You may know the drill. You get online at 10am, several months before the show, and receive a place in the virtual queue. Perhaps you notice with dismay that your number is larger than the capacity of the venue. Perhaps you then lose your place because you’ve been misidentified as a bot, or the site crashes altogether. If you make it to the front, you may well wonder why £100 (plus about £20 in opaque surcharges) now qualifies as a cheap seat. And that’s if there are any cheap seats left, not just inflated VIP packages. And you may ask yourself why it has to be like this.

When you don’t get what you want, you tend to look for someone to blame. That someone is usually Ticketmaster. The company, which merged with concert promoters Live Nation in 2010 to form Live Nation Entertainment, sells about 70% of all concert tickets worldwide, and an even greater proportion of the arena and stadium market. In 2024, Live Nation generated a record $23.2bn (£17.5bn) in revenue, with Ticketmaster selling 637m tickets. Rivals such as See Tickets (owned by Germany’s CTS Eventim) and AXS (the ticketing arm of promoters AEG Presents) aren’t exactly minnows but Ticketmaster has become a synonym for ticketing: a lightning rod and a punchbag.

In the US, Ticketmaster’s current problems stem from a cardinal error: getting on the wrong side of Swifties. In November 2022, the company failed to stagger the presale for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour, listing all 2m tickets simultaneously. The colossal demand overwhelmed the servers, causing myriad problems. Swift expressed her disappointment. Ticketmaster grovelled. Last May, the US justice department (DOJ) filed an antitrust suit, now backed by 39 states, which alleges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster use their “power and influence … to freeze innovation and bend the industry to their own benefit”.

  • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I bought tickets through Ticketmaster for a concert that was happening in April ‘20. I bought them a few months in advance right when they went on sale, because of course I had no idea of the coming pandemic. The concert got rescheduled to the Fall of ‘20, then rescheduled again for early ‘21, then eventually cancelled. Ticketmaster said that they would refund my money back to my original payment method, my debit card. One problem, in the time that this had dragged on - over a year and a half - my debit card had expired, and the bank had issued me a new one. So the original debit card information was no longer valid, and the money wouldn’t go back on it. Ever try to get customer service from Ticketmaster? Yeah, good luck with that. They refuse to respond, and they make it so difficult that they eventually achieved their goal - frustrating me to the point of just throwing my hands up in disgust and giving up. Money gone. Have I bought tickets through Ticketmaster since then? Of course I have, because there were some acts that I really wanted to see, and what other choice do I have?!?

    I hope their CEO broke his leg falling off of his third gold toilet that my money helped him purchase.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I buy tickets all the time from industries I hate in hopes that one day they realize they should treat customers better. Until then I’ll keep buying tickets.

      Because as I’ve gotten older and I can afford things, I realized there’s no effort to prevent this from other people. So why would I miss out. It’s not like we’re on the right where they will protest and collectively not stop until they get their thing actioned.

      • KnitWit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Funny, I go the opposite route. If a company does something to bother me enough, I will easily forego whatever experience they are providing. There is no lack of meaningful entertainment in this world, why further encourage shittiness when I can just enjoy something else? I do the same with prices. Too expensive? Fuck it, guess I don’t do that anymore. Here’s looking at you Phish; nothing against the band and understand their pricing, but I am not paying over $100 (especially now back w ticketmaster no less) for a concert. It doesn’t bother me if others do, it just becomes ‘not for me.’ Like everything, to each their own though.

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          I’ve gone the other way. It’s the people around me who all complain that they dislike things but don’t do anything that have annoyed me. I’ve taken a radically different approach. I’ll enjoy myself and encourage those industries until things get so bad it motivates these people to maybe take action instead of waiting until it’s too late. I’ll help make things worse.

          I buy multiple YouTube premium accounts. I watch ads until the very end. Whenever I see a content creator who allows more ad breaks, I donate to their channel, upvote and subscribe. I participate regularly on Reddit subs like marvel, often creating posts like “who is your favorite marvel character to go on a coffee date with teahee” I become the content consumer they want me to be because what’s the worst that can happen.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I buy tickets all the time from industries I hate in hopes that one day they realize they should treat customers better. Until then I’ll keep buying tickets.

        So keep enabling the problem, I guess. I’m sure that’ll make them see the error in their ways…

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          What else am I suppose to do. Wait around for everybody else to get a backbone. I’ll never understand why we can all muster the energy to protest a behemoth that wouldn’t be impacted by boycott but fail to boycott smaller players that would feel it. It’s all by design. There’s no grass roots anything. It’s all just what we’re allowed to protest and boycott.

    • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Have I bought tickets through Ticketmaster since then? Of course I have

      And you don’t see yourself as enabling the problem?

      • Hexanimo@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        And you cut the quote before they explain they have no other choice. People aren’t choosing to buy tickets from Ticketmaster over another competitor. If they want to see their favorite artists live, there frequently is no other choice. Ticketmaster maintains its monopoly by threatening to blackball venues that provide tickets through other providers, and many of these large spaces can’t afford to fall out of Ticketmaster’s good graces.

        Sure, live music isn’t a necessity, but blaming the consumers for feeding into a broken system instead of the monopoly that enforces it is incredibly disingenuous.

          • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Right, because if I don’t buy the ticket to go see Micky Dolenz, no one else will, Ticketmaster will see the error of its ways, and they will change their business practices. And while we’re at it let’s tell dads not to buy tickets to Taylor Swift for their teenage daughters, so no one will go to her concerts. That will change everything.

            You live in a fantasy world if you think “Don’t go” is a feasible alternative. If I don’t go, someone else will, and all I’ve done is deprive myself of something that I want to make a point - a point that won’t matter a tinker’s damn to Ticketmaster. There’s no way that there would realistically be a public boycott big enough to make any difference.

            I’m absolutely not one for big government, but this is the definition of a monopoly and should be dealt with. But while the CEO of Ticketmaster has three gold toilets, they’ve bought and paid for four golden toilets for those in Congress through lobbying (aka “legalized bribery”), so nothing will be done. So again, it’s pay up or give up something that I want. I don’t buy tickets to events that I don’t care about just to have something to do, but there are acts that I don’t want to deprive myself of just to make a point to Ticketmaster or try to force them to change their ways through boycott. Because neither of those things will make a single solitary difference as long as they have their paid governmental exception.

            • MouldyCat@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              You live in a fantasy world if you think “Don’t go” is a feasible alternative. If I don’t go, someone else will, and all I’ve done is deprive myself of something that I want to make a point

              Come on mate, you could say this about any kind of protest or boycott.

              all I’ve done is deprive myself of something that I want to make a point

              Yes that is exactly how boycotts work. You make a personal sacrifice as a protest against something that’s unfair or immoral.

              If you’re not prepared to make a sacrifice, that’s OK, but at least have the honesty to admit you just don’t care enough about this particular issue.

              • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                If you’re not prepared to make a sacrifice, that’s OK, but at least have the honesty to admit you just don’t care enough about this particular issue.

                My point was, if I make the sacrifice and don’t go, somebody else will buy the ticket. So it’s not that I don’t care enough, it’s that it won’t make a difference. There simply cannot be enough of a boycott from the general public to make any difference to Ticketmaster’s bottom line. Only government intervention and anti-monopoly enforcement will, and that isn’t going to happen either with politicians in Ticketmaster’s pocket.

                In the end I’m missing out on something that could be my last ever opportunity (in the case of the Micky Dolenz concert I discussed earlier), while not losing Ticketmaster a dime.

          • Hexanimo@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            One family not buying tickets is not going to put a dent in Ticketmaster’s bottom line. I understand the principle, but a total boycott of the majority of live music isn’t feasible. This situation isn’t getting fixed without anti-trust getting involved and since it doesn’t fall under the umbrella of big tech, I highly doubt the current administration will do anything.

            • MouldyCat@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Such a cop-out. Every boycott is a personal sacrifice, and every individual participating in a boycott knows that their one purchase isn’t by itself going to make a difference.

              • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                You’re missing the point. In this one case a boycott is pretty pointless. Those who can’t afford to go are effectively already boycotting, and those that can afford to go, don’t care about the prices because they can afford it. So how is a boycott going to make a difference? For every show I boycott, there’s two more people ready to buy the ticket and replace me.

      • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I get that, but my wife and I are huge fans of The Monkees. The only one of the 4 alive is Micky Dolenz, who is still touring at 80 years old. How much longer will he be doing concerts? I don’t want to miss out on seeing him perform when he’s near in what, at any time, could be his last concert just to make a stand against Ticketmaster.

        Understand, we don’t go to multiple shows a year, but when there’s something that we really want to see, they’ve got me by the short and curlies. Either pay up or don’t go. There are times when its more important to pay up than to prove a point, but that doesn’t make me hate them any less.

        • BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          The Prefab four. Who couldn’t play their own instruments until their 4th record. A fool and his money…

            • BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yeah completely, which is why they continued to have reunion tours and re-release the same majority manufactured Bubblegum pop for the next 60 years. Totally, raging against the machine.

          • Nusm@yall.theatl.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Alright now, let’s not get into an argument about The Monkees. In 1967, they outsold both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, so they’re not nobodies. And just to clear up a few fallacies, Mike was an accomplished guitarist and bassist, Peter could play banjo, bass, and keyboards, and Davy was a drummer. (They didn’t want to put Davy behind the drums because he was short, and they were afraid he wouldn’t be seen.) They were not allowed to play their instruments or even have any input on the songs they recorded on the first two albums by Don Kirshner, the person hired by Colgems as music supervisor for the TV show. It was their 3rd album (not 4th) that they were finally able to get control. The resulting album - Headquarters - Rolling Stone magazine called one of the 500 you should hear before you die. They went on to make six more albums up to 1970 where they had complete control over the songs and played on them. They even had a top 20 album in 2016 on their 50th anniversary called Good Times, with all four members contributing (a previously recorded vocal track by Davy, who was deceased at the time, was digitally cleaned up and put over new music).

            Yes, they were the Prefab Four, but Micky likes to use the metaphor that Pinocchio became a real boy. They were put together to act like a band, but they actually became a real band.

            • BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yeah, no. They were entirely a product, based on The Beatles Success. Drummer couldn’t even play any instrument before they went on tour.

              In 1967, they outsold both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, so they’re not nobodies.

              Yeah and Justin Bieber’s early music outsold Outkast.

              You can like corporate produced slop, targeted to get mass mainstream appeal. That’s what it’s for that doesn’t make it good though. Case and point, approach a stranger on the street and ask them to name as many songs by The Beatles, or The Stones, or The Kinks and then the Monkees and see what has actual staying power because I guarantee you it’s not The Monkees. Music is the most invasive artform in the world, you don’t get a choice, out in the world if people are playing something you don’t like. That’s why people galvanise so strongly around likes and dislikes. It’s not I don’t care for U2, it’s I hate U2 and vice versa. You subconciously redirect your emotional state at the time, onto the music you listen to. Why do you think so many dudes wind up listening to the music their Parents liked as they get older, it reminds them of better times. Mass appeal in the short term is strictly for profit. That’s what The Monkees were for. We don’t have to debate this, we all know this and record companies have been buying their own songs to make them number 1 since the beginning of Tin Pan Alley. So, they outsold The Beatles one year, means nothing. There are people born within the last 20 years that can sing along to the entire tracklist of Sgt. Pepper’s. Which came out 50 years before they were born. But you’re a Monkee, so of course you’ll Monkee around.

            • BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              From The Wikipedia Page: The Monkees were originally a fictional band created for the NBC television sitcom The Monkees. Dolenz, Jones, Nesmith and Tork were cast to portray members of a band in the sitcom. Music credited to the Monkees appeared in the sitcom and was released on LPs and singles beginning in 1966, and the sitcom aired from 1966 to 1968. At first, the band members’ musical contributions were primarily limited to lead vocals and the occasional composition, with the remaining music provided by professional songwriters and studio musicians. Though this arrangement yielded multiple hit albums and singles, the band members revolted and, after a brief power struggle, gained full control over the recording process in 1967. For two albums, the Monkees mostly performed as a group; however, within a year, each member was pursuing his own interests under the Monkees’ name, rendering the Monkees once again a group in name only. With widespread allegations that the band members did not play their own instruments—followed by the cancellation of The Monkees TV series, diminishing success on the charts, and waning popularity overall—band members began to leave the group. The Monkees held a final recording session in 1970 before breaking up.

              Nesmeth Lying about outselling The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in 1967: https://flashbak.com/in-1977-mike-nesmith-fooled-the-world-when-the-monkees-sold-more-records-than-the-beatles-and-rolling-stones-combined-386535/

              Bubblegum pop band has marginal success as a TV show, turned band. Take control of their recording and arranging, careers fall apart. Hey Hey you’re a Monkee

              • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                25 minutes ago

                Who couldn’t play their own instruments until their 4th record.

                Your words. They’re bunk. None of the text you quoted supports that. Yes, they were a constructed band, like many examples since. Others wrote this hits. It’s pop. The producers wanted control. It’s irrelevant to the claim.

                Relevant to the claim

                https://www.woot.com/blog/post/the-debunker-did-the-monkees-play-their-own-instruments

                Quote from Ken Jennings, known for being knowledgeable about a wide range of topics:

                The common rap on the Monkees, then as now, is that they were TV fakes who didn’t even play their own instruments. It’s true that, originally, the Monkees’ music was supervised by Don Kirshner (later of The Archies fame!), who didn’t want even Nesmith and Tork, both gifted musicians, playing on the recordings. But Nesmith was allowed to write and produce a few tracks on each of the first two Monkee LPs, and he brought Tork in to play alongside the session musicians, even if he himself had been banned from playing guitar on his recordings. The same year, 1966, the Monkees began touring, so Mickey Dolenz quickly picked up the drums, while Davy Jones played tambourine and eventually got proficient enough on rhythm guitar, bass, and drums to fill in when necessary.

                More in depth:

                https://medium.com/cuepoint/fake-it-til-you-make-it-how-the-monkees-performed-live-f9fea6c9a6b9

                “I was standing at a place we were playing. We were backstage and it’s like two minutes before we’re supposed to go on. And this guy walks up to me, he’s a reporter you know, like that anyway. I’m standing with my guitar over my back, he walks up to me and says, ‘Is it true that you don’t play your own instruments?’ I said, ‘Wait a minute! I’m fixin’ to walk out there in front of 15,000 people, man. If I don’t play my own instruments I’m in a lot of trouble!’”— Michael Nesmith, January 1967

                For three months we practised our music. When you don’t know a thing about music it’s a little hard to keep the beat. I had never even picked up an instrument, but Mike, Micky, and Peter were great on guitar. We just played for something to do, and Screen Gems rented the instruments for us. We decided someone would have to play the drums and Micky volunteered, though he couldn’t really play them — he couldn’t keep rhythm. Peter got to be the bass guitarist because Mike didn’t want to play it. — Davy Jones

                The first public appearance the group made was, it may surprise the reader to learn, playing live.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tork

                Tork began studying piano at the age of nine, showing an aptitude for music by learning to play several different instruments, including the banjoacoustic bass, and guitar. … He attended Carleton College before he moved to New York City, where he became part of the folk music scene in Greenwich Village during the first half of the 1960s.

                Tork was a proficient musician before he joined the Monkees. Though other members of the band were not allowed to play their instruments on their first two albums, he played what he described as “third-chair guitar” on Michael Nesmith’s song “Papa Gene’s Blues” on their first album. He subsequently played keyboard, bass guitar, banjo, harpsichord, and other instruments on the band’s recordings. He co-wrote, along with Joey Richards, the closing theme song of the second season of The Monkees, “For Pete’s Sake”.

                The DVD release of the first season of the show contains commentary from various band members. In it, Nesmith states that Tork was better at playing guitar than bass. Tork commented that Davy Jones was a good drummer, and had the live performance lineups been based solely on playing ability, it should have been him on guitar, Nesmith on bass, and Jones on drums, with Micky Dolenz taking the fronting role (instead of Nesmith on guitar, Tork on bass, and Dolenz on drums). Jones filled in briefly for Tork on bass when he played keyboard.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nesmith

                After Nesmith’s tour of duty in the Air Force, his mother and stepfather gave him a guitar for Christmas. Learning as he went, he played solo and in a series of working bands, performing folkcountry, and occasionally rock and roll. He enrolled in San Antonio College, where he met John London and began a musical collaboration. They won the first San Antonio College talent award, performing a mixture of standard folk songs and a few of Nesmith’s original songs. Nesmith began to write more songs and poetry, then moved to Los Angeles and began singing in folk clubs around the city. He served as the “Hootmaster” for the Monday night hootenanny at The Troubadour, a West Hollywood nightclub that featured new artists.[9]

                Randy Sparks from the New Christy Minstrelsoffered Nesmith a publishing deal for his songs.[8] Nesmith began his recording career in 1963 by releasing a single on the Highness label. He followed this in 1965 with a one-off single released on Edan Records followed by two more recorded singles; one was titled “The New Recruit” under the name “Michael Blessing”, released on Colpix Records—coincidentally this was also the label of Davy Jones, though the two men did not meet until the Monkees were formed.[10]

                Once he was cast, Screen Gems bought his songs so they could be used in the show. Many of the songs Nesmith wrote for the Monkees, such as “The Girl I Knew Somewhere”, “Mary, Mary”,[8] and “Listen to the Band” became minor hits.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micky_Dolenz

                Dolenz originally had his own rock band called “Micky and the One-Nighters” in the early- to mid-1960s with himself as lead singer.[5] He had already begun writing his own songs. According to Dolenz, his band’s live stage act included rock songs, cover songs, and even some R&B. One of his favorite songs to sing was Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode”, which he sang at his Monkees audition, resulting in his being hired as one of the cast/band members.[citation needed] He recorded two 45s in 1965 that went unreleased until the Monkees’ success in 1967.

                I’m under no delusion that the Monkees were great. But they were absolutely musicians. And it’s tiring seeing the same trite cliches trotted out for almost sixty years now.

                Bubblegum pop band has marginal success as a TV show, turned band. Take control of their recording and arranging, careers fall apart.

                You seem pretty committed to your one-note dismissive summary, mocking anyone who doesn’t fit your narrative. You’re free to be a clown. Have a wonderful day.