Field Dispatch
Live Nation and Ticketmaster vs. Department of Justice | Matt Connarton Unleashed
Speaker 1: Should we start with the Taylor Swift part of this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this involves Live Nation and Ticketmaster and lawsuits and controversies,
Speaker 1: and and as I always say, whenever we talk about
Speaker 1: this stuff, you know, it seems like, UH, Live Nation
Speaker 1: and Ticketmaster comes up a lot on the show when
Speaker 1: we talk about music news and lawsuits and litigation and
Speaker 1: Department of Justice investigations and so forth. They're always in
Speaker 1: the news. But this is the article that you sent me.
Speaker 1: This is from UH Complete fo Yeah, Complete Music Update
Speaker 1: dot com. Yep, this just this just went up a
Speaker 1: couple of days ago. Taylor Swift and Barclays Center ticketing
Speaker 1: controversies prove monopolist Live Nation is damaging live music, Department
Speaker 1: of Justice tells jury. UH. The Live Nation antitrust trial
Speaker 1: got properly under way this week, with lawyers for the
Speaker 1: US Department of Justice and the Live giant UH delivering
Speaker 1: their opening statements.
Speaker 2: UH.
Speaker 1: Ticketing dramas involving Taylor Swift and New York's Barclays Center
Speaker 1: were a key part of the proceedings. So let's take
Speaker 1: a look at this. So, according to this article, the
Speaker 1: concert ticket industry is broken. In fact, the concert industry
Speaker 1: itself is broken and because both concerts and ticketing are
Speaker 1: controlled by a monopolist, and that monopolist is Live Nation.
Speaker 1: Those were the bold words of US Department of Justice
Speaker 1: lawyer David Dahlquist on day one of the big Live
Speaker 1: Nation antitrust trial in New York yesterday. All right, I'm sorry, Well,
Speaker 1: so this would have been the third because this article
Speaker 1: went up on the fourth a trial. The Live giants,
Speaker 1: lawyers and lobbyists tried very hard, indeed, to ensure what
Speaker 1: never happen, according to the DOJ and attorneys general for
Speaker 1: forty US states. So forty US states are participating in
Speaker 1: this Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary unlawfully exploit their
Speaker 1: market dominance at shows, venues, and ticketing to the detriment
Speaker 1: of artists, fans, and the wider music community. Live Nation
Speaker 1: strongly denies all these allegations, of course, and it's now
Speaker 1: for a jury to hear arguments from both sides and
Speaker 1: decide who is right. By the way, this is a
Speaker 1: side note. It is surprising, and I think we talked
Speaker 1: about this before that the Department of Justice under the
Speaker 1: current administration actually cares about any of this. But they
Speaker 1: but they do so good.
Speaker 3: Happily surprised that that it is on the radar because
Speaker 3: we've talked about this for years and the artists are
Speaker 3: the ones who get ripped.
Speaker 1: Off well and you know the consumers well, I mean
Speaker 1: we've talked about of course that's the shady course, the
Speaker 1: shady practices of uh.
Speaker 3: But it's like you always I always think about the
Speaker 3: artists like they bust their took us as they go
Speaker 3: from state to state pilon in shows and it's like
Speaker 3: they get pennies on the dollar for the tickets. The
Speaker 3: people are coming to see them, right, But it's the
Speaker 3: people selling everything that make the majority of the money. Boy,
Speaker 3: that sounds like healthcare.
Speaker 1: Well they make Uh, they make the money on merch.
Speaker 1: Merch is where the money is for the artists. It's
Speaker 1: not on it's not on ticket sales.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, it's not include it doesn't include ticket sales, and
Speaker 3: it should. Uh.
Speaker 2: There are some artists that try to rebel.
Speaker 1: So it says here from the off Dohlquist and the
Speaker 1: other Dave Live Nations Legal Rep. Dave Marriott of Latham
Speaker 1: and Watkins Watkins, ll P began the Battle of the
Speaker 1: stats because both Daves have stats to hand, uh to hand,
Speaker 1: which they claim prove that they are right. Yes, both
Speaker 1: sides are represented by Dave, both of whom claim the
Speaker 1: stats back up their case, which isn't at all confusing.
Speaker 1: According to do o J Dave aka mister Dahlquist, the
Speaker 1: author of this article was having a little too much
Speaker 1: fun with this, Dave. It's a little too much little.
Speaker 1: It's actually a little annoying.
Speaker 2: It makes a confusing it's not helpful.
Speaker 1: According to DAJO DOJ Dave aka mister Dolquist, Live Nation
Speaker 1: controls eighty six percent of large concert ticketing in the Oh,
Speaker 1: that's not a monopoly of large concert two no, not
Speaker 1: at all in the US, and seventy eight percent of
Speaker 1: the country's amphitheater venues, which we can all agree sounds
Speaker 1: like something we should be worried about. But of ticketing
Speaker 1: at large, Ticketmaster has a forty percent market share and
Speaker 1: for venues twenty percent. Live Nation Dave or mister Marriott countered.
Speaker 1: One of Live's Nation's key arguments is that the DOJ
Speaker 1: is slice the entertainment market up into artificial segments in
Speaker 1: order to make it look like the Live Giant is
Speaker 1: much more dominant than it really is. It seems likely
Speaker 1: that this stat bickering will continue throughout the trial, though
Speaker 1: what jurys really like his stories, and yesterday's opening statements
Speaker 1: had two good stories to tell, which illustrate the tangible
Speaker 1: negative impact of Live Nation's monopoly or not, depending on
Speaker 1: which Dave you believe. Story one, Once upon a time
Speaker 1: there was an arena venue in New York called the
Speaker 1: Barclays Center, and one day it decided to change its
Speaker 1: ticketing provider from Ticketmaster to seat Geek. Except the next day,
Speaker 1: well about eighteen months later, it switched back to Ticketmaster.
Speaker 1: So what happened? I mean, we know there was an
Speaker 1: angry phone call involving Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, But
Speaker 1: did Live Nation actually use its dominance in arena level
Speaker 1: touring to force the arena to return to its ticketing
Speaker 1: business or was seat Geek just not up to the
Speaker 1: task for providing primary ticketing for New York's big arena venue. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, you know, did Live Nation somehow strong
Speaker 1: arm the Barclays Center and in doing so did they
Speaker 1: potentially do something illegal? So, getting back to the article,
Speaker 1: according to DOJ lawyer Dohlquist, while management at Barclays Center
Speaker 1: wanted to use seat Geek for their ticketing. It became
Speaker 1: very clear of that quote if they didn't use Ticketmaster,
Speaker 1: Live Nation's touring division and wouldn't send them any concerts unquote.
Speaker 1: So basically, when Barclay Center moved its ticketing to seat Geek, quote,
Speaker 1: live Nation punished them and they were forced to go
Speaker 1: back to Ticketmaster unquote. Before we go any further, that
Speaker 1: raises a question, is that, is that where is the
Speaker 1: line between between just being hardball hardcore business people. Where's
Speaker 1: the line between that and just being outright predatory? And
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2: I think they crossed it a while ago. I think
Speaker 2: they are predatory.
Speaker 1: Is is that but that example, specifically, Okay, you're not
Speaker 1: going to use our ticketing business. We're just not going
Speaker 1: to send you anymore because we're this powerful, We're just
Speaker 1: not gonna send you any more big shows, right?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 1: I mean? Technically, are you going is your order here?
Speaker 1: Your coffee order? Yeah, okay, Jenny's going to get her
Speaker 1: coffee order. But I just but I just I pose
Speaker 1: that question, like, like, where is the line between you know,
Speaker 1: just playing hardball and actually doing something that would be
Speaker 1: considered predatory and therefore potentially illegal or at least leaving
Speaker 1: you vulnerable in some sort of civil action. I asked
Speaker 1: that question. I'm not a legal expert of any kind.
Speaker 1: Uh So I don't know the answer. I'm just asking,
Speaker 1: and I guess you know it's subjective. But okay, getting
Speaker 1: back to the article. But the Live Nation chief never
Speaker 1: threatened to stop concerts being promoted by his company's Story
Speaker 1: division from being staged at the New York Arena and
Speaker 1: the Barclay Center ultimately returned to Ticketmaster quote not because
Speaker 1: of any threats, but because seat geek fell down on
Speaker 1: the job unquote. Okay, story number two. Once upon a
Speaker 1: time there was a singer called Taylor Swift who decided
Speaker 1: to sing some of her songs on an airass tour.
Speaker 1: She appointed Ticketmaster to send her tickets, but on the
Speaker 1: day the tickets went on sale, Oh to sell her
Speaker 1: tickets rather, But on the day the tickets went on sale,
Speaker 1: everything crashed, resulting in a lot of very angry Swift fans.
Speaker 1: I remember that we talked about that on the show,
Speaker 1: Oh Dear. But here's the question. Did it all go
Speaker 1: wrong because the Live Nation ticketing company got complacent because
Speaker 1: it enjoys a virtual monopoly over concert ticketing and as
Speaker 1: a result failed to build a decent it infrastructure or
Speaker 1: was the demand for Swift's tickets, including from dubious Bot
Speaker 1: using ticket touts, at an unprecedented high, and there isn't
Speaker 1: a ticketing platform in the world that could have copied
Speaker 1: in those circumstances. By the way, I tend to think that,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, if anyone has the necessary infrastructure
Speaker 1: to handle the demand for a big tour like that,
Speaker 1: it would be Live Nation and Ticketmaster, right, so probably
Speaker 1: the latter. There just isn't a ticketing platform in the
Speaker 1: world that could have handled that without But I do
Speaker 1: remember we covered that on the show. Okay, continuing on
Speaker 1: with the article, Well, according to Dohlquist, the Swift debacle
Speaker 1: was simply emblematic of a company that has little competitive
Speaker 1: incentive to build a consumer friendly ticketing product that is
Speaker 1: fit for purpose. He said, quote, their technology is held
Speaker 1: together by duct tape. They have prioritized growth over maintaining
Speaker 1: their systems unquote. And by the way, that's very common,
Speaker 1: very common in business. A lot of tech companies or
Speaker 1: companies that rely on tech will do that, you know.
Speaker 1: They they're so focused on growing and growing and growing
Speaker 1: their market share, that maybe some of their infrastructure is
Speaker 1: left to not keep up with what they're trying to do,
Speaker 1: and they you know, and sometimes websites crash as a
Speaker 1: result of it. It happens, Okay, So Marriott countered that, yes,
Speaker 1: the Taylor Swift launch was a debacle, and Ticketmaster never
Speaker 1: has denied that fact. But this was the single largest
Speaker 1: on sale ever or her tour. Taylor Swift, and the
Speaker 1: cyber attacks by touts and other rogue parties created challenges
Speaker 1: that no other ticketing company could have dealt with any better.
Speaker 1: The Barclay Center bust up and Taylor Swift the Taylor
Speaker 1: Swift on sale are likely to be referenced throughout the trial,
Speaker 1: with the DOJ keen to present these events as tangible
Speaker 1: proof of live Music's monopoly problem, while Live Nation will
Speaker 1: insist these are instead incidents that have been misrepresented. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the case swings on whether there is enough evidence to
Speaker 1: show that Live Nation routinely ties its venue management, tour promotions,
Speaker 1: and ticketing services together in a way that specifically violates
Speaker 1: US laws at a federal or state level. Though a
Speaker 1: jury is involved, the stats and stories will likely be
Speaker 1: a key part of the narrative as the proceedings progress
Speaker 1: and the two daves present their respective arguments. Okay, now
Speaker 1: we have a second article that kind of expands on
Speaker 1: that because it's directly related to that. Now, this is
Speaker 1: from Digital Music News, which is one of my favorite
Speaker 1: websites to get music news from. Check this out, and
Speaker 1: it's got kind of a provocative title to this article.
Speaker 1: What is Live Nation retaliation insurance? You don't want to know?
Speaker 1: That's that's the title of this article. Yeah, yeah, so
Speaker 1: you know, because we're talking about Live Nation and there
Speaker 1: what could be considered predatory business practices. Okay, and again
Speaker 1: this is from Digital Musicnews dot com. Former BSE Global
Speaker 1: CEO John abmont I should have pre read this, Abamandi,
Speaker 1: I think isn't the only one to deliver testimony that
Speaker 1: Live Nation retaliated when his venue explored a compelling I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: a competing proposal. Here's the latest with the federal antitrust law.
Speaker 1: So again this refers to the article. This refers to
Speaker 1: the lawsuit we were talking about in the other article,
Speaker 1: with the federal antitrust trial against Live Nation and Ticketmaster
Speaker 1: in full swing. Venue owners are testifying that Live Nation
Speaker 1: weaponized major tour dates to keep them from switching their
Speaker 1: ticketing to a competitor. Again, like seat Geek, the Barclay
Speaker 1: Center tried to do. Digital Music News covered testimony from
Speaker 1: former BSE Global CEO John Abamandi relating to a planned
Speaker 1: Billie Eilish show at the Barclay Center that Live Nation
Speaker 1: allegedly rug pulled. Now Mitch Helgerson, chief revenue officer for
Speaker 1: the Minnesota Wild, has lobbied So I'm sorry, has lobbed
Speaker 1: similar allegations against the Live Events Juggernaut. According to Helgerson,
Speaker 1: when is Music Venue explored a proposal from Live Nation
Speaker 1: competitor Seat Geek during contract negotiations, a Ticketmaster executive warned
Speaker 1: him that Live Nation could just move its shows to
Speaker 1: a competing venue. Helgerson called this a credible threat and
Speaker 1: noted that losing those would have been catastrophic. And again,
Speaker 1: I just raised the question, is that is that just hardball,
Speaker 1: hardball business tactics, or is that does that cross the line?
Speaker 1: Is it predatory? When seek Geek heard the news, they
Speaker 1: were apparently keenly aware of Live Nation strategy, offering the
Speaker 1: Wild what it literally referred to as a Live Nation
Speaker 1: retaliation insurance, that is, a promise to compensate the venue
Speaker 1: if concerts were pulled. Well, good on sea Geek for
Speaker 1: stepping up, I guess, but how do you, uh, how
Speaker 1: do you even do that? Though? How could they put like,
Speaker 1: if all these events are pulled, how are they going
Speaker 1: to compensate the venue? Interesting? But even with that, getting
Speaker 1: back to the article, but even with that offer, and
Speaker 1: even though the sea Geek proposal would have ranked would
Speaker 1: have raked in an additional million dollars a year for
Speaker 1: the venue, the Wild Hockey team ultimately chose to stay
Speaker 1: with Ticketmaster. The most damning part is that if seat
Speaker 1: geek has a policy it refers to, even colloquially as
Speaker 1: Live Nation retaliation insurance, then the company's reputation as a
Speaker 1: monopoly seems correctly placed. Of course, Live Nation has fervently
Speaker 1: pushed back against these allegations. In the similar ones posited
Speaker 1: by Abamandi on cross examination, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: emphasis on the complexity of switching ticketing platforms, that seat
Speaker 1: geek had real usability shortcomings. In that Abamandi's case, he
Speaker 1: already had personal relationships with seat geek execs. However, none
Speaker 1: of this explains why the Billie Eilis show in New
Speaker 1: York ended up twenty miles away after so called thinly
Speaker 1: veiled frets from Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Nor does it
Speaker 1: explain why the Minnesota Wild would leave a million dollars
Speaker 1: a year on the table, if not out of fear
Speaker 1: of retaliation. It's only been the first week of the trial,
Speaker 1: which is expected to last about six weeks. Time will
Speaker 1: tell if the jury ultimately agrees with the government's assertion
Speaker 1: that Live Nation has in fact becomes such a dominant
Speaker 1: force that it can essentially bully the rest of the
Speaker 1: industry into taking a knee. But if Abamandi and Helgerson's
Speaker 1: testimonies are any indication, the first week isn't looking good
Speaker 1: for Live Nation. So that is from Digitalmusicnews dot com.
Speaker 1: And again you know the Live Nation and Ticketmaster there.
Speaker 1: For as long as I can remember, this is not
Speaker 1: a recent thing. For as long as I can remember,
Speaker 1: they've always been in the news attached to some sort
Speaker 1: of controversy investigation, very often over over predatory business practices
Speaker 1: or alleged predatory business practices. One more little bit of
Speaker 1: a piece to this. This is not directly relate to
Speaker 1: this specific trial, but this is from me Music Businessworldwide
Speaker 1: dot Com. It does relate to ticketing. Music industry groups
Speaker 1: push us Senate to titan Ticket Act and cap resale
Speaker 1: fees at ten percent. So this is short, but this
Speaker 1: will kind of put a put a cap pun fully
Speaker 1: intended in this case on this what we've been talking
Speaker 1: about this morning. So again, this is from Music Business
Speaker 1: Worldwide dot Com, one of my favorite websites for music
Speaker 1: industry news. By the way, this is another great site
Speaker 1: if you're interested in this stuff. A group of music
Speaker 1: and live music organizations is pressing the Senate to titan
Speaker 1: federal ticketing legislation, arguing that the current version of the
Speaker 1: Ticket Act is insufficient in protecting fans. The fix. The
Speaker 1: TICS coalition, led by the National Independent Venue Association, wrote
Speaker 1: an open letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
Speaker 1: and Transportation calling for changes to the Ticket Act. The
Speaker 1: letter was addressed to Chairman Ted Cruz, ranking Member Maria Cantwell,
Speaker 1: sub Committee Chairman Marsha Blackburn, and ranking Member John Hickenlooper.
Speaker 1: They wrote, quote, when federal policy falls short, fans pay
Speaker 1: the price. They lose money and cur unnecessary travel costs
Speaker 1: and waste. Time they missed the show they planned around,
Speaker 1: and they often blame the artists, venue, or team rather
Speaker 1: than the reseller or platform that misled them. Meanwhile, scalpers
Speaker 1: and speculative sellers assume none of the risk and face
Speaker 1: few meaningful consequences unquote. And by the way, just to
Speaker 1: just to you know, remind people if you don't know,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about resellers and scalpers, you know, there's
Speaker 1: all these we call them the secondary market. Very often,
Speaker 1: when these tickets go on sale through Live Nation and Ticketmaster,
Speaker 1: you might notice, and this has been going on literally
Speaker 1: for decades. You know, shows seem to sell out, big,
Speaker 1: big tours, seem to sell out very very quickly, and
Speaker 1: you might ask yourself, how is it possible that these
Speaker 1: shows sell out so quickly? Even with the internet, how
Speaker 1: can so many people log on and buy so many
Speaker 1: tickets at once? Well, very often it's these resellers, these
Speaker 1: secondary market ticket sellers, who buy up a lot of
Speaker 1: tickets and then once the show is quote unquote sold out,
Speaker 1: now all of a sudden, these secondary market resellers, oh
Speaker 1: they've got tickets at a significantly higher price, but they've
Speaker 1: got tickets for you. So it is a form of helping.
Speaker 1: They are it is a form of scalping. They use
Speaker 1: bots to buy up tickets. Ticketmaster, for their part, they
Speaker 1: have policies that you can only buy so many tickets
Speaker 1: at a time, But as we've discussed on the show,
Speaker 1: it is no secret that those policies are not necessarily
Speaker 1: consistently enforced by the very technology that is supposed to
Speaker 1: prevent scalpers and bots from buying up all these tickets
Speaker 1: at once. So it's a dirty business. The ticketing business
Speaker 1: is a dirty business.
Speaker 3: Remember when I was a kid going with my mom
Speaker 3: and camping out on the sidewalk in a line with
Speaker 3: other people outside a ticket Master, waiting for the moment
Speaker 3: that the door would open. And back in the day,
Speaker 3: the only way you could buy tickets was in person
Speaker 3: or on the phone, so it was harder for scalpers.
Speaker 3: They still did it. They still did it, but it
Speaker 3: was harder on them because you only had those two avenues.
Speaker 3: And you know, I did this with my mom. We
Speaker 3: went to see Prince. It was the most amazing experience.
Speaker 3: But nowadays, with the technology, they should be able to
Speaker 3: tell like okay, ip address, we've got bots here, because
Speaker 3: so and so you know, there's four bots in here
Speaker 3: buying X number of tickets at the same time from
Speaker 3: the same IP address. But that doesn't necessarily happen. And
Speaker 3: do they really care? Do they really care? Because what
Speaker 3: they want is a fast buck. They want the biggest
Speaker 3: profit that they can get. They want every ticket to sell, absolutely,
Speaker 3: So as long as they're.
Speaker 2: Selling, hey, they're meeting their their margins. You know, they're
Speaker 2: making their profit.
Speaker 3: And the heck with the venue, you know, to heck
Speaker 3: with the with the band, to heck with the people,
Speaker 3: because you know, it sounds like healthcare. You know, it's
Speaker 3: the big guys. These guys have multimillion dollar salaries. They
Speaker 3: make a ton of money. You know, there's shareholders that
Speaker 3: they make a ton of money. And it's always about
Speaker 3: how much more can you make me? How much more
Speaker 3: can you make me? Because it's never enough. Then, you know,
Speaker 3: million dollar profit not enough, make me more? Five million
Speaker 3: dollar profit not enough, make me more. That's what happens.
Speaker 3: And they don't care. I don't believe that they care.
Speaker 3: And the reason I say that is because I can remember.
Speaker 3: For all of my adult life, this has been a
Speaker 3: topic consistently. There's been core case after core case. There's
Speaker 3: been DJ investigations nationally as well as states. We've been
Speaker 3: talking about this and hearing about this for as long
Speaker 3: as Ticketmaster has existed. Yes, yes, and they have consistently
Speaker 3: gotten away and found way is to skirt around the
Speaker 3: laws that they have.
Speaker 2: The monopoly on sales of tickets period. They just do.
Speaker 2: That's a fact.
Speaker 1: Even program had to back down in the nineties when
Speaker 1: they tried to They tried, they tried.
Speaker 3: And they're not the artists that have said, well, I'm
Speaker 3: not going to sell my tickets to them because I
Speaker 3: don't like the way they do business.
Speaker 2: And they try, they try, but then they end up
Speaker 2: having to go back.
Speaker 3: Why because all the venues are using that and they're
Speaker 3: not giving them. There's no alternative way for them to
Speaker 3: do it. That they get to hold this monopoly. They
Speaker 3: have a stranglehold on ticket sales. And I find it interesting.
Speaker 3: Did you get to the bottom part? I don't know
Speaker 3: if I missed. Did you get to the bottom part
Speaker 3: of that article?
Speaker 1: No? About halfway through it?
Speaker 2: Oh, okay, then I'll hold off on my additional.
Speaker 1: Okay, so yeah, a little bit more to this again.
Speaker 1: This is from Music Business Worldwide dot Com so, it says.
Speaker 1: The push comes over a month after a January twenty
Speaker 1: eight Senate Committee Herey Subcommittee hearing where Blackburn led a
Speaker 1: panel of lawmakers in pressing Live Nation to do more
Speaker 1: to clamp down on ticket scalping. Live Nations Executive vice
Speaker 1: president of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs Dan Wall was present
Speaker 1: at the hearing alongside musician Kid Rock and other stakeholders.
Speaker 1: The coalition, whose signatories include the Recording Academy, SAG after
Speaker 1: a Event Bright and American Federation of Musicians, and more
Speaker 1: than a dozen other organizations, said the bill contains gaps
Speaker 1: that bad actors will continue to exploit. They wrote, quote,
Speaker 1: the Ticket Act is a step forward, but without a
Speaker 1: complete ban on speculative ticketing and forceable limits on resale
Speaker 1: pricing and fees and robust end to end price transparency,
Speaker 1: bad actors will continue to exploit gaps in the law
Speaker 1: the expense of fans and communities. On pricing transparency, the
Speaker 1: groups are demanding disclosure of the base ticket price and
Speaker 1: every associated fee to appear from the moment a customer
Speaker 1: selects a ticket, not just at checkout quote not requiring
Speaker 1: ticket price and ticket fees broken out in a is
Speaker 1: a shortcoming of the Federal Trade Commissions All in Pricing rule,
Speaker 1: and we are looking to Congress directify it unquote on
Speaker 1: speculative ticketing. The coalition is called for a prohibition without exception,
Speaker 1: they wrote, quote as multiple witnesses testified tickets that do
Speaker 1: not exist, are not in the seller's possession, or are
Speaker 1: marketed through so called concierge or seat saver schemes are
Speaker 1: not a service. They are deception unquote and predatory. Tend
Speaker 1: to agree it's predatory as well. Yeah, you're desperate to
Speaker 1: go see.
Speaker 3: Somebody and something like that pops up, You snag it.
Speaker 3: You don't even Sometimes people don't even realize how much
Speaker 3: they got ripped off until later on when they find
Speaker 3: out what the prices truly were, or they talk to
Speaker 3: somebody else and they go, geez, I spent three hundred
Speaker 3: dollars more than that?
Speaker 2: How come? Who conchier's service?
Speaker 3: It really isn't it's just a fancy word for a scalper.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 3: And the problem has been consistent in that every time
Speaker 3: there's legislation to try and regulate this issue, it gets
Speaker 3: defeated or it doesn't even make it.
Speaker 1: For a vote.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm hopeful that Okay, the DJ is actually
Speaker 3: on this and forty states out.
Speaker 2: Of fifties awful lot.
Speaker 3: You know, should in Congress do something when this has
Speaker 3: been a consistent issue time and again, bill after bill
Speaker 3: of trying to rain this in to make sure that
Speaker 3: you know, people aren't just getting ripped off because the
Speaker 3: system doesn't isn't is still not protective of the consumer
Speaker 3: and the artist. It protects the scalper more than it
Speaker 3: does the consumer and the artist because the safeguards aren't in.
Speaker 1: Place, it says here. The letter also calls for deleting
Speaker 1: the Bills Services Permitted Provision and proposes direct by the
Speaker 1: Act so that a ticket issuer oh quote, a ticket issuer,
Speaker 1: secondary market ticket issuer, or a secondary market ticket exchange
Speaker 1: that does not have actual or constructive possession of an
Speaker 1: event ticket shall not sell, offer for sale, or advertise
Speaker 1: for sale such an event ticket unquote. The third demand
Speaker 1: is for a ban on reselling. This is the important
Speaker 1: part of this whole thing.
Speaker 2: Isn't this weird though?
Speaker 3: That you have to create a band to say you
Speaker 3: can't sell something you don't have, I know, right.
Speaker 1: It's wild?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that should be a basic consumer law. How do
Speaker 2: you sell something you don't have right?
Speaker 1: Right that as a loophole. The third demand is for
Speaker 1: a ban on reselling off tickets above the original total
Speaker 1: cost and for a cap of all resale fees at
Speaker 1: no more than ten percent quote. Across the country, fans
Speaker 1: are being priced out of live events, not because artists
Speaker 1: or venues raise prices, but because resale markets allow unlimited
Speaker 1: markups and excessive fees divorced from any added value or risk.
Speaker 1: A federal prohibition on resale above the original total cost,
Speaker 1: combined with a strict cap on resale fees, would directly
Speaker 1: address price gouging, align incentives toward real fan access, and
Speaker 1: ensure that tickets end up in the hands of fans,
Speaker 1: not industrial speculators. A companion House Bill HR fourteen oh
Speaker 1: two pass House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support in
Speaker 1: April twenty twenty five, and was placed on the Senate
Speaker 1: calendar in September s two eighty one. The Senate's own
Speaker 1: version remains in committee. So there you go.
Speaker 3: So if that's not bad enough, then you have all
Speaker 3: of the the quote unquote threats yeah to the venues
Speaker 3: that there's accusations of you know, like about the Billie
Speaker 3: Eilish part.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, where the what was it? The show is
Speaker 2: in New York.
Speaker 3: The show was supposed to be in New York, but
Speaker 3: it ended up twenty miles away. After there was some
Speaker 3: kind of a thinly veiled threat from Live Nations slash Ticketmaster,
Speaker 3: because I remember Live Ation and Ticketmaster are the same thing, right,
Speaker 3: they really are.
Speaker 2: It's not two different things these are.
Speaker 3: They're own by the same people, just two different flags
Speaker 3: they sit underneath. So if you're going to Live Nation,
Speaker 3: you are buying from Ticketmaster, period, right, So don't think
Speaker 3: that those terms aren't aren't interchangeable, because they are. Or
Speaker 3: wherein they talked about the Minnesota Wild would walk away
Speaker 3: from a million dollar deal out of fear of being
Speaker 3: retaliated against by Live Nation Ticketmaster, right, you know, So
Speaker 3: if it's not bad enough, what we just said is
Speaker 3: already happening to consumers this other side. It's almost like
Speaker 3: a mafia attitude with ticket sales. These companies are like, yeah,
Speaker 3: you must come to the dog to get permission to
Speaker 3: sell this or something like, right, because it is you know,
Speaker 3: if you're not selling your tickets through us, we're going
Speaker 3: to threaten to never sell your venue's tickets again.
Speaker 1: Right, you will get nobody. You know.
Speaker 3: This is it's it's beyond wrong now. It's it went
Speaker 3: from the from being a monopolly to now being a mafia.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If you're if
Speaker 3: people are afraid, that's yeah, the fear is coming from that.
Speaker 3: It's it's ridiculous. We've been saying this for years. This
Speaker 3: is not about the free market. The free market isn't
Speaker 3: fixing this. That's making it worse. What will fix it
Speaker 3: is to have regulation that doesn't allow because we have
Speaker 3: to apparently create a new law because apparently existing law
Speaker 3: doesn't prevent somebody from selling something they don't even have. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I am selling one hundred tickets to this concert at
Speaker 3: a three hundred dollars market concil and I haven't even
Speaker 3: bought the tickets yet.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't even have them in my hand yet.
Speaker 1: The only thing though, that does that does happen in
Speaker 1: other sectors. I mean, you know, well even in the
Speaker 1: music industry, like you know, artists will you know, put
Speaker 1: things on pre sale that aren't necessarily available yet.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean, they have their own tickets
Speaker 2: that isn't.
Speaker 1: But I just mean, like you can you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: you can buy a single or thing. Yeah, that's an orange.
Speaker 2: I don't either sale you're selling something, But I'm just
Speaker 2: that you.
Speaker 1: Have you have it, but you might not have it yet,
Speaker 1: is what I'm saying. So you might be working on
Speaker 1: something that you're or if you're crowdfunding something a project
Speaker 1: or something. So there are other examples.
Speaker 3: Huge difference to that in saying I have one hundred tickets. No,
Speaker 3: I agree, and I don't actually have the tickets. And
Speaker 3: that's what the article is super clear about is that
Speaker 3: in a lot of these secondary markets, they're getting their
Speaker 3: hands on nothing but your money. Then they're getting this
Speaker 3: huge markup, and then they just take a small portion
Speaker 3: out of your money and go and actually buy the
Speaker 3: ticket you could have bought for that price, but they
Speaker 3: swindled you. And these companies get get better and better
Speaker 3: at it. In any industry, you'll see, like now, when
Speaker 3: you go in and put in a search for something,
Speaker 3: they're buying sponsored spots that get them to pop up
Speaker 3: to the top. And most of the time we click
Speaker 3: on what's the first thing we see, right, pay it.
Speaker 2: Don't do that anymore. Take a look at it. Always. Look.
Speaker 3: This is what I do now is I always look
Speaker 3: at what comes up first, and I look for the
Speaker 3: word sponsored. So I know that's a yes, at least
Speaker 3: it's labeled.
Speaker 2: But you can look for.
Speaker 1: That same thing if you google something.
Speaker 3: Right exactly look for that word sponsored, and then you
Speaker 3: know that person paid to have that there.
Speaker 2: It's not that they came up first because of ratings
Speaker 2: or because.
Speaker 1: A problem with that, especially since it's labeled.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying pay attention.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because that's just because it comes up first, doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that's where you should click. You know, check out
Speaker 3: what comes up down underneath the sponsored off. The venue
Speaker 3: itself could potentially be selling tickets, right, you know, like
Speaker 3: the box office in Conquered, they don't they sell them
Speaker 3: right at the window.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can.
Speaker 3: You can go and buy a ticket in person at
Speaker 3: their window. You don't have to go through ticket Master
Speaker 3: or a Live Nation to do that, right. Most venues
Speaker 3: still do that at least. Yeah, So look for that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: don't just snag that first one. Watch out for those
Speaker 3: sponsored Those are ads they're trying to get you to
Speaker 3: click on them. Yeah, So take a moment to peruse
Speaker 3: and if you can have the option of buying directly
Speaker 3: from the venue or the artists, do it, right, absolutely
Speaker 3: do it because that way, you know, the money is
Speaker 3: actually going to go back to the artists and the
Speaker 3: venue actually like these places are actually making the money
Speaker 3: versus Ticketmaster buying it. And right, yeah, you're basically feeding
Speaker 3: the multi millionaires that fly in private jets that they
Speaker 3: don't want to fly with you on commercial flight because
Speaker 3: they don't want to fly with the peasants.
Speaker 2: This is who we're up against. The giant people who.
Speaker 3: Have multi you know, they have giant houses, billionaires, and
Speaker 3: it's all about increasing that profit.
Speaker 2: For them more and more and more and more and more.
Speaker 2: It's never gonna be enough.
Speaker 3: So we have to curb this by encouraging this kind
Speaker 3: of legislation to protect the artists.
Speaker 2: And to get the money to go where it really
Speaker 2: should be.
Speaker 3: The bands that pay, you know, they pay in their
Speaker 3: blood and sweat from thousands of hours of practicing and
Speaker 3: go to put on a concert. You want the money
Speaker 3: to go to them as much as possible, So look
Speaker 3: for the options before you go and buy from Ticketmaster.
Speaker 3: If there is an alternative that is directly from the artist,
Speaker 3: or directly from the venue. That might be a better
Speaker 3: bet for your dollar, and it might be better priced
Podbean