Ask HN: Why hasn't there been a real competitor to Ticketmaster yet?
Soaring ticket prices and rampant reselling are prompting questions about why Ticketmaster still dominates event ticketing despite widespread consumer anger. Commenters point to Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s vertical integration—owning or controlling venues, promotion, and ticketing, plus exclusive contracts with artists and arenas—as creating a de facto monopoly that serves venues and performers first and fans last. Many argue only strong regulation and antitrust enforcement, not better tech, can meaningfully change an ecosystem where fees and scalping reflect intentional profit-maximization in a severely supply‑constrained market.
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.