11 ms·

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, a

by andjd 2y ago

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 market for ticketing services because they provide that "service". Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially. Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society. In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing transparency.

CPLX 2y ago
They aren’t just fleecing fans they’re also ripping off other participants in the market especially competitors. Matt Stoller has written a lot of detail about this.
boringg 2y ago
No way - get rid of them and there will be more competition in the market better pricing and maybe a less homogenous (and terrible) experience.
- xp84 2y ago
  Yes, it seems like in 1985 Ticketmaster and the couple of big competitors they gobbled up (I recall there was at least one other called Bass) could justify their existence decently. The operated brick and mortar locations where you could buy tickets, as well as a call center where you could call in to buy tickets. Today though, arguably without their many tentacles like Live Nation that guarantee them a cut of everything, they have no moat at all. Oh gee, if only we could figure out how to charge credit cards, show a seat map for you to pick your seat, and print barcodes on paper / email a barcode to attendees. So yes, I would expect that relative to verticals where things require actual ingenuity or skill to do a good job, it would be easy for people who operate venues to either just roll their own ticketing systems, or contract with dozens of vendors who would compete on their value. Of course, venue owners who are not themselves part of Live Naton itself could do this today, but the gross agreements where ticketmaster inflates fees and splits them with everybody in order to gain an exclusivity contract makes this uncommon. The whole thing is so corrupt and greedy it's sickening.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I would love to see them busted up into 4 or 5 companies
btown 2y ago
An artist might want to opt out of this, though. They might think, and reasonably so, that the optics of having affordable tickets - even if they make less overall - is better for their brand identity and long—term benefit. That LiveNation has created a de facto system where they cannot opt out of their price setting is at the heart of the entire matter.
- BHSPitMonkey 2y ago
  Affordable tickets requires a way to combat scalping, which in turn butts up against freedom to resell/transfer tickets after purchase. It's a hard game to win whenever scarcity and economics are involved.
  - tomjakubowski 2y ago
    Radiohead does this, banning scalping and limiting prices/supply. It seems to work out pretty well with the fan base. May be due to the band having obsessive and largely left-wing fans
    - tayo42 2y ago
      How did they stop scalping?
      - codazoda 2y ago
        They have tried a bunch of methods like demand based pricing, ID verification, electronic tickets, and lotteries. I suspect these things only work a little and each has its own problem side-effects.
        chefandy 2y ago
        Bands with the clout and fans lined up down the block the day before ticket sales open (e.g. Radiohead, The Cure, Pearl Jam) can do these things, and I'm glad they do. For the vast majority of acts– even well-known ones– it's absolutely not an option.
flightster 2y ago
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).
- voisin 2y ago
  “Cartel” doesn’t preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et al.
  - flightster 2y ago
    You are right, but in in his "cartel", everyone was working for him. Kind of a monarchy. I feel these cartels are more of an actual oligarchy where each player has a separate role that gives it power instead of just reporting up to Pablo. Taking the insurance example you have the "suppliers" (doctors, drug companies and device companies), the "venue" (hospital) and the "extractor" (insurer). Similarly you have the "suppliers" (musicians), the "venue" (the venue I guess) and the "extractor" (Live Nation and Ticketmaster). No obvious mapping to the record labels, recording studios or (biggest of all) streamers but hopefully some similarities are present. I feel like Escobar, the Sinaloa Cartel, etc, are much more top-down.
    - newsclues 2y ago
      I’m not so sure about Escobar, some people have suggested the Ochoa family was really running things behind the show.
- choilive 2y ago
  Collusion comes to mind. A group of companies colluding likely has a leader.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  Health insurers tend towards regional monopolies or duopolies.
- 2y ago
voidwtf 2y ago
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.
- calgoo 2y ago
  Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a venue in each location if she wanted, so that not an issue. If Taylor and a few other large artists gave the middle finger to ticketmaster and basically created their own ticket system, i promise you that they would have enough pull to basically solve this. However, like you said, thats not in their or their labels interest.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    stadiums are multibillion dollar affairs that take years and lots of public financing. SoFi stadium was $5.5B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_stadiums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_stadium...
    - tomjakubowski 2y ago
      SoFi was entirely privately funded, as far as I know. Public funding for private stadiums is less popular than it used to be
    - TheGRS 2y ago
      Just being devil's advocate since I also don't necessarily agree that TSwift could build a venue in every market, but there are plenty of large-scale events that use open fields and tents and aren't going to cost billions to setup.
lokar 2y ago
Villainy as a service
CobrastanJorji 2y ago
Yes, but also, many of those venues ARE Ticketmaster. From the Ascend Ampitheatre in Nashville to the Gorge in Washington, Live Nation owns like 150 major and minor concert venues. They're often kicking back to themselves.
fsckboy 2y ago
>In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible yes, but they are in cahoots with the fans to fleece the fans. Fans are willing to pay big money to see these shows, that's who pays the high prices. If fans didn't pay the high prices, the prices would drop. Your comment (the word fleece) suggests you are at least somewhat judgmental about "greed": this type of judgment is why bands try to pretend that they sell the tickets for a "fair" price, and that's what creates the 2ndary market, and that's what creates the kickbacks and the need for a scapegoat. you expect to pay a high price for a Picasso at auction. You should expect also to pay a high price for sellout, SRO, line around the block shows too. Who should collect that money? fans who got in first? fake fans who pretended to be fans to get in first? People who are attracted by the arbitrage price differential? Or, I dunno, how about Picasso? The band. The biggest fans in football, season ticket holders who slog through all the bad seasons, frequently sell their superbowl tickets when the price gets high enough. They'd rather have the money, that's the nature of money, and people.
crabmusket 2y ago
This entry in Matt Stoller's newsletter goes into a lot of detail on how this works: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-unearthed https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u... > It’s easy to believe the worst about Live Nation, they have a bad reputation. But the reason I buy this particular story is because it is consistent with the behavior of many dominant middlemen firms in our economy, from pharmacy benefit managers to Amazon to big banks securitizing mortgages in the financial crisis. As monopoly scholar Kate Judge noted, such dominant middlemen use fees and kickbacks, hidden via a complex maze of subsidiaries and overlapping lines of business, to extract in ways that are hard to see. In Live Nation’s case, it’s clear they are generating a great deal of revenue, but somehow show low margins for many of their products. Hiding the price hikes is important, because monopolization is harder to prove that way.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  This is a pretty good write up. It's off the mark on one point. The artists aren't upset with their take. If they are it's because their own management has their hands deep in pockets, or just plain suck. Live Nation knows dam well who butters the bread. The history of Live Nation is that it is the decedent of bill graham presents. You might want to go look at the history of bill. There is a statement about his funeral, and it having the longest lines of stretched black limos in SF history. It's probably true. Bill made everyone money, himself included as a "promoter" and every penny of that came from fans. The music industry has been doing its own version of pay to win / loot boxes since the 70's. When they break up LN (if?) its just going to get worse as the greed is gonna just be right out in the open. The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets non transferable and just auction them off... the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in price. It's greedy fucks all the way down. P.S. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I speak from having spent a few years working in the industry. Find someone who works in "music" like that and it's the same nonsense as game devs, long hours and shit money cause people are passionate...
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets non transferable and just auction them off... the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in price. That's fine, though, and arguably better. Right now the consensus among concert-goers seems to be, "man, this is all expensive, but looks like I'm getting screwed by [TicketMaster | the venue]; I bet $ARTIST thinks this sucks too". For artists who want to charge an arm and a leg to see them perform live, pricing a lot of people out, that ire should be directed at the artists, where it truly belongs. And maybe that drives some fans away, and that's what artists need to see happen. But I don't believe that all artists who play ball with LN/TM are greedy like that. Certainly some are, and maybe even most are. But those who are not... well, they should be able to play in huge venues across the country and charge less for admission if they want to.
nrmitchi 2y ago
> One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees Ya, sure, but you also have to remember that Live Nation often owns the venues, and manages the artists. So what you're kind of saying is "venues(Live Nation)/artists(also Live Nation) get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster (also Live Nation) fees".
mattmaroon 2y ago
Not artists. Venue owners, yes. Artists, no. Venue owners have a choice of ticket sellers, artists do not.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Concerts aren't a necessity. As much as Ticketmaster/LiveNation "fleece" fans, secondhand sellers a/k/a scalpers do it even more. The demand is there, if the prices were too high the tickets would not sell. If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't go.
- lobsterthief 2y ago
  So monopolies and oligopolies are okay as long as it isn’t for a life necessity?
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  > If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't go. Yep, that's what I do. What you are failing to address is the artists being harmed by not participating in this 'fleecing' scheme. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taking-on-ticketmaster-67440/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taki...
bjclark 2y ago
And if you disbelieve this or want to see proof, check out Live Nations 10-k from 2015. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000133525816000167/lyv-20151231x10k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000133525816... "Ticketing. Our Ticketing segment is primarily an agency business that sells tickets for events on behalf of our clients and retains a fee, or “service charge”, for these services. We sell tickets for our events and also for third-party clients across multiple live event categories, providing ticketing services for leading arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters, music clubs, concert promoters, professional sports franchises and leagues, college sports teams, performing arts venues, museums and theaters. We sell tickets through websites, mobile apps, ticket outlets and telephone call centers. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we sold 69%, 21%, 7% and 3% of primary tickets through these channels, respectively. Our Ticketing segment also manages our online activities including enhancements to our websites and bundled product offerings. During 2015, our Ticketing business generated approximately $1.6 billion, or 22.6%, of our total revenue, which excludes the face value of tickets sold. Through all of our ticketing services, we sold 160 million tickets in 2015 on which we were paid fees for our services. In addition, approximately 297 million tickets in total were sold using our Ticketmaster systems, through season seat packages and our venue clients’ box offices, for which we do not receive a fee. Our ticketing sales are impacted by fluctuations in the availability of events for sale to the public, which may vary depending upon event scheduling by our clients. As ticket sales increase, related ticketing operating income generally increases as well." $1.6b of revenue selling 297m tickets. $5.79 per ticket. So you are paying $20 fees on a ticket, who do you think gets that money if it isn't Ticketmaster?
- deelowe 2y ago
  Well something is going on. I used to go to concerts all the time when I was younger and they were far far cheaper than what they cost today even when accounting for inflation.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  1/3 to TM, 1/3 to Artist, 1/3 to Venue.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially. >Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society. In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing transparency. I agree: fair pricing is better than bullshit pricing with hidden fees and surcharges. It's the same with tipping at restaurants: it's better to just have the actual price printed clearly and advertised, and that's the price you pay, instead of advertising a lower price and then having to do mental math to figure out the real price at the register.
tuututu 2y ago
Oh yeah. I remember Trent Reznor writing an angry social media post about this probably ten years ago, more or less explaining it all. Ticketmaster only sells a small portion of a show's tickets through their official website. Most go straight to "aftermarket" outlets that Ticketmaster indirectly controls, and artists know about this and take their share of the markup.
jen729w 2y ago
It might have changed in the last 10 years, and it might be different in the USA, but in 2010 when I put on a large theatre production and had to use Ticketmaster, there was no way a ‘kickback’ was part of the equation. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Did you know that Ticketmaster has two fees? One is the ‘outside’ fee that you, the punter, sees. So you think I’m getting $100 and you’re giving Ticketmaster another $10. In fact there’s also an ‘inside’ fee that Ticketmaster charges me. So of that $100, they also take $10 from me. Of course for this you get all sorts of services, right? Tools to manage seating, allocations, reservations, price varieties, and so on? Nope. Not a goddamned thing. I despised having to work with them.

by andjd 2y ago

CPLX 2y ago

They aren’t just fleecing fans they’re also ripping off other participants in the market especially competitors. Matt Stoller has written a lot of detail about this.

boringg 2y ago

No way - get rid of them and there will be more competition in the market better pricing and maybe a less homogenous (and terrible) experience.

xp84 2y ago
Yes, it seems like in 1985 Ticketmaster and the couple of big competitors they gobbled up (I recall there was at least one other called Bass) could justify their existence decently. The operated brick and mortar locations where you could buy tickets, as well as a call center where you could call in to buy tickets. Today though, arguably without their many tentacles like Live Nation that guarantee them a cut of everything, they have no moat at all. Oh gee, if only we could figure out how to charge credit cards, show a seat map for you to pick your seat, and print barcodes on paper / email a barcode to attendees. So yes, I would expect that relative to verticals where things require actual ingenuity or skill to do a good job, it would be easy for people who operate venues to either just roll their own ticketing systems, or contract with dozens of vendors who would compete on their value. Of course, venue owners who are not themselves part of Live Naton itself could do this today, but the gross agreements where ticketmaster inflates fees and splits them with everybody in order to gain an exclusivity contract makes this uncommon. The whole thing is so corrupt and greedy it's sickening.
EasyMark 2y ago
I would love to see them busted up into 4 or 5 companies

btown 2y ago

An artist might want to opt out of this, though. They might think, and reasonably so, that the optics of having affordable tickets - even if they make less overall - is better for their brand identity and long—term benefit. That LiveNation has created a de facto system where they cannot opt out of their price setting is at the heart of the entire matter.

BHSPitMonkey 2y ago
Affordable tickets requires a way to combat scalping, which in turn butts up against freedom to resell/transfer tickets after purchase. It's a hard game to win whenever scarcity and economics are involved.
- tomjakubowski 2y ago
  Radiohead does this, banning scalping and limiting prices/supply. It seems to work out pretty well with the fan base. May be due to the band having obsessive and largely left-wing fans
  - tayo42 2y ago
    How did they stop scalping?
    - codazoda 2y ago
      They have tried a bunch of methods like demand based pricing, ID verification, electronic tickets, and lotteries. I suspect these things only work a little and each has its own problem side-effects.
      - chefandy 2y ago
        Bands with the clout and fans lined up down the block the day before ticket sales open (e.g. Radiohead, The Cure, Pearl Jam) can do these things, and I'm glad they do. For the vast majority of acts– even well-known ones– it's absolutely not an option.

flightster 2y ago

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).

voisin 2y ago
“Cartel” doesn’t preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et al.
- flightster 2y ago
  You are right, but in in his "cartel", everyone was working for him. Kind of a monarchy. I feel these cartels are more of an actual oligarchy where each player has a separate role that gives it power instead of just reporting up to Pablo. Taking the insurance example you have the "suppliers" (doctors, drug companies and device companies), the "venue" (hospital) and the "extractor" (insurer). Similarly you have the "suppliers" (musicians), the "venue" (the venue I guess) and the "extractor" (Live Nation and Ticketmaster). No obvious mapping to the record labels, recording studios or (biggest of all) streamers but hopefully some similarities are present. I feel like Escobar, the Sinaloa Cartel, etc, are much more top-down.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    I’m not so sure about Escobar, some people have suggested the Ochoa family was really running things behind the show.
choilive 2y ago
Collusion comes to mind. A group of companies colluding likely has a leader.
jimbokun 2y ago
Health insurers tend towards regional monopolies or duopolies.
2y ago

voidwtf 2y ago

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.

calgoo 2y ago
Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a venue in each location if she wanted, so that not an issue. If Taylor and a few other large artists gave the middle finger to ticketmaster and basically created their own ticket system, i promise you that they would have enough pull to basically solve this. However, like you said, thats not in their or their labels interest.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  stadiums are multibillion dollar affairs that take years and lots of public financing. SoFi stadium was $5.5B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_stadiums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_stadium...
  - tomjakubowski 2y ago
    SoFi was entirely privately funded, as far as I know. Public funding for private stadiums is less popular than it used to be
  - TheGRS 2y ago
    Just being devil's advocate since I also don't necessarily agree that TSwift could build a venue in every market, but there are plenty of large-scale events that use open fields and tents and aren't going to cost billions to setup.

lokar 2y ago

Villainy as a service

CobrastanJorji 2y ago

Yes, but also, many of those venues ARE Ticketmaster. From the Ascend Ampitheatre in Nashville to the Gorge in Washington, Live Nation owns like 150 major and minor concert venues. They're often kicking back to themselves.

fsckboy 2y ago

>In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible yes, but they are in cahoots with the fans to fleece the fans. Fans are willing to pay big money to see these shows, that's who pays the high prices. If fans didn't pay the high prices, the prices would drop. Your comment (the word fleece) suggests you are at least somewhat judgmental about "greed": this type of judgment is why bands try to pretend that they sell the tickets for a "fair" price, and that's what creates the 2ndary market, and that's what creates the kickbacks and the need for a scapegoat. you expect to pay a high price for a Picasso at auction. You should expect also to pay a high price for sellout, SRO, line around the block shows too. Who should collect that money? fans who got in first? fake fans who pretended to be fans to get in first? People who are attracted by the arbitrage price differential? Or, I dunno, how about Picasso? The band. The biggest fans in football, season ticket holders who slog through all the bad seasons, frequently sell their superbowl tickets when the price gets high enough. They'd rather have the money, that's the nature of money, and people.

crabmusket 2y ago

This entry in Matt Stoller's newsletter goes into a lot of detail on how this works: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-unearthed https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u... > It’s easy to believe the worst about Live Nation, they have a bad reputation. But the reason I buy this particular story is because it is consistent with the behavior of many dominant middlemen firms in our economy, from pharmacy benefit managers to Amazon to big banks securitizing mortgages in the financial crisis. As monopoly scholar Kate Judge noted, such dominant middlemen use fees and kickbacks, hidden via a complex maze of subsidiaries and overlapping lines of business, to extract in ways that are hard to see. In Live Nation’s case, it’s clear they are generating a great deal of revenue, but somehow show low margins for many of their products. Hiding the price hikes is important, because monopolization is harder to prove that way.

zer00eyz 2y ago
This is a pretty good write up. It's off the mark on one point. The artists aren't upset with their take. If they are it's because their own management has their hands deep in pockets, or just plain suck. Live Nation knows dam well who butters the bread. The history of Live Nation is that it is the decedent of bill graham presents. You might want to go look at the history of bill. There is a statement about his funeral, and it having the longest lines of stretched black limos in SF history. It's probably true. Bill made everyone money, himself included as a "promoter" and every penny of that came from fans. The music industry has been doing its own version of pay to win / loot boxes since the 70's. When they break up LN (if?) its just going to get worse as the greed is gonna just be right out in the open. The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets non transferable and just auction them off... the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in price. It's greedy fucks all the way down. P.S. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I speak from having spent a few years working in the industry. Find someone who works in "music" like that and it's the same nonsense as game devs, long hours and shit money cause people are passionate...
- kelnos 2y ago
  > The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets non transferable and just auction them off... the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in price. That's fine, though, and arguably better. Right now the consensus among concert-goers seems to be, "man, this is all expensive, but looks like I'm getting screwed by [TicketMaster | the venue]; I bet $ARTIST thinks this sucks too". For artists who want to charge an arm and a leg to see them perform live, pricing a lot of people out, that ire should be directed at the artists, where it truly belongs. And maybe that drives some fans away, and that's what artists need to see happen. But I don't believe that all artists who play ball with LN/TM are greedy like that. Certainly some are, and maybe even most are. But those who are not... well, they should be able to play in huge venues across the country and charge less for admission if they want to.

nrmitchi 2y ago

> One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees Ya, sure, but you also have to remember that Live Nation often owns the venues, and manages the artists. So what you're kind of saying is "venues(Live Nation)/artists(also Live Nation) get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster (also Live Nation) fees".

mattmaroon 2y ago

Not artists. Venue owners, yes. Artists, no. Venue owners have a choice of ticket sellers, artists do not.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Concerts aren't a necessity. As much as Ticketmaster/LiveNation "fleece" fans, secondhand sellers a/k/a scalpers do it even more. The demand is there, if the prices were too high the tickets would not sell. If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't go.

lobsterthief 2y ago
So monopolies and oligopolies are okay as long as it isn’t for a life necessity?
UncleEntity 2y ago
> If you don't like what a concert ticket price costs, don't go. Yep, that's what I do. What you are failing to address is the artists being harmed by not participating in this 'fleecing' scheme. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taking-on-ticketmaster-67440/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pearl-jam-taki...

bjclark 2y ago

And if you disbelieve this or want to see proof, check out Live Nations 10-k from 2015. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000133525816000167/lyv-20151231x10k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000133525816... "Ticketing. Our Ticketing segment is primarily an agency business that sells tickets for events on behalf of our clients and retains a fee, or “service charge”, for these services. We sell tickets for our events and also for third-party clients across multiple live event categories, providing ticketing services for leading arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters, music clubs, concert promoters, professional sports franchises and leagues, college sports teams, performing arts venues, museums and theaters. We sell tickets through websites, mobile apps, ticket outlets and telephone call centers. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we sold 69%, 21%, 7% and 3% of primary tickets through these channels, respectively. Our Ticketing segment also manages our online activities including enhancements to our websites and bundled product offerings. During 2015, our Ticketing business generated approximately $1.6 billion, or 22.6%, of our total revenue, which excludes the face value of tickets sold. Through all of our ticketing services, we sold 160 million tickets in 2015 on which we were paid fees for our services. In addition, approximately 297 million tickets in total were sold using our Ticketmaster systems, through season seat packages and our venue clients’ box offices, for which we do not receive a fee. Our ticketing sales are impacted by fluctuations in the availability of events for sale to the public, which may vary depending upon event scheduling by our clients. As ticket sales increase, related ticketing operating income generally increases as well." $1.6b of revenue selling 297m tickets. $5.79 per ticket. So you are paying $20 fees on a ticket, who do you think gets that money if it isn't Ticketmaster?

deelowe 2y ago
Well something is going on. I used to go to concerts all the time when I was younger and they were far far cheaper than what they cost today even when accounting for inflation.
mixmastamyk 2y ago
1/3 to TM, 1/3 to Artist, 1/3 to Venue.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially. >Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society. In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing transparency. I agree: fair pricing is better than bullshit pricing with hidden fees and surcharges. It's the same with tipping at restaurants: it's better to just have the actual price printed clearly and advertised, and that's the price you pay, instead of advertising a lower price and then having to do mental math to figure out the real price at the register.

tuututu 2y ago

Oh yeah. I remember Trent Reznor writing an angry social media post about this probably ten years ago, more or less explaining it all. Ticketmaster only sells a small portion of a show's tickets through their official website. Most go straight to "aftermarket" outlets that Ticketmaster indirectly controls, and artists know about this and take their share of the markup.

jen729w 2y ago

It might have changed in the last 10 years, and it might be different in the USA, but in 2010 when I put on a large theatre production and had to use Ticketmaster, there was no way a ‘kickback’ was part of the equation. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Did you know that Ticketmaster has two fees? One is the ‘outside’ fee that you, the punter, sees. So you think I’m getting $100 and you’re giving Ticketmaster another $10. In fact there’s also an ‘inside’ fee that Ticketmaster charges me. So of that $100, they also take $10 from me. Of course for this you get all sorts of services, right? Tools to manage seating, allocations, reservations, price varieties, and so on? Nope. Not a goddamned thing. I despised having to work with them.