Cancel culture and the ethical decisions confronting the touring business were tackled head on in ILMC 37’s gripping Ethics & Activism: Adapting to Artist & Fan Views panel.

Chaired by Media Insight Consulting chief Chris Carey, the session at London’s Royal Lancaster ran the rule over some of the thornier questions facing the industry in 2025.

Ola Krakowska of Poland’s largest independent promoter Alter Art, organiser of Open’er Festival, spoke of the “moral backbone” that guides the company’s decision-making on everything from sponsorship partnerships to its artist lineup.

“It’s about integrity, honesty and also fairness,” she said. “We all know how difficult it is to navigate, but we really stick to this. We always double-check everything that we’re doing, and we really dig into it. Each year we say no to several sponsors. We have cases of companies that we dropped because of moral reasons.

“We do the same with the artists. I’m sorry, but we’re checking you guys…. We really focus on the lineups and we really check the backgrounds.”

Asked whether its policy made it hard to balance the books, Krakowska responded: “No, I think that when you’re good, the good people come to you.”

She also expressed her admiration for Dua Lipa for speaking out against performing at the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar due to the country’s human rights record.

“We really admire those artists who just say no,” said Krakowska. “I love the quote [from Dua Lipa]. She basically said, ‘I look forward to visiting Qatar when it has fulfilled all human rights pledges it made when it won the right to host the World Cup.'”

“Where and when possible, we should all be amplifying our voices and supporting one another”

Music and culture executive Amanda Maxwell considered the pitfalls artists can encounter by taking a stand publicly, thereby putting themselves at risk of being “immediately shut down and immediately cancelled”.

“That is the tightrope that everybody is very concerned about at the moment,” she advised. “It feels particularly hot – or has done over the last 18 months – with various different things that we’ve seen going on in the world, so it becomes really difficult. But I think where and when possible, we should all be amplifying our voices and supporting one another.”

Artist manager Bradley Kulisic of Singing Light Music pointed out that some artists “self-censor”.

“If people want to be agnostic about what they say on the stage and to their audiences, they should be allowed to,” he added. “And if people want to confront and put opinions forward and, in turn, accept the accountability for that, I would support them as well – as long as they’re not being disgusting or exclusive.”

However, he acknowledged that by sticking their head above the parapet, acts left themselves open to criticism down the line.

“If you are putting yourself in various activist conversations, you will be held to a certain standard,” he said. “And if, for whatever reason, you’ve crossed the picket line on a certain issue that that community feels strongly about, you will be held to a harder account. And whether or not I think that’s fair… if you get in the ring, you’re going to get hit.”

“More and more artists are  probably going to just disengage… because they think, ‘Is it worth me facing the criticism?”

Alt-J’s Gus Unger-Hamilton brought up the recent backlash to Stormzy’s partnership with McDonald’s.

“I think if an actor or musician who had no history of activism had done a brand partnership with McDonald’s, they wouldn’t face as much criticism as Stormzy did,” he said. “I don’t know how you protect artists in an age of social media because, of course, the democracy of social media is that everybody has the same voice. You can write a tweet at an artist and that tweet has just as much relevance as any other tweet that was sent that day to that artist.

“Sadly, I think more and more artists are probably going to just disengage, not look at their social media, not put their hand up and stand up for good causes, because they think, ‘Is it worth me facing the criticism? Do you want me to lose fans over this? Maybe I’m just going to kind of keep my head down, stay in my seat and just make music,’ which I think is a pity.”

Unger-Hamilton suggested that several issues were “peaking at once” in the current climate, creating a dilemma for musicians.

“The cost of touring crisis for artists is really, really hard,” he said. “Artists are more than ever struggling to pay the bills go on tour. And I’m not just talking about grassroots artists, I’m talking about artists who might be perceived to be at the top of their game, and therefore, where corporate partnerships and endorsements might well be a way to actually balance the books.

“Unfortunately, that is coming at a time of greater than ever scrutiny and a feeling perhaps that people are either perfect or completely terrible. There’s not much nuance in the views of people in that way.”

“Where is the line between approving of a regime by going to a place, or going there and bringing new perspectives and a new message?”

Unger-Hamilton admitted to personal regrets over playing in certain territories in the past.

“We’ve played in Russia two or three times – of course, before Ukraine was invaded – and at the time, I think the view we took was, ‘Where do you stop with scrutinising a country’s ethical record?’ You can’t really say where the line is,” he argued. “Everybody talks about the boycotts of South Africa that went on in the 80s. That’s generally agreed to have been a very good thing, but it’s hard to say now what that equivalent is.

“Let’s not forget that Russia was under a lot of quite correct international criticism for its treatment of LGBT people – it wasn’t like invading Ukraine was the first bad thing Russia had done in the 21st century. We played in Ukraine as well, I’m happy to say, and would like to play there again if we could.”

Unger-Hamilton pondered whether playing in a country automatically represented an endorsement of its government.

“I suppose there seems to be a consensus that the answer to that question is yes, but I’m not sure if that is true every time,” he said. “I do think that there is a validity in the viewpoint that perhaps by going to a country with a repressive regime and bringing in music which people might not have heard before – which might have a message in it that would counter what those regimes are saying to their people – could be a good thing.

“It is really hard to know where the line is. Where is the line between approving of a regime by going to a place, or going there and bringing new perspectives and a new message to that place?”

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

Ben Sebborn, co-founder and director of UK primary ticket agency Skiddle, has called for higher ethical standards in the global ticketing sector, saying many of the major players still have some way to go in offering customer service on par with other industries – and that no-questions-asked ticket refunds should be the norm.

Speaking to IQ, Sebborn, who co-founded Preston-based Skiddle with Richard Dyer in 2001, hails the success of his company’s Cool:Off refund initiative, wherein ticket buyers are given 72 hours to change their minds, which contributed to a huge 67% increase in sales in 2016. “It isn’t fair that most ticketing outlets don’t offer refunds,” he says. “If the customer demand is there, then the industry needs to adapt to reflect this demand.”

Sebborn (pictured) says Cool:Off, along with its sister Re:Sell ticket exchange scheme, is good for both fans and promoters – the latter because tickets returned for a refund can be sold on, leading to fewer empty seats. “We introduced our Re:Sell and Cool:Off schemes for this very reason, and since their introduction they have been overwhelmingly successful, not just for customers, who want and need flexibility with their tickets, but for promoters, too,” continues Sebborn. “The refund option reduces the amount of no-shows at the event, increasing the amount of money taken at the bar and on merchandise.”

In terms of that 72-hour period, Sebborn says a three-day cool-off is “key for customers who have decided they can’t attend an event. However, if a customer gets in touch outside this period, we will offer name changes and the Re:Sell option on the tickets free of charge.”

With Skiddle on course for another year on strong growth, Sebborn attributes the company’s success to its focus on the consumer. “We like to think of ourselves as music lovers first and businesspeople second,” he explains, “so with every business decision we think, ‘How does this help our customers?’. If it doesn’t, we don’t implement it. It’s as simple as that.”

“We like to think of ourselves as music lovers first and businesspeople second”

That customer-centricity, Sebborn claims, is something that’s sorely lacking in the live entertainment ecosystem at large, where fans are forced to battle dishonest touts, clunky websites and “silly restrictions” on shows for a chance to see the artists they love.

Specifically, he highlights four areas where the industry can improve:

Secondary ticketing
“For-profit secondary ticketing is always going to be an area of focus for Skiddle until the problem is resolved and fans get a fairer deal. We are constantly rolling out new measures to prevent touting, from printing customer names on tickets and changing names for free to withholding barcodes until just before an event and scanning our ticketing queue to remove known touts.

“We are doing all we can, but, realistically, the bigger players need to get involved, too.”

Technology
“Ticketing technology is extremely behind the times and needs to drastically improve. Our industry has always been slow to adapt – even in 2017, for example, a lot of outlets don’t have adequate mobile-friendly sites. We have always invested heavily in tech because we want the ticket-buying process to be as easy and efficient as possible. We recently introduced a swipe-to-review feature with Tinder-style technology that’s been really well received.”

Events
“In terms of the events themselves, one thing that really bugs us is that for bigger events, the organisers often insist on silly restrictions for artists – such as not being allowed to play within 100 miles of that event in the months leading up to it. This increases demand but also reduces options for music fans, who can’t see their favourite artists or bands in their hometowns as a result of these restrictions.”

Access
“Other areas of focus for us include working in partnership with charities and enterprises to make live music safer for women, and more accessible for people who are less able. It’s an important, but often overlooked, area.”

Despite these music biz bugbears, Sebborn says the industry is beginning to change, with “new and emerging competition from start-ups and other growing ticketing outlets” forcing the old guard to become more customer-friendly.

“For too long the big boys dominated the ticketing industry on every level,” he comments, “meaning that there wasn’t only a lack of competition, but also a lack of choice. It was a proper elephant in the room – everyone knew the ticketing industry was too focused on making money rather than the customer experience, but all the major players got away with it for far too long. This isn’t as much the case anymore.”

“One of the reasons Skiddle has been successful is because we purposefully tried to shake things up. We wanted to offer something different – ticketing with a conscience – and our products and behaviour reflect this. Don’t get us wrong: there is still a long way to go, and these issues can’t be stamped out overnight. Unacceptable and unethical behaviour still exists in our industry. But by speaking out and offering greater choice, we can play our part in ensuring ticketing changes for the better.”

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.