Ticketmaster’s "All-In" Pricing: A Response to Regulatory Pressure, Not Altruism

For years, the experience of purchasing tickets through Ticketmaster has been synonymous with a frustrating and often infuriating surprise at the checkout stage. The initially displayed ticket price, seemingly attractive and within budget, would abruptly balloon as soon as the checkout button was pressed, the difference often attributable to exorbitant "service fees." These fees, routinely adding a significant percentage to the base price, have long been a source of consumer ire and a defining characteristic of the Ticketmaster experience.

Now, Ticketmaster is introducing what it’s calling "all-in pricing," a move that seemingly promises to resolve this long-standing issue. Beginning May 12th, the company will display the full cost of the ticket, including all fees (excluding taxes), from the very outset of the transaction. In a blog post announcing the change, Ticketmaster assures customers that this new system will allow them to "find tickets within [their] budget right away, with no surprises at checkout."

According to Ticketmaster, this transition to transparent pricing is not a grudging concession but rather a reflection of their long-held commitment to consumer welfare. The company claims it has "long advocated for all-in pricing laws worldwide, and support a consistent ticket-buying experience for fans." This statement is met with skepticism, however, considering Ticketmaster’s history regarding pricing transparency. The notion that Ticketmaster is presenting this change as a new "feature" and positioning itself as pro-consumer is viewed by many as laughable, given its long-standing practice of hiding fees until the final stage of the purchase.

Ticketing fees have been a persistent problem for years, with Ticketmaster frequently identified as a primary offender. A 2018 report by the Government Accountability Office highlighted the significant impact of these fees, revealing that they added an average of 27% to 31% to the advertised ticket price, substantially increasing the final cost for consumers.

The impetus behind Ticketmaster’s newfound dedication to price transparency is not, as the company suggests, a long-held desire to improve the consumer experience. Rather, it is a direct response to regulatory pressure, specifically the Biden administration’s crackdown on "junk fees." While Ticketmaster initially pledged to comply with these efforts, its subsequent actions indicated a preference for evasion and resistance. The company reportedly began displaying the full purchase price only for shows at venues owned by Live Nation, a company with which Ticketmaster merged in 2010. Moreover, Ticketmaster significantly increased its lobbying spending as discussions surrounding junk fee regulations intensified. This behavior hardly aligns with the image of a company genuinely committed to price transparency.

The true explanation for Ticketmaster’s adoption of "All In Pricing" lies in the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission’s "Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees." This rule mandates that businesses "clearly and conspicuously" display the total price of goods and services, including all mandatory fees, from the initial stages of the transaction. Coincidentally, this rule went into effect on May 12th, the very same day that Ticketmaster’s "All In Pricing" went live.

This timing strongly suggests that Ticketmaster’s decision to embrace transparent pricing was not driven by altruism but rather by the force of law. The company’s actions indicate that it would have continued its practice of hiding fees had it not been compelled to change by regulatory intervention.

The FTC’s rule represents a significant victory for consumers, who have long been subjected to deceptive pricing practices. By requiring businesses to disclose the full cost of their products and services upfront, the rule empowers consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and avoid unexpected charges.

While Ticketmaster’s adoption of "All In Pricing" is a positive development, it is essential to recognize the context in which it occurred. The company’s history of resisting price transparency and its attempts to circumvent regulatory efforts underscore the need for continued vigilance and oversight to ensure that businesses adhere to fair pricing practices. Consumers should remain wary of potential loopholes and hidden fees, and they should continue to advocate for stronger consumer protection laws.

The hope is that this will finally stop the added fees from being a big surprise, it does not eliminate the fees. The pricing has not gone down. It has only been revealed. This is still an expensive, though now less frustrating, process.