<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;live&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:34:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ticketmaster Says People Don't Like Service Fees Because We Don't Understand Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/01372010748.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/01372010748.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you follow the music business, you probably already know about or follow Ticketmaster boss Irving Azoff's <a href="http://twitter.com/irvingazoff" target="_blank">Twitter feed</a>, which he kicked off earlier this month by calling two different reporters "jerks," and generally jousting with some of his critics.  He went quiet for a bit, but caused a bit of a stir over the weekend by <a href="http://twitter.com/irvingazoff/status/21807592677" target="_blank">announcing (sort of) that Ticketmaster had "full disclosure pricing."</a>  Considering just how much hatred there is towards Ticketmaster's "service charges," this certainly picked up some attention.  
<br><br>
The only problem?  While the tickets Azoff pointed to highlighted prices that included fees (amusingly, the fees on the cheapest ticket markup the official ticket price by a whopping 50%) some quickly discovered that this wasn't, at all, what they expected.  That's because despite the implication that these prices now showed you full fees, some noticed another <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/08/ticketmasters-irving-azoff-unveils-all-in-ticket-pricing-or-does-he.html" target="_blank">$6.50 fee tacked on at the end</a>.  After people pointed that out, Azoff again responded by claiming that Ticketmaster simply <a href="http://twitter.com/irvingazoff/status/21889491162" target="_blank">can't</a> show you all the fees until it knows how many tickets are being bought and what the shipping method is.
<br><br>
A few hours later, Ticketmaster launched a blog, where the first post tries to delve into this by suggesting that the problem isn't the fees, it's that <a href="http://blog.ticketmaster.com/2010/08/23/first-things-first/" target="_blank"><b>you don't understand</b> the fees</a>.  Yeah, really.  This is incredibly tone deaf on Ticketmaster's part.  People understand fees just fine.  As Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired points out <A href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/ticketmaster-fee-transparency-twitter/all/1" target="_blank">"each dollar that comes out of their wallets is identical."</a>  No one cares that Ticketmaster has to pay various third parties, such as "promoters, venues, teams, artists" out of those fees.
<br><br>
Years ago, we discussed a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040920/0052215.shtml">nearly identical situation</a> with phone bills, showing how people were incredibly annoyed with massive unexplained fees, and the telcos insisted they were necessary to "recoup costs."  But, as we pointed out, in most businesses you recoup the costs <i>in the list price</i> and don't break out fees.  Otherwise, we'd have lots of companies doing this sort of crap: Want a pizza pie? It's just $3, but there's a $3.50 "crust fee," a $9.38 "oven fee," a $4.50 "service fee," and a $2.18 "cleanup fee." Plus tax.
<br><br>
That, of course, is ridiculous and would piss people off -- just as telco fees do and just as Ticketmaster's fees do.  If Ticketmaster wanted to make people happy it would stop telling people they need to be better educated about fees -- a subject they don't care about -- and just offer straight up, all-in, pricing.  If Ticketmaster has to pay a bit more to some third party because of this, well, why not figure out a way to bake that into the overall price.  It's called forecasting, and most other businesses predict their cost of goods sold using various forecasting methods, and it seems rather silly that Ticketmaster apparently cannot.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/01372010748.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/01372010748.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/01372010748.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>I-don't-think-that's-it...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100824/01372010748</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Metallica Sued Napster For This?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0257548340.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0257548340.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ David Levine has a post up looking at <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000002641&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">Metallica's revenue streams last year</a>.  Apparently, the band made the vast majority of its money from concert revenue -- bringing in $22.8 million.  It made $1.6 million from album sales.  As Levine notes:
<blockquote><i>
Hmmm...think it would make a lot of difference to the world if they lost the $1.6 million from the albums? Without copyright they'd only make $22.8 million from touring...You might almost think it would be worth it to them to give the recorded music away for free to promote their concerts...
</i></blockquote>
Or, hell, give away the tracks and promote <i>other stuff</i> as well.  Selling music directly (relying on copyright) is a tiny business compared to the opportunities elsewhere.  And, of all the bands out there, Metallica should clearly recognize that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0257548340.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0257548340.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/0257548340.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pound-foolish</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100301/0257548340</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>More Charts The Record Labels Don't Want You To See: Swedish Musicians Making More Money</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already discussed the research on the UK music industry that shows both that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835036932.shtml">live revenue</a> is more than making up the decline in recorded revenue <i>and</i> that musicians themselves are making more revenue than ever before.  Some people have suggested that this is a UK-only phenomenon, but a worldwide study <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090617/1138185267.shtml">found the same thing</a> as well.  And, now it looks like the same is being found in Sweden as well -- home of The Pirate Bay, which we keep being told is destroying the industry.  Swedish indie record label owner <a href="http://www.songsiwish.com/" target="_blank">Martin</a> sends in the news on data from the Swedish music industry, which <a href="http://www.danieljohansson.se/post/The-Swedish-Music-Industry-in-Graphs.aspx" target="_blank">looks quite similar to the UK data</a>.  First, it shows that while there was a tiny dip in overall revenue, it's back up to being close to it's high, mostly because of a big growth in live music:
<center>
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2511/4182615257_3d4b03e63d.jpg"/><br />
<i><font size=-2>Chart by Daniel Johansson</font></i>
<br /><br />
</center>
Basically, recorded revenues dropped.  Collections stayed about the same, but live grew.  More importantly, though, is the second chart, which shows the revenue for actual musicians.  And that's going in one direction: up.
<center>
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4183378670_bbd04c2be7.jpg"/><br />
<i><font size=-2>Chart by Daniel Johansson</font></i>
<br /><br />
</center>
And yet, The Pirate Bay is destroying the ability to make music, right?  Funny that the numbers don't seem to support that at all.  Basically, these charts are showing the same thing that those other studies have shown.  More music is being created.  There is greater "discovery" of new music.  There are greater revenue opportunities for musicians, and the <i>only</i> part of the business that appears to be suffering is the part that involves selling plastic discs.  Yes, that sucks if your business was based on selling plastic discs, but for those who can adapt and adjust, there is more money than ever before to be made.  That sorta goes against the claims that "piracy" is somehow destroying the industry, doesn't it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>artists-are-doing-better-than-ever</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091213/1648377324</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>