Three Things I Learned in SaaS, Sports, Tech & Live Events for 1.30.23
Ticketmaster (is back) at the capitol. Much ado about nothing. Why and what we learned
Ticketmaster was back in Washington DC answering for a rocky Taylor Swift on-sale and the news of Barclays Center switching from SeatGeek to Ticketmaster just one year into a seven year deal
For all the pomp, circumstance, and punditry, the hearings are much ado about nothing for three practical reasons.
Correlation and causation. As Dave Brooks points out, the UBS Arena, an Oak View Group venue, debuted right around the time of Barclay’s switch to TM. TM holds a board seat at OVG. New venues get lots of shows in the first two years, especially when the promoter has an ownership interest in the venue (before we all claim this makes the monopoly claim stronger, the venue business is plenty competitive with others, like AEG, owning and operating a healthy number of venues.) The new arena opening coupled with Covid, remember - we were in the throws of Omicron hysteria just one year ago, so much so we had to cancel our company all-staff last January, caused a similar drop in activity at MSG, maybe the most famously Live Nation/Ticketmaster friendly venue, as well as neighboring venues. It may look and smell bad for Barclays to leave so fast, but these data points offer all the air cover TM will end up needing on the consent decree. Judges aren’t all that interested in public sentiment when there are questions of law.
As for canceling one year in? A new CEO took over at Barclays. He has zero affinity for what his predecessor did. Most new execs don't. Happens in software (and business) all the time. Some people want change for change’s sake, some want to put their fingerprints on a deal, and some just need to make it look like they're contributing value right away. When the decision maker changes, contracts can be up for grabs as they'll generally make their decision and then work backwards to justify it. We've won a lot of deals in similar situations. It makes for an unenviable situation for SeatGeek. Barclays has to push the envelope to get out of the contract, meaning they need to try and prove breach. That can lead to trumped up accusations and unrealistic characterizations of what actually occurred vs what could be reasonably expected in a commercial agreement. SeatGeek needs to defend their brand and their technology while eating a massive churn number which they'll be taking questions about for years (as an example: we lost a big customer in 2017 who returned in 2022. Their experience dominated diligence for us the years they were gone). The fallout from this quick switch will last for years, even with SeatGeek announcing the Tennessee Titans as a new customer taking their NFL client roster to six (Cardinals, Saints, Cowboys, Commanders, Titans, and Ravens) ((Yes, those numbers were incorrectly cited multiple times in the hearings))
As for Taylor Swift it was simple: the ticketing companies didn't want to go on-sale to all 53 cities at once. Taylor's team wanted to make a splash so they demanded it. Theoretically, the tech should have held up. But in tech, you never know until it is out in the wild. Turns out Tay Tay overwhelmed all systems with the demand she drives. If TM couldn’t do it….nobody could. (Insert witty Taylor Swift lyric here).