Ticketmaster debate - again

Originally posted by elj:
They can call it a "line our pockets" fee and I'll still pay it if it's my best option.

I bet if they called it a "I'm a dumbass" fee, you'd be the first in line.

Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
I bet if they called it a "I'm a dumbass" fee, you'd be the first in line.

What a mature response. I'm impressed by your skill in refuting the points I made.

Originally posted by elj:
This company saves you time (and in many cases money) by allowing you to buy tickets from home, and you're mad this business wants to make some $$ doing it. Shudder, gasp.

The fact that ticket master charges service charges on each ticket, even though purchasing say 10 tickets is a single transaction….

The fact that the service charge increases as the ticket price increases.

The fact that you are hit by not one, but 3 individual charges by ticketmaster.

The fact that ticketmaster routinely makes 1/3 of the price of the ticket.


Personally I dont think Ticketmaster is a great deal. But I am rarely driven to moan about it. For you I will make an exception.

Originally posted by elj:
What a mature response. I'm impressed by your skill in refuting the points I made.

I Like Guiny, so I'll give it a shot.

Many people think that ticketmaster is in fact breaking the law. They have been sued on the basis that they have a monopoly and that they were anti-competitve (most notably, by Pearl Jam).

The Justice Department ruled that Ticketmaster did not have a monopoly because no one was trying to enter the market. Good luck to anyone trying. For those that are old enough to remember Ticketron, the only real threat to Ticketmaster, they were forced out of the marktet by Ticketmaster. After all of the contracts were set with vendors (records stores, etc.), there was no way there could be a viable competitor.

The anti-competition practices that allowed TM to charge outrageous fees were then blamed on the vendors, who needed to make money. The band (or the record company) and the venue made money on the ticket price, the vendor and TM made money on the service charges. But guess what - very few people buy tickets at vendors any longer. The internet has changed all of that. So has TM reduced it's fees to consumers? Not a bit. Their percentages have actually increased. The good news is that the internet has brought a few competitiors back into the market, but by agreements with Clear Channel and venues, small competitors like tickets.com are left out of the bigger picture, and TM still rakes in fees that were once questioned by the Justice Department with out the vendor excuse TM used in 1994.

So thank TM all you want for making tickets available to you without having to go to the venue, but I think the issues of Monopoly and anti-competitve practices should be revisited really soon.

The consumer should not be punished for wanting to enjoy entertainment. Yes, all of us joining forces and refusing to buy tickets through TM would make a difference, but why should be made to suffer by their practices - we should be allowed an alternative - many actually.

Originally posted by mark e smith:
The fact that ticket master charges service charges on each ticket, even though purchasing say 10 tickets is a single transaction….

The fact that the service charge increases as the ticket price increases.

The fact that you are hit by not one, but 3 individual charges by ticketmaster.

The fact that ticketmaster routinely makes 1/3 of the price of the ticket.

You're not addressing at all the crux of my argument: what they give you in return in many cases cannot be acquired cheaper. If I want to buy a ticket to an event at the MCI Center, and I live in Richmond, I have to drive 2 hours each way, pay for gas, and that's not taking in account the waste of 4 hours of my life. And I'd save what? $15 for a set of two tickets? Ticketmaster from a financial standpoint is clearly in my best interest.

I can understand that people don't like paying more money, and I don't either, but from where I sit, it beats the alternatives in many cases (driving to the venue if it's far away, or not going to the show altogether). If it's not worth it to you, fine, that's your perrogative, and I'm not disagreeing with your choice. Or, if the venues close, of course we'd all go there instead of using ticketmaster. My point is I think it's overboard to act like ticketmaster's capitalism is "morally wrong" as one person put it. Everyone who offers a service tries to make some money off it, and they all have their own business model, and comparing this service industry's model to another's is counterintuitive. If the service is worth it to you, then buy it, if not, then don't, but please don't act like it's a "moral stand" or that a company is evil for providing you with a choice.

Ditto to Markie's points. I'll pay it if I need to, I support competitive markets (which ticket sales agencies does not represent, by the way), and I'll complain if I want to because it seems unreasonable. Much of Ticketmaster's M.O. is just not sensible. But, they have a virtual monopoly, so we deal, but we can think they're the friggin' devil if we want.

Just wait until Clear Channel buys Ticketmaster. The meek will inherit the earth – YEAH, RIGHT.

Originally posted by elj:
that a company is evil for providing you with a choice.

I find that the company is evil when I dont have a choice, such is the case with pre-sales in which the show will sell out and when tickets are not readily available any other way, say for lollapalooza.

But Vansmack did a much better job of addressing the points than I.

Originally posted by elj:
You're not addressing at all the crux of my argument: what they give you in return in many cases cannot be acquired cheaper. If I want to buy a ticket to an event at the MCI Center, and I live in Richmond, I have to drive 2 hours each way, pay for gas, and that's not taking in account the waste of 4 hours of my life. And I'd save what? $15 for a set of two tickets? Ticketmaster from a financial standpoint is clearly in my best interest.

So because I live 15 minutes away and it would only cost me $1.04 in gas to go to the venue, my charges should be cheaper? How do you measure convenience – based on your residence in Richmond, or mine in Woodley Park?

Yes, they charge a "convenience fee," and they're getting it, but that does not mean they aren't overcharging. As Smackie's pointed out, Ticketmaster is not subject to rational competitive forces that keep markets fair and level the playing field. Whether or not this is legal (at this point) is to be decided by the courts, but as a participant in an emerging competitive market, I can tell you that Ticketmaster is not subject to sufficient competitive pressures to keep them in check. In other markets, that would call for mitigation schemes.

Originally posted by vansmack:
The consumer should not be punished for wanting to enjoy entertainment. Yes, all of us joining forces and refusing to buy tickets through TM would make a difference, but why should be made to suffer by there practices - we should be allowed an alternative - many actually.

I agree with that. I do think of Ticketmaster as a choice, one of mainly two we currently have: ticketmaster or venue's box office. I, as I'm sure the rest of you do, weigh the options and chosse which of those two works best for me for each concert. I don't really see tickets.com or any of the smaller ticket brokers getting increased access to see tickets to venues making ticketmaster's prices drop precipitously. Most of the smaller ticket brokers I've bought through (musictoday, tickets.com, groovetickets.com) have fees on par with that of ticketmaster, and while I'm sure a little healthy competition will do a little, I doubt it'll be much.

Does anyone know what ticketmaster makes in a year? I have to wonder with all these ticket brokers running fees at around the same price, is it possible that that's simply the precentage and model that this particular industry needs to exist?

Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
[So because I live 15 minutes away and it would only cost me $1.04 in gas to go to the venue, my charges should be cheaper? How do you measure convenience – based on your residence in Richmond, or mine in Woodley Park?

Yes, they charge a "convenience fee," and they're getting it, but that does not mean they aren't overcharging.

I would say I would measure convenience with regards to me, and you would measure it with regards to you. A certain consumer may think paying $50 for a kid to mow your lawn is ridiculous, while another finds it perfectly acceptable, just as you might (correctly) find it stupid to pay $8 to save you a 5 minute drive, and I might find it prudent to pay $8 to save me a 2 hour drive. That's an essence of business, I'd think.

Originally posted by elj:
I don't really see tickets.com or any of the smaller ticket brokers getting increased access to see tickets to venues making ticketmaster's prices drop precipitously. Most of the smaller ticket brokers I've bought through (musictoday, tickets.com, groovetickets.com) have fees on par with that of ticketmaster, and while I'm sure a little healthy competition will do a little, I doubt it'll be much.

I'm not as skeptical as you. We haven't had a chance to see what a little fair market will do to the service charges. Ticketmaster took over the internet distributors as well - they bought CitySearch (a "local" internet distibutor) and sued anybody who tried to set up a new destination site for tickets (Microsoft). How funny is that - one Monopoly suing another?

They gain over 50% of the revenue from internet sales. But why wouldn't they - the charge is the same, they just don't have to pay the vendor. THE EXACT REASON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID THEY WEREN'T ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

Originally posted by elj:
Does anyone know what ticketmaster makes in a year? I have to wonder with all these ticket brokers running fees at around the same price, is it possible that that's simply the precentage and model that this particular industry needs to exist?

This is a tough argument because Ticketmaster is owned by IAC (InterActiveCorp.) who also owns a slew of web sites that you probably use:

IAC consists of IAC Travel, which includes Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com, Hotwire, Interval International, and TV Travel Shop; HSN; Ticketmaster, which oversees ReserveAmerica; Match.com; LendingTree; Precision Response Corporation; IAC Local and Media Services, which includes Citysearch, Evite, Entertainment Publications, Inc. and TripAdvisor, Inc.; and IAC Interactive Development which includes ZeroDegrees.

I'm not sure of the revenue, but the web site claims that ticketmaster sold $4.9 Billion worth of tickets in 2003.

Just remember, every plane ticket from Hotwire (owned by the same company) has a $5 service charge. A concert ticket can be three times that. Why? Competition. You can buy the same ticket from three competitors or the source, all online for the same or no service charge. Care to try your argument again?

i was going to write out a well-constructed response, but vansmack elucidated everything i was going to say.

however, i would like to mention that the "processing fee" is utter bullshit. i worked for a small non-profit music promoter that booked world music events, and part of my responsibilities was to process tickets via the internet and phone. i can tell you that this did not take much effort, certainly not $4 per ticket, and this was at a company that barely had any money to work with. the money doesn't even go back to the employee processing those tickets; they make slightly higher than minimum wage.

ticketbastard is a monopoly and a microcosm of the problem of unregulated capitalism. i have no problem with their concept and paying a reasonable fee, but the excessive fees that they charge is ludicrous. they are making money off of the bands and the venues, simply by offering a "convenience." i'd rather take my chances with waiting outside.

clear channel's and ticketmaster's greed is astounding. it is no wonder that ticket sales and album sales are slipping. it is not about the music (or whatever entertainment is in question), it is about money and nothing else. smaller venues are dealing with more crap because of this, and something has to be done soon, or we will all suffer for it even more.

Originally posted by vansmack:
Care to try your argument again?

No, you make a good point on what increased competition would do, and I'll agree with you on that. I don't think though that somehow a business taking advantage of their market position is wrong, though. If a court ruled against them, fine, but arm-chair legal ramblings aren't exactly definitive. I still say, unpopular as it might be, that ticketmaster is one choice we have, and that if we didn't have ticketmaster or services like it, attending concerts would be alot harder for many of us, and I appreciate them existing as an option.

Originally posted by elj:

Originally posted by vansmack:
Care to try your argument again?

Sorry, that was uncalled for. Ever since a TM fiasco with World Series tickets, I've been (overly)agressive in my opinions of TM.

Originally posted by elj:
I don't think though that somehow a business taking advantage of their market position is wrong, though. If a court ruled against them, fine, but arm-chair legal ramblings aren't exactly definitive. I still say, unpopular as it might be, that ticketmaster is one choice we have, and that if we didn't have ticketmaster or services like it, attending concerts would be alot harder for many of us, and I appreciate them existing as an option.

I do understand the convenience of not living near the venues and liking the TM idea as a service, I just think it can be done differently and I think that TM is using it's market dominance to keep this from happening.

elj, I'll make this offer to you like I do everyone else, If you wanna save money just e-mail me the show you wanna go to (9#0 Club) and your address. I'll buy the ticket and only ask for the ticket price, 1$ service charge and price of the stamp in return, now how's that for convenience?

I think elj's so called "argument" is really saying that ticketmaster works good for him, so its a good company.

sounds kinda silly to me. but whatever, you're american.

The only time i have in the last year or two and will buy tickets from ticketmaster is for out of state events. Clearly me going to California to snatch my Coachella tickets would be a little pricey.

But even if i was in California could i get Coachella tickets with no service charge? perhaps not.

Did you ever think that ticketmaster's vast coverage and monopoly may make it nearly impossible to set up outlets with little or no service charge excluding the box office itself.

We used to sell tickets to club events via record stores and our own website and no one seemed to care. It all boils down to contracts and payoffs, not convenience.

do you think TM was started cause people felt bad for folks who couldnt make it to the box office?

Prior to the elimination of Ticketron (which was, I believe, purchased by Ticketmaster), service charges were $1-2. There were no "convenience" fees. No need to go to the venue either – you'd just drive on over to the department store and get in line. Ticketmaster is only able to charge so much because they are a monopoly. There's no way a Republican administration is going to make them change their behavior (hell, even the Clinton administration backed down), so consumers are stuck dealing with one of the main problems with capitalism, concentration of access to resources in the hands of one party who can charge whatever they want.

Christ, I live north of Baltimore and I can drive down to the club and back to buy my ticket and still have gas left over based on what those fees are. And that's for 1 ticket and today's cost of gas! Sure, I'd still have to go to the trouble of driving down. The point is that the fees are just way too high. So many others, especially my lawyer Smackie and Snailhook, made the same points I'd make so won't go off on some of them.

At one time I worked as a travel agent which is, in essence, a very similiar job accept it actually involves a whole lot more promotion, sales and work. We charged NO fees whatsoever but we did make a commission, which would be what Sonick would prefer as a price worked into the ticket. The thing was, if a trip was cancelled, we didn't get shit! Of course, it depended on who cancelled and why. There were sometimes (but not always) cancellation fees in some instances if cxled by the client for reasons other than health or death. If for any reason the trip was cancelled by the vendor or changed in some way unsuitable towards the client, the client got every single penny back and no one received any kind of payment regardless of all the work we did and expenses that were incurred.

As a travel agent, ironically, usually, the cheaper the ticket or trip, the more work was involved. And I mean LOTS more work! But I'm getting off track there with my thought being that there's no good reason for charging so much more for higher priced shows.

Regarding ticket service companies that keep fees on cxled events: yes, to a point, I can understand expecting some sort of payment for work done. But what about everyone else who put out expenses for an event? The bands, the venues, the promoters, sponsors, etc… If my understanding is correct, they don't get one red cent yet the ticketing agencies are keeping every penny of their profits, whatever they want to call them.

Lastly, credit card companies charge vendors a 2% fee with American Express charging a little bit more. Now, I was always under the impression that if something was cancelled or returned that they too lost their fee. Not sure on that point.

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would feel better paying $60 for a $50 ticket with $10 service fees, than i would paying $60 for a $40 ticket and $20 of service fees, wouldnt you? [/QB]

see, now, this is where I think people are overthinking this

the bottom line should be do you wanna pay $60 for that ticket - shouldn't matter which part of it goes where - figuring that out isn't going to change anything

I do think that all service charges should be refunded in the event of a cancellation, but both companies (TM/Tickets.com) do that so there doesn't seem to be a way around it

Originally posted by Seth Hurwitz:

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I would feel better paying $60 for a $50 ticket with $10 service fees, than i would paying $60 for a $40 ticket and $20 of service fees, wouldnt you?

see, now, this is where I think people are overthinking this

[/QB]

what else do we have to do at work?