Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

wsj.com

61–70 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#61
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…

Sounds identical to health insurers. We need a new word for this arrangement. “Cartel” probably comes the closest but doesn’t feel quite right.

It’s like a cartel but it’s lead by one “extractor” (front of house, Ticketmaster in this case).

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#62
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting distinction. You shouldn't be able to call it a "fee" if the cost that it purports to cover does not increase with the cost of a ticket.

Why not? Is there a definition of “fee” that dictates this? Presumably the _average_ fee is the cost to provide the service (including the profit they want to make on it). So the more expensive tickets subsidize the cheaper ones.

Actually yes, some dictionaries (like Merriam-Webster) define fee as "a fixed charge"

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems harsh to blame somebody for simply paying to do something they enjoy when the alternative is just not doing it. Blame the monopoly, not the consumer.

It takes two to tango. You're conflating this with victim blaming. This is a willing party willing to continue the cycle of the problem. For those making the decisions on "is it too expensive", then by definition it is not has stadiums continue to be filled by people participating in the fleecing. Someone with money can spend their money however they want. They can gamble it, they can snort it up their nose, they can…

What is the actual problem here? If someone is willing to pay more for a ticket than you are, by what principle should the venue or performer be obligated to instead sell it to you at a lower price?

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#64
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…

If I understand correctly Ticketmaster is still the one creating this problem, they demand exclusivity in their contracts which often means the venue has no choice if they want to participate in a large enough market to continue operating. Similarly artists have trouble securing large venues if not participating in their scheme.

This is the problem with most 'monopolies', they reach a certain critical mass where they can no longer be dealt with on even footing. You are at their mercy as a vendor and as a customer. You can often argue that 'choice' exists, but what choice is it really? Taylor Swift isn't going to come play at our local music house/bar.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You paid nearly $1k for 2 tickets to a show? To me, you are part of the problem as acting as an enabler for these prices to be seen as acceptable.

Seems harsh to blame somebody for simply paying to do something they enjoy when the alternative is just not doing it. Blame the monopoly, not the consumer.

I think we have a duty as consumers not to reinforce anti-consumer behavior, when at all possible.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#66
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…

Sounds identical to health insurers. We need a new word for this arrangement. “Cartel” probably comes the closest but doesn’t feel quite right. It’s like a cartel but it’s lead by one “extractor” (front of house, Ticketmaster in this case).

“Cartel” doesn’t preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et al.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#67
My horror story of Ticketmaster; I recently bought standing-room-only tickets on short notice (I reached out to support for assistance, and after several days of wasted time and run-around, they finally sent my issue to their engineering team saying they'd get back to me in 5 business days. Keep in mind I said I bought these tickets a week before the event, and they'd already wasted a few days giving me the run-around, functionally meaning I wouldn't be able to sell my tickets.

I attempted to charge back the purchase since they did not provide what I paid for (tickets I could sell), and they fought me and won somehow.

So thanks Ticketmaster, for sucking me out of hundreds of dollars for nothing more than bytes in your database that I couldn't do anything with. I hope they go bankrupt.

For anyone who is in my shoes and hasn't used Ticketmaster yet and might be tempted to give them a chance thinking all of these horror stories are just unlucky people- don't. I was naive to think that all of those companies with bad reputations are just the loud minority but Ticketmaster is the only one I've had the misfortune of finding out is seriously awful. Use SeatGeek or countless other platforms instead. Gun to my head to use Ticketmaster again I'd probably take the lead instead.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#69
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…

Villainy as a service

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#70
this is all well and good but i know from personal experience that all the secondary marketplaces (stubhub, seatgeek) are pushing to do this (literally lobbying the government actively) because it helps them more easily do their secondary market selling. ticketmaster is a grotesque monopoly, but the secondary marketplaces are worried that ticketmaster will consolidate too much industry control through their vertical integration and make it harder for them to play a role in the industry as well.

the biggest problem in the industry is not necessarily ticketmaster; it's ticketmaster combined with the gigantic, largely-hidden world of ticket brokers who have an entire ecosystem of tools and tactics (as well as relationships with promoters) that allow them to buy tickets to high demand events with greater rates of success than real customers and then jack up the prices astronomically with literally no oversight. breaking up ticketmaster will do little to stop the insanity of the ever-increasing prices of tickets, nor will it make it any easier to get tickets to an event you want to go to. it will just change the balance of who is likely to screw you.

all the secondary marketplaces basically sell the same inventory and mask that fact by pretending they don't. tons of the inventory that exists on them is just arbitrage (or zone) inventory designed to trap you into paying way more than face value for a seat you can't even choose. there's an entire cottage industry (enabled by a little-known player called ticketnetwork) of websites that walk a fine line of pretending to be the official box offices for venues trying to confuse and trap consumers into paying over face value for tickets. the pricing models on the secondary markets (and this includes ticketmaster) are basically designed to obfuscate the fact that they're all selling the same inventory and either boost the upfront cost and reduce fees or show you a cut-rate price for the ticket and then make it up with fees.

i totally agree that it is a Net Good that ticketmaster does not control the venue, the promoter, and the primary sale of the ticket. making it easier for venues to shop around for ticket providers is a Good Thing. but without broader market regulation, the fundamental problem won't get any better.

edit: just to explain this a little further, the fact that the secondary marketplaces aren't the sellers is really the thing that makes everything so complex. the people who control the prices of the tickets on the secondary marketplace aren't the big players (stubhub, seatgeek, etc.) but the brokers who then broadcast their inventory at prices _they_ set to all the marketplaces simultaneously. there's not really an opportunity for competition in this space - brokers actively collude (there's a big paid forum called shows on sale where they all talk about upcoming ticket onsales and trade presale codes and intel for getting tickets.) because of this, "enabling more competition" won't change prices past the time that the primaries sell through their inventory, and the brokers will always have an edge when it comes to gobbling that up.

Post reply on HN