[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.