Submitted by havereddit t3_125c4d2 in explainlikeimfive
Comments
havereddit OP t1_je3lngw wrote
Could really big acts enact a vendetta against Ticketmaster, and insist on playing (for example) in nothing but outdoor, Woodstock-like venues? Or contracting big but atypical venues (e.g. University football stadiums) instead?
dariasniece t1_je3mqii wrote
They could, but doing so would also cause a lot of headaches and lost revenue for them too. It's also worth pointing out that the last time there was a Woodstock, people died of heat stroke and rioted over a lack of bathrooms
illbeyourdrunkle t1_je3o7o6 wrote
Also the people killed when the wind picked up the stage and crashed it into the crowd, or the people crushed in a crowd crush/stampede. Lots of examples lately.
big_troublemaker t1_je428ns wrote
There some examples of accidents, but also thousands of festivals without any. Not to mention that similarly there's plenty of accidents in closed venues. Call me crazy but It's almost as if there was a general rule: large gathering of people, electricity, equipment, temporary structures equal heightened risk of accident.
big_troublemaker t1_je421fk wrote
You surely are aware that there are hundreds of large scale open air music festivals happening every year all around the world which don't end with people dying of heat stroke or lack of facilities?
Woodstock was a shitshow in that respect because it was planned for 50k and 400k attended.
Nowadays there are festivals with over half a million attendees that happen on annual basis. I believe the tomorrowland comes close to 600 000 attendees.
EnChilladada t1_je437d4 wrote
Yeah, and guess who the ticket partner for Tomorrowland is?
TwinkForAHairyBear t1_je45akk wrote
I'd like to introduce you to Pol'and'rock Festival. No ticket, no master, no ticketmaster. Even though it's a huge event they manage to keep it free of charge and that's just unbelievably amazing.
EvilBosch t1_je43yj6 wrote
>I believe the tomorrowland comes close to 600 000 attendees.
That sounds absolutely bloody awful.
KrazzeeKane t1_je45oiy wrote
Good god the stench past the first day or two must be so horrifically strong you can practically see it, like that SpongeBob episode where he eats the nasty sandwich and gets the rancid breath
big_troublemaker t1_je47kji wrote
Not sure why? Ever heard of showers, wcs, etc? I addmitedly attend smaller festivals (tens of thousands not hundreds) but they are just so plush... High quality food, great music, open air, people. And at night I go to sleep in my hotel to come back fresh and relaxed next morning.
KrazzeeKane t1_je5us67 wrote
I'm talking about the big multi-day festivals, which this would qualify as since it is 600k+ people lol. And those get real stinky, real fast when you have hundreds of thousands of people who have been physically active and dancing all crowd together outside. You can physically feel it lol
2CHINZZZ t1_je46nu5 wrote
And Ticketmaster runs a lot of those. ACL, the various Lollapaloozas, and some other festivals are produced by C3 Presents, which Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, owns a 51% stake in
big_troublemaker t1_je478fy wrote
Sure, they obviously want to - there's money in festivals - but that's not the point, previous poster made it look as if there were no open air festivals due to poor organisation of one that has happened many decades ago.
Jassida t1_je3zmil wrote
There have been lots of successful outdoor concerts since though
3078655 t1_je45rfj wrote
B-b-but the YouTube video said...
hobbitdude13 t1_je3p4vv wrote
Don't forget the many fires!
Car-face t1_je42mby wrote
*fyre
NumberlessUsername2 t1_je431ix wrote
Are you saying ticketmaster saves lives?
joelluber t1_je3tgiw wrote
>University football stadiums
I saw the Stones at a university football stadium. Tickets by Ticketmaster. I saw McCartney at a different university football stadium. Tickets by Ticketmaster. I saw Roger Waters at a college basketball arena. Tickets by Ticketmaster.
subsonicmonkey t1_je3zadc wrote
Yup. They’ve got just about all of the major league and university arenas and stadiums in the country.
[deleted] t1_je440cv wrote
[removed]
WeDriftEternal t1_je3oy3x wrote
You're missing a big part. Most acts go with ticketmaster because they make more money with them, than any alternative, especially for big acts, particularly big acts.
Ticketmaster takes the hit and shit, and the artist appears clean, but anyone who knows the business is laughing because the artist specifically is doing it to make more money and just pretending otherwise. Robert Smith of the Cure though is fucking pissed, they lied to him it appears
AlanMorlock t1_je3pkzj wrote
Which venues would you suppose they play? Stadium-filling acts playing in Evenbrite clubs in Wichitaw isn't going to do anything to make tickets more accessible.
WeDriftEternal t1_je3q9fe wrote
There's not necessarily a good alternative, but thats not really whats at the heart of the situation here, it more has to do with how the deals are made and big time artists juice their deals and ticketmaster eats the shit for it. Not that ticketmaster isn't a piece of shit and scam, they are, but the artists are not innocent, nor are they ignorant of whats happening, either, they are happily complicent (again except Robert Smith)
AlanMorlock t1_je3rs66 wrote
None of which would work if they hadn't been allowed to vertically integrate and take over the ticketing for essentially every venue over a certain size. There's not another game in town.
WeDriftEternal t1_je3tk3g wrote
This was all working just as it is now even before the Live Nation merger. The merger didn't help the situation, but its not like it was any different before, because it wasn't.
remarkablemayonaise t1_je3y0fo wrote
Don't you guys have a competition commission to "anti trust" these mergers?
AlanMorlock t1_je4qm7o wrote
Functionally? Not really. Sometimes they feint at regulations but it's been a rubber stamp for most industries.
WeDriftEternal t1_je3y4ra wrote
This probably should have had conditions attached. I haven’t reviewed the case though.
Lots of times vertical integration is allowed easily though (for complex business reasons)
Arianity t1_je3qa5t wrote
>Could really big acts enact a vendetta against Ticketmaster, and insist on playing (for example) in nothing but outdoor, Woodstock-like venues?
Groups like Pearljam have tried exactly that, and failed. And it really hurt the band's career. You would need many acts to work together (and also do so in a way that doesn't fall under anti-trust action of their own). That sort of collective action is very difficult, especially given the potential risk that it fails, or retaliation from Ticketmaster.
Ticketmaster has something like an ~85% market share. They're really, really big.
exstaticj t1_je3z4v7 wrote
How did it hurt their career? Those guys love small venues. Eddie and his wife played behind a sheet at Satyricon just to feel connected. Jeff had a 3 fish show on the second floor of some random building. It was lit by candles and like 100 fans sat crosslegged in a small candle lit room. This was around the time of either vs or Virology, I can't remember.
No, it didn't hurt their career, it hurt their fans access to them. They had achieved more fame and money than they would have ever imagined. They just cared about their fans.
Djinn42 t1_je3mv6e wrote
Yes they could. But who would pay to advertise this unusual venue? And who would pay to create a new method of making tickets? And who would pay to have the vendors, food, drink, bathrooms, security, etc? Yes, some of these venues already have some of these services - but for the level of Taylor Swift?
jellicenthero t1_je3q8ii wrote
You would have to privately negotiate each and every venue as well as organizing permits etc. Sign the line with Ticketmaster and you have a world tour lined up in a week.
Uruz2012gotdeleted t1_je41isz wrote
Eventbrite and other ticketing companies own those places too. They form an oligopoly with Ticketmaster by also charging bullshit fees. Since the ticketing companies own all the venues aside from campgrounds that host a few thousand people, you're SOL if you want to sell 10k tickets.
goodmobileyes t1_je445de wrote
To what end? Do you think most of them really care about how much their fans pay? This problem has been going on for years but singers and bands have been perfectly content to keep going on tour knowing that their fans are being bled dry at every show.
kukukachu_burr t1_je44clk wrote
Um, those are all Ticketmaster already, so no.
MurderDoneRight t1_je457dr wrote
On the height of their popularity Pearl Jam tried this, they even brought it to congress, and failed. Setting up your own venues costs a lot, most festivals loses money. They have exclusivity deals with all these venues too, that includes stadiums and other sport venues.
It's a shit show and everyone knows it, but everyone involved is making money so...
Sourceles t1_je5gmza wrote
Ticketmaster cuts venues out of their circuit if they organize an event without them.
So, from the venues standpoint going rebel is a massive risk. What if the rebellion doesn't succeed? They're basically a venue with almost the entire market blocked off from them by Ticketmaster.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a similar thing going with the artists themselves.
SpaceForceAwakens t1_je3youq wrote
This is the main thing.
Years ago, many venues, especially medium sized clubs, got sick of ticketmaster so many in the bigger cities started going to more customer-friendly alternatives. Many alternatives have started, as the online ticket-selling business isn't that complex. Many venues even signed exclusive contracts with these alternative companies.
Thing is, Ticketmaster hates competition, so it would borrow cash to buy the alternative companies. At this point they've bought pretty much all of them out. And when buying them, they get the exclusive contracts that they had with the venues.
Thus Ticketmaster doesn't just eliminate competition, it receives exclusivity. This has been going on non-stop that last 15 years or so, and it needs to be stopped. Even the venues hate Ticketmaster but they have no choice.
dnhs47 t1_je3uia7 wrote
The US government is already owned by businesses like Ticketmaster. There’s no way Ticketmaster will even be investigated, let alone laws change to limit their actions.
Laney20 t1_je3yur8 wrote
We don't have to change the laws - just enforce the ones on the books!
But I agree. Not going to happen.
tyrion85 t1_je44s5v wrote
wait but I thought that free market can sort itself out, at least libertarians have been telling me this for years? how come that in a completely unregulated market, where actors are basically left to do as they please, we suddenly need - gasp! - a government to step in and break down the evil monopoly? eli5 this! /s
DarkAlman t1_je5kj7m wrote
Libertarians don't factor in that companies conspire together against consumers, and actively buy out all their competition. Furthermore a lot businesses WANT to be bought out.
They also don't live in this thing we call reality
-Work_Account- t1_je6ch0w wrote
Yeah they always like to say “just make a better product “ as if the existing competition doesn’t have the funds to squash any attempt for newcomers to enter the market
the_other_irrevenant t1_je456wz wrote
So basically the only way around it is for the stars to throw in and build their own network of music venues?
[deleted] t1_je3omgu wrote
[removed]
mikevago t1_je3v3w6 wrote
And Pearl Jam was arguably as big as Taylor Swift at the time, or close to it. They had a ton of clout, they basically ran their career aground trying to fight Ticketmaster, and they lost.
Although I do wonder if they had had more success if other big bands of the era had stood by them and also boycotted.
Real_Project870 t1_je42tfy wrote
I feel like the problem has gotten so ridiculously out of hand that hopefully other artists jump on board. It just takes one or two artists to jump on board for everyone else to pile on.
Also maybe now with the internet, large groups of angry fans can have a bigger impact. Swifties will do anything for their girl lol
Jassida t1_je41hcu wrote
How can any company own congress in a proper democracy, it’s ridiculous.
quackduck45 t1_je4298q wrote
capitalism
breathing_normally t1_je42wq6 wrote
Unchecked capitalism. Ticketmaster operates in my country too, but is tamed by regulation. Capitalism has some great benefits but anti-trust regulation must be really robust for it not to morph in to a kind of feudalism
scottimusprimus t1_je42tx7 wrote
I guess it's not a proper democracy then?
GrinningPariah t1_je461so wrote
People don't really get how it actually works.
Companies don't pay politicians to change their beliefs, they find politicians who already agree with them and donate to their campaigns to get them elected.
So these congress people who voted with ticketmaster, they weren't bribed. They voted their conscience. It's just, companies like ticketmaster have spent decades elevating politicians whose "conscience" is incredibly pro-business.
algorithm0r t1_je430vn wrote
America is one of the more corrupt democracies according to the UN.
bleedbreakdowns t1_je42md2 wrote
PJ also ran the flux variable pricing scheme (an optional selection) on their last tour via TM...
ncstalli t1_je4531y wrote
>And Ticketmaster would maybe stop arranging other concerts
Isnt this exactly what we'd want though??
FinnRazzelle t1_je3ljit wrote
Because Ticketmaster is Live Nation and they not only control the tickets, but the venues as well. In America, you can’t do a stadium tour or a tour of any scale without performing at a live Nation venue. They basically have artists by the balls.
taylortwentytwo t1_je45a8b wrote
Don't fucking buy tickets. Concert goers are enabling the problem. Don't buy tickets. Starve the scalpers. Make Ticketmaster change, beg and plead for the privilege of earning your money in summer 2024.
BeejOnABiscuit t1_je45p4m wrote
Agree but I haven’t been buying tix in protest and it looks to have no effect. It will take more than hoping people will boycott for things to change. The problem is so big it will require government intervention.
Dangerous_Affect_861 t1_je46e69 wrote
Because it is necessary to use the power of the majority. When a major event with an expected crowd of, for example, 100 thousand people will sell only 5 thousand tickets, then they will change.
BeejOnABiscuit t1_je46lu8 wrote
That is true, but what would it take to pull off a boycott of that scale? I bet most people value entertainment now over the slight possibility of future change. How do you get so many people to go against their own self interest?
Dangerous_Affect_861 t1_je46oux wrote
Yup, that's the hardest part
koolex t1_je465a3 wrote
That's asking people to never see a concert again, good luck. Better to call local politicians and tell them to break up the monopoly.
HisPetBrat t1_je637wl wrote
Yes.
iCameToLearnSomeCode t1_je47u8x wrote
You forget they are also Sirius satellite radio and pandora.
If you refuse to preform for them they'll take you off air and make sure you're essentially forgotten.
W_HoHatHenHereHy t1_je3r4w2 wrote
People have missed one more important factor, live nation also represents and manages many artists. So, they rep the artists, to perform in venues they control, using a service they own to sell tickets to those shows.
Real_Project870 t1_je43ev3 wrote
Yeah they typically dictate a bands tour schedule, the band has little to no say in which venues they play in, and may be obligated to play in cities/venues they otherwise wouldn’t.
I frequent Dave Matthew’s Band shows and they recently stopped going to Alpine Valley (legendary gorgeous venue) to instead play northerly island which is a flat field in Chicago and it fucking sucks. They openly prefer alpine, it used to be a special stop for them every year, which now livenation/TM does not let them do anymore.
I’m tellin ya it just takes a few of these artists to say enough and they’ll all join the fight, at least i like to hope lol
Dudersaurus t1_je3oh63 wrote
They can, but the barriers to entry are massive.
For example, Knotfest is a metal festival run by Slipknot, who organise ticketing and independent venues.
In Australia this was a Showground in Brisbane, Centennial Park in Sydney and Flemington race course in Melbourne.
There is no way an averagely successful band, or even Slipknot doing a non-festival tour could make these venues financially viable.
TheKurosawa t1_je3zw9i wrote
> Knotfest is a metal festival run by Slipknot
Oh thank god.
jverbal t1_je452vr wrote
And from all reports, it was a super successful and well run festival. Hopefully it sets a blueprint on how to go it alone
Dudersaurus t1_je459tr wrote
Yep, they all sold out quickly and seemed to run well, so undoubtedly successful, but not many artists have the clout to do it.
urlang t1_je3otpr wrote
Ticketmaster is vertically integrated. They not only act as a ticket vendor but they also control all the venues. Truly all of the venues that are suitable for big names to perform at. Check the John Oliver video on this.
PointlessDiscourse t1_je3zxqo wrote
I'm not sure if what you described is possible, but I will say that The Cure handled Ticketmaster pretty well with their current tour. They insisted on affordable prices, and to manage demand they restricted resale or transfer to face value or less. It makes the tickets accessible to normal (i.e. not rich) fans and removes all motive for resellers.
I even got a refund for part of the Ticketmaster fees because The Cure says Ticketmaster overcharged from what the agreement with the band was.
ScholarImpossible121 t1_je3p5ar wrote
Not a US view, but it is similar overseas. In my country there are 2 main ticketing companies (of which Ticketmaster is one) and large stadiums are mostly owned by by state governments.
The state governments then sell exclusive supply rights to one of the two ticketing companies. The venue receives a share of the fees charged by the ticketing company.
You also have the ticketing companies owning the companies that are acting as promoters, meaning that 3 of the 4 main parties are financially benefitting from the arrangement.
Another point is that the band can use the ticketing company and promoter as a shield against their ticket prices. The band/promoter (its the promoter who I assume is working on instructions from the band) hold tickets back from the general public sale and then sell on the resale market to be able to take advantage of the higher price people are willing to pay while also being able to keep the face value of the ticket down.
Also, setting up said company would require a huge investment and logistical overlay and probably isn't worth the hassle to a band for a marginal increase in overall revenue. This is similar to the argument of employees and unions.
AstralDragon1979 t1_je3t3c9 wrote
Ticketmaster handles all of the irritation-causing aspects of the ticket purchasing and allocation process, serving as a scapegoat or punching bag for the public to hate while the artists come away clean from the bad PR. Taylor Swift doesn’t want to sell concert tickets directly to her fans because inevitably many of them will be disappointed when, for example, the stadium sells out within 0.3 seconds of starting the sale, or when logistical issues arise. When things go wrong, she will be blamed. Instead, artists prefer that Ticketmaster be assigned the “bad cop” role of handling all that stuff, and the artists get to pretend they have nothing to do with the concert-goers bad purchasing experience or disappointment.
retro604 t1_je43pfn wrote
Most of the popular artists have been totally onboard with the ease of using ticketmaster and all the money they make them. We have some high profile acts making noise, but the vast majority are happy to let you pay $400 a seat.
I remember lining up overnight to buy Jackson 5 Victory Tour tickets for $15 at a local dept store service counter. That's where you got them, or record stores.
FelixVulgaris t1_je3p5uy wrote
Want to end Ticketmaster? Stop giving them money.
nMiDanferno t1_je430hm wrote
One thing missing in many of the answers here is that Ticketmaster fees don't necessarily go to Ticketmaster. They pass on a significant share of the fees to the venue and the artists:
>In exchange for the rights to sell their tickets TM also usually give their clients a portion of the fees they collect such as the service fee/charge, order processing fee, and sometimes the delivery fee (each described below). Whether it's for the purchase of a ticket or merchandise, the portion TM keeps helps provide the distribution and access network used by fans and clients and, considered with other revenues, earn a profit. source
The artists come out better because the anger is directed at Ticketmaster instead of them. So unless they have a solid sense of integrity, they have no incentive to not work with Ticketmaster.
nishitd t1_je48j1d wrote
This. A lot of artists outrage in public, and some of them are genuine, but most of them profit from this scam, so they profit without being the bad guy.
OneAndOnlyJackSchitt t1_je41yb1 wrote
> What's to stop a really major act (e.g. Taylor Swift) from performing in venues that are not controlled by Ticketmaster
There aren't any worth playing at.
I mean, maybe you could throw a concert at a convention center or a local park or something, but purpose-built venues and basically all sports arenas are owned or have exclusive contracts with Live Nation.
Dukeofnogame t1_je3tsme wrote
Adding on, is it possible that I build my own venue, say as big as the Staples Center, and letting people host events for free (of course with stipulations like damage insurance and other obvious stuff)., But the work of organizing the event and security/ticket sales being on the person holding it?
[deleted] t1_je3k3m6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je3q12m wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je3qe1a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je3sly5 wrote
[removed]
PunkThug t1_je3vij2 wrote
Taylor Swift can actually do this. But instead of one of the biggest acts in music playing before thousands of people every night, she would be playing too a few hundred maybe in bars and smaller venues.
Ticketmaster live Nation basically controls 95% plus of the big venues in America. If she wants to perform in America and earn the amount of ticket sales that she deserves then she has to go through this monopoly.
FK506 t1_je3xqhi wrote
My favorite band usually has cheap tickets with minimal if any extra fees on their website you just have to show an Id on location to prevent scalping. Ticketmaster has control of the remaining seats for everything else. I won’t say the name in case Ticketmaster puts their foot down but ticketmaster will bend if a larger band insists.
Amyrantha_verc t1_je3ywlv wrote
[deleted] t1_je40xz5 wrote
[removed]
swistak84 t1_je437mn wrote
Part of it is that artists get a share of the fees, while Ticketmaster takes all the blame. Mamy artists are in on it. Ones that trully are not can get ticket prices to be low like the Cure
[deleted] t1_je43u50 wrote
[removed]
taylortwentytwo t1_je4561z wrote
Boycott Ticketmaster. Fuck concerts. Hold out for a year and watch them change and beg for a fraction of the business back.
You have the power to slaughter Ticketmaster by literally doing nothing. Take one for the greater good, stay home, order some band merch and make the promoters and bands find the new solution.
Starve Ticketmaster and treat concert goers like rats that cross the union picket line. Do it for the next generation so that your kids can work part time and save up for a week to take a road trip to see their favourite band the way Hendrix and Cobain would have wanted it.
Flair_Helper t1_je461sh wrote
Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organisations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.
obviousguiri t1_je4697w wrote
It's the size of the venues. Very few large venues don't strictly use Ticketmaster, and the big acts are contractually obligated to perform at large scale for revenues for their management companies. For large venues, Ticketmaster has become basically a monopoly, but regulation efforts tend to focus on their surcharges and fees, rather than just how damn many venues they control. One of the biggest draws in the industry, U2, are performing concerts at a venue in Las Vegas this fall without their drummer, which is nuts for such a tight-knit band that have been together since they were teenagers, because he needs surgery and recovery time but they are contractually obligated through Ticketmaster/LiveNation to perform. They were managed for a decade by LiveNation/Ticketmaster until recently calling it quits, just because they couldn't stand the company anymore. But they are still bound to them for reserving exclusive venues and ticket sales, just because no one else operates at Ticketmaster/LiveNation's scale
MarketCrache t1_je3yc4c wrote
Ticketmaster bribe the big acts' management teams by sliding them tickets that they can sell at huge markups through scalpers. Tax free, of course. Some bands know about it but I think many don't. They just do what the management suggests.
WayTooManyOpinions t1_je41zjm wrote
Not a defense of Ticketmaster, but I worked for a large ticketing company and feel like it's important to point out what Ticketmaster does offer that a smaller ticketing company can't (and a big artist needs). For example, protection against online bots buying up tickets, a website with a waiting room to handle massive amounts of interested buyers, a website that won't crash for massive on-sales, ticket verification mechanisms (to discourage reselling on the secondary market), electronic ticket transfer via secondary market sites (so buyers don't get swindled and receive fake tickets), and so much more. There is a ton of technology enabled by Ticketmaster running in the background that enables these massive on-sales which usually run flawlessly (except Taylor Swift recently). IMHO, it doesn't justify the insane fees or ticket prices (though the prices of the tickets themselves are usually set by the artist, FWIW). I do agree with what's already been said about TM being a monopoly, etc. Again, not defending them in particular. Also worth noting, but would create an insanely long post if I get too in the weeds, is the revenue model in event ticketing. Often the ticketing company takes the upfront risk. Example: Ticketmaster says "X venue, I will pay you $20M over 4 years for exclusive rights to ticket your events." Then Ticketmaster has to earn back that $20M just to break even, and they earn it back solely via the fees. Imagine if Venue X books shitty artists no one has ever heard of... And ticket prices are $5 per seat for the Des Moines Rodeo or whatever they book. Makes it really hard for Ticketmaster to earn back that $20M. It's a lot of upfront risk... Doesn't always pay off for every venue/contract... And generally a weird business model that I'm not sure is used in many retail verticals.
ncstalli t1_je458ub wrote
9/10 times when someone says "not a fan of..." you are about to get the most biased opinion ever
WayTooManyOpinions t1_je8svp2 wrote
I said "Not in defense of"... For the record, I'm not a fan of Ticketmaster but I understand why they do some of the unpopular things they do.
DarkAlman t1_je3lbzw wrote
Ticketmaster has a functional monopoly, which isn't the same thing as a true monopoly.
They own and control so many venues that you have no choice but to deal with them.
If you decide to go around them you'll be forced to perform shows in small alternative venues and virtually every stadium and major venue in the US is under the Ticketmaster umbrella.
The only real solution to the problem at this point is convincing the US govt to enforce anti-trust laws and have the company broken up.