[voidwtf]

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.

[davidgh]

To be sure, Live Nation owns and / or operates many of the venues. They also provide management services to artists. So it’s not that TicketMaster demands exclusivity from the venue, they #are# the venue.

[oldandboring]

And in court they will probably argue that this is vertical integration that creates savings they pass along to the consumer. DOJ will likely argue they are pocketing it.

[MichaelZuo]

Has the DOJ ever won an argument against just vertical integration in the entire history of the US?

[chongli]

If isn’t just vertical integration. It’s also abuse of monopoly power. I’m sure the DoJ won’t have any trouble showing how much market share TM/LN have.

I think the real issue is the limited supply of tickets to the most popular shows. Supply and demand dictates that the prices for these limited goods be very high, yet social norms discourage artists from charging the true market value for their tickets (fans will rebel against their favourite artist for perceived greed). So TM provides an effective reputation-laundering service to the artists and collects a hefty fee for it. If the DoJ were to win their case and succeed in breaking up the TM monopoly then I bet the extra revenue would go to some other ticket brokers, not to the artist or into consumers’ pockets.

[mattnewton]

It’s partly this but also the artists benefit in other ways from large strata of their fan base being able to attend live shows, but merch in person and mingle with each other. The venue and Ticketmaster only benefit from the ticket sales.

[mlinhares]

Scalpers are also a source of guaranteed sales, so you're diluting the risk of a concert because someone is already buying up all seats already for you and running the risk of not being able to sell them at a higher price later.

[bradchris]

The Paramount Decrees way back in the 1940s/1950s: that's why Hollywood studios cannot produce movies and own the theaters which exhibit them. It's also similar to the (much more complex) reasons TV Service Providers (DirectTV, Spectrum, XFinity et. al) are separate from TV Networks, and why you don't see Disney trying to buy, say, DirectTV. Of course, streaming upended almost all of that.

[dragonwriter]

> It’s also similar to the (much more complex) reasons TV Service Providers (DirectTV, Spectrum, XFinity et. al) are separate from TV Networks

Tell me more about how the “TV Service Provider” Xfinity (a subsidiary of Comcast) is separate from the various TV networks run by NBC Universal, LLC (a subsidiary of Comcast).

[kelnos]

You seem to be correct about the studio/theater bit, but Comcast owns both NBC and Xfinity, so clearly that bit of intended separation ain't working.

[int_19h]

If you look at many older anti-trust cases from before 1970s, the bar for successful enforcement often seems unbelievably low when comparing it to how things are today. Take a look at this, for example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/

But then there was a drastic change in approach to anti-trust during the Reagan era:

"Bork argues that the original intent of antitrust laws as well as economic efficiency makes consumer welfare and the protection of competition, rather than competitors, the only goals of antitrust law. Thus, while it was appropriate to prohibit cartels that fix prices and divide markets and mergers that create monopolies, practices that are allegedly exclusionary, such as vertical agreements and price discrimination, did not harm consumers and so should not be prohibited."

"From 1977 to 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly adopted views stated in The Antitrust Paradox in such cases as Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977), Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, State Oil Co. v. Khan, Verizon v. Trinko, and Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., legalizing many practices previously prohibited."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox)

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

DOJ won against Paramount et al. in 1949. Consent decrees were in place for over 70 years.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/paramount-decree-review

[OccamsMirror]

It is a very different world than the world of 1949.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

DOJ won against A&P in 1946 and again on appeal in 1949.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473571/united-states-...

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2311543/united-states-...

[jjtheblunt]

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

[gorlilla]

Ah yes, that one[0].

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/lcy7zc/a...

[anonymouse008]

This is a most beautiful question. Perhaps the baby bells? That’s about all I can think of

[MichaelZuo]

The baby bells were split horizontally by region so I wouldn’t count that.

[jjtheblunt]

That was splitting one level of the vertical integration, really.

[inlined]

Yes, against Hollywood. Before then you could only see a Fox movie at a Fox theater

[TheGRS]

Yes, I think they have leveraged their power to keep the situation in their favor and not let a competitor come up. I don't really see a reason we couldn't have 4-5 ticketmaster type companies that still do some of the BS stuff we all hate. The whole thing where Ticketmaster will refuse other artists if your venue doesn't use them is very monopolistic.

[MichaelZuo]

Yeah every large venue, even if they were 100% independent, by default has a monopoly within some distance. And their management can access granular population density, income, etc…, data too, so they would all just price roughly the same modulo venue quality and expected demographic within X travel time. Regardless of where the artist chose to perform.

[tensor]

I think that exclusivities are a huge source of market problems in general. They are often used in these ways to create sorts of monopolies and drive prices artificially high.

Beatport, a service that sells music for DJs, has started doing exactly this sort of nonsense. They now have "exclusive" tracks for twice the price, and I would guess that the artists also get a portion of the increased profits. However, for consumers the only change is less choice and DOUBLE the price. Seems very similar to what ticketmaster is doing. I have no idea if they force artists to make all their tracks exclusive if one is, but no doubt that is the next step.

There has got to be a better solution here as it doesn't seem very reasonable to literally be doubling and tripling prices like this. And at the least, if an artist is going to do that, it should be transparent and not hidden under the guise of an exclusivity.

[KoftaBob]

> they demand exclusivity in their contracts

Right off the bat, exclusivity clauses shouldn't be legal, it's the definition of anti-competitive.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

I don't know where you live, but since this is about US law, this has no basis. This goes against the very 1st amendment of the US constitution.

Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

The only way you can take this position is IF one of the parties is subject to antitrust action. Which in this case, it is. So we have to trust antitrust!

That being said, I think that is certainly valid to argue for antitrust action to be automatic - so enforcement is not wholly dependent on subjective criteria.

I'd like to see what you think is viable.

[kelnos]

Your comment seems to contradict itself. Freedom of association is constitutionally protected... but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do live in the US, and unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common. What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?

Also I feel like you kinda have it backwards: an exclusivity clause restricts someone's freedom of association. While that's not automatically illegal (since 1A only applies to the government), exclusivity agreements like the ones we're talking about go against the spirit of the idea of freedom of association.

So yes, I'm totally fine with banning exclusivity clauses in contracts (maybe not in all cases; I'm sure there are times when they might be appropriate), and I don't think there's really any conflict with 1A. IANAL, of course.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

>>> but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?

The 1st amendment is not absolute if there's competing laws against it. Which i believe is your point, or at least helps your argument as you will see below.

>>> unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common.

Agreed, for the same reason that it is illegal to sell your body parts. This is because the illegal provisions (freely entered between consenting adults) would be in direct conflict with another established law, and the constitutionality of said law would have been brought up in front of (higher) courts to debate whether X type of association does not run afoul of other rights.

>>> What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?

There's nothing fundamentally different except the former is now law, under the 13th amendment [1]. The latter has yet to do so. So you could be correct. The 13th amendment is a better pillar vs going strictly against the 1st amendment for (reasons).

[1] https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/02/rebecca-zietlow-13...

[sofixa]

> Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Freedom of association like... an exclusivity clause?

[calgoo]

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.

[NickC25]

I think Pearl Jam did something very similar to that IIRC with regards to ticketing and re-selling.

It was a hit with their fans, but the problem is that only so many acts have the ability to do so (and as you say - it's actually not in their best fiscal interest, so you're going to self-select even further).

Ticketmaster willingly plays the bad guy role, and makes a fuck ton of money in the process.

That said, the vertical integration it has with Live Nation should be considered a monopoly, and trust-busted as such.

[bobthepanda]

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_stadium...

[TheGRS]

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.

[datascienced]

With Tay’s wealth she could buy/build a stadium or two for sure! Maybe 10 smaller ones.

But to build / buy thousands with a real estate value in the 100s of billions you would need something like a EFT.

[bombcar]

That's how I took it, if she wanted to rent out a field and import equipment, she'd still sell out, and at whatever price she wanted to charge.

[ysavir]

Of course, then it also falls to her and her team to handle permits, hiring employees for the concert (and this would be a one time thing for those employees?), training, arranging materials, foods, and anything else, figure out parking and transportation, manage any necessary insurance, and whatever else is needed.

A venue is more than having a place, it's having everything necessary to handle an immense volume of people gathering, acting, and dispersing from a single location in a safe and orderly fashion.

[xarope]

Cirque du Soleil does this. They always setup their own venue on an open ground, but I think that's more for consistency of their layout and apparatus.

[TheGRS]

Again though, there are plenty of events that already do this and have people for handling logistics. And indeed people with temporary jobs involved.

[tomjakubowski]

SoFi was entirely privately funded, as far as I know. Public funding for private stadiums is less popular than it used to be

[JumpCrisscross]

> stadiums are multibillion dollar affairs that take years and lots of public financing

That's a 70,000-seat stadium [1][2]. Arenas (5 to 20k) can be built for a few hundred million [3].

Unfortunately, that would mean either nosebleed ticket prices or rationing tickets to fans. The former would earn the fans' ire. The latter reduce the artist's revenue.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi_Stadium

[2] https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/5174...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/business/concert-halls-li...

[brandall10]

Just a FYI, "nosebleed" means the cheapest tickets - ie. the highest up/furthest away from the stage. It's a mountain climbing term related to suffering literal nosebleeds at high altitude.

[gosub100]

Then you'd get into lobbying, I'm sure.

Ticketmaster: oh the tragedy, our shareholders..they might not get as much profit! housing! think of the homeless! if you build this arena, it will sit dormant 95% of the year, this space could be used to house homeless, so VOTE NO! on question 45 to protect $CITY's homeless!

[BillSaysThis]

a) She could not and b) that leaves the exclusive contracts TM already has in place as the barrier.

[Reason077]

> "Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a venue in each location if she wanted, so that not an issue."

ABBA actually built their own venue for their ongoing "ABBA Voyage" shows in London[1]. That's a residency, though. I'm not sure about the viability of doing it for a world tour!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA_Voyage

[015a]

The artists are not generally the ones who select who to sell tickets through; its the venues.

[paxys]

Yeah why does Taylor Swift not simply build multi-billion dollar stadiums in the middle of hundreds of cities across the country? Is she stupid?

[ascorbic]

They obviously don't need to be multi-billion dollar stadiums. They can be temporary structures or outdoor areas. 120k people watched Elton John on the main stage at Glastonbury last year, twice as many as attended most of the dates for the Eras tour. While not everywhere will have a space that's suitable for a 40-60k outdoor stage, a good number will.

[arcticbull]

Out of anyone, anywhere, Taylor Swift should be able to bring in a full stadium crowd even in the middle of absolutely nowhere.

[mcmcmc]

You know LiveNation owns TicketMaster right?

[JumpCrisscross]

> artists have trouble securing large venues

Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-devoted fans. Unfortunately, if you do that, it's tough to become a billionaire. (Analogy: wineries. On the 4 x 4 of size and price point, you have wines positioned in each quadrant.)

TicketMaster is, or more accurately its exclusivity requirements are, the root of the problem. But everyone around them--from the municipalities that publicly finance and permit exclusivity deals by these stadiums to the artists who perform at them--are profiting from and complicit in the market failure. (Ethically, not legally.)

[EasyMark]

That's still not a reason for the government to not bust up their rackets. It's about time someone stepped up and did something. I was hoping would be state based like Texas or California, but I'll take action from the feds I guess.

[JumpCrisscross]

> not a reason for the government to not bust up their rackets

Nobody in this thread has argued against enforcement.

[kelnos]

Perhaps not, but your comment was a bit ambiguous as written. Telling an artist "tough luck" if they can't book a larger venue without TM/LN feels like saying there isn't really a problem to be solved here.

[philistine]

> Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-devoted fans.

Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking. Assuming infrastructure is sufficient for each situation to be profitable is magical thinking.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Companies end up bankrupt with your line of thinking

The point is artists want to have their cake and eat it too. Any artist performing at a stadium could make a solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena while charging a similar (or lower) price. They don't because it's more lucrative to perform at a 70,000-seat stadium.

LiveNation is a monopolist. But they also give many market participants cover to charge more without offending their fans.

[toast0]

It would probably need to be a different show. Playing to a large stadium means you can afford more trucks and a bigger spectacle. If you're playing for 5,000 people, you've got to tone it down, or you won't make a profit.

[listenallyall]

who determines what is "a solid profit"? If an artist can sell 70,000 tickets, why should they limit themselves to 20,000? Do you work for 2/7 of your potential salary? And what about the 50,000 fans shut out of the show?

[philistine]

> Any artist performing at a stadium could make a solid profit performing at non-TM 5 to 20k-seat arena while charging a similar (or lower) price.

There you go, magical thinking again.

[oldandboring]

> Then perform smaller venues and ration tickets to your most-devoted fans. Unfortunately, if you do that, it's tough to become a billionaire.

If you do that, it's tough to make any money at all. If you're, say, Dave Matthews Band and you have 50,000 people who want to come to each show, and you start saying you'll only play to 1,000 people at a time, the economics start going sideways. The size of the band has to shrink and/or the cost per ticket has to go way up. The secondhand/scalper market sends tickets sky high.

Ticketmaster/LiveNation allows big acts to fill big venues, which (despite how it may feel sometimes) actually makes the show available to more people at a lower price.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If you're, say, Dave Matthews Band and you have 50,000 people who want to come to each show, and you start saying you'll only play to 1,000 people at a time, the economics start going sideways

There are plenty of 5 to 20k-seat venues that would be fine.

[smrq]

I don't know about your city, but Live Nation has been eating those up around here. I go to these kinds of venues exclusively, and over the last decade have gone from zero shows sold through Ticketmaster to maybe 50/50. At least the bar shows are safe, but those economics are obviously not fine.

[jimbokun]

It’s tough to pay your rent only playing smaller venues, let alone becoming a billionaire.