> it's about artists not wanting the negative attention and feeling that high ticket prices attract, and offloading some of the price to a third party (by having them collect additional fees) to manage this.
I'll try to rephrase. This would only work if the artist selling the ticket by themselves could only sell it lower than Ticketmaster. That is, Ticketmaster can extract MORE money out its customers because they hate Ticketmaster.
That is the idea I contest: people pay more on satisfaction, not on dissatisfaction. Yes, the artist save themselves some hassle, but they dont reduce it, they increase it. I would believe Ticketmaster has some leverage we are not considering.
A thought experiment: lets say artists now sell their tickets on platform independent and simultaneous to Ticketmaster, at the same total price. Would people buy on Ticketmaster because they prefer to hate it than to hate the artist?
> That is, Ticketmaster can extract MORE money out its customers because they hate Ticketmaster.
This is what's happening. People want to see the artist they like, so they see Ticketmaster as a necessary evil. If those feeling were transferred to the artist, the artist may alienate fans, which not only affects that specific concert, but future reputation and events as well. This should not be looked at one event at a time in isolation, reputation persists, and pays of in a myriad of ways (album sales, word-of-mouth, etc), so it makes sense to look at it over time, If an artist is able to cultivate a reputation for caring about fans, it helps to have a partner able to take any blowback for actions fans do not like.
More established artists often just charge a lot for tickets. They can get away with it. Having to pay $100+ for the cheapest Rolling Stones tickets isn't going to phase most Rolling Stones fans at this point (and a lot are at a stage in life where they can support it, and much more expensive tickets). The same might not be true of a newer artist, which is still trying to grow their fan base.
> people pay more on satisfaction, not on dissatisfaction.
Generally, yes, but it's also skewed by how often the item in question is purchases, have they purchased it before, etc. No matter how much I enjoy a new car, I still hem and haw at the price when I an seriously considering buying one. Expensive luxury purchases are like that (at this point I do pay for satisfaction in cars - to a degree - but it wasn't always that way, by necessity and by my current state of knowledge).
> lets say artists now sell their tickets on platform independent and simultaneous to Ticketmaster, at the same total price. Would people buy on Ticketmaster because they prefer to hate it than to hate the artist?
Is the artist advertising a similar face value and adding fees on to create a higher purchase price, like Ticketmaster? If not, then I expect the vast majority would probably end up at Ticketmaster because of a lower advertised price, even if it's the same at checkout.
In the end though, some fans may be upset at the pricing and treatment, and that may prevent a future album or concert ticket purchase. Fans are fickle, and there's a relationship between artists and fans, and that's essentially why it's not a rational market. There's emotion in there.
> Is the artist advertising a similar face value and adding fees on to create a higher purchase price, like Ticketmaster? If not, then I expect the vast majority would probably end up at Ticketmaster because of a lower advertised price, even if it's the same at checkout.
Lets try to ceteris paribus it. I have no doubt the price shennanings Ticketmaster does have an extractive effect, but given the same price for TM and the artist, who would choose TM? And if the artist is cheaper because there is no middleman?
Of course TM would punish any artist doing that, thats why I say they must have leverage.
In the end I might be wrong about this, but deception is a poor substitute for economic efficiency. The day one artist collects more money with no fuss, the house of cards falls down.
I'll try to rephrase. This would only work if the artist selling the ticket by themselves could only sell it lower than Ticketmaster. That is, Ticketmaster can extract MORE money out its customers because they hate Ticketmaster.
That is the idea I contest: people pay more on satisfaction, not on dissatisfaction. Yes, the artist save themselves some hassle, but they dont reduce it, they increase it. I would believe Ticketmaster has some leverage we are not considering.
A thought experiment: lets say artists now sell their tickets on platform independent and simultaneous to Ticketmaster, at the same total price. Would people buy on Ticketmaster because they prefer to hate it than to hate the artist?
I doubt so.