Ethan Smith in the WSJ says the combined company will be called Live Nation Entertainment, not Live Nation Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster has of course destroyed its brand, being synonymous with crazy fees, ripping off customers, and using the fees as a slush fund. Live Nation used to be called Clear Channel, but changed its name because that brand was destroyed.  The new company should call itself Anonymous Anonymous, wear a mask, and just hold people up at ATMs.

The paper says there does not seem to be antitrust issues in the deal:

People close to Live Nation and Ticketmaster have said they expect to win regulatory approval with ease because the two companies are not really competitors. Live Nation launched a ticketing service only in January, and it currently handles ticket sales for a limited number of venues, all owned by Live Nation itself.

But some competitors of Live Nation have said they fear that the merged company could exert undue influence. For instance, a venue might feel obligated to renew its contract with Ticketmaster lest Front Line artists or Live Nation tours be steered to venues that were still Ticketmaster clients. People close to Ticketmaster and Live Nation dismissed those concerns, saying they will base such decisions on what is best for the artists they represent.

WSJ reporters tend to know their stuff, and Smith (and his unnamed sources at the companies) may be right. But: The point is that the industry has shifted in the last ten years and the fact is that the two companies have been positioning themselves to be competitors.

LN has been making so-called 360 deals; Ticketmaster just merged with the most powerful management company in the U.S.  With both companies merged—and having direct control of more than 100 major concert venues, plus de facto control (via Ticketmaster’s long-term deals, cemented by the creative use of those ticketing fee) of hundreds more, not to mention the fact that the labels are cratering—the resulting powerhouse will have no competition.

You’re a mid-level artist manager, sitting down with whatever shark from the company is assigned to you. Do you accept a 50-50 deal from a company that controls the entire concert touring industry—or a 70-30 offer from Joe’s Crab Shack and 360 Artists Deals, which might get you blacklisted by Live Nation?

It’s not like “Live Nation” isn’t just the new name of the sleaziest company in recent music industry history. Says the NYT:

The combined company, though, is expected to make the case that it will be better able to market its artists and fill stadiums. But the deal also appears to be aimed at eliminating competitive threats that each poses to the other, particularly in the ticketing business.

Live Nation has started a ticketing arm, making it an intruder on Ticketmaster’s main turf.

Indeed—Live Nation broke off its use of Ticketmaster and declared war just last year.

The only hope:

Bert Foer, an antitrust enforcement advocate, noted that regulators could oppose the merger on the grounds that it would represent “vertical” integration of the concert industry by bringing into one organization so many segments of the value chain between performers and fans. In recent years, however, U.S. regulators have not typically opposed mergers on vertical-integration grounds. But the Obama administration could seek to change that, particularly given widespread public animosity toward both companies, especially Ticketmaster.

Emphasis added. New Jersey Rep Bill Pascrel has asked the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the merger.

I’m incorporating an earlier post on this, referring to a story yesterday in the NY Post:

———–
The New York Post says the unholy alliance may be announced tomorrow, with the companies basically coming together fifty-fifty. [Link via the Daily Swarm.] Who will run it makes for the juicy part of the story:

Though Live Nation and Ticketmaster are supposed to be equal partners, it is only a matter of time before Ticketmaster Chairman Barry Diller and CEO Irving Azoff systematically remove Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and the rest of his team, sources that have worked with both companies said.

To be sure, as the deal histories of Diller and Azoff illustrate, they never enter into a transaction that requires giving up control - Diller spent three days in a Delaware courtroom last year to win control over IAC from his benefactor John Malone.

Compared to those two, Rapino is a deal neophyte with a track record of jumping into transactions too quickly and without much thought, as underscored by his roundly criticized deals with Shakira, Jay-Z and others.

“Irving’s spent a lot of time being ‘Rapino’s buddy,’ but what he really was doing was getting to know Live Nation’s business so he can take the whole thing over,” said an executive who has negotiated deals with both men.

Or, as another source close to the situation said, “Rapino’s in a pool of sharks and he’s the bait. He’s going to get sucked up and killed by Azoff and Diller.”

————

Previously in Hitsville:

The Ticketmaster/Live Nation news round-up (constantly updated!)
WWBD (What would Bono do?)
Billboard’s analysis of the Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger
Springsteen and Landau bash Ticketmaster and Live Nation!
P.S. on Ticketmaster: A case study, starring Bruce Springsteen
Why the potential Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger is a very bad idea
Is Ticketmaster trying to muddle the fees issue?
The Azoff-Ticketmaster deal: Bad news for concert-goers—and the music industry
Why you so seldom read about obscene Ticketmaster-style ticketing charges