The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
To ensure the original submission would be appropriately written and sourced, I tried to follow other entries in the ticket resale category -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StubHub, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeatGeek, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TicketsNow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TicketIQ. The original submission followed StubHub and SeatGeek, including more robust citations, but those were deleted for being too promotional. Now there are fewer citations (similar to TicketsNow and TicketsIQ) which affects Notability. I am eager to fix the Vivid Seats entry to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. I just need help better deciphering some of the edits and input, which sometimes conflict. It also would be helpful to know why this submission is being considered for deletion when no others the Ticket Sales Companies category are under similar consideration, including entries with similar citations. Please help me understand the best way to proceed.Jody Venturoni 17:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventuroni (talk • contribs)
Jventuroni, a good starting point would be familiarizing yourself with the general notability guidelines so you know well the difference between in-depth versus trivial coverage, primary versus secondary sources, etc. Also WP:NCORP has a list of things that are considered trivial coverage for companies (which have higher notability standards then regular topics) under "Examples of trivial coverage." Unfortunately a lot of stuff in this article wouldn't count under either. Although, I don't feel the need to give a play by play analysis of each source. If you look at the StubHub article though, trivial coverage only constitutes a small amount of it. The other two articles have questionable notability and shouldn't be used as examples IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this should be a notable company, as it is the 3rd largest online ticket reseller, with partnerships with ESPN and other numerous sports teams and university teams. However, I haven't been able to find much independent RS with significant coverage of the company. Most sources mention Vivid Seats in passing, or are "press release" type announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Vivid Seats' B3 CFR reflects the company's high leverage, small scale and concentrated business profile relative to larger ticket sellers with greater financial resources but also its established and scalable position in a marketplace that has tended to support solid profitability. Pro forma for the transaction, Moody's adjusted Debt-to-EBITDA as of March 31, 2017, measures in the high 6 times area. This high level of leverage is supported by double-digit EBITA margins and good cash flow and liquidity. The vast number of events and highly fragmented market of secondary ticket sales enables network effects for large communities of buyers and sellers such as the one Vivid Seats maintains. Vivid Seats' conversion rates when combined with a growing audience has driven rapid growth in profits. Supporting this growth are steps taken by the company to further engage with the community of buyers and sellers including marketing initiatives, service extensions, and affiliate programs. Vivid Seats operates in an evolving market for ticket sales in which primary ticket issuers may seek to capture a higher portion of the final ticket price and the company has engaged this market via partnerships. The ticket sale industry faces regulatory scrutiny and the potential for legislation that could adversely impact the company's business model or that of professional sellers that supply the vast majority of tickets sold on the site. Over the next 12 to 18 months, Moody's anticipates that revenue will grow in the double-digits and that Debt-to-EBITDA will decline to under 6 times as the company continues to execute its strategies in a growing marketplace.
The B3 CFR reflects Vivid Seats' concentrated business profile and small scale relative to larger online ticket sellers with greater financial resources. In addition, Vivid Seats operates in an evolving online ticket exchange industry facing regulatory scrutiny and the potential that primary ticket issuers (e.g., artists, sports teams, and venues) may increasingly seek to capture a higher portion of the secondary market availability or the final ticket price, which could curb the volume of resale tickets or pressure industry fees.
...
Moody's also considers into the ratings Vivid Seats' solid market position in the online secondary ticket market, operating as the number three player behind, StubHub, owned by eBay, Inc., and Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Vivid Seats benefits from a diverse base of sellers, including season ticket holders and professional brokers who purchase tickets in bulk from primary issuers, and then use Vivid Seats' marketplace platform to resell tickets to consumers. While Vivid Seats' market share continues to grow rapidly, its competitors' greater financial resources, which includes the ability to subsidize pricing with other lines of business, or the entry of other large e-commerce providers could pressure pricing or increase marketing costs.
The review for downgrade reflects the impact of coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats, the breadth and severity of the shock, and the broad deterioration in credit quality it has triggered. The rapid and widening spread of the coronavirus outbreak, deteriorating global economic outlook, falling oil prices, and asset price declines are creating a severe and extensive credit shock across many sectors, regions and markets. The combined credit effects of these developments are unprecedented. The consumer services sector related to entertainment and leisure has been one of the sectors most significantly affected by the shock given its sensitivity to consumer demand and sentiment. More specifically, the weaknesses in Vivid Seats' credit profile have left it vulnerable to shifts in market sentiment in these unprecedented operating conditions and the company remains vulnerable to the outbreak continuing to spread. In response to the federal government's recommendation that public gatherings should be restricted to ten or fewer individuals and people should engage in social distancing due to the widespread coronavirus pandemic, major sports league, concert venues, Broadway shows have either cancelled or postponed their seasons/events, and there is no certainty as to when these entertainment activities will resume. The review for downgrade reflects the numerous uncertainties related to the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats' cash flows and liquidity, especially if the virus continues to spread forcing venues and sport leagues to keep its seasons/theatres cancelled/closed beyond June, halting revenue-generating activity on the ticket exchange market place. Moody's regards the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety.
...
Hoya Midco, LLC is the parent company of Vivid Seats LLC, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which provides an online marketplace serving the secondary ticketing industry. The company is majority-owned by affiliates of GTCR, LLC and co-investors, with ownership stakes also held by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Management LLC and the management team.
We believe that Hoya Midco (doing business as Vivid Seats) faces elevated social risks compared to the broader media sector stemming from regulatory scrutiny and brand risk as an online ticket reseller. As one of the larger players in the secondary ticketing market, Vivid Seats has significant customer interactions and occasionally faces criticism from perceived high fees and inadequate disclosures regarding ticket surcharges, which are a common source of customer backlash. We believe key industry risks, such as restrictions on the resale of tickets and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce Vivid Seats' sales volume and compress its fees, which would also hurt conditions in the secondary ticket market over the longer term. Regulatory restrictions on ticket resale could adversely affect industry dynamics. For example, the BOTS Act was signed in 2016 making it illegal to use computer programs to bypass ticket sellers' online security systems. Additionally, a bill was introduced in June 2019 requiring ticket sellers to disclose all fees and make it clear that they are in possession of the ticket for resale. To date these regulatory and transparency issues have not materially affected operating performance, and we believe future industry standardization may benefit entrenched players like Vivid Seats.
We view Vivid Seats' business risk profile as weak. Our assessment is based on the competitive secondary ticket market; Vivid Seat's relatively weak brand awareness, despite the low brand loyalty featured in this market; and the company's lack of distinctive or differentiating products versus its main competitors. However, Vivid Seats benefits from strong relationships with professional ticket brokers, and it has been able to gain market shares from competitors while maintaining an EBITDA margin in the low-20% rate--in line with its closest peers. Our assessment also reflects the company's minimal international presence, limited diversity of products, and smaller scale relative to industry leader Stubhub.
...
Key market risks, such as restriction on ticket resale and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce sales volumes and compress fees, thus pressuring the secondary ticket market longer term. However, we believe the secondary ticket market will continue its solid growth during the next 12 months, notably due to the increased prevalence of mobile ticketing transactions. As one of the largest players in the secondary ticket market, Vivid Seats is well positioned to grow with the market and gain additional shares from players with suboptimal scale.
Vivid Seats might not have the same name recognition as Ticketmaster or StubHub, but the Chicago-based firm has been a force in selling seats at concerts, theaters and sports events. Founded in 2001, the company had grown to become the third-largest secondary ticket seller in the U.S. by the time it received its strategic investment from Vista early last year.
...
One challenge for Vivid is that it gets a large portion of its traffic from misleading affiliate sites. Customers are sometimes lured to a destination that’s not actually associated with the team or artist, a controversial practice within the industry.
Secondary ticket marketplace Vivid Seats today announced it has signed with ESPN as the company's official ticketing partner, meaning it will have direct links to buy tickets to sporting events listed throughout ESPN.com and all other ESPN digital platforms.
Vivid Seats supplants StubHub in the high-profile position, ending a partnership between ESPN and eBay-owned StubHub that dates to 2007.
The deal will put the Vivid Seats brand in front of ESPN's 110 million unique users per month online. The network's various websites account for 29 percent of all sports usage across digital platforms, according to analytics company Comscore.
...
Sixteen-year-old Vivid Seats has the third-largest market share of online event ticket resales, behind StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to a 2016 report from credit ratings agency Moody's.
Vivid Seats started in 2001 and has grown into a major online marketplace for tickets to sporting events, concerts and stage shows. Last month, the company inked a deal to become ESPN's official ticketing partner, replacing eBay-owned competitor StubHub. The company also partners with the Big Ten Conference, CSN Chicago and the Chicago Bears, among others, according to its website.
Vivid Seats, an online marketplace for sports and other tickets, bought Fanxchange, whose software is used by Groupon, Marriott, American Express and other companies to sell tickets. The total value of the deal depends on whether financial targets are reached in the future.
...
It’s the first acquisition for Vivid Seats. Chicago private-equity fund GTCR bought a majority stake in the company in 2017, valuing it at more than $1 billion. Fanxchange, founded in 2009, has about 50 employees. Vivid Seats, launched in 2001 by Eric Vassilatos and Jerry Bednyak, has 500 employees.
Vivid Seats doesn’t have the name recognition or industry stature of Ticketmaster or StubHub. But the Chicago-based company, founded in 2001 and now a significant player in secondary ticketing, over the past several years has steadily amassed a sizable stable of name-brand partners. In 2017, Vivid Seats inked partnerships with ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the universities of Tennessee and Rhode Island and the Preakness Stakes. The pacts added to existing ones Vivid Seats held with entities such as Notre Dame and Duke.
A larger deal last spring saw Chicago-based private equity firm GTCR acquire a majority equity stake in Vivid Seats, with prior investor Vista Equity Partners and co-founders Jerry Bednyak and Eric Vassilatos maintaining equity positions. Terms were not disclosed, but various reports placed a $1.5 billion valuation on Vivid Seats.
Vivid Seats has a lot of advantages, most notably the reward scheme which rewards regular buyers with up to 8% credit when they buy through the Vivid Seats app. That's what puts it up there with the best concert ticket sites and best sport ticket sites. However, we’re not sure this can compensate for the hefty fees it adds on to your tickets, which were significantly higher than competitors and sometimes cost more than the ticket itself! This paired with the lack of transparency on fees makes Vivid Seats fall back in our ratings. However, it’s still a good choice for those looking to be rewarded for regular ticket-buying!
Vivid Seats is appearing for the first time on Crain's Fast Fifty list. The online marketplace for sports, concerts and theater tickets saw revenue rise more than 1,000 percent since 2006.
The company acts as an intermediary between customers and ticket resellers, generating revenue from a 10 percent commission on sales.
One key growth engine: higher-end tickets. Sales of Super Bowl tickets, typically priced from $2,000 to $10,000, rose 400 percent from 2009 to 2011.
Vivid Seats has received significant coverage in multiple analyst reports published by Moody's Investors Service and S&P Global. Although Vivid Seats is not a public corporation, the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. Vivid Seats, a private company, has issued bonds similar to how public companies issue stocks and bonds. Research firms then issue analyst reports about the companies' business outlook.
sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
S&P Global noted in an analyst report in 2016: "We view Vivid Seats' business risk profile as weak. Our assessment is based on the competitive secondary ticket market; Vivid Seat's relatively weak brand awareness, despite the low brand loyalty featured in this market; and the company's lack of distinctive or differentiating products versus its main competitors. However, Vivid Seats benefits from strong relationships with professional ticket brokers, and it has been able to gain market shares from competitors while maintaining an EBITDA margin in the low-20% rate--in line with its closest peers. Our assessment also reflects the company's minimal international presence, limited diversity of products, and smaller scale relative to industry leader Stubhub."
Moody's Investor Service noted in an analyst report in 2016, "Moody's also considers into the ratings Vivid Seats' solid market position in the online secondary ticket market, operating as the number three player behind, StubHub, owned by eBay, Inc., and Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Vivid Seats benefits from a diverse base of sellers, including season ticket holders and professional brokers who purchase tickets in bulk from primary issuers, and then use Vivid Seats' marketplace platform to resell tickets to consumers. While Vivid Seats' market share continues to grow rapidly, its competitors' greater financial resources, which includes the ability to subsidize pricing with other lines of business, or the entry of other large e-commerce providers could pressure pricing or increase marketing costs."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's argument & significant coverage being identified. = paul2520 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly many significant sources. — Zoozaz1 (talk)
Keep per above arguments and significant coverage. Mukedits (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.