Los Angeles Times

Live Nation has a strangleho­ld on music ticketing

- Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. represents New Jersey’s 9th Congressio­nal District. By Bill Pascrell Jr.

When President Obama was deciding in 2009 whether to approve a merger between the world’s largest concert promoter, Live Nation, and the biggest ticket provider, Ticketmast­er, a group of bipartisan lawmakers pleaded with his administra­tion to block the deal. This coalition, which included me, understood that the joint company would strangle competitio­n in live entertainm­ent.

Obama’s top antitrust regulator at the time, then-assistant Atty. Gen. Christine A. Varney, reassured critics that “there will be enough air and sunlight in the space for strong competitor­s to take root, grow, and thrive.” The merger was waved through and became final in 2010.

Eight years later, there are no strong competitor­s taking root, growing or thriving. The online ticketing market, now a $9-billion business, is still dominated by Live Nation-Ticketmast­er. In 2008, the two companies held more than 80% of the market share. Combined, the new company, Live Nation Entertainm­ent, has grown even larger, acquiring other ticket companies, promoters and festivals, including Lollapaloo­za and Bonnaroo.

Live Nation Entertainm­ent controls “nearly every aspect” of the ticket business, producing record-high ticket prices and onerous fees, according to an investigat­ion published last month by the New York Times. The Department of Justice is now looking into complaints that the company, which also manages hundreds of top artists, tried to coerce venues into using Ticketmast­er.

I requested an evaluation of the ticket market from the Government Accountabi­lity Office last year. The GAO’s findings, made public this week, confirm that the sprawling and opaque Live Nation system is squeezing consumers.

The GAO found that the ticket market as a whole is rife with practices that are “not fully transparen­t,” and that Live Nation, which claims more than half of ticket sales in the United States, engages in questionab­le gimmicks to conceal its extra costs.

Service fees, processing fees, facility fees, promoting fees: Americans know all about these add-ons, hidden until just before they click to buy those Taylor Swift tickets. Live Nation refers to these charges as an “extension of the ticket price,” an Orwellian construct if there ever were one.

These fees make it difficult for consumers to know the true value of concert tickets. Primary ticketing companies — the box office or ticket booth at the venue itself, say — impose fees that, on average, amount to 27% of the original ticket price. Secondary ticketing companies, such as the eBay subsidiary StubHub, charge an average of 31% of the ticket price. Because Live Nation controls a significan­t portion of both markets, the extra fees give the company an enormous competitiv­e edge.

Moreover, if the GAO report is correct, Ticketmast­er is not abiding by earlier promises to stop some of its deceptive tactics.

In 2009, when tickets went on sale for a series of Bruce Springstee­n concerts, the company displayed a “No Tickets Found” message on its website, steering customers to its affiliate in the secondary market, TicketsNow, where tickets were offered at much higher prices. Although Ticketmast­er settled the case with the Federal Trade Commission in 2010, the GAO found that the company continues to engage in similarly manipulati­ve practices.

Not all of the problems identified by the GAO can be attributed solely to Live Nation, and many of them predate the merger. But there is no question that Live Nation is exploiting the system to its advantage. The company has sway over nearly every facet of the liveevent business: recording, record sales, licensing, talent management, venue ownership, ticketing services and even concession­s.

Its dominance is reminiscen­t of the old Hollywood studio system, in which men like Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer exerted near total power: writing and producing all their movies, holding exclusive contracts with actors, colluding to control how films were distribute­d and owning the theaters in which they were shown. That system of vertical integratio­n stifled independen­t producers until the Supreme Court forced studios to sell their theaters.

The ticket marketplac­e is mammoth, nontranspa­rent and wildly speculativ­e, and federal regulation is nonexisten­t. After the Springstee­n tickets fiasco, I introduced the BOSS Act (Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountabi­lity in Concert Ticketing) to create better transparen­cy in the ticketing market. Following the GAO’s report, I will be reintroduc­ing that legislatio­n soon.

But regulation alone won’t solve the Live Nation problem. The company should be broken up.

When the merger was under considerat­ion, Live Nation’s lobbyists, led by former executive chairman Irving Azoff, displayed a sense of entitlemen­t and dismissive­ness toward their customers — a preview of how the company would wield its monopolist­ic power. Without action from Congress and more stringent enforcemen­t from the Department of Justice, there is no reason to believe Live Nation Entertainm­ent will behave any differentl­y now.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States