8 ms·

Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. If art

Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. If artists took home the extra profits, there would be more incentive for the market to provide more quality artists, more concerts, and cheaper prices, supply would meet demand. But since the profits go to ticketmaster, ticketmaster might not even have higher total earnings if it increased supply, as prices might decrease faster. Higher supply of concerts would also give opportunities for competitors to ticketmaster to emerge, as it would have to control a bigger market.

ethagknight 4y ago
Can you provide a source that Ticketmaster keeps extra money? I would find that unlikely.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Knowing Ticketmaster’s past actions, I find it highly likely. But I would appreciate a source too.
- boringg 4y ago
  Is this a serious comment? I can't believe that this is a serious comment.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    No artist is going to price their tickets at $50 face value, then shrug when TM sells them for $500 and keeps the additional $450 for themselves. Of course Ticketmaster isn't just keeping all the extra money. They're probably splitting that with the performer as well.
    - boringg 4y ago
      You do understand that Ticketmaster has an effective monopoly and has a past history of sketchy business practices. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they pocketed it themselves or a large majority of it. It would be completely congruent with their business practices.
      - function_seven 4y ago
        Yeah I know TM is sketchy and monopolistic. That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves. The artists would raise the face value of their tickets to recapture it if it were as simple as that. We don't know what the details are on how the money is divvied up, but I do know that artists must be getting upside on this dynamic pricing.
        Jgrubb 4y ago
        > That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves Listen, that's exactly what they have. The music business mostly exists to screw artists out of money made from their work, probably more now than ever. The artist signs a contract to pay for X dollars, that's what they get and they have no leverage whatsoever to go after that upside. Ticketmaster would have to share the data about the dynamic pricing in the first place and they are NOT doing that.
        boringg 4y ago
        Actually thats exactly whats this means. Monopolistic/monopoly allows them to capture what they want without risk.
    - citilife 4y ago
      Depends how it works, just as an example (not what they are doing) if ticket master guarantees X seats for Y price. Then the band might be fine with ticket master doing what every they wish -- there's no risk to the band. Granted the band probably negotiated minimums and a cut. Remember, you also have the venue, security, traffic, marketing, etc. There's a lot involved with these kind of events.
      - executive 4y ago
        there is risk to the band. die hard poor fans cannot attend.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it. Because TicketMaster/LiveNation own most of the large music venues in the country. And if you don't use them in a "vertical stack" you don't get to play those venues. And even at $50/ticket, you make money a lot faster in a 25,000 seat arena than you do trying to play 15 nights at an "intimate" theater (hey, guess what, TM/LN own a huge swathe of those too). We complain on HN about tech "monopolies" (or debate their existence, at least). TM/LN is a much larger effective monopoly that, to my knowledge, has not had any real investigation.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it Blink-182 is not in this category.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        Why? Because they're "too big"? Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story Springsteen's team is defending dynamic pricing [1], with Ticketmaster claiming "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points." [1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires-back-against-ticket-price-complaints/ https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
- TYPE_FASTER 4y ago
  From what I can tell, using Ticketmaster's dynamic pricing is a choice the artist can make (or the artist's company, or some business entity), and assuming the artist's contract is such that they get a percentage of ticket sales, the ticket price is the dynamically calculated price, so the artist does get more money for a dynamically priced seat.
  - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
    If the artist chooses not to partner with ticketmaster, they will just buy the tickets at retail and scalp them. This is why you hear about so many shows selling out in the first five minutes. It's not real people buying them, it's ticketmaster bots.
  - pbreit 4y ago
    That seems pretty obvious. I don't know why anyone would think differently.
- chucksta 4y ago
  Ticket Master charged you to print out your own tickets and you think it's unlikely they are keeping more profits? I'm sure the artist is getting more this way through their standard percentage so they see it as win too either way
  - quietbritishjim 4y ago
    The parent comment is obviously asking for evidence that Ticketmaster keeps all the extra profit
    - Animats 4y ago
      So what are performers saying? Assuming they're allowed to say anything. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (ticker symbol LYV) often acts as the artist's agent, as well as the venue's agent and the ticketing service. Performers are now contract employees of Live Nation. So they may not be allowed to criticize Live Nation. The funny thing is, LYV, having achieved a near monopoly over ticketing, venues, and performers, loses money.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  1. the tickets are sold by TicketMaster using dynamic pricing to extract the maximum price per ticket 2. the concerts are held in almost exclusively TM venues, leading to #1 3. the concerts are produced by LiveNation, which is TM, leading to #2 4. the bands are more and more often signed to LN for their tours, leading to #3 if you need more info you can do your own research.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    0. The tickets not sold by TicketMaster dynamics pricing are resold on StubHub. (Aka TicketMaster) TicketMaster can extort the performer for a bigger cut because if the performer takes no action, TicketMaster gets the resale, and the performer gets nothing. TicketMaster owns the data, so they can negotiate the dynamic royalty more efficiently and get a yield better than resale.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ethagknight 4y ago
  Why do artists sign with TM / Live Nation? Because they know Live Nation will make them the most money for the least hassle and risk. Artists may also lack a little creativity on what a fan experience looks like. more on that below. I dislike Ticketmaster as much as the next person, but no one is holding a gun to Blink-182 to come out and perform in a nationwide tour with TM taking all the upside. I just can't fathom that negotiation taking place, unless TM was also guaranteeing revenue to the band, i.e. taking downside risk. Theres no point to that. Also, yes, LiveNation controls an impressive number of venues, but they dont control all the venues, not be a long shot. If the TM deal was such a raw deal for artists, nothing prevents artists from just hosting their own concerts in publicly owned venues, setting up longer term performance residences in interesting locations, or expanding the fan experience from the tired formula of "opener act, 2x 1-hour sets, and an encore" to something better like a collaborative fan experience over a whole weekend. Plenty of opportunity for creativity on the artist's part that would make the artist less money in a night but yield a potentially waaaay better lifestyle and creative process. At the end of it, Live Nation is a publicly traded company, but not a very attractive one. Lots of debt, rapidly increasing labor costs on the event hosting side, household budgets getting a major squeeze which will impact entertainment spend.
  - relaxing 4y ago
    Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with the venues.
olalonde 4y ago
> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. If that's a problem for artists then why do artists chose to do business with ticketmaster? Selling tickets isn't exactly high tech...
- jxf 4y ago
  Sometimes the artist doesn't get a choice (e.g. a particular venue wants to use Ticketmaster because Ticketmaster will let them bolt on venue fees).
- rglover 4y ago
  If I had to bet, Ticketmaster has lock-in agreements with venues (especially arenas) that only allow tickets to be sold through them exclusively.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    This is correct. Most large venues have these lock-in contracts. They’re defined under terms like “primary ticket provider” or “ticketing partner” Eg. https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-become-official-ticketing-partner-of-brooklyn-nets-new-york-liberty-and-barclays-center https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-becom...
  - olalonde 4y ago
    We could say they choose Ticketmaster indirectly by choosing the venues that have exclusive Ticketmaster deals. Couldn't they pick non Ticketmaster venues if they thought those venues offered them a bad deal?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The number of venues that are non-Ticketmaster is relatively small, especially for larger acts. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/live-nation-ticketmaster-class-action-1235070131/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/liv... The reality of the matter is that a artist has much more to worry about than what Ticketmaster handles, and they provide a service that is useful, especially when it can all be rolled up into the "venue costs".
forrestthewoods 4y ago
> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. Yeah I don’t think that’s true? My understanding is that even a portion of the “service fee” TM charges also goes to the artists. One of the most important services that TM provides is they are a scape goat. Artists can charge crazy high prices and TM takes the blame. They’re willing to be the bad guy.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Not entirely true and mostly untrue. A few artists can demand a piece but only a handful.
  - forrestthewoods 4y ago
    I do not believe you are correct. The money is split between Ticketmaster, venue, promoter, and artist. Can you provide any numbers of any kind? I certainly can’t find specifics. So it’s no evidence versus no evidence. I know TM has a near monopoly. But I personally think they have that monopoly because they’re willing to be the bad guy everyone blames for high ticket prices. I think logic dictates that artists would not opt-in to dynamic pricing, and yes it is optional, unless they see upside. LiveNations quarterly earnings states: “With market-based pricing being widely adopted by most tours, we expect to shift over $500M from the secondary market to artists this year”. It’s hard to tell what percentage that is.
brentm 4y ago
A typical artist deal with a promoter would include an 85% (artist) / 15% split of profit after a pre-negotiated split point which covers the costs of producing & marketing a show for the promoter. I've never seen a full LiveNation tour agreement and perhaps they could have bought out Blink for each show with a different style deal but I'd be surprised if that still didn't include some upside for dynamic pricing otherwise why would the artist ever agree to do it? Everyone knows $600 tickets aren't exactly popular but this is a business and if that's what they're going for a secondaries anyway it's better for the artist to collect the cash in my opinion.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  The key point is the ondemand pricing is not included in artist's take home generally. Why use Live Nation? As Pearl Jam has taught us: Artists are limited by venues and venues are either owned or have a deal with live nation. Not going through ticketmaster/live nation means not playing the Gardens in New York or most other large venues where you will have to settle for a warehouse in Jersey instead. A huge monopoly exists that requires an uber like attack on the industry or government intervention.
  - mox1 4y ago
    Are you certain about this? Why on earth would Blink-182 (or their people / record label / etc) agree to this deal? Are you saying these big A++ acts are signing deals with TicketMaster saying "yea sell em for whatever you want, we just need $X / ticket?"
    - fragmede 4y ago
      that's the whole point of the complaint about Ticket Master. The artist's don't really have a choice in the matter. What are they going to do? go somewhere else?
      - parineum 4y ago
        > What are they going to do? go somewhere else? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company)
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists Ticketmaster claims "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points" [1]. [1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires-back-against-ticket-price-complaints/ https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
- jandrese 4y ago
  "Artist representatives" is a suspiciously vague term.
  - fasthands9 4y ago
    I don't know how it all works behind the scenes but my guess is that artists just dont want to be blamed for charging their fans a ton? Ultimately if one ticketing company offers a band 200k to perform a night and another company offers 150k then every band is going to go with the 200k - even if there is a dynamic pricing model for the fans.
    - jandrese 4y ago
      What is the "other company" in this example?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - fasthands9 4y ago
        The last time I bought concert tickets it was through Vivid Seats. The last NFL game I went to was through StubHub. Its my understanding that some NFL actually has an official deal to sell through Ticketmaster first - though presumably any of these other companies could have that deal if they paid the NFL more. FWIW I do think ticket convenience fees should be eliminated (or made so they have to be listed upfront) and this would be good for transparency - but I am also pretty sure that doing so would ultimately just raise listed prices.
bin_bash 4y ago
The article doesn't say this at all. In fact it says the artists are making a lot of money here (though I can't find any details on rev-share or anything). > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists, but also worse for the average fan: It has simply jacked up ticket prices for certain high-profile events to a level where all tickets are more-or-less priced at the maximum level that the secondary market would normally bear
- jandrese 4y ago
  On the face of it Ticketmaster has very little incentive to pay artists more. They have an effective monopoly on large venues and ticket sales at this point, not to mention radio advertising and promotion, so it's not like the artists have a competitor to switch to. It's not like Blink-182 is going to just stop touring. Once you get big enough you are pretty much forced to get into bed with Ticketmaster and take whatever deal they offer.
  - bin_bash 4y ago
    Citation needed, seriously. There are so many comments in here saying dynamic pricing is screwing over artists but it seems like a huge win for them since it doesn't result in tickets being sold in secondary markets where they can't capture the margins. Mark Hoppus has a complaint about the _experience_ of dynamic pricing but note that he isn't complaining about the actual prices.
    - jandrese 4y ago
      It's impossible to know. Ticketmaster is opaque and the artists are under NDAs. However, if you think about it logically what incentive does Ticketmaster have to pass on the profits to the artists? The deck is hugely stacked in their favor and the artists don't have a lot to negotiate with. It's not like they're going to switch to a competitor. The most they can do is threaten to not tour or tour only in small to medium venues--and even those medium venues are getting gobbled up by TM. To be fair, I'm sure artists like Blink-182 are still getting a decent chunk of change from the tour, especially from merch sales. But I also think Ticketmaster/Livenation is feeing them like mad and walking away with the lion's share of the revenue.
pcarolan 4y ago
Ticketmaster's primary value prop is a heat shield for artists. The artists get to blame Ticketmaster while charging the highest market clearing price, and Ticketmaster gets to make a nice profit being the 'bad guys'. If the status quo was really a problem for the big artists (not all) then alternatives would emerge. If you want to learn all about it, this book does a good job: https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalped/dp/0452298083 https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalp...
- relaxing 4y ago
  There are plenty of alternatives, that are cut out of the big venues due to Ticketmaster’s monopolist behavior.
mywittyname 4y ago
> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. The artists get paid. Even back in the days "scalpers" were largely selling tickets that artists ear-marked to be sold at market prices. It gave them cover for high ticket prices by selling a few at "official" prices, while letting them earn market value on most tickets sold. And anything the scalpers couldn't sell would be put back on ticketmaster at the official list price. And people would get an email about how they "found" more tickets to a show.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
mixmastamyk 4y ago
TM is smarter than that. They’ve always given kickbacks to the artists to keep (most of) them quiet.
rco8786 4y ago
> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. the article doesn't say anything about this > If artists took home the extra profits Do you have any evidence to show that they do not? they definitely weren't under the previous model, because it was the secondary market where prices were getting set "dynamically". But now that it's happening in the primary market, aren't the artists paid out on a % basis?
wdr1 4y ago
> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. No. This is just wrong. Pricing & fees are determined by the promoter and/or the artist. Ticketmaster takes a cut, but the tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter has the final say in how revenue is shared with everyone -- including the artist & Ticketmaster.
dleather 4y ago
From an economic perspective, dynamic pricing maximizing total welfare. Those with the highest person values get to see the concert, without the middle-man making money.
foogazi 4y ago
> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. Are you sure? TFA: > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists Scalpers can help clear tickets in advance of expected demand - but with all the data TM has why not capture the value themselves The problem is alienating fans while trying to discourage scalpers
nazka 4y ago
I don’t see where is the problem with that. Artist jobs are to make great music and be great on the scene of concerts. And that’s where their value and money comes from. But their jobs is not to optimize prices and ticket sells or market them. That’s where Ticketmaster is good at and it’s normal for them to reap their own profit from their work. Now what I don’t like is the monopoly however. That’s bad…

ethagknight 4y ago

Can you provide a source that Ticketmaster keeps extra money? I would find that unlikely.

adastra22 4y ago
Knowing Ticketmaster’s past actions, I find it highly likely. But I would appreciate a source too.
boringg 4y ago
Is this a serious comment? I can't believe that this is a serious comment.
- function_seven 4y ago
  No artist is going to price their tickets at $50 face value, then shrug when TM sells them for $500 and keeps the additional $450 for themselves. Of course Ticketmaster isn't just keeping all the extra money. They're probably splitting that with the performer as well.
  - boringg 4y ago
    You do understand that Ticketmaster has an effective monopoly and has a past history of sketchy business practices. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they pocketed it themselves or a large majority of it. It would be completely congruent with their business practices.
    - function_seven 4y ago
      Yeah I know TM is sketchy and monopolistic. That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves. The artists would raise the face value of their tickets to recapture it if it were as simple as that. We don't know what the details are on how the money is divvied up, but I do know that artists must be getting upside on this dynamic pricing.
      - Jgrubb 4y ago
        > That doesn't mean they have the leverage to take 90% of the money for themselves Listen, that's exactly what they have. The music business mostly exists to screw artists out of money made from their work, probably more now than ever. The artist signs a contract to pay for X dollars, that's what they get and they have no leverage whatsoever to go after that upside. Ticketmaster would have to share the data about the dynamic pricing in the first place and they are NOT doing that.
      - boringg 4y ago
        Actually thats exactly whats this means. Monopolistic/monopoly allows them to capture what they want without risk.
  - citilife 4y ago
    Depends how it works, just as an example (not what they are doing) if ticket master guarantees X seats for Y price. Then the band might be fine with ticket master doing what every they wish -- there's no risk to the band. Granted the band probably negotiated minimums and a cut. Remember, you also have the venue, security, traffic, marketing, etc. There's a lot involved with these kind of events.
    - executive 4y ago
      there is risk to the band. die hard poor fans cannot attend.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it. Because TicketMaster/LiveNation own most of the large music venues in the country. And if you don't use them in a "vertical stack" you don't get to play those venues. And even at $50/ticket, you make money a lot faster in a 25,000 seat arena than you do trying to play 15 nights at an "intimate" theater (hey, guess what, TM/LN own a huge swathe of those too). We complain on HN about tech "monopolies" (or debate their existence, at least). TM/LN is a much larger effective monopoly that, to my knowledge, has not had any real investigation.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > If an artist wants to play a big venue and make money by volume, then they need to grin and bear it Blink-182 is not in this category.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        Why? Because they're "too big"? Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen will tell you a similar story Springsteen's team is defending dynamic pricing [1], with Ticketmaster claiming "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points." [1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires-back-against-ticket-price-complaints/ https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...
TYPE_FASTER 4y ago
From what I can tell, using Ticketmaster's dynamic pricing is a choice the artist can make (or the artist's company, or some business entity), and assuming the artist's contract is such that they get a percentage of ticket sales, the ticket price is the dynamically calculated price, so the artist does get more money for a dynamically priced seat.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  If the artist chooses not to partner with ticketmaster, they will just buy the tickets at retail and scalp them. This is why you hear about so many shows selling out in the first five minutes. It's not real people buying them, it's ticketmaster bots.
- pbreit 4y ago
  That seems pretty obvious. I don't know why anyone would think differently.
chucksta 4y ago
Ticket Master charged you to print out your own tickets and you think it's unlikely they are keeping more profits? I'm sure the artist is getting more this way through their standard percentage so they see it as win too either way
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  The parent comment is obviously asking for evidence that Ticketmaster keeps all the extra profit
  - Animats 4y ago
    So what are performers saying? Assuming they're allowed to say anything. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (ticker symbol LYV) often acts as the artist's agent, as well as the venue's agent and the ticketing service. Performers are now contract employees of Live Nation. So they may not be allowed to criticize Live Nation. The funny thing is, LYV, having achieved a near monopoly over ticketing, venues, and performers, loses money.
skeeter2020 4y ago
1. the tickets are sold by TicketMaster using dynamic pricing to extract the maximum price per ticket 2. the concerts are held in almost exclusively TM venues, leading to #1 3. the concerts are produced by LiveNation, which is TM, leading to #2 4. the bands are more and more often signed to LN for their tours, leading to #3 if you need more info you can do your own research.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  0. The tickets not sold by TicketMaster dynamics pricing are resold on StubHub. (Aka TicketMaster) TicketMaster can extort the performer for a bigger cut because if the performer takes no action, TicketMaster gets the resale, and the performer gets nothing. TicketMaster owns the data, so they can negotiate the dynamic royalty more efficiently and get a yield better than resale.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ethagknight 4y ago
Why do artists sign with TM / Live Nation? Because they know Live Nation will make them the most money for the least hassle and risk. Artists may also lack a little creativity on what a fan experience looks like. more on that below. I dislike Ticketmaster as much as the next person, but no one is holding a gun to Blink-182 to come out and perform in a nationwide tour with TM taking all the upside. I just can't fathom that negotiation taking place, unless TM was also guaranteeing revenue to the band, i.e. taking downside risk. Theres no point to that. Also, yes, LiveNation controls an impressive number of venues, but they dont control all the venues, not be a long shot. If the TM deal was such a raw deal for artists, nothing prevents artists from just hosting their own concerts in publicly owned venues, setting up longer term performance residences in interesting locations, or expanding the fan experience from the tired formula of "opener act, 2x 1-hour sets, and an encore" to something better like a collaborative fan experience over a whole weekend. Plenty of opportunity for creativity on the artist's part that would make the artist less money in a night but yield a potentially waaaay better lifestyle and creative process. At the end of it, Live Nation is a publicly traded company, but not a very attractive one. Lots of debt, rapidly increasing labor costs on the event hosting side, household budgets getting a major squeeze which will impact entertainment spend.
- relaxing 4y ago
  Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with the venues.

olalonde 4y ago

> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. If that's a problem for artists then why do artists chose to do business with ticketmaster? Selling tickets isn't exactly high tech...

jxf 4y ago
Sometimes the artist doesn't get a choice (e.g. a particular venue wants to use Ticketmaster because Ticketmaster will let them bolt on venue fees).
rglover 4y ago
If I had to bet, Ticketmaster has lock-in agreements with venues (especially arenas) that only allow tickets to be sold through them exclusively.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  This is correct. Most large venues have these lock-in contracts. They’re defined under terms like “primary ticket provider” or “ticketing partner” Eg. https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-become-official-ticketing-partner-of-brooklyn-nets-new-york-liberty-and-barclays-center https://www.barclayscenter.com/news/detail/seatgeek-to-becom...
- olalonde 4y ago
  We could say they choose Ticketmaster indirectly by choosing the venues that have exclusive Ticketmaster deals. Couldn't they pick non Ticketmaster venues if they thought those venues offered them a bad deal?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The number of venues that are non-Ticketmaster is relatively small, especially for larger acts. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/live-nation-ticketmaster-class-action-1235070131/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/liv... The reality of the matter is that a artist has much more to worry about than what Ticketmaster handles, and they provide a service that is useful, especially when it can all be rolled up into the "venue costs".

forrestthewoods 4y ago

> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. Yeah I don’t think that’s true? My understanding is that even a portion of the “service fee” TM charges also goes to the artists. One of the most important services that TM provides is they are a scape goat. Artists can charge crazy high prices and TM takes the blame. They’re willing to be the bad guy.

ipaddr 4y ago
Not entirely true and mostly untrue. A few artists can demand a piece but only a handful.
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  I do not believe you are correct. The money is split between Ticketmaster, venue, promoter, and artist. Can you provide any numbers of any kind? I certainly can’t find specifics. So it’s no evidence versus no evidence. I know TM has a near monopoly. But I personally think they have that monopoly because they’re willing to be the bad guy everyone blames for high ticket prices. I think logic dictates that artists would not opt-in to dynamic pricing, and yes it is optional, unless they see upside. LiveNations quarterly earnings states: “With market-based pricing being widely adopted by most tours, we expect to shift over $500M from the secondary market to artists this year”. It’s hard to tell what percentage that is.

brentm 4y ago

A typical artist deal with a promoter would include an 85% (artist) / 15% split of profit after a pre-negotiated split point which covers the costs of producing & marketing a show for the promoter. I've never seen a full LiveNation tour agreement and perhaps they could have bought out Blink for each show with a different style deal but I'd be surprised if that still didn't include some upside for dynamic pricing otherwise why would the artist ever agree to do it? Everyone knows $600 tickets aren't exactly popular but this is a business and if that's what they're going for a secondaries anyway it's better for the artist to collect the cash in my opinion.

ipaddr 4y ago
The key point is the ondemand pricing is not included in artist's take home generally. Why use Live Nation? As Pearl Jam has taught us: Artists are limited by venues and venues are either owned or have a deal with live nation. Not going through ticketmaster/live nation means not playing the Gardens in New York or most other large venues where you will have to settle for a warehouse in Jersey instead. A huge monopoly exists that requires an uber like attack on the industry or government intervention.
- mox1 4y ago
  Are you certain about this? Why on earth would Blink-182 (or their people / record label / etc) agree to this deal? Are you saying these big A++ acts are signing deals with TicketMaster saying "yea sell em for whatever you want, we just need $X / ticket?"
  - fragmede 4y ago
    that's the whole point of the complaint about Ticket Master. The artist's don't really have a choice in the matter. What are they going to do? go somewhere else?
    - parineum 4y ago
      > What are they going to do? go somewhere else? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_(company)

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists Ticketmaster claims "promoters and artist representatives set pricing strategy and price range parameters on all tickets, including dynamic and fixed price points" [1]. [1] https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires-back-against-ticket-price-complaints/ https://www.ticketnews.com/2022/07/springsteen-manager-fires...

jandrese 4y ago
"Artist representatives" is a suspiciously vague term.
- fasthands9 4y ago
  I don't know how it all works behind the scenes but my guess is that artists just dont want to be blamed for charging their fans a ton? Ultimately if one ticketing company offers a band 200k to perform a night and another company offers 150k then every band is going to go with the 200k - even if there is a dynamic pricing model for the fans.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    What is the "other company" in this example?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - fasthands9 4y ago
      The last time I bought concert tickets it was through Vivid Seats. The last NFL game I went to was through StubHub. Its my understanding that some NFL actually has an official deal to sell through Ticketmaster first - though presumably any of these other companies could have that deal if they paid the NFL more. FWIW I do think ticket convenience fees should be eliminated (or made so they have to be listed upfront) and this would be good for transparency - but I am also pretty sure that doing so would ultimately just raise listed prices.

bin_bash 4y ago

The article doesn't say this at all. In fact it says the artists are making a lot of money here (though I can't find any details on rev-share or anything). > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists, but also worse for the average fan: It has simply jacked up ticket prices for certain high-profile events to a level where all tickets are more-or-less priced at the maximum level that the secondary market would normally bear

jandrese 4y ago
On the face of it Ticketmaster has very little incentive to pay artists more. They have an effective monopoly on large venues and ticket sales at this point, not to mention radio advertising and promotion, so it's not like the artists have a competitor to switch to. It's not like Blink-182 is going to just stop touring. Once you get big enough you are pretty much forced to get into bed with Ticketmaster and take whatever deal they offer.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  Citation needed, seriously. There are so many comments in here saying dynamic pricing is screwing over artists but it seems like a huge win for them since it doesn't result in tickets being sold in secondary markets where they can't capture the margins. Mark Hoppus has a complaint about the _experience_ of dynamic pricing but note that he isn't complaining about the actual prices.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    It's impossible to know. Ticketmaster is opaque and the artists are under NDAs. However, if you think about it logically what incentive does Ticketmaster have to pass on the profits to the artists? The deck is hugely stacked in their favor and the artists don't have a lot to negotiate with. It's not like they're going to switch to a competitor. The most they can do is threaten to not tour or tour only in small to medium venues--and even those medium venues are getting gobbled up by TM. To be fair, I'm sure artists like Blink-182 are still getting a decent chunk of change from the tour, especially from merch sales. But I also think Ticketmaster/Livenation is feeing them like mad and walking away with the lion's share of the revenue.

pcarolan 4y ago

Ticketmaster's primary value prop is a heat shield for artists. The artists get to blame Ticketmaster while charging the highest market clearing price, and Ticketmaster gets to make a nice profit being the 'bad guys'. If the status quo was really a problem for the big artists (not all) then alternatives would emerge. If you want to learn all about it, this book does a good job: https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalped/dp/0452298083 https://www.amazon.com/Ticket-Masters-Concert-Industry-Scalp...

relaxing 4y ago
There are plenty of alternatives, that are cut out of the big venues due to Ticketmaster’s monopolist behavior.

mywittyname 4y ago

> extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. The artists get paid. Even back in the days "scalpers" were largely selling tickets that artists ear-marked to be sold at market prices. It gave them cover for high ticket prices by selling a few at "official" prices, while letting them earn market value on most tickets sold. And anything the scalpers couldn't sell would be put back on ticketmaster at the official list price. And people would get an email about how they "found" more tickets to a show.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

mixmastamyk 4y ago

TM is smarter than that. They’ve always given kickbacks to the artists to keep (most of) them quiet.

rco8786 4y ago

> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. the article doesn't say anything about this > If artists took home the extra profits Do you have any evidence to show that they do not? they definitely weren't under the previous model, because it was the secondary market where prices were getting set "dynamically". But now that it's happening in the primary market, aren't the artists paid out on a % basis?

wdr1 4y ago

> Dynamic pricing isn't the issue here, the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. No. This is just wrong. Pricing & fees are determined by the promoter and/or the artist. Ticketmaster takes a cut, but the tickets are owned by the promoter. The promoter has the final say in how revenue is shared with everyone -- including the artist & Ticketmaster.

dleather 4y ago

From an economic perspective, dynamic pricing maximizing total welfare. Those with the highest person values get to see the concert, without the middle-man making money.

foogazi 4y ago

> the issue is that the extra profits generated by dynamic pricing are going to ticketmaster rather than to artists. Are you sure? TFA: > Ticketmaster has done something that is very lucrative for itself and for artists Scalpers can help clear tickets in advance of expected demand - but with all the data TM has why not capture the value themselves The problem is alienating fans while trying to discourage scalpers

nazka 4y ago

I don’t see where is the problem with that. Artist jobs are to make great music and be great on the scene of concerts. And that’s where their value and money comes from. But their jobs is not to optimize prices and ticket sells or market them. That’s where Ticketmaster is good at and it’s normal for them to reap their own profit from their work. Now what I don’t like is the monopoly however. That’s bad…