boyst Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: , “I wanted Taylor Swift tickets but their too expensive so I’ll go see Jethro Tull.” This is like every sixteen yr old girls thought 1 Quote
Mr. WEO Posted June 3 Posted June 3 On 5/23/2024 at 5:20 PM, dma0034 said: I wonder if stubhub is next (or part of it). Ticketmaster and Live Nation being together completely rigs the system. Artists can't work against Ticketmaster because Live Nation controls so many venues. Tickets have gotten so expensive. I don't go to concerts but NFL and NHL games are crazy costly. Them you see an extra 100 because of fees you seem to be conflating Ticketmaster which sells primary and secondary market tickets with StubHub, which is essentially a secondary resale business Quote
dma0034 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: you seem to be conflating Ticketmaster which sells primary and secondary market tickets with StubHub, which is essentially a secondary resale business I'm talking about fees in general. My problem with these sites is the tickets go up... I'm okay with that but why are there 50 dollar in fees attached to every ticket? 1 Quote
Mr. WEO Posted June 4 Posted June 4 11 hours ago, dma0034 said: I'm talking about fees in general. My problem with these sites is the tickets go up... I'm okay with that but why are there 50 dollar in fees attached to every ticket? that's how they make their money..... Quote
dma0034 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: that's how they make their money..... So they can charge half the cost of a ticket? This doesn't including marketing and data selling, advertising on their site. They charge 15% to sell tickets and 10% to buy tickets and then sprinkle some of top. Considering their entire business can be done by computers (AI) it's just a whole lot of cash for nothing 1 Quote
Rampant Buffalo Posted June 4 Posted June 4 On 5/27/2024 at 11:02 AM, TheWei44 said: Food for thought: Pricing in a competitive market with 100 pizza joints will be competitive. Pricing in a (legal) monopoly will not be competitive. So the question is not "Are TM's prices too high"? but rather "Are TM's prices higher than they should be in a monopoly or similar setting?" Another issue is whether the monopolist has engaged in conduct that has harmed the competitive process. Why is Ticketmaster entitled to engage in monopoly type pricing? 1 Quote
Mr. WEO Posted June 5 Posted June 5 6 hours ago, dma0034 said: So they can charge half the cost of a ticket? This doesn't including marketing and data selling, advertising on their site. They charge 15% to sell tickets and 10% to buy tickets and then sprinkle some of top. Considering their entire business can be done by computers (AI) it's just a whole lot of cash for nothing they charge what people will pay. I agree--it's crazy how much they charge (should be a flat fee--not a %) for the very simple service they provide. Quote
Just Jack Posted June 5 Posted June 5 In other TM/LN news, change your passwords if you have an account with them... Ticketmaster, Live Nation user data listed on black market: lawsuit (usatoday.com) Quote
Billy Claude Posted June 5 Posted June 5 (edited) On 6/3/2024 at 10:55 PM, dma0034 said: I'm talking about fees in general. My problem with these sites is the tickets go up... I'm okay with that but why are there 50 dollar in fees attached to every ticket? I assume a large part of the "fee" goes back to the venue to obtain exclusive rights to sell the tickets. This is what makes it difficult for another company to come in, especially if Ticketmaster is willing to take a loss and increase the payment to the venue to eliminate the competition. Edited June 5 by Billy Claude Quote
TheWei44 Posted June 5 Posted June 5 13 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said: Why is Ticketmaster entitled to engage in monopoly type pricing? To be clear, I am not "supporting" TM. But offering some econ insights that are relevant. Monopolies or near monopolies can exist for several benign reasons. For example, growing super fast b/c you're more efficient than your competitors; natural monopoly where scale economies favor just one competitor. So if we observe a monopoly, near monopoly, duopoly, etc., and nothing nefarious has occurred in terms of achieving that status, the "high" prices are what we'd expect and are not "anti competitive" - If the company does "bad things" to achieve or try to achieve a monopoly, then that's completely different. And if the monopolist does things to harm the competitive process, that's a huge problem too. But my basic point is that we shouldn't just simply equate "high prices" to "monopolist" to "bad actor" without delving into the details. Quote
Jauronimo Posted June 5 Posted June 5 On 5/24/2024 at 8:35 PM, Don Otreply said: Capitalism only works correctly when it is properly regulated. That is downright un-American. Capitalism unfettered on the upswing and socialized losses is the American way. Quote
Don Otreply Posted June 5 Posted June 5 2 hours ago, Jauronimo said: That is downright un-American. Capitalism unfettered on the upswing and socialized losses is the American way. Lol, yeah, some like to see the concentration of wealth in only a few entities that don’t feel they should contribute to the infrastructure that they use daily to gain that wealth, and in turn but the burden of paying for everything on the working class wage earners, this cycle repeats itself over and over, some just never learn, the times we live in aye…, You can lead a horse to water…, Quote
Rampant Buffalo Posted June 5 Posted June 5 5 hours ago, TheWei44 said: To be clear, I am not "supporting" TM. But offering some econ insights that are relevant. Monopolies or near monopolies can exist for several benign reasons. For example, growing super fast b/c you're more efficient than your competitors; natural monopoly where scale economies favor just one competitor. So if we observe a monopoly, near monopoly, duopoly, etc., and nothing nefarious has occurred in terms of achieving that status, the "high" prices are what we'd expect and are not "anti competitive" - If the company does "bad things" to achieve or try to achieve a monopoly, then that's completely different. And if the monopolist does things to harm the competitive process, that's a huge problem too. But my basic point is that we shouldn't just simply equate "high prices" to "monopolist" to "bad actor" without delving into the details. There are certainly cases where a natural monopoly could exist. But it's not obvious to me that event ticketing is one such instance. Ticketmaster is collecting gross profits far in excess of any value it's providing. That would not happen in a competitive landscape. Because event ticketing is not (and should not be) a natural monopoly, I believe the correct solution is to break Ticketmaster up into a minimum of four competing companies. Each of these companies would be granted a non-exclusive, permanent right to use all intellectual property currently owned by Ticketmaster. (Except the Ticketmaster name, which would be discontinued.) If a person or entity owns a significant share of one of these four companies, that person or entity would be forced to divest itself of the other three. Quote
wjag Posted June 5 Posted June 5 (edited) I saw Queen a few times as a teenager, once in Buffalo and once in Toronto. I kept my ticket stubs because well back in the day, that was a thing. My Queen ticket in Buffalo cost $7.50 for Blues in the Aud. I took my family to see the fake Queen (Adam vs Freddie) this year in Baltimore. Tickets for 4 were 1300 with fees. The kicker, a bottle of water was $7.50. The price of sporting events, concerts and the like is just getting outrageous. The SB is priced out of the casual fan now, I bought tickets minutes after the Bills schedule was released for SNF Buf @ Bal. Four tickets were 136 each and 196 in fees were added on the top. Those are upper deck seats in the gawd awful purple palace. And that's before the parking passes and the add ons for parking.. It's such a racket. Edited June 5 by wjag Quote
Billy Claude Posted June 5 Posted June 5 (edited) It is a pretty interesting business model. Ticketmaster claims the venues set the fees and then Ticketmaster (and other companies presumably) bid on how much of the fees goes to the venue and how much goes to the ticketing agency and what guarantees are given. They claim that fees are typically 1/3 of the face value of the ticket and on average 2/3 of the fees go back to the venue. Therefore Ticketmaster actually ends up with 7 to 8% of the total cost of the ticket. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but that is what Ticketmaster claims. Here is the version of the story from Ticketmaster: https://blog.ticketmaster.com/the-truth-about-ticket-prices/ Edited June 5 by Billy Claude Quote
Buffalo716 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 I saw the stones a few summers ago and the price was crazy lol I did have a nice suite view which my father liked ... Good show but expensive Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.