This is a helpful contribution to an informed discussion. I largely agree with you and would add a couple pieces, while also emphasizing that my experience is with US events, and confusion between the US and other territories has not helped. We have some unique problems over here, in part owing to the fact that Live Nation's market share is bigger (and that UK enforcement of competition and consumer protection has been historically stronger than in the US). It's also the case that the touts are mostly unregulated in the US which worsens the problems, and they and the predatory resale platforms have been remarkably effective at appropriating valid frustrations with Ticketmaster to avoid scrutiny themselves.
One issue is that when Live Nation serves as promoter or venue owner, all bets are off about whether any of the face value ends up with Ticketmaster.
It's also my anecdotal observation (I'd love to see data) that the fees in the US do appear to be consistently higher as a percentage of the ticket price than in the UK--which i'd hypothesize is a product of stronger UK consumer protection and competition policy enforcement--US regulators and enforcers were mostly sitting on their hands until recently.
In the US, fees on the primary market seem highest for Live Nation venues. I think we have some reasonable evidence that Live Nation has driven the industry wide changes to deal structures and contracts that force venues and promoters to look to fees and ancillary revenue streams to make the shows work financially. (In the US, we see that they do that via supracompetitive bids & guarantees that independent promoters can't match, made possible by leveraging their domination of other parts of the market, but I don't want to speculate about whether it's the same dynamic elsewhere.)
Your call for a fan-led review is important. Focusing on a single company makes sense for an antitrust inquiry (as the US Dept of Justice is doing) but a bigger policy discussion would benefit from looking at the bigger picture. I also affirm the neo-Brandesian argument that a narrow focus on price as the measure of what fans need is misguided. Music fans especially need cultural diversity, access, community-focus, responsivity, talent incubation and other factors that are missed when price alone is the measure of a healthy competitive ecosystem.
Just checked on the Ticketmaster site for Bryan Adams (....no intention of going) even in the cheap seats the add on of Service Fee + Facility Charge + Handling Fee is an additional £9.32 for a ticket at £40 - thats 23.3% (individual componets = service charge 5.20@13% / Facility Charge £2.75@6.87% Handling Charge £2.25@6.87%) so the question also is did the Oasis tickets have these additional extra charges and who gets the money? Seems 23.3% is way more 10%. I am aware that whatever charges Ticketmaster charge, at this level, others will get a share of it. There will also be significant sums made from resale charges - again it won't just be Ticketmaster making on these.
1) spend a fourtune on tickets so a bunch of rich people can get richer, i.e. promoters, venues, artists, etc.
2) go to the local pub and support local musicians the live just like you and me.
Which one do you think is more sustainable, more enriching and contributes to the cultural and economic landscape that affects you and your loved ones?
This is a helpful contribution to an informed discussion. I largely agree with you and would add a couple pieces, while also emphasizing that my experience is with US events, and confusion between the US and other territories has not helped. We have some unique problems over here, in part owing to the fact that Live Nation's market share is bigger (and that UK enforcement of competition and consumer protection has been historically stronger than in the US). It's also the case that the touts are mostly unregulated in the US which worsens the problems, and they and the predatory resale platforms have been remarkably effective at appropriating valid frustrations with Ticketmaster to avoid scrutiny themselves.
One issue is that when Live Nation serves as promoter or venue owner, all bets are off about whether any of the face value ends up with Ticketmaster.
It's also my anecdotal observation (I'd love to see data) that the fees in the US do appear to be consistently higher as a percentage of the ticket price than in the UK--which i'd hypothesize is a product of stronger UK consumer protection and competition policy enforcement--US regulators and enforcers were mostly sitting on their hands until recently.
In the US, fees on the primary market seem highest for Live Nation venues. I think we have some reasonable evidence that Live Nation has driven the industry wide changes to deal structures and contracts that force venues and promoters to look to fees and ancillary revenue streams to make the shows work financially. (In the US, we see that they do that via supracompetitive bids & guarantees that independent promoters can't match, made possible by leveraging their domination of other parts of the market, but I don't want to speculate about whether it's the same dynamic elsewhere.)
Your call for a fan-led review is important. Focusing on a single company makes sense for an antitrust inquiry (as the US Dept of Justice is doing) but a bigger policy discussion would benefit from looking at the bigger picture. I also affirm the neo-Brandesian argument that a narrow focus on price as the measure of what fans need is misguided. Music fans especially need cultural diversity, access, community-focus, responsivity, talent incubation and other factors that are missed when price alone is the measure of a healthy competitive ecosystem.
So informative and direct to the heart of the issues, thanks Mark.
Just checked on the Ticketmaster site for Bryan Adams (....no intention of going) even in the cheap seats the add on of Service Fee + Facility Charge + Handling Fee is an additional £9.32 for a ticket at £40 - thats 23.3% (individual componets = service charge 5.20@13% / Facility Charge £2.75@6.87% Handling Charge £2.25@6.87%) so the question also is did the Oasis tickets have these additional extra charges and who gets the money? Seems 23.3% is way more 10%. I am aware that whatever charges Ticketmaster charge, at this level, others will get a share of it. There will also be significant sums made from resale charges - again it won't just be Ticketmaster making on these.
So, we have 2 options here:
1) spend a fourtune on tickets so a bunch of rich people can get richer, i.e. promoters, venues, artists, etc.
2) go to the local pub and support local musicians the live just like you and me.
Which one do you think is more sustainable, more enriching and contributes to the cultural and economic landscape that affects you and your loved ones?