> Maybe not this _exact_ outcome but largely yes I suspect they did.

Sorry, this simply isn't the case. Before TM, the best available ticket was whatever the vendor you were dealing with had in their inventory. TicketMaster was started by 3 people who wanted to make the process of getting the "best available" ticket easier than going to all the disconnected ticket-sellers and finding out who had the best ticket.

The company changed models in the 1980s when a new owner took over who was solely focused on revenue.

> See 1994 Pearl Jam vs TM and monopolistic behavior 30 years ago.

Your takeaway seems different than mine. I see a company who could have changed or been regulated 30 years ago. Now they'll slowly die or be replaced quickly by something better like an AI ticketing system. Finding someone who likes TicketMaster today is impossible. When TM launched, everyone loved it. What a loss.

As many of us here have a role in how our companies are built and what they become, it is worth asking how TM lost its way and how we can avoid bringing the same level of gross, enshittified capitalism into the world with what we build.

▲

jnsie 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Now they'll slowly die or be replaced quickly by something better like an AI ticketing system.

I highly doubt it. The merger with LiveNation made them much more than a ticketing service. They now also handle artist management, concert promotion, and venue ownership. In fact "Live Nation-Ticketmaster maintains "monopoly control" over the top 100 amphitheaters and 100 arenas worldwide" [1]

[1] https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/new-report-ex...

▲

leakycap 2 days ago | parent [-]

What part of "now they'll slowly die" is discounted by the charts you linked showing they're currently alive?

Internet Explorer had something like 99% of the web browser market in 1999. It... slowly died.

May TicketMaster follow suit if they continue their greed.

▲

jnsie 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why the disingenuous response. What I linked was an article entitled "New Report Exposes Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s Monopoly Control of Top Arenas and Amphitheaters Worldwide". The fact that they monopolize venues strongly discounts your suggestion that they will "slowly die or be replaced quickly by something better like an AI ticketing system".

	▲	leakycap 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is not inherently disingenuous when someone disagrees with you or doesn't see the point you're making. You can link to how they're dominant in the market today all you want, it doesn't change the trajectory of their earned market reputation. Locally, multiple small ticket companies are popping up to compete with TicketMaster. They've been here longer than a decade and don't even register on your charts. Everytime they sell a ticket, TicketMaster didn't. This will continue slowly over time unless something changes. As mentioned, this isn't a new problem, so why expect them to change? Thus, a replacement will rise... no matter how many charts you link to showing their current market demand. People also said Internet Explorer would be the browser we all used forever. It's not a hard comparison to understand, nor is it disingenuous. If you have trouble understanding someone's reply, there are tools like Goblin Tools where you can copy and paste what is written and it will help explain how it is not a personal attack against you and your ideas.

▲

eastbound 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How long is the Ticketmaster-LiveNation exclusivity contract with the artists and the venues?

- Whether 1 and 10 years, the monopoly could fall for another provider in half the median duration. In fact, venues could collide together to replace the monopoly.

- Or, if Tickermaster really provides an extra income to venues able to change the type of venue by an order of magnitude, we might see an elitist top-class of artists, and then a non-elitist second class with more popularity, more decent venues, and affordable prices.

- Then we can talk about why we always hear the same artists on radio.