Why scalpers can get tickets(404media.co)
404media.co
Why scalpers can get tickets
https://www.404media.co/why-scalpers-can-get-olivia-rodrigo-tickets-and-fans-cannot/
486 comments
>if one of the platforms “cracks down” and makes it harder to buy and sell people will prefer another platform.
1) what other platform? I'm not too intimate with this, but part of the revolt over the Taylor Swift contrversy came from how Ticketmaster as exclusive use to most of the big venues. That seems to be the other half of the issue not talked about in this article.
2) I thought this issue would be as simple as banning resales, but after reading the kind of tech (and money they pay) to invest in the scalping... idk. It'd kill off the casual scalping of someone who buys maybe a half dozen tickets. people paying hundreds for fake numbers and specialized browsers won't be deterred. And the demand for the tickets comes from the celebrities, so it's a pretty safe market as long as the concert industry stays up (so, no more COVID. Even then, it's not like it's hard to pull out).
1) what other platform? I'm not too intimate with this, but part of the revolt over the Taylor Swift contrversy came from how Ticketmaster as exclusive use to most of the big venues. That seems to be the other half of the issue not talked about in this article.
2) I thought this issue would be as simple as banning resales, but after reading the kind of tech (and money they pay) to invest in the scalping... idk. It'd kill off the casual scalping of someone who buys maybe a half dozen tickets. people paying hundreds for fake numbers and specialized browsers won't be deterred. And the demand for the tickets comes from the celebrities, so it's a pretty safe market as long as the concert industry stays up (so, no more COVID. Even then, it's not like it's hard to pull out).
Yup, TicketMaster/Live Nation is fully vertically integrated. They own venues, they manage artists, they sell merch - and yes they run the ticket platforms. The contracts basically require everything to stay in the family.
Sounds like theres a lot of missing legislation. The situation creates a huge conflict of interests.
Then again, scalping itself out to be illegal; it’s just a form of exploiting someone else’s work to extract money from average folk without creating any value or meaningful work.
Then again, scalping itself out to be illegal; it’s just a form of exploiting someone else’s work to extract money from average folk without creating any value or meaningful work.
Scalping is exploitative and should be illegal when it’s for water and gasoline in a hurricane recovery zone.
I’m unconvinced that there is a harm when the scalping is for section 102 row 14 seat 11 at a OneDirection concert.
Lots of people want to vacation in Ibiza, so it’s expensive. Lots of people want to sit in section 102 row 14 seat 11, so it’s expensive too.
Just because someone with more money buys the seat doesn’t mean the person with less money was exploited. If that were the case, we must require all seats to be sold at the exact same price across the stadium and that price must be low enough for even the poorest person to attend.
I’m unconvinced that there is a harm when the scalping is for section 102 row 14 seat 11 at a OneDirection concert.
Lots of people want to vacation in Ibiza, so it’s expensive. Lots of people want to sit in section 102 row 14 seat 11, so it’s expensive too.
Just because someone with more money buys the seat doesn’t mean the person with less money was exploited. If that were the case, we must require all seats to be sold at the exact same price across the stadium and that price must be low enough for even the poorest person to attend.
Now explain how scalping basic necessities in a hurricane is any different than real estate speculation.
Either way, you're buying something people need, in an effort to restrict demand, raise prices, and resell at a profit without having to add any real value.
Either way, you're buying something people need, in an effort to restrict demand, raise prices, and resell at a profit without having to add any real value.
Okay, so scalping is illegal in a hurricane. Is it also illegal for outsiders to choose not to provide goods to the sticken area because the sale price doesn't justify the cost? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKl-SgJQVc , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZuxdXmSoj4 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFXYO1W_JXw .
I'm honestly not sure anymore if scalping should be delegalized. I'm increasingly convinced that it's only the problem because everyone is in on it, with artists using scalpers as "heat sinks", to get more money while pretending they're the victim, and everyone is well compensated for the role they play in the scheme. If that's the case, then the entire structure is the problem, and it starts with artists exploiting the audience looking for moral/spiritual role models.
I did some research in to this this year in the context of maybe trying to start a business to solve this - and this was the conclusion I came to. There’s lots of threads here on HN about it too. It’s a structural, market-wide issue where the primary service Ticketmaster provide is reputation laundering, and in return, large agents and promoters agree to continue to use Ticketmaster despite their reputation.
I don’t know what the solution is.
I don’t know what the solution is.
Like, don't go to overpriced concerts? How much more obvious than this should the solution be? None in that chain create value, so no need for you to feed their greed.
Isn’t it basically auction-based pricing with more steps? That’s not a fundamentally evil thing.
Seems to me they could ban resales by making there be a name attached to each ticket. Just like the airlines. You need ID matching your ticket to get into the venue.
No more scalpers.
No more scalpers.
[deleted]
They’re already doing that and it’s disgusting.
On the contrary, I think it's excellent. Turn up, show your ID along with your ticket, and you have not been screwed by a scalper.
Need a refund? Log on to the site, get a refund, and your ticket goes back into the pool for a round 2 public release.
Need a refund? Log on to the site, get a refund, and your ticket goes back into the pool for a round 2 public release.
Those are all possible without data mining. Have always gotten a decent ticket when I planned ahead and resellers have helped me out on more than one occasion when I didn’t.
Oh, and they were usually poorer folks that I’d much rather get a brokerage fee than ticket master.
Oh, and they were usually poorer folks that I’d much rather get a brokerage fee than ticket master.
Those poorer folks already paid ticketmaster the brokerage fee when they bought the ticket.
Resellers in the sense of those scalping are not "helping you out". There wouldn't be a shortage if they didn't scab everything available.
Resellers in the sense of those scalping are not "helping you out". There wouldn't be a shortage if they didn't scab everything available.
it's no different from airline tickets
It should be. The "threat model" is entirely different, on the way to insignificant.
> If a reseller buys the ticket, and then sells it again to the end user, Ticketmaster gets paid twice.
So basically scalpers are being paid to be the scapegoat so Ticketmaster can make more money, at the expense of artists and fans.
So basically scalpers are being paid to be the scapegoat so Ticketmaster can make more money, at the expense of artists and fans.
And in turn Ticketmaster is the scapegoat that shields the artists from blame. The primary service that Ticketmaster provides is to protect the artist's reputation while ensuring as much money as possible gets made per event.
This take is widespread and it's just wrong. Most artists are hired by organizers and just paid a flat fee for performing, the company then selling and promoting the event. Can you imagine what it'd take to organize an international tour otherwise?
Some huge names may also run their own operation (Pearl Jam where notorious for this) but still just some of the time, they'll still do some shows in festivals or different countries where they are just hired to perform and not selli ng tickets themselves.
> Most artists are hired by organizers and just paid a flat fee for performing, the company then selling and promoting the event.
This is true, but most artists aren't insanely popular with millions of fans, most artists are little-known gig workers. In this thread we're talking about the big names, which can and do operate by different rules.
The Guardian interviewed several artists in these big tour situations and they say artists get most of each ticket sale, after taxes and royalties (though they obviously also have expenses to pay, so it's not pure profit). If you're claiming otherwise, where does your inside knowledge come from?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-con...
This is true, but most artists aren't insanely popular with millions of fans, most artists are little-known gig workers. In this thread we're talking about the big names, which can and do operate by different rules.
The Guardian interviewed several artists in these big tour situations and they say artists get most of each ticket sale, after taxes and royalties (though they obviously also have expenses to pay, so it's not pure profit). If you're claiming otherwise, where does your inside knowledge come from?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-con...
Even the biggest artists still need promoters (Taylor Swift has a promoter... it's Massina Touring Group, Beyonce is with Live Nation). The reason is obvious... star's can't afford the capitol costs of their own shows. Renaissance had a capitol budget of over 100 million. Beyonce's net worth is about 500 million... she's not going to tie up 1/5th of her net worth in a single tour! For someone like Olivia Rodrigo, the economics are even worse. Guts probably will have a capital budget in the 10-20 million range (or higher!) but Olivia's net worth is about 5 million. The promoter's advance is what allows artists to actually have their tours.
The promoters are the ones who actually own and sell the tickets. They have a lot of power over decisions like whether or not to use dynamic pricing.
Man, that article dances around the issue, huh. When I say most I mean arena selling artists. Small time artists don't get their tickets scalped. Ever heard those stories of artists putting silly requests just to make sure the organizers complied their terms to the letter of the contract? That's a tell they're not running their own operation. Sure, some do. But if they're touring internationally or doing festivals they are getting hired.
Source: that's literally what the companies behind lolapaloosa, monsters of rock, et all do.
Source: that's literally what the companies behind lolapaloosa, monsters of rock, et all do.
But don’t artists get less because scalping happens? That is, if they priced tickets higher to start, there would be more revenue going to the artists and less going to middlemen.
The scalpers are often affiliated with the artists, directly or indirectly. Katy Perry's contract was leaked in 2011 and she had reserved the right to sell tickets through "Resellers" [0]. And as the grandparent notes, many of the scalpers sell their tickets on Ticketmaster, which in turn has a contract with the artists.
The artists would get more in the short term, but all this outrage that's currently directed at scalpers and Ticketmaster wouldn't just go away—a lot of it would still exist but be directed at the artists themselves.
[0] https://www.vulture.com/2011/05/katy_perry_reserves_the_righ...
The artists would get more in the short term, but all this outrage that's currently directed at scalpers and Ticketmaster wouldn't just go away—a lot of it would still exist but be directed at the artists themselves.
[0] https://www.vulture.com/2011/05/katy_perry_reserves_the_righ...
That Katy Perry contract solves a large piece of this puzzle for me - if we are selling to scalpers direct then there has to be a deniable way for the scalers to have got the tickets another way - for example confusing ticket purchase processes
That’s how Nike does it too
Raising the face value of the tickets would eliminate scalpers but at the expense of reputation. That's why Sony and Microsoft didn't just raise the cost of the PS5 and Xbox Series X during the 2 years or so when they were sold out everywhere and only available through scalpers or if you were lucky enough to buy one at face value.
People look at high prices as "the seller is just greedy" even if they're arguably justified by the demand. If you can just relist those Taylor Swift tickets you bought at face value on Ticketmaster, they are "sold" as far as Swift herself and her record label are concerned but Ticketmaster can make extra money and presumably pays a kickback to Swift and her label. If she ceases to be the "current thing" and demand massively drops for her concerts to the point that face value is overpriced, the scalpers are left with the losses.
Sometimes scalpers do lose money. Anybody who thought Playstation VR2 was going to be high demand like the PS5 lost a ton of money getting rid of that thing below face value. Likewise, if you try to scalp tickets to an Inter Miami game on the assumption that Messi is going to be playing and it comes out that he actually won't be because he got hurt playing the last place team on the Wednesday before a Sunday game[0], you're the one who ends up losing money from the unsold ticket not the soccer teams. Which is why nobody selling high demand goods or services really cares that much about stopping scalping.
[0]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12546567/...
People look at high prices as "the seller is just greedy" even if they're arguably justified by the demand. If you can just relist those Taylor Swift tickets you bought at face value on Ticketmaster, they are "sold" as far as Swift herself and her record label are concerned but Ticketmaster can make extra money and presumably pays a kickback to Swift and her label. If she ceases to be the "current thing" and demand massively drops for her concerts to the point that face value is overpriced, the scalpers are left with the losses.
Sometimes scalpers do lose money. Anybody who thought Playstation VR2 was going to be high demand like the PS5 lost a ton of money getting rid of that thing below face value. Likewise, if you try to scalp tickets to an Inter Miami game on the assumption that Messi is going to be playing and it comes out that he actually won't be because he got hurt playing the last place team on the Wednesday before a Sunday game[0], you're the one who ends up losing money from the unsold ticket not the soccer teams. Which is why nobody selling high demand goods or services really cares that much about stopping scalping.
[0]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12546567/...
> Raising the face value of the tickets would eliminate scalpers but at the expense of reputation.
They could rise the face value, but sell the first say 80% tickets at considerable discount (so that the price matches what the ticket costs today). Although perhaps this could also tarnish their relation with fans, who want to see their idols as "pure" and not commercial entities they are.
They could rise the face value, but sell the first say 80% tickets at considerable discount (so that the price matches what the ticket costs today). Although perhaps this could also tarnish their relation with fans, who want to see their idols as "pure" and not commercial entities they are.
But not in the scenario described, where the artists get no additional money from resales.
Not directly, because that would look bad and would miss the point.
The thing is, they don't need to get additional money from the resale directly. If resale makes their events more profitable, their contracts with the venues and Ticketmaster will be more favorable.
The thing is, they don't need to get additional money from the resale directly. If resale makes their events more profitable, their contracts with the venues and Ticketmaster will be more favorable.
That's right, there's no incentive from TM to "fix" this.
No, Ticketmaster is the scapegoat for artists.
Extra transactions mean extra credit card fees, the artists would strictly be better off with demand based pricing. Ticketmaster however gets to double dip and play contract shenanigans.
As a general rule more complex contracts favor the side with more experience. For example many people get hosed when leasing a car, there’s simply more levers a dealership can adjust to favor themselves.
As a general rule more complex contracts favor the side with more experience. For example many people get hosed when leasing a car, there’s simply more levers a dealership can adjust to favor themselves.
You're looking at this from a strictly monetary lens, but the entertainment industry lives and dies on reputation. It's worth a lot of money to have someone else take the fall for the inevitable results of high demand.
Ticketmaster's one job is to launder the artist's reputation. They find ways to milk the show for more money than fans think is fair and keep a chunk of that extra cash as their fee, which from the artists' perspective is well-earned. Ticketmaster gets the blame for the scalpers and fees, the artist stays clean, and everyone makes more money than they would have if there was no one willing to be the bad guy.
You blame Ticketmaster for the double-dipping because that's what the artists are paying them for: to take the blame.
Ticketmaster's one job is to launder the artist's reputation. They find ways to milk the show for more money than fans think is fair and keep a chunk of that extra cash as their fee, which from the artists' perspective is well-earned. Ticketmaster gets the blame for the scalpers and fees, the artist stays clean, and everyone makes more money than they would have if there was no one willing to be the bad guy.
You blame Ticketmaster for the double-dipping because that's what the artists are paying them for: to take the blame.
That’s a common theory, but artists like Taylor Swift are willing to take the blame and avoid Ticketmaster.
Ticketmaster has a monopoly position and is exercising monopoly power here.
Ticketmaster has a monopoly position and is exercising monopoly power here.
Taylor Swift explicitly put the blame on Ticketmaster for the entire 2022 fiasco [0][1]. There was no taking responsibility, and she certainly wasn't avoiding Ticketmaster during that event. If she's avoiding a relationship with them in the future (I can't find any evidence of that), I'd wager it's because of their technical incompetence in handling her volume, not the sale price and the scalpers.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/arts/music/taylor-swift-e...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/taylor-swift-slams-outside-e...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/arts/music/taylor-swift-e...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/taylor-swift-slams-outside-e...
Ticketmaster is still a monopoly.
What I meant is she’s avoiding the resale/scalping thing via Verified Fan to minimize the impact of scalpers. It’s still run through tickmaster.
https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/978700273934...
But Verified Fan isn’t universally applied. The individual artist make separate deals requiring it or not and they take the blame for the hassle of requiring it. I suspect but don’t know that Tickmaster also takes a larger cut for the “overhead” of Verified Fan, making this a classic monopolist lose lose situation.
PS: Rereading what I said I really wasn’t clear.
What I meant is she’s avoiding the resale/scalping thing via Verified Fan to minimize the impact of scalpers. It’s still run through tickmaster.
https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/978700273934...
But Verified Fan isn’t universally applied. The individual artist make separate deals requiring it or not and they take the blame for the hassle of requiring it. I suspect but don’t know that Tickmaster also takes a larger cut for the “overhead” of Verified Fan, making this a classic monopolist lose lose situation.
PS: Rereading what I said I really wasn’t clear.
[deleted]
Anybody ever floated the idea that it's all tax evasion?
Company sells ticket officially at 50, black market clears at 150 off the books.
Were I'm from it's the most popular take. Doesn't have to be done by the company itself, could be just some insiders doing it for their sole profit.
Company sells ticket officially at 50, black market clears at 150 off the books.
Were I'm from it's the most popular take. Doesn't have to be done by the company itself, could be just some insiders doing it for their sole profit.
[deleted]
Simple fix then, ban reselling.
The artist and TM still get the revenue, but the scalper gets inventory they can't move.
What about the fans?
Similar to airlines, let people buy standby tickets, at the event, check attendance, if there is space let the stand bys in. TM still gets paid twice, scalper has garbage, and fans get in.
What about fans who can't go? Buy the insurance at checkout, if you can't go the insurance comps for the cost of the ticket.
The artist and TM still get the revenue, but the scalper gets inventory they can't move.
What about the fans?
Similar to airlines, let people buy standby tickets, at the event, check attendance, if there is space let the stand bys in. TM still gets paid twice, scalper has garbage, and fans get in.
What about fans who can't go? Buy the insurance at checkout, if you can't go the insurance comps for the cost of the ticket.
This is only a problem because concert venues want to charge below market price and have the scalpers take the heat while they get their cut both ways. You can’t magically get around the market price. If you price too low you’ll have scalpers. If you beat the scalpers you’ll just have not enough tickets and a few people get tickets at below market value. Maybe that’s more fair but if you’re a fan that doesn’t feel comfortable buying tickets to a concert a year in advance, it’s likely you’re not going to be able to go at any price.
People just don’t want to deal with the reality that the Taylor swift tickets that start at $40 or whatever were never real to begin with
People just don’t want to deal with the reality that the Taylor swift tickets that start at $40 or whatever were never real to begin with
> People just don’t want to deal with the reality that the Taylor swift tickets that start at $40 or whatever were never real to begin with
This.
Here's a much more optimal semi-auction style solution. Tickets go on sale for 20 days, each day, all the seats and spots are worth the same price, you can buy anything, the price is always the same.
Day 1, the price is $2000. Day 20, the price is $10. So you'd only pay $60 at most for a ticket? Sure, just check in on day 16.
Since we start the price at the higher-than-scalp price, there's no scalping opportunity if you are paying the 'real market price'.
This.
Here's a much more optimal semi-auction style solution. Tickets go on sale for 20 days, each day, all the seats and spots are worth the same price, you can buy anything, the price is always the same.
Day 1, the price is $2000. Day 20, the price is $10. So you'd only pay $60 at most for a ticket? Sure, just check in on day 16.
Since we start the price at the higher-than-scalp price, there's no scalping opportunity if you are paying the 'real market price'.
For someone like Taylor Swift, the tickets would sell out at $2000 on day 1. Then what? Her fans burn down her private jet on the tarmac for being greedy.
The entire reason performers want their tickets sold below market value is so that non-rich "real fans" can actually afford them. All of the other shenanigans going on are there to get around this issue (and the performers definitely get a cut) while protecting the performer's shield of plausible deniability.
The entire reason performers want their tickets sold below market value is so that non-rich "real fans" can actually afford them. All of the other shenanigans going on are there to get around this issue (and the performers definitely get a cut) while protecting the performer's shield of plausible deniability.
If image is such a concern, sell (1/x) of tickets at the max possible price, give away the other (1 - 1/x) the day before the show for free. Ban transfers on the free tickets.
This "love" is a lie. A "real fan" is one who wants to be skillfully lied to.
Or you could say a “real fan” is someone who never goes to concerts and only pirates music. Then they have no incentives either way and only listen to music they enjoy!
I agree with you and that's called a Dutch auction or descending price auction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction
But inevitably, someone (such as the vocal people in this thread) is going to complain that it means only the richest fans can afford to attend the concert. No duh, being rich means you are able to afford things that some others can't.
But inevitably, someone (such as the vocal people in this thread) is going to complain that it means only the richest fans can afford to attend the concert. No duh, being rich means you are able to afford things that some others can't.
One of the reasons that artists want their tickets to be accessible for less-wealthy fans is that those fans are often more invested. Expensive tickets lead to a lot of rich people who are there to be seen and to experience an exclusive event rather than people who are specifically interested in that artist.
You find similar effects at sporting events (which is part of why nearly every soccer club has a "supporters' section" with ticket prices deliberately kept very low).
You find similar effects at sporting events (which is part of why nearly every soccer club has a "supporters' section" with ticket prices deliberately kept very low).
That's true. But there will still be some kind of rationing going on. If there are a thousand seats but a million fans, then 99.9% of them will be disappointed. Sure, you can lower the price, but then the winners will be either first-come-first-serve, or lottery, or nepotism.
> Simple fix then, ban reselling.
In Norway they introduced a law[1] that forbids reselling for a higher price than that printed on the ticket.
I do recall there was a lot of talk about scalping in the years before this law, and I haven't heard much since. I also noticed a drastic decrease of scalpers trying to sell tickets outside the venue.
[1]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2007-06-29-86
In Norway they introduced a law[1] that forbids reselling for a higher price than that printed on the ticket.
I do recall there was a lot of talk about scalping in the years before this law, and I haven't heard much since. I also noticed a drastic decrease of scalpers trying to sell tickets outside the venue.
[1]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2007-06-29-86
>In Norway they introduced a law[1] that forbids reselling for a higher price than that printed on the ticket.
For sale, desirable ticket at face value and $500 peanut. Only willing to sell as a bundle.
For sale, desirable ticket at face value and $500 peanut. Only willing to sell as a bundle.
Also actual fans sometimes can’t make a show and need to resell their tickets
you have to make tradeoffs. If you want to ban reselling, you ban reselling.
Scalpers locking out fans is a universal concern. How often do you hear the success story of "I can't make the concert so I sold the ticket online". Come on. An industry has propped up. This is small potatoes.
Scalpers locking out fans is a universal concern. How often do you hear the success story of "I can't make the concert so I sold the ticket online". Come on. An industry has propped up. This is small potatoes.
But people buy stuff everyday that they never actually use. Why should tickets be sacred?
Yes, and many people make effort in selling or giving away stuff they know they won't use, whether to get some money back or to reduce the waste in our economy, or both.
Because artists don't want to play to an empty room. Even for a lot of money.
I doubt there would be that many no-shows, demand for tickets far outweighs supply (usually). People who were making causal purchasing choices hitherto may be more cautious as a result, that's all.
Standby tickets at the venue fixes this. Similar to airplane tickets, which can be oversold, standby tickets accommodate those who really need to use a ticketed service.
And how will standby tickets be rationed? By auction? By first-come-first-serve? You still have the same fundamental problem of scarcity.
What is stopping the existence of a refund mechanism there?
Everyone in the entire chain. From artist to venue to promoter/booker to ticket platform. None of them want to refund. Not just for the obvious, but they make a killing selling ticket insurance.
Then scalpers have zero risk if they overbuy, encouraging scalpers even more.
If you restrict refunds to be permissible only until a certain point before the event, that will create a window in which unsuccessfully scalped tickets are released back into the pool for general public, bypassing scalpers. If scalpers choose to hold onto the tickets beyond the point, they wouldn't really be able to liquidate. I'd say that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, with regards to refunds.
Insurance or refund only to buyer fixes this.
That would just return them to the status quo ante where scalpers sell through third parties.
If you tied tickets to names and required ID at the venue (allowing refunds in case you couldn't make it), this wouldn't work and scalping would basically end overnight. The fact that neither Ticketmaster nor the performers nor the venues has ever taken this simple step is the proof that it's not in their interest to do so.
Note that events where the promoters are actually interested in having people show up instead of in scraping for every dollar (e.g. PAX) do this, and it works fine.
Note that events where the promoters are actually interested in having people show up instead of in scraping for every dollar (e.g. PAX) do this, and it works fine.
Yup if you applied for a refund, your ticket(s) could go back in the pool for someone wanting to get one/some last minute.
If it/they are picked up, you get your money back minus transaction fees and perhaps a small penalty, and if it doesn't, you don't - but at least you tried and someone else had a chance to get it.
Ticketmaster obviously doesn't GAF / care.
(The above was for a last few hours or days cancellation type scenario; there could be variations to this where if the event is months out, you could get an instant almost full refund etc - benefits could very well be linked to a premium subscription service perhaps. Lots of ways here to play.)
If it/they are picked up, you get your money back minus transaction fees and perhaps a small penalty, and if it doesn't, you don't - but at least you tried and someone else had a chance to get it.
Ticketmaster obviously doesn't GAF / care.
(The above was for a last few hours or days cancellation type scenario; there could be variations to this where if the event is months out, you could get an instant almost full refund etc - benefits could very well be linked to a premium subscription service perhaps. Lots of ways here to play.)
Or proof that getting in would take much longer if they did that. Anyway, there are legitimate reasons someone might want to resell, like no longer being free on the event date, so I’m not sure even legitimate buyers would prefer such a strict system.
> there are legitimate reasons someone might want to resell, like no longer being free on the event date
Which can also happen with airplane tickets. What makes it ok for an airplane ticket to be strictly tied to an ID, but not for a show?
Which can also happen with airplane tickets. What makes it ok for an airplane ticket to be strictly tied to an ID, but not for a show?
The airline is allowed (in fact, required by law) to use security as a reason to pursue a policy that’s favorable to them. Do you like the experience of going to the airport and wish more things you did were similar?
I've been to a few events that required ID check for entry and it was pretty streamlined.
It seems to work OK as long as there is enough capacity to get everyone in quickly.
Refund with a small charge seems fine to me.
It seems to work OK as long as there is enough capacity to get everyone in quickly.
Refund with a small charge seems fine to me.
I agree, but Devil's advocate, consider
1) when buying for young kids. Minors don't always have ID and are rarely expected to have them in public.
2) when you buy for a group. You may not have everyone's ID on hand at once, and it makes it harder for honest friends to get tickets together. You don't need to sit together at PAX.
1) when buying for young kids. Minors don't always have ID and are rarely expected to have them in public.
2) when you buy for a group. You may not have everyone's ID on hand at once, and it makes it harder for honest friends to get tickets together. You don't need to sit together at PAX.
> 2) when you buy for a group. You may not have everyone's ID on hand at once, and it makes it harder for honest friends to get tickets together. You don't need to sit together at PAX.
Have a day or two window to assign the names to the tickets. Sure it is a small window for scalpers too but not really enough to make it work properly (and you could still force at least one of the tickets to be locked to a name at the moment of sale)
Have a day or two window to assign the names to the tickets. Sure it is a small window for scalpers too but not really enough to make it work properly (and you could still force at least one of the tickets to be locked to a name at the moment of sale)
The way I've seen it done is:
- kids do not need ID because they usually don't have them
- every adult in the group needs to have their name registered at ticket purchase time
- kids do not need ID because they usually don't have them
- every adult in the group needs to have their name registered at ticket purchase time
Thom Yorke did this when I saw him live in Oakland. All tickets had to be picked up at the Will Call counter, showing an ID. Then you could only go into the venue to the ticket check from Will Call (there were temporary barriers guiding the crowd).
On the other hand, I had an extra ticket. I did manage to sell it for face value by organizing the deal just as I approached the pickup counter (someone else knew how to play the game), and we did a quick cash transaction for face value.
On the other hand, I had an extra ticket. I did manage to sell it for face value by organizing the deal just as I approached the pickup counter (someone else knew how to play the game), and we did a quick cash transaction for face value.
> If you tied tickets to names and required ID at the venue
What happens if I want to gift somebody a ticket? What happens if I don't want my name associated in a database for going to a gay artist's show? What happens if my wife is sick on show day so I invite my neighbor instead at the last minute?
Airlines allow gifting credits for flights, do the same for tickets.
Gifter only gets refunds in credits not tickets.
Then on acceptance, the receiver has the credit and only gets refund to them.
Gifter only gets refunds in credits not tickets.
Then on acceptance, the receiver has the credit and only gets refund to them.
If you immutably tied tickets to names, everyone's name would have to be verified to be Mr. Ticket Master, grand scalper.
Doesn't PAX just the badges out? They are readily and frequently resold, online and at the venue.
More effective would be having to show your ID at the venue with no reentry.
"Scalpy McScalper. Looks good to me. Enjoy the show!"
More effective would be having to show your ID at the venue with no reentry.
"Scalpy McScalper. Looks good to me. Enjoy the show!"
Instead of banning resale, why not just allow resale at face value? The French open(tennis) does this and makes it possible to still get tickets at a reasonable price up until the day of the event.
Because you don't handle the money. If A shows up to the concert with tickets originally purchased by B, you have no idea how much A paid.
Banning resale is not about selling per se but banning the changing of ownership. The person who paid is verified to be the one attending.
Banning resale is not about selling per se but banning the changing of ownership. The person who paid is verified to be the one attending.
In Norway it's by law not legal to resell tickets at a higher price. That means that all listings on reputable buy/sell sites will immediately be taken down if you try.
It of course still happens, but in a smaller scale. You can't base a business around it, exactly.
It of course still happens, but in a smaller scale. You can't base a business around it, exactly.
What? In my example, Person B buys the change of ownership from person A at face value...its pretty clear how much they each paid.
Absolutely no resale is just shifting the risk to the consumer, and affecting the 99% of people who want to see a good show. If the agency takes away the profit of resale, while still collecting a small fee on change of ownership, and allows customers to have flexibility in changing circumstances...its a win win win.
Absolutely no resale is just shifting the risk to the consumer, and affecting the 99% of people who want to see a good show. If the agency takes away the profit of resale, while still collecting a small fee on change of ownership, and allows customers to have flexibility in changing circumstances...its a win win win.
> its pretty clear how much they each paid
By what surveillance method is this?
Or you mean there is a locked down trading platform, and only there can tickets be traded? What prevents additional money from changing hands via an off-platform backchannel?
A law could discourage that, like the one in Norway your sibling comment pointed out.
By what surveillance method is this?
Or you mean there is a locked down trading platform, and only there can tickets be traded? What prevents additional money from changing hands via an off-platform backchannel?
A law could discourage that, like the one in Norway your sibling comment pointed out.
In Hungary the best resale platform is TicketSwap and they only allow selling up to 10% or so more than face value, I think that's a good system.
> If a reseller buys the ticket, and then sells it again to the end user, Ticketmaster gets paid twice.
Yeah, but Ticketmaster doesn't own the tickets.
Nor do they decide the fees. Or even keep most of the revenue from the fees. All of that is decided by the promoter, possibly with the artist (if a big enough name) and to some extent the venue.
Yeah, but Ticketmaster doesn't own the tickets.
Nor do they decide the fees. Or even keep most of the revenue from the fees. All of that is decided by the promoter, possibly with the artist (if a big enough name) and to some extent the venue.
Ticketmaster (Live Nation) own the venue.
That's a similar argument to maximizing GDP. If all we care about is that number rather than the quality of transactions happening, then we can't really make useful or accurate conclusions or predictions about the health of an economy.
> If a reseller buys the ticket, and then sells it again to the end user, Ticketmaster gets paid twice.
Definitively not if it happens like this article describes, with what the scalper selling being a ticketmaster account.
Definitively not if it happens like this article describes, with what the scalper selling being a ticketmaster account.
Yep. Ticketmaster makes profit from selling out to scalpers and then double dips on their StubHub and whatever other sites they own too. They also own the venues and dip out of that pool as well.
> Now, if one of the platforms “cracks down” and makes it harder to buy and sell people will prefer another platform.
Huh, they only have to ensure that the price of the resold ticket is reasonable ...
Huh, they only have to ensure that the price of the resold ticket is reasonable ...
Why do the organizations putting on events like these leave so much money on the table? Why don't they just charge the market-clearing price themselves, leaving no room for scalpers to make any profit?
Because, ironically, a show that only rich people can afford to attend will be pretty terrible. Rich people tend not to loudly enjoy the show, so the atmosphere isn't there. This is bad for the rest of the audience and for the performer. It's hard to put 100% in when all you can see is a bunch of people staring solemnly at you.
It happens in football (soccer for my American friends) for clubs like Man Utd (and probably Man City now) where ticket prices are out of reach of working class fans. The visiting fans make a point of trying to out-sing the local support then insulting them for only being there because the club is winning trophies. All football fans know the song "where were you when you were shit!"
It happens in football (soccer for my American friends) for clubs like Man Utd (and probably Man City now) where ticket prices are out of reach of working class fans. The visiting fans make a point of trying to out-sing the local support then insulting them for only being there because the club is winning trophies. All football fans know the song "where were you when you were shit!"
Related article: The reason why Billy Joel refuses to sell front row seats at his concerts
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/reason-why-billy-joel-refuses-s...
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/reason-why-billy-joel-refuses-s...
More detail: he doesn’t sell them, he has his crew go pull excited fans from the regular admission area and bring them to the front, where they’ll be even more excited. He doesn’t leave the front row empty.
> Rich people tend not to loudly enjoy the show, so the atmosphere isn't there
These people were so eloquently described by Manchester United captain Roy Keane, as 'the prawn sandwich brigade'.
These people were so eloquently described by Manchester United captain Roy Keane, as 'the prawn sandwich brigade'.
> Rich people tend not to loudly enjoy the show, so the atmosphere isn't there
Citation needed.
Rich people are the main audience at all organized events of all kinds. Do you think you can take you and your kids to an NFL game if you're poor? The main attendees of Taylor swift? Women in late 20s - mid 30s working corporate jobs.
Citation needed.
Rich people are the main audience at all organized events of all kinds. Do you think you can take you and your kids to an NFL game if you're poor? The main attendees of Taylor swift? Women in late 20s - mid 30s working corporate jobs.
Billy Joel: “I’d look down and see rich people sitting there, I call ’em ‘gold chainers.’ Sitting there puffing on a cigar, ‘entertain me, piano man.’ “They don’t stand up, make noise, [they just] sit there with their bouffant haired girlfriend lookin’ like a big shot. I kinda got sick of that, who the (heck) are these people, where are the real fans?”
Reminds me of John Lennon’s famous cheeky jibe at the Royal Variety Performance:
“For our last number I’d like to ask your help. Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you, if you’ll just rattle your jewellery.”
“For our last number I’d like to ask your help. Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you, if you’ll just rattle your jewellery.”
Says Billy Joel most likely far richer than at least a typical front row seat buyer. Btw while I would consider myself a fan I'm not obsessed with Billy Joel and also he has certainly how do you say 'his issues' (ie addictions and so on).
Also who is to say because they don't act ridiculous or obsessed they aren't 'real' fans. What is a real fan anyway? I hadn't heard there was a universal accepted definition.
Also who is to say because they don't act ridiculous or obsessed they aren't 'real' fans. What is a real fan anyway? I hadn't heard there was a universal accepted definition.
Says Billy Joel most likely far richer than at least a typical front row seat buyer.
I suspect, though, he doesn't sit quietly in the front row of his own concerts, so that's not really relevant to the point he makes.
I suspect, though, he doesn't sit quietly in the front row of his own concerts, so that's not really relevant to the point he makes.
Did you not hear the super bowl team chants played on the speakers? Atmosphere of a snooze fest. That show is way too far in the exclusivity direction to allow any fun at all.
Right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37629176
I can’t speak to the USA sports, I’m specifically talking about English football which is generally quite affordable for most working class people. I’ve bought tickets to games myself.
I can’t speak to the USA sports, I’m specifically talking about English football which is generally quite affordable for most working class people. I’ve bought tickets to games myself.
Unclear how a rich person can even be defined at all. It's a pretty wide swath of differing income levels as well as assets.
Toronto Maple Leafs games too, if you're watching wearing a suit because you're actually using it as a client bribe, then you're not as into the game as you could be.
Why is it that rich people are solemnly staring in general? You'd think they'd be whooping it up on account of being made.
Rich people involved in business or politics have reputation risk and can’t be seen “letting loose”. See the Dean Scream.
Meanwhile, Steve Ballmer:
"Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers!!! Yes!!!"
"Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers!!! Yes!!!"
That's the difference between being almost, but not quite at the top, vs. actually being there. Dean would've fared differently if he won first, and then did his scream.
But either way, both Dean's and Ballmer's examples are marketing stunts, a calculated performance - that's entirely different to rich people honestly letting loose at a concert.
But either way, both Dean's and Ballmer's examples are marketing stunts, a calculated performance - that's entirely different to rich people honestly letting loose at a concert.
Over the years I've heard that Ballmer really is like that quite often.
Notice how he is at Clippers games.
Sure it is part stunt, part performance but it also personality.
Notice how he is at Clippers games.
Sure it is part stunt, part performance but it also personality.
Fair. But I'll still write this off as stuff you can get away with once you're on top, but not while on your way there.
I think tech just works by different rules.
Poorer people who would just stare do not buy tickets. Simple as that. When the price gets very high, you are filtering attendees by who has a lot of money - not by enthusiasm.
If the ticket is cheap for me, I can go even if I don't like the band too much. And with very expensive tickets, many enthusiasts won't pay while rich non-enthusiasts are bigger part of audience.
Meanwhile, if tickets are cheaper but you have to jump hoops to get them, you get enthusiasts.
If the ticket is cheap for me, I can go even if I don't like the band too much. And with very expensive tickets, many enthusiasts won't pay while rich non-enthusiasts are bigger part of audience.
Meanwhile, if tickets are cheaper but you have to jump hoops to get them, you get enthusiasts.
Probably a case of people knowing how to reach their mouth shut climbing hierarchies faster ;)
If you have to ask
You can do dynamic pricing. Have a reasonably strong identifier ticket app that is tied to a device, ip address, voice print id, and phone number. Have people put in bids for the ticket (with a minimum floor price), weigh each bid by some determination of "fan strength", like willingness to travel larger distance to see a show, then select winners based on a bell curve distribution of bids.
For the same reason why artists use Ticketmaster. Do you think they are stupid and just hand over ticket distribution to a company that routinely charges 30$ fees to a 40$ ticket?
No, artists and producers aren't stupid, they get the most of the money from the Ticketmaster "fees". But when a fan sees a 70$ ticket, they'd may decide Bruce Springsteen (net worth 650$ million) isn't a man of the people. When they see a 40$ ticket and a 30$ ticket, fans just swear at Ticketmaster.
I'm confident in a few years we'll read about how scalping enterprises do profit sharing with artists and producers.
No, artists and producers aren't stupid, they get the most of the money from the Ticketmaster "fees". But when a fan sees a 70$ ticket, they'd may decide Bruce Springsteen (net worth 650$ million) isn't a man of the people. When they see a 40$ ticket and a 30$ ticket, fans just swear at Ticketmaster.
I'm confident in a few years we'll read about how scalping enterprises do profit sharing with artists and producers.
This is not how concerts work, and artists and producers don't get any money from Ticketmaster fees. In most cases, a promoter pays an artist a flat fee to perform. The promoter then markets the show and gets the ticket sales, and Ticketmaster gets Ticketmaster fees.
Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster.
Artists hate Ticketmaster too (some have sued them) but if you want to do an arena tour, good luck avoiding them. Artists use them because they don't have a choice. The number of large venues that don't use TM is growing, my local basketball arena uses SeatGeek.
The one concession TM makes is to their fan clubs. Artists get to sell tickets directly to a limited number of fans. If you love an artist, joining their fan club will probably save you the annual fee back in one show.
Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster.
Artists hate Ticketmaster too (some have sued them) but if you want to do an arena tour, good luck avoiding them. Artists use them because they don't have a choice. The number of large venues that don't use TM is growing, my local basketball arena uses SeatGeek.
The one concession TM makes is to their fan clubs. Artists get to sell tickets directly to a limited number of fans. If you love an artist, joining their fan club will probably save you the annual fee back in one show.
Nope Ticketmaster shares fees with its clients, this is from the Ticketmaster help...
-----
The standard tickets sold on Ticketmaster are owned by our clients (venues, sports teams or other event promoters) who determine the number of tickets to be sold and set the face value price.
...
Ticket fees (which can include a service fee, order processing fee and sometimes a delivery fee) are determined in collaboration with our clients. In exchange for the rights to sell their tickets, our clients typically share in a portion of the fees we collect.
...
Service Fee and Order Processing Fee
In almost all cases, Ticketmaster adds a service fee (also known as a convenience charge) to the face value price, or in the case of a resale ticket to the listing price, of each ticket. The service fee varies by event based on our agreement with each individual client.
In addition to the per ticket service fee, an order processing fee is typically charged. Unlike the service charge, which is added to each ticket, the processing fee is charged once for each order. The processing fee offsets the costs of ticket handling, shipping and support and as a result, the processing fee is generally not charged on in-person box office purchases. In some cases, Ticketmaster's order processing costs may be lower than the order processing fee. In those cases, Ticketmaster may earn a profit on the order processing fee.
In both cases, these fees are collected by Ticketmaster and typically shared with our clients.
-----
The standard tickets sold on Ticketmaster are owned by our clients (venues, sports teams or other event promoters) who determine the number of tickets to be sold and set the face value price.
...
Ticket fees (which can include a service fee, order processing fee and sometimes a delivery fee) are determined in collaboration with our clients. In exchange for the rights to sell their tickets, our clients typically share in a portion of the fees we collect.
...
Service Fee and Order Processing Fee
In almost all cases, Ticketmaster adds a service fee (also known as a convenience charge) to the face value price, or in the case of a resale ticket to the listing price, of each ticket. The service fee varies by event based on our agreement with each individual client.
In addition to the per ticket service fee, an order processing fee is typically charged. Unlike the service charge, which is added to each ticket, the processing fee is charged once for each order. The processing fee offsets the costs of ticket handling, shipping and support and as a result, the processing fee is generally not charged on in-person box office purchases. In some cases, Ticketmaster's order processing costs may be lower than the order processing fee. In those cases, Ticketmaster may earn a profit on the order processing fee.
In both cases, these fees are collected by Ticketmaster and typically shared with our clients.
Right, their clients aren’t artists. They’re the venues or promoters who signed with them, and the promoter is usually LiveNation, who owns them. Sometimes the venue is too.
That’s exactly what I said. They pay for exclusive ticket sales. They’re just defining “client” as who they pay and notice they do not say artist, which they surely would if they ever did.
That’s exactly what I said. They pay for exclusive ticket sales. They’re just defining “client” as who they pay and notice they do not say artist, which they surely would if they ever did.
Aren't sports teams 'artists'?
No, but they are often venue owners, as I mentioned. That’s why TM pays them.
> Unfortunately Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, and they are far and away the biggest promoter. They sign exclusive rights with large venues. My local 25,000 seat amphitheater has a deal with LiveNation. I can only get tickets to shows there through Ticketmaster.
So mostly what GP said. This is not an accident, and everyone is in on it.
So mostly what GP said. This is not an accident, and everyone is in on it.
I don't think it's the same at all - the crucial point of difference is whether artists deserve to get blamed for this situation. Various people in the thread have claimed that they do, that they're receiving kickbacks from scalping or a portion of Ticketmaster fees on resales, but your parent comment claims that this is not the case and misrepresents the ticket sale structure.
I think that's a critical difference, because if the current situation is actually a big reputation laundering scam by artists, there's not much we can do about it without regulation. If it's not, if in fact most artists are as unhappy about the situation as their fans, there's quite a lot they can do about it and should be encouraged to do so even if it makes getting a ticket significantly harder (e.g. showing ID for purchased tickets at the venue and only allowing 1:1 refunds, not resales of tickets).
Of course, if producers are receiving a significant portion of earnings on resales, some of that does "trickle down" to artists in the form of higher performing fees on the basis of anticipated resales. But that's a small fraction of added value for most artists, and it's coming at a level of indirection that means ticket sellers are incentivized to raise fees to their highest possible levels after artists get paid, because that's pure profit for them. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that artists aren't happy about this payment structure, even if they do see slightly higher show income as a result, and want a range of fans to be able to attend their shows.
I think that's a critical difference, because if the current situation is actually a big reputation laundering scam by artists, there's not much we can do about it without regulation. If it's not, if in fact most artists are as unhappy about the situation as their fans, there's quite a lot they can do about it and should be encouraged to do so even if it makes getting a ticket significantly harder (e.g. showing ID for purchased tickets at the venue and only allowing 1:1 refunds, not resales of tickets).
Of course, if producers are receiving a significant portion of earnings on resales, some of that does "trickle down" to artists in the form of higher performing fees on the basis of anticipated resales. But that's a small fraction of added value for most artists, and it's coming at a level of indirection that means ticket sellers are incentivized to raise fees to their highest possible levels after artists get paid, because that's pure profit for them. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that artists aren't happy about this payment structure, even if they do see slightly higher show income as a result, and want a range of fans to be able to attend their shows.
I understood there is no difference between what the comment I replied to is describing and what its parent is, because of the (brought by others elsewhere in the thread) fungibility of money. Whether the artists get their cut directly, or just enjoy cheaper venues because Ticketmaster happens to be owned by the same party that owns the venue, that's literally the same benefit - just instead of being paid directly, the artists get their expenses covered. That's my understanding of what's going on with plenty of those deals.
Artists don’t pay for venues, promoters do, so they’re not cheaper, but your point that Ticketmaster has more revenue (and thus more to pay the artist) so they may get paid more indirectly is valid. But also, Ticketmaster has a monopsony. Or nearly so. One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues.
The only things I’m sure of are that A. consumers would benefit if there was an actual market and B. It is hard to imagine one happening without government intervention.
The only things I’m sure of are that A. consumers would benefit if there was an actual market and B. It is hard to imagine one happening without government intervention.
> One might argue (and many artists have ) that the artists would get paid more if there were a market for their tour rather than one company owning the vast majority of large venues.
I think that's where the "reputation laundering" angle comes into play. With its unique position, Ticketmaster gives artists plausible deniability. "Nothing we can do about it", "evils of capitalism", "a monopolist captured the market, government doing nothing", etc. - say artists, for whom the image they project is a core part of their market value. With a properly functioning competitive market, those same artists would have to either get much less, or answer some inconvenient question about ticket pricing.
I think that's where the "reputation laundering" angle comes into play. With its unique position, Ticketmaster gives artists plausible deniability. "Nothing we can do about it", "evils of capitalism", "a monopolist captured the market, government doing nothing", etc. - say artists, for whom the image they project is a core part of their market value. With a properly functioning competitive market, those same artists would have to either get much less, or answer some inconvenient question about ticket pricing.
Yes that’s true but also, one may argue, as Pearl Jam did in court, that Ticketmaster has a monopoly on ticket sales and this hurts Artist revenues. Artists would get more from those fees if they could negotiate with multiple different ticket sellers. And that was before TM merged with Live Nation which is also now the exclusive promoter at most of the biggest venues in the world, and by most, I mean over 2/3.
It’s a monopsony.
The only real winners are Ticketmaster live nation
It’s a monopsony.
The only real winners are Ticketmaster live nation
Definitely not an accident, no.
Ticketmaster is mostly in the business of being the company that everyone hates so the artists can pretend to be helpless and of the people.
No. LiveNation is mostly in the business of signing deals with large venues to be the exclusive promoter of shows, and Ticketmaster thus is their exclusive ticket seller. Ticketmaster also sign deals with other promoters to be their exclusive ticket outlet, so even in instances where LiveNation isn't the promoter, you may have to deal with TM.
Just like the job of every sports league president isn’t to keep the fans (or the players) happy. It’s to distract anger from the team owners.
Artists do not get most of the money from Ticketmaster fees.
Yes, most go to the venue, which the artist/producer would have had to pay for (from the ticket price) otherwise. Because money is fungible it doesn't really matter if they pay the artist, or if they pay for the artist's expenses.
What matters is how much fees they charge and how much do they keep. Can't find it right now, but I remember an article claiming they rarely keep 50% of their fees.
What matters is how much fees they charge and how much do they keep. Can't find it right now, but I remember an article claiming they rarely keep 50% of their fees.
Generally there's a promoter in the middle. They sign the artist and then have a deal signed with their ticketing partner. They'll then sign contracts with venues for the given tour. The contracts between promoters and ticketing agencies vary a lot depending on the country but that's how it often works in the states.
The "face value" (base price) will usually be determined between the artist and promoter, the venue will apply a fairly generic fee on top, as will the ticketing provider.
How much of the face value goes to the artist will depend on their leverage in the contract with their promoter. This is usually best improved by the confidence that the venue will sell out, meaning artists with bigger audience and social media presence will usually get the best terms.
I don't have a paper or article I can link to as a source, but I have experience in the industry.
The "face value" (base price) will usually be determined between the artist and promoter, the venue will apply a fairly generic fee on top, as will the ticketing provider.
How much of the face value goes to the artist will depend on their leverage in the contract with their promoter. This is usually best improved by the confidence that the venue will sell out, meaning artists with bigger audience and social media presence will usually get the best terms.
I don't have a paper or article I can link to as a source, but I have experience in the industry.
I don't have a source but I've read the same thing; that a lot of what ticket master takes in is getting bounced around. It's a view I find very plausible intuitively. The artists (esp. the "name" artists) have all or nearly all of the leverage - whatever the ticket costs above what you'd paid if you bought at the gate is money they're leaving on the table.
It’s not just Ticketmaster.
Many “event platforms” allow you to add fees that cover the credit card percentage, but if they’re higher you just get to keep the extra.
Many “event platforms” allow you to add fees that cover the credit card percentage, but if they’re higher you just get to keep the extra.
[deleted]
That's not at all how concert economics work, I just wrote a long comment explaining.
I was thinking about this recently, and came up with two possible reasons:
1. The enjoyment of attendees can be partly dependent on the enthusiasm of other attendees. Consider the extremes: an audience entirely comprised of people who hardly know the artist, but can afford it Vs an audience comprised of only die-hard fans, irrespective of their ability to afford a ticket. The first has a flat atmosphere, the second, a special one.
2. A simple desire by the artist to make their show available to a cross-section of society (this could be viewed as altruistic, since most other products/services don't usually offer the same thing at a lower price just to help those who can't afford it).
A possible solution to problem 1: If the goal is to ensure that only die-hard fans get the tickets, why not use their spotify/apple music/other histories to work out who's really a fan of that artist? It should be trivial to get a very high degree of accuracy, and would be costly for scalpers to imitate (they'd need a subscription and to listen to random music years in advance).
1. The enjoyment of attendees can be partly dependent on the enthusiasm of other attendees. Consider the extremes: an audience entirely comprised of people who hardly know the artist, but can afford it Vs an audience comprised of only die-hard fans, irrespective of their ability to afford a ticket. The first has a flat atmosphere, the second, a special one.
2. A simple desire by the artist to make their show available to a cross-section of society (this could be viewed as altruistic, since most other products/services don't usually offer the same thing at a lower price just to help those who can't afford it).
A possible solution to problem 1: If the goal is to ensure that only die-hard fans get the tickets, why not use their spotify/apple music/other histories to work out who's really a fan of that artist? It should be trivial to get a very high degree of accuracy, and would be costly for scalpers to imitate (they'd need a subscription and to listen to random music years in advance).
Guess if you don't use a streaming music service you're SOL seeing an artist you look. This is such a Hacker News suggestion.
Also I suspect that it would be trivially easy to script your client to open up spotify and play a never ending stream of Taylor Swift, dumping the audio to /dev/null, and to have multiple tabs playing other popular artists using other accounts, so that at least one account always looked like a superfan.
Alas, every metric that isn’t “paying more money” can be horrendously gamed and corrupted. This is why despite all its flaws, the “price signal” is still the tried and true “least bad way to allocate scarce resources” for most cases.
> This is such a Hacker News suggestion.
Also the fact that it's assumed that everyone attending wants to sit in the audience and go crazy and MAKE SOME NOISE. It can and is annoying to many people.
One other thing is artist may want an active crowd for their own benefit ie they are making a video live recording for further sale or to post to youtube whatever. (Point is good for artist but not for many all of those attending).
Also the fact that it's assumed that everyone attending wants to sit in the audience and go crazy and MAKE SOME NOISE. It can and is annoying to many people.
One other thing is artist may want an active crowd for their own benefit ie they are making a video live recording for further sale or to post to youtube whatever. (Point is good for artist but not for many all of those attending).
It’s really disturbing to pass a value judgement about what kind of fans are more desirable than others, and social-engineering it into the pricing structure.
> The enjoyment of attendees can be partly dependent on the enthusiasm of other attendees. Consider the extremes: an audience entirely comprised of people who hardly know the artist, but can afford it Vs an audience comprised of only die-hard fans, irrespective of their ability to afford a ticket. The first has a flat atmosphere, the second, a special one.
Higher ticket prices would lead to more diehard fans
> A simple desire by the artist to make their show available to a cross-section of society
But if scalping is a problem then making tickets cheap doesn’t accomplish this.
In total, this seems to point towards raising initial prices with negative consequence.
Higher ticket prices would lead to more diehard fans
> A simple desire by the artist to make their show available to a cross-section of society
But if scalping is a problem then making tickets cheap doesn’t accomplish this.
In total, this seems to point towards raising initial prices with negative consequence.
> Higher ticket prices would lead to more diehard fans
no? personal utility doesn't work that way in the real world... We have such drastic inequality that $200 is literally impossible for a huge fraction of the population wheras to some people its an afterthought to spend for a laugh. You can literally notice it in a venue when ticket prices are higher, the atmosphere is different, the clothing is different, the energy of the dancing, the singing
profile of somebody with money to spend: 40+, knowledge worker, drained of energy, has a lot of things going on in life
profile of the kind of fan that makes your show trendy: <30, sporadic employment, excess energy, impulsive, carefree
no? personal utility doesn't work that way in the real world... We have such drastic inequality that $200 is literally impossible for a huge fraction of the population wheras to some people its an afterthought to spend for a laugh. You can literally notice it in a venue when ticket prices are higher, the atmosphere is different, the clothing is different, the energy of the dancing, the singing
profile of somebody with money to spend: 40+, knowledge worker, drained of energy, has a lot of things going on in life
profile of the kind of fan that makes your show trendy: <30, sporadic employment, excess energy, impulsive, carefree
Then the view of greed falls on the organization and the artists instead of on scalpers.
It also is up in the air of the market value is really what people are paying or if it’s being inflated by scalpers. Some people will pay it but I don’t think it’s an accurate view of what the price should be in that situation.
But we saw exactly this with the recent Lorcana release. Local game stores acted like scalpers charging scalper prices, it is hurting the perception of the game of what normal prices are.
It also is up in the air of the market value is really what people are paying or if it’s being inflated by scalpers. Some people will pay it but I don’t think it’s an accurate view of what the price should be in that situation.
But we saw exactly this with the recent Lorcana release. Local game stores acted like scalpers charging scalper prices, it is hurting the perception of the game of what normal prices are.
The scalpers can only charge what people buy it for though. So whatever the scalpers are paying are what the people are willing to pay on average. (This assumes there are any successful scalpers and it’s not just a continuously losing game)
> can only charge what people buy it for though
This can't make sense. Then where is the profit for the scalper coming from?
Its also a bit untrue. Its true that yes, people _will_ pay it, but did they need to get that high? Scalpers are like auction bots - not always going to win, but will raise the prices for those who would have bought at an otherwise lower value.
This can't make sense. Then where is the profit for the scalper coming from?
Its also a bit untrue. Its true that yes, people _will_ pay it, but did they need to get that high? Scalpers are like auction bots - not always going to win, but will raise the prices for those who would have bought at an otherwise lower value.
You do understand that scalpers are trying to make money right? That means whatever they pay the venue is less than what they can sell it for. So whatever scalpers pay is still clearly less than what people are actually willing to pay.
Agreed. With the recent Taylor Swift fiasco, if she charged $2k a ticket, she would be viewed as some nightmare of capitalism. Instead, she gets to hide under the guise of ticketmaster since she sold tickets at a lower dollar cost only to be resold at a market clearing price. I have anecdata to say some people won the initial lottery and paid a few hundred for floor seats when the large majority needed to pay the market clearing price on the secondary market. I'd posit this is the real purpose of ticketmaster's monopoly: In exchange for their exclusivity agreements with large venues and artists, thus filling stadiums and providing kick backs, they allow themselves to become the target of venom from the larger market instead of the artists themselves.
>It also is up in the air of the market value is really what people are paying or if it’s being inflated by scalpers
Then use some form of a Dutch auction to sell them.
Then use some form of a Dutch auction to sell them.
When you consider how fashion- and trend-driven music is the optics of tickets getting slashed in price because they haven’t sold for a month are terrible.
Have you seen how the dutch flower auctions do it?
Those guys have something like 30 seconds max to hit their mark.
Now those are professional buyers. I think for your amateur crowd you would have to provide a bit more time. perhaps a week. just make it clear what is happening.
And that big clock, have you seen the big clock? if I ever made a dutch auction ticket site A big clock would feature predominantly in the ui. Unfortunately I don't think the flower auctions use the big clock anymore. which is a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdmzyKagvE (tom scott)
Those guys have something like 30 seconds max to hit their mark.
Now those are professional buyers. I think for your amateur crowd you would have to provide a bit more time. perhaps a week. just make it clear what is happening.
And that big clock, have you seen the big clock? if I ever made a dutch auction ticket site A big clock would feature predominantly in the ui. Unfortunately I don't think the flower auctions use the big clock anymore. which is a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdmzyKagvE (tom scott)
You could have it go from $10k to $50 over a single weekend. It's not bad optics if you don't sell out a venue at $10k per ticket.
Having to slash the prices so drastically is also embarrassing and doesn't build hype the way the tickets being instantly sold out everywhere does.
There is nothing embarrassing about a Dutch auction. What's the point of generating hype by selling out tickets? All of the tickets get sold out either way, it's just that now more fans end up with tickets instead of scalpers.
The next location or tour people are highly incentivized to snap up the tickets as soon as possible rather than waiting. This can't be the first you've heard of such a strategy.
[deleted]
If it sells out either way, then you will want to buy it before it sells out in both scenarios. It's just in the action scenario you can be sure you will get a ticket.
Buyers do not behave rationally. Without the induced sense of urgency some portion of buyers are going to think better of the purchase. So there is a risk it will not sell out either way.
Dutch auction + no reselling, or only reselling at the exact price bought or lower. Otherwise scalpers just buy them all as soon as they’re released, and now they do whatever kind of auction they want, with the (previously) max price as the floor.
>Otherwise scalpers just buy them all as soon as they’re released
Scalpers would end up holding the bag if they did that. If no one is willing to pay $10k for a ticket, but then scalpers buy every ticket for $10k each they aren't going to me able to find anyone to resell the tickets to and will end up losing money.
Anyone can protect themselves from being scalped by just participating in the auction.
Scalpers would end up holding the bag if they did that. If no one is willing to pay $10k for a ticket, but then scalpers buy every ticket for $10k each they aren't going to me able to find anyone to resell the tickets to and will end up losing money.
Anyone can protect themselves from being scalped by just participating in the auction.
How much "view of greed" has fallen on airline companies for fluctuating the price of their seats based on demand?
Sure thing it makes buying air tickets a lot more stressful, but we do get low cost trips if we plan ahead, or a much-needed last time seat if we can afford it.
Sure thing it makes buying air tickets a lot more stressful, but we do get low cost trips if we plan ahead, or a much-needed last time seat if we can afford it.
Artists generally want to have a diverse crowd in terms of disposable income, they don't want to have a crowd of just the people who can/will pay the most.
Every action directed at making tickets more affordable will have the opposite effect of making scalping more profitable. Im amazed that a reverse auction style approach hasn’t caught on, when you are capacity limited it seems nearly optimal for extracting profit and kills the ticket scalping business model.
>it seems nearly optimal for extracting profit and kills the ticket scalping business model.
Also seems nearly optimal for alienating all but your richest fans. The extra profit you might extract from the concert might not actually put you ahead in the long term when fans stop caring about you because of your profit maximizing business practices.
Also seems nearly optimal for alienating all but your richest fans. The extra profit you might extract from the concert might not actually put you ahead in the long term when fans stop caring about you because of your profit maximizing business practices.
What good is that when the scalpers and not your fans are the ones to benefit? All you're doing is screwing your fans even more because now they have to risk getting ripped off by a scam since tickets are only available from shady third party jerks.
If demand is so high that people can't afford tickets and you want to do something for the fans, put the game in a bigger stadium.
If demand is so high that people can't afford tickets and you want to do something for the fans, put the game in a bigger stadium.
> It has been long known among industry figures that artists regularly move tickets through backdoor channels to directly profit from resale marketplaces while shunting blame to “scalpers” when fans are unable to get tickets at face value. Ed Sheeran’s management admitted the practice itself just last year, while rumors have swirled about other big names doing the same via their own held-back tickets that fans never have a shot at. The same regularly happens with professional sports teams.
> Barry Kahn, of Texas-based dynamic ticket pricing consultancy Qcue, doesn’t believe artists should be judged for using tactics including scalping their own tickets (or it’s newer twin, “Platinum” and dynamic pricing to demand). “The issue is the transparency,” he told Billboard. “If they get caught doing something they have said is wrong, then they are deceiving their fans.”
> In this specific instance, Billboard says that Metallica’s management moved up to 4,400 tickets per show over 20 concerts on the tour through intermediaries, masking the process by packaging the tickets as if they were held back for a sponsor.
- https://www.ticketnews.com/2019/07/live-nation-admits-artist...
Take it worth a grain of salt, I have no idea how true it is but it's at least a plausible explanation as to why artists may not want scalpers eliminated.
> Barry Kahn, of Texas-based dynamic ticket pricing consultancy Qcue, doesn’t believe artists should be judged for using tactics including scalping their own tickets (or it’s newer twin, “Platinum” and dynamic pricing to demand). “The issue is the transparency,” he told Billboard. “If they get caught doing something they have said is wrong, then they are deceiving their fans.”
> In this specific instance, Billboard says that Metallica’s management moved up to 4,400 tickets per show over 20 concerts on the tour through intermediaries, masking the process by packaging the tickets as if they were held back for a sponsor.
- https://www.ticketnews.com/2019/07/live-nation-admits-artist...
Take it worth a grain of salt, I have no idea how true it is but it's at least a plausible explanation as to why artists may not want scalpers eliminated.
Because it is the scalpers charging that price and not the artist so people get angry at the scalpers and not the artist.
So hire some designated middleman to wear a villain mustache and claim to be taking a huge cut on paper while actually giving all of the money back to the artist under NDA.
This has to be what TicketMaster is doing, right?
The theory seems to be that they give the money to the venue instead of the artist, which causes the artist to not have to pay for the venue. Which is totally different, as you can imagine.
Indeed. And don't let the discontent and trouble-makers confuse you with smart-sounding phrases, like "money is fungible".
As opposed to alienating fans who don't know how to use bots, or fans who don't have the time to buy tickets the moment they drop, or fans who are unlucky.
Not every action.
Some festivals avoid it by requiring ID to be linked to the ticket and banning resale (though they may allow refund).
It’s funny, but “extracting maximum profit” isn’t the only motivation some people have in life. Especially when it comes to cultural events.
Some festivals avoid it by requiring ID to be linked to the ticket and banning resale (though they may allow refund).
It’s funny, but “extracting maximum profit” isn’t the only motivation some people have in life. Especially when it comes to cultural events.
> It’s funny, but “extracting maximum profit” isn’t the only motivation some people have in life.
[citation needed]
More seriously though, it's true that people - arguably most people - have other motivations than purely materialistic ones. But, like every market, cultural events are a dynamic system. It follows a trajectory over time.
Slightly more greedy people have better outcomes than slightly less greedy ones. The least successful get filtered out. Iterate that over time. What results do you expect?
And yes, this is a general argument of why the market first makes things better, then makes them all go to shit. And it is confirmed by real world. Exceptions involve some factors that counteract the dynamics described above. Do you see such factors at play in entertainment event industry? I don't.
[citation needed]
More seriously though, it's true that people - arguably most people - have other motivations than purely materialistic ones. But, like every market, cultural events are a dynamic system. It follows a trajectory over time.
Slightly more greedy people have better outcomes than slightly less greedy ones. The least successful get filtered out. Iterate that over time. What results do you expect?
And yes, this is a general argument of why the market first makes things better, then makes them all go to shit. And it is confirmed by real world. Exceptions involve some factors that counteract the dynamics described above. Do you see such factors at play in entertainment event industry? I don't.
> Slightly more greedy people have better outcomes than slightly less greedy ones. The least successful get filtered out. Iterate that over time. What results do you expect?
Define "better outcomes" and "Least successful".
The most coveted and arguable most successful music festival in the UK, Glastonbury, operates in the way I described. A variety of other festivals in the UK do too, often due to the politics of the organisers (see, for example, Beautiful Days)
> Do you see such factors at play in entertainment event industry?
Yep, where people make it happen I see them at play and working well to create systems that both the organisers and the public want, and which lock out the third-party profiteers. It would be nice to see such things become more widespread. Though I agree we are less likely to see that where 'the industry' is in control, rather than artists or passionate individuals.
Define "better outcomes" and "Least successful".
The most coveted and arguable most successful music festival in the UK, Glastonbury, operates in the way I described. A variety of other festivals in the UK do too, often due to the politics of the organisers (see, for example, Beautiful Days)
> Do you see such factors at play in entertainment event industry?
Yep, where people make it happen I see them at play and working well to create systems that both the organisers and the public want, and which lock out the third-party profiteers. It would be nice to see such things become more widespread. Though I agree we are less likely to see that where 'the industry' is in control, rather than artists or passionate individuals.
Triple the ticket price but give half away by lottery. Although, I guess scalpers ruin lotteries as well :(
The article itself mentions how scalpers just register hundreds or thousands of accounts to dramatically increase their odds at winning fan lotteries.
Do fan-club registration in person.
Run it like an airline, where your name is on the ticket and you don't get in unless it matches your ID. Either that or your ID is the ticket. Just bloop that big barcode on the back of your ID with your phone when you buy the admission, then let the guy bloop it again at the door when you go to the show. That would make some scenarios harder, like the trope about your boss handing you two extra tickets she can't use, but there's probably some way to bloop around that without giving the scalpers unfettered bloops.
The downsides for ID-verified entry are shared with ID-required voting.
Namely, if you are aware of intergroup variability in ID-having rates, is choosing it anyways a conscious discriminatory choice?
Namely, if you are aware of intergroup variability in ID-having rates, is choosing it anyways a conscious discriminatory choice?
1/ attending a concert is not a civil right
2/ can't emphasize enough, but _get an ID_. While ID posession was used to discriminate against groups of people, the real problem here is "why doesn't everyone have an ID"?
Right, but I didn't say that attending a concert is a civil right. I also didn't say what the real problem was.
What I brought up was, knowing this, is still using ID discriminatory?
What I brought up was, knowing this, is still using ID discriminatory?
Is it? In the US, I'm not aware of any way someone can legally drive, be employed, have a bank account, or get a cell phone without having an ID. At the same time, as long as you were registered at birth, getting an ID from scratch is a little bit of legwork and probably less than $100, and that's probably subsidized if you don't have income. The number of people walking around without an ID and no way to get one has to be vanishingly small. I'm sure there's a certain fringe of people who are undocumented, on the run from the law, or otherwise encumbered in their ability to get one, but how far should we bend over to get a ticket fee from those people?
Edit: Dang it, the best answers always come after I close my laptop. "It would be discriminatory if the government didn't provide people a way to get ID. As a business owner, that's beyond the scope of my responsibility. Same as if someone showed up without $5 and wanted to buy a sandwich." ...is another way to look at it.
Edit: Dang it, the best answers always come after I close my laptop. "It would be discriminatory if the government didn't provide people a way to get ID. As a business owner, that's beyond the scope of my responsibility. Same as if someone showed up without $5 and wanted to buy a sandwich." ...is another way to look at it.
Who knows, if voting doesn’t motivate them, but concerts do, maybe it will cause more people to get IDs. Isn’t that a good thing?
Then they just pay homeless people to register. Whatever clever you can come up with, they will figure out a way around it.
They're going to pay thousands of homeless people to register for the fan clubs of how many artists? Nevermind the logistics of the hiring, the payment alone eats into the margin.
When you're rich, you can do that. Being rich, by definition, means having more options available to you.
That's really what money is - a transferable token to persuade other people to do stuff on your behalf.
That's really what money is - a transferable token to persuade other people to do stuff on your behalf.
If the scalpers pay homeless people 10% of their profits rather than taking 100% then that's still better than the current situation.
This gets more complicated as they may go after gig economy workers first. They're a perfect target: the scalper's deal would have better reward/effort ratio than Uber, DoorDash, Deliveroo, et al.; gig workers look "normal" in ways homeless don't, and are desperate for cash to keep them from becoming homeless.
At that point, would scalper's contribution be net positive? Net better than it was? I'm not sure how to answer that.
At that point, would scalper's contribution be net positive? Net better than it was? I'm not sure how to answer that.
Thats ok as long as those homeless will show up with a ticked and ID at the gate to enter the concert.
I don’t think the artist has much say in the matter at that scale
Touring artist’s absolutely have a say in their ticket prices, after all it directly correlates to how much they will be paid. Once tickets are handed over to promoters and distributors then it becomes out of their control.
Festival appearance rates are agreed on in advance of ticket sales, so tickets prices are the responsibility of festival organisers.
Festival appearance rates are agreed on in advance of ticket sales, so tickets prices are the responsibility of festival organisers.
They might be doing that already by acting as scalpers. I don't see why the solution isn't simply what airlines are doing where you register a ticket to a name and it's non-transferable.
Well, one reason is that it would let venues in for a lot more work to properly check everyone's ID. At an airport, Homeland Security pays for that part
Both venues and airlines normally segment the market by how good a seat you get.
Both venues and airlines normally segment the market by how good a seat you get.
A lot of venues already check a id’s at the entrance for alcohol sales, and that doesn’t seem to hold up the line, especially with modern machine readable id’s. No reason why that couldn’t be applied to name checks too.
At Hamilton shows, ticketmaster used the payment card as the ticket, you simply swipe the card used to buy the tickets at the entrance and it pulls it from that data. Seems like a fair compromise, assuming it’s actually secure.
And kills the ability to give someone tickets as a gift?
The flying public pays Homeland Security / the TSA a $5.60 fee to check ID and perform screening.
The cost to the concert going public of ID verification would probably be a lot lower than the costs scalping imposes. And the concert venues could certainly capture more than $5 per concert goer by raising prices closer to what the typical person actually pays.
The cost to the concert going public of ID verification would probably be a lot lower than the costs scalping imposes. And the concert venues could certainly capture more than $5 per concert goer by raising prices closer to what the typical person actually pays.
Not with digital ticketing. No ID is necessary. It is a rotating code so you can't just ship someone a screenshot. You have to have the Ticketmaster app, logged into your account. Unless scalpers want to start giving away their entire Ticketmaster accounts, it would stop it easily.
They already sell accounts along with tickets.
Yes, because TM isn't trying to stop them. It'd be fairly easy. Hell, make you use Apple Wallet or Google Pay. Then you'd have to sell the phone too.
Ticket revenue is just one source for the artist who is betting they make more from the lifetime value of a fan buying their brand (merch and historically listening to their music, but I don’t know if streaming changed those numbers). It’s like a giant advertisement for their brand - early on in a band’s life, it can even be a loss leader after all the crew is paid.
A key part of that concert experience is other people’s excitement too. For one extreme, a Grateful Dead show was basically a mini festival with one act. The crowd before, after and during is an integral part of the experience. Empty seats don’t tell others about the event or participate with the other ticket holders, degrading the value for artists and many concert-goers.
So, a Dead show that sells just a few hundred many-many-thousand-dollar tickets might sit on a maximum supply / demand curve for the venue or scalpers just looking at ticket revenue, but could destroy much of the value of the event for the band and it’s everyday fans who want the event experience and want it for as many people as possible.
A key part of that concert experience is other people’s excitement too. For one extreme, a Grateful Dead show was basically a mini festival with one act. The crowd before, after and during is an integral part of the experience. Empty seats don’t tell others about the event or participate with the other ticket holders, degrading the value for artists and many concert-goers.
So, a Dead show that sells just a few hundred many-many-thousand-dollar tickets might sit on a maximum supply / demand curve for the venue or scalpers just looking at ticket revenue, but could destroy much of the value of the event for the band and it’s everyday fans who want the event experience and want it for as many people as possible.
Because while the point is to make money, the point is not to maximize the earnings for tours. Instead, it's to make enough to make it worthwhile, while giving fans "what they want". Artists care about doing fun/good/cool stuff!
This is similar to stuff like auctions to have dinners with certain successful people. Those people have many dinners where they don't ask for a bunch of money from the participant, because then they would only have boring dinners!
This is similar to stuff like auctions to have dinners with certain successful people. Those people have many dinners where they don't ask for a bunch of money from the participant, because then they would only have boring dinners!
The cynical side of me says that they do this to minimize what they have to pay the band for touring - some dodge where perhaps they only pay the band based on what the face value of the tickets are.
From a cynical marketing standpoint, the perceived composition of the audience is part of the product. The same is true, oddly enough, for universities. Whom you're sitting next to matters, or whom others think you're sitting next to.
Great point. Harvard could charge $500K per year and easily fill out their classes, but they never will because their value proposition epends on being perceived as the smartest, not the richest.
> Harvard could charge $500K per year
They do, they just price discriminate.
They do, they just price discriminate.
Because people will pay huge amount more regardless.
Kind of like how when the 4090 released and was being instantly scalped at every website it popped up on then resold for double to triple retail, and yet thousands of redditors were magically “just stumbling on to one totally randomly, oh and my 2050 also sold for $1200!!”
Kind of like how when the 4090 released and was being instantly scalped at every website it popped up on then resold for double to triple retail, and yet thousands of redditors were magically “just stumbling on to one totally randomly, oh and my 2050 also sold for $1200!!”
Because the majority of the fans wouldn't be able to afford to go.
This damages the act's fan base, which in turn negatively affects future revenues via streaming, merchandise, co-branding, and future ticket sales.
This damages the act's fan base, which in turn negatively affects future revenues via streaming, merchandise, co-branding, and future ticket sales.
The logic doesn't quite work because the same number of people would get to go in either scenario
Same number but not same the community, since this pushes out anyone who can't afford it. Artists are usually not MBA types trying to minmax profit and want to appeal to more than just the privileged Coachella crowd.
The artists may not be MBA types but their managers are. If the artists really cared they could do like Garth Brooks (?) and book repeated nights in one venue until the shows no longer sell out.
(I may be wrong about the artist but recall reading about at least one act that toured like this).
(I may be wrong about the artist but recall reading about at least one act that toured like this).
If you want to see what it looks like to be a musician whose fanbase is all rich people, look no further than your local symphony orchestra.
Which, honestly, is a much more pleasant experience than going to the concerts under discussion. I don't enjoy the music as much, but I also don't have to jump through hoops, compete with scalpers, or put up with the rank smell of weed hanging over the concert venue.
Weed smell is awful. That's the worst part about decriminalization. I can't wait for society to treat burned weed with the same shame and looks of distaste as they do with burned tobacco.
I smell it everywhere now. It makes me furious when I'm in a public park with my kids and clouds of nasty smoke are wafting around.
I smell it everywhere now. It makes me furious when I'm in a public park with my kids and clouds of nasty smoke are wafting around.
Yeah. I've always been all for legalizing weed. Hell, I've been for legalizing all drugs because I don't think the government should police what adults put into their bodies. But the ridiculously thoughtless behavior of people smoking weed in my state (CO) has really made me question those positions. In theory we should trust adults to make their own choices, but in practice it seems that enough people are antisocial assholes that maybe we shouldn't trust. I am sick and damn tired of being unable to even go run errands sometimes without having to put up with the smell of weed. Which is awful, like you said - I have no idea how anyone can stand to smoke the stuff.
I don't know if artists negotiate ranges on ticket prices. But I assume most would want to make an acceptable amount of money and allow most of their fans to afford tickets, not just the rich ones.
Most of their fans aren't going to the show at all. Demand far outstrips supply.
In effect the number of less wealthy fans who can get into a show is a lottery. Ideally you would do just that, lottery off some tickets at affordable rates and sell the rest at market rate.
But the market has adjusted to that too and re-sellers dominate such lotteries. If you offer the opportunity for arbitrage, the market will take advantage of that opportunity.
So just sell at market rate, cut out the re-sellers entirely.
In effect the number of less wealthy fans who can get into a show is a lottery. Ideally you would do just that, lottery off some tickets at affordable rates and sell the rest at market rate.
But the market has adjusted to that too and re-sellers dominate such lotteries. If you offer the opportunity for arbitrage, the market will take advantage of that opportunity.
So just sell at market rate, cut out the re-sellers entirely.
It’s a perfect case for market segmentation - cheaper “less desirable” tickets that are NOT transferable (eg., tied to ID somehow, I could see them being cryptographically tied to a Apple Pay account, for example) and more expensive transferable tickets designed to soak the rich.
Because the premium customers only listen to popular artists and the artist needs fremium fodder to make the artist popular.
They get the service fees for the original sale, and any subsequent ridiculously priced resale made on the platform
Rolex has the exact same problem.
Rolex actively engineers this situation, though
Apparently so do artists and Ticketmaster.
This seems to be a general rule: if some problem is annoying to people with money and clout, and it persists for long, then perhaps it's not actually a problem for those people, but rather a money maker they perpetuate.
This seems to be a general rule: if some problem is annoying to people with money and clout, and it persists for long, then perhaps it's not actually a problem for those people, but rather a money maker they perpetuate.
Not every event is Taylor Swift and prices are dynamic.
Great example: I bought a bunch of tickets to take my little league to a Mets game, which turned out to be the game where David Wright retired. I sold the leftover tickets, which I purchased for between $12 and $30, for a minimum of $350. We built a batting cage with the proceeds.
On the other side, whenever I’m in the city for a few days, I’ll try to score a cheap premium ticket from a season ticket holder who can’t make the game - and frequently do.
IMO the biggest issue with tickets is that it’s 2023 and we live in a pseudo libertarian business climate. It’s a market that should be regulated, as the ticket platform has an incentive to optimize their own self-dealing. The platform gets a vig for each transfer, so maximizing transactions is the optimal path. I worked for a company whose successful entry into event ticketing prompted a buyout by Ticketmaster.
Great example: I bought a bunch of tickets to take my little league to a Mets game, which turned out to be the game where David Wright retired. I sold the leftover tickets, which I purchased for between $12 and $30, for a minimum of $350. We built a batting cage with the proceeds.
On the other side, whenever I’m in the city for a few days, I’ll try to score a cheap premium ticket from a season ticket holder who can’t make the game - and frequently do.
IMO the biggest issue with tickets is that it’s 2023 and we live in a pseudo libertarian business climate. It’s a market that should be regulated, as the ticket platform has an incentive to optimize their own self-dealing. The platform gets a vig for each transfer, so maximizing transactions is the optimal path. I worked for a company whose successful entry into event ticketing prompted a buyout by Ticketmaster.
there's no market clearing price in the market for concert tickets. the scalpers would exercise perfect price discrimination if they could.
> there's no market clearing price in the market for concert tickets.
How do you figure? Are you using a nonstandard definition of "market clearing price"?
> the scalpers would exercise perfect price discrimination if they could.
So what?
How do you figure? Are you using a nonstandard definition of "market clearing price"?
> the scalpers would exercise perfect price discrimination if they could.
So what?
I think live performance music is still one of the few things in this hyper capitalist world directed by the performers. I base this absolutely no information expect the interviews I've seen, but it's my impression that performers are heavily involved with everything in a live performance, including the price setting.
That is to say. I think the artist just like the idea of the tickets being affordable to allow their younger and less well off fans access.
I think any argument here has to acknowledge the artists rights in this. Charging more might alleviate the issue, but if private ownership of the performance is to have any meaning, it must include the right to set a price below the market rate. If the artist wants to be "economically inefficient" we as a society must protect that right.
That is to say. I think the artist just like the idea of the tickets being affordable to allow their younger and less well off fans access.
I think any argument here has to acknowledge the artists rights in this. Charging more might alleviate the issue, but if private ownership of the performance is to have any meaning, it must include the right to set a price below the market rate. If the artist wants to be "economically inefficient" we as a society must protect that right.
Oh lawd.
Most venues ARE hypercapitalists.
That club down on the corner where the cool touring bands play? They take a 15-20% cut on the hands merch in exchange for the oh so vauablr service of providing maybe a beat up old folding table.
Most venues ARE hypercapitalists.
That club down on the corner where the cool touring bands play? They take a 15-20% cut on the hands merch in exchange for the oh so vauablr service of providing maybe a beat up old folding table.
Some of my favorite bands have done simple things which drastically (but not completely) reduce the levels of scalping.
On a previous tour, Wilco made tickets only valid for the original holder with matching photo ID at the door. So I couldn’t sell my ticket. I was able to bring any guest I wanted with my second ticket though.
For a while now Phish has done tickets via lottery and all tickets come in the physical mail not long before the show. So there’s a limited window for scalping and it can only happen at the speed of paper.
In my experience both bands get concerts full of true fans and also get to charge pretty high prices in a way that doesn’t feel unfair.
More bands could try these or other techniques but almost nobody actually cares. Ticketmaster is a front, they take PR flak to preserve the status quo.
On a previous tour, Wilco made tickets only valid for the original holder with matching photo ID at the door. So I couldn’t sell my ticket. I was able to bring any guest I wanted with my second ticket though.
For a while now Phish has done tickets via lottery and all tickets come in the physical mail not long before the show. So there’s a limited window for scalping and it can only happen at the speed of paper.
In my experience both bands get concerts full of true fans and also get to charge pretty high prices in a way that doesn’t feel unfair.
More bands could try these or other techniques but almost nobody actually cares. Ticketmaster is a front, they take PR flak to preserve the status quo.
Not that it was the best idea, but NIN made you wait in line at the venue during the last tour to buy tickets. I got there early and was still in line for at least 3 hours. When I finally made it to the counter I didn’t have any issue getting the tickets I wanted (floor, general admission).
On the one hand, I didn’t have to deal with TicketMaster. On the other hand, it took a significant amount of time out of a Saturday morning. I’m sure there’s some happy medium, like if you’re part of a mailing list or bought some merch before tickets were announced you can get a pre-release code to buy online.
On the one hand, I didn’t have to deal with TicketMaster. On the other hand, it took a significant amount of time out of a Saturday morning. I’m sure there’s some happy medium, like if you’re part of a mailing list or bought some merch before tickets were announced you can get a pre-release code to buy online.
Last time i went to a big show i arrived more than 3 hours in advance - with tickets in hand. Doesn't sound like you lost any time.
I think this was standing in line on ticket release day, not day of show.
The Cure did this as well. They also kept the prices very affordable.
Although apparently it doesn't always fully work. But at least they are trying something:
https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/music/the-cure-ticket...
Although apparently it doesn't always fully work. But at least they are trying something:
https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/music/the-cure-ticket...
Weird place you live in. In my country, scalping (selling above face value) is illegal, simple as that. Tickets still sell very quickly to popular events, and you often find people reselling them in the days/weeks before the event for below face value due to their own circumstances.
I'm unsure why the bands or the ticket vendors should be involved at all, it's a simple and sensible area for regulation.
I'm unsure why the bands or the ticket vendors should be involved at all, it's a simple and sensible area for regulation.
This entire "scandal" is simply a variety of bizarre tactics and discussions to get around the fact that people expect to be able to see the most popular musicians on the entire planet for $40. No one expects to be able to go to the super bowl for $40 but for some reason people think they should be able to see Taylor Swift?
I don't think anyone wants more events like the Super Bowl besides the NFL. And there's really no comparison between that event and a single Taylor Swift concert ... the Super Bowl is big enough to have a Beyonce concert at halftime! There are also dozens of Taylor Swift concerts per tour and she does a tour every few years. For most fans their team makes the Super Bowl only once or twice in a lifetime.
Also not all sports finals are so expensive! For instance the FA Cup Final, one of the major trophies for one of the biggest sports leagues in the world, had tickets last year starting at 45GBP: https://www.mancity.com/tickets/mens/fa-cup-final-ticketing-...
And in the UK at the time there was a lot of coverage that the tickets had gotten too expensive.
Also not all sports finals are so expensive! For instance the FA Cup Final, one of the major trophies for one of the biggest sports leagues in the world, had tickets last year starting at 45GBP: https://www.mancity.com/tickets/mens/fa-cup-final-ticketing-...
And in the UK at the time there was a lot of coverage that the tickets had gotten too expensive.
Taylor Swift concerts are much more common than super bowls. Maybe a playoff game is a better analogy? ;)
IMO, Comic Con has done a pretty fine job at eliminating scalpers. They do this in a few ways:
- Random selection over an hour at ticket sale time that is unique per device, with some 'are you human' checks along the way to make it more difficult to bot.
- Requiring physical delivery of the badge with a maximum number per address, or government issued ID to pick it up in person.
- Random ID checks during the con.
- The first round of sales goes exclusively to people who had a badge before. I.e. you need a code from the back of the badge. So even if you bought it from a scalper, you would now have the code for next year's presale.
None of these are perfect, but it's still the best ticketing process I've seen in recent years.
- Random selection over an hour at ticket sale time that is unique per device, with some 'are you human' checks along the way to make it more difficult to bot.
- Requiring physical delivery of the badge with a maximum number per address, or government issued ID to pick it up in person.
- Random ID checks during the con.
- The first round of sales goes exclusively to people who had a badge before. I.e. you need a code from the back of the badge. So even if you bought it from a scalper, you would now have the code for next year's presale.
None of these are perfect, but it's still the best ticketing process I've seen in recent years.
If they wanted to eliminate scalping, they could just make the tickets returnable but non-refundable:
Put your name on the badge. If you want to sell it, they buy it back at face value minus a restocking fee, and then resell it at original price.
This would be much less of a pain in the ass for everyone involved.
Put your name on the badge. If you want to sell it, they buy it back at face value minus a restocking fee, and then resell it at original price.
This would be much less of a pain in the ass for everyone involved.
The Royal Albert Hall Proms let's you resell via them. If it resells you get your money back, no cost.
I've had my ups and downs with the Beeb over the years but this is one of those moments of them just being best in class imo.
With software there's no real need to take an admin fee...
With software there's no real need to take an admin fee...
Once a venue/promoter/whatever has your money they do not want to give it back. They're not concerned with the secondary market so long as tickets sell. A venue is in the venue business, not the convention of concert business.
That is indeed how it works at comic con. But mind you, SDCC is a non-profit so they're not so strongly incentivized to promote reselling.
> So even if you bought it from a scalper, you would now have the code for next year's presale.
i would imagine a scalper would record the code from the badge as well, before giving it to you. So this means they're going to be able to buy just as well, and may be invalidate the code before you get to use it!
i would imagine a scalper would record the code from the badge as well, before giving it to you. So this means they're going to be able to buy just as well, and may be invalidate the code before you get to use it!
Not one measure is perfect, but together they do provide many layers of nuisance to deter scalpers.
A fix for some venues: only sell tickets at the door.
Scalpers will have to work for it the old fashioned way then.
This, of course, obviates the need for Ticketmaster (which needs to die in a fire).
Realistically, Ticketmaster has a monopoly because they merged with the biggest artist management company, so if you want big artists you have to contract with them.
The situation will not improve until antitrust enforcement comes into vogue again.
Scalpers will have to work for it the old fashioned way then.
This, of course, obviates the need for Ticketmaster (which needs to die in a fire).
Realistically, Ticketmaster has a monopoly because they merged with the biggest artist management company, so if you want big artists you have to contract with them.
The situation will not improve until antitrust enforcement comes into vogue again.
Would we go back to the days where some people camp out for days to get in first? I wonder how much worse it'd be in times where everyone is connected and you can google all the details and timings needed.
> Would we go back to the days where some people camp out for days to get in first?
Yes, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Dedicated fans get in first.
Yes, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Dedicated fans get in first.
That or those who can afford to pay people to stand in line for them: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/13/18223836/p...
I think that’s a pretty privileged way of framing it
Or tie each ticket to a name and check ID?
I went to a show from a big DJ at a small venue like this once. Had to buy in person with an ID and they checked IDs at the door. I think it works well at small venues but can’t see this scaling up to arenas and stadiums. The large venues already struggle getting people through the door fast enough.
If major airports with millions of visitors every month can do it, stadiums could handle a couple hundred thousand too.
I’m not going to speak on how this could be hard to implement in other countries, but in my country selling a ticket above the price it was bought for is illegal, and as a result (maybe there is other factors in in play but) it’s basically a non-issue here
100% correct.
In addition to being generally legal in the US, in key markets, resale cannot legally be constrained. A venue or artist cannot legally institute policies or practices to prohibit resale.
Even if resale were prohibited or technically impossible, it will not necessarily be any easier to get tickets to a high demand event as resale is only a factor when an event has enough demand to sell out far in advance of playing.
In addition to being generally legal in the US, in key markets, resale cannot legally be constrained. A venue or artist cannot legally institute policies or practices to prohibit resale.
Even if resale were prohibited or technically impossible, it will not necessarily be any easier to get tickets to a high demand event as resale is only a factor when an event has enough demand to sell out far in advance of playing.
Resale is prohibited for (some?) ticketmaster events, unless you resell through Ticketmaster, allowing them to double-dip on the transaction fee.
So, it would be hard for them to make the argument you are making. They directly profit from resale (that they “can’t legally ban”) because their ban on resale is legal.
So, it would be hard for them to make the argument you are making. They directly profit from resale (that they “can’t legally ban”) because their ban on resale is legal.
I’ve never heard this, what country?
Norway! I think it’s somewhat similar in the nearby countries, but I don’t know for sure. You’re not even allowed to add the ticketmaster fee to your reseller price, so it’s techincally cheaper to buy it second-hand
I wonder if that has lowered Ticket master's fees compared to Denmark, where resale prices can include the fees.
Also Denmark.
You can resell for the total price including fees, but no more.
https://www.consumereurope.dk/purchase-of-goods-and-services...
You can resell for the total price including fees, but no more.
https://www.consumereurope.dk/purchase-of-goods-and-services...
South Korea too.
> Ticketmaster now requires text message phone number verification, but they can bypass this by buying “Mobile Virtual Network Operator” phone numbers in bulk from eBay
I’m surprised SMS verification is this ineffective at testing for “human-ness”.
I’m surprised SMS verification is this ineffective at testing for “human-ness”.
It depends on how much money there's to be made, just like every other counter-abuse measure.
Proof of work is useful for protecting things worth like a thousandth of a cent per transaction. Captchas for something worth 1/10th of a cent. Phone number verification for something worth $0.1-$1. Real-world presence and real-world id checks for things worth $100.
The amount of money you can make scalping tickets is way higher than that, so it's not a useful defense. Doubly so when the cost of the phone verification isn't even per-transaction, but once per account.
For the ticketmaster case, I think what you'd want is some kind of proof of stable liveness at every transaction. It's easy enough to game proof of liveness, or proof of unique identity, at account creation time. Just the classic method of paying people at a parking lot $5 to pass a "wave to the webcam" captcha. But they can't get those same people back for another captcha every time they want to use that account for another ticket. (Though it's possible that deepfakes have rendered webcam captchas effectively worthless in the last year or two, I don't know where the state of the art on deepfake detection for this kind of usecase is.)
Proof of work is useful for protecting things worth like a thousandth of a cent per transaction. Captchas for something worth 1/10th of a cent. Phone number verification for something worth $0.1-$1. Real-world presence and real-world id checks for things worth $100.
The amount of money you can make scalping tickets is way higher than that, so it's not a useful defense. Doubly so when the cost of the phone verification isn't even per-transaction, but once per account.
For the ticketmaster case, I think what you'd want is some kind of proof of stable liveness at every transaction. It's easy enough to game proof of liveness, or proof of unique identity, at account creation time. Just the classic method of paying people at a parking lot $5 to pass a "wave to the webcam" captcha. But they can't get those same people back for another captcha every time they want to use that account for another ticket. (Though it's possible that deepfakes have rendered webcam captchas effectively worthless in the last year or two, I don't know where the state of the art on deepfake detection for this kind of usecase is.)
The problem is that we're not testing for human-ness, we're testing for uniqueness. What we want is a button that, when pressed by a particular person, gives them one ticket, and then stops giving them tickets. This requires positive identification of each person buying tickets, which means spending lots of money to prevent people from obtaining multiple identifications.
I suspect verifying government IDs would be a viable uniqueness criterion, except the only thing those IDs can buy you is voting rights in a particular country, which are usually worthless, so these systems aren't attacked. Now imagine if we decided that Taylor Swift ticket purchases had to be verified with ID. You could see, say, a particular country in the global south deciding they're going to just invent people on paper to go buy Taylor Swift tickets specifically so they can scalp them on the open market.
The underlying problem is that so long as a particular economic opportunity exists, whoever is trusted to stop that opportunity from being exploited has an incentive to stab you in the back. Mobile network operators were never intended to be a 2FA code delivery system or Sybil resistance system, so they will totally just let people SIM-swap you or sell numbers in bulk to spammers, because not doing so was never in their job description and their business is not built to defend against such things.
I suspect verifying government IDs would be a viable uniqueness criterion, except the only thing those IDs can buy you is voting rights in a particular country, which are usually worthless, so these systems aren't attacked. Now imagine if we decided that Taylor Swift ticket purchases had to be verified with ID. You could see, say, a particular country in the global south deciding they're going to just invent people on paper to go buy Taylor Swift tickets specifically so they can scalp them on the open market.
The underlying problem is that so long as a particular economic opportunity exists, whoever is trusted to stop that opportunity from being exploited has an incentive to stab you in the back. Mobile network operators were never intended to be a 2FA code delivery system or Sybil resistance system, so they will totally just let people SIM-swap you or sell numbers in bulk to spammers, because not doing so was never in their job description and their business is not built to defend against such things.
At least in the US, a government-issued ID
a) is not required to vote in many places (and pushing for that requirement is, in fact, one of the major methods of classist/racist voter suppression), and
b) is required to do various other things, like purchase alcohol, drive, or buy plane tickets.
Due to (b), there is already a thriving black market in fake IDs for various reasons, and of various qualities.
Government-issued ID systems are absolutely attacked, fairly aggressively.
a) is not required to vote in many places (and pushing for that requirement is, in fact, one of the major methods of classist/racist voter suppression), and
b) is required to do various other things, like purchase alcohol, drive, or buy plane tickets.
Due to (b), there is already a thriving black market in fake IDs for various reasons, and of various qualities.
Government-issued ID systems are absolutely attacked, fairly aggressively.
The ID is for showing when you enter the venue to enjoy the show. When purchasing you just need to give your name.
I'm pretty sure they do this so they can sell your personal information.
I avoid them whenever possible, but I recently bought a ticket for an event weeks after they went on sale (there was essentially no activity on the map of available tickets that day).
They "unknown error"'ed me at the end of the purchase flow (inside their reservation timeout window). 60 seconds later, the tickets I had tried to purchase were being resold by a scalper.
So, whatever their API is, it allows scalpers to get a feed of tickets that are in the middle of being purchased, then to buy them in the reservation window and offer them for resale with super human speed.
That company is clearly run by crooks. They've repeatedly been brought under investigation for exactly this behavior (for over a decade), so presumably, they are also good at paying out bribes.
I avoid them whenever possible, but I recently bought a ticket for an event weeks after they went on sale (there was essentially no activity on the map of available tickets that day).
They "unknown error"'ed me at the end of the purchase flow (inside their reservation timeout window). 60 seconds later, the tickets I had tried to purchase were being resold by a scalper.
So, whatever their API is, it allows scalpers to get a feed of tickets that are in the middle of being purchased, then to buy them in the reservation window and offer them for resale with super human speed.
That company is clearly run by crooks. They've repeatedly been brought under investigation for exactly this behavior (for over a decade), so presumably, they are also good at paying out bribes.
SMS are plaintext that can be obtained via web API. It seems on the face of it to be just about the least effective possible means of verifying human-ness.
The reason SMS verification is popular isn't because it's effective against sybil attacks. It's not. You can get access to phone numbers in bulk for little money.
It's because most honest users only have one phone number, which makes it a useful unique ID for tracking the honest users. Anyone using it should immediately be under suspicion of selling you out.
It's because most honest users only have one phone number, which makes it a useful unique ID for tracking the honest users. Anyone using it should immediately be under suspicion of selling you out.
Well, I mean there's no way I can prove this but I think it has more to do with the fact that compared to email verification ($0.002/hotmail address), CAPTCHA ($0.003/reCAPTCHA), it substantially raises account creation costs because real US/EU phone numbers will be at least a couple cents per verification.
There are a bunch of services that put any SMS received by a bunch of phone numbers on a public website, and they change the phone numbers all the time. You can go to any one of them and use it to create an account for free.
Of course, this is another reason why the practice is harmful -- legitimate users with a legitimate desire to be anonymous will do this, and then if you use the number provided for account recovery, someone can steal their account after the number gets recycled. (This also happens to normies when people change their phone number and don't update it with your service; don't use phone numbers for password recovery. The near-100% probability of being reissued is a disaster.)
But what happens at scale, for actual wholesale-level spammers? They get a contact with a phone carrier who lets them use all their unissued numbers. They operate one of these public SMS websites, which not only doesn't cost them money but turns a small profit because of the ad revenue. They do the same thing, but privately, and sell the availability of thousands of phone numbers to other spammers. Then they resell the SIMs to recover the money because they never actually used any of the prepaid data. Which makes offering the service to other spammers cheap, which keeps the price low if you want to be a buyer instead of a seller. The more people who try to do this on their service, the better this scales, because the customer base increases.
It's just not meant for this and the inconvenience and privacy invasion to legitimate users is unreasonable.
Of course, this is another reason why the practice is harmful -- legitimate users with a legitimate desire to be anonymous will do this, and then if you use the number provided for account recovery, someone can steal their account after the number gets recycled. (This also happens to normies when people change their phone number and don't update it with your service; don't use phone numbers for password recovery. The near-100% probability of being reissued is a disaster.)
But what happens at scale, for actual wholesale-level spammers? They get a contact with a phone carrier who lets them use all their unissued numbers. They operate one of these public SMS websites, which not only doesn't cost them money but turns a small profit because of the ad revenue. They do the same thing, but privately, and sell the availability of thousands of phone numbers to other spammers. Then they resell the SIMs to recover the money because they never actually used any of the prepaid data. Which makes offering the service to other spammers cheap, which keeps the price low if you want to be a buyer instead of a seller. The more people who try to do this on their service, the better this scales, because the customer base increases.
It's just not meant for this and the inconvenience and privacy invasion to legitimate users is unreasonable.
[deleted]
I use smspool for non-voip numbers. Very effective.
The Grateful Dead comes up now and again on HN. They played 522 shows in 1972 alone, and averaged 100 per year from the mid 60s to mid 70s. In the 80s and 90s the average was somewhere around 80 per year. They sold a lot of tickets and consistently sold out. Anyone remember the system they used, as I recall we just called it "mail order". Of course there was scalping, but as I recall the system generally seemed to reward the diligent.
Now it's all tied up in a mixture of promoter/venue/ticketing relationships that I don't understand. You can't avoid dealing with these bastards now. Pearl Jam tried to once and had to cancel the tour.
> They played 522 shows in 1972 alone
That is insane. How is that possible?
Thats 1.43 shows per day. Its hard to imagine 2 shows per day, let alone traveling. That sounds exhausting.
That is insane. How is that possible?
Thats 1.43 shows per day. Its hard to imagine 2 shows per day, let alone traveling. That sounds exhausting.
Yes, it's insane, it's not possible and it's a sloppy error. Meant to cite 1970 not 1972. setlist.fm has 139 for 1970 but I bet there are a few more.
Apologies for the inadvertence.
Apologies for the inadvertence.
All of the giant venues are either owned or contractually bound to one of the giant ticket transactors/distributors. The maturity of the venue contracting has changed drastically in the past 40 years.
Correction: ~88 shows in 1972 not "522" (WTF)
Protip I've used the last couple years (worked before that as well, but not as much need) - just check StubHub or other second hand markets a week or so before the show.
Generally the scalpers over buy and will start to panic and unload tickets at very good prices the closer the show gets.
Generally the scalpers over buy and will start to panic and unload tickets at very good prices the closer the show gets.
This is not true at all as a general rule.
It all comes down to whether or not there's enough demand to fill the venue.
If there's plenty of demand, StubHub prices will remain much higher than face value. They absolutely do not ever become available at good prices.
On the other hand, if the venue is larger than demand, then yes -- you can easily score half-price tickets a few days leading up to the show.
But good luck trying to figure out which one will be the outcome. If you delay purchasing, prices are just as likely to keep going up as they are to go down.
It all comes down to whether or not there's enough demand to fill the venue.
If there's plenty of demand, StubHub prices will remain much higher than face value. They absolutely do not ever become available at good prices.
On the other hand, if the venue is larger than demand, then yes -- you can easily score half-price tickets a few days leading up to the show.
But good luck trying to figure out which one will be the outcome. If you delay purchasing, prices are just as likely to keep going up as they are to go down.
I guess this sort of advice is good for the kind of person who sees a show coming up, and thinks it would be cool to go, but is completely fine missing it if the price isn't on the lower end.
It's also less practical for people with less flexible jobs, who might need to book time off work or plan their shifts to go to a show.
Yes if it's a large/unlimited capacity venue this is a good approach. I was at an outdoor festival recently and people were basically giving away tickets on the day of the show.
Based on nothing, I think tickets for high-demand events should be allocated: 1/3 first-come first-serve for in-person sales (you pay with your time), 1/3 random assignment (you have to get lucky), 1/3 auction to highest bidder (pay with your money).
The article addresses the problem with random assignment: each scalper can enter the lottery hundreds of times, but each regular person can enter only once.
Just have the lottery entry application ask a name. Then check IDs on the door
> 1/3 first-come first-serve for in-person sales (you pay with your time)
You can pay people to wait in line for you
> 1/3 random assignment (you have to get lucky)
Scalpers have the means to can create hundreds of accounts
You can pay people to wait in line for you
> 1/3 random assignment (you have to get lucky)
Scalpers have the means to can create hundreds of accounts
Make the tickets named, and require ID upon entry. Completely kill the resale market.
If people can’t make it, they can return the ticket for the same amount of money they bought it, up to one week before the event. Or they can get cancellation insurance just like some would on holiday plane tickets. Returned tickets go back on sale into the main pool.
As far as I can tell, the scalping problem would be gone instantly.
But there’s a reason nobody is doing it: they’re making money hand over fist.
If people can’t make it, they can return the ticket for the same amount of money they bought it, up to one week before the event. Or they can get cancellation insurance just like some would on holiday plane tickets. Returned tickets go back on sale into the main pool.
As far as I can tell, the scalping problem would be gone instantly.
But there’s a reason nobody is doing it: they’re making money hand over fist.
I've been exposed to precisely this mechanism at "mom & pop" venues; it works great, and no one's upset (there's a loss of last-minute transfer between friends, but that's the cost). Ticketmaster self-scalps: it's in their best interest not to have this mechanism.
The problem is legitimate ticketholders don't like this. You're going to a concert with your SO that you had to buy tickets for six months in advance, then you break up and get together with someone else. Now instead of transferring the ticket you paid for to your new SO, you're stuck either going with your ex (that'll go over well) or going by yourself. People don't like this.
I’ll take not having shared seating with a potential future partner due to the breakdown of my relationship with my current partner over spending $450/person to see a band I liked back in high school.
But you still don't even get to see the band, because if they sell the tickets below the market clearing price they sell out before you can get one and then aren't available at any price.
[deleted]
Wouldn't this account for well under 10% of potential ticket buyers, though?
Sure, if you're in a relatively new relationship, planning anything at all 6 months out is a gamble. That's just life.
At any rate, you'd still have the option of returning your ex's ticket, and buying a new one in your new partner's name.
Or you can return both tickets, and buy a new pair that are guaranteed to be seated next to each other. Sure, presumably you didn't get full price on the ticket return, but, again, that's life.
The funny thing is that, while on occasion this situation might come up, and someone will end up paying a little more to see the show, overall they (and everyone else) will pay less to see shows in general, since scalping has been (in theory) eliminated. So for most people who see a show every now and then, they'd still come out ahead under this system.
Sure, if you're in a relatively new relationship, planning anything at all 6 months out is a gamble. That's just life.
At any rate, you'd still have the option of returning your ex's ticket, and buying a new one in your new partner's name.
Or you can return both tickets, and buy a new pair that are guaranteed to be seated next to each other. Sure, presumably you didn't get full price on the ticket return, but, again, that's life.
The funny thing is that, while on occasion this situation might come up, and someone will end up paying a little more to see the show, overall they (and everyone else) will pay less to see shows in general, since scalping has been (in theory) eliminated. So for most people who see a show every now and then, they'd still come out ahead under this system.
> Wouldn't this account for well under 10% of potential ticket buyers, though?
For this specific example? Sure. But then people have other kinds of conflicts with other people.
And pissing off even 10% of your customers is bad.
> At any rate, you'd still have the option of returning your ex's ticket, and buying a new one in your new partner's name.
By then they're sold out. You can't get any other tickets. If you could exchange the ticket you have for one in another name then so can a scalper.
> The funny thing is that, while on occasion this situation might come up, and someone will end up paying a little more to see the show, overall they (and everyone else) will pay less to see shows in general, since scalping has been (in theory) eliminated.
The problem in this situation is not that you have to pay more, it's that you can't go to the concert with your current SO even though you have two tickets. You can get a refund for one or both of the tickets, but you don't want a refund, you want to go to the concert with your new SO.
For this specific example? Sure. But then people have other kinds of conflicts with other people.
And pissing off even 10% of your customers is bad.
> At any rate, you'd still have the option of returning your ex's ticket, and buying a new one in your new partner's name.
By then they're sold out. You can't get any other tickets. If you could exchange the ticket you have for one in another name then so can a scalper.
> The funny thing is that, while on occasion this situation might come up, and someone will end up paying a little more to see the show, overall they (and everyone else) will pay less to see shows in general, since scalping has been (in theory) eliminated.
The problem in this situation is not that you have to pay more, it's that you can't go to the concert with your current SO even though you have two tickets. You can get a refund for one or both of the tickets, but you don't want a refund, you want to go to the concert with your new SO.
That is completely made up example - I’ve been to events that do this and you’re typically allowed to purchase 2-4 tickets per id
That doesn't work for honest people when the person who used their ID is the one who can't go.
And you now have a new scalping model where you create a website for people to submit their IDs ahead of time and pay a fee to have someone try to get them a ticket in the two seconds before they sell out, but they buy 2-4 tickets per ID and resell the others.
And you now have a new scalping model where you create a website for people to submit their IDs ahead of time and pay a fee to have someone try to get them a ticket in the two seconds before they sell out, but they buy 2-4 tickets per ID and resell the others.
Simple fix for that: require the concertgoer to physically present the ID when arriving at the concert.
They can also just disallow multiple tickets per ID.
To clarify the proposed process: you buy one or more tickets online, and you're required to put full names to those tickets when you purchase them. You are not permitted to change those names later. You can return the tickets (minus some "restocking" fee), but that's all you're allowed to do; no transfers.
When the time comes to attend the concert, everyone brings their ID, and the ticket checker matches the names on the IDs with the names on the tickets. No match, no entry.
There is certainly one hole: tickets are still scarce, so someone could set up a website where they claim they'll guarantee you a ticket (because they have fast internet connections and legions of low-paid grunts clicking furiously at the website), and then charge a large premium on top of the ticket price in order to do so. You either give them your Ticketmaster (or whatever) account credentials, or they even "give" you an account after buying the ticket for you, all with your name on it. I do think this would inflate some ticket prices, but I feel like the situation would still be much better than it is now.
On top of that, the ticket seller can just ban these sorts of websites. Again, not perfect, as they'll do everything they can to circumvent the ban, but you can probably make things difficult enough for them that their value prop doesn't really work out all that well, and they fail to get tickets often enough that they end up with a bad reputation.
Really, ticket scalping should just be illegal, and law enforcement should crack down hard on these kinds of outfits.
They can also just disallow multiple tickets per ID.
To clarify the proposed process: you buy one or more tickets online, and you're required to put full names to those tickets when you purchase them. You are not permitted to change those names later. You can return the tickets (minus some "restocking" fee), but that's all you're allowed to do; no transfers.
When the time comes to attend the concert, everyone brings their ID, and the ticket checker matches the names on the IDs with the names on the tickets. No match, no entry.
There is certainly one hole: tickets are still scarce, so someone could set up a website where they claim they'll guarantee you a ticket (because they have fast internet connections and legions of low-paid grunts clicking furiously at the website), and then charge a large premium on top of the ticket price in order to do so. You either give them your Ticketmaster (or whatever) account credentials, or they even "give" you an account after buying the ticket for you, all with your name on it. I do think this would inflate some ticket prices, but I feel like the situation would still be much better than it is now.
On top of that, the ticket seller can just ban these sorts of websites. Again, not perfect, as they'll do everything they can to circumvent the ban, but you can probably make things difficult enough for them that their value prop doesn't really work out all that well, and they fail to get tickets often enough that they end up with a bad reputation.
Really, ticket scalping should just be illegal, and law enforcement should crack down hard on these kinds of outfits.
> Simple fix for that: require the concertgoer to physically present the ID when arriving at the concert.
That doesn't fix it. The person whose ID it is actually wants to go to the concert. They show up with their ID and activate the other tickets sold by the scalper.
> you buy one or more tickets online, and you're required to put full names to those tickets when you purchase them.
Then you're back to pissed off customers because they have multiple tickets they actually want to use and can't change who gets to go when one person can't.
> I do think this would inflate some ticket prices, but I feel like the situation would still be much better than it is now.
A lot of things like this work okay the first time you try it, then entrepreneurs find a way to improve the efficiency of the market.
Fundamentally the problem is that you're trying to violate the law of supply and demand. If you want scalpers to stop existing, raise the price of tickets to match what people will pay for them. If you want prices to go down, move to a venue with more seats.
That doesn't fix it. The person whose ID it is actually wants to go to the concert. They show up with their ID and activate the other tickets sold by the scalper.
> you buy one or more tickets online, and you're required to put full names to those tickets when you purchase them.
Then you're back to pissed off customers because they have multiple tickets they actually want to use and can't change who gets to go when one person can't.
> I do think this would inflate some ticket prices, but I feel like the situation would still be much better than it is now.
A lot of things like this work okay the first time you try it, then entrepreneurs find a way to improve the efficiency of the market.
Fundamentally the problem is that you're trying to violate the law of supply and demand. If you want scalpers to stop existing, raise the price of tickets to match what people will pay for them. If you want prices to go down, move to a venue with more seats.
You’re missing the point: every ticket has a name. Not the same single name on 4 tickets. Every ticket is personalised.
It doesn’t matter that one person can’t come. All the others can go. If you can’t go, you still can get refunded for your ticket cost.
If one person buys multiple tickets, they need to provide all the names of the people who are going. Just like when you book a plane ticket.
It doesn’t matter that one person can’t come. All the others can go. If you can’t go, you still can get refunded for your ticket cost.
If one person buys multiple tickets, they need to provide all the names of the people who are going. Just like when you book a plane ticket.
> You’re missing the point: every ticket has a name. Not the same single name on 4 tickets. Every ticket is personalised.
At which point you can no longer exchange one for a different name and have pissed off legitimate customers. That was the point of the suggestion that you could get 2-4 tickets in the same name -- so that you could change 1-3 of them in case of a conflict. But then scalpers can too.
At which point you can no longer exchange one for a different name and have pissed off legitimate customers. That was the point of the suggestion that you could get 2-4 tickets in the same name -- so that you could change 1-3 of them in case of a conflict. But then scalpers can too.
So what? People will always be pissed off. Millions are pissed off today because they had no chance to afford tickets to popular shows thanks to scalpers.
Plane tickets are all virtually as this person described. Someone in your party can’t go to Jamaica with you because they got sick/broke up with you/whatever? Nobody cares, AND no refunds. This Names-and-IDs policy is actually much nicer than plane tickets, because refunds at face value would be allowed. If you’re lucky you might even be able to rebuy the same ticket for your new gf if you’re quick.
Plane tickets are all virtually as this person described. Someone in your party can’t go to Jamaica with you because they got sick/broke up with you/whatever? Nobody cares, AND no refunds. This Names-and-IDs policy is actually much nicer than plane tickets, because refunds at face value would be allowed. If you’re lucky you might even be able to rebuy the same ticket for your new gf if you’re quick.
> Millions are pissed off today because they had no chance to afford tickets to popular shows thanks to scalpers.
They had no chance to afford tickets to popular shows thanks to artists not providing enough seats or dates. If there is more demand than supply then your options are high prices or shortages.
> Plane tickets are all virtually as this person described. Someone in your party can’t go to Jamaica with you because they got sick/broke up with you/whatever? Nobody cares, AND no refunds.
People do in fact care, it's a common gripe about airlines screwing you, and the people who care a lot pay extra for a transferable ticket -- which are available. Which in turn allows the airlines to point to that and say you should've bought the more expensive ticket. But you can only say that if it's available, and if it is then the scalpers just buy those.
They had no chance to afford tickets to popular shows thanks to artists not providing enough seats or dates. If there is more demand than supply then your options are high prices or shortages.
> Plane tickets are all virtually as this person described. Someone in your party can’t go to Jamaica with you because they got sick/broke up with you/whatever? Nobody cares, AND no refunds.
People do in fact care, it's a common gripe about airlines screwing you, and the people who care a lot pay extra for a transferable ticket -- which are available. Which in turn allows the airlines to point to that and say you should've bought the more expensive ticket. But you can only say that if it's available, and if it is then the scalpers just buy those.
I think the point is that under this proposed anti-scalper system, you get 1 ticket per ID. Otherwise it's gameable.
Good points. Then, I guess the solution is that only auctioned tickets can be anonymous, whereas queued and lottery tickets must be sold to the real name of the person who requested it.
This sounds like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Marathon . It has different entry classes such as lottery, previous participant, or pay a high price.
It's been a long time since I did that but they also had a deal where if you ran a certain number of local NY races you got the chance to buy a bib number. Come to think of it I think you can also get a chance to buy if you have a fast enough time in a qualifying race.
In the time of box offices, ticket scalpers still thrived.
Their operations were much smaller, though, and arguably they affected overall ticket prices much less. There are only so many hours in the day for you to wait in line (or pay someone else to wait for you) to get tickets. And standing outside the venue for hours trying to sell your tickets is a high-touch, labor-intensive process.
Some of these scalper sites sell tickets that they don't even have yet, which helps give them the capital to actually buy the tickets later.
Some of these scalper sites sell tickets that they don't even have yet, which helps give them the capital to actually buy the tickets later.
I quickly scanned the article, so I might have missed this, but can someone explain how sites like StubHub get away with what they do? As soon as I found out about them, I immediately thought "aren't these people just scalpers that offer tickets on the internet instead of standing out in front of venues?" If the argument is that they're not scalpers, they're resellers, then I'd like to try selling some concert tickets in a parking lot and see what happens if I made the same claim.
They started out as plain scalper marketplaces but now have deals with most venues to give the venue a cut.
So venues take bribes in the from of kickbacks to look the other way when stubhub commits illegal acts? or does stubhub not operate in states where scalping tickets is a crime?
> to look the other way when stubhub commits illegal acts?
Scalping is only illegal in certain jurisdictions (usually state level, iirc). Presumably stubhub intentionally does not operate in those jurisdictions.
They could sell to people in those jurisdictions, but you could make people sign a thing saying that they actually bought the tickets from another area. Someone could probably come after them, but there's enough plausible deniability to keep it tied up in court for a while, and nobody is going to do that for low level scalping offenses.
Scalping is only illegal in certain jurisdictions (usually state level, iirc). Presumably stubhub intentionally does not operate in those jurisdictions.
They could sell to people in those jurisdictions, but you could make people sign a thing saying that they actually bought the tickets from another area. Someone could probably come after them, but there's enough plausible deniability to keep it tied up in court for a while, and nobody is going to do that for low level scalping offenses.
They probably specifically have deals with the venues to make it not technically scalping, somehow.
Just a theory, and I only scanned the article too, but I think they’ve all learned that this aftermarket stuff is good for their business. At least now that things are digital and have fees attached, because they make money whenever tickets change hands. They get to claim it’s a service as they’re providing liquidity to the market.
Scalping is legal in most jurisdictions, sometimes with restrictions (“no selling within 1000ft of the venue for more than 20% over face”.
As it should be, without restrictions. Basically First Sale doctrine. If I buy something, I own it and should be able to sell it at market price.
The First Sale doctrine is fine, hoarding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding_(economics)) and price gouging not so much. Rights come with responsibilities. Maybe I can buy up a pallet of toilet paper in the middle of a pandemic, but people would be right to think I was a total piece of shit if I did.
Society's tolerance for parasites who do that kind of thing has a breaking point and when the people being negatively impacted get fed up enough to take action I'll have no sympathy for anyone who seeks to make others miserable just so that they can profit off of their suffering.
Society's tolerance for parasites who do that kind of thing has a breaking point and when the people being negatively impacted get fed up enough to take action I'll have no sympathy for anyone who seeks to make others miserable just so that they can profit off of their suffering.
That’s the sophomoric take. The only reason you had the opportunity to buy a pallet during a shortage in the first place is due to idiotic “price gouging” laws.
During the pandemic the price of toilet paper should have been increased by an order of magnitude at the store level. This would prevent hoarding and it would make sure people who desperately wanted it could get it. Additionally, it would have incentivized producers and sellers to fill demand.
Price controls are the equivalent of rations. They don’t solve anything because they remove all of the incentives.
During the pandemic the price of toilet paper should have been increased by an order of magnitude at the store level. This would prevent hoarding and it would make sure people who desperately wanted it could get it. Additionally, it would have incentivized producers and sellers to fill demand.
Price controls are the equivalent of rations. They don’t solve anything because they remove all of the incentives.
> and it would make sure people who desperately wanted it could get it.
I fail to see how making toilet paper cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per roll would ensure that everyone who needed it would be able to get it, since many of those who desperately wanted to wipe their ass were unable to work and going into record amounts of debt just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Producers and sellers were already fully incentivized to sell their goods, as they always have been. They know people want their product and will pay them enough that they can turn a profit. There's no reason to turn toilet paper into an luxury item which only the wealthiest people can afford leaving the majority priced out.
Price controls and rations have their place. Like all tools, the key to is make sure that they are used correctly.
I fail to see how making toilet paper cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per roll would ensure that everyone who needed it would be able to get it, since many of those who desperately wanted to wipe their ass were unable to work and going into record amounts of debt just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Producers and sellers were already fully incentivized to sell their goods, as they always have been. They know people want their product and will pay them enough that they can turn a profit. There's no reason to turn toilet paper into an luxury item which only the wealthiest people can afford leaving the majority priced out.
Price controls and rations have their place. Like all tools, the key to is make sure that they are used correctly.
None of what you said makes any sense. Who would pay thousands per roll? Why would the price be that high?
Also, you’re incorrect about producers having the right incentives. They are incentivized by money, not a higher calling to wipe ass.
Price controls have no place at all other than appealing to people’s emotions. They cannot fix or hide supply problems. They can just shift the price signal to lucky intermediaries (scalpers) rather than to suppliers.
Also, you’re incorrect about producers having the right incentives. They are incentivized by money, not a higher calling to wipe ass.
Price controls have no place at all other than appealing to people’s emotions. They cannot fix or hide supply problems. They can just shift the price signal to lucky intermediaries (scalpers) rather than to suppliers.
> Why would the price be that high?
You said: "the price of toilet paper should have been increased by an order of magnitude at the store level. This would prevent hoarding". How high do you think the price per roll would have to be to ensure that no one (not even rich people or a small group of rich people working together) could afford to buy up a pallet of toilet paper to try to resell at a higher price? It'd have to be pretty damn expensive. Expensive enough to price out most people since a millionaire can afford to pay so much more than someone making below minimum wage
> Also, you’re incorrect about producers having the right incentives. They are incentivized by money, not a higher calling to wipe ass.
Read my comment again, I never said anything about a "higher calling". I explicitly said that their incentive was profit.
You said: "the price of toilet paper should have been increased by an order of magnitude at the store level. This would prevent hoarding". How high do you think the price per roll would have to be to ensure that no one (not even rich people or a small group of rich people working together) could afford to buy up a pallet of toilet paper to try to resell at a higher price? It'd have to be pretty damn expensive. Expensive enough to price out most people since a millionaire can afford to pay so much more than someone making below minimum wage
> Also, you’re incorrect about producers having the right incentives. They are incentivized by money, not a higher calling to wipe ass.
Read my comment again, I never said anything about a "higher calling". I explicitly said that their incentive was profit.
An order of magnitude literally means 10. Not 100,000. Usually it costs like $1-2 a roll, so it should have gone to $10-20 a roll as soon as shelves emptied the first time. That would have meant that people would have bought only what they need (they would not have seriously spent $1000 on TP), but nearly all people could have afforded say $40-50 to get a 4-pack to get them by a week until more were delivered. That minimizes consumers’ excess hoarded inventory— which is where all the TP was.
Instead, IRL, anyone who could find them were buying up several massive packages because it was only the normal ≈$20 for 20 rolls situation, so “heck, buy 60, 80, maybe 100 rolls! Who knows when I’ll get this lucky as to find it again?” Meaning suddenly everyone was buying and warehousing way more TP than they needed in 6 months. Not adjusting prices literally caused the shortage.
Instead, IRL, anyone who could find them were buying up several massive packages because it was only the normal ≈$20 for 20 rolls situation, so “heck, buy 60, 80, maybe 100 rolls! Who knows when I’ll get this lucky as to find it again?” Meaning suddenly everyone was buying and warehousing way more TP than they needed in 6 months. Not adjusting prices literally caused the shortage.
Ah yes “the poors don’t deserve to afford toilet paper because market forces and capitalism!”
It’s amazing what tech bros making 6 figures will say from their ivory towers.
It’s amazing what tech bros making 6 figures will say from their ivory towers.
It’s incredible how dumb the jump is from “the price shouldn’t be kept at what the pre-pandemic levels were” to “the poors don’t deserve to afford toilet paper”.
Were you alive and shopping for toilet paper during covid? The wealthy could already purchase it whenever from scalpers (a.k.a Amazon resellers). Normal people had to drive from store to store hoping their ration came in and they timed it right.
The hyperbolic interpretation of price controls is, “the poors don’t deserve toilet paper at all unless they win a lottery”.
Were you alive and shopping for toilet paper during covid? The wealthy could already purchase it whenever from scalpers (a.k.a Amazon resellers). Normal people had to drive from store to store hoping their ration came in and they timed it right.
The hyperbolic interpretation of price controls is, “the poors don’t deserve toilet paper at all unless they win a lottery”.
Most economists believe that price gouging is completely fine. Anti-price gouging laws lead to a misallocation of resources and lower supply where it's needed.
It shouldn't surprise us that people who want to be able to exploit others for profit, or who advocate for those who do, would claim that exploiting others is somehow a virtuous act.
[deleted]
The concert is the product. A ticket is one approach for artists to control access to the limited experienc, typically while maintaining substantial equity and equality of access.
Of course profit maximization is not the only (or even primary) goal, that's what makes this such a hard problem. If it were, ticket sales would be trivially solved - just auction each seat to the highest bider, close biding near the concert date and prevent any transfers. Of course that's a terrible idea.
Of course profit maximization is not the only (or even primary) goal, that's what makes this such a hard problem. If it were, ticket sales would be trivially solved - just auction each seat to the highest bider, close biding near the concert date and prevent any transfers. Of course that's a terrible idea.
There's a significant difference between buying something and reselling, and then having bots buying hundreds/thousands and reselling.
Not really. The demand is what it is, and the supply of tickets is fixed. That sets the price, not the number of different people selling.
OK but the tickets are going to different people. In most cases (music, sports) you want your tickets going to your best fans because the energy of the crowd improves the performance. We’re not selling wheat futures here. If the tickets instead go to rich people who may or may not show up, it could harm the event.
You're right, the future looks grim. Who knows how many layers of the reseller parfait you have to go through just to get a ticket? At some point it becomes prohibitively expensive and there won't be enough people that can afford to attend events.
I wonder how much of this could be alleviated by selling a certain percentage of tickets at the box office only? I worked in operations for a pretty large concert venue several years ago, and the Jonas Brothers were going to play there (this was at their peak). I remember a good chunk of tickets were only sold at the box office and there was a limit per person (maybe 5 or 6)? I know it's annoying to drive somewhere and wait in line for hours, but I'm sure there are folks out there that would prefer to do that instead of paying a 500% markup on the original ticket price.
I wonder how much of this could be alleviated by selling a certain percentage of tickets at the box office only? I worked in operations for a pretty large concert venue several years ago, and the Jonas Brothers were going to play there (this was at their peak). I remember a good chunk of tickets were only sold at the box office and there was a limit per person (maybe 5 or 6)? I know it's annoying to drive somewhere and wait in line for hours, but I'm sure there are folks out there that would prefer to do that instead of paying a 500% markup on the original ticket price.
Ironically, tiered pricing to cut out the scalpers it exactly what got Springsteen so much blow back.
The artists have simply decided to sell $1000 tickets instead of $200 tickets that get scalped for $1000
The artists have simply decided to sell $1000 tickets instead of $200 tickets that get scalped for $1000
It’s the correct move economically, why the hell should scalpers earn that $800 for being parasites, but people are very economically-illiterate so they’ll always see that move as greed.
Very true, but very annoying for the person that wants to attend the concert. You can pretty much flush your chances of getting tickets directly from Ticketmaster right down the toilet.
The price is fixed.
The scalpers then create a secondary market where there is a supply and demand situation like you talk about.
The scalpers then create a secondary market where there is a supply and demand situation like you talk about.
> As I’ve tried to point out in my reporting over the years, scalpers and Ticketmaster are engaged in a neverending game of cat-and-mouse, but the more difficult Ticketmaster ostensibly makes it to buy tickets, the easier it is for dedicated professionals to buy them while fans are left disappointed.
Almost seems like Ticketmaster allowing resale of tickets creates a secondary marketplace where Ticketmaster earns twice for fees, and the resellers make a big buck on market inefficiencies.
Perhaps artist should either decide whether they want to sell tickets at a fixed price or at an auction.
If fixed price, then it’s first come first serve, no reselling. If bid, then it’s whoever pays the highest. No reselling.
Airline tickets aren’t allowed to be resold. Name must match ID. Prices are dynamic. No reason why concert prices couldn’t be the same.
Or 50/50 fixed vs bid.
In general auctions seem the fairest in any marketplace where the price is an indicator of supply vs demand.
However not fair because artist gives an impression they’re only there for the rich turning some of their fans away.
—-
But I legit dislike Ticketmaster. Their ridiculous fees and dark patterns UI infuriate me. The best I can do is vote with my wallet.
Almost seems like Ticketmaster allowing resale of tickets creates a secondary marketplace where Ticketmaster earns twice for fees, and the resellers make a big buck on market inefficiencies.
Perhaps artist should either decide whether they want to sell tickets at a fixed price or at an auction.
If fixed price, then it’s first come first serve, no reselling. If bid, then it’s whoever pays the highest. No reselling.
Airline tickets aren’t allowed to be resold. Name must match ID. Prices are dynamic. No reason why concert prices couldn’t be the same.
Or 50/50 fixed vs bid.
In general auctions seem the fairest in any marketplace where the price is an indicator of supply vs demand.
However not fair because artist gives an impression they’re only there for the rich turning some of their fans away.
—-
But I legit dislike Ticketmaster. Their ridiculous fees and dark patterns UI infuriate me. The best I can do is vote with my wallet.
Impractical, perhaps, but sale-to-person on day of show is the only way I see that can prevent scalping. That is, you can by as many tickets as you want in person, but you must present a body for each ticket purchased.
Of course, this approach has its own problems, including possibility of riot, long queues, and surprise venue fees scaled to handle crowd control.
Of course, this approach has its own problems, including possibility of riot, long queues, and surprise venue fees scaled to handle crowd control.
Not many people would take a day off or travel out of town if there's a high risk of not getting a ticket either.
An alternative could be online untransferable but voidable tickets, with in person payment.
Basically try to make it so money changing hands is inpractical and bears considerable risks.
Basically try to make it so money changing hands is inpractical and bears considerable risks.
As I said, the idea I posited _is_ impractical. It works fine if your band is playing small clubs and the like, but it admittedly falls apart at scale.
I see plenty of technical solutions being proposed. They might even work. Except each one seems to be exclusionary in some way or another at scale. Or they stomp on the tender feelings of libertarians, but I repeat myself.
I see plenty of technical solutions being proposed. They might even work. Except each one seems to be exclusionary in some way or another at scale. Or they stomp on the tender feelings of libertarians, but I repeat myself.
Don't think small clubs suffer from scalping much if at all. Scalping makes sense when there's enough demand to justify the effort and risk.
This is an awful idea for the reasons you listed, but also for the fact that you'd only have a chance to get a ticket for shows that will sell out. You would be unable to plan in advance and would likely waste hours in a queue.
Why not just require a name for each ticket and check ID at entry?
Why not just require a name for each ticket and check ID at entry?
Nah, much easier solution: digital tickets that you can't sell. Ticketmaster could do this easily, their tickets are a rotating code (like an RSA key) so you can only sell a digital ticket either a) with their permission or b) by giving the stranger to whom you sold it your ticketmaster log-in creds. The latter is pretty easy to stop, you could easily make it unfeasible for scalpers to create accounts, buy a ticket, then give the account away over and over.
Ticket selling is a problem of economics, and trying to solve it via tech is pointless. If enough fans out there are willing to spend $2000 for Taylor Swift tickets then that is the value of the show. Ticketmaster selling them for $100 creates an arbitrage opportunity, and of course people are going to take advantage of it.
The Glastonbury music festival, the largest of its kind in the world, requires each ticket purchase to be associated with a government ID. The ID must be presented at entry and must match the ticket sale. As far as I know, they do not have problems with scalpers. So tech might not help, but maybe beaurocracy can :)
(Well, they have an issue where everyone tries to buy a ticket at the same time and it crashes their servers. Tech could help a bit with that. But in the end, everyone trying to buy a ticket actually wants to go to the festival)
(Well, they have an issue where everyone tries to buy a ticket at the same time and it crashes their servers. Tech could help a bit with that. But in the end, everyone trying to buy a ticket actually wants to go to the festival)
Yes, the obvious solution to the scalper problem is to drop the tech and go back to physical ticket sales outlets. You stand in line, buy a ticket, present your ID, and you receive a ticket with your photo printed on it and a QR code containing your ID info (encrypted if necessary).
At the venue, someone checks your photo, and you scan your ID, which must match the one on the ticket.
But Ticketmaster would never do that, because they make too much money from scalping.
At the venue, someone checks your photo, and you scan your ID, which must match the one on the ticket.
But Ticketmaster would never do that, because they make too much money from scalping.
Glastonbury was all online. Submitted a photo of my ID.
The article had some interesting info, but didn't answer the key question that I still don't understand: how to these professional scalpers get multiple credit card accounts? Don't you need unique credit cards for each fake ticketmaster account?
It's extremely easy to get multiple virtual debit cards numbers. The only way around this is to maintain some allowlist of BIN/IINs for the known banks/services that do not have this kind of product which may severely limit conversion rates I guess.
Plenty of services allow you to generate an infinite number of disposable credit card numbers tied to the same account.
Don't allow tickets to be resellable/transferable, but require they must be refundable.
So I think Inmight have the ticket market worked out - it's been puzzling me.
So we can easily solve ticket allocation on a "fair" way - London 2012 olympics was a good example. Everyone who wants tickets for an event signs up and there is a (verified) random selection and the lucky winners paid (I think) a tenner.
This is because there was no profit maximising incentive for the Games - it was a PR exercise for UK government.
Now for a Taylor Swift concert there is profit maximising. I am going to say here it's Taylor's manager who is the cackling moustache twirling villain of the piece to avoid upsetting Awiftians but hear me out.
Profit seeking manager arranged a contract like Katy Perry below [0]. This basically is a leak showing Perry arranged to be able to sell her own tickets to "resellers" - ie people she knew would sell on StubHub for higher than face value.
But to protect his clients reputation he wants to keep this selling of tickets at high prices a secret.
So imagine there are 1 million tickets for a tour, over 50 days at 20,000 tickets per event (no idea of this is right seems ok-ish). Then hold back 10 days (added by extra demand!) and then only sell say 50% of tickets at the low price, there are say 400,000 tickets available to fans. But release them slowly - extra demand / seating allocation, verifies fans first etc etc. The point is to guage demand - if 1000 people try to buy tickets on day 1 for a stadium, and only 500 manage to get through the process you know there are 500 disappointed people out there so sell the other 50% for that day on that stadium to reseller (your mate) who will go on stub hub or ticket master selling to people who just missed out and will pay higher prices.
finally a market that makes sense. Why is the process slow, awkward, convoluted? Because it's a signalling mechanism for reselling you higher priced tickets without affecting the reputation of the client
[0] https://www.vulture.com/2011/05/katy_perry_reserves_the_righ...
So we can easily solve ticket allocation on a "fair" way - London 2012 olympics was a good example. Everyone who wants tickets for an event signs up and there is a (verified) random selection and the lucky winners paid (I think) a tenner.
This is because there was no profit maximising incentive for the Games - it was a PR exercise for UK government.
Now for a Taylor Swift concert there is profit maximising. I am going to say here it's Taylor's manager who is the cackling moustache twirling villain of the piece to avoid upsetting Awiftians but hear me out.
Profit seeking manager arranged a contract like Katy Perry below [0]. This basically is a leak showing Perry arranged to be able to sell her own tickets to "resellers" - ie people she knew would sell on StubHub for higher than face value.
But to protect his clients reputation he wants to keep this selling of tickets at high prices a secret.
So imagine there are 1 million tickets for a tour, over 50 days at 20,000 tickets per event (no idea of this is right seems ok-ish). Then hold back 10 days (added by extra demand!) and then only sell say 50% of tickets at the low price, there are say 400,000 tickets available to fans. But release them slowly - extra demand / seating allocation, verifies fans first etc etc. The point is to guage demand - if 1000 people try to buy tickets on day 1 for a stadium, and only 500 manage to get through the process you know there are 500 disappointed people out there so sell the other 50% for that day on that stadium to reseller (your mate) who will go on stub hub or ticket master selling to people who just missed out and will pay higher prices.
finally a market that makes sense. Why is the process slow, awkward, convoluted? Because it's a signalling mechanism for reselling you higher priced tickets without affecting the reputation of the client
[0] https://www.vulture.com/2011/05/katy_perry_reserves_the_righ...
If <Popular Artist> wants to reward true fans, why aren't they making their own fan club, with id-verified accounts, and then sell tickets to them first?
They did do this. It was completely compromised by scalpers.
Yup, this.
The Cure tried really hard to make ticket sales for their latest tour as fair as possible. “Verified fan” sales only, resales disallowed (except where required by law), not allowing dynamic “Platinum” (aka airline ticket) pricing, transfers not allowed, face value resale only, no added fees. They also had their tickets go for extremely reasonable prices (like, $200 for front row tickets down to $25 for the nose bleeds). Even merch was reasonably priced; $20 t-shirts, $35 sweat shirts, and everything was high-quality. It seemed like they tried everything they could to balance playing in large venues (which unfortunately means dealing with TM since they have the monopoly here) while allowing a fair experience for fans and it still went sideways.
Scalpers still found ways to game this. Tickets couldn’t be transferred, so the novel approach they used was to sell the entire account with the tickets attached to it.
The Cure tried really hard to make ticket sales for their latest tour as fair as possible. “Verified fan” sales only, resales disallowed (except where required by law), not allowing dynamic “Platinum” (aka airline ticket) pricing, transfers not allowed, face value resale only, no added fees. They also had their tickets go for extremely reasonable prices (like, $200 for front row tickets down to $25 for the nose bleeds). Even merch was reasonably priced; $20 t-shirts, $35 sweat shirts, and everything was high-quality. It seemed like they tried everything they could to balance playing in large venues (which unfortunately means dealing with TM since they have the monopoly here) while allowing a fair experience for fans and it still went sideways.
Scalpers still found ways to game this. Tickets couldn’t be transferred, so the novel approach they used was to sell the entire account with the tickets attached to it.
"Novel" in the sense of, "they've been doing that for at least the last few years". ;-)
While getting tickets for The Cure was a shit show because of Ticketmaster, the fan to fan ticket exchange ended up being wonderful. I lucked into really great tickets at face value the day of the show, and I was able to resell my “still good but not great” tickets in minutes. It was almost zero friction and there were no tacked on fees or other surprises. I wish more artists did this.
Sometimes I want to resell a ticket and I’m not looking to profit but TM makes it so painful to do this under normal circumstances. The fact they can double dip on fees should be illegal. Whenever I’ve tried to sell tickets at face value (because something came up, I got better tickets later, or another tour stop opened up at a better venue), the actual listing ends up being some 20% higher because of the extra fees TM adds. TM doesn’t let you list a ticket at below face value.
Sometimes I want to resell a ticket and I’m not looking to profit but TM makes it so painful to do this under normal circumstances. The fact they can double dip on fees should be illegal. Whenever I’ve tried to sell tickets at face value (because something came up, I got better tickets later, or another tour stop opened up at a better venue), the actual listing ends up being some 20% higher because of the extra fees TM adds. TM doesn’t let you list a ticket at below face value.
I've been to some concerts where they checked your ID vs. the credit card.
In that case I imagine the scalper would have to get a card issued that scanned properly with your name and the original number.
I also remember Green Day did a show which was cash at the door only; in that case you only have line cheats who pay people to stand in line for them.
I've also been to concerts where the ticket in an app locked to the phone, which could makes it harder if scalpers have to send a phone to you (though rooted phones could help.)
In each of these cases you're out of luck for the show if you lose the card or phone, though it might be possible to get a refund.
In that case I imagine the scalper would have to get a card issued that scanned properly with your name and the original number.
I also remember Green Day did a show which was cash at the door only; in that case you only have line cheats who pay people to stand in line for them.
I've also been to concerts where the ticket in an app locked to the phone, which could makes it harder if scalpers have to send a phone to you (though rooted phones could help.)
In each of these cases you're out of luck for the show if you lose the card or phone, though it might be possible to get a refund.
This seems like a situation ideally suited for biometrics at time of purchase. It limits/complicates the hoarding of tickets and is likely something many actual fans would accept in order to secure tickets for an event.
If tickets can be scalped with a markup, doesn’t that mean the original sale price is below market value? Maybe we should just be happy that we have a chance to buy below market value.
Ticketmaster is a closed platform, nowhere near a "free market" where such rules apply.
Scalping (or at least reselling) airline tickets used to be a thing before 9/11 when the TSA came into being and they and the airlines began requiring positive ID to get on an airplane. Ticket reselling cost the airlines money: It made nonrefundable tickets fungible again, which the airlines hated. So the airlines loved the TSA's new positive ID policy.
Ticketmaster could do the same thing if they wanted to, but I have a feeling they don't.
Ticketmaster could do the same thing if they wanted to, but I have a feeling they don't.
We have been conditioned to show up at the airport hours before a flight and go through anal probes without complaining. You really think something like that would work at an arena with a hundred thousand drunk fans? Especially considering most people buy tickets as a group rather than individually.
I think unique identity is worth something. This is what the government (federal, state, local, doesn't matter) ought to have a role in protecting. If we had laws that said, for example, you must have proof of identity in the country or state or region where the arena is located, would that not solve this? We used to do it in the 90s by using phone area codes, and this worked pretty effectively: the early 90s was a golden age of low concert ticket prices.
So tell international fans to f*ck off, right? I know many friends who fly to Japan to attend concerts because they genuinely like those artists. Way to stifle free trade and trample on people's preferences.
Agree that's wouldn't be right ... but proof of identity should solve for both as long as there was reciprocity between governments.
For K- and J-pop concerts it is not unusual that tickets sell out or nearly sell out during fanclub presale.
Only memberships over a certain age before the concert get access to presale, and name on ticket has to match at the door.
It sucks if you are a fan of the music and don't want to be part of the whole idol worshipping part of the business, but my impression is that there is very little scalping going on.
Only memberships over a certain age before the concert get access to presale, and name on ticket has to match at the door.
It sucks if you are a fan of the music and don't want to be part of the whole idol worshipping part of the business, but my impression is that there is very little scalping going on.
Aside: Why are all of 404media's posts popular "outrage" articles? It continually sours me on this new news outlet
This is a pretty straightforward account of how scalpers operate. Are they only supposed to write about lemonade stands and firefighters rescuing kitties from trees?
No. But I don't need another news outlet doing the same Ticketmaster etc story as everyone else. Just don't need it. There's been plenty of mainstream/tech news stories on the ticket problem, Taylor Swift etc, c'mon.
It's not really about that; it's more of a breakdown of the ways that they are actually able to circumvent measures meant to prevent scalping. If there have been a lot of such stories then I missed them.
The problem isn't scalper, but the value of tickets. If tickets price is lower than demand, then there will always be scalper. Solving it via tech is useless and creates more problem imo.
Either it should be lottery system or ticket price should be set high enough, which might not be fair to people who can't afford. But, this is the way.
Either it should be lottery system or ticket price should be set high enough, which might not be fair to people who can't afford. But, this is the way.
Could Ticketmaster have any incentive to permit scalpers?
(Besides the potential for personnel to be bribed individually. I'm wondering about whether there's hypothetically an angle for the company to permit scalpers. Maybe to be involved in scalping, as a kind of double dipping.)
(Besides the potential for personnel to be bribed individually. I'm wondering about whether there's hypothetically an angle for the company to permit scalpers. Maybe to be involved in scalping, as a kind of double dipping.)
Ticket marketplaces take fees on every transaction, so incentivizing multiple transactions on a single ticket is in their interest.
Additionally, resale fees tend to be higher, on a percentage basis, and prices tend to be higher on resale tickets for high demand events.
But this does not mean ticket marketplaces are incentivized to sell to resellers initially instead of actual event-goers.
Primary prices and fees are lower because artists and venues demand it. Ticketmaster's continued ability to source tickets to high demand events is more important than marginal revenue from resale on even a large number of those tickets.
Additionally, resale fees tend to be higher, on a percentage basis, and prices tend to be higher on resale tickets for high demand events.
But this does not mean ticket marketplaces are incentivized to sell to resellers initially instead of actual event-goers.
Primary prices and fees are lower because artists and venues demand it. Ticketmaster's continued ability to source tickets to high demand events is more important than marginal revenue from resale on even a large number of those tickets.
[deleted]
Make tickets online $500. When you arrive you're given a special ticket-locked voucher that lets you go back to the website and get $480 back (assuming tickets are still $20 like when I was 20 years old).
A lot of people who'd like to see the show don't have $500 they can float for that long.
A lot of the "solutions" presented end up making shows too expensive for a large portion of the artist's fans. That's not an outcome the artists want.
A lot of the "solutions" presented end up making shows too expensive for a large portion of the artist's fans. That's not an outcome the artists want.
Probably doesn’t work. Buyers would happily pay scalpers $550 knowing they will get $480 back.
The idea here is that the scalped ticket would not get the refund.
Scalper pays with their card
Someone purchases the ticket from the scalper
Venue distributes special code (short like 2 letters) that gets tied to your ticket.
If you go back to the website, and enter the code, it's not benefiting your credit card, but the scalpers. So if you purchase from an unauthorized person, you have no reason to enter the code.
Wrong code entered twice - lose your 480.
Numbers could be adjusted to make more sense for more people, as long as it makes the scalper ticket seem ridiculous.
Scalper pays with their card
Someone purchases the ticket from the scalper
Venue distributes special code (short like 2 letters) that gets tied to your ticket.
If you go back to the website, and enter the code, it's not benefiting your credit card, but the scalpers. So if you purchase from an unauthorized person, you have no reason to enter the code.
Wrong code entered twice - lose your 480.
Numbers could be adjusted to make more sense for more people, as long as it makes the scalper ticket seem ridiculous.
Gambling sites have solved this to a much better extent than described in this article with verified ids, fingerprint extensions running on devices and whatnot.
Why not raise prices until you hit the supply demand cross? Yes you will visit one event out of three (just as today), but the dignity will remain with you.
Given the tickets often are going on sale a year ahead of the events, they have plenty of time to just price them high and adjust prices down (or up) to satisfy or drive demand. The concept that the tickets all have a face value that’s fixed for all seats (or a couple grouping of) is kinda the weird part to me. The pricing should work like plane tickets. It’s not a market in its purest form and I think that’s ok. I see that coming with lots of issues too.
I posted this elsewhere in the thread[0], but tldr I believe that concerts give value to fans and artists beyond the ticket price as a giant ad for the band’s brand and a community that forms around it, both pressures that put the optimal price for fans and artists below the market for it as a one time entertainment option. The optimal price point for the artist playing a repeated game is therefore lower than the optimal price point for an event venue or scalper.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=37624742&goto=item%3Fi...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=37624742&goto=item%3Fi...
This only works if buying that ticket does not become a nuisanse.
I just _love_ how the links to the "browsers which are helping scalpers" are marked with "?ref=404media.co"..
Just in case, you know..
Just in case, you know..
I think they do that for every website they link to.
For example on this page: https://www.404media.co/ios-17-could-break-diabetic-glucose-...
They link to CNN using the same reference: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/health/abbott-recall-freestyl...
For example on this page: https://www.404media.co/ios-17-could-break-diabetic-glucose-...
They link to CNN using the same reference: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/health/abbott-recall-freestyl...
The reason why artists don't sell all tickets to rich people is because they think poor people deserve nice things too, so they lower the price. But surely all poor people deserve nice things, not only your fans? Why not sell tickets to rich people and then donate the proceeds to help poor people? It seems to me that this way everyone wins: artists take the same monetary hit they would've taken anyway if they lowered the price, but the difference goes to poor people instead of scalpers.
Because they don't want to donate abstract money to abstract people in the third world, they want to see and talk to their most active and passionate fans
I have some recent experience in live events and I can tell from the comments here that most people don't understand how the economics work. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until I was involved. It's... confusing.
We all think that when Major Band goes on tour, they just rent a bunch of big arenas and sell tickets. If you think that, a lot of the comments about the bands getting paid by TicketMaster make sense, but that's not at all how it works.
Venue operators are a lot like commercial landlords. They manage a building, and someone else runs all of the businesses in it. Major Sports Team might play in an arena they own, or an arena owned by the city they are in, or one owned by a third party. Major Amphtitheater could be owned by an investor group, LiveNation, or (as in my area) a symphony or other not-for-profit or governmental entity. Whoever owns it, they usually contract out basically everything that goes on inside it, just as an owner of an office building or strip mall doesn't own most (or any) of the businesses that have offices or stores in it. That beer you bought probably was sold to you by Legends or Aramark or Delaware North who payed Arena Owner for the food and beverage (f&b) rights. The F&B might then be subcontracted out, done in house, or some combo. The F&B company might sign an exclusive deal with Bacardi to use their liquor brands. The shirt you bought probably was sold to you by the exclusive merchandise vendor (or, with music, likely the space was given to Major Band as part of their contract). Etc.
The events work much the same way. The venue doesn't run the conerts, they don't even book them, hell their owners likely couldn't even tell you who was performing yesterday. They probably have an exclusive deal with a large promoter like LiveNation, AEG, etc. Or they may not be exclusive, and various promoters may rent venues on an individual basis. For each concert, a promoter pays the venue and hires Major Band. My favorite band does about 75 shows a year, and gets paid $1 million per. If nobody shows up, they still get $1 million, though they probably won't get it again next year. They don't really know or care what the ticket sales are, except maybe to use it to ask for more than $1 million next year. Then the promoter sells the tickets and they profit from the difference.
But, the venue or an exclusive promoter may have a deal with a ticket seller like Ticketmaster. And because Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, the biggest promoter (by far, about 2.5x the size of their nearest competitor) and also an owner or exclusive operator of most of the nation's biggest venues, the ticket seller may BE the promoter AND even the venue. Even worse, LiveNation does band management too. They've been caught steering their bands away from arenas and amphitheaters with a third party promoter after the venues signed ticket deals with other ticketing agencies.
LiveNation's business model is very simple (and brilliant and evil): they buy out venues. 50% of the world's concert revenues come from like 300 venues, so it's an obvious chokepoint. They pay Venue Operator millions per year to run the facilities, then they hire Major Bands to come play there. They make money off the concert and the TicketMaster fees. Or, in cases where for whatever reason they can't buy out promotion, or own the venue entirely, they pay whoever does to be the exclusive ticket agent, so they still get that sweet ticket money.
So why does Ticketmaster like scalpers? Simple, more fees. In the good old days, Ticketmaster sold a piece of paper once, then whatever happened happened. Then came StubHub who made a trusted digital route for reselling tickets (that themselves became digital). At first Ticketmaster fought them but then eventually realized it was a whole lot more profitable to just do it too.
If you buy a ticket and go see the show, they only made one ticket fee off of you. If you buy a ticket and then turn around and sell it verified resale, they got paid twice.
The obvious question is: why don't promoters just charge more for tickets to shows that sell out? (Caveat: the following is more supposition by me than the above.)
1.) Bands don't like this. Bands want their fans to remain fans, so they will buy albums, stream music, buy merch, see future shows, etc. for years to come. If the Stones have shown us anything it's that a music career can span generations if you manage it right.
2.) Just as night clubs purposefully keep a long line in front of the door even though they're empty, a quick sellout induces demand, so it might seem like Taylor Swift's promoters could probably 6x her price and still sell out, but that's likely not true. Bands even often have price restrictions in their deals with promoters.
3.) Most of the time the promoter and the ticketing agent are the same company, so you might as well shove all of the blame onto TicketMaster. LiveNation knows you hate TicketMaster but you'll keep buying tickets from them as long as you have no other choice, so they just keep the rest of their brand behind the scenes. You probably don't even know who promoted the concert you went to, and they like it that way, but you know who charged you $30 in fees.
4.) They get other per-head revenues from their contracts with companies like whoever does F&B, sponsorships, etc. This is why low-selling shows often give away tickets for free, or why you'll see tickets on Groupon when a band plays an amphitheater that's a little too big for them. An almost sold out crowd at $110 a ticket might make less money than a sold out crowd at $100 a ticket.
In any case the one thing you can be sure of is that they have analyzed the data and priced everything at whatever makes them the most money. They're evil but they're far from stupid.
But as to why Major Band uses TicketMaster: TicketMaster has exclusive deals with over 2/3 of the big venues in the US, is usually the promoter that hired them and may even own the whole damn venue.
We all think that when Major Band goes on tour, they just rent a bunch of big arenas and sell tickets. If you think that, a lot of the comments about the bands getting paid by TicketMaster make sense, but that's not at all how it works.
Venue operators are a lot like commercial landlords. They manage a building, and someone else runs all of the businesses in it. Major Sports Team might play in an arena they own, or an arena owned by the city they are in, or one owned by a third party. Major Amphtitheater could be owned by an investor group, LiveNation, or (as in my area) a symphony or other not-for-profit or governmental entity. Whoever owns it, they usually contract out basically everything that goes on inside it, just as an owner of an office building or strip mall doesn't own most (or any) of the businesses that have offices or stores in it. That beer you bought probably was sold to you by Legends or Aramark or Delaware North who payed Arena Owner for the food and beverage (f&b) rights. The F&B might then be subcontracted out, done in house, or some combo. The F&B company might sign an exclusive deal with Bacardi to use their liquor brands. The shirt you bought probably was sold to you by the exclusive merchandise vendor (or, with music, likely the space was given to Major Band as part of their contract). Etc.
The events work much the same way. The venue doesn't run the conerts, they don't even book them, hell their owners likely couldn't even tell you who was performing yesterday. They probably have an exclusive deal with a large promoter like LiveNation, AEG, etc. Or they may not be exclusive, and various promoters may rent venues on an individual basis. For each concert, a promoter pays the venue and hires Major Band. My favorite band does about 75 shows a year, and gets paid $1 million per. If nobody shows up, they still get $1 million, though they probably won't get it again next year. They don't really know or care what the ticket sales are, except maybe to use it to ask for more than $1 million next year. Then the promoter sells the tickets and they profit from the difference.
But, the venue or an exclusive promoter may have a deal with a ticket seller like Ticketmaster. And because Ticketmaster is owned by LiveNation, the biggest promoter (by far, about 2.5x the size of their nearest competitor) and also an owner or exclusive operator of most of the nation's biggest venues, the ticket seller may BE the promoter AND even the venue. Even worse, LiveNation does band management too. They've been caught steering their bands away from arenas and amphitheaters with a third party promoter after the venues signed ticket deals with other ticketing agencies.
LiveNation's business model is very simple (and brilliant and evil): they buy out venues. 50% of the world's concert revenues come from like 300 venues, so it's an obvious chokepoint. They pay Venue Operator millions per year to run the facilities, then they hire Major Bands to come play there. They make money off the concert and the TicketMaster fees. Or, in cases where for whatever reason they can't buy out promotion, or own the venue entirely, they pay whoever does to be the exclusive ticket agent, so they still get that sweet ticket money.
So why does Ticketmaster like scalpers? Simple, more fees. In the good old days, Ticketmaster sold a piece of paper once, then whatever happened happened. Then came StubHub who made a trusted digital route for reselling tickets (that themselves became digital). At first Ticketmaster fought them but then eventually realized it was a whole lot more profitable to just do it too.
If you buy a ticket and go see the show, they only made one ticket fee off of you. If you buy a ticket and then turn around and sell it verified resale, they got paid twice.
The obvious question is: why don't promoters just charge more for tickets to shows that sell out? (Caveat: the following is more supposition by me than the above.)
1.) Bands don't like this. Bands want their fans to remain fans, so they will buy albums, stream music, buy merch, see future shows, etc. for years to come. If the Stones have shown us anything it's that a music career can span generations if you manage it right.
2.) Just as night clubs purposefully keep a long line in front of the door even though they're empty, a quick sellout induces demand, so it might seem like Taylor Swift's promoters could probably 6x her price and still sell out, but that's likely not true. Bands even often have price restrictions in their deals with promoters.
3.) Most of the time the promoter and the ticketing agent are the same company, so you might as well shove all of the blame onto TicketMaster. LiveNation knows you hate TicketMaster but you'll keep buying tickets from them as long as you have no other choice, so they just keep the rest of their brand behind the scenes. You probably don't even know who promoted the concert you went to, and they like it that way, but you know who charged you $30 in fees.
4.) They get other per-head revenues from their contracts with companies like whoever does F&B, sponsorships, etc. This is why low-selling shows often give away tickets for free, or why you'll see tickets on Groupon when a band plays an amphitheater that's a little too big for them. An almost sold out crowd at $110 a ticket might make less money than a sold out crowd at $100 a ticket.
In any case the one thing you can be sure of is that they have analyzed the data and priced everything at whatever makes them the most money. They're evil but they're far from stupid.
But as to why Major Band uses TicketMaster: TicketMaster has exclusive deals with over 2/3 of the big venues in the US, is usually the promoter that hired them and may even own the whole damn venue.
It would seem that to some extent this ultimately does lead to Major Band getting paid by Ticketmaster though, albeit through indirect means. Let's say a show is going to generate $1M in profit for LiveNation/Ticketmaster because of the fees and the reselling but would only make $250K without, the promoter (who because of monopoly is also the ticket seller) is going to be much more willing and able to offer Major Band a larger payment to get them to perform in the former instance given that they stand to profit much more from the performance.
Yeah, I suppose that’s true, but also Major Band is up against the same near-monopoly because there aren’t many promoters bidding for their shows. When you get to the level where you can sell out 20,000 seats, over 2/3 of the promotion is exclusively LiveNation.
I guess that’s technically a near -monopsony. Bands would probably argue they’d make more if promotion was itself a functioning market.
I guess that’s technically a near -monopsony. Bands would probably argue they’d make more if promotion was itself a functioning market.
I don’t understand why events don’t just do Vickey auctions it would be the fairest system and would make scalping impractical
In some countries, the ticket tied to government issued ID and that should reduce the scalper a bit I guess?
> Private Tabs costs $500 per month. Insomniac costs $400 per month. KPX, a new browser, costs $40 per month.
This is good evidence that Ticketmasters' defenses actually work, and scalpers have gone over to selling scalping as a get-rich-quick scheme. (It's also of course extremely dumb to pay for). An inevitable step in the lifecycle of any grift.
This is good evidence that Ticketmasters' defenses actually work, and scalpers have gone over to selling scalping as a get-rich-quick scheme. (It's also of course extremely dumb to pay for). An inevitable step in the lifecycle of any grift.
Scalping is legitimate market activity. High price is the price reached by supply and demand.
I don’t know if I buy the premise of the article. We were able to have an opportunity to buy tickets after being waitlisted (I think it was 48-72hrs after the initial presale). But the tickets were extremely expensive. Ticketmaster was scalping not the scalpers.
We did buy Taylor Swift tickets for next year however it was $1k for three tickets.
We did buy Taylor Swift tickets for next year however it was $1k for three tickets.
> Ticketmaster was scalping not the scalpers.
If I understand correctly, the definition of scalping is to buy and sell quickly in the hope of a profit. Ticketmaster is the originator of the tickets (it is not reselling from anyone else), so it cannot be a scalper.
You can't just make up meanings and assume that scalping means selling at an uncomfortably high price.
If I understand correctly, the definition of scalping is to buy and sell quickly in the hope of a profit. Ticketmaster is the originator of the tickets (it is not reselling from anyone else), so it cannot be a scalper.
You can't just make up meanings and assume that scalping means selling at an uncomfortably high price.
Ticketmaster has something called Official Platinum seats where the prices are dynamic and roughly reflect market prices. See https://ticketmaster-us.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/978244...
Not all events have this though.
Not all events have this though.
Look don’t be a dick. I am just using an analogy
Why are tickets priced too low?
Because artists care about public image, which will be affected if their tickets price out economically disadvantaged fans.
Won't Stock Market kind of thing work here. Put the tickets up in IPO. Then when it goes public, let price discovery happen. Repository gets a % fee per transaction.
The sky is blue and Ticketmaster is a monopoly and crime syndicate.
There are 2 overall approaches: law enforcement by making resale illegal or doubling-down on capitalism by auction sales rather than enabling arbitrage.
Either way, ticket marketplace(s) must do more to assure limits of tickets and verifying the uniqueness of individuals through technological and physical delivery controls. Since this is a widespread consumer rights issue, it could be grounds for hauling TM before a Senate subcommittee inquiry.
There are 2 overall approaches: law enforcement by making resale illegal or doubling-down on capitalism by auction sales rather than enabling arbitrage.
Either way, ticket marketplace(s) must do more to assure limits of tickets and verifying the uniqueness of individuals through technological and physical delivery controls. Since this is a widespread consumer rights issue, it could be grounds for hauling TM before a Senate subcommittee inquiry.
Nothing new here. I remember when the Cubs stopped selling tickets via a line wrapped around Wrigley to a wristband "to cut down on scalpers". I lucked out and ended up 57th in line. You could only buy 4 tickets per game so in theory only 240 tickets would have been sold by the time I got to buy. I was only looking for bleacher seats (cheap and fun at the time) and there were about 5000 seats available. By the time I got to buy every weekend bleacher seat was sold out with the exception of April, May and September. Who bought the other 4700 seats? The answer of course was the scalpers. Back then (90's) bleacher seats were $12 and the ball park was down the block so it was a nice option on the weekend to go see the game, have a few beers (4 for $18), it wasn't much more expensive than going to the movies. Now it's $35 for the same seat and beers are $18 each, Wrigley is still down the block but at those prices I'll just catch the matinee for $12 and a $12 popcorn.
[deleted]
My impractical solution: no resale of tickets, and check of ID at the door. It’ll slow things down for check in, and people sick will miss out, but it will collectively bring prices down and increase seat availability.
The last Nine Inch Nails concert I went to was like this. Fans on the email list got advance sales for the event, and you could buy up to two tickets, and had to have your ID match the tickets. It was great, I was able to watch right from the front of the pit, I didn't have to fight through any weird browser nonsense, and I paid exactly the price of the ticket, no more, no less.
Treat them like an airplane ticket, you don't see others getting on when it isn't in their name, do you? I don't see people scalping flights to shady people for the past 20 or so years, so it's possible.
Ticketmaster simply won't take the measures, as they have absolutely no financial problem with the way it is now or throughout the history of them existing. Their only problem is trying to figure out how to get scalper prices themselves, which they've already tried and gotten backlash for.
Ticketmaster simply won't take the measures, as they have absolutely no financial problem with the way it is now or throughout the history of them existing. Their only problem is trying to figure out how to get scalper prices themselves, which they've already tried and gotten backlash for.
This is where regulation could come in.
This is what Hamilton did when it opened in London.
You could in some circumstances return tickets to the theatre for a full refund, but couldn't resell them.
The buying credit card had to be shown at entry to make sure they hadn't been resold.
Afaik, they're still doing this.
You could in some circumstances return tickets to the theatre for a full refund, but couldn't resell them.
The buying credit card had to be shown at entry to make sure they hadn't been resold.
Afaik, they're still doing this.
This is the only true solution. There’s a few things to work out legally - but they are all solvable. Perhaps there should be a seat transfer portal that opens 24-48 hours before (or at some specified time) for those true extenuating circumstances so family members or friends could get access to tickets. Otherwise, first principles says end transferability to end the secondary market.
Just allow refunds/partial refunds to the original seller and they can put it back on the market.
Airlines arguably have the same type of selling situation and no one is scalping coach seats to Cleveland.
Airlines arguably have the same type of selling situation and no one is scalping coach seats to Cleveland.
You add a game; and it will get gamed.
I hate this, but unless your solution can sufficiently answer the question, "How does this benefit Ticketmaster?", it will never happen so long as they have a monopoly on ticket sales.
Yeah I don’t like scalpers at all, but I don’t think I should have to give out any personal information to buy a concert ticket.
You already do
Your name?
I don't see any reason why platform and artists are alright with tickets reselling, it's madness to me that no artists "consortium" has demanded a change already.
In France, a famous youtuber has partnered with the major platform to forbid any ticket resell for their show, and it worked pretty well. But still it was only one time.
In France, a famous youtuber has partnered with the major platform to forbid any ticket resell for their show, and it worked pretty well. But still it was only one time.
In the US, the ticket selling platform (tickemaster) and the venue (live nation) are usually the same company.
The sale is set up so that ticket resale is forbidden, except that scalpers can resell them via ticketmaster. Ticketmaster gets to charge a second transaction fee when the scalper resells it.
Artists don’t have enough market leverage to bypass this. (Pearl Jam famously tried and failed at the top of their career.)
So, it’s a combination of auction fraud (building a platform for scalpers while pretending to enforce anti-scalper policies) and monopoly power (colluding with venues and probably agents to depress first-sale ticket prices).
I tried to figure out if ticketmaster also owns and operates the scalping companies (allowing two-sided auction fraud). I came up with a firm “maybe”.
The sale is set up so that ticket resale is forbidden, except that scalpers can resell them via ticketmaster. Ticketmaster gets to charge a second transaction fee when the scalper resells it.
Artists don’t have enough market leverage to bypass this. (Pearl Jam famously tried and failed at the top of their career.)
So, it’s a combination of auction fraud (building a platform for scalpers while pretending to enforce anti-scalper policies) and monopoly power (colluding with venues and probably agents to depress first-sale ticket prices).
I tried to figure out if ticketmaster also owns and operates the scalping companies (allowing two-sided auction fraud). I came up with a firm “maybe”.
It's not impractical at all. It effectively combats any scalping and makes ticket sales honest and fair. I've managed ticket systems for large festivals and this is how we did it.
this, but allow refunds.
[deleted]
Or just make it an auction. Every ticket goes to the highest bidder.
That’s effectively what it is now, and it means poorer ppl lose. That’s not good for society.
That's not what it is now. Right now the scalper gets the difference between the ticket price and what the highest bidder pays. In an auction all that money would go to the artist.
The article talks about how scalpers circumvent no ticket resale - sell the entire account containing the tickets.
Ignoring how Ticketmaster is complicit in all this... it makes me really sad for humanity that people choose a "job" that is 100% about exploiting people. And that's it entirely legal and "normal" for the most part.
A decade ago or so I went on a first date with a woman who was a professional scalper. Unfortunately I didn't have the balls to ask her about the ethics of what she does. (I expect it would have been something like, "if I don't do it, someone else will".) But it really grossed me out; I just can't respect someone who does something like that.
A decade ago or so I went on a first date with a woman who was a professional scalper. Unfortunately I didn't have the balls to ask her about the ethics of what she does. (I expect it would have been something like, "if I don't do it, someone else will".) But it really grossed me out; I just can't respect someone who does something like that.
If it's only the worst .01% of humanity, you're talking about 80,000,000 people on the planet.
The Internet has a remarkable way of introducing you to the absolute dregs. It's like computer security: everything not 100% locked down perfectly will belong to someone else minutes later. And even a gigantic corporation with intense experience handling money cannot lock things down 100%.
Most of humanity is ok. But the parts that suck, suck so hard that on the whole I think it averages out to really bad.
The Internet has a remarkable way of introducing you to the absolute dregs. It's like computer security: everything not 100% locked down perfectly will belong to someone else minutes later. And even a gigantic corporation with intense experience handling money cannot lock things down 100%.
Most of humanity is ok. But the parts that suck, suck so hard that on the whole I think it averages out to really bad.
[deleted]
This has been the same scam for decades, there's always motivation, financially, for people to subvert the rules, and ticketmaster wins either way. After stubhub/ebay basically legitimized scalping, it was all over.
Know how I dealt with ticket scalping? I stopped going to shows like that in the 90's, then stopped buying cd's, and eventually stopped supporting the music industry (and media cartels in general).
Know how I dealt with ticket scalping? I stopped going to shows like that in the 90's, then stopped buying cd's, and eventually stopped supporting the music industry (and media cartels in general).
[deleted]
Scalping is such an ugly term for "the market efficiently allocating resources." This is just completely normal price discovery. /s
I would take off the "/s", because I agree with your statement at face value.
If there are a limited number of tickets but many thousands of fans who are willing and able to pay, then naturally the price goes up. And whether you like it or not, people are either paying with money, or paying with time (e.g. waiting in line), or paying with frustration (e.g. going through opaque scalping networks).
The root cause of the problem isn't scalpers; it's the original concert seller either setting too low a price or too low a quantity.
If there are a limited number of tickets but many thousands of fans who are willing and able to pay, then naturally the price goes up. And whether you like it or not, people are either paying with money, or paying with time (e.g. waiting in line), or paying with frustration (e.g. going through opaque scalping networks).
The root cause of the problem isn't scalpers; it's the original concert seller either setting too low a price or too low a quantity.
> The root cause of the problem isn't scalpers; it's the original concert seller either setting too low a price or too low a quantity.
Imagine viewing a pricing scheme that allows more socioeconomic groups access to the arts as the core problem.
We're experiencing a great decline and fall as social services are failing, wages stagnating, and common cultural experiences are being squeezed for profit, only enabling the richest among us to experience any kind of common social event.
And of course, the response is "keep increasing prices until its unbearable", just like we're doing with rent and housing prices, and calling this efficient.
Inflating prices until few can afford it isn't efficient, its just short sighted greed.
Finding a way to suppress prices and remove scalpers is a net benefit for the artists, venues, and patrons.
Imagine viewing a pricing scheme that allows more socioeconomic groups access to the arts as the core problem.
We're experiencing a great decline and fall as social services are failing, wages stagnating, and common cultural experiences are being squeezed for profit, only enabling the richest among us to experience any kind of common social event.
And of course, the response is "keep increasing prices until its unbearable", just like we're doing with rent and housing prices, and calling this efficient.
Inflating prices until few can afford it isn't efficient, its just short sighted greed.
Finding a way to suppress prices and remove scalpers is a net benefit for the artists, venues, and patrons.
I'm flummoxed by this view but at least empathetic when it comes to food and shelter. When it comes to Olivia Rodrigo tickets I'm legitimately confused.
If Rodrigo decided to abandon her career and only do private shows for Bill Gate's who's business would that be but hers? I think there's room for either disdain or pity for the person who cares about nothing other then money but who's going to make that judgement about another person's motivations? And who would jump in take action on that judgement?
If Rodrigo decided to abandon her career and only do private shows for Bill Gate's who's business would that be but hers? I think there's room for either disdain or pity for the person who cares about nothing other then money but who's going to make that judgement about another person's motivations? And who would jump in take action on that judgement?
Few people think it's good that this is how things work. It would be great if artists could set affordable prices for their concerts and anyone who wanted could come! The contention is simply that that's not how it works, that supply and demand is a law not a guideline we can opt out of if we think it's inconvenient. It would be great if we could all just flap our hands and fly wherever we wanted, but gravity has something to say about that just as economics has something to say about "irrationally" priced tickets. Inventing the aeroplane is a laudable goal but go into it with clear eyes, not wishful thinking, and don't think you can keep gravity at bay by shaming it.
The core problem is reality. Scarcity is reality. Free market economics, supply and demand is reality.
You can try to ignore the equilibrium price point, just as you might ignore gravity, but reality will assert itself. Scalpers will always exist to rebalance the supply and demand equality.
If you want to make something available to more socioeconomic groups, increase the supply. Simple as.
You can try to ignore the equilibrium price point, just as you might ignore gravity, but reality will assert itself. Scalpers will always exist to rebalance the supply and demand equality.
If you want to make something available to more socioeconomic groups, increase the supply. Simple as.
... and clearly not viable. Do you think an artist can do 1000 shows a year?
Welcome to reality. You can't make a scarce good cheap by willing it harder.
You can make a scarce good cheap, just not for everyone in the market... hence the entire point of the discussion.
Access to arts and culture is broader now than it has been ever before in human history. If I want to listen to any Olivia Rodrigo song, I can go to YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Music, search for “Olivia Rodrigo”, and be set. Other than the price of internet access and a device that can connect to the internet, it costs literally nothing, unless maybe I want to pay extra to get rid of advertisements.
In the past I would routinely pay ticket brokers so as to have a better selection of seats, and to not have to deal with the "on sale" crush. Yes, of course I paid more, and I paid for the convenience, but I don't think I ever paid more than 50% of the face value.
I was a dedicated concert goer back in the day, having spent a lot of time in ticket lines. By time I started, "sleeping overnight" was pretty much over with as an hour or so before the sale, the staff would come out, hand out wrist bands, and then say "#123 is the front of the line" with the 123 being some (I guess random) number from the range of wrist bands they gave out, and everyone else would line up, with #122 wrapping around and being behind whatever the highest band that went out. The premise being there was no reason to show up much more than just before the onsale time, since your arrival time was no guarantee of line position.
Similarly, at one venue, they simply handed out numbers, low number wins. After we picked ours up, there was a guy on the edge willing to buy low numbers.
I was once first in line, but the tickets I got were underwhelming, which made me more cynical about the buying process.
Then, there was that one time, my poor wife, bought us some tickets. There was no way she could have known. There was no way anyone, really, could have known. It was a typical amphitheater layout, and she got the last row of the middle section. When you buy tickets during the mad rush of the opening sale, you just get what they give you, there's really no time to pick or choose.
Amphitheaters tend to be reasonably steep, with the seat in front of you lower, by, perhaps, a foot, so as to offer mostly unhindered sight lines to the stage. But the venue, at some point added a row of seats that were directly behind the row in front of it, with no offset, essentially offering NO view of the stage. It was just awful, and there's nothing she could have done about it.
In the end, I just learned to use a broker for most of the shows I saw. It was a much saner experience, I could pick seats, I could judge value, I could apply intangibles.
Thankfully, the bands I see today are cheap and unpopular, and the sports tickets I just buy from the stadium.
I was a dedicated concert goer back in the day, having spent a lot of time in ticket lines. By time I started, "sleeping overnight" was pretty much over with as an hour or so before the sale, the staff would come out, hand out wrist bands, and then say "#123 is the front of the line" with the 123 being some (I guess random) number from the range of wrist bands they gave out, and everyone else would line up, with #122 wrapping around and being behind whatever the highest band that went out. The premise being there was no reason to show up much more than just before the onsale time, since your arrival time was no guarantee of line position.
Similarly, at one venue, they simply handed out numbers, low number wins. After we picked ours up, there was a guy on the edge willing to buy low numbers.
I was once first in line, but the tickets I got were underwhelming, which made me more cynical about the buying process.
Then, there was that one time, my poor wife, bought us some tickets. There was no way she could have known. There was no way anyone, really, could have known. It was a typical amphitheater layout, and she got the last row of the middle section. When you buy tickets during the mad rush of the opening sale, you just get what they give you, there's really no time to pick or choose.
Amphitheaters tend to be reasonably steep, with the seat in front of you lower, by, perhaps, a foot, so as to offer mostly unhindered sight lines to the stage. But the venue, at some point added a row of seats that were directly behind the row in front of it, with no offset, essentially offering NO view of the stage. It was just awful, and there's nothing she could have done about it.
In the end, I just learned to use a broker for most of the shows I saw. It was a much saner experience, I could pick seats, I could judge value, I could apply intangibles.
Thankfully, the bands I see today are cheap and unpopular, and the sports tickets I just buy from the stadium.
> the bands I see today are cheap and unpopular
This is the way. There are a ton of bands you've never heard of that are really good, they just aren't popular because only very few acts are ever popular. You can absolutely see good live music cheap.
This is the way. There are a ton of bands you've never heard of that are really good, they just aren't popular because only very few acts are ever popular. You can absolutely see good live music cheap.
The problem with raising the prices is that people are willing to pay so much for a ticket exactly because they're difficult to get.
If the tickets were actually easily obtainable but more expensive then paradoxically people wouldn't be willing to pay as much for the ticket because of a perceived loss of value.
And as mentioned in the other reply, many people disagree with the "greed is good" philosophy, hence the /s.
If the tickets were actually easily obtainable but more expensive then paradoxically people wouldn't be willing to pay as much for the ticket because of a perceived loss of value.
And as mentioned in the other reply, many people disagree with the "greed is good" philosophy, hence the /s.
The root cause of scarcity here is the number of seats available. The biggest tours routinely book stadiums and arenas with tens of thousands of seats, and despite the scalping and high prices these venues usually sell out. It’s not like they’re all playing tiny downtown clubs. So how exactly are you going to make tickets easier to get?
Scarcity - exactly. Say that an artist is holding a concert and 20 thousand seats are available. But she has 50 million fans all over the world. How do you allocate these 20 thousand seats - who will get them? You can either satisfy the highest bidders, the first in line, or a random lottery. But you cannot choose to disappoint no one. Economics is all about making hard choices, and you can't simply wish them away.
[deleted]
The problem is that the first hand the ticket touches is a reseller instead of a person that genuinely wants and enjoys the concert.
If the price is set from the Artist, venue, Ticketmaster at prices from $50-200 then they have made that decision.
The local mini libraries on the sides of streets have free books. You could take a book and sell it, but you are not the intended person. The intention of the transaction is for the genuine reader to read the book, put it back, or give new books. This intention is set by the originator of the transaction.
If the Artist wanted the most money, they would set the price accordingly.
If the price is set from the Artist, venue, Ticketmaster at prices from $50-200 then they have made that decision.
The local mini libraries on the sides of streets have free books. You could take a book and sell it, but you are not the intended person. The intention of the transaction is for the genuine reader to read the book, put it back, or give new books. This intention is set by the originator of the transaction.
If the Artist wanted the most money, they would set the price accordingly.
[deleted]
A lot of these tickets get resold on the platforms themselves. If a reseller buys the ticket, and then sells it again to the end user, Ticketmaster gets paid twice.
This point results in at least hundreds of millions in revenue. Now, if one of the platforms “cracks down” and makes it harder to buy and sell people will prefer another platform.
So platforms have a huge disincentive to do anything about resellers.
Also…more obviously, demand pressure drives the price, so scalpers are helping create a market and getting paid for it.