Jump to content

Entertainment Business Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

 

" The Justice Department is investigating whether Ticketmaster’s parent company Live Nation has abused its power as the dominant force in the live music industry, The New York Times reports. 

News of the investigation broke at the end of a chaotic week for Ticketmaster, which was unable to handle the massive demand for tickets for Taylor Swift’s “Eras Tour.” The Swift debacle, however, is just the latest instance where Ticketmaster/Live Nation has garnered scrutiny, with similar chaos and frustrations over wait times and price mark-ups surrounding ticket sales for artists like Harry Styles and Bruce Springsteen.  

Despite the timing of the news, the DOJ’s antitrust division had already spent several months digging into Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Though specifics are scarce, the investigation appears to be looking at whether Live Nation does have a monopoly over the industry.

......

Along with the reported investigation, this week saw calls from congress to look into Live Nation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar — who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights — sent a letter to Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino expressing concern over what she called a lack of competition in the live music industry. New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also criticized the Live Nation/Ticketmaster “monopoly” and called to “break them up.” (After news of the DOJ investigation broke, AOC tweeted, “That was fast.”)"

 

---------------------------

 

What perfect timing to announce this after this past week's fiasco with Taylor Swift concert tickets.  Live Nation/Ticketmaster's monopoly needs to be broken up.  Personal note: I did not get any tickets, despite spending hours trying. 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 year later...
  • Members

Ironically, @Vee and I talked earlier this week (in the thread about the maybe-it's-not-dead-after-all AMC primetime reboot) about Paramount's ongoing financial woes:

I actually laughed when I saw that both Showtime cable and Showtime streaming had been rebranded as "Paramount + with Showtime."  What a cumbersome ass name, I thought, for an outlet that probably will have to rebrand itself again if/when Paramount + goes under.

So, what would they have to rename it as, should this latest merger come to fruition?  "Max and Paramount + With Showtime, Too!"?  Better yet, just leave it blank, but with the tagline "Call it whatever the [!@#$%^&*] you want."

Either way, I don't envy anyone who works for WBD or Paramount Global one bit.

Meanwhile, according to that THP article, Byron Allen has resubmitted his $3.5B offer to buy BET Networks from Paramount (who sees BET as a "non-core" asset, b/c, black folks).  Reason?  Because his janky sitcoms have to go somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And added onto the tagline should be “…but you’ll still end up with added subscriber fees “.

What programming does Byron Allen actually do anyway? All I can think of is those odd programs featuring random clips of celebrity interview with inserted canned music. What else has he done?

There could be an entire documentary about the series of missteps and bad business decisions that various BET CEOs and executives made that caused BET’s slide downward.

It began with good intentions but what is BET actually about now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Administrator

Hollywood Reporter: Live Nation Sued By Justice Department In Antitrust Lawsuit Seeking Break Up

 

Finally! I hope it happens.  Ticket prices in North America are insanely high, especially in the resale/secondary market.   I was looking at some of the European prices on the secondary market for Taylor Swift tickets and they are so much cheaper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Angry Dante was hot; sorry, but I'm not going to pretend it wasn't awesome seeing Dominic Zamprogna act his ass off in a way that was not crying.
    • Thanks, interesting and so believable (no Lonatrat or Clones...)Instead of the Lewis family he should have made the Oil family Granger...even if the audience didn't remember that one off character it would have been interesting to tie it into the fictional GL world.
    • Dante needs stick removed from his butt
    • When you bring up what I like to call "Shapiro's Folly" you think Dano's acting choices mattered? I ask because I don't think so. As far as I could tell almost universally the ABC fans hated the very idea of her being on all 4 shows! And, BTW, the headwriters also hated it, at least according to comments made by Passanante. But, it is not hard to imagine that they'd feel that way. And, I agreed. If she wanted success she should have planted "Rae" on one & given up her idea of branding, or whatever it was that she was after.  
    • Okay, well her reasons were that she had a mandate to reduce the size of the cast & she had another mandate to make the cast overall younger, so her reason for picking Donna to off was because she was too old.  So, is that what you understand? Or are you thinking of something else? Which if so, I would be delighted to hear about it!  She had arbitrarily picked 50 as the age people needed to be younger than.  And, that is why she got rid of both Bridget & Spencer Harrison.  And, getting rid of Bridget was another of her horrible ideas.  Why do you refer to her as the Face of the Show? Don't feel bad. I am a major Cass fan & I don't remember him with Donna either, LOL! Can we say forgettable? And, yes, Lila was the most last minute of last minutes!!!! 
    • This is AWESOME, thank you for taking the time to post this! My first thought: My memory is a lot better than I thought it was, LOL! The first episode I clearly remember watching had a scene of Ed confronting Holly about Christina's paternity. He lamented how wonderful things had been over Christmas, so looks like I started watching the show early 1976. The only thing puzzling me is where is Evie? I thought she was around BEFORE Rita got involved with Tim, but maybe that's one gap in my memory. It makes Rita look slightly better--in that case, she didn't seduce Tim knowing her sister had a crush on him.
    • Oh, well.  At least he can cry into his hoodie.
    • Sorry, just realized I'd somehow lost a whole paragraph in that last post.
    • Thanks @Paul Raven  They should have brought Billy back in the early '90s for more drama with Hart and Blake. Maybe Blake would have gotten involved with him to try to ruin him in Roger's eyes, but realize under his sweet nature, Billy was a player himself.
    • Checked. Taggert last date, Wed, 7-19-23, so a long dadgummed time ago.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy