Jump to content

Ticketmaster Live Nation Antitrust


Recommended Posts

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

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Billy Claude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by wjag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Billy Claude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...