161–169 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And what happened? They joined TM and CC.
The point being: TM already had the market power before LN was on the scene, and all of LN's market power wasn't enough to get people to use their ticketing platform instead of TM. Saying LN is the reason everyone uses TM is very much getting it backwards.
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…
You're bringing up the past, they are talking about the present, which is absolutely accurate.
Surely, if LN's dominance is what is needed to lock up the ticketing market, LN's ticketing platform should have been able to compete with TM quite well, and TM should have been struggling to succeed in the ticketing market prior to being acquired by LN.
Ticketmaster is a company which is so hated, people ascribe their success to malice and illegal activity rather than any compelling economic arguments. It's unfortunate because their business model is, imo, quite interesting. The first thing to point out is that the question itself is flawed. Ticketmaster has a number of competitors (StubHub, Eventbrite, AXS, Seatgeek). Nevertheless, artists do seem to always gravita…
Obviously not true. Pearl Jam tried to ditch Ticketmaster in the 90s and ended up cancelling their tour because they could only get shitty locations. The top comment here is correct: Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with venues and you can't get around it as a performer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Consumers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rese…
But the other side of the coin, is people don't really care that much about who the ticket vendor is for a big show, they just want to go to a big show.
The artists want as much as possible. Ticketmasters practices allow as much profit for themselves as possible and for the artist. A lot of the 'fees' that people hate, ticketmaster take the blame, but it's just a stealth way of increasing the ticket price and making the band not look like they are ripping off there fans.
Tickets are only $60, but then there are $30 worth of fees. Oh and dynamic pricing which means the ticket actually costs you $180 + fees, but the band can get away with it, rather than just outright putting them at $200, ticketmaster are the ones that look like they are ripping off the fans, not the acts, when they are in it together.
Here in the UK, the problem is, all the major venues are owned by Live nation who own ticketmaster, band wants to play there? have to use ticketmaster. They also bought up a lot of the festivals here, so the issue is they control everything.
The question should really be why the FTC tolerates this, letting them after all this time enjoy the blatantly monopolistic anti-consumer stance they've enjoyed since the 80's (at least). It isn't difficult to see how nasty of a business this is by how hated they are by artists and consumers alike, and if nothing else they should be broken up the same way Ma Bell as a telecom monopoly. At least it might come with som…