally[0] used its market power to retaliate against independent venues that work with other ticketing systems, forcing them to use Ticketmaster. It is virtually impossible to be a performing artist with a decent following and go on tour without being subject to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and everything that follows from that. [0] as determined by the DoJ
NickC25 4y ago
Note the size of those venues. The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation. Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. The latter is a much larger set, and it includes the very Blink-182 tour that spawned this article.
  - NickC25 4y ago
    >Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. Exactly! The exclusive contracts thing terrifies me. There are a lot of venues that Ticketmaster/LiveNation don't own outright, but have exclusivity / quasi-exclusivity deals with, and those venues include a vast majority of the largest multi-use venues in the country, such as stadiums or arenas. Live Nation can front some of the building costs or maintenance costs for a bunch of large venues and it costs them nothing in comparison with the profits they get in return. Practically every sporting event I've been to in the US has had me use Ticketmaster in some way. This includes NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, ATP (tennis), MLS, and even college sports. They are everywhere!

duped 4y ago

LiveNation only owns a few dozen venues, and it owns fewer than AEG. They also don't own venues big enough for acts like Taylor Swift, most of them are small to mid sized concert halls. The major acts are selling out stadiums and arenas, none of which are owned by AEG or LiveNation.