A note to readers...

Due to an increased focus on operations over at Event Safety Consultants, activity on this website will be substantially slower for the foreseeable future. Although the blog may be dormant, Sytelabs is still open for business and available to discuss new opportunities. Contact us to learn more.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

There's A (Ticket) Riot Goin' On...








Sorry Sly...

There’s a battle currently raging in the entertainment world that may have a profound effect on who pockets your concert dollars in the future. The major players are well known, heavily financed, and have built sophisticated marketing programs to ensure that their message captures the hearts (and wallets) of the nation’s music fans.

No, it’s not a battle for chart position, or who gets top billing at the next major festival. It’s over how you may purchase your next concert ticket, and what you’re allowed to do with it once you do.

At issue is the ever-increasing presence of the secondary ticket market (better known by the far-more derogatory name of scalping). Opinions on this practice generally fall into one of two camps - those who view scalping as a nefarious practice that hurts artists and the ticket-buying public (not to mention their own profits), and those who make their living from the resale of tickets. As the debate has intensified, two "grassroots" organizations have emerged (or more accurately, been created) to lobby and/or influence potential legislation regarding ticket reselling. As you'll see, "grassroots" is a very loose interpretation:

Fans First Coalition - Although technically a non-profit organization, the primary financial backer of the Fans First Coalition is Live Nation, who’s merger with Ticketmaster last year made them the biggest player in ticketing. The group has broad support from a number of industry players, including artists (REM, The Dixie Chicks), sports teams (Carolina Panthers) and venues (virtually every Live Nation venue).

Fan Freedom Project - Acting as philosophical counterweight in this battle is the Fan Freedom Project, who’s major financier, StubHub,  is the world’s largest ticket reselling portal and a division of the granddaddy of auction sites eBay.

At first glance, the players seem so similar that it’d be difficult for the uninformed to tell them apart. Both groups boast the support of some influential players, and are backed by some serious industry dollars. Both have their fingers in the secondary ticket market, yet claim to be acting solely on the behalf of concert fans. Hell, both have the word FAN right in their name. Although there are disagreements regarding specific business practices (and even some surprising agreements), the primary argument seems to rest on one philosophical question - is a concert ticket a commodity, or a permission slip?

The Fan’s First Coalition (i.e Live Nation/Ticketmaster) is advocating the use of paperless digital tickets as a method to combat ticket re-selling. The redemption of these electronic tickets are tied to the purchaser and the purchasing credit card. This makes them nearly impossible to resell on the secondary market. The FFC believes that this will circumvent some of the questionable practices many scalpers use to secure tickets, ensuring “real” fans easier access to tickets at a reasonable price.

Not surprisingly, the Fan Freedom Project (StubHub) is against the increased use of this technology. Outwardly, they argue that electronic tickets as currently designed are too restrictive, making the honest transfer of tickets and distribution among the purchaser’s party excessively difficult. In their mind, once you buy the ticket, it’s yours to do with what you like. Behind the scenes though, the motivation is primarily economic - anything that limits access to reselling puts a dent in StubHub’s business. Likewise, they argue that the primary backers of the Fans First Coalition (namely Live Nation/Ticketmaster) have their own fingers in the secondary market, so their attempts to circumvent the scalping process is disingenuous at best, designed more to protect their own interests than those of the fans.

So where do my sympathies fall?

Honestly, I’m of two minds about this. As a music fan, I’m naturally all for measures that will keep ticket prices reasonable for the greatest number of fans. I’m also for anything that makes the concert experience easier and more enjoyable for everyone involved. However, I’m also a firm believer in the philosophy of free market competition. And despite the use of “fans” in their name by both groups, neither party is using the fans best interest as their primary driver. It’s economics, pure and simple. So let’s dispense with all the talk about “fan friendliness” already - who’s argument carries the most intellectual weight? My vote is with the Fan’s First Coalition...on a purely technical basis.

In my opinion, a concert ticket is no different than an airplane ticket - you pay for the ride. And just like airplane tickets, if you buy’em, you own’em. There’s no inherent right to resell them, transfer them to another party or (most of the time) return them. You alone are responsible for your purchasing decision. It’s not the company’s responsibility to conform its policy to your life circumstances, and they have every right to protect their interests any damn way they please. Just as concert fan have the right to protest such actions...with their entertainment dollars.

I get that some may find this to be a less-than-fan friendly position to take. I also understand the hypocritical nature of fighting for restrictions on the secondary ticket market while simultaneously participating in it yourself. But let's be honest...there may be a few people every show who may sell their tickets to their buddy, or toss them up on Craigslist. But the vast majority of resellers are professional ticket-jockeys who employ often unscrupulous means to snatch up large blocks of tickets, and then resell them at an hyper-inflated price. Arguing that your primary interest in preventing restrictive digital tickets is to protect the fan is simply disingenuous.

Tossing out all the talk about who’s REALLY looking out for the fans (since neither group is), the argument becomes about how a public corporation is allowed to design, package, and protect its own product. In this regard, StubHub (err, I mean, the Fan Freedom Project) just doesn't have a ticket to the show.

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-31

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-31

Sunday, July 24, 2011

The Cool Kids Don't Get Paid








The all-too-common story of the groundbreaking African-American artist getting screwed by their record company for millions is well documented by now. So common, in fact, that it even inspired a Soprano’s episode.

Sammy Davis Jr, beloved actor, dancer, and rat-packer, died of throat cancer owing millions to the IRS.

The New Kids On The Block were the hottest thing on the market in the late 80’s. Until their recent reunion, one of them was selling real estate.

Striving to be (or even being) hottest player in the market is no guarantee that your efforts will be rewarded over the long term - those bright lights not only blind, they can burn if you’re overly focused on them and not on developing and maintaining your core business. And with Twitter, Facebook, and now Google + providing everyone with a chance for internet stardom , flying headlong into the bug-light has never been easier.

To put it another way, Twitter and Facebook may be fun, but they rarely pay the bills (unless, of course, you’re Mark Zuckerberg). Most of the time, these tools prove to be a distraction, a clever toy that provides the illusion of productivity so you can avoid the troublesome burden of...well...finding and securing new business.

Although striving to be a social media superstar in your field is admirable, those efforts can’t (and shouldn’t) take the place of research, networking, and working hard to produce exceptional results when it comes to building a successful, profitable business.

Not merely the temporary illusion of one.

Added bonus - if you haven't yet checked it out, go here to how social media almost destroyed John Mayer's creative output. It's a great cautionary tale for anyone who partakes in creative (and business) endeavors.

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-24


  • Stage Falls At Ottawa Bluesfest; No Major Injuries | Pollstar - The Concert Hotwire http://j.mp/nh7zPP #

  • Great advice for creatives of all types: RT @sivers: http://goo.gl/EbCRH John Mayer on resisting distraction of social media. #eventprofs #

  • New Post: The Brilliance of Fox News (yes, you read that correctly) http://j.mp/gn5S5I #eventprofs #

  • Finally got my Google+ and Spotify set up. I am now technologically up to date...for probably the next week. #

  • Things ain't always what they seem - Scalping Battle Putting ‘Fans’ in the Middle - NYTimes.com http://j.mp/rnccIh #

  • New Post: "What's That?" Making Noise About Hearing Protection for Event Staff http://j.mp/oiCGOp #

  • "Like Peta sponsoring a Ted Nugent tour"- best quote ever: Promoter calls out Live Nation/TM on 'Fans First' conflict http://j.mp/nYkeKG #

Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Brilliance of Fox News (Yes, You Read That Correctly)








I have a confession to make...a dark secret that I've been carrying around for some time now, something so deeply embarrassing that I've been reluctant to share it with my wife, my friends, and my family.

I read the Fox News website. Fairly regularly.

Perhaps reading is a slightly inaccurate description of my activities. Gawking is likely a more accurate term. Like rubbernecking at a car wreck, I find it impossible to look away from this shiny, misguided wreck of a “news” organization. Rest assured, I don’t go to the site to garner any real new and relevant information - rather, I regularly troll the site (especially its comment section) both to enrage and feel better about myself. Which, I’m sure is just fine with Fox News. Because I am not (and never will be) their target audience.

Lest you think that this post is nothing more than a self-indulgent pseudo-political therapy session, there is a point to my confession. That is, I have discovered that aside from getting your daily dose of misinformed, hyper-biased stupidity, there are a few nuggets of insight that event marketers can glean from Fox New’s example.

Message discipline is essential- despite its “Fair and Balanced” protestations, Fox News rarely strays from its conservative narrative. When a competing viewpoint does manage to break through its ideological firewall (usually in the “opinion” section), the purpose of its inclusion seems specifically designed to incite vitriol and witticism in the comment section. It manages to succeed with vitriol, anyway.

What this tells us - For a marketing program to be successful, it should have a single, well-developed theme it’s trying to convey. Make sure all materials and activities adhere to it religiously, and avoid putting out distracting and conflicting messages that can cloud your branding efforts.

Know your audience - There is little question who the typical Fox News viewer is. There’s also no question that the network knows this, as well. Unlike most other cable news organizations, Fox News was created to cater to a specific type of person (and ideological viewpoint), and they knew who its target audience was before it even opening their doors. This understanding has translated into consistent growth, without the wide audience fluctuations that plague other networks.

What this tells us - If you’re trying to build a brand, the importance of audience research can not be overstressed. You may THINK you know your audience, but do you know enough to really get inside their heads well enough to solidify their loyalty?

Pleasing everyone rarely leads to success - CNN is a perfect example of this. The grandaddy of cable news networks was once the most influential news source on television. However, once it’s competitors (Fox News and MSNBC) started chipping away at its viewership, the network went into a tailspin. In an attempt to defend its ratings between these two ideological outposts (although I would argue about MSNBC being explicitly ideological), CNN decided that the middle was the place to be, and coalesced its programming around being balanced and non-partisan.

It failed. Miserably.

The sad reality is, few people follow television news to be strictly informed. They want confirmation for their deeply-held, usually ideological viewpoints. By providing one without the other, CNN actually LOST viewers, and remains adrift to this day.

What this tells us - If you’re trying to target everyone with your brand messaging, you’re bound for failure. Because in trying to speak to everyone, you’re actually connecting with no one. Conversely, if you identify a specific audience, and research their wants, needs, and expectations, you've already done the heavy lifting when it comes to marketing. It simply becomes a matter of finding a channel to get in front of the audience, not figuring out how to connect with them.

I still disagree with most everything Fox News stands for (more in their marketing themselves as a “non-partisan” news source than their ideological viewpoint....maybe). But even I have to admit that their branding efforts are admirably shewed and effective. So there is something of value that can be taken away from Fox News after all.

Just not the news.

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-17

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Rock On, Q101...








As Chicago’s long-running (in radio years, anyway) alternative station Q101 coughs and wheezes out it’s last remaining breaths this afternoon, I've been struck with the surprising notion that I’m actually a touch sad about its demise. Not just because it marks yet another nail in the already well-sealed coffin of FM rock radio, nor because it’s shutting down to make way for yet another talk radio outpost (because we need more of those, don’t we?). No, I’m surprisingly forlorn because, upon reflection, I actually have some fond memories involving the station.

The hours spent sweltering in a car with no A/C, listening to the station while searching for my first Chicago apartment. I remember it as being fresh and forward-looking, the perfect soundtrack to this new phase of my life.

The first show I ever worked at First Midwest Bank Amphitheatre (Then called the Tweeter Center) - Q101 Jamboree, way back in 2001. If you need any indication as to how long ago this actually was, the headliner was Alien Ant Farm. Exactly.

How how much of an ass-hat Mancow was. Or is. He’s still alive, right?

As the survivor of a radio station format switch myself (W4 Country FTW), my condolences to all the jocks who’ll be out on the street come tomorrow morning. Although I don’t actually know who’s on the air anymore over there -  I haven’t listened to the station for years. I jumped ship about the 12,000th time I heard the same Disturbed track on a “new alternative” station. Hell, I don’t even live in Chicago anymore. But even though you’re going out as a shell of your former self, I’ll miss you none the less.

RIP, Q101. This one’s for you.

Dovetail Joint - Level on the Inside

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Event Foie Gras - Force-feeding social media into everything.










Nope, not that Goose...the flying go...forget it.



While living in Chicago a few years back, there was some local controversy regarding the city’s (now overturned) ban on foie gras.  At the time, I had only a cursory knowledge of what foie gras was, and seeing as how I was neck-deep in a particularly brutal summer concert season, my interest in following city politics (especially those concerning foodstuffs) was minimal at best. The issue quickly fell from my radar.

I had all but forgotten about this french...ummm...delicacy until I began reading Anthony Bourdain’s recent (and highly entertaining) book "Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook ". This mysterious substance called foie gras is mentioned several times throughout, so in an effort to understand exactly what all the fuss was about, I finally embarked on a bit of internet research. Part of me wishes I was still blissfully ignorant.

For those of you who don’t know, foie gras is basically hyper-fattened duck or goose liver, served whole or in the form of a pate. The problem (as seen by animal rights experts) is that the birds are essentially force-fed through manual or machine based methods so that their livers become...well... fatty. Some view this practice as cruel and humane, while others contend that the birds don’t suffer. (Editors note - As tempted as I am to add my thoughts to the practice, it’s irrelevant to this discussion. Go here if you care to know how I feel).

After a fair amount of heaving, I began to see a parallel between foie gras and the current state of event production. That is, this new-found need to force feed social media tools into events which, in all reality, benefits little from them.

As technology evolves rapidly, the options available to event producers to integrate social media into their program are virtually limitless - Twitter feeds, large-scale video conferencing, dedicated websites and Facebook pages...if you can think of it, there’s likely an app for that. But few seem to be asking the obvious question of whether including such items serves any practical purpose, or is it simply a shiny new (billable) toy to dangle in front of clients who don’t know any better. I often single out live video Twitter feeds as being the epitome of this argument.  If there’s a speaker on stage, shouldn't your production efforts be directed at augmenting that, rather than distracting from it? And given that anyone with the ability to send a tweet to screen would have to have some manner of doing so in the first place (i.e. a phone of some type), aren't we simply duplicating our efforts, as they already have a personal means to follow the conversation were they inclined to do so?

Look, I’m not against the use of social media in events. In fact, I find myself including some aspect of SM in virtually all of my packages lately. But their inclusion MUST make sense for the event and the client. I fear that this obsession the event world has with social media may be distracting us from our true purpose - which is identifying and utilizing the most EFFECTIVE methods and technologies to support our clients message. Not necessarily the newest, shiniest, or most expensive. As event producers, our own professional ethics should dictate that we not take advantage of our clients ignorance of the impact (or lack of) of social media, and sell them on something that just doesn't make sense. After all, they come to us because we’re experts. Time to stop force-feeding our fowl.

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-10

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-10

Monday, July 4, 2011

Using Off-Duty Officers for Personal Gain is Bad Practice








A few weeks back, I had a brief discussion with a fellow event professional regarding the private use of off-duty police officers. Her opinion was that hiring an off-duty officer is an effective means of assisting large groups with accessing the venue quickly and easily (in this particular instance, clients). The implication being that the expertise and demeanor of the contracted officer can help “grease the wheels” when dealing with venue staff and crowd situations. Not surprisingly, there was some disagreement as to whether or not this was a good idea. Her experience with the practice has been nothing but positive, while my experience (as a former venue manager) has tended to be less-than stellar. On the surface, it may seem like an great arrangement for everyone involved. Your group has has an easy time accessing and exiting the event, aided by someone trained in handling crowd situations, and who carries themselves with purpose and authority. The off-duty officer earns a nice side income for relatively easy night of work (hopefully).

You won’t find another event producer more supportive of the police than me - they’re overworked, paid too little for the service they provide, and are woefully disrespected by far too many people. So I’m usually all for any opportunity they can get to better their personal situation. That said, I find the practice of using off-duty officers for individual groups to be disrespectful to your fellow patrons, to venue employees and management, and to all on-duty officers working the event. It creates an unnecessary tension between all parties involved, for the limited benefit of a few select people.

The problem is not with the officers themselves. Rather, what you (the contracting agent) are asking them to do. Whether direct or implied, you’re asking them to use their professional qualifications to direct, influence, and/or cajole the venue and other guests into giving your group priority treatment. You’re asking them to imply authority where they have none, and to leverage their expertise in an effort to avoid the same procedures and cattle-lines as everyone else. This inevitably creates issues with the venue’s staff, who are trained to enforce venue policy without exception.

When a fresh-faced 18-year-old security guard has someone claiming to be an off-duty officer telling her to act against established procedure, imagine the dilemma you’re creating. Break policy, or go against a police officers orders (off-duty or not, something we teach kids NEVER to do). If she opts to break policy, she risks termination, and her authority with the rest of the crowd is immediately destroyed. If she manages to hold fast and refuse, or punts the request to a superior, the “influence” you’re paying the off-duty officer for becomes suspect, damaging HIS credibility in your (and your client's) eyes, and have created precisely the delay you were attempting to avoid in the first place. Not to mention that on-duty officers working events have little tolerance for freelance business that undermines the policies they've been brought in to enforce. It's a situation that has many losers...yet no real winners.

One might argue that this “influence peddling” isn't the intent at all. However, if this is true, what exactly are you paying for? If you intend on following the established event rules and procedures, then there’s nothing that this officer can do for you that couldn't be done by your next door neighbor or 13 year old son. Be honest with yourself - you were looking to avoid dealing with the same troubles and annoyances as every other event patron. Unfortunately, creating difficulties for a fellow event professional is the never the way to go about it, nor is putting an off-duty officer in the position of acting against his professional nature and training. If you’re looking for preferential treatment, there are a number of “approved” ways of going about it. VIP Packages, priority entrances, or even just arriving early are much better ways of avoiding the hassle. You can even contact the event producer beforehand and see what can be arranged...who knows, you may even be able to hustle a bit of future business out of the deal.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-03

Our Week on the Web - 2011-07-03