In recent years, there has been growing public scrutiny over Ticketmaster’s business practices and service fees. Most notably, members of the rock band Pearl Jam spoke out against the company’s monopolistic control over event ticketing in the early 1990s. Their efforts initiated a Department of Justice investigation into Ticketmaster’s anti-competitive policies. Though the DOJ ultimately did not file charges, Pearl Jam’s high-profile protest highlighted concerns about the lack of competition in the ticketing industry. Their vocal opposition serves as an early example of artists attempting to challenge the power and dominance of Ticketmaster over live event ticketing.
Pearl Jam’s Dispute with Ticketmaster
In 1994, Pearl Jam was one of the biggest rock bands in the world, regularly selling out arenas and stadiums. As the band prepared for a summer tour that year, they ran into issues negotiating a deal with Ticketmaster. At the time, Ticketmaster had exclusive contracts with most major venues across the United States. This meant any artist playing at those venues had no choice but to use Ticketmaster to sell their tickets.
Pearl Jam took issue with Ticketmaster’s service fees, which could add $3-$6 on top of each ticket sold. The band felt these fees were unfair to fans. They approached Ticketmaster and asked that the service fees be reduced to a more reasonable amount. However, Ticketmaster refused to budge. So Pearl Jam decided to tour that summer without using Ticketmaster. They booked shows only at venues that would let them self-promote and self-distribute tickets.
Pearl Jam’s Anti-Trust Complaint
When Ticketmaster pressured venues into refusing to work with Pearl Jam outside of Ticketmaster, the band realized this was indicative of monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices. In May 1994, Pearl Jam filed a complaint with the United States Department of Justice, alleging that Ticketmaster was violating anti-trust laws through exclusive deals that stifled competition.
In the complaint, Pearl Jam said Ticketmaster’s exclusive contracts with promoters and venues “virtually eliminate any possibility of a new company successfully competing with Ticketmaster.” They argued that Ticketmaster’s domination allowed them to charge excessive service fees that neither venues, competitors, artists, or fans could challenge.
Department of Justice Investigation
Pearl Jam’s complaint triggered a DOJ investigation into Ticketmaster to determine if they were violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act:
- Section 1 prohibits anticompetitive agreements or conspiracies between entities that restrain trade or commerce.
- Section 2 deals with monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize a particular industry.
The DOJ’s investigation lasted over two years. They interviewed hundreds of industry stakeholders, competitors, promoters, and venues. However, in July 1995, the DOJ ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove Ticketmaster was engaged in unlawful monopolistic practices. The DOJ allowed Ticketmaster to continue business as usual, though they vowed to continue monitoring them.
Aftermath and Impact
Though the DOJ did not side with Pearl Jam, the band’s efforts increased public awareness about Ticketmaster’s power and the lack of competition in ticketing. Their willingness to sacrifice playing larger venues was seen as a principled protest against Ticketmaster’s excessive fees. Other artists like Neil Young soon spoke out in support of Pearl Jam.
In the years after, Pearl Jam continued to seek out alternatives to Ticketmaster whenever possible. They helped provide exposure for new ticketing companies like Tickets.com. Other bands like The String Cheese Incident also began working around Ticketmaster.
While Ticketmaster remains the dominant ticketing company in the live events industry, Pearl Jam’s protest highlighted the problems with monopolistic control. It showed that artists could potentially fight back and disrupt the status quo. The pushback on service fees also led many bands and venues to reexamine the ticketing experience for fans. Out of this grew more transparent ticketing practices, like all-in pricing, that included all fees upfront.
So while Pearl Jam’s anti-trust complaint didn’t topple Ticketmaster, they were one of the first major artists to question and critique Ticketmaster’s anti-competitive stranglehold over event ticketing. Their willingness to publicly take on a powerful industry giant helped give both artists and fans more leverage to demand a better, more consumer-friendly ticketing experience.
Conclusion
In summary, Pearl Jam was the most prominent band that warned about and protested Ticketmaster’s monopolistic ticketing practices in the early 1990s. Their high-profile boycott and Department of Justice complaint initiated greater scrutiny into Ticketmaster’s business model and brought wider awareness to the lack of competition in the ticketing industry. Though the DOJ ultimately did not punish Ticketmaster, Pearl Jam’s principled stance helped give artists and fans more power to pressure the industry to improve the live event ticketing experience. Their protest remains one of the most visible examples of an artist willingly jeopardizing ticket sales in order to fight back against the excessive fees and monopolistic control of Ticketmaster.