So let me get this straight: they promote the gigs, have an interest in the venues, and control the ticketing. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for profiteering, does it?
Yes, it’s a complete racket, but if artists want lower ticket prices they can make sure it happens. The Cure did it in North America a couple of years ago. I doubt Robert Smith is struggling for cash, but maybe one or two of his bandmates may not have been completely on board.
In submissions Lefsetz reported that 3 or 4 dollars could be attributed to booking costs.
Where demand massively exceeds supply the profiteering will either come in the primary market from surge pricing or in the secondary market via resellers.
Re Robert Smith. It was a principled stand, but the ticket companies found a way to make their booking costs almost equal the price he wanted to charge for tickets. But there is fault on both sides. Some venues try to pass the costs on because they claim that bands want to be seen to be keeping prices down but then take an extra cut from elsewhere.
He’s the only case I can think of where some actual concessions were granted / extracted. Taylor Swift and Pearl Jam expressed dissatisfaction over technical failures (Swift) and venue choice (PJ) but the only artist that put money back in the hands of their fans was Smith. Swift allowed dynamic pricing as did Springsteen / Landau. Smith forced some refunds of fees, got reduced fees for subsequent tours and refused the dynamic pricing model.
Other artists need to take some responsibility for this as well. I know live is where they make most of their money these days, but Paul Heaton has shown you can do an arena or stadium show and still only charge £30. So why are they now routinely in the hundreds?
So let me get this straight: they promote the gigs, have an interest in the venues, and control the ticketing. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for profiteering, does it?
Yes, it’s a complete racket, but if artists want lower ticket prices they can make sure it happens. The Cure did it in North America a couple of years ago. I doubt Robert Smith is struggling for cash, but maybe one or two of his bandmates may not have been completely on board.
In submissions Lefsetz reported that 3 or 4 dollars could be attributed to booking costs.
Where demand massively exceeds supply the profiteering will either come in the primary market from surge pricing or in the secondary market via resellers.
Re Robert Smith. It was a principled stand, but the ticket companies found a way to make their booking costs almost equal the price he wanted to charge for tickets. But there is fault on both sides. Some venues try to pass the costs on because they claim that bands want to be seen to be keeping prices down but then take an extra cut from elsewhere.
They did, but he overcame that also in the end I believe
He’s the only case I can think of where some actual concessions were granted / extracted. Taylor Swift and Pearl Jam expressed dissatisfaction over technical failures (Swift) and venue choice (PJ) but the only artist that put money back in the hands of their fans was Smith. Swift allowed dynamic pricing as did Springsteen / Landau. Smith forced some refunds of fees, got reduced fees for subsequent tours and refused the dynamic pricing model.
Other artists need to take some responsibility for this as well. I know live is where they make most of their money these days, but Paul Heaton has shown you can do an arena or stadium show and still only charge £30. So why are they now routinely in the hundreds?