Live Nation Ticketmaster Merger - tears before bedtime

[giggirl]

I honestly thought the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger would get blocked by the US regulators but the silly sods have given it the go ahead. My understanding is that the merger still has the red light in the UK but how long will that hold up? For us punters no good will come of creating this behemoth. If it goes ahead we will basically see the price of a night out rocket and the smaller agents will get the nosebleed seats that nobody wants to sit in.

It's a tricky subject. The days when artists could make money out of CD sales are gone - so how to fill the void? I remember reading a Bowie interview a few years (2002) ago and I just googled it. Here's a quote

"I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way. The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing.

''Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen.''

Bands like Pearl Jam and NIN have done battle with Ticketbastard and lost. Sadly NIN has quit touring - but on a happy personal note I got to see them last year just before they quit. I do hope it's a temporary fit of pique - come back Trent - I miss you! Anyway, Trent Reznor is most lucid on the subject of Ticketbastard:

http://stereogum.com/archives/trent_reznor_blasts_ticketmaster_and_the_artists_w_058831.html

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15394198

[silverfox]

Correct me if I'm wrong and by all means disagree with me, but isn't this merger a commercial necessity?

We live in the age of the internet, facebook, Bebo and, soon to demise, twitter. Most youngsters, surely, regard paying to see/hear a band as absurd. Everybody now downloads (mostly free). Bowie (in your quote) was certainly prescient.

The only people who go to concerts now are the Jeremy Clarkson generation - grey-haired denim wearers who youngsters wouldn't be seen dead with.

Ticket master is struggling to sell over-priced tickets to keep bands in the style they were accustomed to. It needs this merger.

[giggirl]

Ticketmaster, pre-merger, was a thriving company. Perhaps you missed the Economist article I linked to above so here it is again. Check the sales graph - the US market has gone from less than $2 billion in year 2000 to more than $4 billion in 2009. A massive growth. I can't find UK figures but I'm pretty sure they would mirror the US.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15394198

Nobody pays for music anymore. That's the point - the live concert market is the only thriving market in the music industry. It's a gret big fat cash cow the this merger will see TM/LN get the lion's share.

[silverfox]

Ah, I see your point and stand corrected. There's more to this merger than commercial necessity.

Thanks

[KalamityKel]

I wonder which side is thinking they're gonna make the most with the merge - both sides aim high when stinging the customer so unnecessarily.

[Huguenot]

Am I being stupid, but since t'interweb is the great leveller, can't these bands sell their own tickets direct from a website?

The history of the web is "disintermediation", it gets rid of the middleman. Ticketmaster is a middleman, and surely the writing is on the wall?

[KalamityKel]

You would still be using a programme that dealt with ticketing and seating - it's not often the BIG venues are sit/stand where you like. How would someone deal with ticket enquiries? Issuing tickets (sending them out)? Ensuring tickets were the real deal? Issues with car payments and Fraud issues? Somewhere along the line you would still be using the "middle" man.

[giggirl]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I being stupid, but since t'interweb is the

> great leveller, can't these bands sell their own

> tickets direct from a website?

>

> The history of the web is "disintermediation", it

> gets rid of the middleman. Ticketmaster is a

> middleman, and surely the writing is on the wall?

Huguenot - you're never stupid but I don't think you've grasped the scope of this merger. It's not two ticket selling companies merging. The new company will

(a) sell the tickets

(b) promote the artist (in many cases)

© own the venue (in some cases)

(d) own the festival (in some cases)

Live Nation is a massive promoter - Madonna, U2 - in fact, every "biggie" I can think of. Here's a link to their website listing all the UK events they are currently promoting (basically, a lot).

http://www.livenation.co.uk/event/allevents

I'm not sure which UK venues Live Nation owns now because it sold some off last year. They do own the following though

OWN OUTRIGHT:

* Download Festival, O2 Wireless Festival and Hyde Park Calling

50.1% STAKE:

* in Festival Republic, and thus interests in several music festivals, including the production of Glastonbury Festival, Reading and Leeds Festivals, Latitude Festival

This merger has the green light in the US. So, Huguenot, how's your antitrust? Do you think it should have been allowed?

[Huguenot]

No, I didn't know that.

Are those actually venues, or are they events?

I think an (event) promoter should be entitled to sell tickets to their own events. It remains the right of the bands to perform, the venue to provide their services, and the public to attend.

I don't think entertainment is a 'right' that needs regulation.

Mind you, I think if the promoter actually owns the venue then it would be a different issue - as the venue could be considered a resource - and then antitrust would be an issue.

It's an interesting dynamic isn't it?

In a free market you could see three routes:

1. Band hires venue for a fixed fee, band sells tickets through whatever route they see fit to reach profit targets (could be zero) through distribution and pricing.

2. Venue hires band, venue sells tickets etc.

3. Promoter hires venue and band, promoter sells tickets etc.

Healthy competition between all three entities entails balance of fees etc.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Ticketmaster as a promoter has a stranglehold on venues (not events) that prevents both the venue and the band influencing the commercial process.

I'm not sure I buy this - surely there's hundreds of football grounds begging for entertainment events that aren't subject to Ticketmaster contracts that could be used?

It seems a big opportunity for a wise businessman to step into the market and start hosting events at those venues?

If Ticketmaster were subsequently engaging in anti-competitive activity they they'd have a case to answer.

[KalamityKel]

With such a merger it would be interesting to know whether there will be a reduction in the extortionate booking and posting fees applied to each ticket booked.

Ticketmaster operates by making its money through the fees rather than charging the promoter commission on number of tickets sold which makes it rather attractive to promoters and smaller venues without Box Office facilities. Many companies/venues have other more "important" things in mind when arranging an event other than ticketing. They simply want the easiest way with the least hassle, again hence why Ticketmaster being very unfluencial in the entertainment world.

Online ticketing is also quite a popular option but as briefly hinted at, many organisations fail to see the negative to this cheaper option - there is no support should things go wrong and can even be quite costly to rectify payment issues. I personally don't like this option as I don't feel it is a 100% or as near to that you can get with other systems, secure way to a) handle person details and b) actually gaurentee a sucessful booking. It also doesn't work with venues holding numbered seating with various different areas. Sorry going off topic a little!

[genwilliams]

Bit of a blethery essay incoming!

I worked for two independent music venues, til last yr. [i'm not working in music at all now and don't yet know if I'll return]. Both hosted Live Nation gigs, though as venues they ran v. different business models. For professional courtesy's sake I'll not go into detail re: their businesses and dealings with Live Nation - and as all of the LN folks I've dealt with have been thoroughly good people, I'm not inclined to go off on a LN-slagging on this occasion.

However - LN have an massive effect on the live industry, especially with the recent mergers, and not just in the ticketing arena. Yes, they're promoters. Yes, they have their own venues. They also hire other venues, and have done for years - this was where I dealt with them, more so at one venue than the other. But as their enterprises change, they seem to be looking to hire less and less, unless it works exactly right for them (where running their own venues and determining their ticket prices comes into play). I can't blame them for this - but it really tips the balance of power. And where they once provided a steady stream of business to some venues, who could then also afford to work with smaller promoters or run their own nights, what happens when this dries up because the ticketers, promoters and venue managers are all the same entity and control a vast portion of the industry?

Over the last few years I think music has become v. polarised, and live is no exception. Events are either hugely marketed, sponsored, media-linked affairs with much money circling around, or fiercely DIY efforts that get better exposure than ever because of the internet-led, bloggy culture - ironically the DIY guys can succeed and become big brands, because of the kudos they attract. The medium-sized promoter, without the freedom of the lo-fi promoter or the clout of the big guns, has neither the mobility nor the money to compete, and has to be VERY savvy and quick off the mark to survive.

Massive companies like LN, meanwhile, fill the market and gain maximum exposure, especially when they become the ticket outlet as well, and here sponsorship and marketing aids them. So when the smaller venues or promoters want to compete with them, they have a harder battle than ever. And it trickles down. Agents will send their artists where the money is (both gig fees, generated by ticket income, and advertising budget). Fans go to the gigs they know about. And now bands blow up quicker than ever. A band will play the Vice launch at the Old Blue Last this year, and headline the Forum (5000 people?) next year. There's little room in their trajectory for the middle-range show anymore, so yes, maybe the audiences at these venues are aging, while the kids are either bouncing off the ceiling in Dalston, or forking out ?25 for Brixton Academy, and there's increasingly little for them in between.

I'm not weighing in here on either side - Live Nation are a business entity doing what they can to succeed. But there's no ignoring the effect their recent manoeuvres are having on the live music scene.