Going dry at the Dodge

The state Liquor Control Commission has suspended the Dodge Music Center's liquor permit for three days this summer, including Tuesday when Nine Inch Nails plays the venue formerly known as the Meadows. Seems liquor control agents observed nine teenagers purchasing alcohol at a John Mayer show in August 2004.

The amphitheater is owned by concert promotions company Live Nation (formerly Clear Channel), but the liquor permittee is Aramark Entertainment. 

Thus, when asked for comment, this is what Live Nation had to say:

Live Nation is not directly involved in the sale of alcohol, or any food and beverage for that matter, at Dodge Music Center. It's unfortunate that our customers will be inconvenienced at the shows on June 20th and July 15th when liquor will not be served. We trust that Aramark, who holds the liquor permit at this facility and who is responsible for these violations, has sufficient policies in place to prevent any further violations at Dodge Music Center.

That's pretty weasly, considering that Live Nation is directly involved with making a lot of money from its contract with Aramark. And, as the owner of the venue, Live Nation ought to bear ultimate responsibility for what happens there, which probably means more than simply trusting that its vendor has "sufficient policies in place." There's a simple reason for that: The general public doesn't make a distinction between Live Nation and Aramark — to the average concert-goer, it's all just the Dodge (or, more likely, the Meadows). So whether liquor violations are technically Live Nation's problem or not, it becomes the company's problem if people associate those sorts of things with the Dodge. It's a PR issue, and expending the extra effort to maintain a good-guy, pro-fan image affects attendance, which affects MONEY.

Now, it seems to me that the wristband-procurement process at the Dodge/Meadows has become more stringent since August 2004, which means Aramark is taking these violations seriously (as well it should — an $83,000 fine is no small thing).

But it's hard to say for sure, because Live Nation representatives wouldn't talk about it. They also wouldn't talk about their plan, if they have one, for policing the parking lots Tuesday night. Most of the unfortunate incidents involving fire and tear gas at the Dodge/Meadows happen when morons get wasted in the parking lots and cause trouble. With the venue not allowed to sell liquor Tuesday, does that mean people will simply get tanked up outside the amphitheater before the concert? If so, what is Live Nation doing about that? Who knows? I got no direct response when I asked Monday morning, "will there be tighter monitoring over what goes on in the parking lots on the suspended days?"

Comments

[Dan Prindle]

I think that what Mr. Danton is trying to say is that the bearer of "legal responsibility" is irrelevant at this point. The issue at hand is the perception of the public and the public's willingness to attend concerts. If the public perceives the Dodge (or the Meadows) to be a place that has issues with its liquor license, they may be less apt to go to concerts there. This affects the bottom line for Live Nation and potentialy Mr. Koplik, whether they bear any legal responsibility for Aramark's infringements or not (and they very well may not). Because of this, Live Nation should be doing a better job of appeasing their customer base AND ensuring that this sort of thing never happens again. Repeated incidents of this nature would undoubtedly tarnish the reputation of the Dodge/Meadows and make a concertgoer think twice about going to a concert where he/she might be unable to purchase an $8 thimble of beer.

Eric responds: See? This guy gets it.

[Tom]

Tough to blame a facility for assuming no teenager would be caught dead at a John Mayer show. The only carding at said show should have been for AARP.

[Josh]

Maybe I should have clarified Jim Koplik IN HIS CAPACITY as ... Whatever: Koplik's speaking for Live Nation.

Listen, if I hire some kid to mow my lawn (and I really ought to) and he wrecks my neighbor's fence, my neighbor is going to sue me because the kid never would have been mowing my lawn if I didn't hire him. (He'll also sue the kid.) (Theoretically.) I like to think I'd be able to work something out with my neighbor, but the state of Connecticut probably doesn't work that way, not since the old governor left. But I digress.

Similarly, companies share responsibility for the work that they hire other companies to do for them. I'm not a lawyer, but this isn't rocket science, either.

[Jeffrey Siegel]

Speaking from a legal perspective, it is up to Aramark and their people to check IDs, give out wristbands, and monitor who buiys alcohol at the concert. "Mr.Koplik"'s obligations end when he books the act intot he venue and makes sure that they show up and perform under THEIR end of the concert. To imply that Jim Koplik takes the fall because a vendor hired by Aramark blows his job responsibilties is just silly. Eric's comment that the general public doesn'tdistinguish between Live Nation and Aramark may be true, but its irrelevant for purposes of legal responsibility. Having said that, Live Nation should give aramark a big boot in the butt so that ticketholders don't have to suffer for the errors of a few.

[Josh]

"Ultimate responsibility" is a tough question here. When a venue hires someone, on a contractual basis, to fulfill a function there, I'm not sure what the law has to say. But I do find it a little weasely to imply, as Live Nation did in another post, that the vendor is wholly to blame. My boss is responsible for my incompetence – is Live Nation responsible for its contractor’s incompetence? I’m going to say yes.

Live Nation and Aramark could settle this question by revealing the clause in their contract that deals with this eventuality. Surely, a well-paid and clever lawyer anticipated the not-unprecedented occurrence of a teenager trying to buy beer. Who does the contract say is at fault, Mr. Koplik?