SeatGeek Raises $62M • Hacker News Board

Re: SeatGeek Raises $62M

#31

Post by walshemj » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 2:04 PM UTC

rdxm wrote: post #11

as someone who lived through/participated in phase one of the "ticket disruption" to include secondary markets, i'm skeptical this is relevant and really i think the vc dudes just flushed a bunch of money down the toilet. TM owns this market and frankly, the issue has nothing to do with tech, and everything to do with the way professional sports and concert marketing works from a biz perspective. then there's the who…

Yeh that was my thought a few years ago I worked for Odeon sorting out some of the problems involved in selling cinema tickets online.

One particular supplier seemed to have a lock on that industry and was milking it for all its worth.

Odeon wasn't helped by using packet switched radio links that blocked - that's right only 1 person at a time could make a booking at an individual cinema (well the big one in lecister square had 2 links)

Re: SeatGeek Raises $62M

#32

Post by gsnedders » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 3:18 PM UTC

wallawe wrote: post #30

zkhalique wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are some of the main challenges in the world of ticketing, regulatory & business wise? I wonder what would make it so hard to just strike a deal with a venue.

TM took over back in the late 80's as the underdog because they made the great business decision to give venues a cut of the pie as opposed to charging venues for their services - which is what their competitors did at the time. They quickly took demolished the competition and began setting up long term contracts, usually between 3 and 10 years with each venue. Then, in 2010 they merged with LiveNation who owns a vas…

So how does TM make money? Where is the cut for venues taken from? All from the booking fee?

Re: SeatGeek Raises $62M

#33

Post by teammatters » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 3:59 PM UTC

This is cool to see(congrats to them), as I too have had interactions with the founders when they first started. Just looking at a few emails we exchanged and thinking why I haven't I reached the same level of success when I've had a ton of great serendipitous moments/opportunities to seize.

It all boils down to pretty much being a solo founder. I always hired or found code monkeys to help turn my front end coded designs/ideas into a working product. None of these coders cared the same 500% percent I do for my start-ups. I.E. In December a Fortune 500 company wanted to become our client and I wanted to make this happen. I wasn't sure if I should make this company sign a licensing agreement or not. An advisers said they should, though I wasn't sure and wish I had a co-founder who cared as much as I do to discuss this decision with. It was a turning point for my start-up and the deal ultimately fell through (crushing).

Having a team/co-founders that are vested the same 500% is utmost important. Especially, if your not a schmoozer with tons of charisma and or a unicorn with great luck!

Re: SeatGeek Raises $62M

#34

Post by anon808 » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #22

anon808 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seatgeek has an amazing ui, maybe the best ui for finding tickets. That alone is very valuable. The problem is that with this round total raised is $100M. VC's expect to double or triple their money, as par. That sets a simplified expected exit valuation of $300M for this to be a success. Ticketmaster was last sold for $400MM in 2009. The bar for success is now extremely high. Anything below the high expectations gen…

> Ticketmaster was last sold for $400MM in 2009 It was not sold . It merged with LYV to be valued at 50% of a $2.5bil company. It's now a $5bil company.

(Reuters) - The world's largest concert promoter, Live Nation Inc, plans to buy Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc for about $400 million in stock, aiming to create a company with dominant holdings in concert promotion and ticket sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/10/us-ticketmaster-li...

2.5b enterprise value inlcuding debt. not 2.5b equity.