4 ms·

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 h

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.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I understood there is no difference between what the comment I replied to is describing and what its parent is, because of the (brought by others elsewhere in the thread) fungibility of money. Whether the artists get their cut directly, or just enjoy cheaper venues because Ticketmaster happens to be owned by the same party that owns the venue, that's literally the same benefit - just instead of being paid directly, the artists get their expenses covered. That's my understanding of what's going on with plenty of those deals.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Artists don’t pay for venues, promoters do, so they’re not cheaper, but your point that Ticketmaster has more revenue (and thus more to pay the artist) so they may get paid more indirectly is valid. But also, Ticketmaster has a monopsony. Or nearly so. One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues. The only things I’m sure of are that A. consumers would benefit if there was an actual market and B. It is hard to imagine one happening without government intervention.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues. I think that's where the "reputation laundering" angle comes into play. With its unique position, Ticketmaster gives artists plausible deniability. "Nothing we can do about it", "evils of capitalism", "a monopolist captured the market, government doing nothing", etc. - say artists, for whom the image they project is a core part of their market value. With a properly functioning competitive market, those same artists would have to either get much less, or answer some inconvenient question about ticket pricing.
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      Yes that’s true but also, one may argue, as Pearl Jam did in court, that Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and this hurts Artist revenues. Artists would get more from those fees if they could negotiate with multiple different ticket sellers. And that was before TM merged with Live Nation which is also now the exclusive promoter at most of the biggest venues in the world, and by most, I mean over 2/3. It’s a monopsony. The only real winners are Ticketmaster live nation

TeMPOraL 3y ago

I understood there is no difference between what the comment I replied to is describing and what its parent is, because of the (brought by others elsewhere in the thread) fungibility of money. Whether the artists get their cut directly, or just enjoy cheaper venues because Ticketmaster happens to be owned by the same party that owns the venue, that's literally the same benefit - just instead of being paid directly, the artists get their expenses covered. That's my understanding of what's going on with plenty of those deals.

mattmaroon 3y ago
Artists don’t pay for venues, promoters do, so they’re not cheaper, but your point that Ticketmaster has more revenue (and thus more to pay the artist) so they may get paid more indirectly is valid. But also, Ticketmaster has a monopsony. Or nearly so. One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues. The only things I’m sure of are that A. consumers would benefit if there was an actual market and B. It is hard to imagine one happening without government intervention.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues. I think that's where the "reputation laundering" angle comes into play. With its unique position, Ticketmaster gives artists plausible deniability. "Nothing we can do about it", "evils of capitalism", "a monopolist captured the market, government doing nothing", etc. - say artists, for whom the image they project is a core part of their market value. With a properly functioning competitive market, those same artists would have to either get much less, or answer some inconvenient question about ticket pricing.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Yes that’s true but also, one may argue, as Pearl Jam did in court, that Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and this hurts Artist revenues. Artists would get more from those fees if they could negotiate with multiple different ticket sellers. And that was before TM merged with Live Nation which is also now the exclusive promoter at most of the biggest venues in the world, and by most, I mean over 2/3. It’s a monopsony. The only real winners are Ticketmaster live nation