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

Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#211

Post by shae »

zer00eyz wrote: post #192

I used to work in this space. If the DOJ breaks up live nation the only group who gets screwed is the consumer. The sort of artist who is big enough to use live nation also wants a pay day for going on tour. They want the door, they want to sell their merch, they want a cut of the 20$ beer you buy. There might be 1 or 2 artist left who dont want to see you gouged on the ticket but that might not even be true any more…

I think that's great, I'll be able to afford to see the small artists again without paying a huge amount of overhead.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#212

Post by lolinder »

carlosjobim wrote: post #198
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affordable tickets requires a way to combat scalping, which in turn butts up against freedom to resell/transfer tickets after purchase. It's a hard game to win whenever scarcity and economics are involved.

Combatting scalping is the easiest thing ever. Just put the name of the attendee on each ticket and if you want to be nice you can have a buyback period until a certain date before the show, where the venue purchases back your ticket if you can't go.

And then what, check the ID of 50k people at the door?

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#213

Post by volleygman180 »

zer00eyz wrote: post #192

I used to work in this space. If the DOJ breaks up live nation the only group who gets screwed is the consumer. The sort of artist who is big enough to use live nation also wants a pay day for going on tour. They want the door, they want to sell their merch, they want a cut of the 20$ beer you buy. There might be 1 or 2 artist left who dont want to see you gouged on the ticket but that might not even be true any more…

Everything you're describing is our current reality already. The only difference I'm noticing is that Platinum Pricing doesn't exist.

In that case, that is a better future for consumers, because right now, Platinum Pricing is where we really get screwed.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#214

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crabmusket wrote: post #206
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a big driver of cost is the scalpers/hedgers who buy out everything and put it on StubHub Not true. About "10% of [performing arts] tickets sold in the primary market are later re-sold by ticket scalpers," increasing to "20-30% of top-tiered seats" [1]. Banning scalping increases attendance but results in "fewer distinct productions...shown in metropolitan areas or states that require ticket resellers to be license…

> Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2] I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the abstract talks about ticket window prices. Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Or am I misunderstanding the term "ticket window"? As a lay person, my gut asks: if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then wh…

> Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers?

Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the "weighted average of seats normally available to the public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.)

> if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?

Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less.

[1] https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#215

Post by vel0city »

selectodude wrote: post #188
anthonypasq wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people somehow feel like the they have right to see a Taylor Swift concert for $40 but if you suggested that SuperBowl tickets should be $40 everyone would look at you like youre crazy. Seeing a live event is not a luxury. Seeing the most popular entertainer in the world in a giant stadium is a luxury.

Sure, but the economist would say that Taylor Swift should have made every penny of the $300 ticket cost. Live Nation getting even a penny is the market failure, not the cost of the ticket itself.

Ok, so the government smashes LiveNation to bits. There's still going to be some contractor that gets paid to handle the ticketing and promoting and dealing with venues and what not. Its not like Taylor Swift alone is the one printing out the tickets, scanning them, managing the online marketplace for resales/transfers of digital tickets, dealing with venue contracts, managing concessions agreements, etc.

Maybe TM/LN are an abusive monopoly in their current position. Maybe they're too integrated in the whole market. Sure sounds like it. But even then Swift isn't getting the full $300 of the ticket cost while the hundreds of other people involved in getting the show together get $0.00.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#216

Post by Kailhus »

btown wrote: post #60
andjd wrote: post #15

One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive mar…

An artist might want to opt out of this, though. They might think, and reasonably so, that the optics of having affordable tickets - even if they make less overall - is better for their brand identity and long—term benefit. That LiveNation has created a de facto system where they cannot opt out of their price setting is at the heart of the entire matter.

You are correct, the ticket prices will be agreed between the promoter/venue (LN) and artist/manager via the booking agents.

The venue, often LN, will charge a base rate then everything else goes on top.

There are several other factors at play that lead to higher ticket prices which often comes down to the artist and its tour production being very expensive rather than pure greed

More often than not the deals are worked out on a 70/30 or 80/20 in favour of the artist and split after breaking even on most mutually agreed costs (ads etc), or a bigger artist flat fee which is risky for them.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#217

Post by carlosjobim »

lolinder wrote: post #212
carlosjobim wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combatting scalping is the easiest thing ever. Just put the name of the attendee on each ticket and if you want to be nice you can have a buyback period until a certain date before the show, where the venue purchases back your ticket if you can't go.

And then what, check the ID of 50k people at the door?

Why not? They check hand bags anyway. Even if you don't check everybody it is a huge deterrent to scalpers if the buyer can not be sure that they will be allowed in. Imagine paying for expensive tickets, travelling a long distance, paying for a hotel room etc. And then you're not getting in to see the show.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#218

Post by rahimnathwani »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #190
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Related: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u... ("BIG by Matt Stoller: Explosive New Documents Unearthed On Live Nation/Ticketmaster")

Much of this is voodoo accounting since Live Nation through intermediary own most of the venues, promoters, services, security, catering and so on. It's just using their vertical integration and monopoly to move as much money onto their books and increase ticket prices and margins. Shady.

  move as much money onto their books and increase ticket prices and margins
If we assume their actions don't reduce the supply of shows+seats, the impact might fall only on artists and venues. i.e. it's possible that prices paid by fans would be same with or without these schemes.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#219

Post by crabmusket »

ryandrake wrote: post #124

I'm as glad as anyone else to see an abusive company get some scrutiny, B U T . . . Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond? They are not being financially incentivized to change their ways. This feels a lot like the video gamer who hates Video Game Company XYZ with the passion of a thousand suns, yet like clockwork buys their video gam…

So I should... punish the artists I like as a protest against a monopoly they are not responsible for?
Post reply on HN