I got this email from Metro this morning, and this merger would SUCK for concertgoers.

These two companies have done enough damage separately, imagine if they merged!

 

CONCERT FANS BEWARE

There's a train wreck about to happen and consumer groups say YOU will be the victim - if the two most powerful corporate interests in the live concert business get their way. But you can help stop the merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The government needs to hear from music fans now. Tell the Department of Justice that you're against these monopolies amassing illegal power over consumers, before it's too late.

 

 

As a concertgoer you have already felt the pain, and if Ticketmaster and Live Nation get their way, it'll get worse. In the last 12 years, since Live Nation and its predecessor started its widespread take over of the concert industry, concert tickets have shot up 82% while the consumer price index has gone up just 17%*. We are concerned that if the two concert industry behemoths, Live Nation and Ticketmaster, were permitted to merge, the variety and quality of artists coming to local venues would be affected, and your prices could rise further and faster.

 

Five of the nation's most prominent public interest groups called on the Department of Justice to block the proposed merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation.

 

In the consumer groups' and lawmakers' words:

 

"Consumers deserve a fair deal in the entertainment marketplace, not the fewer choices and higher prices that would result from this merger," said Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection at Consumer Federation of America.

 

"This merger is an insult to both musicians and consumers," said James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International.

 

"We cannot envision a remedy that would ease this chilling impediment to competition... In the absence of other effective, expeditious remedies, the proposed transaction should be prohibited." American Antitrust Institute White Paper

 

As described by Senator Herb Kohl (WI) in the Senate Antitrust hearing, "This merger will not only expand Ticketmaster's control of the ticketing market by eliminating a competitor, but it is also creating an entity that will control the entire chain of the concert business - from artist management to concert promotion and production to ticketing and ticket resale."

 

"This merger would be a disaster for consumers. Nothing short of blocking this takeover of the ticket market by two industry behemoths will be acceptable," said National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg.

 

"As president, I will direct my administration to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement. I will step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare...," said Senator Barak Obama when he was campaigning for the presidency.

 

If you agree with the consumer groups and lawmakers, make a difference and LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD NOW. If you are tired of paying exorbitant ticket prices and service charges and paying for parking on a per head basis and dealing with the gouging, unregulated secondary ticket market in an effort to get good seating. If you are disgusted with paying more and more every year for the live concert experience THAN ACT NOW, CLICK ON THE LINK IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND SEND A MESSAGE TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE URGING THEM TO STOP THIS MERGER!

 

 

 

To email your concerns click below:

 

antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov

 

To learn more click below:

 

ticketdisaster.org

 

Public Interest Groups Call on Justice Department to Block Ticketmaster/LiveNation/Comcast Merger

 

American Antitrust Institute's White Paper TICKETMASTER - LIVE NATION

 

Philadelphia Weekly's cover story "Monopoly Rules"

 

Signed,

Metro / Smart Bar and The 9:30 Club, Merriweather Post Pavilion, Jam Productions, Metropolitan Talent, Another Planet, Frank Productions, Stone City Attractions, Rams Head Live, The Black Cat ...... and independent concert promoters and venue operators nationwide.

Soon we'll be able to pay $10 for the "service" of printing out tickets on our own printer

Too bad competition doesn't work in this case. The competition is which group can generate more dollars for the bands and venues, not who can sell to the public for less.

Too bad competition doesn't work in this case. The competition is which group can generate more dollars for the bands and venues, not who can sell to the public for less.

 

Yeah, but those "convenience" fees don't go to the bands and the venues.

Yeah, but those "convenience" fees don't go to the bands and the venues.

 

I thought the venues select how and who will offer tickets to the public.The anti-trust inquiry that the justice department undertook back when Clinton was president and Pearl Jam was relevant, basically said the real customer is the venues, not the people buying the ticket. Once the venues lined up in favor of Ticketmaster, the justice department backed down. Ticketmaster kicks back part of their fees to the venues, and supposedly, some back to some bands. I probably shgould not have mentioned bands, since the overwhelming majority do not benefit.

I thought the venues select how and who will offer tickets to the public.

Some venues are "Live Nation" owned venues. For example, I know all the House of Blues venues are, I'd like to say all the outdoor venues in the Chicago area are as well.

 

There was a pretty good article in a Rolling Stone that broke down who gets what from the ticket prices & convenience fees. If I can find it, I'll post it.

I thought the venues select how and who will offer tickets to the public.

 

It depends, some bands who have the means handle that stuff themselves to keep their fans from having to pay the added fees.

 

TM adds outrageous fees to the tickets they sell and the bands & venues do not receive much if any of that money.

Edited January 5, 201016 yr by Leonard Zelig

It depends, some bands who have the means handle that stuff themselves to keep their fans from having to pay the added fees.

 

TM adds outrageous fees to the tickets they sell and the bands & venues do not receive much if any of that money.

 

About 30% of the ticket price (which tm does not receive anything from). I'm not certain how outrageous a 30% mark up is. I imagine most retail items we buy carry at least that or more. How else can stores offer a 50% sale? The difference, as I see it, is there is no incentive for another service to come in that reduces the fee. The venues will still go with the vendor that offers *them* the most, not who will offer the ticket buyer a better deal.

 

It has been awhile since I paid any attention, but I thought bands who tried that ran afoul of TM and the venue's exclusive agreements?

About 30% of the ticket price (which tm does not receive anything from). I'm not certain how outrageous a 30% mark up is. I imagine most retail items we buy carry at least that or more. How else can stores offer a 50% sale? The difference, as I see it, is there is no incentive for another service to come in that reduces the fee. The venues will still go with the vendor that offers *them* the most, not who will offer the ticket buyer a better deal.

 

It has been awhile since I paid any attention, but I thought bands who tried that ran afoul of TM and the venue's exclusive agreements?

 

The difference is retail stores purchase the items, TM is not purchasing the tickets.

About 30% of the ticket price (which tm does not receive anything from). I'm not certain how outrageous a 30% mark up is. I imagine most retail items we buy carry at least that or more. How else can stores offer a 50% sale? The difference, as I see it, is there is no incentive for another service to come in that reduces the fee. The venues will still go with the vendor that offers *them* the most, not who will offer the ticket buyer a better deal.

 

It has been awhile since I paid any attention, but I thought bands who tried that ran afoul of TM and the venue's exclusive agreements?

 

Think about it this way, do you think VISA deserves a 30% surcharge for the privilege of transmitting payment confirmations back and forth and providing proof of payment?

The difference is retail stores purchase the items, TM is not purchasing the tickets.

 

And cost of inventory is important, but even deducting for that, there is a cost of being in business. Employees have to be paid, computers maintained, new customers gained. What margin do you think they can work on?

 

Think about it this way, do you think VISA deserves a 30% surcharge for the privilege of transmitting payment confirmations back and forth and providing proof of payment?

 

Thank you for a great example of why TM may not be quite so overpriced. VISA charges interest from the consumers, as high as 20+% *AND* charges the stores a fee. TM gets less than that.

And cost of inventory is important, but even deducting for that, there is a cost of being in business. Employees have to be paid, computers maintained, new customers gained. What margin do you think they can work on?

 

 

 

Thank you for a great example of why TM may not be quite so overpriced. VISA charges interest from the consumers, as high as 20+% *AND* charges the stores a fee. TM gets less than that.

 

 

No, Visa does not. The issuing bank charges the interest, not visa. They're just a clearinghouse.

No, Visa does not. The issuing bank charges the interest, not visa. They're just a clearinghouse.

 

GP, but the cost of the transaction, above and beyond the cost of the item, are about the same.

You can get a different card that gives you better rates.

GP, but the cost of the transaction, above and beyond the cost of the item, are about the same.

 

VISA charges the merchant receiving the funds between 1 and 4% of the cost of the transaction. Instead of using VISA, you can use a number of other credit and debit card systems. Or write a check, or use cash for the transaction.

 

Ticketmaster and LiveNation charges the consumer a surcharge of up to 30% in order to provide a transaction of a ticket owned by the venue/artist and deliver it to you, by you using your own ink and paper to print the ticket. Instead of using Ticketmaster or Livenation, you can either not make the transaction or try to illegally sneak into the show.

 

So, please tell me why Ticketmaster - providing what is essentially the same service as VISA (but for concert tickets and less competition) is fairly priced again?

You can get a different card that gives you better rates.

Or just pay the card off every month. No one is forcing you to carry a balance.

VISA charges the merchant receiving the funds between 1 and 4% of the cost of the transaction. Instead of using VISA, you can use a number of other credit and debit card systems. Or write a check, or use cash for the transaction.

 

Ticketmaster and LiveNation charges the consumer a surcharge of up to 30% in order to provide a transaction of a ticket owned by the venue/artist and deliver it to you, by you using your own ink and paper to print the ticket. Instead of using Ticketmaster or Livenation, you can either not make the transaction or try to illegally sneak into the show.

 

So, please tell me why Ticketmaster - providing what is essentially the same service as VISA (but for concert tickets and less competition) is fairly priced again?

 

How often do you speak to a VISA rep? Every time you use your card?

How many VISA transactions versus TM are done each year?

When you have a problem with a transaction, do you speak to VISA or the issuing bank and store?

Is the software needs the same? Seems like tracking every venue and their different seating arrangements for each show is more labor intensive.

Does VISA have to compete for anybody's business? It seems that venues have a bigger choice in how to sell tickets than stores and banks that want to accept/issue credit cards.

 

I'm not saying TM is or isn't overcharging, I'm not an expert in their industry. I don't think VISA is a fair comparison. And I don't think that they can survive on 3 or 4%.