Electronic Ticketing: An Exploitation of True Community

The first of many publications attempting to dissect the economics of the music industry.

Live entertainment has existed as a staple of human civilization for centuries. From sporting events to music concerts, individuals gather to witness and partake in live experiences that connect them to and with one another. However, the industry has participated in a massive transformation since the early 2010s. As companies went to the internet for the reason of ease within transactions, live ticketing was no exception. With the merger of Ticketmaster and entertainment giant Live Nation forming a conglomerate, a majority of the market is oppressed by their control. While some argue that this consolidation has made events more efficient and accessible within their early days, others believe that it has come at a cost. Factors such as recent positive concerts, musicians taking a stand against the industrialized company, and the presence of adequate alternative routes for purchasing electronic tickets can significantly impact pricing exploitation. The monopolization of the live entertainment industry by Ticketmaster has resulted in the exploitation of venues, artists, and concertgoers, ultimately damaging the industry as a communal unit.

In the history of music, the live entertainment industry wasn't solely focused on capitalizing on events; rather, it prioritized delivering a genuine experience for both artists and concertgoers. It had been a moderated system that had its flaws given its era but was efficient and pleasurable. As large syndicates in the ticketing field emerged heading into the 21^st century, a certain fate was soon to be seen in the monetary value of attending a show. Martin Cloonan, a music professor at the University of Glasgow speaks about the results of the merger in his article titled “Researching live music: some thoughts on policy implications”, by quoting the Competition Commission.  “…the attempt by Live Nation and Gaiety to take a controlling interest in the Hamsard Group which owned the Academy venues. This was allowed on condition that the two parties divest themselves of two London venues” (412).  Having had this article focusing its sole main points in UK politics is a reference as to how vastly Ticketmaster’s power ranges internationally. Christopher Joseph Westgate, a professor of media and communication studies at Johnson & Wales University also touches on the numbers and exemplifies the inflation in his article titled “Popular Music Fans and the Value of Concert Tickets”: “The average ticket price for events has increased by approximately 400% between 1981 and 2012, much faster than the 150% increase in consumer price inflation” (Kreuger qtd. In Westgate). This indicates a shift towards a market that is profit-driven, where ticketing companies prioritize maximizing earnings over providing a high-quality experience for patrons.  Not only does this exemplify implicit expressions of an immoral gain from a statistical standpoint, but it is also played out in real time with the chain-of-command style of management in the music business presently.

Artists charge more for their shows not only because concerts are their chief source of income, but also because intermediaries – managers, promoters, and agents, among others – share the costs and benefits of a concert’s production (Fairchild qtd. in Westgate. 58).

This can be noticed in the increasingly common practice of up-selling seats at unreasonable prices via online ticketing services, as well as the use of engaged pricing algorithms that alter ticket prices based on the amount of demand, often leading to falsely inflated prices for events. One may find validation in this reasoning when involving factors like legacy and longevity. Decrop and Derbaix are quoted in Westgate’s article claiming that “Artists with a longer career tend to charge higher prices probably because they have a loyal fan base, typically made up of older audiences with more disposable income” (58).  Nonetheless, the by-product of these practices leaves many fans are priced out of attending a concert, and the industry becomes less accessible and less concentrated on the show itself.

When music was both commercially and politically booming in the 1960s, concerts were more about promoting the music and providing an authentic experience rather than gaining capital on ticket sales. Alan Kreuger who is from the National Bureau of Economic Research wrote a journal article titled “The Economics of Real Superstars: The Market for Rock Concerts in the Material World” and is quoted within stating, “A concert is an ‘experience good’, as consumers do know the utility they would derive from a concert unless they go to it” (3). This fortified notion that live entertainment is a rather in-depth communalistic affair, and to steepen the price tag is unjust proves vital in the research of Ticketmaster. Concerts were often used to promote newly released records in past decades of music, with ticket prices kept low to encourage attendance. Brennan states in Westgate’s article, “Instead of concerts helping to promote records, as they did in the late 1960s, merchandise and streaming platforms now work to convert listeners into concert attendees” (57). This shift towards a model focused on profit alone has resulted in large ticketing companies monopolizing the industry and prioritizing their gains over the genuine experience of concertgoers as well. Concerts also happen to be an intricate social construct of overwhelmed emotion. In that fact alone each person’s own mannerisms, thoughts, feelings, and general demeanor are affected by the collective environment surrounding them. Generalized happenings that are inflicted on the concertgoer both directly and indirectly can delegate how they will feel about an event. (Westgate 59)

In Particular, scholars have analyzed the costs and benefits of concert attendance. Indirect costs may be associated with travel, parking, lodging, and childcare, whereas direct costs relate to ticket purchases, food, and merchandise. Sensory costs – such as inferior equipment or poor acoustics – and visual obstructions – from tall people or architectural structures – affect the concert experience, but so do costs associated with fans who shout or talk, wear perfume or cologne, smoke cigarettes or marijuana, and/or brush or bump others (Westgate 59).

 With those various ranging factors at play, it is seen that the live music scene can be fragile for some people, in accordance with their standards. By contrast, the blueprint of 60s concert ticketing emphasized the significance of assembling a devout fan base through reasonable ticket prices and unforgettable performances. In the present day, monopolization of the industry by large ticketing companies has resulted in soaring ticket prices and a lack of diversity in the types of events offered. The results have shown many fans feeling exploited and incapable of fully enjoying the live entertainment experience they once loved.

Thoughts and expressions aren’t just for the fans’ vocalization. As stated, the venues and more importantly the artists can be severely underpaid and undervalued. With that being the case various musicians have attempted to take a stand against the industry giants, particularly Ticketmaster. According to a journal entry titled “From Gigs to Giggs: politics, law and live music” by John Street, whom is a professor in political and social studies at the University of East Anglia, Bruce Springsteen was and is one of the celebrity opponents of the merger, who had held ticket prices at a record low to avoid out pricing his working-class fans. He notes that $95 is significantly cheaper than the $450 that The Rolling Stones is asking per seat, which is certainly the case across the board for most classic rock musicians still in touring mode. Springsteen’s approach not only secures a sell-out show, which in return benefits the artists and fans alike but also ensures that vendors at the venue will see sizable profit margins (Street 582). If more musicians observe Springsteen’s example and actively work against the high prices and capitalist approaches of Ticketmaster and similar companies, there is a possibility that the grasp of these companies on the market could be weakened. These efforts from large headline acts such as Bruce Springsteen offer a quasi-alternative to the issues of Ticketmaster, but ultimately the exact opposite of what they set out to accomplish occurred as the electronic age dawned on capitalism. Exploitative practices conducted by these companies were not taken lightly by artists across the board, causing the company to be tried in court of law with a vast number of complaints filed to the Department of Justice. Street comments on the nature of how law and justice coincide with the basis of the issue: “The Springsteen case, though, provoked a level of outrage that led to a Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Consumer Rights” (Street 582). Along with the inception of this committee, it is argued by supporters of the merger that a slew of conditions had been installed to regulate local acts in relation to their tenure at venues within their city.  “…the Department of Justice required that attention be given to ensuring that local acts had greater access to live venues and that their performances be publicized and supported by local broadcasters” (Future Music Coalition qtd. in Westgate 582). While the idea is far from negative in its philosophy, little work was done to maintain upkeep on the said conditions, with Street stating that

“regulators were concerned about more than the commercial implications of the merger” (582).

Ultimately, the efforts made by numerous musicians, particularly against industry giants like Ticketmaster, highlight the urgent need to address the issue of underpayment and undervaluation of artists in the live entertainment industry as electronic ticketing has consumed the market in its practical entirety.

            Alas, amidst the turmoil and injustice dispatched on the market, one alternative has emerged as a potential answer to combat the exploitative nature of Ticketmaster: CashorTrade. Unlike the ticketing giants that engulf e-commerce, this company is a secondary ticketing platform that functions on the principles of face value exchange and a community-driven ethos. Per CashorTrades’s online webpage, analyzing the section about their mission statement and general policies provides a relieving list of qualifications for a user-friendly experience.

…as a buyer you know where your ticket is coming from, and as a seller you can be assured you are hooking up a real fan. Check their profile, read their reviews, chat and even meet up with them for the second set (CashorTrade.org)

 Contrary to Ticketmaster's motivations, which often facilitate exorbitant ticket expenses and fees through reselling and scalping, CashorTrade focuses on providing a fair and ethical interface for fans to obtain tickets at face value or less. Extensive measures have been taken to provide the comprehensiveness and ease that this company exhibits, one of them being a trademark insurance protection subservice called Trader’s Protection. “…a 100% money back guarantee on all ticket purchases and sales. CashorTrade accepts payment from buyers via credit or debit card, protects the trade by holding funds in escrow, and promptly pays out each seller” (CashorTrade). Other qualities in relation to the company lie in their basic rules. A vital stand to “Never pay or accept payment outside the platform” (CashorTrade). Implications that are integrated within the services’ regulations allow for a level of transparency not seen in the remainder of the venture. By promoting face value transactions, CashorTrade aims to prioritize the interests of fans and create a community built on trust and fairness. This not only helps fans secure tickets at reasonable prices but also ensures that artists receive the value they deserve for their performances. By evading the questionable motives of Ticketmaster and its subsidiaries, CashorTrade fosters an equitable climate in which the welfare of fans and artists are held to a higher echelon that topples over corporate gain. Through its commitment to fair ticket exchanges, this organization offers a favorable alternative to the exploitative practices that are perpetuated by Ticketmaster and are helping restore value and integrity to the live entertainment scene.

Considering the substantial research provided, the profit margin of the live entertainment industry by Ticketmaster has undeniably led to a series of exploitative methods, impacting venues, artists, and concertgoers synonymously. The company's monopolistic command over ticket sales has allowed for exorbitant fees, barred availability of tickets, and the presence of scalping on their platform. These practices not only harm the financial status of venues and artists but also tarnish the experience for concertgoers who are endowed with a limit in choice and bloated costs. Moreover, such exploitative efforts strip away the essence of music as an intensely personal and emotional connection to the human spirit. The capitalization and commodification of this deep form of expression are not only ethically questionable but also vandalize the very essence of the communal nature of the industry. To conserve the integrity and vibrancy of live entertainment, it is crucial to contest and dismantle Ticketmaster's monopolistic grip by encouraging transparent ticketing services. By doing so, society can collectively work towards a future where live music prospers in its ability to enlighten, adjoin, and uplift audiences around the world.