The advantage of having a monopoly, or near monopoly, means that you can pretty much do what you like without fear of revolt. If a customer wants the service, they have nowhere else to go.
Take Live Nation for instance…
- They have been accused of using their dominance to artificially inflate ticket prices
- The 360 deals mean that they will concentrate their efforts on a few commercially successful acts at the expense of diversity and the long tail, squeezing every last bit of revenue to recoup as much of the outlandish fees paid out
- They can offer ridiculous “No readmission” policies without providing food or a smoking area. I am a non-smoker, but “pro-choice”. I didn’t realise Live Nation were into health planning.
- And to top it all, they can introduce priority tickets. The amount you like a band or willingness to queue/wait for a ticket no longer matters – it is all about the phone you have (On the plus side, this may mean that they will no longer be serving Carling)
Is there a concerted boycotting effort going on? Or, like me, are people sucking in their distaste in order to see some of their favourite bands.
Photo credit: http://flickr.com/photos/larimdame/
Filed under: music | Tagged: live nation, monopoly, music |
Curiously Persistent 
I find now that the more I have to pay and the more uncomfortable I am when there that the more I can’t be bothered even if I love the band. The gig has to be once-in-a-lifetime good for me to make the effort. I don’t like feeling ripped off. I would rather stay in 🙂
I completely agree. The premium charged for gigs is supposed to reflect the unique, one-off “experience”. But if that experience is corrupted by factors outside of the band’s control, then what good is that?