36 ms·
Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation
- thrownaway561 2y agoabout time
- dmitrygr 2y agoGood. Finally something being done about this venue/ticket cartel
- mtillman 2y agoI paid $300 in fees on Sunday for two $365 tickets. Excited to see how this goes.
- dylan604 2y agoYou paid nearly $1k for 2 tickets to a show? To me, you are part of the problem as acting as an enabler for these prices to be seen as acceptable.
- kimbernator 2y agoSeems harsh to blame somebody for simply paying to do something they enjoy when the alternative is just not doing it. Blame the monopoly, not the consumer.
- dylan604 2y agoIt takes two to tango. You're conflating this with victim blaming. This is a willing party willing to continue the cycle of the problem. For those making the decisions on "is it too expensive", then by definition it is not has stadiums continue to be filled by people participating in the fleecing. Someone with money can spend their money however they want. They can gamble it, they can snort it up their nose, they can invest it, they can do WTF they want. If what they do with the money contributes to the problem, then they are still part of the problem.
- orangecat 2y agoWhat is the actual problem here? If someone is willing to pay more for a ticket than you are, by what principle should the venue or performer be obligated to instead sell it to you at a lower price?
- BobaFloutist 2y agoI think we have a duty as consumers not to reinforce anti-consumer behavior, when at all possible.
- kimbernator 2y agoHigh prices and high profit margin are not in and of themselves anti-consumer, otherwise every luxury brand would be considered anti-consumer. If people will buy the tickets at the prices marked, why should they lower them? If they push prices high enough that the demand curve starts to dip, they will rationally correct for that. The only anti-consumer force at play is the monopoly power Live Nation is granted to dictate the price of tickets. There's very little that can be done via boycott when it comes to monopolies.
- bonestamp2 2y agoUnofficially, sure. But officially, the FTC is in charge of protecting consumers from abuse. I'd love to see them step in and regulate this space.
- mtillman 2y agoIt’s not like there’s another option, which is why the DOJ probably has a case. If you want to attend certain games it’s a) be a season ticket holder or b) pony up to a monopoly.
- anthonypasq 2y agoi would love to see a picutre of you receipt because i frankly dont believe you
- bonestamp2 2y agoI would like to see a picture too, but it wouldn't surprise me. The highest I've actually paid is $44.58 per ticket in fees. But I've seen $50 fees and not purchased. Here's a screenshot of my receipt from that one: https://i.imgur.com/7mesmdj.png https://i.imgur.com/7mesmdj.png
- dmitrygr 2y agoGotta love the "Delivery fee" on tickets that will be emailed to you.
- ajkjk 2y agoIt's a pretty standard experience?
- mtillman 2y agoActual prices for golden knights Playoff game 1 (check stubhub right now if you want a proof point): $407.09/ticket x2 because going alone isn’t as fun, and $290.91 in fees. So my numbers above are a bit low from what I actually paid. Edit: cardinals tix were $135.91ea x2 and $100.09 in fees.
- xnx 2y agoWithout the Live Nation monopoly, tickets prices should stay the same, but the split between venue, artist, and ticket service should change, right?
- waveBidder 2y agoConcivably the number of shows/tickets might increase and the price decrease, since setting the price above the market rate is one of the inefficiencies that monopolies introduce. For artists who are maxing out their # of shows and selling out you're right though.
- asciimov 2y agoEverybody would be making the same, but it would be apparent that your favorite band is the one asking too much for tickets.
- treflop 2y agoProbably not. The fees get split between them already. What would be nice would be having independent venues that aren't all selling the same canned water and ticket prices showing the fees.
- trellos 2y agoMy only complaint is why this took so long.
- seatac76 2y agoFinally. Between the market dominance via Live Nation and Ticketmaster merge. The venue exclusivity contracts they insist upon. They are a grotesque monopoly.
- boringg 2y agoCouldn't agree more - all they did was aggregate market power then extract grotesque rents. Truly a terrible company.
- busterarm 2y agoThey are but the DoJ is getting involved 30 years too late. They crushed all of the meaningful competition that long ago. Even breaking the company up into parts wouldn't suddenly fix the industry.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoWell that's good. Antitrust action isn't meant to suddenly fix anything overnight.
- xp84 2y agoIf the Live Nation one could be undone, and we could ban TM from operating venues and LN from selling tickets, and ban TM from having exclusive deals or sharing any of their "fees" with anyone else in any way, it'd be a start.
- choilive 2y agoCorrect, but it would give an actual market opportunity for new competitors.
- alfalfasprout 2y agoIt will allow room for ticketing companies to actually exist though. Right now it's basically just livenation and a long tail of smaller companies, many of which got swallowed up by eg; eventbrite.
- xyst 2y ago
- teeray 2y agoThe fees alone are one thing. But the fees that are a percentage of the purchase price are quite another. That transforms them from fees into a tax.
- ryandvm 2y agoThat's an interesting distinction. You shouldn't be able to call it a "fee" if the cost that it purports to cover does not increase with the cost of a ticket.
- LeafItAlone 2y agoWhy not? Is there a definition of “fee” that dictates this? Presumably the _average_ fee is the cost to provide the service (including the profit they want to make on it). So the more expensive tickets subsidize the cheaper ones.
- burkaman 2y agoActually yes, some dictionaries (like Merriam-Webster) define fee as "a fixed charge"
- sahila 2y agoThat doesn't preclude a "fixed percentage" in my reading. It could be either a fixed percentage or dollar amount.
- lesuorac 2y agoIf anybody is curious what "a fixed charge" is, an example given by Merriam-Webster is Taxes as well as Interest. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed%20charge https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed%20charge
- lesuorac 2y agoI don't think it's good to be calling non-government charges a tax. Fee or Commission works fine here. The line item for sellers/buyers agent isn't "tax" when you buy/sell a house despite it being a percentage.
- eadler 2y agohttps://archive.is/VRODM https://archive.is/VRODM
- pianoben 2y agoBetter (30 years too) late than never!
- 39896880 2y agoWho approved the Ticketmaster / Live Nation merger to begin with?
- makestuff 2y agoThe merger was completed in 2010, so the Obama administration. However, the country was coming out of the great recession and the last thing the administration needed was bad PR for "stopping a merger that would prevent people from losing their jobs".
- CPLX 2y agoYour first sentence here is correct. The second sentence is ridiculous. The Obama administration was pro-monopolist basically across the board for eight straight years. The record is pretty easy to understand.
- paxys 2y agoYup. We are in our current predicament because the previous 4 or 5 administrations, whether D or R, have let corporations run amok with M&A and general anticompetitive behavior, offering only token resistance. Biden has finally signaled a shift in the last year or two, but it remains to be seen how far these actions will go (and how much Congress and the courts will allow).
- ryandvm 2y agoThis is because corporations are permitted to influence politics with money. This is an absurd predicament. The more money you allow into politics, the more politics becomes about money.
- gorbachev 2y agoTo be fair, TicketMaster has been pioneering anti-competitive practices for as long as it has existed, long before the merger with LiveNation.
- 2y ago
- toomuchtodo 2y agoRelated: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-unearthed https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u... ("BIG by Matt Stoller: Explosive New Documents Unearthed On Live Nation/Ticketmaster")
- to11mtm 2y agoThanks for this, it provides a huge level of context as to how bad things really are and lays it out in a fairly decent way.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't. We want HN to be a place for human comments, not generated ones.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoOK got it.
- sirsinsalot 2y agoMuch of this is voodoo accounting since Live Nation through intermediary own most of the venues, promoters, services, security, catering and so on. It's just using their vertical integration and monopoly to move as much money onto their books and increase ticket prices and margins. Shady.
- rahimnathwani 2y agomove as much money onto their books and increase ticket prices and margins If we assume their actions don't reduce the supply of shows+seats, the impact might fall only on artists and venues. i.e. it's possible that prices paid by fans would be same with or without these schemes.
- hn8305823 2y agoHow bad do you have to be before the Gov files an antitrust suit these days? IE/Netscape bad or this apparently.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoBiden admin has been on an antitrust tear. Most of the big tech companies have had cases filed against them.
- paxys 2y agoPlenty of big corporate mergers have been blocked as well (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-as-biden-racks-up-antitrust-wins-090057974.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-as-b...)
- cdme 2y agoAppointing Lina Khan is one of the best things he's done.
- JasserInicide 2y agoWake me when executives start getting double digit year jailtimes. Until then, I'm convinced nothing has nor will change.
- andjd 2y agoOne important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive market for ticketing services because they provide that "service". Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially. Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society. In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing transparency.
- CPLX 2y agoThey aren’t just fleecing fans they’re also ripping off other participants in the market especially competitors. Matt Stoller has written a lot of detail about this.
- boringg 2y agoNo way - get rid of them and there will be more competition in the market better pricing and maybe a less homogenous (and terrible) experience.
- xp84 2y agoYes, it seems like in 1985 Ticketmaster and the couple of big competitors they gobbled up (I recall there was at least one other called Bass) could justify their existence decently. The operated brick and mortar locations where you could buy tickets, as well as a call center where you could call in to buy tickets. Today though, arguably without their many tentacles like Live Nation that guarantee them a cut of everything, they have no moat at all. Oh gee, if only we could figure out how to charge credit cards, show a seat map for you to pick your seat, and print barcodes on paper / email a barcode to attendees. So yes, I would expect that relative to verticals where things require actual ingenuity or skill to do a good job, it would be easy for people who operate venues to either just roll their own ticketing systems, or contract with dozens of vendors who would compete on their value. Of course, venue owners who are not themselves part of Live Naton itself could do this today, but the gross agreements where ticketmaster inflates fees and splits them with everybody in order to gain an exclusivity contract makes this uncommon. The whole thing is so corrupt and greedy it's sickening.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThis is already a solved problem- look at how airline seats are handled.
- harimau777 2y agoCan you expand on this? It seems to me that a major difference between flight tickets and concert tickets is that when an airline overbooks they can switch you to a later flight. However, most concerts only perform once in a given city.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoWhat is overbooking and why does it happen? From what I can tell, overbooking is entirely preventable and done to maximize profit. Just don't do that? Hotels operate in a similar fashion as well.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kaibee 2y agoCould sell two classes of tickets, one that is garunteed and one that might be overbooked. If you show up and find out you're overbooked you get a credit for another show (maybe even at some multiplier?). Basic Supply/Demand suggests that reducing the price means more demand, ie: more people going to go see shows, but would need to see it in practice to know for sure.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoI think they are referring to the ability to resell your ticket. In the airline model, your ticket is tied to your identity. If you don't want to use it, you get a refund instead of selling it. You can also choose a ticketing agent instead of being forced to use just a single outlet. In the concert model, you (or a complex entity) buys as many tickets as you can get your hands on from the only seller, and if you don't plan on using the tickets sell them for multiples of what you paid via a shady network of reselling.
- kevmo 2y agoWhen was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?
- leereeves 2y agoI believe it was the breakup of AT&T on Jan 1, 1982 (the result of a suit started in 1974). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
- mywittyname 2y agoWhich is nuts. The DoJ needs to take a battle ax to Ticketmaster to set an example. They need to prove that they are still willing and able to throw down if necessary. TM is a disposable target, they don't build anything critical to the economy or national security. They could be deleted from the earth and dozens of replacements would spring up in a week. TM is so hated that, if the DoJ goes for the jugular and misses, there might be appetite for Congress to re-empower the DoJ. Monopolies aren't just anti-consumer. They can strangle the country's ability to innovate and compete in a global marketplace.
- dogb0wl 2y ago[dead]
- xp84 2y agoSo true. I wish that we could just have corporate death penalty by referendum. If 85% of the voting public agrees your company is net bad for our society, and there is no national security reason to save it, nationalize it and liquidate it and use the proceeds to fund consumer protection regulation. Perhaps if shareholders stood to lose their entire investment by being deleted like this, they would find themselves hesitant to do outright evil things.
- 2y ago
- enahs-sf 2y agoWent to buy tickets for a show on ticketweb and saw it’s now owned by Ticketmaster. This has been a long time coming at this point.
- calciphus 2y agoTicketweb was bought by Ticketmaster 24 years ago.
- wly_cdgr 2y agotfw your daughters weren't able to get good tickets for the Eras Tour, but you're Merrick Garland :) edit: it's a joke y'all, obviously they got great tickets with those family and Ivy League connections
- sleepybrett 2y agolong overdue
- maxclark 2y agoGood
- methodical 2y agoMy horror story of Ticketmaster; I recently bought standing-room-only tickets on short notice (<1wk) for an event near me, declining the additional fee to be able to refund my tickets. After more discussion with the others I was going with, I bought seated tickets instead through SeatGeek. Understanding I declined the ability to refund, I attempted to sell my tickets, but their system kept encountering an internal error preventing me from selling the tickets. I reached out to support for assistance, and after several days of wasted time and run-around, they finally sent my issue to their engineering team saying they'd get back to me in 5 business days. Keep in mind I said I bought these tickets a week before the event, and they'd already wasted a few days giving me the run-around, functionally meaning I wouldn't be able to sell my tickets. I attempted to charge back the purchase since they did not provide what I paid for (tickets I could sell), and they fought me and won somehow. So thanks Ticketmaster, for sucking me out of hundreds of dollars for nothing more than bytes in your database that I couldn't do anything with. I hope they go bankrupt. For anyone who is in my shoes and hasn't used Ticketmaster yet and might be tempted to give them a chance thinking all of these horror stories are just unlucky people- don't. I was naive to think that all of those companies with bad reputations are just the loud minority but Ticketmaster is the only one I've had the misfortune of finding out is seriously awful. Use SeatGeek or countless other platforms instead. Gun to my head to use Ticketmaster again I'd probably take the lead instead.
- freedomben 2y ago> I attempted to charge back the purchase since they did not provide what I paid for (tickets I could sell), and they fought me and won somehow. This has happened to me twice now (though not with TicketMaster) and I was 100% in the right, and I lost. When I mentioned it on HN I was met with a lot of doubters. I think something has really changed regarding chargebacks.
- methodical 2y agoThey most definitely have some BS in the fine print about how they're not responsible for their awful system, as CYA for things like this. Truly scum of the earth.
- amadeuspagel 2y agoThe only relevant monopoly for a Taylor Swift concert is Taylor Swift. Fans would use any platform to buy to tickets for any venue in any city.
- viraptor 2y agoTrue in theory, but because of exclusivity deals with venues, they can't use "any venue". Basically at the level of Taylor Swift, she would have to create her own arenas for this to work. She could well do it one day though...
- calgoo 2y agoShe is big enough to build her mega-church like venues, or just rent a mega church. The has way to many of those anyway, so some actual use might come from them. The important thing would be for Taylor and a few others to give the middle finger to live nation / ticketmaster, but like mentioned earlier, its not in her or her labels interest.
- sahila 2y agoEven if it is in her interest to not deal with Ticketmaster, her business is performing life music. She as her team aren't trying to create work for themselves to screw TM, they want to do what they do. Imagine trying to set up logistics at a venue/church which has never held a large concert before.
- m348e912 2y agoHave you ever been to a mega church? They basically are a large concert. Not the 80,000 people kind, but of the size that would rival a decent percentage of touring acts. Lakewood church in Houston has 45,000 attendees a week. I think the church idea is a brilliant TM workaround, until they lock that up too.
- edm0nd 2y ago
- bangaroo 2y agothis is all well and good but i know from personal experience that all the secondary marketplaces (stubhub, seatgeek) are pushing to do this (literally lobbying the government actively) because it helps them more easily do their secondary market selling. ticketmaster is a grotesque monopoly, but the secondary marketplaces are worried that ticketmaster will consolidate too much industry control through their vertical integration and make it harder for them to play a role in the industry as well. the biggest problem in the industry is not necessarily ticketmaster; it's ticketmaster combined with the gigantic, largely-hidden world of ticket brokers who have an entire ecosystem of tools and tactics (as well as relationships with promoters) that allow them to buy tickets to high demand events with greater rates of success than real customers and then jack up the prices astronomically with literally no oversight. breaking up ticketmaster will do little to stop the insanity of the ever-increasing prices of tickets, nor will it make it any easier to get tickets to an event you want to go to. it will just change the balance of who is likely to screw you. all the secondary marketplaces basically sell the same inventory and mask that fact by pretending they don't. tons of the inventory that exists on them is just arbitrage (or zone) inventory designed to trap you into paying way more than face value for a seat you can't even choose. there's an entire cottage industry (enabled by a little-known player called ticketnetwork) of websites that walk a fine line of pretending to be the official box offices for venues trying to confuse and trap consumers into paying over face value for tickets. the pricing models on the secondary markets (and this includes ticketmaster) are basically designed to obfuscate the fact that they're all selling the same inventory and either boost the upfront cost and reduce fees or show you a cut-rate price for the ticket and then make it up with fees. i totally agree that it is a Net Good that ticketmaster does not control the venue, the promoter, and the primary sale of the ticket. making it easier for venues to shop around for ticket providers is a Good Thing. but without broader market regulation, the fundamental problem won't get any better. edit: just to explain this a little further, the fact that the secondary marketplaces aren't the sellers is really the thing that makes everything so complex. the people who control the prices of the tickets on the secondary marketplace aren't the big players (stubhub, seatgeek, etc.) but the brokers who then broadcast their inventory at prices _they_ set to all the marketplaces simultaneously. there's not really an opportunity for competition in this space - brokers actively collude (there's a big paid forum called shows on sale where they all talk about upcoming ticket onsales and trade presale codes and intel for getting tickets.) because of this, "enabling more competition" won't change prices past the time that the primaries sell through their inventory, and the brokers will always have an edge when it comes to gobbling that up.
- calgoo 2y agoSo in my opinion, the fans suing ticketmaster should sue Taylor Swift for using ticket master. Then she can sue her music company for doing business with ticket master. its not like selling tickets is not a solved problem, so why are we even bothering with this BS and just not using another service? O the music labels like them because they get sweet deals? Well again, sue Taylor Swift and the label, not the shitty ticket sales company.
- realce 2y ago> why are we even bothering with this BS and just not using another service Considering it's an antitrust suit, the answer should be self-evident.
- freedomben 2y agoI think it would be easier to get some Taylor Swift fans to chew their own arms off than it would to get them to sue her for anything. I've never known a group of people that better fit the word "fanatic" :-)
- wvenable 2y ago> so why are we even bothering with this BS and just not using another service? Because the venues are locked into exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster. This is why them being a monopoly is bad. Many bands in the 90s attempted to work around the system and they all ultimately failed.
- paxys 2y agoWhile I 100% support this action, I feel like people are going to be disappointed to find that if/when the dust settles and Live Nation is reined in (big if), tickets for the Taylor Swift concert or the NBA finals aren't suddenly coming down to $50. With a growing population, people with more disposable income and more interest in such events in general the fundamental economy of live events is very different than what it was 30 years ago. The sticker price is usually very close to the market value of the ticket, and often a lot less (hence all the scalping).
- freedomben 2y agoYep. I despise TM and think this needs to change, but the only thing it's going to fix (from the consumer's perspective, not the artists et al) is the abysmal and abusive customer service (that doesn't really exist), not the high prices. The prices are pretty much exactly what the market will bear, and that will be true no matter who the middleman is.
- anthonypasq 2y agono they arent. the prices are significantly below market value which is why scalping exists. If Taylor Swift actually used market pricing then tickets would be thousands of dollars, but then people would whine that Taylor Swift is greedy, so instead they set some arbitrary "acceptable" ticket value and pawn all the blame on scalpers and Ticketmaster.
- freedomben 2y agoYes that's a fair point, although Taylor Swift is somewhat of an exception/corner case. Some of the huge acts do sell cheaper than market rate for other reasons, but most of the events they sell for are not. It's also worth noting that sometimes things change after prices have been set. For example, a baseball game in which tickets were sold but now there's a lot of attention/love suddenly and unexpectedly on the team (maybe they just pulled off a big upset or something) so "market rate" for tickets jumps much higher than what it was immediately before that when the tickets were sold. They weren't originally trying to price lower than market rate. Also the pricing they do for market rate is calculated to optimize for maximum revenue which includes some balance of selling max number of seats but only until the delta of additional sales means a net loss of revenue (i.e. you can sell every seat for $1 but that would make a lot less money).
- ayakang31415 2y agoJapan has fantastic ticketing system that has reasonable ticket price that is fixed, and no scalpers can buy all the tickets because it is a lottery system.
- ZoomerCretin 2y agoSo rationing? I wouldn't call that fantastic. Why should someone who's barely interested but willing to go for $10 more deserving of a seat than a super fan willing to save up to shell out $150 for a seat?
- drewg123 2y agoI spent many all-nighters in freezing cold temps in Buffalo NY waiting in line on a sidewalk for the ticket office to open in the mid 80s. It was unpleasant, but fair. I think artists should reserve a small fraction of their seats for "real" fans that are willing to do something like this. Make the tickets obtained this way non-transferable to prevent scalping. Heck, a "solution" to scalping would be to implement the above, and sell the rest of tickets via an auction, so the artist captures the revenue and doesn't leave room for the scalpers to make money.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoWhy should a rich fan get priority over a poor superfan? Every system has its tradeoffs.
- HDThoreaun 2y agobecause theyre willing to pay more
- alkonaut 2y agoThe best systems are the points based systems where fans are rewarded for being fans. E.g. people who had seen all Chiefs games for 3 seasons would be allocated a higher chance of getting a Superbowl ticket. What you don't want is people flying in for finals and paying $10k to see just the final game.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 2y agoI'm as glad as anyone else to see an abusive company get some scrutiny, B U T . . . Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond? They are not being financially incentivized to change their ways. This feels a lot like the video gamer who hates Video Game Company XYZ with the passion of a thousand suns, yet like clockwork buys their video games again and again. Show tickets aren't even a necessity. They're not like food and water--nobody has to buy them. Each and every dollar Ticketmaster collects is from a fan making a voluntary purchase of a luxury. Purchasing from a company that abuses them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond? This is why monopoly is a market failure. There isn't a market mechanism that can correct this.
- failuser 2y agoPotentially, a big player with money to burn can undercut them, but it does not look like that’s going to happen.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> a big player with money to burn can undercut them Unclear. There are limited cities that can support a 30,000+-seat stadium. Most of them have some already. Unless there is way more demand for these venues than I realise, I'd also guess they're close to saturation, i.e. adding another venue would result in lower utilisation. This natural monopoly in large concert venues creates a condition where winning is Pyrrhic, since it results in no profits for everyone playing.
- failuser 2y agoTake losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their place.
- throwmeaway67 2y agoThrow away account or i'll probably get sued. I have worked for both Ticketmaster and Viagogo (on the record, fuck Eric Baker!). I lasted 2 days at Ticketmaster and a whole morning at Viagogo and decided I'd be better off being unemployed. Both companies in the early days were out there to scam people and make as much money as possible by strategically ignoring claims and driving costs down. One is less visibly scammy than the other now and that's the one you're all complaining about. They know what they will get away with. The whole ticketing space is run by narcissistic assholes who should be in jail.
- xyst 2y agoWhat’s interesting here: 14 years ago, the US Justice Department green lit the merger under the assumption live nation and Ticketmaster would place nice > On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Justice Department approved the merger pending certain conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_Entertainment
- EasyMark 2y agoProbably time they should rectify that mistake, since they were clearly wrong about it.
- azinman2 2y agoI’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: kill the secondary market. Live nation should be broken up but a big driver of cost is the scalpers/hedgers who buy out everything and put it on StubHub. Just make all sales final. Check IDs at the door, or use technology to speed up identity verification (mail out rfids, etc). Sucks if you get sick or whatever, just like many things in life where you cancel last minute. It’ll substantially decrease cost due to these bottom feeders.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> a big driver of cost is the scalpers/hedgers who buy out everything and put it on StubHub Not true. About "10% of [performing arts] tickets sold in the primary market are later re-sold by ticket scalpers," increasing to "20-30% of top-tiered seats" [1]. Banning scalping increases attendance but results in "fewer distinct productions...shown in metropolitan areas or states that require ticket resellers to be licensed or that prohibit resale above face value." Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2], though this has been studied more in sports than the performing arts. Which makes sense. Scalpers de facto underwrite the seller's risk. [1] https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Economics/Chiou/boyle_and_chiou_resale.pdf https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Economics/Chi... [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/27698042 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27698042
- crabmusket 2y ago> Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2] I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the abstract talks about ticket window prices. Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Or am I misunderstanding the term "ticket window"? As a lay person, my gut asks: if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the "weighted average of seats normally available to the public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.) > if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist? Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less. [1] https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999 https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999
- rahimnathwani 2y agoThe Justice Department is preparing to sue Live Nation Interesting! The specific claims the department would allege couldn’t be learned. Hmm... maybe let's wait until we see what the claims are.
- sirsinsalot 2y agoWorth noting that in the UK at least, Live Nation have an effective monopoly on: - ticket sale - ticket secondary markets - they own most of the venues - they run the security (showsec) - they run the tour buses and logistics And so on. So when they raise ticket prices and claim costs are going up, it is their own costs. They're criminals. No more. No less.
- SSLy 2y agothank god, they're also a menace in europe.
- thesagan 2y agoThey may be a monopoly, but fans are willing to pay to see LiveNation concerts. Acts and venues go with it. I’ve found there so many other options out there for entertainment lately that I haven’t gone to a concert in 20 years! In a way I kind of like what Ticketmaster is doing, I wish I could get a cut. (Seriously though, we have so many olig/monopolies I’ve lost count. Sad.)
- zer00eyz 2y agoI used to work in this space. If the DOJ breaks up live nation the only group who gets screwed is the consumer. The sort of artist who is big enough to use live nation also wants a pay day for going on tour. They want the door, they want to sell their merch, they want a cut of the 20$ beer you buy. There might be 1 or 2 artist left who dont want to see you gouged on the ticket but that might not even be true any more. Liven nation goes away. The venues are going to remain as a single company, the concessions are going to cost just as much. Ticketing might be phone/app only. Every concert will turn into an auction. Want to get in front of the line. Pay 100 bucks to join a fan club. Want to cut that line, pay a 1000' bucks for a meet and greet and decent seats. Other wise wait, and bid. And that bidding is going to be ugly... Fans are an interesting group of people. They tend to think with their heart and not with their head.... Dont believe me, we were selling hats and shirts at concerts long before video games. If you're willing to pay 5 bucks for a virtual good then 50 for a tshrit doesn't seem bad.
- bombcar 2y agoAs long as shows are sold out, the fan is getting screwed. Where else is money coming from? Actually allowing auctions for tickets might make it so they can make money directly and not bother ... .ahahaha I can't even write it.
- shae 2y agoI think that's great, I'll be able to afford to see the small artists again without paying a huge amount of overhead.
- volleygman180 2y agoEverything you're describing is our current reality already. The only difference I'm noticing is that Platinum Pricing doesn't exist. In that case, that is a better future for consumers, because right now, Platinum Pricing is where we really get screwed.
- bonestamp2 2y agoEven if they don't break them up, there needs to be some limits and regulations as this scene is getting obscene: 1. I thought scalping was illegal? Maybe that has changed, or maybe there's a big loophole, but most of the big ticketing apps have essentially legalized scalping and they even have conventions for their "partners" (scalpers) where they entertain them and teach them how to buy and sell more tickets. Since the ticketing apps take massive fees on each ticket, more secondary sales benefits the ticketing company even more. 2. If scalping is still illegal, there needs to be a limit on the price hike for secondary sales. Clearly, someone who bought 50 tickets to a concert was not planning to use them all. This is a scalper. Since they could create many different accounts, it's hard to determine who is a scalper and who isn't. Either way, if you can't go to the concert and you want to resell them, then a max increase for your time to relist the tickets is fair for everyone. 3. There needs to be a limit on service fees. There's no reason why the service fee for selling an online ticket should be $50 PER TICKET. Sure, it's not always that high, but that's how high I've seen it in the past couple years. I can ship a cell phone across the country in 5 days for $5 and it is profitable for the service provider. There's no reason the efforts to furnish a digital ticket should cost more than that. It's clearly a hidden fee that is there as an additional profit center. 4. Not only do the ticket primary ticketing companies own the primary sales, they also own the secondary sales. So, for example, they can take a $30 fee PER TICKET on the primary sales and then they also get that $50 PER TICKET fee on the secondary sale of each same ticket. Then if that ticket gets sold again, they can get another $50 PER TICKET. It's absolutely insane. 5. Most major venues have exclusive deals with the major ticketing companies. So, if a large band/artist wants to play at a large venue and they don't want to charge their fans huge fees or allow scalping, they have no choice -- that venue has signed a deal and the artist has to use the venue's ticketing partner. 6. Some tickets aren't sent until just days before the event. If I bought tickets today, and they're charging me a $50 digital ticket fee, those tickets should be available to me immediately. Again, I can ship a cell phone across the country in 5 days for $5, there's no reason digital tickets should be withheld for months when a $50 fee was paid. 7. There's no transparency. Since it's so obscene, it's time for transparency. At a minimum, I should be able to see how many tickets for each event the person I'm buying the tickets from has sold in the past year. I know there are more issues, these are just the ones off the top of my head.
- giobox 2y agoWhen this merger was first announced over a decade ago, it became like mandatory teaching in Competition Law classes for Law students in the UK. Much of the legal community at the time was convinced there was no way in hell the original merger would be approved. Even at that time LiveNation controlled an astonishing percentage of the live music venue market - which when paired with ticket master's near total dominance of live music ticket sales... this was one of the seemingly simplest competition law cases in years. Then the deal was approved, of course. I am not surprised in the least it's finally getting anti-trust attention.
- bsimpson 2y agoI remember chatting with a band in ~2005 about how monopolized the live music space was. Insane that that was pre-merger.
- willsmith72 2y ago"Live Nation's a monopoly" one of my favourite songs https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/clydelawrence/falsealarms.html https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/clydelawrence/falsealarms.ht...
- resolutebat 2y agoHere's the (2018) viewpoint of somebody who actually owns and operates a concert venue in SF: https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2018/01/31.html https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2018/01/31.html (HN referers banned, so cut & paste into a fresh tab)
- mattmaroon 2y agoThat's a really good article, though I can assure him TM doesn't sell the alcohol. Unimportant, just the only one I know about first hand.
- sexy_seedbox 2y agoI remember hating ClearChannel as a teenager.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Bloating 2y agojust in time for an election year I'm sure its just my imagination, but seems like the moment tickets go on sale most of the good seats are being resold through an official reseller. Its almost like live nation might be scalping their own tickets.
- listenallyall 2y agoReally wish they'd bring back hard tickets. Over the past 20 years I've simply shown up at a concert or sporting event day-of dozens of times and managed to score good-to-great seats, often for very fair prices, with a success rate that I would estimate around 75-80%. In the past year, I've tried this a few times and there is simply nobody selling tickets near the venues at all.
- tzumby 2y agoCory Doctorow put this all into perspective so well in a podcast I listen to a while back https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/bonus-cory-doctorow-knows-why-monopolies-are-killing-art/ https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/bonus-cory-doctorow-knows...
- recroad 2y agoI'm glad to see this. I run jumpcomedy.com which provides ticketing/event management services for comedy shows (or pretty much anything but focused on comedy) and this industry is dominated by a few big players that charge exorbitant service fees which customers have no choice to pay because these are exclusive deals. I've gotten smaller clubs and comics to hop over, and got one big tour to join, but when it comes to the well-known artists, they are contractually bound to go with the big companies. I'm very happy someone is taking action.
- nojvek 2y agoIf there is a clear monopoly. It is LiveNation. Ticket master is robbery in daylight. Those jank fees. Oh man, they have no shame.
- ofslidingfeet 2y agoI've never cared about anything less than I care about the price of stadium concert tickets.
- mattmaroon 2y agoSo, a little context as to how the live events industry works, because it is not how most would assume. First, you have the venue. The venue has an owner. This may be the owner of the sports team who plays there, a company that's entirely unrelated to the venue, a city or other government entity, or whoever else. * Then you have the show you are buying a ticket for. This show may be a sports team, or it may be a concert or other live act. If a sports team it's probably got the same owner as the venue, but if a concert or other live act you have... Promoters. Promoters rent the venue, pay for the show (i.e. they pay the band their fee to come play), sell the tickets, staff all the parts the venue doesn't, and pocket the difference. The promoter takes a risk, in that if they pay Major Act $1m and spend $500k on marketing/the venue/staffing and nobody shows up, they lose $1.5m. The band and venue still get paid. The ticket platform. This platform sells the tickets for the event and adds their service fee. That service fee is generally used in part to pay the venue for the exclusive rights to sell tickets at the venue to the venue owner. That is both obviously valuable (fans can either pay your fee whatever it is or not go) and an obvious monopoly (if there were two ticket platforms selling for the same event the same seat would likely get sold twice sometimes). Where this gets dicey: Live Nation (which owns Ticket Master) is both the biggest promoter and a ticket selling platform. Both by far. In fact they pay for exclusive rights to more than 80% of large venues. Most states only have a few venues that can do major acts (20,000+ seats), and a major act has essentially no alternative but to either play Live Nation venues, or play smaller evenues where independent promoters will pay them smaller fees. Artists hate this system because it gouges their fans and arguably reduces their rates (there isn't a thriving market of promotors because most of them can't even use most big venues) but since Pearl Jam lost trying to break it up 30 years ago (when they were separate entities and TicketMaster had just as big a monopoly as now) they've not bothered to sue. Fans hate this system because they get gouged coming and going. It works well for Live Nation and the venues, obviously, though the venues still would be fine as they have very little competition. In my area there are two viable venues in the summer for a 25,000 person concert and one in the winter, and we're bigger than most. Live Nation can use the vertical integration (they get both the promoter's share of the ticket revenue and the ticketing fee) to buy up most venues. And by buy up I mean either pay for exclusive contracts too, or just purchase outright. It's been pretty clearly in violation of anti-trust laws for decades. TicketMaster before the merger and the combined entity now. I don't know how they've gotten away with it for so long, and they should undo the merger they never should have allowed to begin with. *Unrelated but interesting: the venue also sells the rights to services inside the venue, like merchandise and, most lucratively, food and beverage. Third parties buy the rights to sell all of the food and drinks for very large sums. So a venue owner is responsible for relatively little of the work that goes on inside the venue. Someone else sets up the shows, pays for everything, sells the tickets, sells the food and drinks, etc.
- Kwinnoble10 2y ago[flagged]
- Animats 2y agoWell, duh. This should have happened two decades ago. Nobody should be able to have a cross-monopoly in artists, ticketing, and venues.