Debate contribution: Dynamic Pricing

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 16 September 2024.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Dynamic Pricing

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4532729

Read the official Assembly record

Text

You will be glad to know that I got rid of most of my puns. I think that we all had a similar idea on those grounds. A few weeks ago, I sat in front of a computer, watching my hoped-for tickets 'Slide Away'.

Yes, that was poor. Although this is a growing trend in the industry, we should not be focused on just one event — the sale of tickets for the Oasis gigs. Such unethical practices have been more routinely used in the United States for some time and have seen prices for sports and live entertainment rocket beyond the means of many working families. We should learn the lessons of their experience. The practice sees ticket prices fluctuate in real time, based on demand, to maximise the revenue by leveraging the opportunity cost placed on fans during a short, pressurised window. Those who use it point to other industries where similar approaches are used. The Member talked about flights, hotel bookings and Uber, for example. However, few industries can ramp up prices so quickly within such a short window and pressurise people into parting with more money than intended or planned, as a clock ticks in front of them until they lose their chance to buy. It often results in a scenario where the average consumer is unfairly priced out of experiencing live events, or spends beyond what they can afford in a moment when they are deliberately tempted to make less rational decisions. Rather than being a fair market, Ticketmaster's method of gouging creates a tiered system where only those with deep pockets or the fastest internet connections can secure tickets. If Ticketmaster and Live Nation believe that the long and popular battle to curb ticket touts was about only ensuring that money went to the right people, let me disavow them of that notion: the average punters, our constituents, care that they are not ripped off. They care that the system is fair. Despite the huge efforts put into propaganda against rival price-gouging resale sites like StubHub and Viagogo, Ticketmaster has simply absorbed and adopted the ticket-touting model, saying that it is OK when it does it. If fans are to have their arms twisted up their backs by price gougers, it makes no difference to them whether their hard-earned cash goes to a multimillion-dollar New York Stock Exchange-listed company or an individual tout with similar ethics. I assure those who have paid higher prices for a show that they desire that there is no virtue or solace for us to take in the legitimising of touting practices; no warm fuzzy feeling because those practices are now controlled instead for the profits of companies like Live Nation. I say that as someone who has bought a ticket from a third-party reselling site for an event that I dearly wanted to see: Luke Combs in Belfast earlier this year. They say that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. I should imagine that, given the numbers of those who are fleeing the ship of dynamic pricing, there will be little opposition to move to banning in that context. In the case of Oasis, the artist, ticket merchant and promoter all seem keen to distance themselves from their responsibility for the decision to use the method. I will turn now to the dominance of Live Nation, Ticketmaster's parent company, as I said, and its affiliates, which exacerbates the issues. As one of the largest players in the industry, Live Nation wields unprecedented control over the market. Its stranglehold is not only on ticket sales but extends to venue ownership, promotion, merchandising and artist management. That clearly limits competition and leads to higher ticket prices and fewer options for fans. When a single entity controls so many facets of the events industry, it diminishes any genuine opportunity for smaller, innovative companies to thrive, stifling diversity and creativity. Given the relative economies of scale, I think that the dominance is even more pronounced here in the UK and Ireland than in the US, but I do not have the stats at this stage to back that up. The merger and acquisition practices of Live Nation and its subsidiaries are not merely about growth; they are about monopolistic control. Such concentration of power leads to higher costs for consumers, reduced choice and a market that is driven more by profit margins than by the celebration of live arts and culture. The US has recognised that. Live Nation faces an antitrust case that has been taken against it by the US Department of Justice. We should see similar action from the UK Government and relevant competition regulators in defence of consumers here in the United Kingdom once the investigations have taken place. There is no point cracking down on ticket touting just to have the model adopted by a billion-dollar industry. There are more transparent and equitable pricing models. A fairer and more competitive marketplace is desirable. I appeal to the Executive to work with and impress upon the Government the need to fashion an industry that values accessibility and diversity over that monopolistic control.

Thank you.

858 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification