Some are more attractive than others, both to performers and fans. There is a complicated web of intermediaries.Ĭoncerts require venues. This is not Adam Smith’s classic situation of a butcher or baker selling directly to customers. But collectively, they will go to fewer events as prices go higher. Indeed they might actually spend more overall if individual events were cheaper. Fans collectively will go to more events if they were cheaper. Taylor Swift may only want to give a certain number of concerts each year but, at the margin, she might give more if she netted more, and less if her earnings were lower. Yet supply and demand curves do have their usual shape. The key point economically is that there are dozens or hundreds of market demand curves for live music, not just one. Yes, there is overlap in customers wanting their “product” - my wife and I could crossover between Michael Buble and The Village People. Rihanna is not Garth Brooks is not Bruce Springsteen is not Taylor Swift is not Jay-Z is not Lady Gaga. This commodity is not a “homogenous product” in supply-demand intro econ.
And a couple dozen of each gender and subgenre collectively get a very large fraction of the total. However, the top earnings are concentrated among a few hundred of these.
There are thousands of musicians who perform for money.
0 kommentar(er)
