this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
591 points (98.7% liked)
Videos
14343 readers
227 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I suspect people now just go to see their, one, most favourite artist, maybe once every 5 years or something. As opposed to going to see one or two artists per year before. Or for people who want to be able to continue to go once or more a year, they just see newer artists who have reasonable prices.
I mean any real music fan these days, who doesn’t have a massive budget, should be going to festivals instead of individual gigs as these are massively better value for money.
Why do you assume this has anything to do with a supply/demand curve? Because that's the first thing you were taught in Econ 101 and it stuck?
In reality, most people aren't that sensitive to small changes in price. And the demand drop is not instant. It might take months or years. Execs make the decision to raise the price, they don't see the demand drop off immediately, and they instantly absolve themselves of any responsibility for the effects of their price increase. After all, there was hardly any demand drop in the quarter in which they made the change.
Look at say, Coca-Cola. You could easily double the price in five years and the price is negligible enough that most people won't even notice. (Oh wait, they did this.)
You question if supply and demand has anything to do with it then point out coke doubled their price in 5 years and people kept buying it? Confusing
Music venue ticket increases isn't a short term thing, were talking about how it's comparatively risen over 60 years from Elvis to Taylor Swift
It is a supply and demand curve.
The supply is incredibly small for a world-famous artist compared to their demand. If the reason some people can't buy a ticket because there are no tickets left, there's room to increase the price of the ticket and sell the exact same amount of tickets. If resellers can just buy all your tickets and sell them for 10x the price, then you can 10x the price of tickets and sell the same amount.
The problem is that you can't just use the profits from selling Taylor swift tickets to make another Taylor swift so you can increase the supply of Taylor swift.
There are only 3 ways they can increase their Taylor swift profits: 1. Make concerts in bigger venues so they can sell more tickets. 2. Increase the ticket prices. 3. Increase the amount of Taylor swift concerts.
The easiest option is 2. why wouldn't they do it?
Sure, if I was a music fan it'd suck, but the truth is that they are corporations, and they are legally required to increase the shareholders' value.
It's actually more of an issue of artificial supply and demand caused by a monopoly that controls ticket sales, secondary market, and venues. They're also very hostile to performing artists, using their monopoly to force them to play more expensive venues and charge higher prices or risk blacklisting at virtually every major venue. It's the kind of shit that anti-trust laws were created to prevent but, there has been little to no enforcement for near a half of a century.
First, this isn't really true. Corporations are not required to increase shareholder value at any cost. Second, even if it were true, why would you still excuse those actions?