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

Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 193 posts

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#161

Post by perlgeek »

dylan604 wrote: post #27
jazzpush2 wrote: post #8

Now do service fees and 'convenience' fees. Every ticket I buy for a movie somehow costs $2 extra now. (As with everything else). Robbery.

My favorite is the local tax office charges extra for paying online vs going in to the office to pay in person. At first, I thought it was a way to recoup the processing fees as you're obviously paying by card online. The last time I paid in person with a card, that fee was not added on though. So they are charging you extra for not having to pay an employee to process your account.

What you really need are strong consumer protection offices, and the right for them to sue.

This has really helped in Germany.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#162

Post by DANmode »

troupo wrote: post #157
nradov wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point: boycott the artists who contract with Live Nation. Your life won't be any less rich if you go see a local band instead of Taylor Swift. People have so many options now and yet they're afflicted with this weird FOMO.

This essentially boycotts 99% of artists who are big enough to book a venue with more than 500-1000 people

It does, and I think they’re aware:

> Your life won't be any less rich if you go see a local band instead of Taylor Swift.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#163

Post by troupo »

DANmode wrote: post #162
troupo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This essentially boycotts 99% of artists who are big enough to book a venue with more than 500-1000 people

It does, and I think they’re aware: > Your life won't be any less rich if you go see a local band instead of Taylor Swift. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Ah yes, the bands that can gather more than 1000 fans at a concert are all Taylor Swifts.

One of my favorite bands I've listened to since their first album is First Aid Kit. On their 10th anniversary they had several sold-out concerts at Globen [1] in Stockholm. Should've I just stopped immediately once they crossed the threshold of 100 fans worldwide? But they are a local band, they are Swedish.

In August I'm going to a concert of a Finnish band called Steve'n'Seagulls. They will play in Karlstad, a small Swedish town. They sell their tickets through Ticketmaster. Boycott I say! They are on the same level as Taylor Swift! (137k monthly listeners on Spotify, compared to Swift's 102 million).

Okay. What about bands that have been around since before Live Nation? Should I skip Radiohead, Guns'n'Roses and Sting because there's literally no way for them to tour except to book LiveNation-affiliated venues?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicii_Arena

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#164

Post by jorvi »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #58
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of annoying in practice. For example you buy four tickets to go with your friends. But you get sick so you offer your ticket to a different friend instead. Oops that’s not allowed so now no one gets to go? Or you buy tickets as a gift for someone. There’s a lot of legit reasons to want transfers, outside of scalping.

I can't do this with airline tickets, hotel bookings, train tickets, dinner reservations, or any other kind of receipt that allows me to put my butt in a seat at a specified time. Why are concert tickets special?

Airline tickets used to be transferable. Hell, you used to be able to fly on someone else's name.

9/11 changed a lot. Just like how before World War I, passports and border controls weren't really a thing.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#165

Post by ceejayoz »

lmm wrote: post #102
ceejayoz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen quite a few artists opposed to it. Quick example: https://www.instagram.com/p/DWWlQS-Dhj7/

Artists will claim to be opposed because fans like it when they do so.

Artists have canceled swathes of tickets for this reason.

https://variety.com/2024/music/news/chappell-roan-cancels-sc...

I've seen quite a few cases of this. Not everyone's money-only.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#166

Post by dbbk »

ceroxylon wrote: post #117

What is the moat of the major ticketing companies? Is it deals with venues? It is hard to rationalize how one company can even get a stranglehold on an entire market like this. I feel like I could ping any random HN user and build something better in a week, which means it has been done many times already... why don't alternatives gain traction?

Multi-year exclusive contracts paid for with cash advances.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#168

Post by chiph »

In college I worked at a record store that had a Ticketmaster machine. At the time, it was a custom ticket printer with CRT terminal and modem that took up a lot of counter space. When you camped out and bought a ticket the moment they went on sale you got an actual ticket, with perforations. Lots of people saved their stubs as collector's items. The surcharge was: $2.50

That paid for the equipment, maintenance, the ticket stock, the central computer, but not the leased phone line (the store paid for that).

These days, you're using your computer, your paper (or phone), and afterwards you have nothing collectible. The surcharge can be $40 or more.

Why the huge difference? It can't all be inflation. I think it's primarily because of monopolistic power and collusion with the venue[0]. But also - when bands toured back then it was considered supplemental income to the sale of the album. These days they hardly make anything off album sales/streaming, and more of their income comes from touring (ticket and merchandise sales).

[0] You could buy tickets at the venue and not pay the surcharge. But now Ticketmaster gets their cut even if you do that.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#169

Post by hgoel »

mschuster91 wrote: post #158
hgoel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively only allow transfers within a very short period of the event. Anyone with a legitimate reason (giving to a friend etc) can work it out even on the day of the event. But scalpers have to take on a big risk buying up the good seats early, because they have a short window of time within which to secure a sale (buyers won't risk pre-paying, sellers can't risk prospective buyers backing out at the last minut…

> Anyone with a legitimate reason (giving to a friend etc) can work it out even on the day of the event. I've seen it happen multiple times people couldn't find someone to take the ticket off of them, even for free. Sure, for an ultra mainstream act the likes of Rammstein? A FC Bayern soccer game? You'll always find some people outside the venue willing to pay in cash for tickets. But anything with a small fanbase? W…

If you were honestly just looking to sell your ticket at a price that recovers your costs, I think you'd have an easier time pre-planning a trade.

But there's definitely a balance to be found between the popularity of an event and how soon you allow trades.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#170

Post by acdha »

ceroxylon wrote: post #117

What is the moat of the major ticketing companies? Is it deals with venues? It is hard to rationalize how one company can even get a stranglehold on an entire market like this. I feel like I could ping any random HN user and build something better in a week, which means it has been done many times already... why don't alternatives gain traction?

Reagan halted antitrust enforcement and nobody fixed it, so they were allowed to own controlling stakes in several industries and freeze out competitors. They get exclusives with bands, agencies, venues, and promotions so at each point anyone who tries to do something else runs into a package they can’t compete with: a band which doesn’t play ball won’t get the big venues, a venue which acts independently won’t get the big acts, etc. It’s clearly abusive but they managed to spread enough money around to avoid action before Biden, and then Trump overturned that because he has the same mentality.

jwz has been writing about this for years. I don’t remember if he’s playing games with the HN referrer header on dnalounge.com but you probably want to use https://tinyurl.com/yskf7ypz instead of https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2018/01/31.html.

Post reply on HN