Sharing More Thoughts On The Live Nation Trial

Some more thoughts on Live Nation/Ticketmaster case, and the ticketing industry in general, as the trial progresses this week with ~30 states after the DOJ, along with some other states, settle.

Obviously there have been a lot of calls to “break up Live Nation”. My response to that sentiment is that it would have absolutely no effect on ticket prices, or anything else for that matter, on the list of grievances. (Ticket availability/transparency, bots’ prevention, major tour onsale processes, ticket platforms’ relationships with venues, ticket resale, dynamic pricing, etc.)

The reality is that there are so many different hands in the cookie jar, artists, artist management, agencies, promoters, production companies, venues, ticketing platforms, ticket brokers, secondary exchanges, etc. – all with their own agendas and all trying to monetize what they can because they are businesses. Live Nation’s success has come from the fact that they were able to consolidate a lot of this so that they can potentially be three or four of the hands simultaneously.

If the company is fractured, the hands are still going to be in the cookie jar and whatever profit margin Live Nation is now receiving is going to be eaten up by higher costs from firms that don’t have the same vertical integration. In other words, the profit margin would be spread out but the cost of doing business would go up and nobody wins.

Do I have a solution? Honestly, not really, at least not a good one. I do believe that focusing solely on Live Nation and if trying to break them up is the only goal, this fundamentally ignores how the live music business ecosystem actually works.

Perhaps a “Paramount Decision” type of ruling where a line gets drawn in the sand is the right call? (The Paramount Decision was a Supreme Court ruling in the late-1940s that effectively prevented movie studios from owning movie theaters and allowed independent theaters to pick-and-choose the films they wished to screen, rather than be required to screen a block of, say six films at-a-time from a particular studio.)

Place the music business on the one side, consisting of artists and management, touring, concert production, and services like merch and VIP packaging and the event business on the other side, consisting of venues, booking services, ticketing (primary & secondary), hospitality and food & beverage. This will probably lead to 2-3 large Fortune 1000 companies shoring up each side, but at least there is a clear wedge in between.

Either that or maybe go back to the regional model of the 1980s – early 2000s where one company can run everything, but for a limited geographical area, but this area would be mandated by law. A de facto reincarnation of firms like Universal Concerts, Cellar Door, Sunshine Promotions and the like.

Politicians, the media, and people in general need to stop trying to tie Taylor Swift to the Live Nation anti-trust case. The Eras Tour onsale debacle is a separate thing entirely. Taylor Swift is not managed by Live Nation her tour was not produced by Live Nation, none of the stadiums were owned by Live Nation and Ticketmaster was not the only ticketing platform used on the tour and ticket resale was not allowed on Ticketmaster for the shows.

I know everyone hates “whataboutisms”, but I do find it interesting that sports are typically not as much of a target when it comes to ticketing controversies, at least in the same vociferous nature as concert ticketing. Top level pro sports teams are basically Live Nation-esque businesses in that they control the talent, the venue and the ticketing (prices, policies and procedures, not hardware or software) the merchandise and the food & beverage.

Additionally, they often own media companies and/or have enough influence over local media organizations that can be weaponized to put down the opinions of people who disagree with their business practices. Many venues are publicly financed, at least in part, and leased back to team for mathematically insignificant amounts. Official attendance and economic impact figures are made up numbers. Pro sports leagues literally have limited antitrust exemptions from the Federal government. This is related more to broadcasting rights than ticketing, but the teams certainly benefit financially.

Despite all of this, high ticket prices are seen as a badge of honor amongst sports fans, especially on the secondary market. If your favorite team has tickets available for under $20, that is an indictment of your fan base, not an opportunity to see the best players in the world at a low price. Meanwhile, concertgoers seemingly think that floor tickets for hot shows should be $100 max, even though they pay only $10.99/mo. to stream every song ever made.

At what point does personal (fiscal) responsibility come into play in all of this? This isn’t a defense of Live Nation, but people realize they can just…not buy tickets if they feel like it is too expensive, right? We’re not talking about food or shelter here, tickets are a choice, a luxury item. If people keep buying enough tickets no matter what the price, what message does that send?

Yes, we can argue about marketing and whether maximizing ticket revenue always is a great strategy (it’s not), but I feel there is a level of entitlement from ticket buyers at times. Legally speaking, nobody is entitled to “affordable” concert tickets. That said, I’ll guarantee the message will get across to all parties involved if suddenly there is a 10-20% drop in sales or revenue for a period of time for a tour or venue.

I certainly understand that there a lot of differing opinions surrounding Live Nation in the live event & ticketing industries. The nature of this case being a high-profile anti-trust dispute also draws in those in the legal, business and political arenas as well. I'm not trying to call out anyone or group in particular, I'm merely providing my perspective on a very convoluted situation and perhaps to provide some clarity to those who are not "in the trenches" so to speak.