B (4:12)

So glad to be here.

A (4:13)

Dan, you and I had a conversation about Live Nation, Ticketmaster back in July of 2024 when a lot of this case was heating up and now we're on the other side of it. So what was your initial reaction when you saw the news?

B (4:28)

I was surprised the actual court case only began last week. I was certainly not respecting a settlement this early. I had hoped that a settlement would come, but I'd seen no indication that either side was ready to settle. And then this. So yeah, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

A (4:51)

I will say I wasn't surprised that it happened, but I was surprised that we saw it happen when it did. The Department of Justice had been using this particular case as a flagship for what it wanted to represent what it wanted to put out there, not just in live ticketing, but in any of the ongoing cases that there currently are with the United States businesses. Anyone that's trying to either break up or call out issues to them, there are definitely those that I would put in the camp of would not be satisfied by anything outside of a breakup of these companies. But if we're actually Looking into the merits of what was the goal of a breakup, what was the goal of any type of resolution. It is to eliminate monopolistic practices, make it a more fair marketplace for both consumers and for other companies competing in the space. And we could go through it. But there definitely are some measures in here that are quite different for how Live Nation has done business and how the market may look moving forward.

B (5:51)

Indeed, there are some significant measures here that have been agreed to by Live Nation and doj, and let's see if those stick. I think they will. And what else may happen? Because although the settlement was reached between the DOJ and Live Nation, there are more than a handful of states that want to continue.

A (6:15)

That's an important distinction here. I do wonder, could we see a stronger response from someone like Amy Klobuchar, who has definitely been spearheading a tremendous amount of this. But at the end of the day, how do we separate the public sentiment of just the frustration and people having a bully or a target that they want to blame their issues on about a particular subject, but then the actual merits of what we're trying to get at.

B (6:40)

A good place to start unpacking that is to just talk for a minute about why DOJ did this. Now, I've got to believe that literally reading the words in the settlement agreement, that they meant what they said when they stated that this agreement would affect immediate changes in the marketplace. Immediate. And there are a number of them. That is as opposed to a complex, expensive, multi year trial it could take years to wend its way through if this case were fully litigated with liabilities, remedies, multiple appeals. And I think that I read that even Live Nation's chief antitrust counsel said that this was not a slam dunk case. It's not as if it was a no brainer that Live Nation was going to be able to walk away with everything that they wanted, which I suppose would have been no breakup, NO reversing the 2009 merger agreement and no other considerations. Now we have a whole bunch of considerations will definitely have an impact on a more open and somewhat more equitable marketplace.

A (8:02)

Yeah. And the first piece that you mentioned in terms of what the DOJ gets out of this. Right. Like why did they do this? Cuz I think the most cynical way to look at this is, oh, look at Trump and this administration just kowtowing to business and did Live Nation contribute to campaigns for this or that? And I know that there's an angle that could be looked at, especially if you look at Gail Slater, who was leading a lot of these efforts at the doj, then stepping down and Live Nation's share price then jumping as a result of that. But I do think the speed thing is important, especially if you think about, okay, there's current administrations that are in place. If this went to trial and continued, there could be a next presidential administration that could have their own objectives that you don't necessarily know how it can go. This is not unique to ticketing. Right. This is pretty much par for the course for any type of legal decision that involves settling or going to trial.

B (8:54)

I think it's par for the course now in the current administration. And no matter how one might feel about the tenor and actions of this administration, I think we can agree that Gail Slater's leaving probably wasn't helpful to the case. She was inside the Trump administration during the first Trump administration as an advisor to the president. And I think that it's just not realistic to think of Trump as a corporate busting populist. We understand where populism goes as far as it does in terms of the political optics in the White House and in this country. But he views himself as a deal maker. The current administration is showing itself as maybe less anti corporate than we thought.

A (9:49)

Especially when I think about deals like this, deals like TikTok, very different. But I think there's a similar dynamic there where, yes, what is the deal that we can get across the board? What is the thing that we can say, look at what I did, look at what I was able to achieve. I got you cheaper ticket prices for these concerts by being able to do this, we kept TikTok under American control. Each of these things that touch the industries that you and I are covering, there's a similar dynamic here, for sure.

B (10:17)

Yeah. We would like to think that the attorneys and the other administrators and bureaucrats who are administering antitrust, for example, in the Department of Justice, are above political considerations. But I don't think that's the world that we are living in right now. It's just not realistic. And on the Live Nation side, look, who knows how long it would take to settle this case, but at least it would be expensive. Live Nation is a public company and they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to not spend untold hundreds of millions of additional dollars on legal fees.

A (11:01)

And it definitely is an ideal outcome for them. I don't see anything that necessarily tells me that, oh, this completely changes the dynamic for the overall business. And I understand that can seem like a bit of a frustration but. But again, dating back to the conversation that you and I had a year and a half ago talking about this, a lot of the things that the case was trying to push for the intended goal of making this a more fair marketplace, we weren't necessarily sold that it was going to achieve those types of goals because the inherent the supply demand of just where concert tickets are right now are a much bigger factor than some of these inter competitive dynamics across different companies in live entertainment.

B (11:45)

It looks like the marketplace becomes somewhat more equitable, transparent and open for all of these remedies cold in the coming months. But as we said a year ago, I didn't think that the going for blood solution, that the forced breakup of Ticketmaster and Live Nation was gonna do anything to lower ticket prices for fans, especially of the 1% of the most in demand shows that there are in the world that are facing infinite demand and will always have a large number of fans who will pay very high prices. That may be a politically unpopular fact of life, but it is a fact of there may be other remedies that could occur in the secondary market that could have a knock on effect of lowering ticket prices overall for the other 99% of shows.

A (12:53)

A few things here. I want to talk about primary, then do want to talk about secondary on the primary side of things, We've seen this pattern happen a few times where especially in this case, in this dynamic, being right isn't necessarily the thing that's going to win you the most support in the court of public opinion. The demand for Cowboy Carter and those tickets were through the roof as they are for any of those 0.1% of artists. But that's just one part of it. The secondary market is a whole other part of it. And I know that this case didn't necessarily get into that and there's been a lot of people, you and I and others that have talked about, hey, let's look at StubHub and what some of these other businesses are doing. We'll see if DOJ or others get there. But I think that's always been a tough part in this business where the truth isn't exactly what people want to hear. And depending on who's delivering it and how I think it can hit people in a different type of way.

B (13:43)

There are a couple of territories in other parts of the world that have regulated the secondary market and they have put a cap on resale at say 10% above face value or 15% above face value. And I haven't seen any studies done yet to show pricing in the primary market. In those instances where there has been a cap on the resale market, it stands to reason that if there's a 10% resale cap, that probably the primary market could be priced a bit lower. I'm talking about the UK and Australia so far, but I'd love to have a look at that data.

A (14:23)

Right. And those are some of the markets that Dice specifically had started in, because that was one of their main value props there. And even if we go back to Beyonce as an example, I think part of the reason that tour had a slightly different pricing strategy than others is because they had priced the primary tickets high in order to squeeze the secondary market. So they were going purely on an economic perspective. How can we squeeze them out? And from a pure economic perspective, they were able to do that. They were able to do that a lot better than they've done it with other tours. But again, that is an artist by artist decision. If an artist wants to have limited resales on their tickets or only limit it to the individual buyers selling it themselves, they can do that through Ticketmasters technology and others. But again, it depends on the artist. And that's another thing that people may not want to accept that if there is an artist that has their resales available, it's probably the artist's decision to do that. Just given all of the options. Now, they could choose if they want to do dynamic pricing. They can choose if they want to have it on this platform or others. So the artists do have a lot more power than people may realize.

B (15:28)

I think that is certainly true. And that's half of it. The other half is the venues. For decades now, Ticketmaster has absorbed the frustration, the anger and disappointment of fans around the world when it comes to structuring all of the extra fees on top of the face value of the ticket junk fees. However, Ticketmaster doesn't do this in a vacuum. Ticketmaster has a war room and they are very good at selling a lot of tickets very fast, implementing at scale the wishes of the artist or the team or the league in many cases, and the venue. It is an unfortunate fact of life that over the years Ticketmaster has taken on that role where they are the punching bag of the frustrated fan. And I think that we saw some of that borne out in this case. Notwithstanding the massive amount of fan frustration from the Taylor Swift debacle and the Springsteen debacle and several others that happened as this antitrust litigation started to become a thing on its way to settlement this week.

A (16:50)

There are other platforms that have had some of these larger shows, larger events at venues, and their technology hasn't been able to handle it in the same exact way. And those venues went back to Ticketmaster. I'm specifically talking about the Barclays Center.

B (17:04)

The Barclays center in New York. Yeah.

A (17:06)

I don't think that Ticketmaster gets thought of as, oh, wow, groundbreaking technology. Look at what they can do that others can't. But it also is the truth. It's just not something that people may put or assume about the platform.

B (17:20)

Yeah, we may not like it. As Jack Nicholson once said famously, you can't handle the truth. I may be dating myself there, but there you go.

A (17:31)

I would hope most of the listeners of this podcast have watched are familiar with a Few Good Men, if not the quote. At least one thing I do want to get back to, you may have alluded to this. Let's see which of these remedies or which of these things moving forward will be most likely to happen and maybe some that won't. Is there anything you saw that gives you some pause that says, huh, I wonder how that's going to play out? Or I wonder if that's going to play out the way that they think it might. If you love listening to Trap Ital, I want to put you onto another podcast that I think you'll really enjoy. It's called One Song. It's hosted by Diallo, Riddle and Luxury. Each episode unpacks one iconic track. They break down the original musical stems so you can hear how the song was built while also diving into the creative choices and cultural forces that that shape the song. If you're into how music, media and culture intersect, this show is very much in that lane. You'll hear songs you already love in a completely new way. Check out One Song wherever you get your podcasts.

B (18:39)

If we were having this conversation a year ago, we might have considered what would it actually look like to open up the back end of the ticketing platform in the United States, where Ticketmaster or someone else has exclusive 5 to 10 year agreements with a venue and there is a mandate for a certain number of shows in a particular type of venue, we want you to be able to open up your back end for, I don't know, let's say, half the shows that happen operationally. How do you do that? How do you make it so that there can be multiple ticketing platforms and consumer choice when it comes to picking the platform that you want to buy your primary ticket from at whatever the event is? I was over in Tokyo last fall and One of the things that I got to do while I was there was to go to Ultra Japan, one of those places where you can pick from five or six different ticketing platforms. But I did that. And I've got to say that actually going to the event was super challenging. And vending the ticket, I think is one thing when it comes to having multiple platforms. But there's something about having your digital tickets sitting on the one app that works on your phone when you walk through those turnstiles and having a high level of confidence that it's gonna. It didn't work exactly that well in Tokyo last September.

A (20:23)

If I'm interpreting that, they may realize, yeah, you know what? I'd much rather go with Ticketmaster. The law may have changed, the remedy may have changed, but the actual practice may not have changed.

B (20:33)

Here's another consideration that came up. Limiting exclusivity. Most of these exclusive venue deals are for five to 10 years, and maybe that's how long Live Nation and Ticketmaster needed for those deals to be in order for the economics to work. Because there are significant advances paid to the venues for those exclusive agreements, maybe those dollars need to be a smaller number. Maybe four years is enough exclusivity or exclusivity primary platform, even if you are opening up the back end to competitors for a certain number of the shows. But yeah, maybe it needs to be shorter.

A (21:20)

I guess a four year cycle. I'm thinking about Olympics come through every four years, World cup comes through every four years. So I can see how anything shorter than that can probably make it a little bit tougher to plan. Especially people are accepting LA 2028 ticketing information right now. And that's an event that's still two and a half years away. So I understand why there needs to be at least a minimum. I'd be surprised if it went lower than 4. But I get your point, though.

B (21:45)

Yeah, maybe it doesn't have to be 10.

A (21:47)

Maybe it doesn't have to be 10. It's interesting. I also think that there are a lot of artists that wish that they could make their own choices in a lot of these venues in particular situations. I think about Zach Bryan. He had that live show where the name of the show, the name of the album he put out was all My Homies Hate Ticketmaster. And that was one of his big things where he's saying that I'm now performing in the biggest venues in the country. I want to be able to have the auction. And the thing is, yeah, when you're at that level it can be a little tough. And I think that especially for a venue operator, just thinking about the amount of shows that are coming through and the Zach Bryan concert's in town and he only wants to work with Axis, he doesn't want to work with Ticketmaster. I just don't know if that's how it works in that particular type of way. I think for a lot of people, sure, if you go to enough shows, maybe you have the app there. And I think those apps are probably pretty similar from a functionality perspective, at least on the consumer side. But I think once you get away from the two biggest giants, it can be a little bit tougher or a little bit more circumstance specific. I think for smaller venues, yes, there could be a lot more flexibility. But again, handling a concert for a few thousand people or a few hundred people is very different than these larger arenas and stadium shows.

B (23:10)

Indeed. And you were talking about SeatGeek a few minutes ago and the kerfuffle that happened when they replaced Ticketmaster at the Barclays center in Brooklyn. The experience that the Barclays people had and that fans had wasn't great. And then Ticketmaster came back in. Having said that, though, SeatGeek is in place as the preferred, possibly exclusive ticketing partner for quite a few NFL teams and stadiums and a bunch of Major League Baseball teams, including my beloved Boston Red Sox, some NBA teams, one or two NHL teams as well. So it's not that SeatGeek is just a secondary ticketing platform. They can handle ticketing at volume in across lots of Major League Sports throughout much of the country.

A (24:05)

That is true. And I know in the Dallas Cowboys circumstance that was one of the bigger earlier deals they got. And I believe that the Dallas Cowboys have a 15% ownership stake in SeatGeek, which was quite significant. There may be a similar thing in place with the commanders. I think that's another one of the larger ones they had. In addition to the others that you mentioned too, they are also a company that had plans to ipo. I haven't heard anything about it recently. The same with StubHub. I do think that SeatGeek, to its credit, has differentiated itself by saying, okay, no, we're not just like StubHub, where I think StubHub may have some type of relationship with MLB. I forget the exact terms of it, but for the most part they are secondary. But SeatGeek does do both.

B (24:46)

I am not up to speed on all of the considerations that might have caused StubHub to put a pause on their IPO, but I've got to believe that the threat of a resale cap would potentially have a chilling effect on a public offering at a very high valuation.

A (25:06)

Yeah, it was already high. I think I was hearing that they were aiming for. I think 16 was at first what they wanted. Then they came down to 8 billion. We'll see how it plays out. But, yeah, I think the other thing I wanted to get your thoughts on was the consent decree and the extension of that. I believe it's another. Is it eight years or 10 years?

B (25:24)

I think it's another eight years.

A (25:26)

Yeah, it's another eight years from now. So this was from 2010. How do you see that playing out? Because I think that was always one of the more contentious issues. We've referred to the SeatGeek Barclays situation as one of the things that the DOJ felt like had violated the initial terms of the consent decree there. What's your take on the continuation of that?

B (25:46)

My take on the continuation of the consent decree is that it's not that big of a deal for Live Nation. None of these settlement terms are going to be remotely fatal to the company. Some of them will be expensive, but none of them are going to be fatal. Some of them will be experienced by fans and competitors in the near future as a more open marketplace. I hope so.

A (26:20)

Yeah. Yeah. I do think the fact that it exists, it seemed likely that if they're going to have some type of agreement in place, the terms of it would be there. And, yes, I know that we talked about the Sikhi situation, but for the most part, they were able to continue this. And I know that the terms of it will continue to be debated. But I think the next big thing for this case overall is now that each of these states, as you mentioned, are planning to take their own action against Live Nation. Live Nation already has this settlement fund in place. Several hundred million dollars. How do you see that playing out? I really don't see a situation where, oh, Minnesota's case then means that Live Nation and Ticketmaster then get broken up. It likely just may be fighting for some portion of the dollars that do exist. What are your thoughts as of today?

B (27:09)

I don't think anybody has any idea on any side of this. The judge encouraged all parties to try and negotiate a resolution. There are quite a few of them that have dug on their heels and said no, or at least not so far. But it is not at all clear what else those states want until they tell Live Nation and us what it is that they want. And just to note here that antitrust law is typically the domain of the United States government and not a matter of state law. So let's see where this. Let's see where this goes.

A (27:47)

It'll be fascinating to follow this. Larry. We know if there's any new developments, we know where to find you. But as always, appreciate you making the time to come and join us.

B (27:57)

My pleasure. Glad to be here, Deb.

A (28:01)

And that is a wrap for our breakdown on Live Nation and the doj. I hope you enjoyed this one as much as we did. Thank you, Larry Miller. Thank you to our audio and video producers Eric and G for everything that you do to help make trapital possible. Thank you to our sponsors and thank you for listening. If there's one person you know that would really enjoy trapital and get a lot out of this episode or any of the conversations that we have on the show, send them a link to the show. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow, so if you can spare a few minutes and share it with someone you know, that would be greatly appreciated. And if you haven't already, make sure that you're a subscribed to the podcast, press that follow button on Spotify, Apple, wherever you get your podcast, B leave a comment on the podcast that helps more people see what people really enjoy about trapital or c leave a review or rating that helps the algorithm do its thing and make sure that trapital reaches the right people. Thanks again. Talk to you next time.