Hacker News Reader

Just tried searching for a long-form article I read in recent years. Wish I could find it, but obviously the facts are not a secret. It explained in depth all the problems with the monopoly, but it also pointed out something very surprising to me. A few artists have spoken out angrily on behalf of their fans. However, the fact is, the artists in general do financially benefit from Ticketmaster's way of doing things. Part of Ticketmaster's business model is taking the heat from the fans who don't like paying all the extra fees so that the anger is not directed at the artists. If an artist wants to set the floor at $150 but knows fans might be upset, they can drop the price 30% and TicketMaster can help them make up the difference in fees, and Ticketmaster has nothing to lose. The artists get to keep their reputation intact instead of appearing greedy to fans.

Was it possibly actually a podcast? https://www.npr.org/2025/10/23/nx-s1-5582775/are-concert-tic...

You know what? Might have been Freakonomics:

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-live-event-ticke...

I remember a Planet Money episode, but I can't find it now. Maybe it was NPR instead

Could it be this podcast? https://www.organizedmoney.fm/p/emergency-pod-the-live-natio...

If an artist wants to set the floor at $150 but knows fans might be upset, they can drop the price 30% and TicketMaster can help them make up the difference in fees, and Ticketmaster has nothing to lose. The artists get to keep their reputation intact instead of appearing greedy to fans

This myth keeps getting promulgated and it's just that: a myth. The podcast was wrong about how the music industry actually works.

Venues and promoters set the ticket prices, not the artists. The artists get a fixed fee for their performances, and may get a bonus if a certain % of tickets are sold. Even artists on tours don't get to choose the ticket prices. They can ask nicely, but ultimately the promoter decides.

Do you have evidence for your claims?

Variety, Billboard.com, Ticket News, any of a dozen other industry rags. Take your pick.

It really depends. Artists can book out the whole venue and handle the ticket selling themselves, either through ticketmaster or another distributor, they just usually don't. Whenever you hear of one of those random big artists promising low ticket prices that's how they do it.

As I said, I didn't find the article or podcast I was thinking of. You're right that it may not be the tacked-on fees. Artists generally do not have much leverage against the monopoly (some artists get more say). It might be some things like platinum pricing that I'm thinking of, and how people think Ticketmaster raised the prices but the artists benefit without having to take the heat. Artists and promoters have a lot of influence over what are called the fair-value prices, the number of tickets released, whether to opt into dynamic or premium pricing, whether they can officially be resold, and VIP package prices. Again, plenty of artists don't like working with the monopoly, but I had just remembered such an aha moment when I heard they frequently benefit financially from certain practices the fans don't like.

Agree... and not defending Ticketmaster, but regarding scalpers in general, I am not sure why one would blame only the ticketing system.

If the artists are willing to say sell tickets for $50.00 and the demand is such that some resell to $400.00 the same seat. Is it the fault of the ticketing system ? Who is the victim ? - The artist who could have make more money (but then they could have price it better) - The fans who are basically competing to see that show ?

Scalpers are optimizing the market.

Maybe the solution to mitigate scalpers would be for ticket holders to only be able to resell their tickets through the same platform. Then the artist could decide if the fans can resell to the platform at face value, or for a profit. Then the artist could decide if the ticket can be sold by the platform with a markup or not.

Basically given the power and control to the artist.

The cure did this, we got tickets a few days before the shore, bought from reseller directly through ticket master but they could only be relisted at face value, got 8th for $75 I think, it was a great show

Here in Norway they passed a law which states you can only resell tickets at face value. I'm sure there are some scalpers still but I can't recall reading about it in the news the way I did before the law.

Maybe that is what we need in US too.

Matt Haney is trying to do something with AB 1720 (Resale Price Cap), and Ticketmaster is supporting it. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

I am not sure why a bill would set some magic and arbitrary percentage other than 0%. This has likely be negotiated with the industry.

Thinking more on those 10% cap, it would allow scalpers to sell the original ticket to themselves, over and over, to eventually reach the price of the market.

Unless Ticketmaster takes a significant proportional bite at every resell, nothing prevents scalpers to triple the price of the original ticket, but reselling in a loop.

I think that is the right way to give the enough price control to the artists. So, if The Cure wants to keep the ticket price low, they can.

> Scalpers are optimizing the market.

This is sort of applying the same logic that justifies high frequency trading except in this particular case, the market overlaps with the arts.

Society at large values "fairness" in a hard to define but culturally important way and "let the free market determine the price" for access runs counter to that I think in many peoples minds.

I think it's generally very easy to come up with various solutions that solve the problem, that all likely reduce the profit made by intermediaries like ticketmaster, it's purely political will and people kicking up enough fuss to implement it.

Not to mention the market is tiny, a few thousand seats at most.

There were local ticket operations across the US, ticketmaster just bought them all up

> Ticketmaster avoided the two-sided market problem until they reached scale. They were just a website where you buy tickets, an IT appliance for promoters.

Ticketmaster had scale before the internet was really a thing. They had a box offices at record stores (Like Tower records) where you could book tickets.

Fixed the last sentence for you: "This kind of situation is exactly why lobbying exists"

I expect ticketmaster has what should by any reasonable court be deemed illegal contracts that prevent venues from hosting non blessed artists and artists from frequenting non blessed venues, and this type of contract lets them maintain their monopoly

Well put