Oasis and the Often Overlooked Benefit of Dynamic Pricing

The recent uproar over ticket prices for the Oasis reunion tour has reignited the debate over dynamic, or surge, pricing in the live music industry. Fans were left dismayed as prices went supersonic due to high demand, with some tickets more than doubling in price from less than £150 to over £350. This practice, while in itself legal under current consumer protection laws, has brought to the fore once again questions about fairness and transparency in the ticketing market.

Dynamic pricing is akin to a double-edged sword. On one side, it is a legitimate business strategy, adjusting prices in real-time based on supply and demand. This is not unique to the music industry; it's prevalent in airlines, hotels, and ride-sharing services – as anyone who has tried to get an Uber after a big gig will know. On the flip side, it is a practice that can alienate fans, creating a sense of exploitation as prices escalate beyond reach, even while fans wait in online queues. 

Ticketmaster, a major player in the ticketing industry, has defended its role in the Oasis imbroglio, stating that prices are set by event organisers and fluctuate based on market value. The backlash from fans and artists alike, however, has been significant. Arab Strap’s Aidan Moffatt called it an “utterly despicable practice”, following on the heels of The Cure's Robert Smith who has previously labelled it a "greedy scam”. Crowded House have also in the past accused Ticketmaster of applying the practice without consent and required the platform to reimburse fans who paid more than face value.

The European Commission is looking into the issue and, here in the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority said on 3 September 2024 that it is “urgently reviewing” the use of dynamic pricing. The UK government has also taken note of the public outcry with Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy promising a probe into dynamic pricing, vowing to include it in a broader consultation on consumer protections for ticket resales. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also indicated that the law may need adjustments, suggesting a cap on resold ticket prices and limits on the number of tickets one can resell. So, we could well end up with more stringent regulation of the practice. 

It is worth noting the role artists can play in guiding public sentiment. Bruce Springsteen and Harry Styles have used dynamic pricing, while Taylor Swift chose not to. These decisions impact how their fans are treated, and they wield power to influence public sentiment regarding such pricing strategies. Certainly, transparency is a key issue. If dynamic pricing is to be used, fans should be aware when it is in operation, allowing them to make informed decisions. 

One issue that has not received much attention in the recent furore is the role dynamic pricing can play in terms of dampening the secondary market. Such pricing strategies should reduce the appeal of tickets to touts. Fans have been equally been outraged by touts snapping up face value tickets, often using bots and sophisticated software to do so, only to then sell them through secondary channels at steep mark ups. The problem at its heart is a knotty one. Tickets for popular concerts, shows and events are sometimes – according to market demand – worth more than the price at which they are first offered to the public. While the ticketing platforms will always try to get as much of this increase as they can, dynamic pricing does offer one way for bands and event organisers to try to capture more of that value. Where they decline to do that, the touts will have no such qualms. This is a key challenge for the events industry and legislators. It is also a highly emotive one and cool heads will be needed in the coming debates if the most suitable and equitable solutions are to be found.