Archive for December, 2009
I am afraid that do not share Ticketmaster’s enthusiasm for its newest innovation the “total view pricing tool“.
Providing a summary of all the additional charges and fees charged by an agent on top of the event price is a good thing. But, it should not be seen as a new or unique enhancement to the “fan’s ticket buying experience”. It is a basic consumer right in all other industries, why not ticketing?
Increased transparency of pricing is a good thing, but it should be seen for what it is – increased accountability being imposed upon agents like Ticketmaster as a result of competition and the resultant threat of regulation.
It is not purely semantics, Ticketmaster and other ticketing agencies are agents. Agents act with the permission of the Principal selling tickets for the event owner, the Principal.
The ticket agent does not own the ticket for the event they are selling and undertakes no risk, like a normal retailer. As a result, the event owner should set total prices for its events, not an agent acting on its behalf.
In an unusual reversal of provisional findings in October, the Competition Commission (CC) has now decided to clear the proposed merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation in the UK.
“… the CC has concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in the market for live music ticket retailing or in any other market in the UK, including live music promotion and live music venues.“
It seems odd that the reversal seems to hinge on the revised assessment of the impact on Eventim and agents as opposed to consumers.
The National Association of Ticket Brokers and National Consumers League have joined up to make their disapproval of the proposed merger virtually visible on TicketDisaster.org.
“As the Department of Justice reaches the final round of reviewing this merger, only one question must be answered: will the merger lead to increased prices, poorer service, or less innovation? In this case, the answer is all of the above, which is why this merger needs to be blocked.“
However, the interpretation of the industry reality seems rather confused …
“SISTIC has separate agreements with The Esplanade Co. Ltd and the Singapore Sports Council which contain explicit restrictions requiring all events held at the Esplanade and the Singapore Indoor Stadium respectively to use SISTIC as the sole ticketing service provider.” This may seem punitive unless you consider the fact that these venues actually own SISTIC!
“When key venues such as the Esplanade and SIS are required to use SISTIC, event organisers who wish to hold their events at these venues have no choice but to sell tickets through SISTIC.” Again this seems onerous upon event organisers, but it misses the point by asserting that the Esplanade and SIS are “required to use SISTIC“, in fact they are not ‘required to’ other than the fact that they own SISTIC.
“Since ticket selling has migrated online, the barriers for entry into this business have been vastly reduced.“
“Events are social by their nature,” – so the addition of social networking tools to ticketing seems a no-brainer.