Artists’ $20 Ticket Programs Show Why Not All Ticket Holdbacks Are Created Equal

Coldplay, Olivia Rodrigo and Charli XCX are reserving limited ticket inventory to improve affordability, but the same opaque process can be used on a much larger scale to manufacture scarcity and influence prices.

The latest $20 concert-ticket programs from some of the world’s biggest artists are built around a practice that is often treated as inherently anti-consumer: holding tickets back from the initial sale.

Coldplay’s Infinity Tickets, Olivia Rodrigo’s Silver Star Tickets and Charli XCX’s newly announced Angel Tickets each reserve a limited allotment of inventory for a later discounted release. Buyers generally purchase tickets in pairs without knowing where they will sit, with locations revealed when they collect the tickets at the venue on the day of the show.

Those programs represent a consumer-friendly use of ticket holdbacks, an inventory practice that has otherwise drawn sustained criticism from consumer advocates and regulators. When significant portions of a venue are withheld from the initial public sale without disclosure, buyers may be left with a distorted picture of how many tickets actually exist. Critics say that apparent scarcity can pressure consumers to purchase more expensive primary tickets or turn to the resale market, only for additional inventory to be released later.

Not every holdback serves that purpose. Artists and promoters routinely reserve tickets for production needs, guests, sponsors, fan initiatives and other legitimate uses. The central controversy is whether the scale and timing of those holds are concealed in ways that mislead buyers or artificially support higher prices.

In the case of the $20 programs, holding tickets back is central to the consumer benefit. Rather than selling every seat during the initial onsale—or allowing the discounted tickets to be immediately transferred and commercially resold—the artists preserve a small pool of inexpensive inventory for fans who otherwise might be priced out.

The Wall Street Journal highlighted the programs Tuesday as artists face growing pressure over concert affordability. Live Nation senior vice president of global touring Jared Braverman told the Journal that Coldplay developed Infinity Tickets to make its concerts “more accessible and more affordable.” Rodrigo reportedly sought Coldplay’s approval before introducing her similarly structured Silver Star program.

Coldplay has described Infinity Tickets as a limited allotment released for every show on its Music of the Spheres World Tour. The tickets are randomly distributed around the venue and may include floor positions, conventional seats or locations with limited views.

Live Nation says Rodrigo will again offer a limited number of $20 Silver Star Tickets during her upcoming Unraveled Tour, with the inventory becoming available at a later date. Charli XCX’s Angel Tickets will also be sold in pairs for $20, with seat locations potentially ranging from the upper level and limited-view sections to lower-level seats or the general-admission floor.

In those cases, holding tickets back is central to the consumer benefit. Rather than selling every seat during the initial onsale—or allowing the discounted tickets to be immediately transferred and commercially resold—the artists preserve a small pool of inexpensive inventory for fans who otherwise might be priced out.

But the programs also expose the unresolved transparency problem at the center of the broader ticket-holdback debate: Fans are told that a limited number of discounted tickets will become available, but not how many tickets that means or what percentage of the building has been reserved.

Consumers Still Do Not Know How Many Tickets Exist

John Breyault, vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud at the National Consumers League, told TicketNews that the price attached to a reserved ticket does not eliminate the need for transparency.

“Consumers deserve to know how many tickets they will have a shot at, whether the price point is $20 or $200,” Breyault said. “The problem with undisclosed holdbacks is that they can create an impression of artificial scarcity, which distorts both the primary and secondary markets.”

“What we want is pretty simple: When a consumer sees that a show is ‘sold out’ on Ticketmaster, it should mean what it says,” he continued. “That’s why we’ve been proud to support common-sense bills like the BOSS and SWIFT Act, which would bring much-needed transparency to this widespread and opaque practice.”

The discounted programs are relatively favorable examples of reserved inventory. The same underlying process can become considerably more anti-consumer when larger portions of a venue are removed from the initial public onsale without buyers being told how much inventory remains under the control of artists, promoters, venues, sponsors or other industry participants.

When consumers see only a small number of available seats disappearing from a ticketing map, they have no practical way to distinguish between genuine demand and an onsale in which substantial inventory was never made available in the first place. That perception can pressure buyers into purchasing more expensive tickets, accepting less desirable locations or turning to the resale market under the belief that no additional primary inventory is coming.

If more tickets are subsequently released, the new supply can also alter resale prices after buyers and sellers have already made decisions based on the apparent scarcity.

Previous Investigation Found Public Onsales Were Often a Minority of the House

The scale of reserved inventory has historically extended well beyond a handful of discounted tickets.

A 2016 investigation by the New York attorney general examined allocation data provided by Live Nation and AEG for top-grossing New York concerts held between 2012 and 2015. The report found that, on average, approximately 46% of tickets were reserved for the general public. Another 16% were classified as holds for artists, venues, agents, promoters, sponsors and other insiders, while 38% were directed into presales for credit-card holders, fan clubs and other selected groups.

Presales are not necessarily the same as conventional ticket holdbacks because those tickets are placed on sale to eligible buyers before the general onsale. Both practices, however, reduce the inventory an ordinary consumer can access when the advertised public sale begins.

The report found that insider holds accounted for at least 20% of the available inventory at 14 of the major concerts it studied. One Kanye West show at Barclays Center placed 29% of its tickets on hold, including more than 2,000 tickets for the promoter and more than 500 for the venue.

When presales and holds were combined, the public allocation could become dramatically smaller. For many of the top concerts examined, less than one-quarter of the house was released during the initial general onsale. A 2014 Katy Perry concert at Barclays Center initially offered just over 1,600 tickets—or 12% of the available inventory—to the general public. Two Justin Bieber shows at Madison Square Garden each released fewer than 2,000 tickets, approximately 15% of the house, during their initial public onsales.

Those figures are historical and should not be treated as a current measurement of every Live Nation or AEG event. They also do not establish that every ticket reserved for a presale, artist, sponsor or venue was withheld for an improper purpose.

The report itself recognized that some held tickets are ultimately unused and returned to the promoter for public sale. It noted, however, that these later releases generally did not receive their own publicized onsales, allowing brokers who continuously monitored ticketing systems to obtain much of the newly available inventory.

The findings demonstrate why the scale and timing of ticket allocations matter. A handful of seats reserved for an affordability initiative has a fundamentally different impact from a sale in which most of the building is unavailable to the ordinary buyer and the remaining supply is presented without context.

The Difference Is Purpose, Scale and Disclosure

Ticket holds are a standard and often necessary part of event production.

Seats may remain unavailable until a stage configuration, camera position or production footprint is finalized. Artists may reserve tickets for guests or fan initiatives. Venues, sponsors and promoters commonly receive contractual allocations. Some reserved seats are returned and sold after the relevant party determines it will not use them.

The existence of a hold therefore does not establish consumer harm by itself.

The more problematic practice involves using undisclosed inventory to give consumers a misleading picture of supply. A seller that knows thousands of tickets remain available for later release may still present the visible inventory in a way that encourages buyers to believe the event is approaching a genuine sellout.

Coldplay’s Infinity Tickets and the comparable Rodrigo and Charli XCX programs offer a useful contrast. The purpose of the hold is to sell tickets later at a lower price, rather than to increase prices by constraining the visible supply.

Even then, Breyault argues that buyers should know the size of the opportunity. Describing a program as “limited” does not tell fans whether an arena has reserved 50 tickets, 500 tickets or several thousand.

TicketNews emailed Live Nation Entertainment’s media-relations staff seeking information on the number of tickets, or percentage of sellable capacity, typically allocated to the discount programs. The company was also asked whether the tickets are reserved before the original onsale or may include unsold and production-release inventory, how Live Nation distinguishes legitimate holds from practices that could mislead consumers, and whether it supports advance inventory disclosure.

No response had been received as of publication.

HOLDBACKS Act Would Target Misleading Inventory Practices

The issue has received renewed attention following the introduction of the HOLDBACKS Act by Rep. Nellie Pou of New Jersey.

H.R. 9762 would require a primary ticket seller to disclose, at least seven days before tickets are first made available, how many tickets will be offered to the general public for each performance. The bill would also prohibit a primary seller from withholding tickets for the purpose of inflating prices based on inventory known to the seller or concealing or misrepresenting the number of tickets available after the initial offering begins.

Violations would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission as unfair or deceptive practices.

The bill does not impose a blanket ban on ticket holds. Its prohibition is tied to the seller’s purpose: inflating prices or misleading consumers about availability.

On its face, that distinction would appear to leave room for artist holds, production inventory and discounted programs intended to reduce prices. At the same time, its advance-disclosure provision could require sellers to provide consumers with a clearer picture of how many tickets will eventually be available to the public, including inventory scheduled for a later release.

Precisely how later discount allotments, production holds and returned sponsor or artist inventory would be counted is likely to become an important implementation question should the measure advance.

Breyault said he had not reviewed Pou’s proposal in several weeks and wanted to examine it again before offering a position on the legislation. NCL has separately backed the BOSS and SWIFT Act of 2026, which the organization says would require public disclosure of ticket holdbacks alongside other primary- and secondary-market reforms.

The $20 programs provide a strong argument against treating all reserved inventory alike. Artists and promoters can use holdbacks to protect affordable seats and place fans throughout a venue at prices far below the surrounding inventory.

But the programs also demonstrate how little consumers are ordinarily told about the tickets they cannot see.

The central policy question is therefore not whether every ticket must be released at the same moment. It is whether consumers receive an honest picture of the inventory and whether promoters can use tickets hidden from public view to manufacture urgency, influence prices or declare a sellout that is not truly a sellout.