Live Nation expands reach with U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Miringeltje

An Interferer
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,084
Location
Staring at u(2)
Promoter Expands Reach With U2

Live Nation, Preparing To Battle Ticketmaster, Signs Up Irish Band

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692398350075703.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news


Wall St. Journal, March 30, 2008

Ethan Smith


As it girds for a looming battle with IAC/InterActiveCorp's Ticketmaster, concert promoter Live Nation Inc. is looking to enlist powerful allies. The latest to sign on: U2, which has reached a 12-year deal giving the promoter exclusive rights to produce the Irish rock band's concerts, manufacture and sell its merchandise, license its image and run its Web site and online fan club.

The situation highlights the shifting landscape of the concert industry, as various players vie to expand their influence. Live Nation, the world's largest concert promoter by revenue, has said it is parting ways with Ticketmaster, the biggest ticket seller, when their partnership ends at the end of this year. Live Nation plans to launch its own competing ticket service to sell seats to its own concerts as well as events staged by others.

Live Nation has also acquired several companies that run Web sites and sell merchandise for artists, and it is looking for artists to sign to record deals like the one it entered last year with Madonna -- a move pitting it against record labels. Promoters, labels and ticketing companies alike are looking for ways to expand their presence online, by acquiring companies that market and promote music on the Web.

"It's clear that the lines, or the silos, that were in place historically are breaking down," Arthur Fogel, Live Nation's chairman of global music, said in an interview. Many previously disparate parts of the music business are being consolidated, he added: "Companies such as us are best positioned to execute on that basket of rights."

The U2 arrangement, which follows an even broader 10-year deal with Madonna, would guarantee desirable inventory for the new ticketing service, set to launch at the beginning of 2009.

Unlike Live Nation's $120 million deal with Madonna, the U2 agreement -- which is to be finalized soon -- doesn't cover distribution of recorded music or music publishing. For the same rights Live Nation is getting from U2, the promoter paid Madonna about $70 million. Terms of the U2 pact weren't disclosed. U2 extended its record contract with Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group late last year, according to people familiar with the matter, and also has a long-term publishing deal with Universal.

For U2, the arrangement represents a windfall that results ultimately from Live Nation's newly embattled position and its resulting need for loyal allies. The promoter is effectively paying the band to lock in the status quo: Live Nation or its predecessors have produced and promoted every world-wide U2 tour since 1997, and a Live Nation subsidiary already manages the band's Web site and fan club.

Live Nation Chairman Michael Cohl said he considers Ticketmaster "already our competition." He added that long-term artist relationships are one of two keys to the company's ability to compete effectively with its rival; the other key, he said, is building up infrastructure like venues and subsidiaries that can execute merchandise deals.

In preparing for this kind of battle, Mr. Cohl said, "one of the things you do is start to position yourself in terms of the hardware, and you try to position yourself in terms of the content. We're trying to line up as much of both as we consider meaningful and beneficial."

Live Nation's stock closed Friday at $11.83 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange, sliding 10 cents and coming in at nearly half its closing price of $23.36 on Oct. 10, the day before the Madonna deal became known.

Formed in Dublin in 1976, U2 remains one of the most potent live draws in the world. Its most recent tour was the second-highest-grossing concert tour in history, earning $389.4 million at the box office, according to data from Billboard magazine. The Rolling Stones' 2005-07 "Bigger Bang" tour took in $558.3 million. Live Nation promoted both. U2's record sales haven't held up quite as well; 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb wasn't among the 10 best-selling albums in the U.S. that year.

The deal may also offer ways for U2 to address problems that arose on its last tour. The band offered members of its online fan club, who paid $40 apiece to join, early access to tickets. But during the so-called fan-club presales, many would-be buyers encountered frustrating waits and a limited, expensive inventory comprising some of the worst seats in the house.

Ticketmaster had a hand in the presale fiascoes, inasmuch as its infrastructure couldn't handle the surge of ticket requests that flooded its computers. But people involved say the bigger problem was that there were simply too many members in the club to provide them all premium seats.

"We feel we've got a great Web site," U2 lead singer Bono said in a statement. "But we want to make it a lot better." U2.com is already hosted by Signatures Network, one of several merchandising companies recently acquired by Live Nation; they are being merged into one unit.

While Live Nation has been snapping up artists along with companies that provide them services, No. 2 concert promoter AEG Live has been seeking to make strategic moves of its own. Earlier this month talks stalled in a deal for Ticketmaster and Cablevision Corp. to take a 49% stake in the promoter, which is owned by Anschutz Corp.

IAC and Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, together operate a personal-finance Web site.


© Wall Street Journal, 2008.
 
Last edited:
am i supposed to be concerned with the 12 year deal or the apparent u2 ownership by live nation? to what extent do they 'produce' the shows?
 
Any separation between U2 and TicketBastard = good.
 
last unicorn said:
The only thing I'm really concerned about is that Bono calls U2.com a "great website". :|

He's probably been shown it once. "Oh, hey, that's me online! Nice photo. Great website!"
 
If that means a better official website and no more ticket pre-sale troubles.. :up:
 
Considering Signature Networks is already a subsidiary of Live Nation and the website already sucks, I'm not too convinced that this deal will make it all that much better. Bono thinks they have a great website? :huh:

The thought of buying tickets from a company that can't handle sending out a few thousand tshirts in an orderly manner does not give me confidence :crack:
 
Why does everyone hate on the website so much? Maybe its a bit slow on the updates, but otherwise I think it's not all that bad. Most band websites absolutely suck, imo, and/or don't offer you much other than a brochure on the band. I think U2.com has a lot of good content :shrug:

Maybe can someone point me to another band's site that is better?

PS - gotta love those Canadian music moguls...not bad for someone who got their start with a strip club :wink:
 
U2girl said:
If that means a better official website and no more ticket pre-sale troubles.. :up:

the only way that is gonna improve is if they change their policy on membership of the fanclub, i.e putting a time frame on when you can join (like what Duran Duran and REM do for example) prior to future presales otherwise it is going to be the same damn fiasco all over again. :mad:
 
gabrielvox said:
Why does everyone hate on the website so much? Maybe its a bit slow on the updates, but otherwise I think it's not all that bad. Most band websites absolutely suck, imo, and/or don't offer you much other than a brochure on the band. I think U2.com has a lot of good content :shrug:

Maybe can someone point me to another band's site that is better?

PS - gotta love those Canadian music moguls...not bad for someone who got their start with a strip club :wink:

Folk around here just bash the site to be trendy. Makes them feel like a bunch of big smartypants's.
 
gabrielvox said:
Why does everyone hate on the website so much?

It looks like crap, they've gotten lyrics and dates wrong in the past, it's slow on updates, Zootopia sucks and is hard on the eyes, and you have to pay that huge fee to have full access to everything. Need I go on?
 
gabrielvox said:
Why does everyone hate on the website so much? Maybe its a bit slow on the updates, but otherwise I think it's not all that bad. Most band websites absolutely suck, imo, and/or don't offer you much other than a brochure on the band. I think U2.com has a lot of good content :shrug:

Maybe can someone point me to another band's site that is better?

PS - gotta love those Canadian music moguls...not bad for someone who got their start with a strip club :wink:

It's not so much the website from an information/content perspective, it's the membership renewal process, the shop and the webmail.

The initial renewal process has been a disaster every year since the beginning and the shop is another issue. Items are purchased and not received for weeks/months, if at all, items come damaged, or with wrong sizes or wrong items all together.

The webmail is horrible (that is,when it's working at all).

This is the business/technological side of the website and it does suck. The tickets will be the business/technological side of things also, and if the way they handle these parts of the website now is any indication of what will happen with tickets sales, I'm not very confident. Hopefully, they'll get their act together.

And you're right, there probably aren't too many band sites that are much better. Guess what, Fanfire/Signature Networks has the monopoly on these websites.

The better ones are probably those that are still handled by the band themselves, like Pearl Jam, although even they have their problems with systems crashing during ticket sales.
 
I work concert security for a company that is hired by Live Nation to do all their Boston shows. Livenation is a sinking ship even though they are on top and this deal is bad for U2. Bon Jovi just went with AEG, others are doing the same. Livenation is arrogant, has no idea how to run a company and has bit off a bigger piece then they can chew in concert promoting. Clearchannel spun them off in 2004 and ever since they have had their own board, it has been screw up after screw up, and they have pissed alot of people off. Just recently, they almost let Romney's pals at Bain Capital buy them out! Sure, let a company that has never had anything to do with music, or any business for that matter beyond paper corporations and dismantling profitable businesses take over. Mitt really did a number on the MA economy and he and his Bain pals are no entrepreneurs. He inherited all his start up capital and then did more to break down businesses than build them up. Elevation Partners, Bono's venture capital group has literally created thousands more jobs than these people who now want to buy livenation. The whole industry is run by LiveNation now, and it is only a matter of time before it collapses completely. If people think Ticketmaster is bad, wait until these people get their hands on the sales!
 
CTU2fan said:
Any separation between U2 and TicketBastard = good.

In at least 1 country in Europe LiveNation have agreed a deal with Viagogo to let the latter be an "official reseller". That worries me in terms of how they might try to sell tickets in the future.
 
Last edited:
last unicorn said:
The only thing I'm really concerned about is that Bono calls U2.com a "great website". :|

Well, he does immediately add "But we want to make it a lot better." So I'm not that concerned. Hopefully they can follow up on it.
 
ramblin rose said:
Considering Signature Networks is already a subsidiary of Live Nation and the website already sucks, I'm not too convinced that this deal will make it all that much better. Bono thinks they have a great website? :huh:

The thought of buying tickets from a company that can't handle sending out a few thousand tshirts in an orderly manner does not give me confidence :crack:

Well, the article states "U2.com is already hosted by Signatures Network, one of several merchandising companies recently acquired by Live Nation; they are being merged into one unit."
So yes, Signature Networks is a subsidiary, but apparently not for that long. And hopefully it'll be merged with some other merchandising company that can handle things better.
 
U2387 said:
Livenation is arrogant, has no idea how to run a company and has bit off a bigger piece then they can chew in concert promoting.

Arthur Fogel's in charge - he knows what he's doing.
 
Popmartijn said:
Well, the article states "U2.com is already hosted by Signatures Network, one of several merchandising companies recently acquired by Live Nation; they are being merged into one unit."
So yes, Signature Networks is a subsidiary, but apparently not for that long. And hopefully it'll be merged with some other merchandising company that can handle things better.

Well, like I said in my post, I hope they get their act together.
 
ntalwar said:


Arthur Fogel's in charge - he knows what he's doing.

Working inside the industry, I can tell you that it is not showing! Believe me when I say, bands are leaving these guys in droves and they are cutting back staff everywhere to a dangerous level. They have no concept of what it takes to run a business or a concert. The company I work for has been in business for 22 years and the promoters we talk to, who are all livenation now, say the industry has never been a)in more trouble-they are promoting the Jonas Brothers for chrissakes!! and b)run by people who have their heads further up their asses. Arthur Fogel is their head of touring/etc, he can be as good as he wants, the fact of the matter is, he does not call all the shots and he can get overruled from many different places. Look at the board of directors for LiveNation, google them, etc, do whatever you have to to find out a little about them. Then ask yourself what any of them legitimately know or care about the music industry. This is merely a way for them to make a little money now on a ship that is ultimately sinking. U2, Madonna, Springsteen, Stones, The Police are about all they have left in the industry for big tours, and beyond U2, I can not see any of these acts lasting much longer on the touring scene. Also, Springsteen was bought out from under LiveNation for Boston shows by BOB KRAFT of the NE Patriots! He was one of our most reliable acts over the yrs, and even he is gone now. People just do not realize how much trouble the whole music industry is in. There is no margin of error for these guys in the internet age of downloads and bootlegs and everything else-they are screwing everything up at the worst possible point in time for them. Combine that with the lack of any bands of the caliber of U2, Madonna, Springsteen, Police, etc on the horizon and you have one disaster waiting to happen. Everyone I work with that is alot older than me and has been around a lot longer and has seen the change always tells me that this is no joke, it is a dying industry. I can work concerts on perfectly beautiful, 78-82 degree clear nights in July, at major venues in Boston and they are often less than half full. Never wouldve happened 20 yrs ago.
 
U2387 said:

Working inside the industry, I can tell you that it is not showing! Believe me when I say, bands are leaving these guys in droves and they are cutting back staff everywhere to a dangerous level. They have no concept of what it takes to run a business or a concert.

What happens with other acts isn't important to me. I think we'll get a solid production and overall experience. You haven't really given specific examples of risks to a U2 tour.
 
I think Paul M. has proven to be a fantastic businessman. Bono is no slouch himself. And of course, there's the bodyguard of the band who I'm sure looked over everyone's shoulders. I have faith.
 
LemonMelon said:


It looks like crap, they've gotten lyrics and dates wrong in the past, it's slow on updates, Zootopia sucks and is hard on the eyes, and you have to pay that huge fee to have full access to everything. Need I go on?

But we pay over half that to be here, a site with no lyrics, no official content, an annoying blue screen that has burnt my retinas irreperably...ok not really but yeah lol....and quite a bit of misinformation and crap to sift thru....not saying I don't appreciate Interference, I do, but be fair now :lol:
 
ramblin rose said:


It's not so much the website from an information/content perspective, it's the membership renewal process, the shop and the webmail.

The initial renewal process has been a disaster every year since the beginning and the shop is another issue. Items are purchased and not received for weeks/months, if at all, items come damaged, or with wrong sizes or wrong items all together.

The webmail is horrible (that is,when it's working at all).

This is the business/technological side of the website and it does suck.

I've never had any problems with it, honestly. Everything has gone according to what I've ordered, if I remember correctly...guess I've been lucky! :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom