Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> a big player with money to burn can undercut them

Unclear. There are limited cities that can support a 30,000+-seat stadium. Most of them have some already. Unless there is way more demand for these venues than I realise, I'd also guess they're close to saturation, i.e. adding another venue would result in lower utilisation.

This natural monopoly in large concert venues creates a condition where winning is Pyrrhic, since it results in no profits for everyone playing.




Take losses, unseat the current monopolist, take their place.


I believe a big problem is many venues have either lock in contracts, or are outright owned by live nation directly or indirectly.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: