RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
shroud wrote >>
MFRONE wrote >>
shroud wrote >>
As long as the costs for this are kept within the athletic department, I don't have a problem with it, since it is self-funded and they've got more than enough to go around.
I do worry about the competition factor - don't the two arenas already compete for bookings? So now they'll be effectively competing with themselves?What's their to worry about? Now that you have 2 venues under the same management company (much like it is in many cities with Live Nation and/or AEG) they won't have to pay a higher booking fee then the show is requesting.
Shows/events skipping town entirely because they don't want to deal with the one particular group & not having another option? Columbus gets skipped a lot already... I'd think less competition by default makes the market less competitive.
I suppose for the group doing the management it's not as big of a deal as I was thinking though... the management company gets the booking they want IN the building they want it in. And it does offer a little more flexibility to work around other commitments.
my take would be that the impact would be less on the number of shows in the city as the price of the tickets to those shows. you make a good point that the competition decreases, but shows will come if they can get the revenue, and if the price to rent the arena for the show goes up due to less competition, then the price of the tickets goes up. not great for consumers, but probably better for the revenue of the arenas. i have heard repeatedly that the arenas competing with each other for shows has driven down profitability of hosting.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.