Ticketing isn’t just a transaction. For arts and cultural organisations, it’s the beginning of a relationship — and the experience you create in those first few clicks matters.
That’s why we’re in favour of initiatives that make pricing clearer for customers. When people can see what they’ll realistically pay upfront, they can make confident choices. When they can’t, trust erodes quickly, and the whole sector feels the impact.
In the UK, guidance issued in November 2025 from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), prompted by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC), which came into force in April 2025 , is part of that wider push for price transparency. And while the principles are customer-friendly, some of the practical detail — especially around per-transaction fees — has left venues understandably asking: what does ‘good’ look like in real life?
This blog is a guide to the portion that’s generating the most questions: per-transaction (per-order) fees.
Though these guidelines rolled out a few months ago, there’s been renewed discussion in the sector about how fees — particularly per-transaction fees — should be displayed at different points in the customer journey under the DMCC Act and CMA guidance.
The rules and guidance have been developing over time, and many organisations have already made changes to how they present fees in marketing and on their websites.
The underlying aim is straightforward: customers should be presented with the price they can realistically expect to pay, including unavoidable fees.
The DMCC and CMA guidance on pricing aren’t limited to ticketing. They form part of broader UK legislation aimed at reducing ‘surprise’ costs across online commerce — from holiday bookings and hotels to retail delivery fees.
Within that wider context, there are two principles that matter most for venues.
1. Make total pricing clear early. If a fee is unavoidable, customers should be able to see the true price they’ll pay, not just a headline number that changes later.
2. ‘From’ prices need to be meaningful. If you advertise “Tickets from £X”, that number should include unavoidable fees that can be calculated at that stage.
That’s the intent; where it gets nuanced is how you apply that intent when some fees depend on the contents of a customer’s basket.
The CMA price transparency guidance hinges on never hiding compulsory charges from the customer.
Per-ticket fees are directly linked to an individual ticket. Because they apply in the same way to each ticket, they can be clearly displayed in a way customers can easily understand. That means they must be included in the ticket price shown to the customer as a single figure — not itemised separately.
Per-transaction fees are more complicated. They’re applied once per order, and any ‘per-ticket share’ would change depending on what ends up in a basket. That could vary based on the number of tickets selected, or even where someone is booking for multiple events in one transaction, like during a season launch.
When advertising the cost of purchasing a ticket to an event (i.e. what’s the minimum I need to spend for one person), you must include the transaction fee. But when displaying the per-ticket cost in the commerce flow (for example, in our context, on the seating plan), there is the potential for confusion if every price type is inflated with a fee that is only charged once per-transaction.
We have looked carefully at the examples in the CMA’s guidance and discussed our approach with STAR (the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers), the UK’s self-regulating body for ticketing, to ensure that everything aligns with industry understanding of the CMA’s expectations.
So what does a practical, customer-friendly approach look like?
If you want to continue using per-transaction fees, there are practical ways to do so that support compliance and keep the experience clear for customers. Some organisations may also choose to remove per-transaction fees altogether, or move toward more inclusive pricing models. The right path will depend on your commercial structure.
The CMA refers to early-stage pricing as the ‘Invitation to Purchase’. At this point, ‘from’ pricing should include unavoidable fees, including per-transaction fees where they apply.
So if your cheapest ticket is £20 and there is an unavoidable £2 transaction fee, your marketing ‘invitation to purchase’ price should reflect £22, with the breakdown explained underneath where helpful.
This is an ‘Invitation to Purchase’, which must include unavoidable fees. In this case, the £2 transaction fee is included in the from price and a breakdown of how this is calculated is underneath.
Image from Competition and Markets Authority Guidance on DMCC, November 2025.
This clarity matters beyond your ticketing journey. Customers may see your pricing in several places before they ever click ‘Book now’: listings pages, event pages, emails, third-party promotions, billboards, and partner marketing.
A good next step for most organisations is a quick audit: where do we show prices publicly? Where do we use ‘from £X’ language? Are we consistent?
At seat selection, per-ticket prices should include any per-ticket fees as a single figure.
With per-transaction fees, a clear and compliant approach is to display the per-ticket price accurately and signpost the fee clearly as a per-transaction charge. Customers should understand that it applies — but it doesn’t make sense for it to be forced into a per-ticket figure that cannot yet be fairly calculated. You can see an example of this on the CMA’s guidance for their “Flower Show".
This is in a purchase flow. Here the transaction fee is itemised underneath the per-ticket price, with a running total provided underneath. This matches how Spektrix displays transaction fees at the seat selection stage.
Image from Competition and Markets Authority Guidance on DMCC, November 2025.
On the left, image from Spektrix’s current online seat selection.
On the right, image from our enhanced online seat selection. (Coming soon, more information on our New at Spektrix page.)Both display the itemised transaction fee underneath the per-ticket price, in the same way as the “Flower Show” example from the CMA. Additionally, the basket summary displays a running total of all tickets + transaction fee.
Once the customer has started building a basket, the system does the maths. This is the point where per-transaction fees become concrete and the customer can see a true total.
Best practice here is to:
This approach makes it easy for customers to see the full amount they will pay before completing the purchase, supporting compliance while keeping the journey transparent.
It can be tempting to focus purely on the booking journey. In reality, pricing risk often arises earlier — in advertising, marketing copy, and third-party promotions.
If customers see ‘£20 tickets’ in marketing, but unavoidable fees are added later, that’s where confusion, frustration, and complaints tend to originate.
It’s also worth thinking about partners — promoters, visiting companies, membership platforms, and third-party listings. If they advertise your prices, they need the right numbers, too. Reviewing pricing communication holistically is an important part of responding to the guidance.
Many venues use fees for understandable reasons — contracts, commercial structures, and the practical realities of funding operations.
However, this moment also invites a broader question. Rather than simply listing fees differently, some organisations are reconsidering whether the separation itself is necessary.
Inclusive pricing — where unavoidable charges are incorporated into the headline ticket price — can simplify compliance. It’s worth noting that this decision may require renegotiating commercial arrangements so that both venue and producer share a structure that supports a single visible price.
That is not a small shift. It involves rethinking established business practices that were once the simplest way to operate. But as scrutiny of fees increases, it is worth asking whether older structures still serve the relationship we want with audiences.
At its heart, the CMA’s push for price transparency is rooted in a simple idea: customers should be able to see what they’ll actually pay.
Per-transaction fees introduce nuance, because their impact depends on what is in the basket. But with careful handling — meaningful ‘invitation to purchase’ pricing, accurate per-ticket figures, and transparent per-order charges — venues can approach this confidently.
We support initiatives that improve clarity and trust in ticketing. Greater transparency strengthens audience relationships and supports the long-term health of the sector.
Liv Nilssen is Director of Sector Strategy at Spektrix.