MassiveMusic’s Post

The single best thing I have read on the Live Nation Anti-Trust Lawsuit. Kudos Sean O'Connell. Hint: It has absolutely zero to do with Taylor Swift, so Merrick Garland will have to fly to Europe just like the other wealthy Swifties. I wish TS had just put him on the list for Eras so he'd have had more time to investigate and charge federal crimes in a timely fashion. With respect to ticket prices, I think, in the end, the sun has to shine on the headliners' practices that are at the root of the issue (thank you, Peter Grant). Tickets are underpriced, if anything, but the artists don't want to take the heat for pricing at market, or risk playing to empty seats. Looking at you, Broose. It seems like we need 1) mandatory electronic tickets, 2) hard caps on resale to actual total price, plus a specific secondary commission, and 3) the primary ticket vendor, or a party authenticated by the primary ticket vendor, is obligated to list unused tickets for resale, at least up to doors. If the artist wants to price the shows low it's their prerogative, but just giving all the surplus value to resellers shouldn't be the answer. With respect to independent venues and promoters, I dunno. It seems impossible to compete with Live Nation/AEG for any major shows. This is the legit anti-trust issue, but I don't know how to solve it without imposing huge transaction costs on agents and artists, which is just going to get passed along to the fans anyway. It is more efficient to one-stop shop. Michelle Flood

Here are my hot takes on the Live Nation Anti-Trust Lawsuit Journalism is dead Hilariously, every article about this talks about Taylor Swift, who is not even on a Live Nation tour; she’s with AEG. The Monopoly Conversation The monopoly issue shouldn't center around ticket prices. The question is can independent venues get enough shows to survive if they aren't affiliated with Live Nation? If Live Nation prefers certain venues or cities, do agents representing performers ignore offers from other venues? The ease of exclusive tour deals makes it a hassle to book outside the tour. Impact on Creativity Let's be real. One-stop shopping and cash advances offered to bands are reducing the creativity in tour planning. Ticketmaster Isn't The Reason Tickets Are High Prices are based on demand and dictated by the performers, who realized they were underpricing their concerts. Let's face it, some fans are willing to pay big prices. Unfortunately, just like sports, we're pricing out a lot of other fans. And it remains to be see if people buy less tickets to smaller shows since they are spending so much money on the big acts? Current Deals and Competition Deals for headliners can be as high as 90% of gross revenue, with some superstars getting a cut of ancillaries. It’s hard to compete with that. Would that have happened if Live Nation didn’t have deep pockets? Probably not, but the cat is out of the bag, and deals are not going to get better for independent promoters. Ticketing Fees and Revenue Remember, performers get the majority of ticket revenue. Ticketing fees are one of the only revenue source for promoters, venues, and ticketing companies. And the fees going to ticket companies are less than you think because the ticketing market is competitive. Secondary Ticketing Here's an idea (and not in the scope of this anti-trust lawsuit). Is there a way to mandate that search results only display primary ticketing? This could prevent overpaying on predatory secondhand markets. Most people think the first search result is the primary ticketing. It will be interesting to see how the government tries to negotiate secondary ticketing. Obviously, consumers have a right to resell their tickets if they can’t go. That said, Ticketmaster has made it incredibly easy for people to buy tickets and resell them. It’s not hard to imagine that being abused by some ambitious individuals. Potential Outcomes They could force Live Nation to split artist management from promotion or ticketing from touring. Perhaps, though doubtful, they would take the Ma Bell path and split the company into regionals. Likely, none of these will happen, but they might cap Ticketmaster resale prices. What Do You Think? What do you think of the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Live Nation? Will it lead to more opportunities for independent venues/promoters or bring down prices for fans?

Cannes Lions and Spotify Advertising's Spreadbeats! 📊 🎶 Spreadbeats is a unique music video created within a media plan spreadsheet using coded spreadsheet functions. Keep an eye out for it, media partners! #CannesLions #SpotifyAdvertising #Spreadbeats #MediaPlanning #InnovativeAdvertising 🚀

New Post: BMI Takes SiriusXM to Court Over Royalty Rates: ‘Underpaying The Creators’ - https://lnkd.in/geYYvZ8G - BMI is taking SiriusXM to court after the two sides failed to reach a deal on royalty rates during more than two years of negotiations, arguing that the satcaster is “no longer a startup” and must pay more to songwriters. Related SiriusXM Stock Closes 2.55% Higher After Merger With Liberty Media Tracking Stock 09/10/2024 In a petition filed in court today, BMI asked a Manhattan federal judge to uphold a higher royalty rate it has asked SiriusXM to pay – citing increased revenue for the radio giant and a shift toward more lucrative digital streaming. “SiriusXM’s financial performance, and its expansion of its digital offerings, make clear it is no longer a startup in a nascent industry,” lawyers for the rights group wrote. “Yet, despite achieving its secure and successful position, Sirius has continued to pay songwriters — who create the music essential to SiriusXM’s business — at rates that are below those negotiated decades ago when satellite radio was an infant industry with an uncertain future.” A spokeswoman for SiriusXM declined to comment on BMI’s case. BMI is a so-called performance rights organization that collects copyright royalties owed to publishers and songwriters when their songs are performed publicly, offering blanket licenses that allow for the use of more than 22 million tracks. When BMI cannot agree with a licensee like SiriusXM, either side can ask a federal judge to decide the dispute and set a reasonable rate. In doing so on Thursday, BMI pointed to what it sees as key shifts in SiriusXM’s business model since the two last negotiated a licensing deal in 2018 – namely, an increasing reliance on internet streaming rather than old-school satellite radio. “As a result of these changes, SiriusXM’s business has shifted and is becoming more akin to a music streaming service than a traditional satellite radio or broadcast radio,” BMI’s attorneys wrote. “Digital music services pay higher rates to BMI than satellite radio, and the new SiriusXM rate should reflect this expansion of digital performances.” The specific terms of the royalty rate that BMI is seeking from SiriusXM were not disclosed in court filings because BMI said it was “competitively sensitive.” The new rate would cover the period from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2026. In a statement announcing the case on Thursday, BMI said that songwriters “should not have to accept an outdated rate that significantly undervalues their music.” “After attempting to negotiate with

Check out our article about the importance of collaboration in writing music for advertising on LBB (Little Black Book) - https://lnkd.in/eMNu8-GA #musicbyKOM #advertising #musicproduction #advertisingandmarketing #music

Great talk from Darren Hemmings from Motive Unknown. Key takeaways: Direct-to-fan strategies, platform-agnostic approaches, authentic engagement, and offering visibility into the creative process are essential for thriving in an ever-evolving industry landscape. #musicindustry #musicmarketing

What Performers Need to Watch Out For in Contracts in 2025 As the entertainment industry evolves, so do the terms and expectations within contracts. For performers, staying informed about what to watch for in your contracts can protect your rights and ensure you’re fully supported in your career. Here’s what to look out for in 2025: 🎵 Ownership of Content: With the rise of digital platforms, it’s more important than ever to clarify who owns the content you produce. Ensure your contract specifies who holds the rights to performances, recordings, and any digital content, so you’re not caught off guard later. 📃 Exclusivity Clauses: More performers are facing strict exclusivity terms that limit their ability to work on other projects. Be cautious about signing contracts that prevent you from taking on new opportunities or working with other collaborators. 💸 Revenue Sharing Models: Streaming and digital sales continue to dominate, so check how your revenue share is structured. Ensure the contract clearly outlines how you’ll be compensated for streaming, digital sales, and other new media channels. 🚌 Touring Requirements: If touring is part of your agreement, make sure the terms are clearly defined. Check for specifics on payment, expenses, and accommodations. Flexibility is key—ensure the contract allows for fair terms around changes or cancellations. 👥 Usage of Likeness & Image: Protect your brand and public image. Contracts should define how your likeness, name, and image will be used in promotions and marketing. Make sure you have approval rights and limits on usage. 🎤Performance Obligations & Cancellations: With schedules often changing, make sure your obligations are reasonable. Look for clear terms on what’s required of you and what penalties, if any, apply to cancellations due to unforeseen circumstances. Being proactive with contract terms is essential for navigating the industry in 2025. Before signing, take the time to fully understand the terms—or work with a legal professional to ensure your interests are protected. Performers: What’s the biggest surprise you’ve found in a contract? Let’s discuss how we can stay informed and empowered together. #musicindustry #entertainment #musicrights #touring #contracts #music #content

**BLACMEX response to The UK government's recent announcement of a £60 million investment in the creative industries** The recent news from the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, at the Creative Industries Growth Summit presents a significant opportunity and a mark of intent for organisations like BLACMEX, the UK's first Black Music Export office. The £60 million package of support can only be seen as encouraging for BLACMEX and other export driven models. Music export is an especially crucial vehicle to amplify reach and viability for UK Black music genres and its industries.  It will provide significant scope for creative and cultural organisations across the UK, whilst fostering growth by transforming local venues, creating jobs, supporting businesses, and expanding opportunities nationwide. BLACMEX is dedicated to decolonizing the commercial music industry away from a dated and traditional metric system and amplifying Black music genres—including (but not exclusive to) Hip-Hop, R&B, Jazz, and Gospel—on the global stage. By providing cultural sensitivity and genre expertise, BLACMEX adds value and talent recognition to the UK music sector and UK economy. This month has been a busy start to the year for the Creative Economy with the Foreign Secretary David Lammy also announcing the launch of the Soft Power Council to help boost UK economic growth and security by bringing together experts from across culture, sport, the creative industries and geopolitics. The government's investment aligns with BLACMEX's very own mission statement to unlock the soft power of UK Black music specialism, culture, and genre representation in international markets. We hope to work closely with UK Music and the Soft Power Council. The government's £60 million boost for creative industries offers a timely and valuable resource for BLACMEX to expand its efforts in promoting UK Black music on the international stage, fostering growth, creativity, and success for talents within Black culture and its related genres. Have you registered for our unique music sector mapping initiatives for talent supportive organisations and music creators?  See https://lnkd.in/etdBR5nQ https://lnkd.in/gzkaFSw3 Department for Culture, Media and Sport Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Department for Business and Trade #BlackMusicExport #UKMusic

Abuse of relative, or relational, power seems to particularly prevails in the entertainment business sector. On December 26, 2024, Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) released the results of its survey, which was prompted by the 2019 Johnny & Associates case,* finding several competition-related concerns, including abuse of superior bargaining position. Here are some key takeaways of the JFTC's survey results, relying on the Asahi article (so there may be errors or some distortions reflecting my own perspective). 1. Structural imbalance: In my view, the JFTC seems to find that the root cause lies in the dependent, one-sided relationship between (large, concentrated) talent agencies and (fragmented) entertainers, and that this structural imbalance gives rise to several exploitative and exclusionary (or unfair competition) concerns. 2. Vertical exploitative concerns: Some exploitation concerns were identified as follows: (i) ambiguous, verbal contracts without written agreements; and (ii) unilateral contract extensions, even when entertainers wish to leave at the end of their term. These practices were pointed out as potentially amounting to abuse of superior bargaining position under Japan’s competition law. 3. Horizontal lessening competition (and/or unfair competition) concerns: The JFTC also highlighted that lessening competition (and/or unfair competition) concerns arise from retaliatory actions by agencies against entertainers leaving their contracts, such as blacklisting or pressuring other agencies not to hire them. Additionally, the JFTC noted that the agencies imposing restrictions on entertainers' stage or group names, harming their careers, could constitute an illegal refusal (as unfair conduct lessening competition). Based on these findings, the JFTC is expected to issue guidelines in 2025. (Personally, I don’t think actual enforcement action is likely to be in sight.) Japan Fair Trade Commission, 'Market Study on Transactions Between Performers and Entertainment Agencies in the Music and Broadcasting Industry (Market Study on Ensuring Fair Transactions to Support Creators)' (Press release Dec 26, 2024) https://lnkd.in/gcA5BqX2 (JPN) https://lnkd.in/grVCyN6e Yosuke Takashima, Hiroshi Nakano and Kyota Tanaka, 'Agencies control entertainers with vague contracts, threats' The Asahi Chimbun (Dec 27, 2024) https://lnkd.in/g36KBYYJ * FYI: The Johnny & Associates case (2016-2019) serves as the background for the survey. To put it roughly, this case involved coercive practices by a large talent agency, Johnny & Associates, against affiliated entertainers. Reportedly, after some entertainers (members of SMAP) left the agency amid conflicts, the company (as a retaliation in my view) engaged in unjust practices, including pressuring broadcasters and other media not to cast them. For that, in 2019, the JFTC issued a warning against the talent agency.

In May, we talked about the impending antitrust lawsuit leveled against LiveNation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) – and now, the details of the suit have been released. This week’s #musicindustry breakdown explores… Quick recap: In April 2024, the DoJ announced a major antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster’s parent company, LiveNation, following a two-year probe investigating the company for evidence of a monopoly held over the industry since the two companies’ merger in 2010. At the time, critics warned that a merger between the two entertainment giants would essentially put the ticketing and live events industries into a collective chokehold, to the detriment of entertainers, competitors and fans alike. And surprise surprise – it did. Since the merger, ticket costs have risen drastically for consumers who frankly didn’t have many options for ticket providers – why? Well, LiveNation owns/operates 250+ international concert venues, the majority of which use Ticketmaster exclusively for ticket sales. Hmm… 🤔 The antitrust suit filed claims that Live Nation exploited its position as “the gatekeeper for the delivery of nearly all live music in America today” to drive down competition, drive up prices & levy rampant fees & pressure venues into compliance (allegedly). Now, the DoJ has released details on the allegations against LiveNation. Here are just a few: → Retaliating Against Potential Entrants → Threatening & Retaliating Against Venues that Work with Rivals → Locking Out Competition w/Exclusionary Contracts → Blocking Venues from Using Multiple Ticketers → Restricting Artists’ Access to Venues → Acquiring Competitors & Competitive Threats If you’d like to read the complaint in full, you can find it here: https://buff.ly/4bs6Bei For their part, LiveNation maintains that “Ticketmaster has more competition today than it has ever had,” and denies the existence of a monopoly. Moreover, the company claims that the lawsuit will not reduce ticket prices or fees – and that there’s a bigger issue… In one article, Dan Wall, Live Nation Executive Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs stated that the lawsuit against the company only “distracts from real solutions that would decrease prices and protect fans - like letting artists cap resale prices.” The lawsuit is ongoing, and we’ll be sure to keep up with developments as they occur. In the meantime we’re curious – do you think the suit will stand up in court? If so, what major changes do you expect to see in the ticketing and live entertainment industry?