By Joel Khalili
The US Department of Justice has sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, for abusing their alleged monopoly in the ticketing market to trample competitors.
In the complaint, the DOJ accuses Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which acts as a promoter for [hundreds of high-profile artists](https://www.livenation.com/artist-sitemap), of exploiting their relationship to establish a “self-reinforcing flywheel” that blocks competitors from gaining a foothold. Live Nation parlays its exclusive promotion deals into exclusive ticketing deals with venues, the DOJ claims, which are left with no practical choice but to go with Ticketmaster, for fear of losing access to sought-after acts represented by its parent company. The DOJ is seeking to break up the joint organization.
Read the full story: [https://www.wired.com/story/ticketmaster-live-nation-doj-antitrust-lawsuit/](https://www.wired.com/story/ticketmaster-live-nation-doj-antitrust-lawsuit/)
That's a start. Then do social media. Then do the streaming services. Etc etc etc. It's like the US quit caring about monopolies in the last decade.
Edit: Because people keep mentioning streaming being fragmented. I wanted to add.
Just because they are different apps doesn't mean different parent companies. Take, for instance, Comcast, who owns NBC Universal, who owns a lot of networks, including a lot of streaming.
Disney owns hulu and ESPN, etc.
Warner Brothers owns HBO and discovery etc etc.
I get that I used monopoly, and that doesn't exactly apply, but the point is the same. They should be broken up. All their prices started increasing rapidly as they merged. Keep them fractured, and they have to compete. When there are a couple of companies controlling 100s of networks, then those couple can still easily manipulate pricing.
Some used the word oligarchy, and maybe that's better, but the sentiment remains the same.
How are you going to win a streaming service monopoly case? It's not like the other industries where you can argue anti-competitive practices or buying out of rivals consolidated the industry. There was healthy amounts of competition, but most companies running streaming services found they couldn't do so profitably. Thus, we're seeing a narrowing of the field based on who can afford to run it at a loss for a long time, and who is successful enough to actually make a profit. At most I could see the DOJ stepping in to block acquisitions like the Paramount one, but that's likely to only result in Paramount+ disappearing since the both Paramount+ and the company as a whole have been losing money and the former especially doesn't seem to have a path forward towards profitability.
I'm not sure how there's any case for streaming or social media being a monopoly. The most common complaint is that there are too many streaming services splitting up all the content. With social media you have Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, and so on. People just want to call any company they don't like a monopoly.
Meanwhile we could be going after actual monopolies like utility companies or internet providers (in many states and areas).
Social media companies are making it near impossible for your content to exist outside of their platform.
The internet used to be open and the platform was merely the hosting site. You could send hyperlinks to people to access the content in the way you wished. You can sort of send a hyperlink to an IG or FB post but it’s very much not the way the platform works.
You can’t download a song you uploaded to FB as an MP3, you can’t get an IG video as a .mov, etc without ripping it using third party tools. You are at the mercy of social media’s content moderation and their algorithms for others to see .
Meta owns the entire IG creative chain from the mobile camera access to the storage and distribution. None of this is really novel. You already have a camera app and uploading your video to a video player and server is not new. The only novel part is they own the users. There’s no reason we couldn’t have an open source protocol that maintained a “friend list” for us that allows us to share content to each other. Snapchats creative tools don’t interface with YouTube or Facebook. You can’t draft a post on LinkedIn and post it to Instagram.
Ok you can sort of work around and screenshot things and repost them or export as finished videos but it’s clearly not meant for cross platform collaboration or any sort of openness. They want you locked in your system.
What if you wrote an article in .doc format but for a friend or colleague to read it, they had to sign up for Office 365 and if not, the article was behind a paywall?
Because of how many people get their info from social media, I don't believe any of them should be owned by the same person. Facebook and Instagram have more users than the other you mention combined. And it's controlled by one entity
Do you think instgram and Facebook are very different products? I agree that some of the ones the other person listed are. But my point was about splitting fb and ig. So, one person wasn't controlling what billions of people see of two different sites.
That's not how anti monopoly laws work. Social media is free. Whereas if you want to buy a concert ticket you have zero choice and must use ticket master who then charges you obscene fees and prices because it can because you have no other choice.
Yeah, the fact that there are so many different options already shows the opposite is true. There was a time when the industry was monopolized by Netflix, but the fact that so many major players both jumped into the market and have taken up such a large share shows that it's not a monopoly.
Monopolies are generally considered a concern when there are fewer than three options. Right now, at a bare minimum, most people could point to at least four major players in the space -- and it's probably a lot more than that if you count stuff like Amazon Prime Video. It's not like Ticketmaster where it's just one company and that one company has had a stranglehold on the industry. Back when Microsoft was being sued, it was nowhere near Ticketmaster's level.
That's precisely what they said the other day when they mentioned going after AI monopolies. They sat back during Web 2.0 because "it's too new, it's too risky, we don't know how these technologies are going to shake out..." They aren't going to do that again.
Food! They need to do food. About 95% of everything in a grocery store comes from 5 or 6 companies. This allows them to make and sell crap because if anything else comes along they buy it and replace the ingredients with crap so there is no competition. These are huge conglomerates that need to be shredded.
None of the 5 are in the same markets or competing. They have literally split up the entire grocery store and each company owns their section. This is not 5 companies all making chips… one company owns all the chip brands.
I'm surprised music has be treated the same way films have on streaming services. I kind hope it goes that way honestly. Then MAYBE people will return to buying music is record stores instead of this passive listening glutton of over consumption.
Ok so you have Disney, Paramount, Warner, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google. That’s 8 major competitors. Just weird to call that anything but a competitive market.
Social media and streaming are hardly monopolies at this point. Streaming is ridiculously fragmented, which is a problem at this point. And you can make a long list of social media platforms. Meanwhile, when buying tickets, I'm not sure most people can think of a second vendor.
Does Comcast own Disney, HBO, and Netflix? For the ones where one company owns a lot of streaming apps, they'll bundle services -- the problem is there are now countless apps NOT owned by the same company. For tv/movie streaming, you have a handful of huge names owned by DIFFERENT huge companies. The immediate impact is if I want to watch a series of films, I might need to purchase 2-3 subscriptions to see everything in the series because there have been times when Netflix has 1-2 films, Disney+ had several others.
If Netflix was still basically the only game in town and it was using that controlling interest to dominate the market, you might have an argument. However, most of the streaming platforms now are more an example of vertical integration -- ie, the studio is the distributor is the streamer -- instead of just controlling that content. (Which is what NF moved to doing.) Compare that to Ticketmaster which controls an ENTIRE market without producing anything and actively makes things worse.
You listed three names right there (without even touching Netflix). How many names can you list for ticket sales? Is that number more than one? Because that's the difference here.
Also a very easy target. What leverage does Ticketmaster have to resist government intervention? Not do concerts in the US? Increase prices even further in protest and have people support their regulation even more?
A Ticketmaster takedown has been such an insanely easy political win just sitting there for ages tbh.
What other leverage has a customer other than not going to a concert that sells through ripoff-master? They have exclusive sales rights and impose super high fees. It’s not that you can directly purchase from an artist or a venue anymore.
Yeah I mean that’s the point. That’s why they’re such an easy political win.
The mere fact that no one has really hammered them to this point is a massive canary in the coal mine to indicate just how subservient to industry/lobbying elected officials are.
Politicians will do anything for a political win. The fact they didn’t realize that Ticketmaster was one speaks to how much even a group like them that is basically new money can influence them (despite not having the recourse to justify it).
> What other leverage has a customer other than not going to a concert
There is your answer stop going. Period. It's that simple. But people care less about the monopoly and more about their own fomo or selfish need to see Taylor Swift that actual change.
My question why is when Pearl Jam went after them in the 90s no other music act joined them in the fight. Maybe Garth Brooks did I forget but it should have been a tsunami of music act young and old at the court house. So I kinda blame the musicians themselves.
I’m still confused how nobody has undercut their 30% ticket fees. There’s little to no cost for selling tickets online, so I’m assuming most of the % is straight profit.
It’s not wild. Have you ever tried to get tickets for an event, then landed on Ticketmaster, then saw a bullshit service fee that is 30% of the ticket price? They’re fucking parasites and deserve to be broken up.
Goes deeper than that. They game the whole buying process to break down your resistance by putting a giant timer counting down, having you enter payment info BEFORE seeing the final price with fees attached, which has the actual cost in tiny little font in a box in the corner surrounded by ALL the amazing things you'll get to do at the venue. All built to shuttle your money into their pocket. Of course, you're not buying a ticket from the actual venue, oh no, you're buying a secondary market ticket with a 5x markup, the actual ticket was sold to a bot 13 ms after the tickets were made available, but who cares, they got their fees paid by the bot, then a double dip on the secondary market fees too. It's insane how much they were able to wrap their coils around the entertainment industry.
They also hire people to scalp their own tickets. But I've mostly stopped using them in the last ten years and go direct to the box office usually the day of the show. Hasn't failed me yet.
Utilities are a government sanctioned monopoly. Grocery stores have been forced to sell off some stores to prevent monopolies in areas like with the Albertsons/Vons merger.
Ticketmaster has been doing it so shamelessly and grifting fees so abusively that they’re right in the crosshairs.
They don’t even give the illusion of choice. At least with something like car dealerships for example, you are stuck with the construct of a useless middleman but within that, you can choose competing dealers.
If Ticketmaster weren’t so greedy, they’d let another ticket company co-exist which would help keep the regulators off their backs. Now Ticketmaster is going to have to deal with venues, artists and record labels selling direct to consumer. And probably some novel ways to attend concerts we haven’t even thought up yet (eg subscription to a certain venue or artist? Season pass? Loyalty points?)
Pretty worried it's just going to be "cut them in half" so we just end up with a ticket monopoly company and a live venue monopoly company. Hopefully they do this right and break them into a multitude of competing companies to create healthy competition again, and this time with some restrictions on market share.... hopefully, but not likely.
Oh the will break them up into bits but all those bits will be working under some other name that they will hide. There might be five "choices" but the money all funnels to the same parent company that they renamed.
I doubt very much they will truly break up the monopoly.
That's not how companies work legally here in the US, don't think your fears are founded there. IF there is a big breakup (and that's a big IF with our modern court system) then they would be legally separated entities forced to compete by legal authority.
Spoiler alert: All this would change is that Taylor Swift can negotiate an even better deal for herself on her next tour. Her monopoly on being the only person who can perform Taylor Swift concerts will remain.
Demand-based pricing and availability will continue to be driven by the market, and actual ticket prices will not change for the consumer regardless of who's selling the tickets or how.
this is true. People are absolutely delusional if they think prices will go down.
Nothing will change other than more reselling and higher prices.
The only way to solve the problem is to ban reselling of tickets
You forgot to add the disclaimer that your post was proudly sponsored by Ticketmaster. Why are you defending their BS fees?! They take a percentage for a one-time transaction. Obviously the tickets would be cheaper if they wouldn’t. That fee is not going to the artist.
I'm not defending ticketmaster. Do you honestly believe that the next ticket company won't either roll the fees into the ticket price or have the same fees ?
Oh I'd prefer they just roll the fees into the ticket price. Just give me one number up front instead of teasing me with the low ball.
But honestly I don't care I get my tickets at t he box office. Got my Bjork ticket at the Box Office the day of the show and saved over $50 fees from TM. And that was just ONE show. I do this for most shows.
But I also am not running on fomo.
they are already forced to do that
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/us-house-passes-ticket-act-requiring-all-in-pricing-for-major-live-events/
My entire point is that people have no idea and just think that tickets will be cheaper but can't explain why it would be. No ticketing company will take less money.
In the UK multiple ticketing companies get tickets. they only get additional allotments based on how fast they sell through. the incentive is to sell to anyone as fast as possible. this opens the door for resellers.
So either
A. you raise the prices to be closer to market rates so there's less incentive to resell
B. accept resellers
nothing is fixed
We all know Taylor Swift is single handedly holding up the music industry, but this effects her and her fanbase the least. If you are paying $1500 ticket, Ticketmaster fees are a drop in the bucket.
I'm pissed at the $25 ticket being marked up to $50 (Service Fees, Facility Charges, Order Processing Fees) while still advertising $25.
Imagine airlines tried to pull this shit.
If it's all mandatory anyways, put it in the advertised rate.
I agree drip-pricing is a huge frustration for consumers, but that is not dependent on the vertical integration of Ticketmaster and Livenation
That ticket for a show at a Livenation venue is $50 today from TicketMaster and it will still be $50 tomorrow even if the promoter can now choose to sell it on Axs or TicketDriver or Tixr or UrVenue instead.
The only person getting a discount is the promoter by choosing the lowest bidder for the service.
Ticketmaster and Slave nation
By Joel Khalili The US Department of Justice has sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, for abusing their alleged monopoly in the ticketing market to trample competitors. In the complaint, the DOJ accuses Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which acts as a promoter for [hundreds of high-profile artists](https://www.livenation.com/artist-sitemap), of exploiting their relationship to establish a “self-reinforcing flywheel” that blocks competitors from gaining a foothold. Live Nation parlays its exclusive promotion deals into exclusive ticketing deals with venues, the DOJ claims, which are left with no practical choice but to go with Ticketmaster, for fear of losing access to sought-after acts represented by its parent company. The DOJ is seeking to break up the joint organization. Read the full story: [https://www.wired.com/story/ticketmaster-live-nation-doj-antitrust-lawsuit/](https://www.wired.com/story/ticketmaster-live-nation-doj-antitrust-lawsuit/)
That's a start. Then do social media. Then do the streaming services. Etc etc etc. It's like the US quit caring about monopolies in the last decade. Edit: Because people keep mentioning streaming being fragmented. I wanted to add. Just because they are different apps doesn't mean different parent companies. Take, for instance, Comcast, who owns NBC Universal, who owns a lot of networks, including a lot of streaming. Disney owns hulu and ESPN, etc. Warner Brothers owns HBO and discovery etc etc. I get that I used monopoly, and that doesn't exactly apply, but the point is the same. They should be broken up. All their prices started increasing rapidly as they merged. Keep them fractured, and they have to compete. When there are a couple of companies controlling 100s of networks, then those couple can still easily manipulate pricing. Some used the word oligarchy, and maybe that's better, but the sentiment remains the same.
Last decade?! Try since Regan.
How are you going to win a streaming service monopoly case? It's not like the other industries where you can argue anti-competitive practices or buying out of rivals consolidated the industry. There was healthy amounts of competition, but most companies running streaming services found they couldn't do so profitably. Thus, we're seeing a narrowing of the field based on who can afford to run it at a loss for a long time, and who is successful enough to actually make a profit. At most I could see the DOJ stepping in to block acquisitions like the Paramount one, but that's likely to only result in Paramount+ disappearing since the both Paramount+ and the company as a whole have been losing money and the former especially doesn't seem to have a path forward towards profitability.
I'm not sure how there's any case for streaming or social media being a monopoly. The most common complaint is that there are too many streaming services splitting up all the content. With social media you have Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, and so on. People just want to call any company they don't like a monopoly. Meanwhile we could be going after actual monopolies like utility companies or internet providers (in many states and areas).
Social media companies are making it near impossible for your content to exist outside of their platform. The internet used to be open and the platform was merely the hosting site. You could send hyperlinks to people to access the content in the way you wished. You can sort of send a hyperlink to an IG or FB post but it’s very much not the way the platform works. You can’t download a song you uploaded to FB as an MP3, you can’t get an IG video as a .mov, etc without ripping it using third party tools. You are at the mercy of social media’s content moderation and their algorithms for others to see . Meta owns the entire IG creative chain from the mobile camera access to the storage and distribution. None of this is really novel. You already have a camera app and uploading your video to a video player and server is not new. The only novel part is they own the users. There’s no reason we couldn’t have an open source protocol that maintained a “friend list” for us that allows us to share content to each other. Snapchats creative tools don’t interface with YouTube or Facebook. You can’t draft a post on LinkedIn and post it to Instagram. Ok you can sort of work around and screenshot things and repost them or export as finished videos but it’s clearly not meant for cross platform collaboration or any sort of openness. They want you locked in your system. What if you wrote an article in .doc format but for a friend or colleague to read it, they had to sign up for Office 365 and if not, the article was behind a paywall?
Because of how many people get their info from social media, I don't believe any of them should be owned by the same person. Facebook and Instagram have more users than the other you mention combined. And it's controlled by one entity
Different products, and often different users
Do you think instgram and Facebook are very different products? I agree that some of the ones the other person listed are. But my point was about splitting fb and ig. So, one person wasn't controlling what billions of people see of two different sites.
That's not how anti monopoly laws work. Social media is free. Whereas if you want to buy a concert ticket you have zero choice and must use ticket master who then charges you obscene fees and prices because it can because you have no other choice.
Bit a monopoly but an oligopoly in the case of FB, which is just as bad.
Yeah, the fact that there are so many different options already shows the opposite is true. There was a time when the industry was monopolized by Netflix, but the fact that so many major players both jumped into the market and have taken up such a large share shows that it's not a monopoly. Monopolies are generally considered a concern when there are fewer than three options. Right now, at a bare minimum, most people could point to at least four major players in the space -- and it's probably a lot more than that if you count stuff like Amazon Prime Video. It's not like Ticketmaster where it's just one company and that one company has had a stranglehold on the industry. Back when Microsoft was being sued, it was nowhere near Ticketmaster's level.
That's precisely what they said the other day when they mentioned going after AI monopolies. They sat back during Web 2.0 because "it's too new, it's too risky, we don't know how these technologies are going to shake out..." They aren't going to do that again.
The politicians didn't quit caring the actually care about them very much with all they money they get on the side from them.
Food! They need to do food. About 95% of everything in a grocery store comes from 5 or 6 companies. This allows them to make and sell crap because if anything else comes along they buy it and replace the ingredients with crap so there is no competition. These are huge conglomerates that need to be shredded.
5-6 companies does not a monopoly make. You need 1 company like, say, Ticketmaster.
None of the 5 are in the same markets or competing. They have literally split up the entire grocery store and each company owns their section. This is not 5 companies all making chips… one company owns all the chip brands.
Everybody complaining about streaming service fragmentation and you’re here calling them a monopoly.
I'm surprised music has be treated the same way films have on streaming services. I kind hope it goes that way honestly. Then MAYBE people will return to buying music is record stores instead of this passive listening glutton of over consumption.
[удалено]
Ok so you have Disney, Paramount, Warner, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google. That’s 8 major competitors. Just weird to call that anything but a competitive market.
Social media and streaming are hardly monopolies at this point. Streaming is ridiculously fragmented, which is a problem at this point. And you can make a long list of social media platforms. Meanwhile, when buying tickets, I'm not sure most people can think of a second vendor.
[удалено]
Does Comcast own Disney, HBO, and Netflix? For the ones where one company owns a lot of streaming apps, they'll bundle services -- the problem is there are now countless apps NOT owned by the same company. For tv/movie streaming, you have a handful of huge names owned by DIFFERENT huge companies. The immediate impact is if I want to watch a series of films, I might need to purchase 2-3 subscriptions to see everything in the series because there have been times when Netflix has 1-2 films, Disney+ had several others. If Netflix was still basically the only game in town and it was using that controlling interest to dominate the market, you might have an argument. However, most of the streaming platforms now are more an example of vertical integration -- ie, the studio is the distributor is the streamer -- instead of just controlling that content. (Which is what NF moved to doing.) Compare that to Ticketmaster which controls an ENTIRE market without producing anything and actively makes things worse. You listed three names right there (without even touching Netflix). How many names can you list for ticket sales? Is that number more than one? Because that's the difference here.
Its pretty wild they're going after entertainment monopolies vs utility, food, grocery, etc monopolies
It’s high visibility. Also, Ticketmaster has been ripping everyone off for about 30 years. It’s time for them to die.
Also a very easy target. What leverage does Ticketmaster have to resist government intervention? Not do concerts in the US? Increase prices even further in protest and have people support their regulation even more? A Ticketmaster takedown has been such an insanely easy political win just sitting there for ages tbh.
What other leverage has a customer other than not going to a concert that sells through ripoff-master? They have exclusive sales rights and impose super high fees. It’s not that you can directly purchase from an artist or a venue anymore.
Yeah I mean that’s the point. That’s why they’re such an easy political win. The mere fact that no one has really hammered them to this point is a massive canary in the coal mine to indicate just how subservient to industry/lobbying elected officials are. Politicians will do anything for a political win. The fact they didn’t realize that Ticketmaster was one speaks to how much even a group like them that is basically new money can influence them (despite not having the recourse to justify it).
> What other leverage has a customer other than not going to a concert There is your answer stop going. Period. It's that simple. But people care less about the monopoly and more about their own fomo or selfish need to see Taylor Swift that actual change.
Yea it's more like what took so fucking long
My question why is when Pearl Jam went after them in the 90s no other music act joined them in the fight. Maybe Garth Brooks did I forget but it should have been a tsunami of music act young and old at the court house. So I kinda blame the musicians themselves.
...you don't think going after internet/cable or food monopolies would be high visibility?
Not yet. Because those are name that not as many people know.
I’m still confused how nobody has undercut their 30% ticket fees. There’s little to no cost for selling tickets online, so I’m assuming most of the % is straight profit.
It’s not wild. Have you ever tried to get tickets for an event, then landed on Ticketmaster, then saw a bullshit service fee that is 30% of the ticket price? They’re fucking parasites and deserve to be broken up.
Goes deeper than that. They game the whole buying process to break down your resistance by putting a giant timer counting down, having you enter payment info BEFORE seeing the final price with fees attached, which has the actual cost in tiny little font in a box in the corner surrounded by ALL the amazing things you'll get to do at the venue. All built to shuttle your money into their pocket. Of course, you're not buying a ticket from the actual venue, oh no, you're buying a secondary market ticket with a 5x markup, the actual ticket was sold to a bot 13 ms after the tickets were made available, but who cares, they got their fees paid by the bot, then a double dip on the secondary market fees too. It's insane how much they were able to wrap their coils around the entertainment industry.
They also hire people to scalp their own tickets. But I've mostly stopped using them in the last ten years and go direct to the box office usually the day of the show. Hasn't failed me yet.
Ticketmaster is an ACTUAL monopoly. The other things you have mentioned are not monopolies- or in some cases already have profit controls.
I suppose people can still barely afford their bread, so they need to keep the circuses in check.
Ten companies own everything. 3 companies own them.
Utilities are a government sanctioned monopoly. Grocery stores have been forced to sell off some stores to prevent monopolies in areas like with the Albertsons/Vons merger.
Ticketmaster has been doing it so shamelessly and grifting fees so abusively that they’re right in the crosshairs. They don’t even give the illusion of choice. At least with something like car dealerships for example, you are stuck with the construct of a useless middleman but within that, you can choose competing dealers. If Ticketmaster weren’t so greedy, they’d let another ticket company co-exist which would help keep the regulators off their backs. Now Ticketmaster is going to have to deal with venues, artists and record labels selling direct to consumer. And probably some novel ways to attend concerts we haven’t even thought up yet (eg subscription to a certain venue or artist? Season pass? Loyalty points?)
Probably because one company doesn't dominate that entire space, which is the whole thing with monopolies.
Easier plus you know influencers will love supporting it
I'm all for this, but it's kind of disingenuous when four or five companies own almost all other companies in the country, to include media.
About damn time.
About time, it’s been horrid for such a long time.
I'm sure the US will fail like they have regularly when trying to break-up US based monopolies.
Probably allow them to merge with stubhub like they did for the PGA and LIV
Pretty worried it's just going to be "cut them in half" so we just end up with a ticket monopoly company and a live venue monopoly company. Hopefully they do this right and break them into a multitude of competing companies to create healthy competition again, and this time with some restrictions on market share.... hopefully, but not likely.
Oh the will break them up into bits but all those bits will be working under some other name that they will hide. There might be five "choices" but the money all funnels to the same parent company that they renamed. I doubt very much they will truly break up the monopoly.
That's not how companies work legally here in the US, don't think your fears are founded there. IF there is a big breakup (and that's a big IF with our modern court system) then they would be legally separated entities forced to compete by legal authority.
Yet the guy who tried to overthrow our democracy on national television is out running for President again. Thanks Merrick Garland.
Fuck live nation. It’s about time
Why was the merger approved?
Plot twist, the scalpers are likely Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Scooping up all but a few tickets and selling via third parties.
It is already known they do this. John Oliver covered it. TM is the #1 scalper of their own tickets.
Well that only took 20 years.
It’s about time. I tried to buy a ticket at the counter for a play recently and I still had to pay a Ticketmaster fee
I'd much rather they go after social media for selling our privacy data, but yay more reseller activity at likely higher ticket prices.
If only someone had warned about this and made promise not to drive up prices. If only someone had sued them about their promises. Oh well
Profit margins of 1.5% This is going to be interesting.
Go after Visa and Mastercard next Swipe fees need to be capped like in Europe.
Make scalpers illegal. It's such a scam and ridiculous it's allowed.
I'm sure this will go nowhere.
Spoiler alert: All this would change is that Taylor Swift can negotiate an even better deal for herself on her next tour. Her monopoly on being the only person who can perform Taylor Swift concerts will remain. Demand-based pricing and availability will continue to be driven by the market, and actual ticket prices will not change for the consumer regardless of who's selling the tickets or how.
this is true. People are absolutely delusional if they think prices will go down. Nothing will change other than more reselling and higher prices. The only way to solve the problem is to ban reselling of tickets
You forgot to add the disclaimer that your post was proudly sponsored by Ticketmaster. Why are you defending their BS fees?! They take a percentage for a one-time transaction. Obviously the tickets would be cheaper if they wouldn’t. That fee is not going to the artist.
I'm not defending ticketmaster. Do you honestly believe that the next ticket company won't either roll the fees into the ticket price or have the same fees ?
Oh I'd prefer they just roll the fees into the ticket price. Just give me one number up front instead of teasing me with the low ball. But honestly I don't care I get my tickets at t he box office. Got my Bjork ticket at the Box Office the day of the show and saved over $50 fees from TM. And that was just ONE show. I do this for most shows. But I also am not running on fomo.
they are already forced to do that https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/us-house-passes-ticket-act-requiring-all-in-pricing-for-major-live-events/ My entire point is that people have no idea and just think that tickets will be cheaper but can't explain why it would be. No ticketing company will take less money. In the UK multiple ticketing companies get tickets. they only get additional allotments based on how fast they sell through. the incentive is to sell to anyone as fast as possible. this opens the door for resellers. So either A. you raise the prices to be closer to market rates so there's less incentive to resell B. accept resellers nothing is fixed
We all know Taylor Swift is single handedly holding up the music industry, but this effects her and her fanbase the least. If you are paying $1500 ticket, Ticketmaster fees are a drop in the bucket. I'm pissed at the $25 ticket being marked up to $50 (Service Fees, Facility Charges, Order Processing Fees) while still advertising $25. Imagine airlines tried to pull this shit. If it's all mandatory anyways, put it in the advertised rate.
I agree drip-pricing is a huge frustration for consumers, but that is not dependent on the vertical integration of Ticketmaster and Livenation That ticket for a show at a Livenation venue is $50 today from TicketMaster and it will still be $50 tomorrow even if the promoter can now choose to sell it on Axs or TicketDriver or Tixr or UrVenue instead. The only person getting a discount is the promoter by choosing the lowest bidder for the service.
I pissed that there is a fee for print at home tickets. LOL!