3 ms·

> Live-event tickets include those for concerts, sporting events, music, theater, and other live performances that audiences watch as they occur, but not pre-re

by diggan 1y ago

> Live-event tickets include those for concerts, sporting events, music, theater, and other live performances that audiences watch as they occur, but not pre-recorded audio or visual performances. What could be the reason pre-recorded audio/visual performances are excluded? Shouldn't this just be for everything? Why would some types of tickets be required to be truthful about fees and not allowed to lie about the total price in ads, while others are allowed?

gruez 1y ago
Movie theaters/studios lobbied harder
- explodes 1y ago
  "The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide the true total price and instead force consumers to go to different sites and click through multiple webpages for each offer to learn the true total price"
  - gruez 1y ago
    Since when do consumers "comparison shop across multiple websites" for concert tickets? For the official release there's usually only one vendor.
- cscurmudgeon 1y ago
  [dead]
- Jolter 1y ago
  Simply put, cinemas didn’t engage in this bad behavior (yet) so they escaped regulation.
- joshvm 1y ago
  They also have far more price sensitive customers and they're competing against streaming platforms. It's not like the cost of movies and TV has gone down. But, nobody is going to pay 50 bucks for a seat unless it's a spectacular movie at the best IMAX in the country. I think a seat for Interstellar cost close to that when it came out. The average blockbuster in an average small theater? Physical theaters are already on their last legs. They've banked on lower seat count to put in larger couches/recliners, started to offer alcohol and they still make margin on the food. They're also re-running classic movies for not much more than a rental - The Matrix again? All of Studio Ghibli? Yes please. In many ways it's a great time to go to see movies in the theater. The experience has markedly improved and the cost to consumers hasn't risen that much in absolute terms. The Regal near me charges about $15 for a normal evening seat, less for a matinee. I'm sure I've paid more in Ticketmaster fees for a single performance.
timewizard 1y ago
"The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide the true total price and instead force consumers to go to different sites and click through multiple webpages for each offer to learn the true total price" Where as these are not typical concerns for movie producers and movie theaters which are already operated as a legal cartel.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  Movies are fungible and available in masses. Say a big hit name like AC/DC, they're showing up in some entire country once in a decade. The competition to get a ticket for this specific show is insane. A movie however? There's competition both in time (a showing is booked out? fine, I'll just go a week later), in venues (at least in most cities there's at least two) and there's an effective ceiling on price, particularly as consumers are already struggling financially.
da_chicken 1y ago
I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.
- betterThanTexas 1y ago
  Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.
  - rtpg 1y ago
    The best faith thing I can think of here is that these rules are requiring that live events do much more than "just" display the full price. For example in ads they _must_ show the all inclusive price. An example of a thing that movie theaters can do that live event shows can no longer do is say "a ticket costs $14", while in reality there's a booking fee to cover card payments if you pay online, but you can walk into a movie theater and pay just $14. I think the FTC is saying that while there might be good faith reasons to have booking fees, the industry clearly is using this stuff in bad faith so the industry no longer has this sort of good faith "out" to simplify messaging on pricing.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    The live event people are far more odious and abusive. They operate monopolies, but modern American law has been perverted to be unable to recognize that.
- yellowapple 1y ago
  This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it. Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).
GuB-42 1y ago
I think that it is simply because the situation is less problematic than with live events. In free countries, and especially the US when it comes to trade, the idea is that people can do whatever they want unless it causes a problem, and if it causes a problem, they will pass the minimum amount of regulation needed to address the problem. My opinion as a consumer would be to ban all hidden fees in all industries, including taxes and tipping when it is expected. But lawmakers in the US consider it not enough of a problem to restrict the freedoms of businesses doing this, so they take a more targeted approach.
- LudwigNagasena 1y ago
  That sounds more like a civil law vs common law distinction. In a civil law country if something causes a problem, the legislative branch would be expected to come up with a general solution. (eg https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-pricing/indexamp_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...) In a common law country, if something causes a problem an executive agency or a judge would be expected to figure out a solution that doesn’t set a precedent that is too wide and general.
- dboreham 1y ago
  Corruption makes it magically less of a problem.
throwawaymaths 1y ago
how often do you get extra fees on a pre-recorded performance? Aside from sales tax, my guess would be, for me it's been zero times.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  If you buy tickets online, Regal adds a small fee. It’s like $2. The issue is LiveNation adds $80 in some cases.
- autoexec 1y ago
  The closest I can think of is people paying for amazon's streaming service, and realizing that most of the shows and movies on the service require various amounts of money to watch on top of the monthly fee they're already being charged. Netflix (and almost every other streaming service) had already set an expectation that paying for a streaming service would be enough to watch the shows offered on that service. That said, back when I actually had prime it was only ever for the shipping so I never saw how amazon advertised their streaming service to people. Maybe the ads actually said "Sign up to Prime Video today for $187 and get access to 20% of the shows on the platform as well as an opportunity to pay even more for the other 80% of the titles!" I've also seen random mentions of spotify having hidden fees, but I've never used the service and have no idea if they have them or ever have had them.

by diggan 1y ago

gruez 1y ago

Movie theaters/studios lobbied harder

explodes 1y ago
"The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide the true total price and instead force consumers to go to different sites and click through multiple webpages for each offer to learn the true total price"
- gruez 1y ago
  Since when do consumers "comparison shop across multiple websites" for concert tickets? For the official release there's usually only one vendor.
cscurmudgeon 1y ago
[dead]
Jolter 1y ago
Simply put, cinemas didn’t engage in this bad behavior (yet) so they escaped regulation.
joshvm 1y ago
They also have far more price sensitive customers and they're competing against streaming platforms. It's not like the cost of movies and TV has gone down. But, nobody is going to pay 50 bucks for a seat unless it's a spectacular movie at the best IMAX in the country. I think a seat for Interstellar cost close to that when it came out. The average blockbuster in an average small theater? Physical theaters are already on their last legs. They've banked on lower seat count to put in larger couches/recliners, started to offer alcohol and they still make margin on the food. They're also re-running classic movies for not much more than a rental - The Matrix again? All of Studio Ghibli? Yes please. In many ways it's a great time to go to see movies in the theater. The experience has markedly improved and the cost to consumers hasn't risen that much in absolute terms. The Regal near me charges about $15 for a normal evening seat, less for a matinee. I'm sure I've paid more in Ticketmaster fees for a single performance.

timewizard 1y ago

"The Commission notes that the harms of bait-and-switch pricing and the misrepresentation of fees and charges are particularly pronounced in industries such as these, in which most transactions occur online. Consumers trying to comparison shop across multiple websites, or even on the same website, when deciding what tickets to purchase or where to travel are unable to do so effectively because some businesses hide the true total price and instead force consumers to go to different sites and click through multiple webpages for each offer to learn the true total price" Where as these are not typical concerns for movie producers and movie theaters which are already operated as a legal cartel.

mschuster91 1y ago
Movies are fungible and available in masses. Say a big hit name like AC/DC, they're showing up in some entire country once in a decade. The competition to get a ticket for this specific show is insane. A movie however? There's competition both in time (a showing is booked out? fine, I'll just go a week later), in venues (at least in most cities there's at least two) and there's an effective ceiling on price, particularly as consumers are already struggling financially.

da_chicken 1y ago

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

betterThanTexas 1y ago
Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.
- rtpg 1y ago
  The best faith thing I can think of here is that these rules are requiring that live events do much more than "just" display the full price. For example in ads they _must_ show the all inclusive price. An example of a thing that movie theaters can do that live event shows can no longer do is say "a ticket costs $14", while in reality there's a booking fee to cover card payments if you pay online, but you can walk into a movie theater and pay just $14. I think the FTC is saying that while there might be good faith reasons to have booking fees, the industry clearly is using this stuff in bad faith so the industry no longer has this sort of good faith "out" to simplify messaging on pricing.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  The live event people are far more odious and abusive. They operate monopolies, but modern American law has been perverted to be unable to recognize that.
yellowapple 1y ago
This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it. Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).

GuB-42 1y ago

I think that it is simply because the situation is less problematic than with live events. In free countries, and especially the US when it comes to trade, the idea is that people can do whatever they want unless it causes a problem, and if it causes a problem, they will pass the minimum amount of regulation needed to address the problem. My opinion as a consumer would be to ban all hidden fees in all industries, including taxes and tipping when it is expected. But lawmakers in the US consider it not enough of a problem to restrict the freedoms of businesses doing this, so they take a more targeted approach.

LudwigNagasena 1y ago
That sounds more like a civil law vs common law distinction. In a civil law country if something causes a problem, the legislative branch would be expected to come up with a general solution. (eg https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-pricing/indexamp_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...) In a common law country, if something causes a problem an executive agency or a judge would be expected to figure out a solution that doesn’t set a precedent that is too wide and general.
dboreham 1y ago
Corruption makes it magically less of a problem.

throwawaymaths 1y ago

how often do you get extra fees on a pre-recorded performance? Aside from sales tax, my guess would be, for me it's been zero times.

Spooky23 1y ago
If you buy tickets online, Regal adds a small fee. It’s like $2. The issue is LiveNation adds $80 in some cases.
autoexec 1y ago
The closest I can think of is people paying for amazon's streaming service, and realizing that most of the shows and movies on the service require various amounts of money to watch on top of the monthly fee they're already being charged. Netflix (and almost every other streaming service) had already set an expectation that paying for a streaming service would be enough to watch the shows offered on that service. That said, back when I actually had prime it was only ever for the shipping so I never saw how amazon advertised their streaming service to people. Maybe the ads actually said "Sign up to Prime Video today for $187 and get access to 20% of the shows on the platform as well as an opportunity to pay even more for the other 80% of the titles!" I've also seen random mentions of spotify having hidden fees, but I've never used the service and have no idea if they have them or ever have had them.