________
Hi Bob
Thank you for the super insightful interview with Fred Rosen. As Fred mentioned at one point latterly in your interview, it appears that Ticketmaster's most significant ongoing error (previous controversies aside) is its singular failure to communicate clearly to ticket buyers what value and practical benefits they are getting from what otherwise at first sight appear to be egregious service fees.
Even to both seasoned music industry professionals and concertgoers in the UK, I believe that there is a significant lack of awareness on this topic. To my mind there's either something fundamentally wrong with Ticketmaster's PR strategy. Or perhaps they're now so powerful that they simply don't care about public perception and are happy to be viewed as a "necessary evil".
Speaking of egregious, I would love to hear your thoughts on the US Dept of Homeland Security's proposed fee increases for O and P visa applications.
As the manager of a number of non-US bands, the proposed hike in P visa costs from US$460 to US$1,615 – a mere 250%! – will transform touring the US from being expensive to becoming impossible. One band I manage, Big Big Train, were initially set to tour North America for the first time ever in spring 2020. The pandemic put paid to that tour but we lost ca. US$10k in visa application costs which were unrecoverable. Post pandemic we have been dusting off our plans to play the USA (and Canada) but the hike in visa costs severely threatens the financial viability of the tour.
I completely get that DHS requires funding but US$1,615 per individual risks pricing the vast majority of non-US artists out of touring the States. Sure, if you're the Rolling Stones, U2, Adele or Ed Sheeran, we're just talking about visa application costs being a rounding error in the tour accounts. But for the 99% of mere mortal non-US musicians, these amounts are simply unaffordable. As such the US music market risks becoming more parochial. And surely local economies will suffer too if the proposals are enacted.
Has DHS really thought through the likely consequences of the cost increases properly? I suggest not!
Best wishes
Nick Shilton
Kingmaker Management
________
I've been in a losing battle trying to convince people not to take Social Security until they hit 70, unless absolutely necessary, absolutely necessary.
Today the "Wall Street Journal" printed an article citing the statistics as to why you should wait until you are 70:
"The High Price Retirees Pay for Collecting Social Security Too Early - A study suggests that many retirees give up tens of thousands of dollars - Researchers found that almost 90% of workers age 45 to 62 would benefit by waiting until age 70 to collect Social Security.": on.wsj.com/3SrMKEk
If you're thinking of taking Social Security early, DEFINITELY read the above article.
For those click-averse (and that's a free link above), let me quote a couple of relevant sections:
"A recent study, funded by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, finds that retirees often give up tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars by taking Social Security benefits too early. That takes into account that if a retiree claims Social Security at age 70 instead of 62, the monthly benefit could be 76% higher, adjusted for inflation.
"The researchers looked at lifetime discretionary spending and determined that almost 90% of workers age 45 to 62 would benefit by waiting until age 70 to collect Social Security. Indeed, waiting would boost the typical worker's median discretionary spending over a lifetime by $182,370, or around 10%.
"Yet less than 10% of retirees are likely to wait that long, the researchers said."
"Another issue is that many retirees don't account for the value of their Social Security benefits over a 30- or 40-year period, thinking they won't live that long. Financial experts and even guidance on the Social Security website recommend that retirees use average death rates to estimate the value of their Social Security benefits and cash flow during retirement. But Prof. Kotlikoff says that 'using averages is highly irresponsible.'
'It's more important to think about how long you could possibly live,' he says, adding that Social Security becomes a lot more valuable if someone expects to live to 100 years old and maximizing benefit becomes even more essential."
________
The endless antisemitism conversation...
Noa Tishby wrote a necessary book re understanding Israel and the Palestinians entitled "Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth": amzn.to/3lZrysU
Unfortunately, those who need to read it won't. Tishby delineates the history of the land, from way back when, thousands of years ago, to today.
But like Tom Lehrer sang, "Everybody hates the Jews."
Anyway, Tishby recently posted on TikTok re the Super Bowl, Kanye and antisemitism.
I'm not going to address Tishby's point about Rihanna not singing songs that Kanye had a hand in, it's what comes after that resonates, that what people need to hear. THE BLOWBACK!
Tishby calls it "Being online while Jewish."
I certainly have experienced this.
You need to watch this video. It's not a big commitment. And Tishby delivers the message with all the appropriate intense emotion.
bit.ly/41bRHoN
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
No comments:
Post a Comment