4 ms·

For the same reason why artists use Ticketmaster. Do you think they are stupid and just hand over ticket distribution to a company that routinely charges 30$ fe

For the same reason why artists use Ticketmaster. Do you think they are stupid and just hand over ticket distribution to a company that routinely charges 30$ fees to a 40$ ticket? No, artists and producers aren't stupid, they get the most of the money from the Ticketmaster "fees". But when a fan sees a 70$ ticket, they'd may decide Bruce Springsteen (net worth 650$ million) isn't a man of the people. When they see a 40$ ticket and a 30$ ticket, fans just swear at Ticketmaster. I'm confident in a few years we'll read about how scalping enterprises do profit sharing with artists and producers.

bradleyankrom 3y ago
Artists do not get most of the money from Ticketmaster fees.
- username332211 3y ago
  Yes, most go to the venue, which the artist/producer would have had to pay for (from the ticket price) otherwise. Because money is fungible it doesn't really matter if they pay the artist, or if they pay for the artist's expenses. What matters is how much fees they charge and how much do they keep. Can't find it right now, but I remember an article claiming they rarely keep 50% of their fees.
  - hackeraccount 3y ago
    I don't have a source but I've read the same thing; that a lot of what ticket master takes in is getting bounced around. It's a view I find very plausible intuitively. The artists (esp. the "name" artists) have all or nearly all of the leverage - whatever the ticket costs above what you'd paid if you bought at the gate is money they're leaving on the table.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It’s not just Ticketmaster. Many “event platforms” allow you to add fees that cover the credit card percentage, but if they’re higher you just get to keep the extra.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluehatbrit 3y ago
    Generally there's a promoter in the middle. They sign the artist and then have a deal signed with their ticketing partner. They'll then sign contracts with venues for the given tour. The contracts between promoters and ticketing agencies vary a lot depending on the country but that's how it often works in the states. The "face value" (base price) will usually be determined between the artist and promoter, the venue will apply a fairly generic fee on top, as will the ticketing provider. How much of the face value goes to the artist will depend on their leverage in the contract with their promoter. This is usually best improved by the confidence that the venue will sell out, meaning artists with bigger audience and social media presence will usually get the best terms. I don't have a paper or article I can link to as a source, but I have experience in the industry.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    That's not at all how concert economics work, I just wrote a long comment explaining.
readams 3y ago
Ticketmaster is mostly in the business of being the company that everyone hates so the artists can pretend to be helpless and of the people.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Just like the job of every sports league president isn’t to keep the fans (or the players) happy. It’s to distract anger from the team owners.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  No. LiveNation is mostly in the business of signing deals with large venues to be the exclusive promoter of shows, and Ticketmaster thus is their exclusive ticket seller. Ticketmaster also sign deals with other promoters to be their exclusive ticket outlet, so even in instances where LiveNation isn't the promoter, you may have to deal with TM.
mattmaroon 3y ago
This is not how concerts work, and artists and producers don't get any money from Ticketmaster fees. In most cases, a promoter pays an artist a flat fee to perform. The promoter then markets the show and gets the ticket sales, and Ticketmaster gets Ticketmaster fees. Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster. Artists hate Ticketmaster too (some have sued them) but if you want to do an arena tour, good luck avoiding them. Artists use them because they don't have a choice. The number of large venues that don't use TM is growing, my local basketball arena uses SeatGeek. The one concession TM makes is to their fan clubs. Artists get to sell tickets directly to a limited number of fans. If you love an artist, joining their fan club will probably save you the annual fee back in one show.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster. So mostly what GP said. This is not an accident, and everyone is in on it.
  - bscphil 3y ago
    I don't think it's the same at all - the crucial point of difference is whether artists deserve to get blamed for this situation. Various people in the thread have claimed that they do, that they're receiving kickbacks from scalping or a portion of Ticketmaster fees on resales, but your parent comment claims that this is not the case and misrepresents the ticket sale structure. I think that's a critical difference, because if the current situation is actually a big reputation laundering scam by artists, there's not much we can do about it without regulation. If it's not, if in fact most artists are as unhappy about the situation as their fans, there's quite a lot they can do about it and should be encouraged to do so even if it makes getting a ticket significantly harder (e.g. showing ID for purchased tickets at the venue and only allowing 1:1 refunds, not resales of tickets). Of course, if producers are receiving a significant portion of earnings on resales, some of that does "trickle down" to artists in the form of higher performing fees on the basis of anticipated resales. But that's a small fraction of added value for most artists, and it's coming at a level of indirection that means ticket sellers are incentivized to raise fees to their highest possible levels after artists get paid, because that's pure profit for them. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that artists aren't happy about this payment structure, even if they do see slightly higher show income as a result, and want a range of fans to be able to attend their shows.

bradleyankrom 3y ago

Artists do not get most of the money from Ticketmaster fees.

username332211 3y ago
Yes, most go to the venue, which the artist/producer would have had to pay for (from the ticket price) otherwise. Because money is fungible it doesn't really matter if they pay the artist, or if they pay for the artist's expenses. What matters is how much fees they charge and how much do they keep. Can't find it right now, but I remember an article claiming they rarely keep 50% of their fees.
- hackeraccount 3y ago
  I don't have a source but I've read the same thing; that a lot of what ticket master takes in is getting bounced around. It's a view I find very plausible intuitively. The artists (esp. the "name" artists) have all or nearly all of the leverage - whatever the ticket costs above what you'd paid if you bought at the gate is money they're leaving on the table.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It’s not just Ticketmaster. Many “event platforms” allow you to add fees that cover the credit card percentage, but if they’re higher you just get to keep the extra.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bluehatbrit 3y ago
  Generally there's a promoter in the middle. They sign the artist and then have a deal signed with their ticketing partner. They'll then sign contracts with venues for the given tour. The contracts between promoters and ticketing agencies vary a lot depending on the country but that's how it often works in the states. The "face value" (base price) will usually be determined between the artist and promoter, the venue will apply a fairly generic fee on top, as will the ticketing provider. How much of the face value goes to the artist will depend on their leverage in the contract with their promoter. This is usually best improved by the confidence that the venue will sell out, meaning artists with bigger audience and social media presence will usually get the best terms. I don't have a paper or article I can link to as a source, but I have experience in the industry.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  That's not at all how concert economics work, I just wrote a long comment explaining.

readams 3y ago

Ticketmaster is mostly in the business of being the company that everyone hates so the artists can pretend to be helpless and of the people.

TylerE 3y ago
Just like the job of every sports league president isn’t to keep the fans (or the players) happy. It’s to distract anger from the team owners.
mattmaroon 3y ago
No. LiveNation is mostly in the business of signing deals with large venues to be the exclusive promoter of shows, and Ticketmaster thus is their exclusive ticket seller. Ticketmaster also sign deals with other promoters to be their exclusive ticket outlet, so even in instances where LiveNation isn't the promoter, you may have to deal with TM.

mattmaroon 3y ago

This is not how concerts work, and artists and producers don't get any money from Ticketmaster fees. In most cases, a promoter pays an artist a flat fee to perform. The promoter then markets the show and gets the ticket sales, and Ticketmaster gets Ticketmaster fees. Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster. Artists hate Ticketmaster too (some have sued them) but if you want to do an arena tour, good luck avoiding them. Artists use them because they don't have a choice. The number of large venues that don't use TM is growing, my local basketball arena uses SeatGeek. The one concession TM makes is to their fan clubs. Artists get to sell tickets directly to a limited number of fans. If you love an artist, joining their fan club will probably save you the annual fee back in one show.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster. So mostly what GP said. This is not an accident, and everyone is in on it.
- bscphil 3y ago
  I don't think it's the same at all - the crucial point of difference is whether artists deserve to get blamed for this situation. Various people in the thread have claimed that they do, that they're receiving kickbacks from scalping or a portion of Ticketmaster fees on resales, but your parent comment claims that this is not the case and misrepresents the ticket sale structure. I think that's a critical difference, because if the current situation is actually a big reputation laundering scam by artists, there's not much we can do about it without regulation. If it's not, if in fact most artists are as unhappy about the situation as their fans, there's quite a lot they can do about it and should be encouraged to do so even if it makes getting a ticket significantly harder (e.g. showing ID for purchased tickets at the venue and only allowing 1:1 refunds, not resales of tickets). Of course, if producers are receiving a significant portion of earnings on resales, some of that does "trickle down" to artists in the form of higher performing fees on the basis of anticipated resales. But that's a small fraction of added value for most artists, and it's coming at a level of indirection that means ticket sellers are incentivized to raise fees to their highest possible levels after artists get paid, because that's pure profit for them. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that artists aren't happy about this payment structure, even if they do see slightly higher show income as a result, and want a range of fans to be able to attend their shows.