Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#151

Post by kylebenzle »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #11

Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with artists and venues. Artists not signing deals with Ticketmaster lose access to venues, and venues not signing exclusivity deals with Ticketmaster lose access to artists. There are enough of these on both sides that neither wants to lose the other so they sign. Side note: I worked at a small ticketing software shop circa the Ticketmaster/LiveNation merger. The CEO got a call from…

Yes but the REASON they do this is so they ALL make a lot more money.

Artists can play small venues, venues can book small artists, but that's not where the money is.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#152

Post by kylebenzle »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #58
caseysoftware wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ This. ~15 years ago, I was working with venues to see how we could handle ticketing, etc. They ALL had exclusive deals where the venue could ONLY sell online through TicketMaster and then TM would handle ~100% of the back office reporting, tracking, etc and even the onsite credit card processing for walk up sales. It was one end to end system/suite and to replace any of it, you had to replace ALL of it once the con…

If this were the 1920s, antitrust enforcement would come down with an iron fist. The consolidation and control of the market is insane. I hope we can see some government movement about this at some point..

Both venues AND artists want it this way, who's going to complain?

TM makes more money for everyone, that's why they use it.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#153

Post by saaaaaam »

Ticket master is owned by Live Nation. Live Nation is the biggest concert promoter in the world. Live Nation also owns or holds stakes in a significant number of music festivals. It owns or holds stakes in agencies representing artists for live shows, and it owns or holds stakes in a significant number of artist management companies.

This means it has pretty much “full stack” control over live music events at from the top end of the market down - it’s got relationships with artists, venues and promoters who want to book artists and put shows on sale.

If you’re in the live music business you will almost certainly be doing business with part of Live Nation.

That’s why no one can really challenge Ticketmaster.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#154

Post by JohnFen »

canucker2016 wrote: post #61
blindriver wrote: post #12

Pearl Jam tried to do something about it 25 years ago but their monopoly is too entrenched. They gave up.

almost 30 years ago, now https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/pearl-jam-war-with-ticketmaster... does ticketmaster monopolize small venues, as well? maybe those venues could also sell streaming access as well as in-person viewing, to attack ticketmaster from 'below'. Other than Pearl Jam (and Prince, RIP), the big concert attractions seem to be happy with the current ticketmaster situation.

> does ticketmaster monopolize small venues, as well?

I don't know, but I do know that about half of the small venues in my town use Ticketmaster. I notice because it means that I have to remember which small venues I'm willing to see shows at.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#155

Post by solardev »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #58
caseysoftware wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ This. ~15 years ago, I was working with venues to see how we could handle ticketing, etc. They ALL had exclusive deals where the venue could ONLY sell online through TicketMaster and then TM would handle ~100% of the back office reporting, tracking, etc and even the onsite credit card processing for walk up sales. It was one end to end system/suite and to replace any of it, you had to replace ALL of it once the con…

If this were the 1920s, antitrust enforcement would come down with an iron fist. The consolidation and control of the market is insane. I hope we can see some government movement about this at some point..

These days, Ticketmaster would probably be the ones selling the tickets to the FTC hearings to begin with.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#156

Post by cbsmith »

latchkey wrote: post #132
IshKebab wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP asked why nobody has beaten TM. The answer cannot be "because they have a vertically integrated monopoly" because in the past that wasn't true and nobody was able to beat them then either.

Even if a venue isn't owned my LN, they still use TM for ticketing because otherwise their booking agents won't be able to get the Clear Channel artists to come. It has been that way for a LONG time. Before LN, it was CC. Source: I used to own a night club in San Francisco.

Yeah, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_(events_promoter)

"Founded in 1996 by Robert F. X. Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built around consolidating concert promoters into a national entity to counter the oversized influence of ticket behemoth Ticketmaster."

It's kind of amazing how the present distorts our perspective of the past.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#157

Post by cbsmith »

tylergetsay wrote: post #101
cbsmith wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not accurate. TM already had a lock the market before LN acquired them. In fact, LN created their own ticketing platform to compete with TM... and failed miserably. Take a look at the largest venues in the country. Most of them aren't owned by LN, but they still use TM for ticketing. If anything, TM has helped LN to acquire more venues than the other way around. In general, TM has a much more dominant share of the ti…

It's not that LN owns the venues, but that the venues have an exclusive ticket agreement with TM. So if you want to perform at this venue, you must sell via TM. When my startup was trying to compete, we found that basically every single outdoor amphitheater had exclusive ticket rights. This makes stuff like crowdfunding a concert impossible

Right, but now you have to ask yourself why do the venues have exclusive ticket agreements with TM rather than another ticketing vendor?

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#158

Post by latchkey »

cbsmith wrote: post #156
latchkey wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if a venue isn't owned my LN, they still use TM for ticketing because otherwise their booking agents won't be able to get the Clear Channel artists to come. It has been that way for a LONG time. Before LN, it was CC. Source: I used to own a night club in San Francisco.

Yeah, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_(events_promoter) "Founded in 1996 by Robert F. X. Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built around consolidating concert promoters into a national entity to counter the oversized influence of ticket behemoth Ticketmaster." It's kind of amazing how the present distorts our perspective of the past.

What are you no about? Like I said, before LN, it was CC.

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#159

Post by cbsmith »

massysett wrote: post #37
cbsmith wrote: post #30

Honestly, it's not what the rhetoric tells you. The entertainment business is not very technical. TM serves as their IT department. By the nature of the business, everyone wants to differentiate themselves from everyone else. So literally every client wants some special feature that no one has seen before. TM is the only place that can afford to say, "sure, we'll do it" to all of them, and since most of the clients (…

What kind of “special feature”, any examples?

There's the infamous "Garth mode" (named after Garth Brooks), where the inventory for multiple performances in the same venue is effectively consolidated into one pseudo-event. Some of the performances are kept in reserve, and they turn the individual performances on and off in real-time to spread out demand across performances and also ensure they provide enough inventory fulfill all demand (it just murders the resellers).

Re: Ask HN: Why has no one replaced Ticketmaster?

#160

Post by cbsmith »

latchkey wrote: post #158
cbsmith wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation_(events_promoter) "Founded in 1996 by Robert F. X. Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built around consolidating concert promoters into a national entity to counter the oversized influence of ticket behemoth Ticketmaster." It's kind of amazing how the present distorts our perspective of the past.

What are you no about? Like I said, before LN, it was CC.

It was formed to compete with TM, because TM had too much market power. In other words, you didn't need to use TM if you were using CC from a business/monopoly standpoint --in fact it was against their interests. However, CC/LN often went with TM anyway because it worked out better for them.
Post reply on HN