House Members Tackle Concert Ticket Debacle

[davideduardo]

From RAMP today... taken from free daily newsletter...

Two New Jersey Congressmen -- Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-09), and House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ-06) -- introduced their updated BOSS and SWIFT Act legislation to provide needed transparency and regulation to the badly corrupted live events ticket marketplace. The legislation is named in honor of New Jersey hero Bruce Springsteen and fans of Taylor Swift, who were blocked when trying to buy concert tickets during the recent ticketing fiasco. The revised plan specifically addresses issues including hidden fees, on-sale transparency, buyer protections, speculative tickets, and deceptive white label websites. In a triumph of timing, the legislation was introduced the day before Taylor played three sold-out shows at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ.

"For too long, millions of American fans have been unable to get a fair shake for their tickets and cry out for relief," said Pascrell (left). "The recent experience of Taylor Swift fans being locked out of her tour is not new and Swifties are just the latest victims of Ticketmaster's policies and a broken market. For decades, the ticket market has been the Wild West: mammoth, opaque, speculative, and brutally unfair. A fan shouldn't have to sell a kidney or mortgage a house to see their favorite performer or team. At long last, it is time to create rules for fair ticketing in this country and my legislation will do exactly that for all the fans."
More at House Members Introduce ‘BOSS & Swift Act’

 

[Miss Tuned]

It's surely a simple case of supply and demand. There is only one Taylor Swift, but she is globally famous and popular and has countless millions of fans who would love to see her in concert. She sells out every show. She can't replicate herself (unlike ABBA), so she can only play a certain number of concerts each year, so inevitably demand for Taylor Swift tickets outstrips supply. Why choose to regulate this particular market? It's not an essential for life, like water or housing.

If regulations are put in place in the US, concert promoters will simply schedule more concerts in countries with less onerous regulation but just as many Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran or Beyoncé fans. There's a lot to be said for going and having a good time at music events that feature slightly less famous performers - you can have just as much fun without the ticket troubles, expense and hassle of going and seeing a megastar.

 

[Kelly A]

Ticketmaster became a monopoly, when it was allowed to gobble-up all of it's competitors. It wasn't until the Taylor Swift concert debacle came to light and politician's daughters couldn't get tickets, did this become a serious issue.

 

[radiofan2023]

This is why I like streaming concerts

 

[Mikey Radio]

It's surely a simple case of supply and demand. There is only one Taylor Swift, but she is globally famous and popular and has countless millions of fans who would love to see her in concert. She sells out every show. She can't replicate herself (unlike ABBA), so she can only play a certain number of concerts each year, so inevitably demand for Taylor Swift tickets outstrips supply. Why choose to regulate this particular market? It's not an essential for life, like water or housing.

If regulations are put in place in the US, concert promoters will simply schedule more concerts in countries with less onerous regulation but just as many Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran or Beyoncé fans. There's a lot to be said for going and having a good time at music events that feature slightly less famous performers - you can have just as much fun without the ticket troubles, expense and hassle of going and seeing a megastar.

NPR did a full hour about this several months ago, with panelists from bands and concert producers, smaller independent venues, larger venues and also representatives from Live Nation and Ticketmaster taking part. Aside from general complaints about ticket costs, mostly from callers who went to see their favorite bands for $25 to sit in the 3rd row in 1989 and were offended that it was now $150 for nose bleed seats, the 2 biggest issues that seemed to be raised that day were the astronomical fees that Ticketmaster and other companies sometimes charge over/above the face value of the ticket, and also bots and modern-day versions of scalpers that gobble up tons of seats, including in the better sections immediately once they go on sale, and then as demand increases, they resell them, at times for several times more than the face value of the ticket. I found it to be a good and enlightening discussion, but Ticketmaster gingerly dodged every bullet and deflected blame elsewhere with each question they were asked.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Why choose to regulate this particular market? It's not an essential for life, like water or housing.

Because it is an attainable goal. No bill in Congress will end homelessness or rebuild century-old water systems.

This bill doesn't do so much that T.Swift will spend the rest of her life touring France. Its main provisions are:
1. requiring showing the total price, inclusive of fees, when the seats are selected,
2. disclosing who the seller for a particular ticket is (i.e. making clear when you are buying a scalped ticket)
3. preventing TicketMaster from selling non-transferrable tickets

 

[Kelly A]

Friend of mine made a good point the other day; that Taylor Swift frequently speaks out about what she considers unjust or unfair, especially as it relates to her fans. Yet during this entire fiasco, Ms. Swift has remained silent. Why is that?

The fact is; acting as her own manager, Ms. Swift was well aware of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster pre-sale-to-fans-plan that started the whole controversy, because she would have had to approve it. As I understand the timeline; pre-sale via Ticketmaster's website overwhelmed their transaction capacity partly because of demand, and partly due to 'scalper bots' banging on the Ticketmaster site, cutting humans out of line. The whole pre-sale mess then delayed regular ticket sales, which drove the "Swifties" that much more bonkers.

Going on this premise; Taylor Swift is just as culpable in the way this particular tour ticket sales went. Ticketmaster bit off more than they could chew in believing they wouldn't have been overwhelmed with pre-sales, and after discovering how crazy fans are, decided to jack ticket prices just because they could. Near as I can tell, supply and demand as a concept isn't illegal yet.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Friend of mine made a good point the other day; that Taylor Swift frequently speaks out about what she considers unjust or unfair, especially as it relates to her fans. Yet during this entire fiasco, Ms. Swift has remained silent. Why is that?

That would be because your friend missed her (first) statement:

Taylor Swift slams 'outside entity' over ticket fiasco: 'I'm not going to make excuses for anyone'

Taylor Swift fans flocked to Ticketmaster's website earlier this week for the first round of presale tickets. The site couldn't handle the demand.

www.cnbc.com

The fact is; acting as her own manager, Ms. Swift was well aware of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster pre-sale-to-fans-plan that started the whole controversy, because she would have had to approve it.

That's the problem with monopolies, isn't it? Ms. Swift did approve TicketMaster as a vendor, but what choice did she have? It looks like every stop on this tour is an NFL stadium. Every NFL stadium except two (Phoenix and Dallas) are TicketMaster exclusives.

I guess she the alternative to working with TicketMaster was taking up a residency in Phoenix?

 

[Kelly A]

That would be because your friend missed her (first) statement

Swift was publicly dancing around the situation she was a large part in creating. I'll guarantee nobody was going rogue on the lead up to the sale of tickets. Both Live Nation/Ticketmaster and Taylor Swift made dump trucks full's of money on the tour, including the whole pre-sale fiasco. Swift is a very savvy business person, and for that, she has my admiration. Point being; there is a lot of behind the scenes that guy's like you and I will never see. Ticketmaster takes some publicity hits, but all this political drama and theater will be long forgotten before the end of 2023, and all involved parties will be fat and happy.

That's the problem with monopolies, isn't it? Ms. Swift did approve TicketMaster as a vendor, but what choice did she have?

Of course she approved Ticketmaster, or there wouldn't have been a tour. Tour management for the artist/band operates in lock-step with the touring vendors and ticket sales.

It looks like every stop on this tour is an NFL stadium. Every NFL stadium except two (Phoenix and Dallas) are TicketMaster exclusives.

And those stops on the tour are approved by whom?

I guess she the alternative to working with TicketMaster was taking up a residency in Phoenix?

The alternative is not touring.

 

[TheBigA]

Both Live Nation/Ticketmaster and Taylor Swift made dump trucks full's of money on the tour, including the whole pre-sale fiasco.

You're focusing on the wrong half of the equation. They were going to make that money regardless. The law isn't seeking to cut revenues or profits for artists, but provide fairness to CONSUMERS. That's what this is about. The artists are powerless in how their tickets are sold to their fans.

The alternative is not touring.

That's not a fair alternative to either half of the equation. And the government loses out on the tax revenue.

 

[Kelly A]

You're focusing on the wrong half of the equation. They were going to make that money regardless. The law isn't seeking to cut revenues or profits for artists, but provide fairness to CONSUMERS. That's what this is about.

Other than Ticketmaster screwing up the pre-sale due to underestimation of traffic, I'm not sure how any of this was unfair to consumers. Young ladies were upset that they either couldn't afford, or simply unable to get tickets for a particular show. Something that parents don't seem to teach their kids anymore: Sometimes life isn't fair.

The artists are powerless in how their tickets are sold to their fans.

Really? Taylor Swift, powerless? Hardly.

That's not a fair alternative to either half of the equation. And the government loses out on the tax revenue.

Someone like Swift isn't going to miss a meal if she doesn't tour. If she really felt so strongly that her ticket-buying fans weren't being treated fair to the point that it could damage her brand, she'd be the first to push back.

 

[TheBigA]

Other than Ticketmaster screwing up the pre-sale due to underestimation of traffic, I'm not sure how any of this was unfair to consumers.

It is just one example of how having a single ticket monopoly that also owns the venues is a bad thing.

Someone like Swift isn't going to miss a meal if she doesn't tour. If she really felt so strongly that her ticket-buying fans weren't being treated fair to the point that it could damage her brand, she'd be the first to push back.

Once again, you're focusing on her wealth, not on the illegality of the system. An artist should not be forced to not work because of an illegal monopoly. That's where the attention should be directed, not on the wealth of a performer.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

The alternative is not touring.

Sounds like something Tony Soprano would say.

 

[Kelly A]

Once again, you're focusing on her wealth, not on the illegality of the system. An artist should not be forced to not work because of an illegal monopoly. That's where the attention should be directed, not on the wealth of a performer.

Since the government-SEC allowed Live Nation/Ticketmaster to gobble up competitors, it isn't until politician lawmakers daughter's and granddaughter's weren't able to purchase the hottest ticket in town, did this become a noteworthy problem.

Artists have had many opportunities to band together (pardon the pun) and publicly object to how unfair a potential Ticketmaster monopoly has become. Other than a smattering of bands like Pearl Jam, none of that is happening. Even Springsteen has remained silent while his fans become outraged as to ticket prices and availability through Ticketmaster. It won't be until demand for concert tickets starts falling off, will the artists get involved in this controversy. For as much as you claim this isn't about money to artists? It's all about the money.

 

[davideduardo]

It's surely a simple case of supply and demand. There is only one Taylor Swift, but she is globally famous and popular and has countless millions of fans who would love to see her in concert. She sells out every show.

I see this as a less than simple case of a near monopolization of ticket sales for prime venues combined with the public being played by clever and very skilled code writers who figure out how to judge demand and do massive calculated ticket buys for resale.

I have tried to buy tickets to events where the venue price is quite within what I would pay for a particular show. Even when I "stood in line" for the first moment of ticket availability, I found that the seats we wanted might be two to four times the "original venue price".

After a couple of "post pandemic" attempts at getting tickets, resulting in prices well beyond our "budget vs. fan" considerations, we have given up on even trying to attend concerts in the roughly "Phoenix to LA" zone we can comfortably drive to without having to book a hotel.

This is not supply and demand; it is a small group of ticket sellers who know that a concert by an artist we are fond of will cause many fans to spend irrationally and excessively, and they are taking advantage of us.

 

[davideduardo]

It won't be until demand for concert tickets starts falling off, will the artists get involved in this controversy. For as much as you claim this isn't about money to artists? It's all about the money.

As I mentioned in another post, when we (and this is a collective "we") want to see a favorite artist, rational behaviour falls off a cliff and is replaced by all the symptoms of rampant fandom where we spend way too much.

Concerts have a uniqueness unlike any other consumer goods. To buy a luxury item, whether it is jewelry or a status-symbol car or purse, there are multiple sources and permanent availability. Concerts are unique, with narrow windows and no second chances.

 

[Kelly A]

As I mentioned in another post, when we (and this is a collective "we") want to see a favorite artist, rational behaviour falls off a cliff and is replaced by all the symptoms of rampant fandom where we spend way too much.

Concerts have a uniqueness unlike any other consumer goods. To buy a luxury item, whether it is jewelry or a status-symbol car or purse, there are multiple sources and permanent availability. Concerts are unique, with narrow windows and no second chances.

I agree. Concerts are even more so, considered luxury purchases, like a going on a luxury vacation, or cruise. All are just forms of entertainment. I heard that some Taylor Swift advance sales tickets closest to the stage were going for $20K per. And yes, people were paying that. Fan's would literally max out their credit card to get a ticket. Is that Ticketmaster's fault, or the fan willing to do whatever it takes?
The question remains; if Ticketmaster wouldn't have been involved in the sales and venues for Taylor Swift tour schedule, or any hot artist/band, would the tickets have been any less expensive or more available? I doubt it, because everyone wants to get paid whatever the market and individual brand will support.

 

[TheBigA]

For as much as you claim this isn't about money to artists? It's all about the money.

Ticketmaster doesn't just control tickets for concerts, but also tickets for sporting events. I personally had a battle with them over hockey tickets. They shut down my account without telling me it was shut down. I kept receiving a message to "try back later." I went to their site and there was no customer service information. It went round and round for weeks until I found a ticket resolution number and was told my account had been shut down. These are bad business practices. Everyone knows they're bad business practices. It's time for congress to look into the situation.

 

[Kelly A]

Ticketmaster doesn't just control tickets for concerts, but also tickets for sporting events. I personally had a battle with them over hockey tickets. They shut down my account without telling me it was shut down. I kept receiving a message to "try back later." I went to their site and there was no customer service information. It went round and round for weeks until I found a ticket resolution number and was told my account had been shut down. These are bad business practices. Everyone knows they're bad business practices. It's time for congress to look into the situation.

To me; if Ticketmaster legally meets the criteria for being a monopoly, then their organization should be investigated accordingly. But, the government already allowed this to happen didn't they? Crappy customer service, inadequate IT, POS tech, or just being the biggest dog on the block, shouldn't demand government intervention.

Most members of Congress are only interested in the emotional aspects and potential political theater created when little Hanna gets locked out of a Taylor Swift ticket, so mom starts an angry E-mail campaign to their congressperson.

 

[TheBigA]

To me; if Ticketmaster legally meets the criteria for being a monopoly, then their organization should be investigated accordingly. But, the government already allowed this to happen didn't they? Crappy customer service, inadequate IT, POS tech, or just being the biggest dog on the block, shouldn't demand government intervention.

They're two different types of government action. The monopoly question is handled by DOJ. They have demonstrated that even approved mergers can be targeted for monopoly behavior. It's the behavior that is usually cause for the investigation, not the actual merger. Just because the merger was approved doesn't mean they also approve the subsequent behavior. DOJ approval isn't permanent. Different DOJs can see monopolies differently.

The current congressional investigation in this thread is a completely different kind of action, seeking to regulate how the company interacts with consumers. That door is always open, and can be pursued regardless of the motivation.