Ticketmaster is "chosen" because most venues are owned and operated by Live Nation, who in turn owns Ticketmaster.
Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict of interest? Yes, and yes.
Most acts don't really have the ability to set their own pricing. Those that do either are huge acts, who kind of have to go to Live Nation venues (because an act like Taylor Swift can't really go to tiny venues when she could sell out a stadium) or are tiny, local bands or artists in niche genres that don't really play venues larger than clubs or bars.
LiveNation only owns a few dozen venues, and it owns fewer than AEG.
They also don't own venues big enough for acts like Taylor Swift, most of them are small to mid sized concert halls. The major acts are selling out stadiums and arenas, none of which are owned by AEG or LiveNation.
I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...
> I just checked Live Nation's interactive map and I don't see them having any sort of monopoly. Two venues in Manhattan, two in Miami, etc. Surely those locations have way more venues than that...
I've commented elsewhere in this thread, but no, that's not a complete list. Live Nation owns many more venues than that, and there are even more that it has exclusive contracts with. It has also illegally[0] used its market power to retaliate against independent venues that work with other ticketing systems, forcing them to use Ticketmaster.
It is virtually impossible to be a performing artist with a decent following and go on tour without being subject to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and everything that follows from that.
Note the size of those venues. The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
> The bigger the artist, the higher probability it is that they can only play at venues larger than a certain size, most of which are owned by Live Nation.
Owned by, or in exclusive contracts with. The latter is a much larger set, and it includes the very Blink-182 tour that spawned this article.
Exactly! The exclusive contracts thing terrifies me. There are a lot of venues that Ticketmaster/LiveNation don't own outright, but have exclusivity / quasi-exclusivity deals with, and those venues include a vast majority of the largest multi-use venues in the country, such as stadiums or arenas. Live Nation can front some of the building costs or maintenance costs for a bunch of large venues and it costs them nothing in comparison with the profits they get in return. Practically every sporting event I've been to in the US has had me use Ticketmaster in some way. This includes NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, ATP (tennis), MLS, and even college sports. They are everywhere!
They kinda do....unless they want to pay the entire costs of the tour out-of-pocket and up front. Otherwise, they'll go where their label tells them to.
That's the whole point. They could play at tiny clubs that only hold 100-300 people, but even if they did so, they probably wouldn't make enough money to break even, let alone profit what the label requires they profit.
However, in practice, lots of things. The problem is that since Live Nation is a huge company, they have investments in a lot of record labels and can use that as leverage to force artists to tour exclusively in their venues. Think of it almost as a modern-day payola system:
Artist needs to tour. Label needs to pay for that tour, in some cases a lot of capital is required up front, and a certain amount of profit needs to be made from that tour as well. Live Nation steps in and says "hey, since we own a portion of your label, we can front you a lot of that money (or waive our venue fees entirely) if you only play shows in our venues". Label says "well, shit, my hands are tied" and that's how it works.
Oh, nothing really I guess? Before TM, they were the same since it was the venues selling their own tickets? The problem is really having a monopoly on venues and also owning the acts playing in them.
Is this a monopoly, and a massive conflict of interest? Yes, and yes.
Most acts don't really have the ability to set their own pricing. Those that do either are huge acts, who kind of have to go to Live Nation venues (because an act like Taylor Swift can't really go to tiny venues when she could sell out a stadium) or are tiny, local bands or artists in niche genres that don't really play venues larger than clubs or bars.