3 ms·

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 location

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!
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > 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 They don't have to play at large venues.
  - NickC25 4y ago
    They kinda do....unless they want to pay the entire costs of the tour out-of-pocket and up front. Otherwise, they'll go where their label tells them to. That's the whole point. They could play at tiny clubs that only hold 100-300 people, but even if they did so, they probably wouldn't make enough money to break even, let alone profit what the label requires they profit.

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!
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> 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 They don't have to play at large venues.
- NickC25 4y ago
  They kinda do....unless they want to pay the entire costs of the tour out-of-pocket and up front. Otherwise, they'll go where their label tells them to. That's the whole point. They could play at tiny clubs that only hold 100-300 people, but even if they did so, they probably wouldn't make enough money to break even, let alone profit what the label requires they profit.