Software Engineer 1

Window shopping: your ticketing platform just opened more counters. AudienceView has switched on an expanded API integration with StubHub and viagogo, so clients of its AudienceView Unlimited platform can push selected official ticket inventory onto both marketplaces while keeping AudienceView as the system of record. Announced on 27 August, it is the third primary ticketing platform StubHub has wired into its open distribution programme since the middle of July. If you run conferences rather than concerts this looks like someone else's news. It is not. The plumbing being laid here decides where your buyers meet your tickets, who they think they are buying from, and which invoice grows when your event does. What the integration actually does. The two companies already had a relationship. What changed is scope and mechanism. Per TheTicketingBusiness, marketplace access now extends to the full AudienceView Unlimited customer base, which covers arts and entertainment, sports, performing arts, higher education and other live event organisations. The trade announcement carried by SalesTechStar adds the detail that matters technically: this is a new API integration, and orders and ticket fulfilment connect back to AudienceView rather than living on the marketplace. Organisers choose which inventory to expose. Pricing, inventory and customer strategy stay with the venue. Steve Baumgartner, AudienceView's chief revenue officer, framed it as expanding discovery without taking control out of the hands of the venue. Shaun Stewart, StubHub's vice president of open distribution, framed it as more venues, more events and more fans finding tickets they might otherwise have missed. Both framings are accurate. Neither is the whole story, because a distribution channel is never just a distribution channel. It is also a fee schedule, a checkout experience you do not control, and a customer relationship you now share. Why StubHub keeps signing primary ticketing platforms. This is the part the individual announcements do not join up. Open Distribution is a programme, not a one-off. StubHub and viagogo signed TicketSocket in July, then Spektrix on 19 August for arts and cultural venues, and now AudienceView on 27 August. Three primary ticketing systems in six weeks is not opportunism. It is a strategy. The logic is easy enough to read. A resale marketplace's oldest problem is that it sells tickets it did not create, at prices it did not set, with an authenticity question attached to every listing. Wiring in the primary system solves all three at once. The listing is official, the inventory is real, and the fulfilment is clean. For the marketplace, every platform partnership converts thousands of organisers into supply in one signature rather than thousands. The interesting question is not whether marketplace distribution sells more tickets. It usually does. The question is what an organiser is trading away in exchange, and whether anyone has priced that trade. What this means for event organisers. For a B2B organiser, the immediate relevance is not StubHub specifically. It is that "where can my tickets be sold" is quietly becoming a configuration setting rather than a strategic decision, and configuration settings get switched on by whoever is closest to the admin panel on a Tuesday afternoon. That deserves more thought than it usually gets, for three reasons. The first is price transparency. Your own checkout and a marketplace checkout will rarely present the same total to a buyer. If a delegate finds your conference pass on a marketplace at one price and on your own site at another, you have created a comparison you did not intend and cannot control. Trade shows and conferences live or die on perceived fairness to exhibitors and members, and a two-price event is a difficult conversation waiting to happen. The alternative Tired of Fee Announcements? Go Flat eventcloud charges one subscription with no per-ticket fees, so platform news stops being budget news. The second is data. Orders flowing back into the primary system is genuinely good, and better than the alternative. But "the order came back" is not the same as "the relationship came back". Ask precisely which attendee fields you receive, when, and whether you may market to that person next year. The third is the one nobody puts on a slide: every extra channel is another surface where your ticketing bill can move without your revenue moving with it. Which brings Eventcloud to the word in the middle of this announcement. About that word "unlimited" AudienceView Unlimited is the name of a product. It is not a statement about billing, and nobody at AudienceView has claimed otherwise. But the coincidence is a useful prompt, because "unlimited" is doing an enormous amount of unexamined work across this industry, and it means at least four different things depending on who is saying it. Unlimited events is one claim. Unlimited attendees is a second. Unlimited users is a third. A price that does not move when any of those numbers move is a fourth, and it is the only one an organiser can actually plan against. Most platforms offer some of the first three and almost none offer the fourth, because the fourth means giving up the percentage of every ticket that the business is built on. So the honest test for any platform, ours included, is not whether the word appears on the pricing page. It is whether you can point at the line on next year's invoice and know what it says before you know how the event went. At eventcloud that line is a flat subscription per user, and unlimited events and unlimited tickets sit underneath it, which is why its answer to "what happens if you sell twice as many" is boring. Boring is the product. You can see the whole of it on its pricing page, including the parts that are not unlimited: you pay per user from one seat upward, and eventcloud does not do virtual or hybrid events. If most of your programme happens on a screen, you want a different tool. Four questions before you switch on any distribution channel. None of this is an argument against marketplace distribution. Discovery is real, and for a venue with unsold inventory and a small marketing budget it can be transformative. It is an argument for reading the settings screen properly. Before you tick the box, get written answers to four things: which inventory is exposed and who can change that; what the buyer pays on the marketplace compared with your own checkout; which attendee data comes back and what you may do with it; and what happens to your own platform costs at ten times the volume. If the fourth answer is a percentage, you have not bought a distribution channel. You have bought a partner in your own growth, and you can look up their share in the fee schedule. Stop paying to succeed Run your next event on flat pricing. Unlimited tickets, registrations and events. One price, no matter how big you grow.

Brattleboro concert venue sues national ticket reseller. Published August 20, 2026 at 2:26 PM EDT This story has been updated to include a statement from StubHub. A southern Vermont music venue is suing the national resale ticket platform StubHub in federal court. The Stone Church in Brattleboro filed the lawsuit earlier this month, alleging that StubHub engaged in false advertising and trademark infringement while reselling tickets for Stone Church events. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, The Stone Church alleges that StubHub falsely advertised that only a small number of tickets were left for shows, and that the StubHub platform diverts ticket sales away from the Stone Church. The Stone Church, and the law firm representing the venue, declined to comment on the lawsuit. "We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this case," StubHub said in a prepared statement. The Stone Church opened in a renovated Victorian Gothic Church in Brattleboro in 2016, and was recognized by USA Today as one of the top 10 concert venues in the Northeast. StubHub is the country's largest online secondary ticket marketplace. The lawsuit alleges that StubHub advertises on its website that only a few tickets to a show are available, and then sells tickets to consumers based on those false claims. It goes on to claim that people have arrived at the Stone Church, having paid more on StubHub than the advertised ticket, only to find a half-empty venue. Other concertgoers have paid a higher price on StubHub, and then found lower priced tickets still available at the box office. "Fans who because of the Fictitious Former Price tactic believed they were getting a bargain feel misled and annoyed when they arrive," the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit says these deceptive practices violate The Lanham Act, a federal statute that prohibits the unauthorized use of trademarked names. The Stone Church is asking the court to force secondary ticket platforms to accurately advertise the number of tickets available at the venue and to honestly disclose what it charges for tickets. The website Digital Music News, in reporting the lawsuit, said, "It's a challenge that could force changes in how ticket availability is marketed and has the potential to disrupt the secondary ticketing industry in a very tangible way." In April, regulators announced that StubHub would pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated federal laws by deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without disclosing all fees upfront.