Ticketmaster does not use dynamic pricing, boss tells MPs
Ticketmaster has denied it uses so-called dynamic pricing as it was quizzed by MPs investigating concerns that consumers are paying inflated amounts to secure tickets.
Andrew Parsons, Ticketmaster's UK managing director, said told the Business and Trade Committee that the price of tickets on the site 'is the price that the artist has worked with us to determine is the price that they want it to be set'.
Asked if Ticketmaster was 'ripping off fans who just want to go and see the shows they love', Mr Parsons replied: 'I don't believe so, no.'
He told the committee: 'We work closely with event organisers to be able to sell tickets at the prices that they've determined in advance and after lots of consideration and lots of thought.
'A lot of thought goes into it, and I think that in the main they are very fairly priced.'
Mr Parsons was further questioned by committee chairman Liam Byrne about a BBC investigation into Ticketmaster's pricing for a Harry Styles tour, and one fan 'who said they'd been enticed on to buy a ticket for £155' but when they got to the checkout 'the price per ticket had gone up to something like £386'.
Mr Byrne said: 'That's the same sin that you're criticising the scalpers for. It's a blatant switch isn't it?'
Mr Parsons said: 'I don't think it is. We don't advertise prices in advance, typically. The price that you see on our website, when they are made available for sale, is the price that the artist has worked with us to determine is the price that they want it to be set.'
Mr Byrne replied: 'How does it go up once you get to put your credit card in then?'
Mr Parsons said: 'Well, it doesn't. Maybe it would be useful to talk about how our platform does work.
'It didn't change. I'm happy to explain to you how and why. Many instances where dynamic pricing has been referred to … relate to technology which is in some way reacting to market, surging on demand, driving tickets up relative to the amounts of traffic that there might be on the site.
'We can be quite clear that is not how the Ticketmaster website operates. We don't change prices in any automated or algorithmic way. Prices are set in advance with event organisers and their teams at the prices that they want them to be made available.
'I think in certain instances, because of that fact some of the cheaper tickets which may be available will inevitably sell through most quickly, meaning the tickets fans see at a later point will be at a higher price, which can give the illusion that those tickets have changed price.
'But they have not, we can be very clear that there's no technology that's driving any price change, and the price that you see on the Ticketmaster website is the price that the event organiser wanted that to be, including all fees, and that's the only price that we will ever display.'
Mr Byrne gave further examples of, including Paul McCartney's recent Got Back tour, with tickets originally billed at between £30.95 and £182.95 for standard options but fans sharing screenshots of prices up to £429 to £592 for his show on December 15.
He also mentioned Lana del Rey's tour, where 90% of tickets had a fixed price of between £70 and £162.50, but 10% of inventory was sold at 'platinum level' where prices were two and half times the face value, while other reports said standing tickets sold for as much as £400.
Mr Byrne said: 'Again, it does seem on the face of the evidence that prices have been changing quite a lot over the course of the process.'
Mr Parsons said: 'The range of pricing is familiar to me. I'm quite sure that that's right. The point I'm trying to make is that those prices haven't changed, there's no technology-driven change to those prices.
'They are the prices to which humans have agreed to. It's not a computer or a bot behind it.'
Ticketmaster had initially rejected an invitation to appear before the committee while it is being investigated over Oasis ticket sales.
The company said it would not be able to adequately answer questions while the competition watchdog's investigation into whether dynamic pricing was used in the sale of Oasis tickets is ongoing.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating Ticketmaster over Oasis ticket sales after fans reported being shocked by standard tickets for the band's reunion tour more than doubling in price.
It is looking into whether dynamic pricing may have been used and whether consumer protection law was breached.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Home secretary yet to agree deal days before spending review
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is the last minister yet to agree a funding deal with the Treasury before Wednesday's Spending Review, BBC News understands. Ministers have been locked in talks with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and her team ahead of the major financial statement, which sets budgets for government departments covering the next few years. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner reached a settlement on Sunday evening after "progress" in negotiations, the BBC has learned, but Cooper is holding out in talks also involving No 10. Police budgets are expected to get a real-terms increase in each of the next three years, but negotiations are ongoing about the wider Home Office budget. Earlier on Sunday, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said police needed to "do their bit" towards reforming public services. Kyle told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that "every part of society was struggling" and that the chancellor was facing pressure from all departments for additional funding. He said the review would boost spending for schools and scientific research but declined to rule out a squeeze on policing. Earlier on Sunday, BBC News was told that Home Office ministers do not believe there is enough money to recruit the additional 13,000 new police and community support officers Labour promised in its manifesto. Kyle said the government had already provided an extra £1bn to the police, adding: "We are delivering investment in the police. "We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do to do their bit for change as well." Spending Review: When is it and what might Rachel Reeves announce? Kyle also declined to guarantee that Rayner's housing department would be protected from budget cuts when asked about the government's plan to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of the parliament. But he added: "We made a manifesto commitment. We are absolutely laser-focused on delivering that." The last-minute talks come ahead of what is set to be a highly significant week for every part of government. It is expected there will be extra money for the NHS, with reports the Department for Health will receive increased funding. A substantial increase in funding for the NHS would come at the expense of other parts of government, as the chancellor seeks to meet her own fiscal rules, which are not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and for debt to be falling as a share of national income by 2029/30. But other parts of government will see their budgets squeezed as the chancellor seeks to meet her own fiscal rules, which are not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and for debt to be falling as a share of national income by 2029/30. Some elements of what will be included in the statement have emerged in recent days. On Sunday night the government announced £24m funding to boost artificial intelligence lessons in schools, as part of a wider £187m package to boost tech skills across the economy. Earlier on Sunday, the government announced an £86bn package for science and technology to help fund drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries. And on Wednesday, the chancellor unveiled a £15.6bn package to fund extensions to trams, trains and buses in Greater Manchester, the Midlands and the North East. Spending decisions come against the backdrop of a broad commitment to increase defence spending further to 3% by 2034. The government has already committed to increasing defence spending from 2.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 2.5% by 2027 - an extra £5bn a year - funded by a cut in the overseas aid budget. Reeves has previously confirmed the government will revise its controversial decision to limit Winter Fuel Payments to those in receipt of means-tested benefits. While the government is expected to share some information about who will receive the payment as part of the Spending Review, full details will not be released until the Budget later in the year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said "relatively modest" growth rates mean "sharp trade-offs are unavoidable". The think tank said the level of spending on health would dictate whether cuts were made to "unprotected" areas – those outside the NHS, defence and schools. Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide? Labour tiptoed cautiously through its first year - will it now decide to escape its own shadow?
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams's lawyer to pursue chatbots for libel
The high-profile media lawyer who represented Gerry Adams in his libel trial against the BBC is now preparing to sue the world's most powerful AI chatbots for defamation. As one of the most prominent libel lawyers in the UK, Paul Tweed said that artificial intelligence was the 'new battleground' in trying to prevent misinformation about his clients from being spread online. Mr Tweed is turning his attention to tech after he recently helped the former Sinn Fein leader secure a €100,000 (£84,000) payout over a BBC documentary that falsely claimed he sanctioned the murder of a British spy. The Belfast-based solicitor said he was already building a test case against Meta that could trigger a flurry of similar lawsuits, as he claims to have exposed falsehoods shared by chatbots on Facebook and Instagram. It is not the first time tech giants have been sued for defamation over questionable responses spewed out by their chatbots. Robby Starbuck, the US activist known for targeting diversity schemes at major companies, has sued Meta for defamation alleging that its AI chatbot spread a number of false claims about him, including that he took part in the Capitol riots. A Norwegian man also filed a complaint against OpenAI after its ChatGPT software incorrectly stated that he had killed two of his sons and been jailed for 21 years. Mr Tweed, who has represented celebrities such as Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, said: 'My pet subject is generative AI and the consequences of them repeating or regurgitating disinformation and misinformation.' He believes statements put out by AI chatbots fall outside the protections afforded to social media companies, which have traditionally seen them avoid liability for libel. If successful, Mr Tweed will expose social media companies that have previously argued they should not be responsible for claims made on their platforms because they are technology companies rather than traditional publishers. Mr Tweed said: 'I've been liaising with a number of well-known legal professors on both sides of the Atlantic and they agree that there's a very strong argument that generative AI will fall outside the legislative protections.' The lawyer said that chatbots are actually creating new content, meaning they should be considered publishers. He said that the decision by many tech giants to move their headquarters to Ireland for lower tax rates had also opened them up to being sued in Dublin's high courts, where libel cases are typically decided by a jury. This setup is often seen as more favourable to claimants, which Mr Tweed himself says has fuelled a wave of 'libel tourism' in Ireland. He also said Dublin's high courts are attractive as a lower price option compared to London, where he said the costs of filing libel claims are 'eye-watering'. He said: 'I think it's absurd now, the level of costs that are being claimed. The libel courts in London are becoming very, very expensive and highly risky now. The moment you issue your claim form, the costs go into the stratosphere. 'It's not in anyone's interest for people to be deprived of access to justice. It will get to the point where nobody sues for libel unless you're a billionaire.' Meta was contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why do concert tickets cost so much these days? And is it all Ticketmaster's fault?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Concert ticket prices have risen sharply in recent years. Arena gig tickets have more than doubled, in real terms, since the turn of the century. For the biggest artists, increases have been bigger still. A basic standing ticket to see Oasis at Wembley Stadium on their last tour, in 2009, cost £44 (around £70 adjusted for inflation). The official price, when tickets for the Wembley gig in July went on sale, was £151. The average ticket for Taylor Swift's Eras tour in the UK was £206. This has become a political issue, and at the centre of the debate is the role of the world's largest ticket sales company, Ticketmaster, responsible for both these tours. The UK competition regulator launched an investigation into its sale of Oasis tickets, in particular into the use of "dynamic pricing". In March, President Trump signed an executive order promising "to bring common-sense reforms" to ticket sellers in America's live entertainment industry. If not a monopoly player, it's a near-monopoly, controlling more than 75% of concert ticket sales at major venues in the US, and about 60% in the UK. In 2010 it merged with the world's largest live events company, Live Nation, which controls more than 265 concert venues in the US; and owns or part-owns the Academy Music Group chain of venues, and festivals from Reading to Latitude, in the UK. Live Nation, now Ticketmaster's parent company, is also a major promoter (organising, funding and publicising music events), which promoted 54,000 events last year. It manages artists, too; and it's a big player in advertising and sponsorship, event parking, food and drink sales, merchandise and security. The US Department of Justice describes it as a "live entertainment ecosystem"; Liam Byrne MP, chair of the Commons Business Committee, says it has "more arms than an octopus". Live Nation "has faced allegations of predatory pricing, misleading fees, restrictive contracts, technical blunders, suppressing or colluding with competitors and generally abusing its monopolistic power", said Dorian Lynskey in The Guardian. Fans struggle to get tickets for big events, often facing technical problems, and long online queues; its app is notoriously awful and glitchy. Pricing is opaque. Which? has complained about the "drip pricing" of extra fees – on a £45 ticket, you might get a £6.10 service charge, a £1.75 facility charge, and a £2.75 order processing fee – making it hard to estimate the final price. As a result, Ticketmaster is very unpopular among fans. The country musician Zach Bryan released a live album called "All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster". A poll for More in Common found that 58% of Britons would like to see it nationalised. Michael Rapino, chief executive of Live Nation, claims that big concerts are still "massively underpriced". He may have a point. Demand is often high, and supply is limited. An estimated ten million fans wanted tickets for Oasis, so they could have been priced much higher, and still sold out. A live concert is a special experience; people, even on modest incomes, will pay large sums to see acts they love. And many forces have contributed to price rises. The internet has reduced music sales, so artists now depend on concert fees for nearly all of their income; big artists insist on a high proportion of the revenue from ticket sales. Shows have become more spectacular and expensive to stage. Inflation has been high, and VAT is 20%. The ticket price is shared between, in rough order: artist (including crew, transport etc.), venue, VAT, promoter and ticket seller. Ticketmaster – or a rival such as AEG – might pick up 10% of the total price. Live Nation says its ticket profit margins are less than 2%. Finally, "scalping" can also drive up prices. In the early 2000s, sites such as StubHub launched as legitimate platforms for fans to resell unwanted tickets. But many have been exploited by touts, who buy large numbers of tickets to resell at inflated prices. The problem has been made worse by scalper "bots", which bombard ticketing sites with purchases destined for resale. Such bots are illegal in the UK, but are hard to police. No. Last May, the US Justice Department filed an anti-monopoly suit against Live Nation; the then assistant attorney general, Doha Mekki, claimed that Ticketmaster is rife with "abuse, exploitation and self-dealing". The case is ongoing; it has been reported that it may try to break up the company. The UK Competition and Markets Authority found that Ticketmaster and Live Nation may have breached consumer laws by selling Oasis tickets at almost 2.5 times the standard price, without explaining that they came with no additional benefits, and by demanding a higher price than initially quoted after a lengthy queuing process. Many artists – Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Neil Young – have complained publicly about Ticketmaster. As far back as the 1990s, the US rock band Pearl Jam tried to organise a tour without using the company, but concluded that it was nearly impossible. There are, though, things that artists with substantial followings can do. They can reject dynamic pricing, as Coldplay and Neil Young have done. Or they can go further, like The Cure's Robert Smith. On The Cure's last tour, not only was dynamic pricing rejected, but tickets were priced at as little as £16, and resale was prohibited. Arguably, says Dorian Lynksey, Smith "made things awkward for artists by proving that they set the prices and dictate the conditions" – though they are happy for Ticketmaster to take the blame.
