Blink-182 tickets are so expensive because Ticketmaster is a monopoly(vice.com)
vice.com
Blink-182 tickets are so expensive because Ticketmaster is a monopoly
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gx34/blink-182-tickets-are-so-expensive-because-ticketmaster-is-a-disastrous-monopoly-and-now-everyone-pays-ticket-broker-prices
398 コメント
Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
If artists took home the extra profits, there would be more incentive for the market to provide more quality artists, more concerts, and cheaper prices, supply would meet demand.
But since the profits go to ticketmaster, ticketmaster might not even have higher total earnings if it increased supply, as prices might decrease faster. Higher supply of concerts would also give opportunities for competitors to ticketmaster to emerge, as it would have to control a bigger market.
If artists took home the extra profits, there would be more incentive for the market to provide more quality artists, more concerts, and cheaper prices, supply would meet demand.
But since the profits go to ticketmaster, ticketmaster might not even have higher total earnings if it increased supply, as prices might decrease faster. Higher supply of concerts would also give opportunities for competitors to ticketmaster to emerge, as it would have to control a bigger market.
Ticketmaster's primary value prop is a heat shield for artists. The artists get to blame Ticketmaster while charging the highest market clearing price, and Ticketmaster gets to make a nice profit being the 'bad guys'.
If the status quo was really a problem for the big artists (not all) then alternatives would emerge.
If you want to learn all about it, this book does a good job: https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalp...
If the status quo was really a problem for the big artists (not all) then alternatives would emerge.
If you want to learn all about it, this book does a good job: https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalp...
There are plenty of alternatives, that are cut out of the big venues due to Ticketmaster’s monopolist behavior.
The article doesn't say this at all. In fact it says the artists are making a lot of money here (though I can't find any details on rev-share or anything).
> Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists, but also worse for the average fan: It has simply jacked up ticket prices for certain high-profile events to a level where all tickets are more-or-less priced at the maximum level that the secondary market would normally bear
> Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists, but also worse for the average fan: It has simply jacked up ticket prices for certain high-profile events to a level where all tickets are more-or-less priced at the maximum level that the secondary market would normally bear
I don't really understand how it is worse for the average fan. It's worse for the average fan who might have won the lottery in getting a face-value ticket, but on average, the average fan doesn't actually get a face-value ticket even if scalping didn't happen, since demand >> supply, so nothing is different for them.
Generally, tickets sell out immediately, and then scalpers set the price. The average fan has very little chance to get a face-value ticket since they are gone as soon as they're released. You also have the situation where the average fan who gets lucky with a ticket then has to do the calculus of "I got lucky buying 4x$55 tickets, should I sell them $7k instead of going to the show?"
Generally, tickets sell out immediately, and then scalpers set the price. The average fan has very little chance to get a face-value ticket since they are gone as soon as they're released. You also have the situation where the average fan who gets lucky with a ticket then has to do the calculus of "I got lucky buying 4x$55 tickets, should I sell them $7k instead of going to the show?"
On the face of it Ticketmaster has very little incentive to pay artists more. They have an effective monopoly on large venues and ticket sales at this point, not to mention radio advertising and promotion, so it's not like the artists have a competitor to switch to. It's not like Blink-182 is going to just stop touring.
Once you get big enough you are pretty much forced to get into bed with Ticketmaster and take whatever deal they offer.
Once you get big enough you are pretty much forced to get into bed with Ticketmaster and take whatever deal they offer.
Ticketmaster doesn't pay the artist.
The tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter is one who pays the artist.
People often underestimate how risky live events are, as whey they think about a concert they think about U2, Jay Z or other major artists.
In reality, less than 50% of live events sell out.
And there's a fair bit of risk in putting them on. You need to layout the initial capital for things like venues (far from cheaps) and artists often want to get paid a minimum amount, regardless of ticket sales. The promoter needs to figure out how to market & get butts in seats -- including how to effectively price tickets, etc.
Artists typically don't want to deal with all that. They just want to produce their art.
The tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter is one who pays the artist.
People often underestimate how risky live events are, as whey they think about a concert they think about U2, Jay Z or other major artists.
In reality, less than 50% of live events sell out.
And there's a fair bit of risk in putting them on. You need to layout the initial capital for things like venues (far from cheaps) and artists often want to get paid a minimum amount, regardless of ticket sales. The promoter needs to figure out how to market & get butts in seats -- including how to effectively price tickets, etc.
Artists typically don't want to deal with all that. They just want to produce their art.
And I just wanna code and not deal with the business people. Ohhh so that's why Twitter has 7500 people.
Citation needed, seriously.
There are so many comments in here saying dynamic pricing is screwing over artists but it seems like a huge win for them since it doesn't result in tickets being sold in secondary markets where they can't capture the margins.
Mark Hoppus has a complaint about the _experience_ of dynamic pricing but note that he isn't complaining about the actual prices.
There are so many comments in here saying dynamic pricing is screwing over artists but it seems like a huge win for them since it doesn't result in tickets being sold in secondary markets where they can't capture the margins.
Mark Hoppus has a complaint about the _experience_ of dynamic pricing but note that he isn't complaining about the actual prices.
It's impossible to know. Ticketmaster is opaque and the artists are under NDAs. However, if you think about it logically what incentive does Ticketmaster have to pass on the profits to the artists? The deck is hugely stacked in their favor and the artists don't have a lot to negotiate with. It's not like they're going to switch to a competitor. The most they can do is threaten to not tour or tour only in small to medium venues--and even those medium venues are getting gobbled up by TM.
To be fair, I'm sure artists like Blink-182 are still getting a decent chunk of change from the tour, especially from merch sales. But I also think Ticketmaster/Livenation is feeing them like mad and walking away with the lion's share of the revenue.
To be fair, I'm sure artists like Blink-182 are still getting a decent chunk of change from the tour, especially from merch sales. But I also think Ticketmaster/Livenation is feeing them like mad and walking away with the lion's share of the revenue.
Is that because ticket master owns most of the venues or is it some legality thing? I don’t understand why artists have to use ticket master
They own some venues, but certainly not "most" of them. Think about who owns all of the sports stadiums in your city (the ones where mega artists would play), it's not TM.
It is very convenient for venue owners to let TM handle ticketing for the events. TM handles more than just sports and concert tickets. Since so many forms of live entertainment use TM, the company can bring in a lot of events to fill in off-season time. So an arena can host basketball & concerts on the weekend, then fill the weekdays with minor things like dirt bike races.
It is very convenient for venue owners to let TM handle ticketing for the events. TM handles more than just sports and concert tickets. Since so many forms of live entertainment use TM, the company can bring in a lot of events to fill in off-season time. So an arena can host basketball & concerts on the weekend, then fill the weekdays with minor things like dirt bike races.
The sports stadiums are owned by LiveNation not Ticketmaster, so you are correct. But also wrong at the same time.
No, Live Nation owns/leases small/midsize places like House of Blues. But they don't own the Honda Center. That's owned by the City of Anaheim. When Jay Z comes to down, he's not playing the House of Blues.
This situation repeats in practically every major metro. The massive arenas are probably owned by the city, or maybe the owner of the team that plays in them.
Which goes back into my argument, they own some venues. But not all of them, and certainly not the major arenas that mega artists play in.
This situation repeats in practically every major metro. The massive arenas are probably owned by the city, or maybe the owner of the team that plays in them.
Which goes back into my argument, they own some venues. But not all of them, and certainly not the major arenas that mega artists play in.
Stadiums are generally owned by the team(s) that play in them and/or the city. Live Nation doesn’t own any stadiums that I’m aware of, but they do own Ticketmaster.
AEG/AXS owns a number of large venues like the Oakland Coliseum + Arena, LA Crypto.com arena, and London O2. Presumably those are ticketed through AXS rather than Live Nation/Ticketmaster.
An interesting thing about AXS tickets is that they are presented using a smartphone app and are only valid for something like 60s before they need to be refreshed. This presumably makes tickets harder to resell outside of AXS's system.
An interesting thing about AXS tickets is that they are presented using a smartphone app and are only valid for something like 60s before they need to be refreshed. This presumably makes tickets harder to resell outside of AXS's system.
If I wanted tickets to blink182 I'd DDG blink182, which obviously has blink182.com as the top result.
I'd then click "book tickets". That might be a link to ticketmaster, but it could be a link to seetickets or any other ticket system.
If blink182 used seetickets, and I wanted to go to their concert, even if I went to ticketmaster, once I found that I couldn't buy a ticket, I'd go elsewhere.
I'd then click "book tickets". That might be a link to ticketmaster, but it could be a link to seetickets or any other ticket system.
If blink182 used seetickets, and I wanted to go to their concert, even if I went to ticketmaster, once I found that I couldn't buy a ticket, I'd go elsewhere.
A typical artist deal with a promoter would include an 85% (artist) / 15% split of profit after a pre-negotiated split point which covers the costs of producing & marketing a show for the promoter. I've never seen a full LiveNation tour agreement and perhaps they could have bought out Blink for each show with a different style deal but I'd be surprised if that still didn't include some upside for dynamic pricing otherwise why would the artist ever agree to do it? Everyone knows $600 tickets aren't exactly popular but this is a business and if that's what they're going for a secondaries anyway it's better for the artist to collect the cash in my opinion.
The key point is the ondemand pricing is not included in artist's take home generally.
Why use Live Nation? As Pearl Jam has taught us: Artists are limited by venues and venues are either owned or have a deal with live nation. Not going through ticketmaster/live nation means not playing the Gardens in New York or most other large venues where you will have to settle for a warehouse in Jersey instead. A huge monopoly exists that requires an uber like attack on the industry or government intervention.
Why use Live Nation? As Pearl Jam has taught us: Artists are limited by venues and venues are either owned or have a deal with live nation. Not going through ticketmaster/live nation means not playing the Gardens in New York or most other large venues where you will have to settle for a warehouse in Jersey instead. A huge monopoly exists that requires an uber like attack on the industry or government intervention.
Are you certain about this? Why on earth would Blink-182 (or their people / record label / etc) agree to this deal?
Are you saying these big A++ acts are signing deals with TicketMaster saying "yea sell em for whatever you want, we just need $X / ticket?"
Are you saying these big A++ acts are signing deals with TicketMaster saying "yea sell em for whatever you want, we just need $X / ticket?"
Because the alternative is being relegated to venues too small to hold their fan base.
that's the whole point of the complaint about Ticket Master. The artist's don't really have a choice in the matter. What are they going to do? go somewhere else?
> What are they going to do? go somewhere else?
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company)
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company)
No?
> The Blink-182 tour, it should be noted, is “produced” by Live Nation, according to the Live Nation press release announcing the tour. In the U.S., they are playing almost exclusively Live Nation venues (in Blink-182’s hometown, San Diego, they are playing at the Pechanga Arena, a venue that is operated by AXS, which is a different company.) The tickets for all shows besides the San Diego one are being handled by Ticketmaster. The press release announcing the tour does not list any prices.
> The Blink-182 tour, it should be noted, is “produced” by Live Nation, according to the Live Nation press release announcing the tour. In the U.S., they are playing almost exclusively Live Nation venues (in Blink-182’s hometown, San Diego, they are playing at the Pechanga Arena, a venue that is operated by AXS, which is a different company.) The tickets for all shows besides the San Diego one are being handled by Ticketmaster. The press release announcing the tour does not list any prices.
> issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists
Ticketmaster claims "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points" [1].
[1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
Ticketmaster claims "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points" [1].
[1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
"Artist representatives" is a suspiciously vague term.
I don't know how it all works behind the scenes but my guess is that artists just dont want to be blamed for charging their fans a ton?
Ultimately if one ticketing company offers a band 200k to perform a night and another company offers 150k then every band is going to go with the 200k - even if there is a dynamic pricing model for the fans.
Ultimately if one ticketing company offers a band 200k to perform a night and another company offers 150k then every band is going to go with the 200k - even if there is a dynamic pricing model for the fans.
What is the "other company" in this example?
The last time I bought concert tickets it was through Vivid Seats. The last NFL game I went to was through StubHub.
Its my understanding that some NFL actually has an official deal to sell through Ticketmaster first - though presumably any of these other companies could have that deal if they paid the NFL more.
FWIW I do think ticket convenience fees should be eliminated (or made so they have to be listed upfront) and this would be good for transparency - but I am also pretty sure that doing so would ultimately just raise listed prices.
Its my understanding that some NFL actually has an official deal to sell through Ticketmaster first - though presumably any of these other companies could have that deal if they paid the NFL more.
FWIW I do think ticket convenience fees should be eliminated (or made so they have to be listed upfront) and this would be good for transparency - but I am also pretty sure that doing so would ultimately just raise listed prices.
[deleted]
Some artists are large enough & successful enough that they don't need promoters.
Especially when the article itself notes that LiveNation often also represents the artists.
Can you provide a source that Ticketmaster keeps extra money? I would find that unlikely.
From what I can tell, using Ticketmaster's dynamic pricing is a choice the artist can make (or the artist's company, or some business entity), and assuming the artist's contract is such that they get a percentage of ticket sales, the ticket price is the dynamically calculated price, so the artist does get more money for a dynamically priced seat.
If the artist chooses not to partner with ticketmaster, they will just buy the tickets at retail and scalp them. This is why you hear about so many shows selling out in the first five minutes. It's not real people buying them, it's ticketmaster bots.
That seems pretty obvious. I don't know why anyone would think differently.
1. the tickets are sold by TicketMaster using dynamic pricing to extract the maximum price per ticket
2. the concerts are held in almost exclusively TM venues, leading to #1
3. the concerts are produced by LiveNation, which is TM, leading to #2
4. the bands are more and more often signed to LN for their tours, leading to #3
if you need more info you can do your own research.
2. the concerts are held in almost exclusively TM venues, leading to #1
3. the concerts are produced by LiveNation, which is TM, leading to #2
4. the bands are more and more often signed to LN for their tours, leading to #3
if you need more info you can do your own research.
0. The tickets not sold by TicketMaster dynamics pricing are resold on StubHub. (Aka TicketMaster)
TicketMaster can extort the performer for a bigger cut because if the performer takes no action, TicketMaster gets the resale, and the performer gets nothing. TicketMaster owns the data, so they can negotiate the dynamic royalty more efficiently and get a yield better than resale.
TicketMaster can extort the performer for a bigger cut because if the performer takes no action, TicketMaster gets the resale, and the performer gets nothing. TicketMaster owns the data, so they can negotiate the dynamic royalty more efficiently and get a yield better than resale.
Ticket Master charged you to print out your own tickets and you think it's unlikely they are keeping more profits? I'm sure the artist is getting more this way through their standard percentage so they see it as win too either way
The parent comment is obviously asking for evidence that Ticketmaster keeps all the extra profit
So what are performers saying? Assuming they're allowed to say anything. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (ticker symbol LYV) often acts as the artist's agent, as well as the venue's agent and the ticketing service. Performers are now contract employees of Live Nation. So they may not be allowed to criticize Live Nation.
The funny thing is, LYV, having achieved a near monopoly over ticketing, venues, and performers, loses money.
The funny thing is, LYV, having achieved a near monopoly over ticketing, venues, and performers, loses money.
[deleted]
Why do artists sign with TM / Live Nation? Because they know Live Nation will make them the most money for the least hassle and risk. Artists may also lack a little creativity on what a fan experience looks like. more on that below.
I dislike Ticketmaster as much as the next person, but no one is holding a gun to Blink-182 to come out and perform in a nationwide tour with TM taking all the upside. I just can't fathom that negotiation taking place, unless TM was also guaranteeing revenue to the band, i.e. taking downside risk. Theres no point to that. Also, yes, LiveNation controls an impressive number of venues, but they dont control all the venues, not be a long shot. If the TM deal was such a raw deal for artists, nothing prevents artists from just hosting their own concerts in publicly owned venues, setting up longer term performance residences in interesting locations, or expanding the fan experience from the tired formula of "opener act, 2x 1-hour sets, and an encore" to something better like a collaborative fan experience over a whole weekend. Plenty of opportunity for creativity on the artist's part that would make the artist less money in a night but yield a potentially waaaay better lifestyle and creative process.
At the end of it, Live Nation is a publicly traded company, but not a very attractive one. Lots of debt, rapidly increasing labor costs on the event hosting side, household budgets getting a major squeeze which will impact entertainment spend.
I dislike Ticketmaster as much as the next person, but no one is holding a gun to Blink-182 to come out and perform in a nationwide tour with TM taking all the upside. I just can't fathom that negotiation taking place, unless TM was also guaranteeing revenue to the band, i.e. taking downside risk. Theres no point to that. Also, yes, LiveNation controls an impressive number of venues, but they dont control all the venues, not be a long shot. If the TM deal was such a raw deal for artists, nothing prevents artists from just hosting their own concerts in publicly owned venues, setting up longer term performance residences in interesting locations, or expanding the fan experience from the tired formula of "opener act, 2x 1-hour sets, and an encore" to something better like a collaborative fan experience over a whole weekend. Plenty of opportunity for creativity on the artist's part that would make the artist less money in a night but yield a potentially waaaay better lifestyle and creative process.
At the end of it, Live Nation is a publicly traded company, but not a very attractive one. Lots of debt, rapidly increasing labor costs on the event hosting side, household budgets getting a major squeeze which will impact entertainment spend.
Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with the venues.
Knowing Ticketmaster’s past actions, I find it highly likely. But I would appreciate a source too.
Is this a serious comment? I can't believe that this is a serious comment.
No artist is going to price their tickets at $50 face value, then shrug when TM sells them for $500 and keeps the additional $450 for themselves.
Of course Ticketmaster isn't just keeping all the extra money. They're probably splitting that with the performer as well.
Of course Ticketmaster isn't just keeping all the extra money. They're probably splitting that with the performer as well.
You do understand that Ticketmaster has an effective monopoly and has a past history of sketchy business practices. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they pocketed it themselves or a large majority of it. It would be completely congruent with their business practices.
Yeah I know TM is sketchy and monopolistic. That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves. The artists would raise the face value of their tickets to recapture it if it were as simple as that.
We don't know what the details are on how the money is divvied up, but I do know that artists must be getting upside on this dynamic pricing.
We don't know what the details are on how the money is divvied up, but I do know that artists must be getting upside on this dynamic pricing.
> That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves
Listen, that's exactly what they have. The music business mostly exists to screw artists out of money made from their work, probably more now than ever.
The artist signs a contract to pay for X dollars, that's what they get and they have no leverage whatsoever to go after that upside. Ticketmaster would have to share the data about the dynamic pricing in the first place and they are NOT doing that.
Listen, that's exactly what they have. The music business mostly exists to screw artists out of money made from their work, probably more now than ever.
The artist signs a contract to pay for X dollars, that's what they get and they have no leverage whatsoever to go after that upside. Ticketmaster would have to share the data about the dynamic pricing in the first place and they are NOT doing that.
Actually thats exactly whats this means. Monopolistic/monopoly allows them to capture what they want without risk.
Depends how it works, just as an example (not what they are doing) if ticket master guarantees X seats for Y price. Then the band might be fine with ticket master doing what every they wish -- there's no risk to the band.
Granted the band probably negotiated minimums and a cut. Remember, you also have the venue, security, traffic, marketing, etc. There's a lot involved with these kind of events.
Granted the band probably negotiated minimums and a cut. Remember, you also have the venue, security, traffic, marketing, etc. There's a lot involved with these kind of events.
there is risk to the band. die hard poor fans cannot attend.
If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it.
Because TicketMaster/LiveNation own most of the large music venues in the country. And if you don't use them in a "vertical stack" you don't get to play those venues.
And even at $50/ticket, you make money a lot faster in a 25,000 seat arena than you do trying to play 15 nights at an "intimate" theater (hey, guess what, TM/LN own a huge swathe of those too).
We complain on HN about tech "monopolies" (or debate their existence, at least). TM/LN is a much larger effective monopoly that, to my knowledge, has not had any real investigation.
Because TicketMaster/LiveNation own most of the large music venues in the country. And if you don't use them in a "vertical stack" you don't get to play those venues.
And even at $50/ticket, you make money a lot faster in a 25,000 seat arena than you do trying to play 15 nights at an "intimate" theater (hey, guess what, TM/LN own a huge swathe of those too).
We complain on HN about tech "monopolies" (or debate their existence, at least). TM/LN is a much larger effective monopoly that, to my knowledge, has not had any real investigation.
> If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it
Blink-182 is not in this category.
Blink-182 is not in this category.
Why? Because they're "too big"?
Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story.
Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story.
> Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story
Springsteen's team is defending dynamic pricing [1], with Ticketmaster claiming "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points."
[1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
Springsteen's team is defending dynamic pricing [1], with Ticketmaster claiming "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points."
[1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true?
My understanding is that even a portion of the “service fee” TM charges also goes to the artists.
One of the most important services that TM provides is they are a scape goat. Artists can charge crazy high prices and TM takes the blame. They’re willing to be the bad guy.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true?
My understanding is that even a portion of the “service fee” TM charges also goes to the artists.
One of the most important services that TM provides is they are a scape goat. Artists can charge crazy high prices and TM takes the blame. They’re willing to be the bad guy.
Not entirely true and mostly untrue. A few artists can demand a piece but only a handful.
I do not believe you are correct.
The money is split between Ticketmaster, venue, promoter, and artist.
Can you provide any numbers of any kind? I certainly can’t find specifics. So it’s no evidence versus no evidence.
I know TM has a near monopoly. But I personally think they have that monopoly because they’re willing to be the bad guy everyone blames for high ticket prices.
I think logic dictates that artists would not opt-in to dynamic pricing, and yes it is optional, unless they see upside.
LiveNations quarterly earnings states: “With market-based pricing being widely adopted by most tours, we expect to shift over $500M from the secondary market to artists this year”. It’s hard to tell what percentage that is.
The money is split between Ticketmaster, venue, promoter, and artist.
Can you provide any numbers of any kind? I certainly can’t find specifics. So it’s no evidence versus no evidence.
I know TM has a near monopoly. But I personally think they have that monopoly because they’re willing to be the bad guy everyone blames for high ticket prices.
I think logic dictates that artists would not opt-in to dynamic pricing, and yes it is optional, unless they see upside.
LiveNations quarterly earnings states: “With market-based pricing being widely adopted by most tours, we expect to shift over $500M from the secondary market to artists this year”. It’s hard to tell what percentage that is.
> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
The artists get paid. Even back in the days "scalpers" were largely selling tickets that artists ear-marked to be sold at market prices. It gave them cover for high ticket prices by selling a few at "official" prices, while letting them earn market value on most tickets sold.
And anything the scalpers couldn't sell would be put back on ticketmaster at the official list price. And people would get an email about how they "found" more tickets to a show.
The artists get paid. Even back in the days "scalpers" were largely selling tickets that artists ear-marked to be sold at market prices. It gave them cover for high ticket prices by selling a few at "official" prices, while letting them earn market value on most tickets sold.
And anything the scalpers couldn't sell would be put back on ticketmaster at the official list price. And people would get an email about how they "found" more tickets to a show.
TM is smarter than that. They’ve always given kickbacks to the artists to keep (most of) them quiet.
> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
No.
This is just wrong. Pricing & fees are determined by the promoter and/or the artist. Ticketmaster takes a cut, but the tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter has the final say in how revenue is shared with everyone -- including the artist & Ticketmaster.
No.
This is just wrong. Pricing & fees are determined by the promoter and/or the artist. Ticketmaster takes a cut, but the tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter has the final say in how revenue is shared with everyone -- including the artist & Ticketmaster.
> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
the article doesn't say anything about this
> If artists took home the extra profits
Do you have any evidence to show that they do not? they definitely weren't under the previous model, because it was the secondary market where prices were getting set "dynamically". But now that it's happening in the primary market, aren't the artists paid out on a % basis?
the article doesn't say anything about this
> If artists took home the extra profits
Do you have any evidence to show that they do not? they definitely weren't under the previous model, because it was the secondary market where prices were getting set "dynamically". But now that it's happening in the primary market, aren't the artists paid out on a % basis?
I don’t see where is the problem with that. Artist jobs are to make great music and be great on the scene of concerts. And that’s where their value and money comes from. But their jobs is not to optimize prices and ticket sells or market them. That’s where Ticketmaster is good at and it’s normal for them to reap their own profit from their work.
Now what I don’t like is the monopoly however. That’s bad…
Now what I don’t like is the monopoly however. That’s bad…
> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
Are you sure?
TFA: > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists
Scalpers can help clear tickets in advance of expected demand - but with all the data TM has why not capture the value themselves
The problem is alienating fans while trying to discourage scalpers
Are you sure?
TFA: > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists
Scalpers can help clear tickets in advance of expected demand - but with all the data TM has why not capture the value themselves
The problem is alienating fans while trying to discourage scalpers
From an economic perspective, dynamic pricing maximizing total welfare. Those with the highest person values get to see the concert, without the middle-man making money.
> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists.
If that's a problem for artists then why do artists chose to do business with ticketmaster? Selling tickets isn't exactly high tech...
If that's a problem for artists then why do artists chose to do business with ticketmaster? Selling tickets isn't exactly high tech...
Artists don't choose to work with Ticket master. Pearl Jam and the Justice Department tried to beat them some time ago. It's a great story to check out if you're curious about how this industry works.
I don't think most people know how the touring business works, or in general the music industry. TM has built an integrated monopoly that means if you want to play the one big venue your city likely has, you need to work with TM, which now means you likely have LN producing your entire tour.
Pearl Jam fought Ticketmaster in the 90s and it forced them into a weird career route. This has been going on that long.
After merging with Live Nation it is so much worse. The TM monopoly now extends all the way down to producing the tours
If I had to bet, Ticketmaster has lock-in agreements with venues (especially arenas) that only allow tickets to be sold through them exclusively.
This is correct. Most large venues have these lock-in contracts. They’re defined under terms like “primary ticket provider” or “ticketing partner”
Eg. https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-becom...
Eg. https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-becom...
We could say they choose Ticketmaster indirectly by choosing the venues that have exclusive Ticketmaster deals. Couldn't they pick non Ticketmaster venues if they thought those venues offered them a bad deal?
Between TicketMaster and LiveNation (same company) the number of non-affiliated venues is slim these days. Kikagaku Moyo just did their farewell tour and refused to use any TM venues forcing them to pretty much only play at smaller indie venues.
You can also set up a stage in a massive field...
The number of venues that are non-Ticketmaster is relatively small, especially for larger acts.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/liv...
The reality of the matter is that a artist has much more to worry about than what Ticketmaster handles, and they provide a service that is useful, especially when it can all be rolled up into the "venue costs".
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/liv...
The reality of the matter is that a artist has much more to worry about than what Ticketmaster handles, and they provide a service that is useful, especially when it can all be rolled up into the "venue costs".
A typical city only has a single venue large enough for a group by Blink-182, Springsteen or Garth Brooks. They are almost universally TM affliated venues, and now with the LiveNation combo promote their own artists on LN-produced tours.
Absolutely. That's of course when they don't just own the venue outright, themselves, which they often do.
Sometimes the artist doesn't get a choice (e.g. a particular venue wants to use Ticketmaster because Ticketmaster will let them bolt on venue fees).
I was having the same question.
Original situation: tickets are priced too low, and sell out almost immediately, with scrapers buying much of the tickets, then reselling them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller is leaving money on the table, scrapers are making a killing.
Current situation: tickets are priced at market value thanks to dynamic pricing, so they no longer sell out instantly, and scrapers are discouraged from buying them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller make more money than before, scrapers make close to none.
Original situation: tickets are priced too low, and sell out almost immediately, with scrapers buying much of the tickets, then reselling them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller is leaving money on the table, scrapers are making a killing.
Current situation: tickets are priced at market value thanks to dynamic pricing, so they no longer sell out instantly, and scrapers are discouraged from buying them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller make more money than before, scrapers make close to none.
> Fans are furious!
Fans who remember when Ticketmaster didn't have a vertical monopoly on arena tours are furious at how everything they warned other fans or the industry about 20 years ago came boringly true.
Fans who had a slim chance of affording a $60 ticket that they had a slim chance of actually buying under the old model are furious because now they have a zero chance of affording any ticket to any in-demand show.
Fans who could always afford and always bought $250 tickets, whether through resellers under the old model or first parties under the new model, are less angry but still have complaints about how Ticketmaster is still as bad 20 years into selling tickets online at the actual ticket sales motion - carts getting dumped out before the end of the transaction, timeouts due to overloaded infrastructure, bad venue experiences. (Resellers could actually exchange money for goods and services about as well as or better than TM, and when the tickets were legit they actually got you into the venue 100% of the time.)
All three face the same core problem - Ticketmaster's monopoly makes their lives worse.
Artists _who are big enough for TM to pay attention to_ are about the only typically shorted party who like how this played out. The rest of the industry is basically locked out with few or no alternatives depending on the market.
Fans who remember when Ticketmaster didn't have a vertical monopoly on arena tours are furious at how everything they warned other fans or the industry about 20 years ago came boringly true.
Fans who had a slim chance of affording a $60 ticket that they had a slim chance of actually buying under the old model are furious because now they have a zero chance of affording any ticket to any in-demand show.
Fans who could always afford and always bought $250 tickets, whether through resellers under the old model or first parties under the new model, are less angry but still have complaints about how Ticketmaster is still as bad 20 years into selling tickets online at the actual ticket sales motion - carts getting dumped out before the end of the transaction, timeouts due to overloaded infrastructure, bad venue experiences. (Resellers could actually exchange money for goods and services about as well as or better than TM, and when the tickets were legit they actually got you into the venue 100% of the time.)
All three face the same core problem - Ticketmaster's monopoly makes their lives worse.
Artists _who are big enough for TM to pay attention to_ are about the only typically shorted party who like how this played out. The rest of the industry is basically locked out with few or no alternatives depending on the market.
You can ban resale (except at face value), and enforce this technologically. Some people are doing this already.
Yep. I'm using a no-good horrible app called "DICE" to access smaller venues here in LA. One of the simple tricks is that they don't show you the ticket until just before the show. Can't be seen, can't be sold.
I hate Dice. Mainly because of their instance of getting your phone number and requiring their phone app to use your ticket. But almost every time a venue is selling tickets on Dice I've discovered that they're also for sale on Resident Advisor (https://ra.co/) for ~5% cheaper. And RA let's you get PDF tickets.
Interesting - I actually like the experience of using DICE here in London, UK. The UX I thought is pretty neat, presenting me with the artists I’ve told them I like to listen to. I thought the ticket experience is pretty cool too.
I don't think any app holding my tickets should also request my entire address book and other data to give me those tickets. Otherwise it's kinda sorta fine.
On iOS that’s entirely optional. But that’s a very valid position. I also detest when apps do this.
I've used DICE in NYC and Berlin. I like the app.
> You can ban resale (except at face value)
In this scenario, the band+seller are leaving money on the table again.
In this scenario, the band+seller are leaving money on the table again.
Some bands prioritize access to their shows for all incomes over maximizing profit.
How do they do this, free shows?
Are you being serious?
By setting the price to something acceptable to them and not tolerating scalpers who try to push the prices up.
By setting the price to something acceptable to them and not tolerating scalpers who try to push the prices up.
Yeah I was being serious, I don't disagree with that if that's what the artist wants. I think it's more likely most will opt to take higher prices though if they can get them, though.
And this is a problem why?
This of it like this: scalpers are currently taking money away from artists.
Banning ticket resale would prevent scalpers from profiting, but does nothing to help the artists capture the money they've been missing all along.
You may or may not consider that to be a problem.
You may or may not consider that to be a problem.
How will you prove whether it was resold at face value or not? I could see a 'refund' and then it replenishes on the website, and then ID verification to use it. Like refundable airline tickets with a fixed price.
Names get associated with a ticket and they refuse entry if you bought a scalped ticket. You’re told to ask for a refund from the scalper
Yah you just force ID and you can trade back your ticket. Only get refund if they resell it.
[deleted]
Everybody understands economics.
Everybody pretends not to when it's in their benefit.
> Current situation: tickets are priced at market value thanks to dynamic pricing, so they no longer sell out instantly
And that means that ordinary working class people can't afford a lot of concerts any more. Entertainment only for the rich elites, bravo.
And that means that ordinary working class people can't afford a lot of concerts any more. Entertainment only for the rich elites, bravo.
You're right, and this is the thing that's frustrating about the conversations here--I guess I'm not surprised that this is an audience that doesn't get it. A lot of music acts, even popular ones, were broke as hell for a long time. It is reasonable and, I think, actively laudable to want folks who are not of the Patagonia-jacket class to be able to see them live for a reasonable price.
There is a point where decent people can go "y'know, I make enough money" and not seek to squeeze out every ounce of blood from that stone; those same decent people can find it objectionable that other people attempt to do so on top of it. Not everything must be profit-maximized. Sometimes things like "bringing joy" might actually be more valuable.
And even if you are a meat-variant paperclip maximizer, there's obvious value into getting people who do not make onewheel-through-San-Francisco money into your music or your art. The people who currently make that money are usually older and will eventually age out. I still go see certain 90's bands every time they roll through in no small part because I saw them as a kid and I think they're fun.
There is a point where decent people can go "y'know, I make enough money" and not seek to squeeze out every ounce of blood from that stone; those same decent people can find it objectionable that other people attempt to do so on top of it. Not everything must be profit-maximized. Sometimes things like "bringing joy" might actually be more valuable.
And even if you are a meat-variant paperclip maximizer, there's obvious value into getting people who do not make onewheel-through-San-Francisco money into your music or your art. The people who currently make that money are usually older and will eventually age out. I still go see certain 90's bands every time they roll through in no small part because I saw them as a kid and I think they're fun.
> I'm not surprised that this is an audience that doesn't get it. A lot of music acts, even popular ones, were broke as hell for a long time. It is reasonable and, I think, actively laudable to want folks who are not of the Patagonia-jacket class to be able to see them live for a reasonable price.
I think we get the motivation, but what they are trying to do is not possible in a market without implementing strict rules. It is noble that a provider of a luxury, supply-limited service wants to provide it for a cost below market. It really is! But in practice it will never work because scalpers will arbitrage that price up to the real market price. If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?
If I’m a manufacturer of a very nice car and can only make 1000 of them a year, but still want to sell them for $5,000 so low income people can afford it, that plan is just not going to work. This is actually currently happening with Raspberry Pi computers. The only ones you can currently get are for higher prices on the secondary market.
I think we get the motivation, but what they are trying to do is not possible in a market without implementing strict rules. It is noble that a provider of a luxury, supply-limited service wants to provide it for a cost below market. It really is! But in practice it will never work because scalpers will arbitrage that price up to the real market price. If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?
If I’m a manufacturer of a very nice car and can only make 1000 of them a year, but still want to sell them for $5,000 so low income people can afford it, that plan is just not going to work. This is actually currently happening with Raspberry Pi computers. The only ones you can currently get are for higher prices on the secondary market.
> what they are trying to do is not possible in a market without implementing strict rules
Then implement the strict rules!
> If you disallow scalpers somehow
Easy: tickets are non-transferrable. Names are printed on the tickets, and you present ID when attending the show. A looser alternative (since there are legitimate reasons why someone might want to give a ticket to someone else) is that tickets can only be re-sold at face value. Downside here is the only way to enforce that is digital-only tickets, but these days that's maybe not much of a problem.
> If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?
Yes, it's much better. Not perfect, but strictly better.
Your car analogy is not relevant, as it involves manufacturing. Concert ticket sales do not benefit from economies of scale in the same way.
Then implement the strict rules!
> If you disallow scalpers somehow
Easy: tickets are non-transferrable. Names are printed on the tickets, and you present ID when attending the show. A looser alternative (since there are legitimate reasons why someone might want to give a ticket to someone else) is that tickets can only be re-sold at face value. Downside here is the only way to enforce that is digital-only tickets, but these days that's maybe not much of a problem.
> If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?
Yes, it's much better. Not perfect, but strictly better.
Your car analogy is not relevant, as it involves manufacturing. Concert ticket sales do not benefit from economies of scale in the same way.
> Then implement the strict rules!
Who are you suggesting should implement and enforce these rules?
And who determines what a fair ticket price is that will allow fans of all income levels to be able to afford it? If you really want to give poor people access to these cultural opportunities then I would imagine the price is going to have to be pretty low. I remember a $25 ticket being too expensive for me when I was broke. But with your system I would have been able to buy courtside tickets to the NBA finals for about $15? Nice!
Who are you suggesting should implement and enforce these rules?
And who determines what a fair ticket price is that will allow fans of all income levels to be able to afford it? If you really want to give poor people access to these cultural opportunities then I would imagine the price is going to have to be pretty low. I remember a $25 ticket being too expensive for me when I was broke. But with your system I would have been able to buy courtside tickets to the NBA finals for about $15? Nice!
This is a silly and frankly ungracious misreading. Nobody is saying that an artist shouldn't be able to price something however they'd like, to target whatever cohort they'd like to target. But if an artist wants to charge $X, a scalper who charges $X+$Y is an asshole, and cutting out those scalpers is a good thing.
Fair ticket lotteries for those willing to pay the artist's desired price are almost certainly the most fair, least evil way to do it.
Fair ticket lotteries for those willing to pay the artist's desired price are almost certainly the most fair, least evil way to do it.
I had the impression from you previous comments that you wanted the strict rules to prevent artists from maximizing ticket prices since the context is 'ordinary working class people can't afford a lot of concerts any more".
But if you are ok with artists setting high ticket prices as long as scalpers don't get any then I don't disagree.
But if you are ok with artists setting high ticket prices as long as scalpers don't get any then I don't disagree.
In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above face value. It seems to work OK.
> If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?
The optimal solution is to give a quota for fan clubs and the rest away personalized in a fair lottery, while requiring proof that you can't attend for a valid reason (e.g. a doctor's note) to be eligible for a refund/swap.
The optimal solution is to give a quota for fan clubs and the rest away personalized in a fair lottery, while requiring proof that you can't attend for a valid reason (e.g. a doctor's note) to be eligible for a refund/swap.
I think I am in total agreement with your comment and I have another angle to add for your consideration:
Assume someone wanted to sell highly sought-after tickets for less than the market clearing (profit maximizing) price—as you suggest. Lowering the price will increase demand (because more people can afford them). We now have more demand for the tickets; how will that demand be expressed?
Will some people stand in line for days to get the tickets? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily that others because they are "richer" in disposable time?
Will some people write software to shave milliseconds off of their ticket-buying reaction time? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily than others because they have the requisite skills?
Will some people pay others to do the above (or something similar)?
It seems to me that these are all forms of payment and that the total payment (in currency or otherwise) will approximate the market-clearing price in pure currency from the other scenario.
What do you think?
Assume someone wanted to sell highly sought-after tickets for less than the market clearing (profit maximizing) price—as you suggest. Lowering the price will increase demand (because more people can afford them). We now have more demand for the tickets; how will that demand be expressed?
Will some people stand in line for days to get the tickets? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily that others because they are "richer" in disposable time?
Will some people write software to shave milliseconds off of their ticket-buying reaction time? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily than others because they have the requisite skills?
Will some people pay others to do the above (or something similar)?
It seems to me that these are all forms of payment and that the total payment (in currency or otherwise) will approximate the market-clearing price in pure currency from the other scenario.
What do you think?
I think the obvious answer is a fair lottery for reasonably-priced, non-transferable tickets.
It's not so clear to me that's any worse than the current situation with scalpers. Replace "elites" with "those that managed to get the ticket purchase page to load before all were sold out".
Tickets are the exact same price as they were before though, you're just buying them first party instead of third. I would much rather the artists get half the extra money than scalpers getting all of it. There are also plenty of mid sized venues that have less popular acts and cheaper tickets.
Well we can go to concerts. Just not the expensive ones.
They couldn't go anyway considering the only way to get a ticket was to pay a scalper the 2k now going to the artist. Economics would suggest making it affordable to average joes means staying in town for a while and doing 15 shows instead of 2.
that's a stretch. sure you might need to save to see Megadeth or Beyoncé or some huge act but there is tons of music from smaller artists that still charge very reasonably.
at some point, you'll have an impossibly large fan base to entertain, and with that comes huge ticket prices
at some point, you'll have an impossibly large fan base to entertain, and with that comes huge ticket prices
Its not like theres more rich people today than in the past. If anything theres less. I think this just demonstrates a gutting of the middle class more than anything. People are like "why are these so expensive!" not realizing they are in that bucket. People will get to do less nice things in the future.
Another explanation is that the internet has simply increased information flow and therefore competition for luxury goods which has then increased prices.
Another explanation is that the internet has simply increased information flow and therefore competition for luxury goods which has then increased prices.
Some bands don't want to maximize their profits. Shocker: Some artists want people of all incomes to enjoy their work.
But allowing scalpers/TM to do pure market pricing can fuck over the ability for a lower-middle income person to see these kinds of shows that to them might be the equivalent cost of a weeklong vacation.
Therefore, the idea (which should be at the discretion of the artist and only the artist, to hell with TM) is "charge an affordable price and ban scalping". Scalping can be controlled by technology; making sure any resales/transfers of ticket ownership go through the ticketing agency and only for the original price.
But allowing scalpers/TM to do pure market pricing can fuck over the ability for a lower-middle income person to see these kinds of shows that to them might be the equivalent cost of a weeklong vacation.
Therefore, the idea (which should be at the discretion of the artist and only the artist, to hell with TM) is "charge an affordable price and ban scalping". Scalping can be controlled by technology; making sure any resales/transfers of ticket ownership go through the ticketing agency and only for the original price.
I think it's worth mentioning that price is only one way to allocate the scarce resource. What strikes me as better socially and for the liveliness of the audience is to offer discounts to the top 25% of fans, as determined by Spotify or Apple Music, and then let the free market fill in the rest. Some balance of this would let regular fans get a shot while also maximizing revenue for the other block of tickets.
Life is too short and there are big problems to deal with - my grocery bill went up by 25% in the last couple of months, and my salary is still the same. My rent went up by more than 9% this year.
I don’t feel bad for people dropping hundreds, thousands of dollars to watch a band or a comic. I don’t feel bad for TM either - they are a monopoly.
The Whole situation is just terrible. Same for sports events
Me - I’m happy watching my favorite artists on YouTube or buying their singles or MP3s wherever available.
I don’t feel bad for people dropping hundreds, thousands of dollars to watch a band or a comic. I don’t feel bad for TM either - they are a monopoly.
The Whole situation is just terrible. Same for sports events
Me - I’m happy watching my favorite artists on YouTube or buying their singles or MP3s wherever available.
I agree with you and food and shelter are way more important but culture is important. I live in NYC and it's very easy for me to see artists I listen to for ~$35 every other night of the week. I can easily skip big, expensive acts and not really be missing out on anything.
But there are many people living in an area that don't have an opportunity to see smaller acts and only get access to stadium type shows in the closest major city. It's a shame people are missing out on culture due to monopolistic greed.
You'll never remember the time watching an artist on YouTube but you would certainly remember going to their concert. The same as sports.
But there are many people living in an area that don't have an opportunity to see smaller acts and only get access to stadium type shows in the closest major city. It's a shame people are missing out on culture due to monopolistic greed.
You'll never remember the time watching an artist on YouTube but you would certainly remember going to their concert. The same as sports.
There aren't enough seats at these events to make it possible for everyone that wants the cultural experience to have it.
If you accept this as true, how do you propose tickets are distributed, if not to the highest bidder?
If you accept this as true, how do you propose tickets are distributed, if not to the highest bidder?
I don’t have an answer to your question. That said, if every experience is sold to the highest bidders, only rich people can experience these events, isn’t it?
Maybe I am just old - what is so special about these events anyway? Everything is expensive, it is super crowded, everyone around you is sweaty, many drunk/high…
Maybe I am just old - what is so special about these events anyway? Everything is expensive, it is super crowded, everyone around you is sweaty, many drunk/high…
> only rich people can experience these events, isn’t it?
This is how it already is. There is a ton of stuff that only rich people can afford to experience. Luxuries cost money. Seeing the Rolling Stones live in concert is a luxury.
> what is so special about these events anyway?
I'm with you here. I'd take watching a big concert or sporting event from home over live in person any day. I honestly think the majority of people that attend these big events mainly do it so they can tell people they did. Same reason people go to Times Square on NYE.
This is how it already is. There is a ton of stuff that only rich people can afford to experience. Luxuries cost money. Seeing the Rolling Stones live in concert is a luxury.
> what is so special about these events anyway?
I'm with you here. I'd take watching a big concert or sporting event from home over live in person any day. I honestly think the majority of people that attend these big events mainly do it so they can tell people they did. Same reason people go to Times Square on NYE.
I remember going to an event that had Ed Sheeran, Beyoncé etc. It wasn’t anything special - we had to wait for hours to get in, we weren’t allowed to take even water bottles, long lines for the bathroom, even longer lines to buy overpriced water, irritated cops everywhere…
Maybe I am just wired stupid or something - I didn’t enjoy the event. I am happy with YouTube and Spotify
Maybe I am just wired stupid or something - I didn’t enjoy the event. I am happy with YouTube and Spotify
The crux of it is this change was implemented at a time when people are already being squeezed five ways from Sunday by everything else.
It may feel more fair that the fastest clickers win and ticket prices don't change (and many people don't get them) versus the fastest clickers get the cheapest tickets and other people have to pay 2-5x as much.
It may feel more fair that the fastest clickers win and ticket prices don't change (and many people don't get them) versus the fastest clickers get the cheapest tickets and other people have to pay 2-5x as much.
Do you have a source for the last sentence?
The secondary market is sometimes the primary market.
John Oliver did a bit on this awhile ago on how artists will get large blocks of tickets that they immediately put onto the resale market. Has a nice benefit of the show being almost immediately sold out plus doesn't it has slightly better optics since its not as obvious the venue/artist is "reselling" the ticket for a multiple of the "original" cost.
https://youtu.be/-_Y7uqqEFnY?t=1023
John Oliver did a bit on this awhile ago on how artists will get large blocks of tickets that they immediately put onto the resale market. Has a nice benefit of the show being almost immediately sold out plus doesn't it has slightly better optics since its not as obvious the venue/artist is "reselling" the ticket for a multiple of the "original" cost.
https://youtu.be/-_Y7uqqEFnY?t=1023
I think he's using logic.
I think the premise is wrong because:
- "tickets are prices too low": What do you mean by "too low"? Is the price that's set by the people involved low? Or is it what they think the value of the ticket is?
- Can you imagine if bananas were now $50 per banana? I mean, if there was only ONE company selling them, it would actually probably have already happened. So that would ultimately be the "market value".
- "tickets are prices too low": What do you mean by "too low"? Is the price that's set by the people involved low? Or is it what they think the value of the ticket is?
- Can you imagine if bananas were now $50 per banana? I mean, if there was only ONE company selling them, it would actually probably have already happened. So that would ultimately be the "market value".
What's the price of a GPU- the MSRP or the current bid for the only one available on eBay? In my opinion, it's the value I can actually buy the thing for.
Key difference:
> the only one available
vs
> all the tickets since day one
> the only one available
vs
> all the tickets since day one
I don't think there's a difference there. If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP, the price is 2-3x MSRP. Whether it's day one or day N, the price is what you can buy it for that day.
Exactly. And people forget that market prices do not always go up. I've been to quite a few sporting events where I bought scalped tickets day of for less than face value. Tickets have expirations like options do. No seller wants to be still holding tickets when the event starts.
That's not what we're comparing.
> If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP.
If you want to extrapolate, it should be
> Last year's $100 model has been selling for $500 on ebay. The new one would cost $110 but because of that, we'll now price it $550, because people pay for that.
But hey, if you agree with that, you agree with that. I don't.
> If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP.
If you want to extrapolate, it should be
> Last year's $100 model has been selling for $500 on ebay. The new one would cost $110 but because of that, we'll now price it $550, because people pay for that.
But hey, if you agree with that, you agree with that. I don't.
Why would I not agree with people or organizations choosing the price they sell their products and services for? Outside of discriminatory practices (and I don't consider price differentiation to be discriminatory) or emergency scenarios (gouging for gas in a hurricane for example) I don't find lowering or raising prices on what is unquestionably entertainment to be immoral in any way. Why do you?
Value is set by markets. If people are willing to pay more than the price than there will be a shortage meaning the price is too low, some people who want to buy a ticket can't.
Yes, that's what I said.
> The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone.
I think a big part of the problem is: it's challenging to estimate the demand for events. It's just less risky to consistently underestimate than over estimate. A sold out venue is annoying to fans who can't attend or who have to play a lot. But an under-attended event can be financially bad for the performer (depending on how deals are structured).
Combine that with the limited number of venues that can accommodate large audiences, and I think it's generally not surprising that this is a persistent problem.
I think there is a good solution; it just takes more work on the part of the performer: ticket pre-pre-sales. If the performer can "sell" all/most of their tickets before they even start talking to Ticketmaster, that should give better control over pricing since they can "rightsize" the number of performances they do in each place.
I think a big part of the problem is: it's challenging to estimate the demand for events. It's just less risky to consistently underestimate than over estimate. A sold out venue is annoying to fans who can't attend or who have to play a lot. But an under-attended event can be financially bad for the performer (depending on how deals are structured).
Combine that with the limited number of venues that can accommodate large audiences, and I think it's generally not surprising that this is a persistent problem.
I think there is a good solution; it just takes more work on the part of the performer: ticket pre-pre-sales. If the performer can "sell" all/most of their tickets before they even start talking to Ticketmaster, that should give better control over pricing since they can "rightsize" the number of performances they do in each place.
You’re right. The strategy Brooks is taking (based on what the linked article in the linked article says) is that he announces a set of shows. If they sell out and the secondary market prices are very high, he adds another set of shows. And then keeps doing that over and over again.
The problem for his fanbase is that there is no reliable way of knowing whether another set of shows is going to be added. So you have to gamble on whether to wait for another show to be announced or to buy the tickets on the resale site.
Some factors affecting the situation include the fact that the band is scheduled to be in another city on some near-future date, as well as the fact that the venue is scheduled to host a different band/event on a near-future date.
The Garth Brooks solution isn’t really a solution but it does make things a little better.
Pre-pre sales are also something that will help, as you mention.
But ultimately, without some sort of legislation, there is almost certainly no solution to the “problem” of a band choosing not to maximize revenue.
The problem for his fanbase is that there is no reliable way of knowing whether another set of shows is going to be added. So you have to gamble on whether to wait for another show to be announced or to buy the tickets on the resale site.
Some factors affecting the situation include the fact that the band is scheduled to be in another city on some near-future date, as well as the fact that the venue is scheduled to host a different band/event on a near-future date.
The Garth Brooks solution isn’t really a solution but it does make things a little better.
Pre-pre sales are also something that will help, as you mention.
But ultimately, without some sort of legislation, there is almost certainly no solution to the “problem” of a band choosing not to maximize revenue.
The absolute amount of logistics required for a show is tremendous, and if you look at a tour schedule you'll often see that it's absolutely packed - no time to add in extra shows if others sell out.
This is why the artists will have fan clubs and such, it can greatly help them determine what they could sell and how many shows. Sometimes you can switch to another venue in the same city, but that only works when they're both owned by the same company, usually. And it other cases you can open up more "seating" but that really only works when playing to stadiums.
This is why the artists will have fan clubs and such, it can greatly help them determine what they could sell and how many shows. Sometimes you can switch to another venue in the same city, but that only works when they're both owned by the same company, usually. And it other cases you can open up more "seating" but that really only works when playing to stadiums.
I noticed when Rammstein announced their European tour recently, there was one show listed in Denmark. On the day tickets went on sale, there was a second date at the same stadium.
I assume that's a response to uncertain demand.
I assume that's a response to uncertain demand.
I've seen Muse at least 25 times and have paid face value for tickets when buying them direct through TM for almost all of those times. I saw them first in 2006 for about $25-$35 at Hammerstein Ballroom in NYC for the Black Holes tour. Since then, they've become more and more popular, causing ticket prices to go up. Totally fair. With their 2023 Will of the People tour, dynamic pricing essentially sets the floor of ticket prices much, much higher. I'm seeing 200-level seats starting at $150 per ticket at some venues. Apparently that was the point where I'm fine with just completely missing the tour. I suppose the system works in that regard.
The specific implementation of it is also not great. TM has you wait in a queue to select seats; the position in which is randomly assigned. This is to protect the servers from the thundering herd. (Lousy but fair.) When you finally make it in, you need to choose your seats and book as fast as possible, because dynamic pricing can cause the seats you selected to move up in price while you are selecting them, and the implementation doesn't let you OK it and move on, you have to essentially hope you choose and confirm before the price you locked in goes up. If you don't, it says, "sorry, the prices have gone up since you started, please choose new seats." This is both a super crappy UX and it ensures that they milk every last cent from people, as you can't lock in a price by moving quickly.
The thing is, I'm not sure if the dynamic pricing floor ever gets dropped. Are they fine with not selling out venues because the people get priced out? Or do we wait on the secondary market to try to push prices back as demand recedes?
The previous system sucked quite a bit with scalpers. However, the new system seems like it brings a whole new set of problems with it and it has made me question whether I even like going to concerts at all. Maybe I just don't care much anymore and this is a bridge too far. I don't know.
The specific implementation of it is also not great. TM has you wait in a queue to select seats; the position in which is randomly assigned. This is to protect the servers from the thundering herd. (Lousy but fair.) When you finally make it in, you need to choose your seats and book as fast as possible, because dynamic pricing can cause the seats you selected to move up in price while you are selecting them, and the implementation doesn't let you OK it and move on, you have to essentially hope you choose and confirm before the price you locked in goes up. If you don't, it says, "sorry, the prices have gone up since you started, please choose new seats." This is both a super crappy UX and it ensures that they milk every last cent from people, as you can't lock in a price by moving quickly.
The thing is, I'm not sure if the dynamic pricing floor ever gets dropped. Are they fine with not selling out venues because the people get priced out? Or do we wait on the secondary market to try to push prices back as demand recedes?
The previous system sucked quite a bit with scalpers. However, the new system seems like it brings a whole new set of problems with it and it has made me question whether I even like going to concerts at all. Maybe I just don't care much anymore and this is a bridge too far. I don't know.
The "fair" method would be to reliably slice tickets into ticket classes (location, etc) and then let people select the tickets from the slice they want, and then basically do a reverse auction and set all the prices for that slice to whatever would sell them out exactly.
However, this leaves money on the table (if there are five seats, and ten people, and the fifth highest amount paid would be $10, then they get $50, even if one person would pay $500 for a ticket).
However, this leaves money on the table (if there are five seats, and ten people, and the fifth highest amount paid would be $10, then they get $50, even if one person would pay $500 for a ticket).
I think some artists would prefer to have an audience of teenagers and megafans (usually people without a lot of money) to a bunch of MBAs and professionals who can actually afford the tickets at market rates. Pure supply and demand is great if you don't care about who is your clientele but audiences are not undifferentiated.
Yeah, it seems to be a good strategy to build a following by offering tickets to kids for cheaper.
It also makes sense that as a band gets older, they might not be as incentivized to do so. How many new Blink-182 fans are there in 2022? I assume these guys are primarily worried about making sure they have enough cash in their kids' college funds and and making sure their retirement accounts are in really good shape (no shade intended, these are important concerns).
It also makes sense that as a band gets older, they might not be as incentivized to do so. How many new Blink-182 fans are there in 2022? I assume these guys are primarily worried about making sure they have enough cash in their kids' college funds and and making sure their retirement accounts are in really good shape (no shade intended, these are important concerns).
And as the band gets older, their fanbase gets older too. I wouldn't be surprised if many more Blink-182 fans are MBAs/professionals than teenagers these days.
> Is there a better solution?
The other option is to prevent ticket resales (except through the original ticketing website at face value). This arguably leads to a more equitable distribution of tickets as your ability to buy tickets isn't dependent on how wealthy you are.
> Even if there were 5 different companies selling concert tickets, wouldn't they inevitably move to dynamic pricing for the same reason?
Not necessarily. It would presumably depend on the preference of the artists (who would choose which ticketing company they use). I see two models being popular: one with dynamic pricing where the extra money in paid to the artists. One with fixes pricing. I can't see any artists freely choosing a model with dynamic pricing where the ticketing company pockets the difference.
The other option is to prevent ticket resales (except through the original ticketing website at face value). This arguably leads to a more equitable distribution of tickets as your ability to buy tickets isn't dependent on how wealthy you are.
> Even if there were 5 different companies selling concert tickets, wouldn't they inevitably move to dynamic pricing for the same reason?
Not necessarily. It would presumably depend on the preference of the artists (who would choose which ticketing company they use). I see two models being popular: one with dynamic pricing where the extra money in paid to the artists. One with fixes pricing. I can't see any artists freely choosing a model with dynamic pricing where the ticketing company pockets the difference.
This isn't better for the artists or venues because they're leaving money on the table. Dynamic pricing means artist and production share the money scalpers used to make.
I’d argue it’s better for artists, because more people get a chance to see their shows.
Tickets are usually sold by the venue through a vendor (ie Ticketmaster, seat geek,etc) not by the artist. This way the venue's box office/event staff only have to learn one ticketing system.(and they easily can sell venue specific add-ons like parking)
Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with most large music venues, artists have no real choice. (I have booked large venues before.)
> The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be. If a city has sufficient demand to sell out two or more concerts, aren't the later concerts still profitable? And it's less travel expense per concert. If there isn't enough demand to sell tickets for at least two concerts, then doesn't that mean most of the fans in that city have been satisfied by a single concert?
It makes sense to me that you'd schedule as many consecutive concerts in one city as you can as long as demand is high enough to make each additional concert profitable. That might be 9 concerts, or 2, or even a thousand concerts if you're talking about a city like Los Vegas.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be. If a city has sufficient demand to sell out two or more concerts, aren't the later concerts still profitable? And it's less travel expense per concert. If there isn't enough demand to sell tickets for at least two concerts, then doesn't that mean most of the fans in that city have been satisfied by a single concert?
It makes sense to me that you'd schedule as many consecutive concerts in one city as you can as long as demand is high enough to make each additional concert profitable. That might be 9 concerts, or 2, or even a thousand concerts if you're talking about a city like Los Vegas.
This was my thought as well. We keep hearing about how artists are struggling to make money on album sales thanks to the rise of spotify and the demise of CD sales. Wouldn't playing the same venue for a week+ means less inter-city travel, less work tearing up/down the stages, and a lot of income from steady ticket sales?
How do you decide that demand is high enough? Do you book the next stop in the tour a few days later assuming that demand is high enough for more shows, and then end up paying the roadies to sit around when the demand isn't high enough?
> How do you decide that demand is high enough?
Same way they decide if visiting a city is worth it in the first place? I'm not an event coordinator or tour scheduler so I don't know, but it seems like it should be possible.
Same way they decide if visiting a city is worth it in the first place? I'm not an event coordinator or tour scheduler so I don't know, but it seems like it should be possible.
> Now the extra money that used to go to scalpers goes to TM instead, [...] Isnt this...not a bad thing?
The problem with setting your ticket prices too high is it stops young people joining your concert-attending fanbase, leading to your fanbase ageing. This is what happens to opera houses and similar institutions - they 'market price' the tickets to $150 then find all their customers are in their 60s.
Of course, for a band it might be less of a problem than for an institution - the band ages at the same rate the fans do, after all. And merely offering $50 tickets that get brought by scalpers and resold for $150 doesn't solve the problem.
The problem with setting your ticket prices too high is it stops young people joining your concert-attending fanbase, leading to your fanbase ageing. This is what happens to opera houses and similar institutions - they 'market price' the tickets to $150 then find all their customers are in their 60s.
Of course, for a band it might be less of a problem than for an institution - the band ages at the same rate the fans do, after all. And merely offering $50 tickets that get brought by scalpers and resold for $150 doesn't solve the problem.
The problem with setting your ticket prices too high is it stops young people joining your concert-attending fanbase, leading to your fanbase ageing
Totally a tangent, but I've noticed this with sports cars in recent years. The companies like to portray an image of glamorous professionals driving their cars and most times I see a Ferrari or a Porsche nowadays a more typical, older person is behind the wheel. I'm not judging if that's a good or bad thing, but I find it amusing versus the branding image. Could, too, all the fans at a highly priced Taylor Swift concert end up being 50+? :-)
Totally a tangent, but I've noticed this with sports cars in recent years. The companies like to portray an image of glamorous professionals driving their cars and most times I see a Ferrari or a Porsche nowadays a more typical, older person is behind the wheel. I'm not judging if that's a good or bad thing, but I find it amusing versus the branding image. Could, too, all the fans at a highly priced Taylor Swift concert end up being 50+? :-)
Not all of them, but certainly a good amount.
Fans often age with the artist, and the same with cars somewhat.
Younger people (teenagers) will get to the concerts on their parent's dime, and many will go toward newer artists.
Fans often age with the artist, and the same with cars somewhat.
Younger people (teenagers) will get to the concerts on their parent's dime, and many will go toward newer artists.
I was always under the impression the innovative part of TM's "service" is taking the bad wrap/reputation hit that comes along with extracting more money for venues, artists and (or course) themselves. So essentially being paid to be the "evil Ticketmaster" we all know.
Artists, venues get to blame them while keeping the base cost of their tickets lower (for perception purposes), while still making money on the TM fees.
Artists, venues get to blame them while keeping the base cost of their tickets lower (for perception purposes), while still making money on the TM fees.
Good point! The percentage of the ticket price that the artists are getting is - conveniently - never revealed so fans are left to assume that it's evil Ticketmaster gouging them. I see a comment above yours https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33290468 that suggests the artists usually get 85% of the profits, and of course we have no way to know.
And the REAL real problem is that the market will bare a lot. I once sold tickets for a Die Antwoord concert I couldn't attend due to illness. I advertised the tickets on Craigslist for $100 for both, the retail cost being $50 each.
But when I arrived at the venue to sell the tickets, the buyer put $200 in front of my face assuming I had meant $100 EACH. My greed got to me and I took the money.
My conclusion was, ticket buying is not rational, and the ticket market is extremely liquid, so without tying tickets to an identity like airline tickets there isn't a good solution.
But when I arrived at the venue to sell the tickets, the buyer put $200 in front of my face assuming I had meant $100 EACH. My greed got to me and I took the money.
My conclusion was, ticket buying is not rational, and the ticket market is extremely liquid, so without tying tickets to an identity like airline tickets there isn't a good solution.
This is just my shower thoughts, but I think it's because getting tickets for the past century has been getting in line early / getting lucky, but now it's just whoever is the richest wins.
In practice, can't rich people just pay people to stand in queues on their behalf and acquire tickets the same way?
Yeah, we're on hackernews so I assume most people on here are making a healthy dev salary so hopefully my comment isn't in bad taste, but I've done that with TaskRabbit.
Feeling bad about paying for this kind of thing is one of the differences between the upper-middle class and higher, and the middle and lower.
Me, my upbringing was at least as much Fussell's "Prole" as his "Middle", so I don't even feel right having contractors do stuff on my house. Feels weird to pay people to do shit I could do, while I'm working or just fucking around or playing with my kids or whatever. I always feel like I ought to be helping. Took me a long time to stop feeling really uncomfortable having a cleaner come in every couple weeks. Still not totally OK with it, even years in.
I think some of this plays into success in business. Probably easier to climb the ladder (or just start higher on it) or start a business when you find it totally natural and ordinary to pay people to do stuff for you.
TaskRabbit and such are just... I guess, "democratizing" (seems especially wrong in this case) the same shit rich people have always done. Making it accessible a rung or two lower than it used to be. It makes me feel gross, but so does the other stuff that's not some new tech-enabled thing.
Me, my upbringing was at least as much Fussell's "Prole" as his "Middle", so I don't even feel right having contractors do stuff on my house. Feels weird to pay people to do shit I could do, while I'm working or just fucking around or playing with my kids or whatever. I always feel like I ought to be helping. Took me a long time to stop feeling really uncomfortable having a cleaner come in every couple weeks. Still not totally OK with it, even years in.
I think some of this plays into success in business. Probably easier to climb the ladder (or just start higher on it) or start a business when you find it totally natural and ordinary to pay people to do stuff for you.
TaskRabbit and such are just... I guess, "democratizing" (seems especially wrong in this case) the same shit rich people have always done. Making it accessible a rung or two lower than it used to be. It makes me feel gross, but so does the other stuff that's not some new tech-enabled thing.
More or less what scalpers are.
No, it's not. If there's a cap for how many tickets you can buy, you need 100 persons to buy (100 * cap) tickets. This doesn't scale the way electronic scalping does.
In the era before electronic scalping, they'd do exactly that (get a bunch of people together, you could often buy two or five tickets) and/or cycle through multiple times.
This is a typical comparison between capitalism and communism. In capitalist countries, given a scarce resource, what determines who gets it is generally money. In the USSR this was often determined by queues. [1]
[1] https://www.qminder.com/blog/queue-management/queues-in-ussr...
[1] https://www.qminder.com/blog/queue-management/queues-in-ussr...
Well queues for proletariat and magic vouchers for the actual commies that would allow them skip that nonsense.
Yeah. The problem is really scarcity. A venue can only hold so many people. And one of the easier ways to filter out people is to price the item so that only so many would buy a ticket.
That's essentially what scalpers are taking advantage of. They're betting that the ticket will sell for more than the cost to someone, they just have to find that person.
If tickets were $5 or whatever is deemed reasonable, that doesn't mean more people can go, it means a slightly different group of people will go.
That's essentially what scalpers are taking advantage of. They're betting that the ticket will sell for more than the cost to someone, they just have to find that person.
If tickets were $5 or whatever is deemed reasonable, that doesn't mean more people can go, it means a slightly different group of people will go.
> The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone. Is there a better solution? Even if there were 5 different companies selling concert tickets, wouldnt they inevitably move to dynamic pricing for the same reason?
It's a little more complicated when you realize that Ticketmaster is owned by Live Nation, a conglomerate which has bought out most of the major performance venues over the years. Many bands (including Blink 182, I believe) get contracted to Live Nation for the entirety of a tour, which means that they will only be performing in venues that Live Nation owns and operates, using Live Nation's ticketing system (Ticketmaster) and accepting all of the terms and issues that come along with that.
As a condition of the 2010 merger, Live Nation promised the US Justice Department not to retaliate against venues that partnered with other ticketing providers until 2020. Because they violated that agreement, it was extended until 2025. You can look at that as "Live Nation is legally prohibited from retaliating against other venues", or you can look at it as "Live Nation has already demonstrated that they will leverage monopoly power in flagrant violation of the law, and in 2 years they will be permitted to with no recourse". Both are true.
You can refuse to use Ticketmaster, but that means likely getting locked out of most of the venues you'd want to perform at - both the ones owned by Ticketmaster/Live Nation and the ones that have an exclusive contract with them (ie, de facto owned by Ticketmaster/Live Nation).
Look at how things went for Pearl Jam, and realize that Ticketmaster/Live Nation has even more of a vertically integrated monopoly now than they did 30 years ago.
It's a little more complicated when you realize that Ticketmaster is owned by Live Nation, a conglomerate which has bought out most of the major performance venues over the years. Many bands (including Blink 182, I believe) get contracted to Live Nation for the entirety of a tour, which means that they will only be performing in venues that Live Nation owns and operates, using Live Nation's ticketing system (Ticketmaster) and accepting all of the terms and issues that come along with that.
As a condition of the 2010 merger, Live Nation promised the US Justice Department not to retaliate against venues that partnered with other ticketing providers until 2020. Because they violated that agreement, it was extended until 2025. You can look at that as "Live Nation is legally prohibited from retaliating against other venues", or you can look at it as "Live Nation has already demonstrated that they will leverage monopoly power in flagrant violation of the law, and in 2 years they will be permitted to with no recourse". Both are true.
You can refuse to use Ticketmaster, but that means likely getting locked out of most of the venues you'd want to perform at - both the ones owned by Ticketmaster/Live Nation and the ones that have an exclusive contract with them (ie, de facto owned by Ticketmaster/Live Nation).
Look at how things went for Pearl Jam, and realize that Ticketmaster/Live Nation has even more of a vertically integrated monopoly now than they did 30 years ago.
If an artist wanted to allocate tickets by lottery at lower than market price, they would need a solution that would prevent ticket brokers from vacuuming them up and reselling them at market rate.
For instance, at time of sale (or signing up for a lottery ticket) they could ask for your name and then check everyone's ID at the door to make sure it's a match — just like airlines do. But this would introduce long delays.
Another option would be an app that used FaceID at time of lottery signup and then again to pull up a barcode to display at the gate, to make sure it's the same face.
For instance, at time of sale (or signing up for a lottery ticket) they could ask for your name and then check everyone's ID at the door to make sure it's a match — just like airlines do. But this would introduce long delays.
Another option would be an app that used FaceID at time of lottery signup and then again to pull up a barcode to display at the gate, to make sure it's the same face.
> allocate tickets by lottery at lower than market price
I think that's what Kid Rock does for the best seats in the first row, while selling the rest at market rate
Kid Rock Vs. The Scalpers
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/20/475023002/epis...
I think that's what Kid Rock does for the best seats in the first row, while selling the rest at market rate
Kid Rock Vs. The Scalpers
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/20/475023002/epis...
It’s a bad thing because it makes music entirely unaffordable to poor people as opposed to having the initial offering as somewhat affordable and fair.
Electronic events, especially the more independent ones, release tickets in ever more expensive batches, eventually hitting them market rate.
Also systems that lock you to buying a fixed amount of tickets and then being only able to sell them for what you paid such as with RA Guide and STEP (for a burner event, Nowhere).
Allowing those with financial privilege access at the expense of those without us fundamentally antithetical to music and art.
Electronic events, especially the more independent ones, release tickets in ever more expensive batches, eventually hitting them market rate.
Also systems that lock you to buying a fixed amount of tickets and then being only able to sell them for what you paid such as with RA Guide and STEP (for a burner event, Nowhere).
Allowing those with financial privilege access at the expense of those without us fundamentally antithetical to music and art.
> Allowing those with financial privilege access at the expense of those without us fundamentally antithetical to music and art.
No, it's really not. There have never been many peasants going to the opera houses of the world. And it's not at the expense of the poor, it's quite literally at their own expense.
All that is happening here is that technology has allowed the market to directly determine prices, rather than artists and venues guessing at what the market will bare. It only means poor people will be priced out so long as artists as a group don't react to the increased demand. Likely "elite" performers will be able to always demand these premium prices but a lesser tier, and those past their prime, will perform at prices poorer consumers will be able to afford.
What we see now is the result of extremely high demand (there are a lot more people in the US than there used to be) meeting limited supply, and new technology allowing for more market efficiency. The poor people who used to be able to get lucky and buy tickets well under market value are certainly going to be less happy, but that has nothing to do with some moral requirement for music.
No, it's really not. There have never been many peasants going to the opera houses of the world. And it's not at the expense of the poor, it's quite literally at their own expense.
All that is happening here is that technology has allowed the market to directly determine prices, rather than artists and venues guessing at what the market will bare. It only means poor people will be priced out so long as artists as a group don't react to the increased demand. Likely "elite" performers will be able to always demand these premium prices but a lesser tier, and those past their prime, will perform at prices poorer consumers will be able to afford.
What we see now is the result of extremely high demand (there are a lot more people in the US than there used to be) meeting limited supply, and new technology allowing for more market efficiency. The poor people who used to be able to get lucky and buy tickets well under market value are certainly going to be less happy, but that has nothing to do with some moral requirement for music.
I don't know if it's "better", but one solution is to prevent resales. Here in Japan larger acts will sometimes try to prevent resales by tying tickets to a name and doing ID checks at the door (although they often don't bother checking in practice...) or by making the ticket tied to a smartphone app.
Whether this is better or not is up for debate. Personally I think it's good to give everyone equal opportunity to participate in culture, regardless of their financial status.
Whether this is better or not is up for debate. Personally I think it's good to give everyone equal opportunity to participate in culture, regardless of their financial status.
This is why I think concerts might be a killer app in the Metaverse. Imagine you could attend a super immersive and compelling concert experience with your headset and a special audio setup for $5, and for that price, millions upon millions of people could attend. The artists could still make tons of money since so many people can go at a low price. The only problem I think would be that concerts could be VR “videos” that could easily be pirated and shared, since a digital livestream may not matter as much as going in person.
Since the topic here is Blink-182... I grew up listening to them and managed to go to a special show of theirs in a very small (for them) venue in NYC about 10 years ago. I'm optimistic about the future of VR, but the only aspect of that show that I think would benefit from it was the experience of getting to see the band members up close with just a general admission ticket, since they usually play giant arenas.
Everything else about it was a multi-sensory experience that I think would be totally flat in even the most advanced VR systems: the electric buzz running through the crowd at the opening notes to their biggest hit songs, the mass of people pressing together to get close to the stage, jumping up and down together to the beat, hundreds of others around you screaming along to the lyrics of their favorite songs, people crowd surfing, friends bringing over one too many rounds of beers, the band interacting with the crowd as a whole, feeding off the energy of the room...
Overall I'm not even a huge fan of live music, but it's hard for me to imagine a VR experience that captures all of the energy and human revelry of a great concert.
Everything else about it was a multi-sensory experience that I think would be totally flat in even the most advanced VR systems: the electric buzz running through the crowd at the opening notes to their biggest hit songs, the mass of people pressing together to get close to the stage, jumping up and down together to the beat, hundreds of others around you screaming along to the lyrics of their favorite songs, people crowd surfing, friends bringing over one too many rounds of beers, the band interacting with the crowd as a whole, feeding off the energy of the room...
Overall I'm not even a huge fan of live music, but it's hard for me to imagine a VR experience that captures all of the energy and human revelry of a great concert.
[deleted]
Not understanding how everything has to follow ultra-capitalism-free-market capitalism rules.. especially if the original artist/seller doesn't want it.
Fixed fair prices for such a thing and just first-come first-serve is imo the right thing. E.g. my soccer club has much more demand than places, you can sell your ticket, but selling for higher prices is forbidden. That's good, because it is for the people and not the riches.
Please just not shrug every problem off with "what's bad here, only riches now can have that"..
Fixed fair prices for such a thing and just first-come first-serve is imo the right thing. E.g. my soccer club has much more demand than places, you can sell your ticket, but selling for higher prices is forbidden. That's good, because it is for the people and not the riches.
Please just not shrug every problem off with "what's bad here, only riches now can have that"..
But how do they prevent selling for higher prices?
Thing like "I'll give you $50 tomorrow if you sell me your ticket today for the sticker price"?
Thing like "I'll give you $50 tomorrow if you sell me your ticket today for the sticker price"?
Over half of them is season tickets where reselling when you cannot go is well supported via their platform.
Either way you buy ticket as a registered buyer and it is so frowned upon that anyone going into anywhere public for profit resale would risk to loose their season or right to buy.
Sure, nothing is 100% and also no solution for one time concerts - but just wanted to say regulation and fair prices sometimes make sense.. tickets for $1000 is nuts I'm glad this hasn't materializd here (yet?)
Either way you buy ticket as a registered buyer and it is so frowned upon that anyone going into anywhere public for profit resale would risk to loose their season or right to buy.
Sure, nothing is 100% and also no solution for one time concerts - but just wanted to say regulation and fair prices sometimes make sense.. tickets for $1000 is nuts I'm glad this hasn't materializd here (yet?)
Performers don't actually want to be bleeding dry their fans' bank accounts. They are forced to participate in that system if they want to play at any venue over a particular capacity, all of whom have strict partnerships with TM. In that system, the performers have virtually zero input or control over the ticket price, and often have tight restrictions on where and how often they can perform at these venues.
So, it's not a matter of scarcity, but a matter of one company hyper-maximizing profits based on an illusion of scarcity that they create. And the only intention is to con middle and low-income families into spending exorbitant sums to see their favorite performers, while the labels and marketing agencies spend millions to convince them the shows shouldn't be missed. It's all by design.
Seeing a concert should not be a once in a decade event, and for many families, it currently is. And the only people preventing them from seeing those shows are a handful of executives at a couple of companies, for the sake of absolutely absurd profit margins.
So, it's not a matter of scarcity, but a matter of one company hyper-maximizing profits based on an illusion of scarcity that they create. And the only intention is to con middle and low-income families into spending exorbitant sums to see their favorite performers, while the labels and marketing agencies spend millions to convince them the shows shouldn't be missed. It's all by design.
Seeing a concert should not be a once in a decade event, and for many families, it currently is. And the only people preventing them from seeing those shows are a handful of executives at a couple of companies, for the sake of absolutely absurd profit margins.
The other part is that the scale of large musicians has grown so big (the biggest 100+ artists in the US have selling-out-stadiums-anywhere-on-earth scale) that there is effectively unlimited demand for their shows at any price.
If you want to see Blink-182, Pearl Jam or Taylor Swift, yes it's difficult and expensive. On the other hand, tier 2 artists have nowhere near that difficulty. You could see the Violent Femmes tomorrow night in Red Bank, NJ for $50/ticket [0]. You could see Illuminati Hotties for $30 in Brooklyn [1]. You can find local bands and see them probably for the cost of a few drinks at a bar.
[0] https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1D005CCDD5B03A72
[1] https://www.axs.com/events/432872/illuminati-hotties-tickets
If you want to see Blink-182, Pearl Jam or Taylor Swift, yes it's difficult and expensive. On the other hand, tier 2 artists have nowhere near that difficulty. You could see the Violent Femmes tomorrow night in Red Bank, NJ for $50/ticket [0]. You could see Illuminati Hotties for $30 in Brooklyn [1]. You can find local bands and see them probably for the cost of a few drinks at a bar.
[0] https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1D005CCDD5B03A72
[1] https://www.axs.com/events/432872/illuminati-hotties-tickets
Just fyi tickets still get scalped.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ticketmaster-resellers-las-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ticketmaster-resellers-las-...
Those of us "of a certain age," will remember when live performances were loss leaders, to drive record sales.
I am not old enough to have attended, but I am told that Woodstock (1) tickets were about $15.
I am not old enough to have attended, but I am told that Woodstock (1) tickets were about $15.
and now record sales are loss leaders for live performances for many artists
That's actually pretty expensive! This site https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says $15 in 1969 is equivalent to $121 today.
That $15 would be about $121 in today's dollars, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were even less than that.
Solution: become a death metalhead. Top bands are 20$
And primary sale concerts tickets for even semi-popular artists are still way under-priced.
Yeah, high prices suck but I do agree and fail to see what, exactly, is wrong here?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like TM, I don't like monopolies and I don't like high prices, but... price = equilibrium between offer and demand, it's the basics of our capitalist society, and all this look like to me is that TM is doing a good job at figuring out the equilibrium price for their tickets?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like TM, I don't like monopolies and I don't like high prices, but... price = equilibrium between offer and demand, it's the basics of our capitalist society, and all this look like to me is that TM is doing a good job at figuring out the equilibrium price for their tickets?
You have priced out part of your fanbase which can create resentment, and concerts where only the rich people attend are not the best, ambiance wise, especially if you want to play other songs than the radio hits.
People have been claiming "you'll price out your fan base" as long as I can remember, meanwhile Blink 182 is a 25-year old band with demand for tickets seemingly higher than ever.
Do you think rich people listen to more hits radio than others? Doesn’t seem likely to me.
There is a lot of people who go see established artists without really listening to the albums so they mostly know the hits and that's what they want to be played at the concert.
With the consequence that “only rich people get to see Beyoncé live”.
Which may be good or not, I have not an opinion.
Which may be good or not, I have not an opinion.
As opposed to when most tickets were bought by scalpers, in which case... mostly rich people got to see Beyoncé live.
Certainly a few people occasionally got lucky, but I guess what I'm wondering is, is "band members and managers earn more of the money they bring in" actually a bad thing? Won't this lead to more performers joining the field, long term, and more options for listening to music?
Seems like a good thing to me.
Certainly a few people occasionally got lucky, but I guess what I'm wondering is, is "band members and managers earn more of the money they bring in" actually a bad thing? Won't this lead to more performers joining the field, long term, and more options for listening to music?
Seems like a good thing to me.
aka Supply & Demand
Yeah the whole monopoly aside. If $600 is the market / people will pay, that's the market.
Lets say the same band plays the same venue, but no ticket monopoly.
Everyone knows folks will pay $600, so they're going to charge it, fees or not.
Lets say the same band plays the same venue, but no ticket monopoly.
Everyone knows folks will pay $600, so they're going to charge it, fees or not.
I sometimes wonder why venues choose Ticketmaster; large as Ticketmaster is it's not the only option, and how did they come to be the main player? My only conclusion is that the venues (and bands) are benefiting.
Here's my theory:
Venues and bands know that for PR reasons they can't jack up the price of tickets, but they don't want to miss out on the revenue from people willing to pay scalper prices. So they set tickets at a nominal price but reserve huge blocks of tickets for the band and venues. Nominally these are "family and friends" tickets, but in practice the band and venue put them immediately for resale. This way the bands and venues can get that gigantic revenue. Meanwhile a small number of tickets are sold at face value and immediately sell out. Ticketmaster profits from fees on the ticket sales and resales.
A "known evil" company like ticketmaster is now a benefit, as "obviously" the jacked up costs are ticketmaster's fault. Meanwhile ticketmaster is really just a service to take the heat off of bands and venues for what would otherwise be seen as price gauging.
Here's my theory:
Venues and bands know that for PR reasons they can't jack up the price of tickets, but they don't want to miss out on the revenue from people willing to pay scalper prices. So they set tickets at a nominal price but reserve huge blocks of tickets for the band and venues. Nominally these are "family and friends" tickets, but in practice the band and venue put them immediately for resale. This way the bands and venues can get that gigantic revenue. Meanwhile a small number of tickets are sold at face value and immediately sell out. Ticketmaster profits from fees on the ticket sales and resales.
A "known evil" company like ticketmaster is now a benefit, as "obviously" the jacked up costs are ticketmaster's fault. Meanwhile ticketmaster is really just a service to take the heat off of bands and venues for what would otherwise be seen as price gauging.
Ticketmaster is "chosen" because most venues are owned and operated by Live Nation, who in turn owns Ticketmaster.
Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict of interest? Yes, and yes.
Most acts don't really have the ability to set their own pricing. Those that do either are huge acts, who kind of have to go to Live Nation venues (because an act like Taylor Swift can't really go to tiny venues when she could sell out a stadium) or are tiny, local bands or artists in niche genres that don't really play venues larger than clubs or bars.
Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict of interest? Yes, and yes.
Most acts don't really have the ability to set their own pricing. Those that do either are huge acts, who kind of have to go to Live Nation venues (because an act like Taylor Swift can't really go to tiny venues when she could sell out a stadium) or are tiny, local bands or artists in niche genres that don't really play venues larger than clubs or bars.
LiveNation only owns a few dozen venues, and it owns fewer than AEG.
They also don't own venues big enough for acts like Taylor Swift, most of them are small to mid sized concert halls. The major acts are selling out stadiums and arenas, none of which are owned by AEG or LiveNation.
They also don't own venues big enough for acts like Taylor Swift, most of them are small to mid sized concert halls. The major acts are selling out stadiums and arenas, none of which are owned by AEG or LiveNation.
I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...
> I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...
I've commented elsewhere in this thread, but no, that's not a complete list. Live Nation owns many more venues than that, and there are even more that it has exclusive contracts with. It has also illegally[0] used its market power to retaliate against independent venues that work with other ticketing systems, forcing them to use Ticketmaster.
It is virtually impossible to be a performing artist with a decent following and go on tour without being subject to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and everything that follows from that.
[0] as determined by the DoJ
I've commented elsewhere in this thread, but no, that's not a complete list. Live Nation owns many more venues than that, and there are even more that it has exclusive contracts with. It has also illegally[0] used its market power to retaliate against independent venues that work with other ticketing systems, forcing them to use Ticketmaster.
It is virtually impossible to be a performing artist with a decent following and go on tour without being subject to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and everything that follows from that.
[0] as determined by the DoJ
Note the size of those venues. The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
> The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. The latter is a much larger set, and it includes the very Blink-182 tour that spawned this article.
Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. The latter is a much larger set, and it includes the very Blink-182 tour that spawned this article.
>Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with.
Exactly! The exclusive contracts thing terrifies me. There are a lot of venues that Ticketmaster/LiveNation don't own outright, but have exclusivity / quasi-exclusivity deals with, and those venues include a vast majority of the largest multi-use venues in the country, such as stadiums or arenas. Live Nation can front some of the building costs or maintenance costs for a bunch of large venues and it costs them nothing in comparison with the profits they get in return. Practically every sporting event I've been to in the US has had me use Ticketmaster in some way. This includes NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, ATP (tennis), MLS, and even college sports. They are everywhere!
Exactly! The exclusive contracts thing terrifies me. There are a lot of venues that Ticketmaster/LiveNation don't own outright, but have exclusivity / quasi-exclusivity deals with, and those venues include a vast majority of the largest multi-use venues in the country, such as stadiums or arenas. Live Nation can front some of the building costs or maintenance costs for a bunch of large venues and it costs them nothing in comparison with the profits they get in return. Practically every sporting event I've been to in the US has had me use Ticketmaster in some way. This includes NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, ATP (tennis), MLS, and even college sports. They are everywhere!
> bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation
They don't have to play at large venues.
They don't have to play at large venues.
They kinda do....unless they want to pay the entire costs of the tour out-of-pocket and up front. Otherwise, they'll go where their label tells them to.
That's the whole point. They could play at tiny clubs that only hold 100-300 people, but even if they did so, they probably wouldn't make enough money to break even, let alone profit what the label requires they profit.
That's the whole point. They could play at tiny clubs that only hold 100-300 people, but even if they did so, they probably wouldn't make enough money to break even, let alone profit what the label requires they profit.
[deleted]
I don't understand - why can't a venue run its own tickets?
It's the same people. The venue is not independent. It's not that they can't, they don't want to.
I mean what's wrong with the same company owning the venues and the ticketing site for the venues?
Nothing, in theory.
However, in practice, lots of things. The problem is that since Live Nation is a huge company, they have investments in a lot of record labels and can use that as leverage to force artists to tour exclusively in their venues. Think of it almost as a modern-day payola system:
Artist needs to tour. Label needs to pay for that tour, in some cases a lot of capital is required up front, and a certain amount of profit needs to be made from that tour as well. Live Nation steps in and says "hey, since we own a portion of your label, we can front you a lot of that money (or waive our venue fees entirely) if you only play shows in our venues". Label says "well, shit, my hands are tied" and that's how it works.
However, in practice, lots of things. The problem is that since Live Nation is a huge company, they have investments in a lot of record labels and can use that as leverage to force artists to tour exclusively in their venues. Think of it almost as a modern-day payola system:
Artist needs to tour. Label needs to pay for that tour, in some cases a lot of capital is required up front, and a certain amount of profit needs to be made from that tour as well. Live Nation steps in and says "hey, since we own a portion of your label, we can front you a lot of that money (or waive our venue fees entirely) if you only play shows in our venues". Label says "well, shit, my hands are tied" and that's how it works.
Ah, okay. Perhaps it's more that the venues (part-)own the labels than that they own the ticketing systems?
I guess this is the same problem that any location/property-based situation has: incumbents have a huge advantage.
I guess this is the same problem that any location/property-based situation has: incumbents have a huge advantage.
Oh, nothing really I guess? Before TM, they were the same since it was the venues selling their own tickets? The problem is really having a monopoly on venues and also owning the acts playing in them.
An artist on a national tour won’t go there. They will only go to Ticketmaster events.
Many years ago I was told a story by someone who ran a company that ran midsize stadium shows that traveled the company:
Basically in the 70s and 80s there were so few venues that the folks who ran the venues called the shots in terms of costs, dates, etc. They paid venues to run a show there. What choice did they have, there was maybe one venue for hundreds of miles in some cases.
Sometime later new mid sized venues started popping up all over the place. Venues run by cities and etc (who had built these places) were operating at just about break even, there were lots to choose from. Venues sometimes paid up front for a show and then would take a small cut of some other activity on the day of the show. The tables had turned, for a while.
Now venues are run by the folks running the whole thing, the venues, the tickets, all sold by the same people.
What never seems to get mentioned (often enough) is people will pay these crazy prices ...
Basically in the 70s and 80s there were so few venues that the folks who ran the venues called the shots in terms of costs, dates, etc. They paid venues to run a show there. What choice did they have, there was maybe one venue for hundreds of miles in some cases.
Sometime later new mid sized venues started popping up all over the place. Venues run by cities and etc (who had built these places) were operating at just about break even, there were lots to choose from. Venues sometimes paid up front for a show and then would take a small cut of some other activity on the day of the show. The tables had turned, for a while.
Now venues are run by the folks running the whole thing, the venues, the tickets, all sold by the same people.
What never seems to get mentioned (often enough) is people will pay these crazy prices ...
Just like when baseball players started getting paid, there was a large amount of money being left on the table and it's now being taken.
It's decent in a way; I'd rather have the band, venue, and Ticketmaster make money directly than scalpers indirectly, but I can't really complain that people pay the prices asked; if they didn't eventually the prices would start dropping.
It's decent in a way; I'd rather have the band, venue, and Ticketmaster make money directly than scalpers indirectly, but I can't really complain that people pay the prices asked; if they didn't eventually the prices would start dropping.
Yeah, TFA talks about TM having a monopoly and their dynamic pricing, but it never really explains why those two things are related or why either leads to higher ticket prices.
In an ideal world, TM wouldn't have a monopoly on ticketing for large venues, and artists wouldn't be forced to work with them. Artists and venues could still charge whatever "dynamic" price the market will bear, but competition in the ticket space would hopefully push down the cut that the ticket distributor takes. I'd imagine this is why artists are generally unhappy with TM's monopoly, since they don't have much leverage here once they're booking venues of a certain size.
But TM's monopoly is here regardless of how they price their tickets. And in a world with that monopoly, TM's dynamic pricing model benefits artists more than the previous model, even if it isn't the best possible arrangement for them.
I guess the main argument is that anything a monopoly does to increase its profits is bad. That's fair -- TM makes more money from this, and they'll probably turn around and use that money to strengthen their position (e.g. sign contracts with more venues), making it harder for any competition to challenge their monopoly. But that's a really broad issue. Dynamic pricing itself seems...fine
In an ideal world, TM wouldn't have a monopoly on ticketing for large venues, and artists wouldn't be forced to work with them. Artists and venues could still charge whatever "dynamic" price the market will bear, but competition in the ticket space would hopefully push down the cut that the ticket distributor takes. I'd imagine this is why artists are generally unhappy with TM's monopoly, since they don't have much leverage here once they're booking venues of a certain size.
But TM's monopoly is here regardless of how they price their tickets. And in a world with that monopoly, TM's dynamic pricing model benefits artists more than the previous model, even if it isn't the best possible arrangement for them.
I guess the main argument is that anything a monopoly does to increase its profits is bad. That's fair -- TM makes more money from this, and they'll probably turn around and use that money to strengthen their position (e.g. sign contracts with more venues), making it harder for any competition to challenge their monopoly. But that's a really broad issue. Dynamic pricing itself seems...fine
People who want to see a specific artist have no choice but to pay those crazy prices.
It's an optional activity. If it was healthcare I would be with you. But if they pay $600 ... that's the market.
If suddenly the market was more competitive, I bet the cat is out of the bag price wise. Maybe fees would be lower but "People will pay $600... so we charge that." is going to be the case for these concerts.
If suddenly the market was more competitive, I bet the cat is out of the bag price wise. Maybe fees would be lower but "People will pay $600... so we charge that." is going to be the case for these concerts.
They do have a choice. They could not pay, and pretty soon said specific artist will have to lower their prices. This happens with dynamic pricing. If the market won't bear it, you won't sell tickets.
One could choose to believe that concerts are substitutable goods, and then instantly there are lots of other choices at non-crazy prices.
So funny story
Ticketmaster is chosen for 2 reasons
1. It actually does have the most robust tech - although much of it is dated
2. Most shockingly because it takes the brunt of the brand punishment
The ticketing, events, music, etc industry is built on many many middlemen. Lawyers arrange contracts between bands and venues. Promoters sit in between and set everything up but take their cut from TM.
TM is chosen because it can make a promoter fee look like a ticketmaster fee. Which makes all the accounting work when the band/venue agreement say profits are split 50/50.
While TM and live nation are joined at the hip, the above was all true before they merged. Which is also ridiculous. Don't get me started on clear channel who owned livenation and all the radio stations... Or the fact the it spun out of CBS.
Ticketmaster is chosen for 2 reasons
1. It actually does have the most robust tech - although much of it is dated
2. Most shockingly because it takes the brunt of the brand punishment
The ticketing, events, music, etc industry is built on many many middlemen. Lawyers arrange contracts between bands and venues. Promoters sit in between and set everything up but take their cut from TM.
TM is chosen because it can make a promoter fee look like a ticketmaster fee. Which makes all the accounting work when the band/venue agreement say profits are split 50/50.
While TM and live nation are joined at the hip, the above was all true before they merged. Which is also ridiculous. Don't get me started on clear channel who owned livenation and all the radio stations... Or the fact the it spun out of CBS.
The bands don’t see a cut of the fees that ticket providers charge consumers.
Source: I’m a former talent agent.
Source: I’m a former talent agent.
Do bands/venues get blocks of tickets? Do they resell those?
Bands typically get a fixed number of comp tickets that are intended to be used by friends/family/media/guests, not resold.
In practice do those tickets get resold, though?
The cut mostly goes to venues who then pay the bands a larger percentage of the ticket sales.
You're absolutely correct. A big chunk of the extra fees on ticket prices goes back to the venue. Ticketmaster is just a cover, because everyone already hates Ticketmaster.
> reserve huge blocks of tickets for the band
Wait are you saying this is what happens or this is the theory? Any shows I've been given a friends/family ticket they just put your name on the guest list and you show your ID at the door. Unless this happens at massive venues (like stadiums) I don't think this is normally true.
Wait are you saying this is what happens or this is the theory? Any shows I've been given a friends/family ticket they just put your name on the guest list and you show your ID at the door. Unless this happens at massive venues (like stadiums) I don't think this is normally true.
Yea they most definitely hold back seats for a variety of different reasons and release the holds as the concert date gets closer. You can probably find tickets day of as a result. (Mainly for seated events, less so for others)
In other industries, this is called "yield management".
I don't know if this is what's actually happening; it is my supposition. I probably got this from reading something along these lines somewhere but I don't recall if that was other supposition or fact, or whether I'm extrapolating.
> how did they come to be the main player?
In the 60s, venues had to pay someone to run ticketing for them. Ticketmaster came along and said "Hey, we'll do it all for you, and you don't need to pay us a cent. All we ask is you let us add a $0.25 fee to the ticket."
From the venue perspective, it was a no brainer.
Later, in the 90s/00s, Ticketmaster was lightyears ahead in building a scalable infrastructure that could handle peak onsale demand for major artists. Want to sell out the Staples center for 5 nights in 4 minutes? Most LAMP stacks of the era would just melt. Most ecommerce platforms weren't built with non-fungible inventory in mind. Meanwhile Ticketmaster, through VAX assembly & sharding, was able to handle the load.
In the 60s, venues had to pay someone to run ticketing for them. Ticketmaster came along and said "Hey, we'll do it all for you, and you don't need to pay us a cent. All we ask is you let us add a $0.25 fee to the ticket."
From the venue perspective, it was a no brainer.
Later, in the 90s/00s, Ticketmaster was lightyears ahead in building a scalable infrastructure that could handle peak onsale demand for major artists. Want to sell out the Staples center for 5 nights in 4 minutes? Most LAMP stacks of the era would just melt. Most ecommerce platforms weren't built with non-fungible inventory in mind. Meanwhile Ticketmaster, through VAX assembly & sharding, was able to handle the load.
here in chile the venues must "wink wink" receive extra money from tickets sold. this is added to the total cost, also a lot of venues are being bought by you know who.
[deleted]
Lots of comments here from people who haven’t read the article and don’t know about the scalper-eliminating on-demand pricing it’s actually about. Or that it addresses supply-and-demand near the end with some interesting comments on Garth Brooks:
Country superstar Garth Brooks—who has called out dynamic pricing as well as suggested that the secondary market should be “illegal,” has more or less solved the problem for his fans with one simple trick: He adds shows until they no longer sell out. In recent years, on single tours, Brooks has done the following: He played nine concerts in a row in Edmonton, Canada. He played a dozen shows in Chicago. He played six in Kansas, nine in Tulsa, and eight in Denver.
Indeed, the headline doesn’t seem particularly supported by the actual article to me.
Country superstar Garth Brooks—who has called out dynamic pricing as well as suggested that the secondary market should be “illegal,” has more or less solved the problem for his fans with one simple trick: He adds shows until they no longer sell out. In recent years, on single tours, Brooks has done the following: He played nine concerts in a row in Edmonton, Canada. He played a dozen shows in Chicago. He played six in Kansas, nine in Tulsa, and eight in Denver.
Indeed, the headline doesn’t seem particularly supported by the actual article to me.
Worth mentioning...
The platform Garth Brooks uses to sell tickets the way he does: Ticketmaster. So it's available to other artists/promoters, if they want to do it. The nickname for that approach is "Garth mode".
The platform Garth Brooks uses to sell tickets the way he does: Ticketmaster. So it's available to other artists/promoters, if they want to do it. The nickname for that approach is "Garth mode".
There's lots of back-and-forth in these comments about whether Ticketmaster is the villain, or just the scapegoat for venues and artists to take more money. Without any insider information, I lean towards the latter.
This is a supply and demand issue where the limit on supply is how much Blink-182 wants to perform. Maybe there's a good logistical reason why they don't do "Garth mode", or maybe this tour is just a quick cash grab.
This is a supply and demand issue where the limit on supply is how much Blink-182 wants to perform. Maybe there's a good logistical reason why they don't do "Garth mode", or maybe this tour is just a quick cash grab.
> Without any insider information, I lean towards the latter.
With insider information, I believe you are correct. ;-)
The question that people don't like accessing is, "who is making these decisions?", because the answers don't point to the people they want them to point to. Ticketmaster is effectively an arms maker, and while that is not without moral/ethical concerns, the arms maker builds and sells tools that the people doing the fighting want; it's kind of weird to pretend the arms maker is the one actually using them.
With insider information, I believe you are correct. ;-)
The question that people don't like accessing is, "who is making these decisions?", because the answers don't point to the people they want them to point to. Ticketmaster is effectively an arms maker, and while that is not without moral/ethical concerns, the arms maker builds and sells tools that the people doing the fighting want; it's kind of weird to pretend the arms maker is the one actually using them.
[deleted]
Garth increased supply to match whatever ticket price he wanted to hit.
Isn't TicketMasters service to be the bad guy. Bands and venues get to blame them for the prices and in turn ticketmaster gets a cut. Company to blame as a service.
This isn't only Ticketmaster! A registration tool I've used lets you add a fee that ostensibly is to pay for the registration processing but if you set it above X + 3% you get all the extra. Very sneaky!
Man, I hope all the electronic food ordering sites are like that
Every restaurant here takes online orders, but ordering online tacks on 10% or more in fees. I just call them on the phone to avoid the fees, since it seems insane to me to pay $8 just for 2 seconds of using a web app
Every restaurant here takes online orders, but ordering online tacks on 10% or more in fees. I just call them on the phone to avoid the fees, since it seems insane to me to pay $8 just for 2 seconds of using a web app
Be careful what number you call, because Grubhub puts their own number out there on Yelp pretending it's a direct line to the restaurant, when it actually goes through Grubhub's systems and they tack on a fee for your order. Google will sometimes give you the Yelp number as the restaurant's number if you just Google it, and they also create websites which scrape the original website and attempt to SEO their way above it so that they get their cut.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-comm...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756878/yelp-grubhub-comm...
Wouldn't they require your card number over the phone, then?
Would be very strange for a phone-in order for pickup. If you always just pay when you're picking up you'll be fine.
Would be very strange for a phone-in order for pickup. If you always just pay when you're picking up you'll be fine.
Some are, some aren't - you can sometimes dig around and find out which they use.
A few of the local restaurants have ones that add nothing to the order cost at all, so they must be cheap enough that the restaurant doesn't care.
A few of the local restaurants have ones that add nothing to the order cost at all, so they must be cheap enough that the restaurant doesn't care.
DoorDash takes up to a 30% cut even on pick up orders. Pretty rough deal for restaurants that have to use that service to survive. Just makes the costs go up for the rest of us.
I refuse to use something like doordash for pickup. I’d rather call or just go and order and wait than give DD such a huge cut for doing nothing useful.
yeah man, it's friggin crazy
I used to play around with crypto trading bots back when the space was new enough that geniuses hadn't come in and hogged most of the easy profits. I'd happily run a ton of pretty complicated code 24/7 just to net a few free bucks per hour
Yet somehow Menufy, Chownow, etc seem to need $3+ just for a few microseconds of very simple, straightforward, financial-risk-free code.
I guess that's why there are so many of those terrible services out there.
I used to play around with crypto trading bots back when the space was new enough that geniuses hadn't come in and hogged most of the easy profits. I'd happily run a ton of pretty complicated code 24/7 just to net a few free bucks per hour
Yet somehow Menufy, Chownow, etc seem to need $3+ just for a few microseconds of very simple, straightforward, financial-risk-free code.
I guess that's why there are so many of those terrible services out there.
Rest assured that Ticketmaster is doing all this pricing, fees, and ticket availability at the discretion of the artists and artist's management. Ticketmaster is happy to play the bad guy. Many tickets are never sold at the original face price but go directly to the 'verified resale' market with TM sharing the profits with the teams\artists.
Example, The Black Keys were scalping their own tickets for 20x and ordered Ticketmaster to revoke tickets resold on the secondary market.
https://www.ticketnews.com/2019/09/black-keys-wiltern-premiu...
Example, The Black Keys were scalping their own tickets for 20x and ordered Ticketmaster to revoke tickets resold on the secondary market.
https://www.ticketnews.com/2019/09/black-keys-wiltern-premiu...
If you want to see a band locally and are appalled by the ticket costs it's often better just to show up on site. The dynamics change a lot once a show starts if it's not sold out.
Separately last century I had a plastic wallet containing a photo booth picture of me with the word 'press' Letrasetted over it. I was able to hang around by the stage taking photos with a camera that had no film in it sometimes, saw some pretty big name acts doing that but it wouldn't work these days. I also used to sneak in back stage a couple of songs into sets.
More seriously the touts need to sell tickets once the music has started...and will negotiate down a lot...
Separately last century I had a plastic wallet containing a photo booth picture of me with the word 'press' Letrasetted over it. I was able to hang around by the stage taking photos with a camera that had no film in it sometimes, saw some pretty big name acts doing that but it wouldn't work these days. I also used to sneak in back stage a couple of songs into sets.
More seriously the touts need to sell tickets once the music has started...and will negotiate down a lot...
Ticketmaster has monopolistic dominance here, yes. However, the strongest monopoly involved is Blink-182 themselves, with absolute control over how they sell "Blink-182" live performances.
They may be quite happy with some other big, bad corporation taking the hit for policies which manage to capture more of the full willingness-to-pay for the band and official partners, rather than secondary sellers (scalpers).
They may be quite happy with some other big, bad corporation taking the hit for policies which manage to capture more of the full willingness-to-pay for the band and official partners, rather than secondary sellers (scalpers).
Right. If they want lower prices the solution is obvious. Play more shows or larger venues if available.
My wife has been a member of the Pearl Jam Ten Club for years. Pearl Jam reserves seats for club members. Members put in requests for tickets to shows, including credit card information. These requests are filled following the process detailed here: https://pearljam.com/news/ten-club-ticket-presale-info. If your ticket request was filled, your credit card is charged, and you now have a valid ticket (or multiple tickets, depending on the request).
You can sell tickets for face value, but not above or they'll be invalid and you might be kicked out of the club.
I'm going to guess that not all artists have the ability to make this happen, but it's helped us avoid the Ticketmaster and scalping craziness.
You can sell tickets for face value, but not above or they'll be invalid and you might be kicked out of the club.
I'm going to guess that not all artists have the ability to make this happen, but it's helped us avoid the Ticketmaster and scalping craziness.
It's hard to believe, but maybe, just maybe, scalpers might sign up for artist clubs?
Also Pearl Jam uses Ticketmaster now: https://www.barrons.com/articles/ticketmaster-pearl-jam-good...
Also Pearl Jam uses Ticketmaster now: https://www.barrons.com/articles/ticketmaster-pearl-jam-good...
> scalpers might sign up for artist clubs?
Sure, but there are probably limits on the number of tickets a member can buy, and club membership isn't free, so that would cut into scalping profits (ok, I guess it's only $20/yr).
> Also Pearl Jam uses Ticketmaster
Sure, but the band probably gets an allocation of tickets specifically for their fan club, so they don't have to fight with non-member fans to get tickets at regular prices.
Sure, but there are probably limits on the number of tickets a member can buy, and club membership isn't free, so that would cut into scalping profits (ok, I guess it's only $20/yr).
> Also Pearl Jam uses Ticketmaster
Sure, but the band probably gets an allocation of tickets specifically for their fan club, so they don't have to fight with non-member fans to get tickets at regular prices.
> scalpers might sign up for artist clubs?
Yes, which is why selling tickets for more than face value can get you kicked out of the club.
Yes, which is why selling tickets for more than face value can get you kicked out of the club.
Every artist has the moral ability to do that, but not every artist has the financial ability to do that. Ticketmaster draws a lot of (well-earned) hate for their scuzzy practices, but those same practices make artists a lot of money.
> not every artist has the financial ability to do that
Yes. I went to see a band maybe six to eight years ago. The lead singer asked the crowd to buy some merchandise a few times, and went on to explain that since the shift to streaming happened, they don't make nearly as much from radio play and album sales, so depend on touring income much more than they used to.
At least dynamic pricing gets money to the artist that would have just gone to the scalper before. Ticketmaster also has a "Verified Fan" feature where you can request tickets (https://blog.ticketmaster.com/verifiedfan-faq/), with the goal of preventing bots from buying them in the first few seconds when they are made available. While tickets can be sold/transferred for Verified Fan events, I'm not sure if there's an option to prevent sales over face value.
Yes. I went to see a band maybe six to eight years ago. The lead singer asked the crowd to buy some merchandise a few times, and went on to explain that since the shift to streaming happened, they don't make nearly as much from radio play and album sales, so depend on touring income much more than they used to.
At least dynamic pricing gets money to the artist that would have just gone to the scalper before. Ticketmaster also has a "Verified Fan" feature where you can request tickets (https://blog.ticketmaster.com/verifiedfan-faq/), with the goal of preventing bots from buying them in the first few seconds when they are made available. While tickets can be sold/transferred for Verified Fan events, I'm not sure if there's an option to prevent sales over face value.
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the increase in ticket prices is probably directly related to the collapse of record and CD sales over that past 20 year. Back in the day when live concerts were "cheap" it was partially because live concerts were used as a way to promote the sale of vinyl and CD's where artists made most of their money.
Today with streaming and considerably less revenue coming from record sales, artists have turned to live concerts as their primary revenue source, and to make a "living", they need to maximize revenue from that source.
As a result, in exchange for a nearly unlimited supply of recorded music at low prices, we need to pay significantly higher prices for live performances. It's a tradeoff. Not sure if it was worth it, but there is not going back.
Today with streaming and considerably less revenue coming from record sales, artists have turned to live concerts as their primary revenue source, and to make a "living", they need to maximize revenue from that source.
As a result, in exchange for a nearly unlimited supply of recorded music at low prices, we need to pay significantly higher prices for live performances. It's a tradeoff. Not sure if it was worth it, but there is not going back.
> Back in the day when live concerts were "cheap" it was partially because live concerts were used as a way to promote the sale of vinyl and CD's where artists made most of their money.
This is backward. Albums were where the record company made their money. Only mega-stars made their money on albums. Modern musicians have always made their money from live performances, and especially from merchandise. Albums were essentially marketing to bring fans in to concerts. This is why so many artists live on the road.
Artists, and record labels, are certainly making less on albums now though, and I wouldn't be surprised if the labels are now nosing in more on concert profits to make up for it.
This is backward. Albums were where the record company made their money. Only mega-stars made their money on albums. Modern musicians have always made their money from live performances, and especially from merchandise. Albums were essentially marketing to bring fans in to concerts. This is why so many artists live on the road.
Artists, and record labels, are certainly making less on albums now though, and I wouldn't be surprised if the labels are now nosing in more on concert profits to make up for it.
Isn't this article talking about "mega-stars"? Only mega-stars can charge $600 for a concert ticket.
While this is an interesting theory, my personal anecdotal experience doesn't really seem to support it. Some particular bands seem to have gotten more expensive over time (e.g., if I want to see Modest Mouse in Oakland this December, it'll run about 3.5x what I paid to see them in 2007, not including fees), but I'm still able to go see local and smaller touring bands play at smaller venues for similar prices to when I was a teenager in the mid 00s (maybe $5 more on the face value of the ticket, and probably a lot more in terms of service fees).
Merch, on the other hand, is definitely much more expensive than it used to be, and I imagine that probably is reflecting the dynamic you're hypothesizing, at least to some extent.
Merch, on the other hand, is definitely much more expensive than it used to be, and I imagine that probably is reflecting the dynamic you're hypothesizing, at least to some extent.
Im surprised no one has mentioned Pearl Jam going to court with Ticketmaster almost 30 years ago.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taki...
It's been a lousy monopoly for decades and has only gotten worse.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taki...
It's been a lousy monopoly for decades and has only gotten worse.
Also surprised only a single mention of Clear Channel in this thread.
Blink-182 tickets are expensive because a lot of people want to see Blink-182 and there are only so many concert seats.
This is slightly surprising. They're one of the biggest bands of that era and genre, but I still don't see them as being in that much demand. They're not a Rolling Stones. That said, pop punk is having a moment again, Tom is back, Mark is cancer-free, and Mr. Kourtney Kardashian has been drumming it up all over the place.
The fundamental issue is that entertainment venues are largely undersized for the local population these days. New ones don't open up very often. They have not kept up with population growth.
In the US it is hard to build a properly big venue anymore because the parking situation becomes untenable and public transit expansion has slowed to a crawl in the past 60 years. You can't build a massive venue because it would have to be surrounded by acres and acres of parking. So if you want to put it in the city there is no parcel of land big enough, and if you want to put it out in the country the roads can't handle it.
In the US it is hard to build a properly big venue anymore because the parking situation becomes untenable and public transit expansion has slowed to a crawl in the past 60 years. You can't build a massive venue because it would have to be surrounded by acres and acres of parking. So if you want to put it in the city there is no parcel of land big enough, and if you want to put it out in the country the roads can't handle it.
Underground parking and rapid transit access could reduce the extent of problem.
I think its a function of time and demographic change as well. It's not just that they're popular, but the people they're popular with are now older, have better jobs and more disposable income. Look at the ticket prices for any popular bands that are still doing shows from the boomer's generation like grateful dead. Ultimately what I'm saying is their target market can bear higher cost tickets, so now they cost more. I don't get why millennials are still shocked by this.
The millennials who loved them presumably now have money. Presumably.
Supply and demand doesn't have to be how all pricing is set.
Why should those with the highest ability to pay be the ones who get to see the band? Doesn't seem very Punk Rock...
Why should those with the highest ability to pay be the ones who get to see the band? Doesn't seem very Punk Rock...
What's the alternative? A lottery? Sliding scale based on income? Sounds like more logistics for the purpose of intentionally losing money.
Maybe people should give up on seeing extremely popular bands and check out more local music instead.
Maybe people should give up on seeing extremely popular bands and check out more local music instead.
Ticketmaster exists as a blame absorber. Their business model is to charge huge fees, pass 80% plus of the cash back to bands and managers, but absorb 100% of the blame for tickets being expensive. This is why bands and their managers keep using them despite them being universally hated. You are being tricked, and not (just) by ticketmaster...
Yeah, if the bands didn't like the situation they would just switch to one of the competitors like...um...
Or they could just sell their own tickets? eBay lets you sell things, they could start there. There is nothing magic about Ticketmaster.
Or they could insist on set prices. Bruce Springsteen did this decades ago. He even insisted on beers at the venue costing no more than a certain amount.
Or they could insist on set prices. Bruce Springsteen did this decades ago. He even insisted on beers at the venue costing no more than a certain amount.
You can't sell your own tickets if you want to play in a large venue. Those venues all have exclusive Ticketmaster agreements.
[deleted]
Moreso it’s because Blink 182 is essentially classic rock at this point. And classic rock tours have always been absurdly expensive. Nobody is going to see them because they just really love what Blink 182 is doing. They are paying a premium for a shot of nostalgia that can’t be had anywhere else, and they can charge these prices because the entire fanbase is over the age of 30.
Pretty much. Late '90s / early 2000s rock is now thee Dad Rock and its demo, presumably has more disposable income, than they did 20 years ago.
Really terrible headline for a totally decent article.
The Garth Brooks solution is super interesting.
> He adds shows until they no longer sell out. In recent years, on single tours, Brooks has done the following: He played nine concerts in a row in Edmonton, Canada. He played a dozen shows in Chicago. He played six in Kansas, nine in Tulsa, and eight in Denver.
I'm wondering how many shows he does in total per tour compared to other artists. It seems likely to me that he wouldn't be able to visit as many locations which still results in some fans not being able to see him.
The Garth Brooks solution is super interesting.
> He adds shows until they no longer sell out. In recent years, on single tours, Brooks has done the following: He played nine concerts in a row in Edmonton, Canada. He played a dozen shows in Chicago. He played six in Kansas, nine in Tulsa, and eight in Denver.
I'm wondering how many shows he does in total per tour compared to other artists. It seems likely to me that he wouldn't be able to visit as many locations which still results in some fans not being able to see him.
>"“I understand that the ticketing can be frustrating. I bought tickets for two of our shows myself just to see what the experience was like,” Hoppus said. “I had tickets yoinked from my cart and the whole thing crash out. Dynamic pricing. I’m not in charge of it. It’s meant to discourage scalpers. We’re trying to bring you the best possible show for the best price. This is a tour celebrating new music and the band getting back together. Thank you for your enthusiasm and I hope to see all of you at the shows.”
This is the kind of vapid "non-statement" statement usually reserved for politicians. The "best price" for who? Certainly not the fans.
Then further down in the article:
>"Country superstar Garth Brooks—who has called out dynamic pricing as well as suggested that the secondary market should be “illegal,” has more or less solved the problem for his fans with one simple trick: He adds shows until they no longer sell out"
It's worth noting that the artist doing the most "punk rock" thing here is actually the Country singer.
This is the kind of vapid "non-statement" statement usually reserved for politicians. The "best price" for who? Certainly not the fans.
Then further down in the article:
>"Country superstar Garth Brooks—who has called out dynamic pricing as well as suggested that the secondary market should be “illegal,” has more or less solved the problem for his fans with one simple trick: He adds shows until they no longer sell out"
It's worth noting that the artist doing the most "punk rock" thing here is actually the Country singer.
This is not dynamic pricing. This is a price ratchet based on diminishing inventory. There may be an algorithm at work here, but it would be superfluous. All they need to do is set thresholds that increase the price over a known quantity of tickets.
Dynamic pricing works as a mechanism to bring more supply to bear. You can't do that with concert tickets. The only way it would work with concert tickets would be that as an individual concert's seats started to sell at a certain velocity, then another concert would be added for the following night. That would bring new capacity online, which would bring the market back in to "balance". This would go until there was no more demand. Their result would be the maximum number of total tickets would be sold at the maximum price possible. That is different from "15,000 tickets sold at the highest price possible".
This is nothing more than a way to disguise a significant price increase.
Dynamic pricing works as a mechanism to bring more supply to bear. You can't do that with concert tickets. The only way it would work with concert tickets would be that as an individual concert's seats started to sell at a certain velocity, then another concert would be added for the following night. That would bring new capacity online, which would bring the market back in to "balance". This would go until there was no more demand. Their result would be the maximum number of total tickets would be sold at the maximum price possible. That is different from "15,000 tickets sold at the highest price possible".
This is nothing more than a way to disguise a significant price increase.
As long as people are willing to pay these prices, this will continue.
If a ticket is priced at $200 and someone is willing to pay as much as $500, you can be certain that it will be priced that way.
Stop buying overpriced tickets.
If a ticket is priced at $200 and someone is willing to pay as much as $500, you can be certain that it will be priced that way.
Stop buying overpriced tickets.
The issue is there are a lot of rich people. Shows like this used to be <$100 not that long ago.
More like people slowly finding out their quality of life is going down in the US. You get to do less fun things now and going forward.
[deleted]
Only if your definition of fun involves things that are highly in-demand and therefore costly.
Surely if the prices are dynamic and too expensive, just wait until nearer the date of the show and the prices will come down. An artist can make prices cheaper by just adding more dates until everyone who wants to see them can see them.
When the prices are dynamic, the game is no longer about getting to the site the moment the tickets go on sale and buying them as soon as possible, as it used to be, the game is wait as long as you dare while the price decreases until just before it sells out. I think once fans get used to this new game, everyone will be happier (except scalpers).
If Live Nation-TicketMaster are screwing over bands by not paying them their fair share of ticket revenue, they can go to AXS or other venue owners instead and the Live Nation venues will lie empty. They might have to go to smaller venues, so it's a case of balancing the loss of revenue from that with the increase from getting a fairer share.
When the prices are dynamic, the game is no longer about getting to the site the moment the tickets go on sale and buying them as soon as possible, as it used to be, the game is wait as long as you dare while the price decreases until just before it sells out. I think once fans get used to this new game, everyone will be happier (except scalpers).
If Live Nation-TicketMaster are screwing over bands by not paying them their fair share of ticket revenue, they can go to AXS or other venue owners instead and the Live Nation venues will lie empty. They might have to go to smaller venues, so it's a case of balancing the loss of revenue from that with the increase from getting a fairer share.
The prices are high because there aren't any tickets available right before the show starts. They sell every ticket for the most they think they can get. Blink-182 doesn't play enough shows, so they have to filter some of the fans out.
Make it like Rammstein. Scalpers and resellers are out, prices are low. Of course it is still hard to get Tickets.
> Scalpers and resellers are out
How do you even track that?
How do you even track that?
It's possible to make tickets non-transferrable. I think MCR did that for a show near me, for the floor section anyway. Never saw any for sale on resellers. People on reddit were saying they were digital only and non transferrable, so you'd have to give someone your ticketmaster login to use it. that plus 2fa could be effective.
Can't confirm. It's possible the tickets were just plain sold out.
Can't confirm. It's possible the tickets were just plain sold out.
Unlike Germany, tickets have to be transferable in America.
Legally, you can't link a tickets validity to an individual person's identity.
Legally, you can't link a tickets validity to an individual person's identity.
I don't think that's true
https://stubhub.community/t5/Selling-Tickets/Non-transferabl...
https://stubhub.community/t5/Selling-Tickets/Non-transferabl...
I was wrong. It seems like it's state laws, not federal laws, that regulate this issue: https://www.ticketnews.com/ticket-regulations-and-legislatio...
Tickets are personalized and can only be transferred via one platform, that does NOT allow to take higher prices. It might be a bit to socialist for american hearts, but not everyone is living in Amerika.
Ahh paying $600 for a ticket. Now that's PUNK ROCK.
Must be some VIP tickets.
I paid $300 in festival tickets this summer to see Metallica, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Kiss, and 60 other bands.
Now, festivals can either suck or be fun as far as sound, weather, etc. goes - but anything over 100 bucks to see a headliner + warmup gig better be top shelf stuff.
I paid $300 in festival tickets this summer to see Metallica, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Kiss, and 60 other bands.
Now, festivals can either suck or be fun as far as sound, weather, etc. goes - but anything over 100 bucks to see a headliner + warmup gig better be top shelf stuff.
Standard GA floor, standing-only, were $950 in San Diego (their hometown), BEFORE taxes and fees. [1]
We've started calling them Blink $1082 here.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/KtXnJbe.png
We've started calling them Blink $1082 here.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/KtXnJbe.png
floor seats are generally the most expensive at arena shows.
I was looking at GA floor tickets for this blink show, and the price was $800 at the time.
edit: just checked again. They're much more affordable now at $692 each.
edit: just checked again. They're much more affordable now at $692 each.
> Ahh paying $600 for a ticket.
lol really? snagged a bunch of decent seats for <$100.
lol really? snagged a bunch of decent seats for <$100.
blink-182 isn't punk rock for what it's worth. $600 tickets seem pretty normal for a pop artist.
For what it's worth, music genre definitions are murky, and blink-182 were bred from a punk scene, and, to a lot of folk, blink-182 is a punk band (even if they are pop-punk, they are related). I was simply ironically pointing out the juxtaposition of $600 tickets with the DIY, keep-costs-low ethic made popular by punk bands.
Concerts are in huge demand now, post-Covid. I paid way more than I should have this past year. Fans are desperate to be back. I am part of the problem. The number of top tier, establish bands still touring is very small. And they don't want to kill themselves touring every night.
Some less than ideal unorthodox solutions. 1) Go to 2nd and 3rd tier bands. Maybe not at enjoyable as Blink-182, but still good. 2) Go see cover bands. They don't need to. Support the lower tier bands, who are also very talented, enjoy the show, and pay a lot less. You will also find new music. 3) Wait a few years for the post-Covid boom to end and the recession to kick in.
Some less than ideal unorthodox solutions. 1) Go to 2nd and 3rd tier bands. Maybe not at enjoyable as Blink-182, but still good. 2) Go see cover bands. They don't need to. Support the lower tier bands, who are also very talented, enjoy the show, and pay a lot less. You will also find new music. 3) Wait a few years for the post-Covid boom to end and the recession to kick in.
There was a UK comedian (can't remember their name) who was so outraged at the markup the ticket sales middleman took he refunded all of those who paid and refused to do any more gigs at venues who only sold through that platform.
And that's why festivals are more popular. More tickets available and the price / band is significantly lower.
It's a fair argument that Ticketmaster's monopoly position could lead to extortionary fees with small artists. This is unlikely to be a factor with larger artists, and its wholly unrelated to the practice of dynamic pricing.
A monopoly is not required to do dynamic pricing. Airlines have no problem using dynamic pricing on all of their tickets, regardless how competitive the route is. Every major ticket seller is going to dynamic price. If anything, Ticketmaster is consistently undercutting resellers like Gametime in my experience.
A monopoly is not required to do dynamic pricing. Airlines have no problem using dynamic pricing on all of their tickets, regardless how competitive the route is. Every major ticket seller is going to dynamic price. If anything, Ticketmaster is consistently undercutting resellers like Gametime in my experience.
Sounds harsh..... but stop seeing the same big artists ?
Most small artists have concerts that cost under 100$ while you can stand within touching distance from them and even meet them later for autographs.
I wonder how much all of these tickets would sell on a truly free market, with real bidding ? I am guessing that Blink-182, with 100x as many fans as my local $100/ticket artist, would at least warrant that sort of linear increase in price.
Most small artists have concerts that cost under 100$ while you can stand within touching distance from them and even meet them later for autographs.
I wonder how much all of these tickets would sell on a truly free market, with real bidding ? I am guessing that Blink-182, with 100x as many fans as my local $100/ticket artist, would at least warrant that sort of linear increase in price.
Recently, I accidentally spent $100 on tickets that should've cost $40 because I didn't realize ticketmaster was only reselling tickets, they weren't selling originals. No indication cheaper original tickets were available directly from the venue. Ticketmaster made it look sold out.
Really makes me not trust ticketmaster.
Really makes me not trust ticketmaster.
In many cases TM pays venues to be their exclusive ticketing company. Before TM, venues purchased hardware and software. One of the most genius business moves of all time was this business model innovation.
TM does not keep all the fees they collect, but since the market views them as predatory they are providing "hated company" as a service for their customers.
With respect to dynamic pricing or pricing in general, TM is going to charge a percentage of the transaction as a fee and thus make more when demand is high along with their customer (the venue) and the producer/talent (the venue's customer). It's a complex supply chain.
TM does not keep all the fees they collect, but since the market views them as predatory they are providing "hated company" as a service for their customers.
With respect to dynamic pricing or pricing in general, TM is going to charge a percentage of the transaction as a fee and thus make more when demand is high along with their customer (the venue) and the producer/talent (the venue's customer). It's a complex supply chain.
Ticketmaster often puts out that "we're just pretending to be the bad guys so people can still love their bands" story and I don't buy it. They are unregulated monopolists so one must never give them the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear that the bands themselves are under strict NDAs about the relationship so the only word we only ever get Ticketmaster's side the story.
TFA mentions the word "monopoly" 4 times but doesn't actually provide any evidence or even make an argument.
Blink 182 tickets are so expensive because people are willing to pay a lot for them. This is the only reason.
Blink 182 tickets are so expensive because people are willing to pay a lot for them. This is the only reason.
I’ve observed this for quite some time now. I’m not exactly affluent. The maximum amount I’m willing and able to spend on any ticket is $50 – and that would have to be an artist I really want to see. The market price is closer to $500. As those two extremes are unlikely to meet any time soon, I’m simply not going and will spend my time (and whatever money there is) on more affordable, more reasonable diversions.
This is another area that will eventually have its bubble popped because it's unsustainable.
This is another area that will eventually have its bubble popped because it's unsustainable.
TM finally cornered the aftermarket, probably been dreaming of it for decades.
More evil in my opinion, they have enforced a KYC policy around tickets, where attending without a smartphone and app installed is increasingly impossible. Thanks to Covid making it acceptable. TM has dynamic barcodes now, a printout is no longer sufficient.
I loved live music for a long time and we have a concert location locally but this looks like the end of the line for me. I want to attend anonymously, pay cash, and have a paper ticket as a souvenir.
More evil in my opinion, they have enforced a KYC policy around tickets, where attending without a smartphone and app installed is increasingly impossible. Thanks to Covid making it acceptable. TM has dynamic barcodes now, a printout is no longer sufficient.
I loved live music for a long time and we have a concert location locally but this looks like the end of the line for me. I want to attend anonymously, pay cash, and have a paper ticket as a souvenir.
Haha the author:
> I know it is different now, because, in 2009, while I was in college, I bought and sold tickets for the Bruce Springsteen tour that pissed everyone off
Fuck off
> I know it is different now, because, in 2009, while I was in college, I bought and sold tickets for the Bruce Springsteen tour that pissed everyone off
Fuck off
You can usually still go down to the venue during business hours and buy tickets without TM fees, right?
What's hilarious is when I get mad at ticketmaster for charging me convenience fees when I am actively choosing not to walk, bike, or drive down to the venue and circumvent those fees since doing so would be inconvenient. I still make that choice while shaking my fist, and bask in my irony.
What's hilarious is when I get mad at ticketmaster for charging me convenience fees when I am actively choosing not to walk, bike, or drive down to the venue and circumvent those fees since doing so would be inconvenient. I still make that choice while shaking my fist, and bask in my irony.
Nope. If the venue even has a box office any more, the person working is just filling out the Ticketmaster webpage for you and getting all of the fees added on.
Ooof yeah that's brutal. My friends and I held onto that for a long time though because we liked avoiding the fees but also having the hard copy classic tickets to put in scrap books and what not. I know you can still do it some places but I believe you that their numbers are dwindling.
Not really true. You can still avoid convenience fees at our local box office. But TM won’t allow anonymous or paper tickets any longer.
Slightly tangential but I just recently went to my first concert since COVID hit and ticket master is using digital tickets now? Before you could print a paper copy and get it scanned at the door but now the barcode in the app/webpage is changing every 60 seconds, like the code on an RSA fob. Seems like that on its own is enough to block scalpers.
Yeah I hated Ticketmaster for many years, but this is the primary reason I didn't care too much, because I could just print the ticket and not deal with any of their tech gimmicks. Printing concert tickets was basically the only thing I still used a printer for, because a printed ticket was still the most reliable means of getting into the show.
Ever got down to a venue and had shitty mobile service? Ever had your phone die or crash at an inconvenient time? Ever lost data?
Even worse, turns out if you don't have Chrome set as the default browser app on your mobile device then the app is completely worthless and loads no pages (tested on Surface Duo 2). The same problem exists with their website when viewed from Edge on Android: you can't load your account page or tickets at all. Chrome only. Don't worry, there's zero mention of this anywhere on the app store so if you're trying to figure this out while in line at a venue, well fuck you.
So now we have to deal with all this bullshit simply because we can no longer print my tickets.
Ever got down to a venue and had shitty mobile service? Ever had your phone die or crash at an inconvenient time? Ever lost data?
Even worse, turns out if you don't have Chrome set as the default browser app on your mobile device then the app is completely worthless and loads no pages (tested on Surface Duo 2). The same problem exists with their website when viewed from Edge on Android: you can't load your account page or tickets at all. Chrome only. Don't worry, there's zero mention of this anywhere on the app store so if you're trying to figure this out while in line at a venue, well fuck you.
So now we have to deal with all this bullshit simply because we can no longer print my tickets.
You can usually transfer or resell those tickets on TM.
It just requires you to stay in their system instead of selling (taking a screenshot of the code) elsewhere.
If they locked the ticket to your name, that would actually block the scalpers but they don’t.
It just requires you to stay in their system instead of selling (taking a screenshot of the code) elsewhere.
If they locked the ticket to your name, that would actually block the scalpers but they don’t.
By forcing you to stay in their system it makes it easy to identify scalpers by account behaviour. No need to pin tickets to your name, just bring down the banhammer on accounts with suspicious activity.
there's also a feature in the ticket master app to just send the tickets to someone digitally so you can still sell them other ways. /i just got rid of a spare ticket i had on cash or trade.
edit to add: my friend couldn't make the concert, I'm not a scalper!
edit to add: my friend couldn't make the concert, I'm not a scalper!
I thought the whole deal with ticketmaster was that they can charge hidden fees on behalf of the band and take the blame?
The problem with dynamic pricing and scalping is that it further divides people by income. Music and culture should be something that brings people together.
I'd like to see a progressive pricing system that somehow forces richer people to subsidize cheaper tickets for poor people.
I'd like to see a progressive pricing system that somehow forces richer people to subsidize cheaper tickets for poor people.
Does that already exist with shitty vs better seats/areas in concert venues?
Really the place where this happens, much to the hatred of everyone is things like VIP tables at Clubs/Music festivals. The ppl leaving a 50k tab for 1000$ worth of stuff eg.
Really the place where this happens, much to the hatred of everyone is things like VIP tables at Clubs/Music festivals. The ppl leaving a 50k tab for 1000$ worth of stuff eg.
There will always be some level of division. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street band used to reserve the space front & center as standing-room-only, and sold it cheaply ($30, I think) on a first-come, first-served basis on the day of the show. But even if you do that, you're self-selecting the people who have the financial ability to take a day (or even multiple days) off from work to maybe get a ticket.
As opposed to dividing people by income and ability to build a scalping bot. Some people get lucky spam refreshing but that's still dividing by ability to drop everything for 15 minutes at the exact right time which usually means rich-ish.
go see local or smaller acts at smaller venues. don’t go see boring stadium shows. problem solved.
You've got the right idea. Large stadium bands are almost always a poor value proposition, and that was the case even before dynamic pricing. Some of these shows are definitely cool, but the price relative to smaller touring acts (who are often just as if not more talented) is so astronomical that it never made sense to me
Absolutely this. Hand $100 to a local band that isn't having anybody show up and they're going to treat you like a damn VIP.
I find this whole kerfuffle especially ironic given that the band in question is Blink 182.
Blink 182, a band absolutely known for treating their fans shittily and putting on shitty concerts, are being berated by fans because they treated the fans shittily. I can't wait for the complaints about the shitty concerts to start.
Jeeze people. Take the hint and vote with your wallet.
I find this whole kerfuffle especially ironic given that the band in question is Blink 182.
Blink 182, a band absolutely known for treating their fans shittily and putting on shitty concerts, are being berated by fans because they treated the fans shittily. I can't wait for the complaints about the shitty concerts to start.
Jeeze people. Take the hint and vote with your wallet.
Our local 6k seater is subject to this too.
I wanted tickets to see Adam Sandler in the near future. Tickets are like $5000 because of this.
It might come down though. If it's in the near future, maybe the tickets are priced "aspirationally" at the moment. I have a very hard time believing a large number of people would pay $5000 to see Adam Sandler.
Live Nation's market cap is only 19 billion, so it's not even half a twitter.
You know it's funny, pricing, if everyone refuses to buy something at a certain price the owner simply abandons the items or makes them cheaper in cost, true? Stop paying these people outrageous prices and the prices will fall.
How does "selling at the market price" constitute abuse of monopoly power?
There is a solution here, and Rammstein is one Band that uses it: Don't sell via Ticketmaster and sell personalized tickets only that are not allowed to be resold.
I think dynamic pricing systems are going to come across a lot of scrutiny (even if they don't deserve it.)
Between this and the rental pricing thing, lots of bad press about them.
Between this and the rental pricing thing, lots of bad press about them.
[deleted]
Non-transferable tickets seem to me to be a simple solution. But people want be able to sell their tickets.
So now we are stuck with high ticket prices.
So now we are stuck with high ticket prices.
Cash at the door? Or physical tickets sold around town the day of?
People have a love/hate relationship with the frenzy I guess.
People have a love/hate relationship with the frenzy I guess.
Cash at the door would just mean endless lines — people paying with their time instead of their money, and the value of that time is just wasted rather than captured by the seller.
$40 exact change in $20 bills will be faster than scanning barcodes.
That's great for locals, but doesn't really work for people who have to travel several hours and book a hotel to get to somewhere where many of the bands I want to see play. For people like us having a guaranteed ticket far in advance is important.
Yup, I think if any act was really passionate about selling cheap tickets this is the way. But it is intentionally defying the way markets work, the current problem is not because bands or TicketMaster are charging too much, it's that people are willing to pay these prices.
What radiohead did with Ticket Trust is probably the right balance, they made it so you could resell the paperless tickets, but only through Ticket Trust which didn't allow you to resell them for above face value.
There's a simple way to solve this.
Companies could just require everybody to enter a name and surname of the person the ticket is bought for. There's the issue of people who later discover that they can't go to a show they have a ticket for, but that can be solved by allowing them to return their tickets to the general pool and giving them (some of) their money back.
Companies could just require everybody to enter a name and surname of the person the ticket is bought for. There's the issue of people who later discover that they can't go to a show they have a ticket for, but that can be solved by allowing them to return their tickets to the general pool and giving them (some of) their money back.
TM already does KYC on every customer now, as if you’re boarding an international flight.
Blink-182 is a pop band.
I went to a $10 punk show just last week and had a blast.
Who’s enslaved by Ticketmaster?
I went to a $10 punk show just last week and had a blast.
Who’s enslaved by Ticketmaster?
Did the tickets ever get cheaper as excess inventory showed up? THAT would be dynamic pricing.
I'd like a mix, please...
20% of the tickets are sold in an auction or some ridiculous market like that.
And 80% of the tickets are sold on a non-transferable basis, in a lottery. (Where maybe you can buy a +1 ticket, but the first one is non-transferable.)
If a band wants a different mix of money vs luck, or the number of +1s you can bring, they can set it differently.
20% of the tickets are sold in an auction or some ridiculous market like that.
And 80% of the tickets are sold on a non-transferable basis, in a lottery. (Where maybe you can buy a +1 ticket, but the first one is non-transferable.)
If a band wants a different mix of money vs luck, or the number of +1s you can bring, they can set it differently.
Finally, i scrolled to exact my thoughts. Don't understand why people above discuss obvious things, and not this approach.
How do you make a non-transferable ticket?
You show your driver's license or state issued ID, and your ticket is tied to that.
I've done that before. It was a bit more inconvenient, honestly, but it got me tickets to something I was happy to see, and it cut out scalpers.
I could also sell my tickets back to the venue, if I needed to cancel.
I've done that before. It was a bit more inconvenient, honestly, but it got me tickets to something I was happy to see, and it cut out scalpers.
I could also sell my tickets back to the venue, if I needed to cancel.
Answering my own question here, but maybe release tickets the day of the concert. That way, scalpers will be taking a bigger risk since people want to be sure they can get tickets before the day of.
[deleted]
Cory Doctorow wrote about this a little while ago[1], he's been using the term "Chokepoint Capitalism"
[1]: https://doctorow.medium.com/what-is-chokepoint-capitalism-b8...
[1]: https://doctorow.medium.com/what-is-chokepoint-capitalism-b8...
nice information
More and more our culture and arts become exclusively for the upper classes.
Less and less people will be able to see their favorite bands perform live.
Less and less people will be able to travel to see pieces of art/culture/history.
Less and less people will be able to afford tickets to sports games - Hockey, Football, Soccer, etc. - all reserved for the wealthy who can afford $200 a ticket, $15 a beer, and $12 for a slice of pizza.
Society is breaking down and nobody seems to notice or care.
Only the rich and the lucky will be able to experience real in-person concerts, events, shows, history. Leaving the poor and downtrodden left to experience their favorite band through a 7" phone screen and a tinny speaker.
Less and less people will be able to see their favorite bands perform live.
Less and less people will be able to travel to see pieces of art/culture/history.
Less and less people will be able to afford tickets to sports games - Hockey, Football, Soccer, etc. - all reserved for the wealthy who can afford $200 a ticket, $15 a beer, and $12 for a slice of pizza.
Society is breaking down and nobody seems to notice or care.
Only the rich and the lucky will be able to experience real in-person concerts, events, shows, history. Leaving the poor and downtrodden left to experience their favorite band through a 7" phone screen and a tinny speaker.
Isnt this...not a bad thing? There's fundamentally just a supply and demand problem, with more people wanting to see these concerts than there are concerts. The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone. Is there a better solution? Even if there were 5 different companies selling concert tickets, wouldnt they inevitably move to dynamic pricing for the same reason?