TJ Chambers
(c) dreamstime.com
Despite having originally declined the opportunity to provide oral evidence (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/46464/documents/235748/default/), on 4th February 2025 Andrew Parsons Ticketmaster MD + RVP UK and Ireland appeared before the UK Parliament, Business and Trade Committee (https://committees.parliament.uk/event/23225/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/) as part of their inquiry ‘Rip-off Britain: Dynamic pricing and consumer protection’.
Ticketmaster had suggested that as the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) was also investigating consumer protection concerns (https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/ticketmaster-consumer-protection-case) regarding the sale of Oasis concert tickets by Ticketmaster (relating to the 31st August 2024 UK and Ireland ‘Reunion Tour’ onsale) which also included the use of dynamic pricing, that this hearing could impact that ongoing investigation.
Opening the second of three sessions (*) that day, (https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/3231c657-2daa-4ef4-a34b-f70c4d444242), Liam Byrne MP, the Committee Chair confirmed that they were conscious of the ongoing CMA investigation but had not sought a sub judice waiver to get into the details of that inquiry and so announced their intention to confine their questions to ‘wider matters’.
***
His first question set the tone for the next forty-five minutes, ‘Is Ticketmaster basically ripping off fans who just want to go and see the shows they love’ – the allegation was unsurprisingly denied.
Did Ticketmaster operate with the highest levels of integrity, as outlined in the parent company Live Nation’s Code Of Business Conduct and Ethics (https://investors.livenationentertainment.com/sec-filings/annual-reports/content/0001193125-09-045320/dex141.htm) – which was answered affirmatively.
Was the company guilty of duping fans by only revealing the actual costs of tickets after the initial event description page, a practise that Ticketmaster had previously accused the secondary market of in a submission to the DCMS in 2018. The reply attempted to excuse any high prices paid by customers within the primary market with the statement that at least those additional charges went to the artists and event organisers, unlike the secondary market where the increased cost of ticketing simply went to speculators and touts (as though that makes much difference to the price-sensitive customer who is still paying more).
Ticket Prices
Did Ticketmaster employ ‘bait and switch’ tactics by increasing the price of primary market tickets during an onsale (with the illustrative example of a Harry Styles ticket originally priced at £155 which was then offered to a customer at £386) – which was denied.
Instead, it was explained that ticket prices were set in advance by event organisers, in conjunction with artists, so as the various ticket types with differing prices sold it appeared to some customers that only the more expensive options remained. It was further stressed that the price of (individual) tickets didn’t change during the transaction process.
Further that Ticketmaster did not employ an automated (real-time) dynamic pricing technology – ‘We can be quite clear that is not how the Ticketmaster website operates. We don’t change prices in any automated or algorithmic way. Prices are set in advance with event organisers and their teams at the prices that they want them to be made available.’
Re-Pricing
Another example offered by the Committee of the apparent re-pricing of tickets involved Paul McCartney, where tickets were originally priced at £30.95-£182.95 but were screenshot by customers as priced at £429-£592 – which drew the Ticketmaster response that all ticket prices were set in advance by the event organisers, but that high prices were not the norm across the UK market. It was further suggested that recent research showed that approximately 75% of tickets sold by Ticketmaster were priced at £35.00 or less.
Liam Byrne MP, then outlined details of a recent tour by Lana Del Rey where 90% of tickets were fixed between £70-£162.50, but 10% of the inventory was described as ‘Platinum’, ‘where prices were two and a half times face value’ and ‘with some standing tickets priced at £400’.
Was this a case of Ticketmaster ‘jacking up the prices’? Again, the response was that ticket prices were fixed in advance by the event organisers and reflected the different tiers of ticketing available. Further that if those higher priced tickets were not sold by the primary market, then the additional revenues would be captured by touts and the ticket resale sites.
Service Fees
Liam Brady MP then discussed the example of The Cure US tour where the level of ticket fees charged exceeded the ticket face value, and a comment by Neil Young that artists now have to worry about ripped off fans blaming them for Ticketmaster add-ons and the actions of scalpers – in response Ticketmaster stated that service fees were clearly stated from the outset and are constrained by a competitive market.
Additionally, citing recent internal research it was stated that the average per ticket service fee in the UK was approximately 11% of the face value, which was described as ‘pretty reasonable’, and even then, Ticketmaster didn’t retain all of that charge. Further where venue facility fees were also charged Ticketmaster didn’t retain any part of that levy.
When Liam Brady MP presented information from the Live Nation Entertainment accounts for the period post 2022 when dynamic pricing became a core offering, that the Ticketmaster AOI margin was 40% and not the 11% just quoted, the response was that wasn’t the case in the UK.
Ticketmaster also offered the additional, but arguably unrelated information that arena-ticket prices had only increased by an average £5 since 2018, despite increased costs of production and touring and the higher overall level of inflation, whilst also contributing an incremental event-related spend of £150. Interesting, but not directly related to the issue of the level of service fees.
Wanting assurance that Ticketmaster was ‘not behaving like a bunch of sharks’, and that ‘dynamic pricing was not exploiting market power’ the panel then moved onto other members of the Committee with their questions.
Dynamic Pricing
Joshua Reynolds MP asked again about the automation of ticket pricing – which drew the response ‘that’s not how we act’.
When questioned does Ticketmaster earn more money from a higher priced, dynamically priced ticket the response was ‘it varies from contract to contract – fixed fee or a percentage’.
The query who decides when dynamic pricing is deployed was answered (again) with ‘it’s always the choice of the event organiser’. Sometimes with a single ticket price, and on other occasions with differing price points to apparently recapture revenues otherwise lost by the creative industries to the secondary resale market.
But whilst the event organiser has the ultimate decision-making responsibility over ticket pricing, Ticketmaster will lend support and provide market insights and knowledge where needed to assist in overall event viability and to help fix ticket pricing in advance of any onsale – as price changes means event organisers probably ‘got the price wrong in the first place’.
When asked ‘what is the difference between platinum-pricing and dynamic-pricing’, the answer given was that Platinum is the Ticketmaster ‘brand name’ for a different tier of pricing relative to other standard ticket inventory.
Pricing Triggers
Antonio Bance MP questioned whether ticket prices change during the onsale period from the previously advertised price, based on triggers of audience behaviour – to which the answer provided was no.
Further Ticketmaster offered that during the period between the onsale and event maturity it was more likely that prices would decrease, as event organisers had perhaps been too optimistic in their earlier price planning, and also because 90% of the shows that Ticketmaster UK retail for don’t achieve sell-out.
Antonio Bance MP then summarised the Ticketmaster position, that there is a suite of advertised ticket prices, at a range of price points dependent upon any extras or position in the auditorium, but that prices do not increase during the onsale process, rather that different ticket types at different prices may be offered at the checkout – which was agreed.
Sonia Kumar MP then queried the stated 11% booking rate previously quoted by Ticketmaster and said there appeared to be a discrepancy between that ‘average’ amount and the experience of ticket buyers. A request for written documentation regarding the level and type of fees (per ticket service fee, or venue facility fee etc.) was made.
Data
Matt Western MP enquired what data did Ticketmaster source as part of its ticket pricing advice to event organisers, to which the answer was (again) that Ticketmaster doesn’t set ticket prices but would inform on the likely scale of onsale demand, and with event organisers will make Platinum pricing recommendations.
When asked what consumer data or cookies Ticketmaster employed in its dynamic pricing, the answer given was none.
Additionally, Ticketmaster confirmed that there was no linkage between resale ticket pricing and primary market dynamic pricing (‘resale always typically far exceeds the prices available within the primary market’), and there was no mapping algorithm across the two markets.
***
Rosie Wrighting MP asked given the consumer pushback against the rising prices of tickets what is the rationale for using dynamic pricing, to which the answer provided was that the relative cost of tickets is ‘pretty low’, below the general inflation rate, despite the rising costs of production and touring and therefore the re-pricing of a small amount of tickets was ‘fairly reasonable’.
Additionally, the use of dynamic pricing was a useful tool for matching market demand for previously under-priced ticketing, and reduced the amount that ‘touts, brokers and resellers’ took out of the industry.
However, transparency of the eventual ticket purchase was an area that Ticketmaster agreed could be improved upon, albeit that this was already being addressed, but that it was only for a small proportion of overall ticket inventory – to which Rosie Wrighting MP replied, ‘it’s only a small proportion but a lot of money’.
Market Share
Charlie Maynard MP enquired about the market share in the UK festival and UK major venue box offices that Ticketmaster contracted with, quoting figures from an internet search of 25% of festivals, 46% of major venues, as well as being the largest UK ticket agency with an estimated 40%-50% market share – to which the response was that UK ticketing was ‘as competitive as any market in the world’.
Charlie Maynard MP continued that the combination (Ticketmaster + Live Nation) of market share enabled massive vertical integration and delivered a dominant market share, and he hoped that the CMA would take note and investigate.
The response stressed a separation between the two companies, that ticketing was an ‘incredibly competitive business’ and could offer no insight to other sector market shares.
Liam Brady MP then asked was there ‘any possibility that venues, event organisers, artistic management, that may be owned by Live Nation, negotiate with Ticketmaster over ticket prices’, to which the response was that Ticketmaster was slightly removed and as with other event organisers simply received instruction over ticket prices.
When the question was rephrased to ‘one part of Live Nation could be dictating the price to another part (Ticketmaster) of Live Nation’, the answer reminded the panel of the key importance of the artist and other stakeholders in pricing discussions.
Then Liam Brady MP confirmed that ‘in order to understand what Live Nation’s market share in event management, event organisation, event promotion, artist management, and venue control’ the Committee would need to speak Live Nation.
***
(In a later session with the CMA Liam Brady MP laughingly remarked that the Committee was being asked to believe that one half of Live Nation in the UK (Ticketmaster) doesn’t coordinate, collaborate or conspire with another part of Live Nation in the UK to set ticket prices.)
***
Gregor Poynton MP, followed up with a query regarding the relationship between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, was this responsible for the AOI margin previously referred too?
The response was that Ticketmaster operated in a competitive market and there was a degree of separation from the business of Live Nation, as though it was any other event organiser, and there was no group collaboration
Sarah Edwards MP questioned the mechanics of queue management during onsales. Ticketmaster confirmed only a small number of events require queuing technology and then only because of the level of demand from customers and bots. Essentially a customer enters a ‘lobby area’ where they are told where they are positioned in the queue, they then stay in that queue until they are presented with a purchase opportunity for whatever ticketing is available at that time.
It was confirmed that when a ticket is selected and until the purchase details have been completed (name, address, credit card etc.) that the price of their selection does not alter.
Sonia Kumar MP then asked about the desirability of capping the price of resale ticketing, when Ticketmaster suggested a 30% mark-up was too high, but perhaps a 10%-20% mark-up provided sufficient flexibility for consumers to recoup their original purchase but did not over-inflate the primary market pricing.
The panel with Ticketmaster then ended.
***
(* ‘Rip-off Britain: Dynamic pricing and consumer protection’, heard three oral evidence panels on the 4th February 2025.
The first included: Anne Pardoe, Interim Head of Policy, Citizens Advice; Allen Simpson, Deputy CEO, UKHospitality; Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Rights and Food Policy, Which?; and Tom Greatrex, Chair, Football Supporters Association.
The second heard Andrew Parsons, UK Managing Director and Regional Vice President, UK and Ireland, Ticketmaster.
And the third panel included: Justin Madders MP, Minster for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets, Department for Business and Trade; George Lusty, Interim Executive Director for Consumer Protection and Markets, Competition and Markets Authority; David Marshall, Deputy Director, Consumer Policy, Department for Business and Trade.)
***
Overall, the three sessions were informative to non-industry observers, but to insiders it felt that sweeping generalisations rather than specific details were often discussed.
That in the second panel, Mr Parsons performed very well, despite the focussed pressure, and having to defend the abusive B-2-B supply-side led nature of ticketing to a set of consumer-facing / vote-wining politicians.
However, for any further Business and Trade Committee hearing, or related CMA investigation, there needs to be greater clarity and understanding of ticketing business practices and terms, for example, ticket face value, per ticket service fee, per transaction fees, venue facility fees etc and who devises them and whom shares in those various revenue streams.
But that sounds a little like a self-interested advertisement for a ticketing consultant.
***
Until next time
TJ_Chambers 