7 ms·

Ticketmaster is such an obvious monopoly in plain sight. The only reason I can see the FTC not more aggressively pursuing it (and instead wasting time on big-te

Ticketmaster is such an obvious monopoly in plain sight. The only reason I can see the FTC not more aggressively pursuing it (and instead wasting time on big-tech) is the people in power at the FTC don't go to enough concerts or care about a $10 markup on their tickets. For an American age 15 to 25 today, much more of their spending power, time, and opportunity is lost to Ticketmaster than FB/IG/Tiktok/Twitter monopolistic behavior combined. Hopefully the Taylor Swift ticket sale breaks into the Overton window and results in actual enforcement. Ticketmaster should have to divest Livenation and every other ticketing company it's acquired since 2010. I say this as the PM of the first attempt to sell tickets within Facebook Events in 2015. Even for Facebook, it was virtually impossible to get share because all the major venues and artists have exclusive lockups with Ticketmaster or a subsidiary of theirs.

brookst 4y ago
Mostly agreed but I think the appropriate regulatory response is to split Ticketmaster into three businesses: a venue operator, a ticketing company, and a ticket resale company, and to forbid exclusive agreements between them. As separate companies they’d seek the best deals and wouldn’t collude to exclude new entrants in each others’ markets.
- petilon 4y ago
  But each of those three businesses would be monopolies. Better to clone the company. Each clone inherits all IP then goes separate ways.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Each clone would be vertically integrated and would do the same abusive things. Clone A’s venues would use clone A’s ticketing service which would give most of the tickets to clone A’s ticket resale service. For a consumer who just wants reasonably priced tickets for a particular venue, there would be no change from today under that arrangement. But if you split the company vertically, the venue business needs to look after its own profits rather than maximizing the vertically integrated profits.
  - etrautmann 4y ago
    Why is there any IP there? Somewhat naively, I would hope that nothing Ticketmaster does could be considered IP but I suspect that’s not correct…
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    The theory is that the vertical integration gives them an unfair advantage. Split it up, and others can compete on the merits. If there's still no competition, that indicates they're better than everyone else for fair reasons, so it's not a problem. (I don't agree with this theory)
    - petilon 4y ago
      You would have to split vertically then horizontally. If you only split horizontally each business will continue to monopolize their segments.
      - brookst 4y ago
        The monopolies in each segment collapse without the vertically integrated monopoly. Today you can’t start a ticketing business because Ticketmaster owns so many venues and they won’t use you. You can’t compete in ticket resale because Ticketmaster’s resale gets inventory even before retail tickets are sold. If these were separate companies there would be no reason, and it would likely be illegal per the breakup ruling, for every venue to use a single ticketing service, or for a ticketing service to use (give a huge advantage to) a single resale service. The problem isn’t dominance in one segment; that is normal and fine and self-correcting. The problem is leveraging dominance in multiple segments to exclude competition in any of them.
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I was trying to say is that the theory distinguishes between unfair market dominance and simply being the best. If the splits continue to dominate that would be strong evidence it's the latter. (The reason I disagree with this is because I think that corporations, like countries, are a social contract that should only be allowed if they serve the people. I think a free market serves the people, but a market needs heavy govt interference to be free. I know that's a minority opinion, so I didn't get into it)
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Yes, the exclusivity agreements are the worst. I think they should pretty much be banned everywhere. Remember back in the 90s what microsoft got away with by getting exclusity with EVERY PC manufacturer.
sureglymop 4y ago
Monopolies like this are pretty strange. It's the same for Match.com buying every dating app to ever exist.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury. Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor Swift live.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  It’s entertainment, like going to the movie theatre which is also nearing monopoly.
- gberger 4y ago
  Access to entertainment and culture is not a luxury.
  - Longlius 4y ago
  - pxx 4y ago
    The music is still accessible at libraries. Live entertainment is definitely "inessential": lux·u·ry an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. plural noun: luxuries "luxuries like raspberry vinegar and state-of-the-art CD players"
    - brookst 4y ago
      “Inessential” is subjective. There isn’t a thing in the world where you can’t find someone making the argument that it’s inessential because it’s not essential to them. And using price a test of luxury in a discussion about monopolies is kind of circular; it leads to saying that anything a monopoly has successfully captured is necessarily a luxury. That gets you to prescription eyeglasses being a luxury, because I don’t need them, people can just buy contacts, and a monopoly has driven the price to astronomical levels.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Hmm. I dislike Ticketmaster and I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but the argument used here is flawed. Is it a live concert? If yes, does everyone has to have the same level of access to this entertainment/culture? If yes, there is appx. 7.8b people on earth now. Are they all guaranteed access to entertainment and culture?
chrisseaton 4y ago
Going to a concert is a pure luxury. It's like getting excited that Champagne is too expensive - not really a working person's problem, and I'm not sure pure luxuries need government intervention in the same way as communication systems do.
- f-securus 4y ago
  Wow. Attending live music events is a pure luxury that the average person shouldn’t have reasonable access to without being price gouged by an obvious monopoly?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    The artist's part of the ticket prices already makes them a luxury even if you removed Ticketmaster. If people have some kind of human right to see live music why aren't her tickets cheaper in the first place?
- blowski 4y ago
  This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it. There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market. Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake. So my two arguments against your position: 1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good. 2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago

brookst 4y ago

Mostly agreed but I think the appropriate regulatory response is to split Ticketmaster into three businesses: a venue operator, a ticketing company, and a ticket resale company, and to forbid exclusive agreements between them. As separate companies they’d seek the best deals and wouldn’t collude to exclude new entrants in each others’ markets.

petilon 4y ago
But each of those three businesses would be monopolies. Better to clone the company. Each clone inherits all IP then goes separate ways.
- brookst 4y ago
  Each clone would be vertically integrated and would do the same abusive things. Clone A’s venues would use clone A’s ticketing service which would give most of the tickets to clone A’s ticket resale service. For a consumer who just wants reasonably priced tickets for a particular venue, there would be no change from today under that arrangement. But if you split the company vertically, the venue business needs to look after its own profits rather than maximizing the vertically integrated profits.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  Why is there any IP there? Somewhat naively, I would hope that nothing Ticketmaster does could be considered IP but I suspect that’s not correct…
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  The theory is that the vertical integration gives them an unfair advantage. Split it up, and others can compete on the merits. If there's still no competition, that indicates they're better than everyone else for fair reasons, so it's not a problem. (I don't agree with this theory)
  - petilon 4y ago
    You would have to split vertically then horizontally. If you only split horizontally each business will continue to monopolize their segments.
    - brookst 4y ago
      The monopolies in each segment collapse without the vertically integrated monopoly. Today you can’t start a ticketing business because Ticketmaster owns so many venues and they won’t use you. You can’t compete in ticket resale because Ticketmaster’s resale gets inventory even before retail tickets are sold. If these were separate companies there would be no reason, and it would likely be illegal per the breakup ruling, for every venue to use a single ticketing service, or for a ticketing service to use (give a huge advantage to) a single resale service. The problem isn’t dominance in one segment; that is normal and fine and self-correcting. The problem is leveraging dominance in multiple segments to exclude competition in any of them.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I was trying to say is that the theory distinguishes between unfair market dominance and simply being the best. If the splits continue to dominate that would be strong evidence it's the latter. (The reason I disagree with this is because I think that corporations, like countries, are a social contract that should only be allowed if they serve the people. I think a free market serves the people, but a market needs heavy govt interference to be free. I know that's a minority opinion, so I didn't get into it)
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Yes, the exclusivity agreements are the worst. I think they should pretty much be banned everywhere. Remember back in the 90s what microsoft got away with by getting exclusity with EVERY PC manufacturer.

sureglymop 4y ago

Monopolies like this are pretty strange. It's the same for Match.com buying every dating app to ever exist.

wilsonnb3 4y ago

I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury. Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor Swift live.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
It’s entertainment, like going to the movie theatre which is also nearing monopoly.
gberger 4y ago
Access to entertainment and culture is not a luxury.
- Longlius 4y ago
- pxx 4y ago
  The music is still accessible at libraries. Live entertainment is definitely "inessential": lux·u·ry an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. plural noun: luxuries "luxuries like raspberry vinegar and state-of-the-art CD players"
  - brookst 4y ago
    “Inessential” is subjective. There isn’t a thing in the world where you can’t find someone making the argument that it’s inessential because it’s not essential to them. And using price a test of luxury in a discussion about monopolies is kind of circular; it leads to saying that anything a monopoly has successfully captured is necessarily a luxury. That gets you to prescription eyeglasses being a luxury, because I don’t need them, people can just buy contacts, and a monopoly has driven the price to astronomical levels.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Hmm. I dislike Ticketmaster and I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but the argument used here is flawed. Is it a live concert? If yes, does everyone has to have the same level of access to this entertainment/culture? If yes, there is appx. 7.8b people on earth now. Are they all guaranteed access to entertainment and culture?

chrisseaton 4y ago

Going to a concert is a pure luxury. It's like getting excited that Champagne is too expensive - not really a working person's problem, and I'm not sure pure luxuries need government intervention in the same way as communication systems do.

f-securus 4y ago
Wow. Attending live music events is a pure luxury that the average person shouldn’t have reasonable access to without being price gouged by an obvious monopoly?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  The artist's part of the ticket prices already makes them a luxury even if you removed Ticketmaster. If people have some kind of human right to see live music why aren't her tickets cheaper in the first place?
blowski 4y ago
This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it. There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market. Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake. So my two arguments against your position: 1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good. 2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?
- chrisseaton 4y ago