Entertainment & Music Reverse Scalping

[YOTC]

Don't see why buying an asset and looking to sell it at a profit is looked down upon so much in this particular industry, whilst being recognised as a normality in others.

I think this just about sums up the thread for me. Top work checkraise.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

I knew Radiohead goons had to be behind this.

Scalpers ftw

 

[crownie]

Thought this thread was going to be about Doug Bollinger



So in other words, the rich are more deserving than the poor?

pfft everyone wants something for nothing these days.

 

[Troubadour]

What about the Lana Del Rey shows. $30 tix scalped at up to $500 each - then the show gets cancelled and ticket holders get a refund - of $30. That should make you happy.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Well, that sucks for the person desperate enough to pay $500 for a ticket to a Lana Del Rey show priced at $30.

However if you'd bought the ticket for $60, you'd still only get a $30 refund, it's an inherent (but rare) risk with concerts, and is hardly the scalpers fault.

Promoters are definitely at fault here though for mispricing their tickets so badly so as to allow this sort of thing to happen.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I've enjoyed the discussion so far.

The part about the artists/promoters mis-pricing their tickets, creating arbitage (sp?) is the interesting part.

If a band prices their tickets at market value (let's say, $500 a ticket, a price I think radiohead would still sell out at). It would only be the VERY desperate or the quite wealthy that get the tickets.

By keeping the tickets at $120, approx 25% the price they COULD charge, the band gives access to a broader community- the limiting factor now isn't money, but access to the internet at the right time, etc.

I wouldn't mind the artists getting $500 a ticket - I don't like scalpers getting $400 for doing nothing. The point about scalpers not affecting the amount of available tickets is a very interesting one - and it should put things in a little bit of persepctive. The secondary market allows SOME fans to secure tickets that otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Caesar]

The issue with saying bands should price-to-market is the assumption that the only concern when setting a ticket price is maximising profit for the event in question. If bands price their core fanbase out of their concerts then regardless of whether they sell out an event, it will result in negative publicity which can affect them in other ways (e.g. hurt album sales).

Also, I doubt that raising ticket prices would eliminate the secondary market. Given the subjective value of things like concert tickets you will always have some people prepared to pay over the odds.

My feeling is that, at the end of the day, the act/promoter is providing the product and if they want to sell at below market equilibrium price (for whatever reason) that should be their prerogative.

As vendor, if they want to sell only to end consumers then that is also their prerogative. Which is why I have no issue with measures taken to circumvent scalpers (e.g. personally assigned tickets).

 

[checkraiseulite]

The issue with saying bands should price-to-market is the assumption that the only concern when setting a ticket price is maximising profit for the event in question. If bands price their core fanbase out of their concerts then regardless of whether they sell out an event, it will result in negative publicity which can affect them in other ways (e.g. hurt album sales).

Also, I doubt that raising ticket prices would eliminate the secondary market. Given the subjective value of things like concert tickets you will always have some people prepared to pay over the odds.

My feeling is that, at the end of the day, the act/promoter is providing the product and if they want to sell at below market equilibrium price (for whatever reason) that should be their prerogative.

As vendor, if they want to sell only to end consumers then that is also their prerogative. Which is why I have no issue with measures taken to circumvent scalpers (e.g. personally assigned tickets).

Some interesting points which are definitely relevant to developing/niche acts.

However I think that for most acts, low ticket prices price in more ambivalent people than market-based ticket prices price true fans out.

Personally-assigned/paperless tickets are bs and benefit the ticketing companies, not consumers.

NY Times article addressing the topic : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/who-owns-my-ticket.html

Ticketmaster says its restrictions on the resale and “gifting” of its paperless tickets act as safeguards against various practices: scalping; the bulk purchasing of tickets by automated software bots; and the use of counterfeit, stolen or lost tickets.

But in reality, the restrictions represent an effort to control the secondary-ticketing market and stifle competition from independent resellers and resale marketplaces like StubHub, where tickets are often sold for less than face value. (The American Antitrust Institute, of which I am president, received a modest contribution, in the form of sponsorship of a conference last year, from an advocacy group financed in part by StubHub.) Paperless tickets bought through Ticketmaster may be resold, for example, only through its own resale Web site, which often prohibits sales below face value, sets maximum sale prices and charges a fee for transfers.

....

This week, the American Antitrust Institute is releasing a report on the paperless-ticket market by James D. Hurwitz, an institute fellow and former policy analyst at the Federal Trade Commission. The conclusion: restrictive paperless-ticket practices depart from bedrock market principles by unjustifiably limiting consumer choice and suppressing free competition. They also might violate federal and state antitrust and consumer-protection laws. And they may warrant legislation to protect the market and consumers.

....

These practices undermine a free, fair, informed and competitive market. Consumers should be enabled to transact with others.