Ticketing
Page: 6
The Ledger is a weekly newsletter that covers the financial and economic side of the music business. An abridged version appears at Billboard Pro. Sign up here to receive the newsletter.
Ticket fees have been called everything from “exorbitant” (Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Amy Klobuchar) to “completely bats—” (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver). And they can increase the price of a concert ticket by an average of 27-31%, according to a 2017 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Unfortunately for ticket buyers, those fees aren’t going anywhere quickly. They may change or disappear completely, but consumers won’t reap any savings in the end, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino explained during Live Nation’s fourth quarter 2022 earnings call on Thursday.
Say, for example, a venue is prohibited from charging fees on top of a ticket’s face value. “Well, then the venue would say, ‘Okay, artists, the rent isn’t $50,000 anymore. It’s $100,000,’” Rapino said.
The ticket fee is a surcharge that helps cover a venue’s costs. Rapino’s point is that the venue needs to cover its costs, so it’s going to collect money to cover them, no matter what. In a normal scenario, the consumer helps cover those costs by paying a surcharge directly to the venue.
If fees were eliminated, artists — who are the final authority on primary ticket prices — would be forced to raise them to cover the additional cost. The surcharge may have disappeared, but that cost would still exist in the form of a higher face value. Regardless of the approach, the consumer’s expense and the venue’s revenues would be unchanged.
“The true cost of going to a show and making the show happen is the full price all-in,” said Rapino. The concept is apparent to anybody who has pondered how airlines set prices. If airlines charged an all-in fee that encompassed all its costs, ticket prices would be dramatically higher. Legislation that banned fees for checked baggage could result in higher prices for everything from flight themselves to in-flight beverages. Airlines that previously allowed free carry-on bags might start imposing fees on those. They could also charge more to change your travel plans (which used to cost the consumer nothing).
Rapino acknowledged that Live Nation, which owns and operates venues, would do the same. “If tomorrow someone said, ‘You know, you can’t charge 20% service fees on your amphitheater, you have to [charge] 10%.’ Well, then the $75,000 house rent that we charge artists would be $100,000,” he said as an example. Live Nation couldn’t simply absorb the cost, he explained. Since the company requires money to pay staff and operate the venue, it would find a way to recoup the lost fees.
While what consumers pay won’t change, they may get more transparency. In the wake of Ticketmaster’s disastrous Taylor Swift Eras Tour pre-sale, President Joe Biden unveiled an initiative to limit, among other types of fees, mandatory, back-end fees that “often hide the full price” of a good or service. The White House pointed to research that found hiding the full price encourages consumers to spend more than they would have otherwise.
Live Nation has also come out publicly — and forcefully — against hidden fees. On Thursday, Rapino called numerous times for the industry to adopt all-in pricing that show the ticket buyer a single price at the beginning of the transaction. Also on Thursday, Live Nation issued a press release that encouraged lawmakers to introduce legislation that includes, among other things, mandatory all-in pricing.
The uproar against Live Nation and Ticketmaster over ticket fees is just one of many criticisms to gain momentum in recent months. Some members of Congress have called Live Nation a monopoly that limits competition in the touring business and harms consumers by charging high prices and leaving some unable to purchase tickets for in-demand concerts like Swift’s Eras tour. Many inside and outside of Washington have called for the Department of Justice to break up the company’s concert promotion and ticketing operations. On Thursday, Sens. Klobuchar and Mike Lee sent evidence of the Jan. 24 Senate hearing on the ticketing market to the Department of Justice and encouraged its antitrust division “to take action if it finds that Ticketmaster has walled itself off from competitive pressure at the expense of the industry and fans.” Others have suggested Ticketmaster improve its security practices to deal with the bot attacks that derailed Swift’s pre-sale.
Ticketmaster may be most reviled for its fees, though. And as Rapino pointed out, those aren’t going away anytime soon.
Live Nation’s 2022 was record-breaking across basically all key metrics — revenue, concert attendance, gross transaction value and sponsorships were all at all-time highs — and the company expects 2023 to top that.
As the company reported Thursday (Feb) with its fourth quarter earnings, total revenue reached a record $16.7 billion in 2022 — up 44% from the pre-pandemic era of 2019. That growth was spread across a number of factors: more fans, more concerts, more spending per fan, higher average ticket prices and a greater number of large sponsors.
Adjusted operating income improved 49% to $1.4 billion over the year, and operating free cash flow rose nearly four-fold to $1.8 billion.
Concert revenue in 2022 was $13.49 billion, up 43.1% from 2019 and 185.8% more than 2021. Concert attendance reached 121 million fans in 2022, up 24% from 2019 and a 246% increase from 2021, a year Live Nation began to recover from the pandemic but was not yet at full strength. The concerts division put on 43,600 events in 2022, up 153.2% from 2021 and up 8.4% from 2019. Attendance for Venue Nation, the venues operated by Live Nation, reached almost 50 million.
Ticketing revenues of $2.24 billion was up 44.9% from 2019 and up 97.4% from 2021. Fee-bearing ticket volume rose 28% from 2019 to 280 million. Fee-bearing gross transaction value grew to $28 billion, up more than 50% from 2019.
The average ticket costs were higher in 2022, too. With more tickets priced dynamically to true market value, Live Nation estimates $700 million was shifted to artists (and, presumably, away from the secondary market). That said, the average entry price for tickets remained below $35 in the U.S.
Even though consumers felt the pinch of high inflation throughout 2022, music fans didn’t shy away from spending money at Live Nation concerts. Ancillary per-fan spending rose at least 20% across all venue types from 2019 levels.
Sponsorship revenue reached $968 million, up 64% from 2019 and 135% greater than 2021. Live Nation had 120 large sponsors globally, up 32% from 2019. Last year, the company added PayPal, GoPuff, Hulu and Snap as sponsors. They and other new, large sponsors accounted for 80% of sponsorship’s revenue growth in 2022.
Live Nation points to a number of leading indicators that suggest 2023 will be even stronger than 2022. As of mid-February, event-related deferred revenue — tickets sales for concerts that have not yet occurred — was up $400 million to $2.7 billion. Also through mid-February, ticket sales are up 20% and fee-bearing gross transaction value of tickets sold is up 33%.
Just a week after Ticketmaster’s disastrous presale for Taylor Swift‘s The Eras Tour, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are asking the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) how the agency plans to combat bots in the online ticketing marketplace.
In a letter sent Monday (Nov. 28), Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn — chair and ranking member of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, respectively — are requesting information from FTC chair Lina Khan about what steps the FTC is taking to enforce the 2016 law known as the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, which was designed to crack down on the kind of illegal bots that have plagued online ticket sales for recent tours by Swift and other major stars.
That law, which “prohibits the circumvention of a security measure, access control system, or other technological control measure used online by a ticket issuer” and the sale of tickets knowingly obtained through those means, grants the FTC and state attorneys general the authority to enforce violations, according to the letter. But since the BOTS Act became law, Blumenthal and Blackburn claim the FTC has taken only a single enforcement action despite numerous incidents involving the use of bots in online ticket sales.
“Given the numerous high-profile incidents in the online ticket marketplace, it would be helpful to understand how the FTC intends to act to address such conduct going forward,” the letter reads.
Monday’s letter follows Ticketmaster’s earlier claim that the Swift debacle was caused in part by tens of millions of uninvited users and billions of bots crashing the Eras presale, forcing the company to shut down the tour’s final onsale after more than 90% of ticketing inventory was snapped up.
In the wake of the fiasco, politicians including Sen. Amy Klobuchar — chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights — and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested Ticketmaster and its owner Live Nation represent a monopoly and cried out for accountability, with the latter directly calling for the companies, which merged in 2010, to be broken up. Last week, Klobuchar and her counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), jointly announced they would be holding a hearing to examine the effects of consolidation on the ticketing industry. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are also reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department over whether the companies represent an illegal monopoly, though that probe is said to have predated the Swift incident.
In addition to the Swift debacle, in the letter Blumenthal and Blackburn point to various other recent online ticketing mishaps involving bots, including tours for Bob Dylan, Blake Shelton, Bruce Springsteen and Adele.
“While bots may not be the only reason for these problems, which Congress is evaluating, fighting bots is an important step in reducing consumer costs in the online ticketing industry,” the senators continued. They point out that the infiltration of bots, among other factors, creates an unfair environment that prevents regular fans from purchasing tickets, forcing them to resort to secondary sites where tickets are often marked up dramatically. “Some reports have found secondary ticket sales ranging from $1,000 (Bruce Springsteen) to $40,000 (Adele),” the lawmakers added.
Though Swift may benefit from Blackburn’s interest in addressing the ticketing bots issue, the two have not exactly gotten along in the past. The pop star made a rare-at-the-time political statement in 2018, denouncing Blackburn for her conservative voting record and urging voters to choose her opponent in the Senate race that year. She later called the lawmaker “Trump in a wig.” Last year, Blackburn addressed the tiff in an interview, arguing Swift would the “first victim” in a “socialistic government.”
In addition to asking whether the FTC has any “pending enforcement matters before it” with respect to the BOTS Act, Blumenthal and Blackburn are asking why only a single enforcement action has been taken to date; whether there are “obstacles preventing” the FTC from enforcing the law; and whether there are “other solutions that Congress needs to consider” to prevent bots from operating in the future.
You can read the full letter below.
Dear Chair Khan:
We write to ask for information about the steps the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking to combat the use and operation of bots in the online ticket marketplace. As you know, the Better Online Ticket Sales, or BOTS Act, became law in 2016. This law prohibits the circumvention of a security measure, access control system, or other technological control measure used online by a ticket issuer. It also prohibits the selling or offering of an event ticket obtained through a circumvention violation if the seller participated in, had the ability to control, or should have known about the violation. The BOTS Act gives the FTC and state attorneys general the authority to enforce violations as unfair and deceptive practices.
Recently, several high profile incidents arose where consumers encountered serious difficulties purchasing tickets through online ticket vendors, including Ticketmaster and AXS. While bots may not be the only reason for these problems, which Congress is evaluating, fighting bots is an important step in reducing consumer costs in the online ticketing industry. For example, consumers reported trying to purchase tickets to see Bob Dylan at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, only to be told the tickets in their shopping cart no longer existed. Similarly, 22,000 fans preregistered to buy tickets for Blake Shelton, but only a few hundred actually got tickets. Finally, Ticketmaster/LiveNation pointed to online bots as a reason why fans could not get Taylor Swift concert tickets, leading the ticket seller to shut down sales to the general public.
While some consumers opt to purchase tickets on the secondary market, most fans cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a single concert ticket. Some reports have found secondary ticket sales ranging from $1,000 (Bruce Springsteen) to $40,000 (Adele).3 Preventing this type of consumer harm is exactly why Congress chose to enact the BOTS Act six years ago and why we both chose to sponsor that bill.
We understand that, in January 2021, the FTC took its first enforcement actions under the BOTS Act. However, given the numerous high-profile incidents in the online ticket marketplace, it would be helpful to understand how the FTC intends to act to address such conduct going forward. We request answers to the following, which may be provided in a confidential briefing if needed:
Does the FTC have any pending enforcement matters before it with respect to the BOTS Act?
Why has the FTC only undertaken a single enforcement action to date using its BOTS Act authority?
Are there obstacles preventing the FTC from exercising its authority under the BOTS Act that Congress should be aware of?
Are there other solutions that Congress needs to consider in conjunction with the BOTS Act?
We appreciate your timely attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
Marsha BlackburnRanking MemberSubcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security
Richard BlumenthalChairSubcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security
Some of Taylor Swift’s fans want you to know three things: They’re not still 16, they have careers and resources and, right now, they’re angry. That’s a powerful political motivator, researchers say.
Look what Ticketmaster made them do.
It started Nov. 15, when millions crowded a presale for Swift’s long-awaited Eras Tour, resulting in crashes, prolonged waits and frantic purchases. By Thursday, Ticketmaster had canceled the general sale, citing insufficient remaining tickets and inciting a firestorm of outrage from fans. Swift herself said the ordeal “really pisses me off.”
Ticketmaster apologized but the bad blood had already been sowed. And now fans — and politicians — have started acting on it.
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez directed Swifties to where they could make U.S. Department of Justice complaints. Multiple state attorneys general — including in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, key states in Swift’s origin story — have announced investigations.
Stephanie Aly, a New York-based professional who has worked on community organizing for progressive politics, for years has thought mobilizing fandoms for social progress could be beneficial. “Fandoms are natural organizers,” said the 33-year-old Swiftie. “If you find the right issues and you activate them and engage them then you can effect real change.”
In 2020, for instance, K-pop fans organized to back the Black Lives Matter movement and sought to inflate registration for a Donald Trump rally. Aly and Swifties from different industries — law, public relations, cybersecurity and more — have joined forces to create Vigilante Legal, a group targeting Ticketmaster by creating email templates to petition attorneys general and providing antitrust information. Thousands have expressed interest in helping or learning more.
“The level of anger that you’ve just seen in the country around this issue is astounding,” said Jean Sinzdak, associate director for the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “People are really sharing their feelings about that and building a movement about that online, which I really think is quite fascinating. It’s certainly an opportunity to engage people politically. Whether it lasts is hard to say, but it certainly feels like a real opportunity.”
In one way, said Sinzdak, this is giving Swift’s large following of younger people a direct line to seeing how policy takes shape. It’s also targeting a demographic that is seldom courted by politicians during election season.
“Nobody goes out and thinks, ‘Let’s target young women,’” said Gwen Nisbett, a University of North Texas professor who researches the intersection of political engagement and pop culture. “Be it about abortion or student loans, that age group is super mobilized and young women are super mobilized.”
Fan culture and community has boosted that tendency toward mobilization. Nisbett was studying parasocial relationships — when fans have strong one-way relationships with celebrities — in 2018, when the previously apolitical Swift posted an endorsement of Democratic candidates to social media. Nisbett found that while such posts may not determine fans’ votes, they still led to the increased likelihood fans would look for more information about voting — and actually vote.
For the record: AP VoteCast, an extensive survey of the U.S. electorate, showed about a third of Tennessee voters in 2018 said they had a favorable opinion of Swift, and among them, a large majority — about 7 in 10 — backed Democrat Phil Bredesen in the Senate contest. That was in clear contrast to the roughly third of voters who had an unfavorable opinion of Swift and overwhelmingly backed Republican Marsha Blackburn.
For Swifties, the ire for Ticketmaster is not just about a ticket: “It’s the fact that you can’t participate in your community and your fandom and it’s part of your identity,” Nisbett said.
This isn’t even the first time a fandom or an artist has targeted Ticketmaster. Pearl Jam took aim at the company in 1994, although the Justice Department ultimately declined to bring a case. More recently, Bruce Springsteen fans were enraged over high ticket costs because of the platform’s dynamic pricing system.
“It’s not just about getting vengeance for Swifties. It’s not about getting an extra million Taylor Swift fans tickets, or all of us going to a secret session,” said Jordan Burger, 28, who is using his law background to help the cause. “It’s about fundamental equality. And when you have a monopolist like that, it’s just so representative of the class structure of a society where there isn’t equality anymore, there isn’t fairness.”
The sheer power and size of Swift’s fandom has spurred conversations about economic inequality, merely symbolized by Ticketmaster. Aly noted that quite a few of the members of the group did get tickets; the issue is is bigger than Ticketmaster, she said.
“We’ve gotten some feedback that, ‘This is too big, let the government handle it.’ Have you seen the U.S. government? The government only functions when the people push it to and when the people demand that it function and the people are involved,” she said. “Even when something seems too big to fail or too powerful to fail, there are always enough of us to make a difference. Your involvement may be the thing that pushes it over the edge that forces the government to act.”
Aly says many grown-up Swifties have 10-15 years’ experience of being bullied for liking the singer — but what fans have in mind might be better than revenge.
“We have thick skin and nothing to lose, really,” Aly said.
Maybe Live Nation chairman Greg Maffei’s statement that Taylor Swift and promoter AEG “chose” to work with Ticketmaster for her calamitous onsale earlier this week should have come with an asterisk.
On Thursday (Nov. 17), Maffei attempted to correct criticisms about Ticketmaster and its owner Live Nation operating as a monopoly by pointing out that Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour “is not actually a Live Nation promoted concert” but rather “promoted by one of our largest competitors.”
Maffei — who is also the president of Live Nation’s largest shareholder Liberty Media — continued: “AEG who is the promoter for Taylor Swift, chose to use us because, in reality, we are the largest and most effective ticket seller in the world. Even our competitors want to come on our platform.”
The thing is, AEG says it’s essentially forced to work with Ticketmaster because of the stranglehold it has over the touring business. “Ticketmaster’s exclusive deals with the vast majority of venues on the Eras tour required us to ticket through their system,” an AEG spokesperson told Billboard in a statement. “We didn’t have a choice.”
The debacle centers around Swift’s presale Tuesday for her Eras Tour, which initially crashed shortly after launch as 14 million fans and billions of bots flooded the site, causing service disruptions. The ticket crash caught the attention of Capitol Hill. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, both of whom criticized the outage at Ticketmaster and doubled down on claims that the Live Nation-owned ticketing service was a monopoly. The Justice Department is now reportedly investigating Live Nation, though the investigation reportedly pre-dated the Swift debacle.
AEG and Live Nation have a complicated relationship built around intense competition and steady cooperation going back decades. While AEG’s facility group relies on Live Nation for programming, AEG Presents, the company’s concert promotion wing, competes directly against Live Nation’s global touring team and has its own preferred ticketing system, AXS.
While AEG Presents prefers to use AXS, their partner in the Eras Tour, Louis Messina (Messina Touring Group is a 50-50 joint venture between AEG and Messina), is basically agnostic when it comes to ticketing systems — he will work with any ticketing company, based on where the show takes place. In North America, that means working with Ticketmaster, which is especially dominant in the NFL as it provides tickets to 27 of the NFL’s 32 teams. By choosing to stage her show in NFL stadiums – really, in choosing to tour stadiums in the U.S. — Swift and her partners at AEG and Messina Touring Group are effectively forced to use Ticketmaster due to its supremacy in North America.
In that sense, Maffei’s argument that AEG chose to work with Ticketmaster is misleading, but it would also be inaccurate to describe Swift or AEG’s relationship with Ticketmaster as one built upon coercion. Historically, it’s been more mutually beneficial.
AEG’s venue management company ASM Global — formed following the merger of AEG Facilities and SMG in 2019 to become the biggest such company in the country — expanded its partnership with Live Nation in 2021, allowing the use of Ticketmaster for any of the shows the promoter brings to ASM’s 300 clients. In this arrangement, both sides win, since AEG relies on Live Nation to bring content to its buildings and grants the company incentives to entice shows to their facilities.
Swift has worked very closely with Ticketmaster over the years — for her Reputation stadium tour, the COVID-19-canceled Lovers Fest and now the Eras Tour, building an entire fan verification and Taylor Swift-branded ticketing platform together. While Swift might have preferred to have had more options to sell tickets to her fans, she did partner with the company in a way that few artists have in the past.
Perhaps Ticketmaster and Swift will mend their relationship once they start counting how much money they made together. Or maybe, they’re never, ever, ever, ever getting back together.
The Ledger is a weekly newsletter about the economics of the music business sent to Billboard Pro subscribers. An abbreviated version of the newsletter is published online.
Is Ticketmaster a monopoly that treats customers unfairly? Problems with Taylor Swift’s record-breaking The Eras Tour onsale this week has created choruses of complaints around the ticketing giant that have now led to a reported Justice Department investigation.
On Thursday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar sent an open letter to Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino detailing her “concerns about the state of competition in the ticketing industry and its harmful impact on consumers.” The problem, wrote Klobuchar, is a lack of competition “that typically push[es] companies to innovate and improve their services. That can result in dramatic service failures, where consumers are the ones that pay the price.”
Breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster wouldn’t necessarily have prevented this problem. It’s likely that any ticketing platform would have struggled with such a high level of demand. StubHub crashed in 2018 after University of Georgia fans flooded the site to purchase tickets to see their team play in the NCAA football national championship game — and that was just one game.
Ticketmaster blamed the outage on a surge of unregistered fans and billions of bots. According to the company, over 3.5 million people pre-registered for Swift’s Verified Fan credentials, the largest registration in its history. Typically, only a fraction of registered fans show up to buy a ticket. This time, “a staggering number of bot attacks as well as fans who didn’t have invite codes” resulted in 3.5 billion total system requests — four times the previous record number.
One could argue Ticketmaster could have been better prepared for such a high level of demand. Perhaps the company should Swift-proof the platform in anticipation of a flood of speculators and unregistered fans — Swift said Friday (Nov. 18) that her team “asked them, multiple times, if they could handle this kind of demand and we were assured they could.” Overall, problems on the platform are relatively rare given Ticketmaster’s volume of business, but we talk about them because they happen with high-profile concerts that attract large numbers of customers. Those attract the most attention and complaints online, which in turn attracts politicians. Ticketmaster is one of the few non-partisan issues in America in 2022.
Some observers have conflated the issues surrounding Ticketmaster’s market power, though. Rep. David Cicilline, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, wrote about the Swift on-sale that “excessive wait times and fees are completely unacceptable … and are a symptom of a larger problem.” It’s fair for Cicilline to suggest that Ticketmaster does not invest enough in its platform to avoid the technical issues and wait times Swift fans recently experienced. That’s debatable, but it’s a defensible argument.
Fees are, however, an entirely different issue. Ticketmaster is a pioneer in the area of ticket fees but does not have a monopoly on the ability to charge them. More competition in ticketing would not prevent venues and promoters from adding to the face value of tickets. The ticket purchase is an opportunity for all parties involved to capitalize on fans’ demand for live music. As Bruce Springsteen’s controversial leap into dynamic pricing showed, leaving money on the table is an increasingly uncommon strategy in the modern music business.
Ticket prices occasionally get dragged into the argument, too. Politicians and consumers seem to want a form of price competition that doesn’t exist. Prices for an in-demand concert ticket won’t necessarily become more affordable if they’re sold at, say, StubHub rather than Ticketmaster. The laws of supply and demand say that prices for in-demand, scarce objects like a Swift concert ticket are going to be high no matter who’s selling them.
So, what tangible results might come from the calamitous The Eras Tour on-sale? Sen. Klobuchar’s letter points to customers’ desire for fair access to concert tickets. She asked Rapino, “Generally, what percentage of high-profile tour tickets are made available to the general public compared to those allocated to pre-sales, radio stations, VIPs, and other restricted opportunities?”
Klobuchar wants to know what percentage of tickets the average person has a realistic shot at getting without being the customer of a particular credit card, without buying high-priced VIP packages, without winning a radio station contest or without being a member of an artist’s fan club. In this case, Capital One is a sponsor of the Eras tour and offered a pre-sale to its customers.
But how do lawmakers regulate access? Do they establish rules that dictate what kind of marketing partnerships artists can and cannot establish? Would they tell American Express to stop giving such long-standing perks as pre-sale access and dedicated tickets to its credit card holders? If Congress really wanted to create a more level playing field for fans, they could do what the lawmakers in Victoria, Australia, did in 2021: pass a law that limits the resale value of a ticket to 110% of its face value. That could lower the number of resellers and bots clogging up Ticketmaster’s system for high-traffic on-sales like the Eras Tour. At the very least, price limits would bring a much-desired sense of fairness to the secondary market. Whether the U.S. Congress has the stomach to establish price controls on private companies remains to be seen.
A more likely outcome of the Eras Tour debacle is increased transparency. New York State legislators passed a law in June that improves transparency by requiring all-in pricing and prohibits revealing the ticket’s total cost — face value plus fees — after multiple clicks in a check-out process. The bill could have gone further: a requirement to disclose the percentage of tickets made available to pre-sales and VIPs was in an early form of the bill but not the final version.
But, again, are lawmakers willing to mandate such disclosures from private businesses? This would more likely be a voluntary disclosure done at the behest of the artist – Swift is exactly the kind of powerful artist who could persuade ticket sellers to reveal this information. Transparency wouldn’t immediately translate into greater access for the average fan, but it could fuel a larger conversation about how fans get access to concert tickets. That wouldn’t ease the pain of many Swift fans, but it would be a step forward.
A rebound in the live music business helped German concert promoter CTS Eventim improve its revenues to 694.4 million euros in the third quarter ($699.3 million at the average exchange rate in the quarter), 84% higher than the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic, the company announced Thursday.
Revenue increased due to contributions from pre-sales, the staging of events and higher income from currency conversion. That was offset by a reduction in COVID-19 economic aide, received as compensation for event cancellations or events with reduced capacity, of 76.8 million euros ($77.3 million) from the prior-year period.
“These excellent results are testimony to the fact that our strategic initiatives are taking us from strength to strength following the post-pandemic restart of live entertainment,” said CEO Klaus-Peter Schulenberg in a statement. “Even in the face of new uncertainties caused by the high level of inflation and geopolitical factors, we will maintain this proven course in order to continue to drive our profitable growth, both at home and abroad.”
The live entertainment segment’s revenue was 563 million euros ($566.9 million) in the third quarter, up 103.6 from the same period in 2019, and 1.11 billion euros ($1.11 billion) in the nine-month period, a 42% improvement. Live entertainment EBITDA was 64 million euros ($64.4 million), about triple the amount in the same period of 2019.
The ticketing segment’s revenue improved to 137 million ($138 million) in the third quarter, up 28% from the same period in 2019, and to 339 million ($341.1 million) for the nine-month period, up 10.4% from 2019. CTS Eventim sold 17.2 million tickets in the quarter and 45.1 million tickets in the nine-month period, increases of 31% and 23%, respectively, from the pre-pandemic periods in 2019.
The company’s staff, including part-time workers, grew from 2,357 a year ago to 2,956 at the end of the third quarter.
The company sounded an alarm about rising costs stemming from higher personnel costs in security, catering and stage technology “induced by an increasing shortage of specialists in the event industry and at least temporarily higher demand due to the fact that both postponed and new events are currently being held at the same time,” it explained in its earnings release. The fourth-quarter results could be hampered by rising energy prices and a possible pullback of fan spending due to inflation’s impact on household purchasing power.
Still, CTS Eventim is going to have a record year in 2022. The company expects full-year revenue of 1.7 billion euros ($1.71 billion) and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 330 million euros ($332.3 million). That would represent gains of 17.8% and 16.2% over 2019, which was a record year for CTS Eventim. The company’s tenor improved from a quarter ago, when management was unable to provide a precise forecast for 2022 “owing to uncertainty about the pandemic and the geopolitical situation going forward.”
CTS Eventim shares fell 0.3% to 56.00 euros on Thursday. Year to date, the share price is down 13%.
Executives at one of the largest independent ticketing companies in North America believe malware hidden inside a tracking pixel used for sending customers target advertisements was the source of two-and-a-half-year credit card skimming operation.
Company officials with See Tickets North America, a subsidiary of French entertainment conglomerate Vivendi, tell Billboard that criminals were able to operate a sophisticated credit card skimming fraud on See Tickets checkout pages. While See Tickets officials didn’t detail which events were impacted, the company is one of the largest ticketing sites for indie promoters in North America with clients that include Pitchfork Festival and Disco Donnie Presents’ Freaky Deaky festival, as well as venues like the Troubadour in West Hollywood, California.
Tracking pixels are typically used to identify customers and share information about the consumer with ad networks and other large technology companies. One popular use of tracking pixels in the events business is to serve ads to fans who visited a music festivals website but did not purchase tickets, in hopes of enticing them to make a purchase.
Company officials believe that an exploit in the pixel See Tickets was using allowed criminals to take snap shots of credit card transactions as they happened without having to break into See Tickets system or database. The malicious code first appeared on the site on June 25, 2019, about nine months before the COVID-19 pandemic forced the shutdown of the live entertainment industry.
“At See Tickets we take securing customer information very seriously and deeply regret this incident occurred,” Boris Patronoff, CEO of See Tickets North America, told Billboard in a statement. “We also understand how this may have negatively impacted on our clients and their customers. We conducted an immediate investigation as soon as the issue was discovered and communicated with clients and customers the moment it was possible to do so. We have since taken additional measures to further strengthen our security,.”
Company officials became aware of the security breach in April 2021 after being contacted by credit card investigators looking at fraudulent charges linked to purchases on See Tickets website site. Within days of being notified, the ticketing company hired two forensic investigation teams to investigate the breach. In January of this year, the malicious code was eradicated from the site.
Last month, See Tickets concluded its investigation and began notifying state law enforcement officials with the details of the breach. While See Tickets’ own customer and promoter data was not accessed during the breach, criminals were able to obtain details from credit card transactions including full name, address, card number, expiration date and CVV.
See Tickets says a majority of ticket buyers who used the site were not impacted by the breach and note that social security numbers, state identification numbers and bank account information was not exposed due to this incident, as they are not stored in its systems.
The breach is the second major hack of a ticketing company in five years. In 2018, hackers briefly took over the Ticketfly home page and took parts of the company offline for months grinding much of the independent music industry to a halt. Ticketfly users and client data were stolen during the attack and wound up on the dark web because of the attack.
LONDON — For live music executives, Monday’s (Oct. 24) appointment of Rishi Sunak as Liz Truss’ successor as U.K.’s prime minister brings a sense of urgency as the sector struggles to recover to full health after the devastating impact of the pandemic.
They are calling for Sunak, who served in Boris Johnson’s government as Chancellor of the Exchequer and will become the U.K.’s first British-Asian prime minister, to swiftly cut the sales tax rate charged on U.K. ticket purchases from the current 20% VAT to 5%.
At the height of the pandemic, Sunak lowered VAT rates to 5% to try and help boost advance sales. The tax cut lasted for eight months, before rising to 12.5% last October and then returning to its pre-pandemic level of 20% on April 1.
Live execs say that cutting VAT back to 5% will encourage ticket sales at a time when many people in the U.K. are experiencing a drastic reduction in disposable income due to soaring food and energy prices. Last month, inflation hit a 40-year high of 10.1% in the United Kingdom.
Jon Collins, CEO of U.K. live music industry association LIVE, says he hopes Sunak’s experience in the Treasury office “leaves him well placed to recognize the economic stimulus that would follow” a reduction in VAT on ticket sales. “Safeguarding gigs, festivals and venues while encouraging additional activity will bring benefits to town and city centers across the U.K.,” says Collins.
An immediate priority for the new prime minister — who officially takes up his post on Tuesday, following a meeting with King Charles III — will be restoring confidence in the financial markets, following Truss’ disastrously brief reign.
Last month, the pound fell to a record low against the U.S. dollar in the aftermath of Kwasi Kwarteng’s Sept. 23 mini budget, which spooked investors with its unfunded tax cuts — something Sunak warned about when he unsuccessfully competed in an earlier Conservative Party leadership contest this summer. Truss sacked Kwarteng as Chancellor on Oct. 14, precipitating her downfall. Almost all the tax measures he introduced have since been scrapped.
Sunak, a former hedge fund partner who married the daughter of an Indian billionaire, won the prime minister role after Johnson announced on Sunday he would not be running for the position. On Monday, Sunak’s only other rival, Penny Mordaunt, pulled out of the contest shortly before votes from members of Parliament (MPs) were due to be announced.
The markets calmed Monday with sterling broadly unchanged against the dollar and government borrowing costs falling as the interest rate on bonds dropped to 3.8%. (The rate was 5.17% in late September.)
“There is no doubt we face a profound economic challenge,” Sunak, one of Westminster’s wealthiest politicians, said in a televised address. “We now need stability and unity, and I will make it my utmost priority to bring our party and our country together.”
Michael Kill CEO of The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), which represents more than 1,400 U.K. nightclubs and venues, says he will judge the incoming prime minister on his “actions not words.”
Kill says he hoped Sunak can “can address the current instability, uncertainty and begin a journey to build back consumer confidence for nighttime economy and hospitality businesses.” He echoed live executives’ demands for a cut to VAT and called for an extension on business rates relief (taxes payable on business premises, such as record shops and music venues). “Independent businesses will not survive without it,” Kill says.