The ticketing and events giant received a tsunami of backlash following its botched handling of sales for the US leg of coveted star Swift’s upcoming ‘Eras Tour’ last week.
The tour, which comes following the release of her 10th studio album Midnights last month, will be Swift’s first since 2018.
Two days of chaotic presales saw millions of fans waiting hours in virtual queues to purchase tickets. The ticketing service then proceeded to cancel Friday’s planned general on-sale for Swift’s tour due to “insufficient remaining ticket inventory” in a move that was met with widespread criticism.
Many Swifties were left disappointed and frustrated by the repeated site crashes and wait times they experienced. Of those who did manage to make it onto the site, countless reported unfair pricing despite Swift having opted out of the ‘Dynamic Pricing’ system, as well as system errors at checkout which resulted in lost tickets.
Statements have appeared left, right and centre as the involved parties attempt to establish where the blame lies.
Swift herself released a statement via Instagram Stories on 18 November, after days of fans calling for her to speak out on the matter. “It goes without saying that I’m extremely protective of my fans”, she stated.
Describing the ordeal as “excruciating” to watch, Swift emphasised her infuriation at Ticketmaster, yet avoided any explicit naming of the company.
“I’m not going to make excuses for anyone because we asked them, multiple times, if they could handle this kind of demand and we were assured they could.”
She then added: “It’s truly amazing that 2.4 million people got tickets, but it really pisses me off that a lot of them feel like they went through several bear attacks to get them.”
A response was issued by Ticketmaster on Saturday, 19 November, both explaining the week’s events and apologising to Swift and her fans.
Blaming “the staggering number of bot attacks as well as fans who didn’t have codes” for the “unprecedented traffic” the site was subjected to, Ticketmaster estimated just 15% of interactions experienced issues.
Swift may be protective of her fans, but this latest debacle has demonstrated just how fiercely protective they are too, of both Swift and each other. Some Swifties have even chosen to take matters into their own hands in the fight to hold Ticketmaster accountable for their shortcomings, forming the Vigilante Legal group. Jordan Burger, co-CEO of the newly formed campaign, is among those using his professional experience in law against the company.
“I personally view this as a matter of fundamental fairness and equity,” Burger told The Courier.
Burger outlined how the group, comprising professionals from law, media, cybersecurity and activism backgrounds, are aiding those affected by the “egregious” tactics used by Ticketmaster. “We are currently providing consumers with toolkits to help them file their own complaints against Ticketmaster with their state’s attorney general”, he said.
“We hope to help the consumers understand their rights.”
Vigilante Legal have created "cute infographics" and templates containing “all the laws we believe were violated by Ticketmaster’s actions”, he added.
Burger was also keen to stipulate that the fault in this case does not lie with Swift, but instead firmly with Ticketmaster.
The discourse surrounding Ticketmaster’s problematic monopoly over live events and ticketing transcends the Swift debacle and nobody, it seems, is rooting for this anti-hero.
US politicians have announced they will investigate the company over concerns regarding dominance and a “lack of competition in the ticketing industry”, said senator Amy Klobuchar. The US senate antitrust panel are reportedly scheduling a hearing to address “how consolidation in the live entertainment and ticketing industry harms customers and artists alike.” Klobuchar added that last week’s fiasco “shows how Ticketmaster’s dominant market position means the company does not face any pressure to continually innovate and improve” yet refrained from mentioning Swift by name.
The Justice Department is also said to be looking into the legality of the monopoly preserved by the company in an investigation which predates this most recent dud.
