Ask HN: Why hasn't there been a real competitor to Ticketmaster yet?

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Market Structure & Monopoly Dynamics

  • Ticketmaster/Live Nation seen as a vertically integrated near‑monopoly: ticketing, resale, promotion, venues, tour management, often even ancillary services (catering, security, buses).
  • They own or control many major venues and promoters, and sign exclusive contracts with both venues and artists, which blocks rivals.
  • Historical consolidation: they bought local ticketing operations and later merged with a large promoter; now they can coerce venues and acts via “use us or lose access” leverage.
  • Some argue this is exactly the type of consolidation antitrust law is meant to prevent; others note weak enforcement and lobbying make change unlikely.

Business Model & Fees

  • Core point: fans are not the real customers; venues, promoters, and artists are.
  • “Convenience” and junk fees largely flow back to venues/promoters/artists, letting them charge market-clearing prices while blaming Ticketmaster.
  • Ticketmaster’s own margin is described as relatively small on high pass‑through revenue; shareholders often capture money elsewhere in the stack (venues, promotion, etc.).
  • Being the “public villain” is part of the value proposition to artists and venues.

Scalping, Pricing & Fairness

  • Scalping is framed as a symptom of underpriced primary tickets vs. high demand, not the core problem.
  • Resale often handled on Ticketmaster’s own platform with double fees; outside resale is insecure because they don’t offer open transfer/escrow APIs.
  • Some see scalpers/brokers as “market optimizers”; others see them as deeply unfair where culture and scarce access are involved.
  • Debate over whether ultra‑high prices (e.g., $10k playoff seats) actually clear; some evidence they do, especially for season‑ticket holders.

Regulation & Policy Ideas

  • Examples cited: jurisdictions capping resale at face value, banning markups, or requiring full upfront pricing.
  • Other proposals: lotteries, named tickets with ID checks, municipal/public ownership of venues, event‑by‑event RFPs for ticketing, or banning exclusive contracts.
  • Skepticism that strong reforms will pass given lobbying and the popularity of high‑priced events.

Competition & Alternatives

  • Multiple smaller competitors exist (regional platforms, niche apps, indie‑venue tools), and some countries have different market leaders.
  • Several comments from people who worked at or with competitors describe:
    • Chicken‑and‑egg of needing both events and consumers.
    • Low margins, need for large cash advances to venues, and brutal enterprise sales.
    • Ticketmaster buying or starving emerging rivals.
  • UX of alternatives is sometimes praised (e.g., easy transfer, anti‑scalping features), but they struggle to access top acts and big venues.

User Behavior & Normative Views

  • Some argue the root issue is simple: limited seats, huge demand, and fans willing to pay. Luxury events will clear at high prices under free‑market logic.
  • Others emphasize cultural equity: concerts and sports as public/cultural goods that should be broadly accessible, even if that means lotteries, caps, or subsidies.
  • A recurring theme: fans want “competitors” that actually mean lower prices, but venues and artists prefer systems that extract more while offloading blame.