> Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster.

So mostly what GP said. This is not an accident, and everyone is in on it.

I don't think it's the same at all - the crucial point of difference is whether artists deserve to get blamed for this situation. Various people in the thread have claimed that they do, that they're receiving kickbacks from scalping or a portion of Ticketmaster fees on resales, but your parent comment claims that this is not the case and misrepresents the ticket sale structure.

I think that's a critical difference, because if the current situation is actually a big reputation laundering scam by artists, there's not much we can do about it without regulation. If it's not, if in fact most artists are as unhappy about the situation as their fans, there's quite a lot they can do about it and should be encouraged to do so even if it makes getting a ticket significantly harder (e.g. showing ID for purchased tickets at the venue and only allowing 1:1 refunds, not resales of tickets).

Of course, if producers are receiving a significant portion of earnings on resales, some of that does "trickle down" to artists in the form of higher performing fees on the basis of anticipated resales. But that's a small fraction of added value for most artists, and it's coming at a level of indirection that means ticket sellers are incentivized to raise fees to their highest possible levels after artists get paid, because that's pure profit for them. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that artists aren't happy about this payment structure, even if they do see slightly higher show income as a result, and want a range of fans to be able to attend their shows.

I understood there is no difference between what the comment I replied to is describing and what its parent is, because of the (brought by others elsewhere in the thread) fungibility of money. Whether the artists get their cut directly, or just enjoy cheaper venues because Ticketmaster happens to be owned by the same party that owns the venue, that's literally the same benefit - just instead of being paid directly, the artists get their expenses covered. That's my understanding of what's going on with plenty of those deals.

Artists don’t pay for venues, promoters do, so they’re not cheaper, but your point that Ticketmaster has more revenue (and thus more to pay the artist) so they may get paid more indirectly is valid. But also, Ticketmaster has a monopsony. Or nearly so. One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues.

The only things I’m sure of are that A. consumers would benefit if there was an actual market and B. It is hard to imagine one happening without government intervention.

> One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues.

I think that's where the "reputation laundering" angle comes into play. With its unique position, Ticketmaster gives artists plausible deniability. "Nothing we can do about it", "evils of capitalism", "a monopolist captured the market, government doing nothing", etc. - say artists, for whom the image they project is a core part of their market value. With a properly functioning competitive market, those same artists would have to either get much less, or answer some inconvenient question about ticket pricing.

Yes that’s true but also, one may argue, as Pearl Jam did in court, that Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and this hurts Artist revenues. Artists would get more from those fees if they could negotiate with multiple different ticket sellers. And that was before TM merged with Live Nation which is also now the exclusive promoter at most of the biggest venues in the world, and by most, I mean over 2/3.

It’s a monopsony.

The only real winners are Ticketmaster live nation

Definitely not an accident, no.

Nope Ticketmaster shares fees with its clients, this is from the Ticketmaster help...

-----

The standard tickets sold on Ticketmaster are owned by our clients (venues, sports teams or other event promoters) who determine the number of tickets to be sold and set the face value price.

...

Ticket fees (which can include a service fee, order processing fee and sometimes a delivery fee) are determined in collaboration with our clients. In exchange for the rights to sell their tickets, our clients typically share in a portion of the fees we collect.

...

Service Fee and Order Processing Fee

In almost all cases, Ticketmaster adds a service fee (also known as a convenience charge) to the face value price, or in the case of a resale ticket to the listing price, of each ticket. The service fee varies by event based on our agreement with each individual client.

In addition to the per ticket service fee, an order processing fee is typically charged. Unlike the service charge, which is added to each ticket, the processing fee is charged once for each order. The processing fee offsets the costs of ticket handling, shipping and support and as a result, the processing fee is generally not charged on in-person box office purchases. In some cases, Ticketmaster's order processing costs may be lower than the order processing fee. In those cases, Ticketmaster may earn a profit on the order processing fee.

In both cases, these fees are collected by Ticketmaster and typically shared with our clients.

Right, their clients aren’t artists. They’re the venues or promoters who signed with them, and the promoter is usually LiveNation, who owns them. Sometimes the venue is too.

That’s exactly what I said. They pay for exclusive ticket sales. They’re just defining “client” as who they pay and notice they do not say artist, which they surely would if they ever did.

Aren't sports teams 'artists'?

No, but they are often venue owners, as I mentioned. That’s why TM pays them.