271–280 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in court they will probably argue that this is vertical integration that creates savings they pass along to the consumer. DOJ will likely argue they are pocketing it.
Has the DOJ ever won an argument against just vertical integration in the entire history of the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least where I live (Texas, United States) from what I saw it's allowed to have legal counsel, although it may be uncommon. I'll have to look into the process more and see if there's anything I can pursue.
Actually, I'm forgetting... Did you possibly agree to binding arbitration for all disputes? I can't believe I forgot -that- loophole facepalm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a big player with money to burn can undercut them Unclear. There are limited cities that can support a 30,000+-seat stadium. Most of them have some already. Unless there is way more demand for these venues than I realise, I'd also guess they're close to saturation, i.e. adding another venue would result in lower utilisation. This natural monopoly in large concert venues creates a condition where winning is Pyrrhic,…
Take losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Consumers care about the final ticket price. So if TM charges less fees the artist can just charge more face value until they reach the same equilibrium. Anyone that thinks consumers will be paying less is deluded.
Or ticket prices and fees will stay the same, and artists' share of fees will go up (it's not zero today).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-devoted fans. Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking. Assuming infrastructure is sufficient for each situation to be profitable is magical thinking.
> Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking The point is artists want to have their cake and eat it too. Any artist performing at a stadium could make a solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena while charging a similar (or lower) price. They don't because it's more lucrative to perform at a 70,000-seat stadium. LiveNation is a monopolist. But they also give many market participants cover to ch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the DOJ ever won an argument against just vertical integration in the entire history of the US?
If isn’t just vertical integration. It’s also abuse of monopoly power. I’m sure the DoJ won’t have any trouble showing how much market share TM/LN have. I think the real issue is the limited supply of tickets to the most popular shows. Supply and demand dictates that the prices for these limited goods be very high, yet social norms discourage artists from charging the true market value for their tickets (fans will re…