CCS issues proposed infringement decision against SISTIC

QX179R SG

The Competition Commission of Singapore or CCS has issued a Proposed Infringement Decision against ticketing services provider SISTIC.

This is for possibly contravening section 47 of the Competition Act.

Essentially, the section prohibits a dominant firm from engaging in anti-competitive business practices that exclude competitors from competing in any market, resulting in harmful effects in Singapore.

CCS says SISTIC has separate agreements with The Esplanade and Singapore Sports Council which contain explicit restrictions.

These restrictions require all events held at the Esplanade and the Singapore Indoor Stadium to use SISTIC as the sole ticketing service provider.

Furthermore, SISTIC had 17 other similar agreements with event organisers.

CCS also noted that SISTIC raised its booking fees against ticket to three dollars per ticket in January 2008.

The Proposed Infringement Decision is a written notice setting out the basis on which CCS arrives at the proposed decision.

Following the legal procedures, SISTIC is given eight weeks to put forth its responses, counterarguments and relevant facts for the CCS' consideration.

CCS will then consider the merits of SISTIC's representations before finalising its decision on whether there has been an infringement of the Act.

--938Live

QX179R SG

Not all the blame is on Sistic

SINGAPORE: The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) may have come down hard on Sistic when it directed the ticketing agent to answer a charge on anti-competitive practices through abuse of its dominant position in the market - but should the CCS also direct its attention at the venue owners as well?

This poser came up in the wake of the show-cause call issued by the anti-competition watchdog earlier this month.

Take arts impressario Robert Liew. He reckons that Sistic's monopoly has arisen not entirely through its own design, but because of conditions set by Singapore Indoor Stadium (SIS) and The Esplanade.

"They dictate that the ticketing agent has to be Sistic if promoters want to stage their production at these premises."

Mr Liew is the Association of Concert and Event Management Singapore's (ACEMS) president and managing director of Arts Management Associates.

Although he did not say if the CCS should look at the role of the venue owners, Mr Liew said venue owners "should give others a chance - competition is good for business."

So, unless the two venue operators change their approach, more players are unlikely to enter the market, he added.

The Esplanade is said to own 35 per cent of Sistic, while the Singapore Sports Council owns 65 per cent.

Singapore now has five ticket providers - Gatecrash, TDC, Sistic and Apesnap which entered the market in March, and OneTicketHub, in June.

Would the CCS' action - and the entry of newest kid on the block OneTicketHub - encourage more to enter the market and so lead to lower ticket prices?

If the responses of event organisers are anything to go by, the short answer seems to be "no".

TICKET PRICES

Arts organisers that MediaCorp spoke to felt that local productions are generally already more affordable compared to overseas imports, as these include costs like artiste fees, hotel accommodation, airfare, withholding taxes as well as costs of technical hire and marketing and royalties, Mr Liew explained.

Tickets might cost less for arts and concerts goers in Europe and America because the land cost there is cheaper.

"For many major cities, venue rentals may be lower, artists are there for longer runs, so costs are amortised, and many of these venues are adopted or supported by philanthropists," said Mr Liew.

The price of a ticket has two components: The first is the ticketing charge levied on consumers, which could range from $1 to $3 ticket, plus collection fees.

The second comprises charges levied on the promoter or presenter. These are administration fees, commission, inside charges, complimentary ticket charges, credit card charges to credit companies, and additional services fees and charges as required.

There are also charges, which can be quite substantial like advertising on the ticket agent's website, said arts organisers.

"Ticket charges are part of the cost of a ticket. It's something I have to take into account when budgeting for a production," said Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (Nafa) vice-president of administration Liew Chin Choy.

Still, this has not prevented Cake Theatre, a small arts group, from using Sistic.

"We've been using them from the day we started four years ago," said Cake's artistic director, Natalie Hennedige. "Though the charges can be steep, Sistic has higher visibility and it has many counters."

It is a conclusion shared by other arts organisers even if they do not use Sistic.

The Substation and Nafa's music department use Gatecrash and now OneTicketHub.

"It's not viable for small venues like ours - a blackbox theatre of 100 seats - to use Sistic as the charges are expensive and we can't recoup the cost," said The Substation's co-artistic director Audrey Wong. Its ticket prices range between $15 and $25.

Mr Edward Yen, Nafa's music assistant of concert and promotions, told MediaCorp it switched to OneTicketHub from Gatecrash for its year-long music concerts because of lower cost.

"We're very pleased because it's value for money," said Mr Yen. "The only drawback is that a certain market segment is not comfortable about buying tickets online and printing them out."

All said, ticket charges are still lower in Singapore than New York or the United Kingdom, according to Mr Liew, who has been in the business for more than 25 years.

- TODAY