4 ms·

This is of course interesting and will lead to inevitable comments about disruption being needed in event ticketing. Let me save you the trouble as this has be

by cletus 14y ago

This is of course interesting and will lead to inevitable comments about disruption being needed in event ticketing. Let me save you the trouble as this has been rehashed many times already: the problem here is Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues and the entertainment's willingness to let Ticketmaster be the "sacrificial anode" and focus of ire from both audiences and performers. There was a deal done some years ago--I forget the name--whereby performers would get 90% of ticket sales. The way around that is not to increase ticket prices but to add "fees". Online transaction fees, mail fees, processing fees, booking fees, you name it. The fees in some cases are approaching the ticket price. Ticketmaster does this, splitting the proceeds with promoters and venues while the artists get a 90% cut of an ever smaller part of the pie. Ticketmaster has multi-year exclusive deals with venues such that none can really afford the attractive cuts they get to "go it alone". IMHO this situation has reached the point of requiring government action as this is now an antritrust issue (the ticketing market basically cannot function now). Until that happens any ticketing disruption is doomed.

napierzaza 14y ago
Except for the 6,000,000$ in commerce that LouisCK managed to do? I imagine the problem is with larger venues than most stand-up performers might appear in. Louis CK has a lot of sway when it comes to pretty much anything since he can guarantee a sold-out show practically anywhere. But I wouldn't exactly call this a moot experiment.
dlikhten 14y ago
Well said, good sir, well said. However it still goes to show that there is a disconnect between "popular" and "up and coming". The rules for Louis C.K. and up-and-coming comedians are quite different. He is a gorilla and can use his momentum to do interesting things, others cannot. Disruption is possible IF the seller company choses to take a multi-year hit while de-throning ticketmaster. If that happens with the backing of big names like Louis it may be a possibility.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rmc 14y ago
Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues Another problem, especially when a ticketing start up tries to go after a medium or large venue, is that Ticketmaster has the capital to give venues (some) of the money from the ticket sales before their sold (e.g. a few months or a year before). The venue then has money to do stuff before the event. To compete against that, you need to have a lot of money in the bank (i.e. not a start up).
callmeed 14y ago
On top of that (somewhat to TM's credit), I remember reading an article stating that they were the only company who had proven they could handle the huge load of online sales for top-tier acts (think Gaga and Bieber). Let's face it, Louis CK's site probably could not handle 100K simultaneous people buying tickets and choosing seats. EDIT: found the article http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/mf_ticketmaster/all/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/mf_ticketmaster/all/
- voltagex_ 14y ago
  That's interesting. The Australian branch of Ticketmaster uses queuing and delays to handle load and still often crashes when "big" events go on sale (annual festivals, Radiohead)
  - bitdestroyer 14y ago
    Radiohead couldn't even handle Radiohead on their last American tour.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    Confirmed. The radiohead ticket release was an abomination. Although somehow, Ticketek manages to be even worse.
pinchyfingers 14y ago
This isn't a situation requiring government action. This is an opportunity for entrepreneurship, where venues will have to take the risk of staying with Ticketmaster, or not. Clearly, Louis CK is exemplifying this.
- jim-greer 14y ago
  Entrepreneurs have been trying since 1995 to dislodge Ticketmaster. They've never gotten the big venues to sign on, and I do think is is a classic antitrust violation.
larrys 14y ago
"this situation has reached the point of requiring government action as this is now an antritrust issue " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704762904575025332380117008.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870476290457502...
vijayr 14y ago
"Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues" Sorry for the dumb question - does this mean that nobody else can book these venues? If that is the case, can't CK (and other comedians) find a neutral venue (or a venue that is not already on Ticketmaster's list)? At least in his case, he doesn't need sophisticated venues (like the ones need for an opera, or a circus for example) Also, for disruption - can't a company buy/build a venue, and pitch it as "just pay the rent, and you take care of ticket sales and everything else" model?
- dsl 14y ago
  Effectively. You can still book venues, you just can't sell tickets to your event without Ticketmaster being involved. A company called Livenation went around about 10 years ago and bought all the venues large enough to hold a profitable concert or show, then a few years back merged with Ticketmaster. Livenation won't sell you one of their venues. Building a new one large enough to be profitable is near impossible. It's not just a building, its massive parking lots, planning and building commissions, working with local police for traffic management, unions for load ins/outs, getting sizable power feeds from your local utility, multi-million dollar sound systems, concessions contracts, medical services, etc., etc., etc.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - beedogs 14y ago
    Does this mean that Ticketmaster runs the risk of overextending itself and collapsing in a heap, the way Clear Channel did after buying up hundreds of radio stations throughout the 90s and early 00s? (ihopeihopeihope)
- cdcarter 14y ago
  No, it just means Ticketmaster is the exclusive provider of box office services. That is a potential disruption model (if you could manager actually buying/building a venue) but there's a reason (commercial) venues almost always require you to use their box office services. Often times, the venue gets rent in terms of a flat fee plus a cut of the net adjusted gross box office revenue. A bigger show puts more strain on the venue and they'll want a slightly larger cut. The venue then wants to oversee the settlement, and, therefor, the box officing.
skrebbel 14y ago
> Until that happens any ticketing disruption is doomed , in the US. There's a very similar reason why Spotify started in Sweden, and took years until jumping the pond. I'm not saying everything is better in Europe, and in fact I've no clue about the ticket sales situation in most European countries. But I am saying that, much as many would like to forget, innovation and market disruption is not a US monopoly.
- rmc 14y ago
  Oh I assure you Ticketmaster is the 800 lb gorilla in the room in several European countries.

by cletus 14y ago

napierzaza 14y ago

Except for the 6,000,000$ in commerce that LouisCK managed to do? I imagine the problem is with larger venues than most stand-up performers might appear in. Louis CK has a lot of sway when it comes to pretty much anything since he can guarantee a sold-out show practically anywhere. But I wouldn't exactly call this a moot experiment.

dlikhten 14y ago

Well said, good sir, well said. However it still goes to show that there is a disconnect between "popular" and "up and coming". The rules for Louis C.K. and up-and-coming comedians are quite different. He is a gorilla and can use his momentum to do interesting things, others cannot. Disruption is possible IF the seller company choses to take a multi-year hit while de-throning ticketmaster. If that happens with the backing of big names like Louis it may be a possibility.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rmc 14y ago

Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues Another problem, especially when a ticketing start up tries to go after a medium or large venue, is that Ticketmaster has the capital to give venues (some) of the money from the ticket sales before their sold (e.g. a few months or a year before). The venue then has money to do stuff before the event. To compete against that, you need to have a lot of money in the bank (i.e. not a start up).

callmeed 14y ago

On top of that (somewhat to TM's credit), I remember reading an article stating that they were the only company who had proven they could handle the huge load of online sales for top-tier acts (think Gaga and Bieber). Let's face it, Louis CK's site probably could not handle 100K simultaneous people buying tickets and choosing seats. EDIT: found the article http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/mf_ticketmaster/all/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/mf_ticketmaster/all/

voltagex_ 14y ago
That's interesting. The Australian branch of Ticketmaster uses queuing and delays to handle load and still often crashes when "big" events go on sale (annual festivals, Radiohead)
- bitdestroyer 14y ago
  Radiohead couldn't even handle Radiohead on their last American tour.
- beedogs 14y ago
  Confirmed. The radiohead ticket release was an abomination. Although somehow, Ticketek manages to be even worse.

pinchyfingers 14y ago

This isn't a situation requiring government action. This is an opportunity for entrepreneurship, where venues will have to take the risk of staying with Ticketmaster, or not. Clearly, Louis CK is exemplifying this.

jim-greer 14y ago
Entrepreneurs have been trying since 1995 to dislodge Ticketmaster. They've never gotten the big venues to sign on, and I do think is is a classic antitrust violation.

larrys 14y ago

"this situation has reached the point of requiring government action as this is now an antritrust issue " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704762904575025332380117008.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870476290457502...

vijayr 14y ago

"Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues" Sorry for the dumb question - does this mean that nobody else can book these venues? If that is the case, can't CK (and other comedians) find a neutral venue (or a venue that is not already on Ticketmaster's list)? At least in his case, he doesn't need sophisticated venues (like the ones need for an opera, or a circus for example) Also, for disruption - can't a company buy/build a venue, and pitch it as "just pay the rent, and you take care of ticket sales and everything else" model?

dsl 14y ago
Effectively. You can still book venues, you just can't sell tickets to your event without Ticketmaster being involved. A company called Livenation went around about 10 years ago and bought all the venues large enough to hold a profitable concert or show, then a few years back merged with Ticketmaster. Livenation won't sell you one of their venues. Building a new one large enough to be profitable is near impossible. It's not just a building, its massive parking lots, planning and building commissions, working with local police for traffic management, unions for load ins/outs, getting sizable power feeds from your local utility, multi-million dollar sound systems, concessions contracts, medical services, etc., etc., etc.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- beedogs 14y ago
  Does this mean that Ticketmaster runs the risk of overextending itself and collapsing in a heap, the way Clear Channel did after buying up hundreds of radio stations throughout the 90s and early 00s? (ihopeihopeihope)
cdcarter 14y ago
No, it just means Ticketmaster is the exclusive provider of box office services. That is a potential disruption model (if you could manager actually buying/building a venue) but there's a reason (commercial) venues almost always require you to use their box office services. Often times, the venue gets rent in terms of a flat fee plus a cut of the net adjusted gross box office revenue. A bigger show puts more strain on the venue and they'll want a slightly larger cut. The venue then wants to oversee the settlement, and, therefor, the box officing.

skrebbel 14y ago

> Until that happens any ticketing disruption is doomed , in the US. There's a very similar reason why Spotify started in Sweden, and took years until jumping the pond. I'm not saying everything is better in Europe, and in fact I've no clue about the ticket sales situation in most European countries. But I am saying that, much as many would like to forget, innovation and market disruption is not a US monopoly.

rmc 14y ago
Oh I assure you Ticketmaster is the 800 lb gorilla in the room in several European countries.