Live Nation operates music venues, provides management services to music artists, and promotes more than 22,000 live music events annually. The company merged with Ticketmaster and acquired concert and festival promoters in the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. How has the company used horizontal mergers and acquisitions to strengthen its competitive position? Are these moves primarily offensive or defensive? Has either Live Nation or Ticketmaster achieved any type of advantage based on the timing of its strategic moves?

This is a horizontal merger since both companies competed against each other in the past with similar products or services. As the number of firms decreases, competition between the remaining firms will become fierce.

This is an offensive move by Live Nation since its aim is to gain competitive advantages and market power. Competitive advantages resulting from this merger might be: higher market share, lower operating costs, synergy and efficiency.

If we look at it form Ticketmaster's point of view, this could be considered a defensive move. The main advantage achieved by Ticketmaster is less competition since Live Nation was the world's largest concert promoter.

Even though the merger happened during the great recession, 2009, the value of the new company has increased from a little over $800 million to almost $3 billion. That means that did something right. They were basically able to use resources more efficiently and gain even more market share. They are so large now, that some accuse them of being a monopoly.

the answer is i don't know