3 ms·

Potentially, 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 ago
  Take losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their place.
  - dugite-code 2y ago
    I believe a big problem is many venues have either lock in contracts, or are outright owned by live nation directly or indirectly.
kxrm 2y ago
> Potentially, a big player with money to burn can undercut them I guarantee you that Ticketmaster's pockets are much deeper. They have entrenched themselves. This romantic notion that consumers should strike against situations like this or that smaller players should find edges in are just not realistic to me because of the entrenchment, coercion and scarcity at play here. A very popular band in the 90s tried to fight Ticketmaster. They failed. So I just don't understand this narrative in the face of all the evidence that these tactics just don't or won't work. https://news.yahoo.com/1994-pearl-jam-took-ticketmaster-230031845.html https://news.yahoo.com/1994-pearl-jam-took-ticketmaster-2300...
- failuser 2y ago
  I’m talking about someone like a big venture capital fund or a big bank. Or someone like Saudis. That’s a lucrative field. Ironically, any company doing this will want to take the place of monopoly, not increase competition in the long run.
  - kxrm 2y ago
    I don't see it. There are far better investments than going after Ticketmaster. As soon as you enter this market you are fighting a giant that has a $1 Billion war chest not to mention very favorable venue holdings that they can immediately use as leverage to destroy you.

> 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 ago
Take losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their place.
- dugite-code 2y ago
  I believe a big problem is many venues have either lock in contracts, or are outright owned by live nation directly or indirectly.

kxrm 2y ago

> Potentially, a big player with money to burn can undercut them I guarantee you that Ticketmaster's pockets are much deeper. They have entrenched themselves. This romantic notion that consumers should strike against situations like this or that smaller players should find edges in are just not realistic to me because of the entrenchment, coercion and scarcity at play here. A very popular band in the 90s tried to fight Ticketmaster. They failed. So I just don't understand this narrative in the face of all the evidence that these tactics just don't or won't work. https://news.yahoo.com/1994-pearl-jam-took-ticketmaster-230031845.html https://news.yahoo.com/1994-pearl-jam-took-ticketmaster-2300...

failuser 2y ago
I’m talking about someone like a big venture capital fund or a big bank. Or someone like Saudis. That’s a lucrative field. Ironically, any company doing this will want to take the place of monopoly, not increase competition in the long run.
- kxrm 2y ago
  I don't see it. There are far better investments than going after Ticketmaster. As soon as you enter this market you are fighting a giant that has a $1 Billion war chest not to mention very favorable venue holdings that they can immediately use as leverage to destroy you.