4 ms·
Are you arguing that they aren't hurting consumers? Just look at ticket prices over the years as more and more competition was eliminated, as well as the tactic
by EasyMark 2y ago
Are you arguing that they aren't hurting consumers? Just look at ticket prices over the years as more and more competition was eliminated, as well as the tactics they use to control artists. You aren't going to have much luck I suspect.
- paulddraper 2y agoNo. I am pointing out that being a monopoly (i.e. the only business choosing to offer a product/service) is not illegal. Engaging in anticompetive behavior is illegal. And the Justice Dept has accused Ticketmaster of doing that.
- Loughla 2y agoI was just looking at that last night. [Artist that was super popular in 2006ish] tickets when we went at the absolute height of his popularity were $40 for lawn seats at a local venue [Same artist] at the same venue in the same lawn seating is now $380. What's the difference? Guess who bought the venue.
- pwarner 2y agoDon't forget 2024 you probably has a much higher disposable income than 2006 you... And might be willing to pay to feel young again for a few hours. Off to buy some late 90s band tickets!
- bear141 2y agoWow. This hurts.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago> What's the difference? Disposable income of target audience. Greater number of people in target audience. Fewer shows. Technology enabling more accurate pricing so each customer is able to be targeted to pay as much as they can afford (price discrimination). Etc.
- Aunche 2y agoAlso, artists can no longer make money by selling music, so the majority of their income comes from performances now.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoCan also be an instance of Baumol’s cost disease.
- pmarreck 2y agoIt might be a factor (thanks for introducing me to this concept!) but I doubt it accounts for all of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
- _3u10 2y agoDoesn't ticket master sell most tickets for far below market value? How does this hurt consumers? Are they forcing artists to sell below market value or something?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chrisfinazzo 2y agoYet nobody seems to ever ask whether or not the merger is a question of survival - would TM or LN poof out of existence if they didn't have this release valve? - or simply just another attempt to stifle existing competition in the market. People who are really opposed to this will probably think this is wildly off base, but if it came to pass...isn't that worse than one company absorbing the other because although the endgame is similar, it's messier and doesn't necessarily improve the overall situation. An example: Barclays acquisition of Lehman Brothers business in North America in 2008 after the latter imploded. They had an agreement in principle, but the government balked, so it happened after the fact...bringing an even larger crisis along with it.
- brokencode 2y agoIf the company is in such a bad state that the only thing keeping it alive is a monopolistic control of the market and much hated business practices, do we really want it running a significant chunk of the economy? Or is it better to watch it burn to allow better companies to emerge? Personally, I think that if a company can’t survive with competition, it shouldn’t survive. That is a fundamental and necessary tenant of capitalism. It may cause pain in the short term, but it will eventually lead to a healthier market. As was often repeated back in the Great Recession, if a company is too big to fail, then maybe it’s too big to exist.