> ...person you just screwed with an overpriced ticket.
This is also known as an "adult freely and willingly participating in a voluntary transaction."
This is also known as an "adult freely and willingly participating in a voluntary transaction."
Hence the "screwing" part.
By raising the price of tickets to what the market will bear, they force some people out of the marketplace, increasing availability of tickets for those who can afford them.
And from the perspective of the artist and Ticketmaster, they eliminate some of the risk of tickets going unsold.
Of course, it's understandably seen as very unfair (goodness knows I've missed out on shows I wanted to go to because scalpers raised the price beyond the level I was willing to pay), but I wouldn't say it has no value.
TBH, I've never really understood this argument. Unless the argument is that the artist is being forced to set a lower face value, if all the tickets are sold at face value and scalped, the artist is getting exactly what they would have budgeted for.
So, are you saying the artist is being forced to sell the tickets at a price that's below what the market will bear?
But by volume of DV, I guess HN has some interesting minds here as well.
Scalpers don't do that--they don't open up that experience--they insert themselves in between the real transaction, making some bank for themselves while adding no value to either party's experience.
I'm sure you could say "but scalpers help determine the real price of the ticket, to someone willing to pay" ... we, as a society, don't want or need that help. If we, as a society, keep coming up with ways to thwart that (like the NiN thing mentioned above), that's a sign.
Markets serve us at our leisure, not the other way around.
People react to it because it violates ideas about fairness.
I'm not arguing in favor of scalping, I'm just saying that the good arguments against are about fairness, they aren't economic.
For instance, there is always the option of not attending a concert. This is not the same things as "no other options".
Sure, can be, but isn't. More often than not, it's moving the point of sale from one website to another with an absurd markup. If it's a scalper on the sidewalk selling tickets to a sold out show, then yes, they've physically moved the asset but created no more value to either the venue or the end user, only to themselves, so we're still talking about greed.
> For instance, there is always the option of not attending a concert. This is not the same things as "no other options".
The end user not going to the concert because of the ticket price means that the scalper has imposed that choice on the user.
It's also a bit much to talk about the scalper imposing anything on end users. If everyone got together and stopped buying scalped tickets, there wouldn't be any ticket scalping anymore. Except that won't work because there are plenty of people that care less about money and ticket scalping than they care about attending concerts.
Look, a scalper wouldn't command the prices they did if the demand wasn't there.
In reality, whether we like it or not, the scalper is actually facilitating price discovery. It's very clear that these tickets are worth more to people than their face value, as otherwise the scalpers would be unsuccessful.
All the scalper is doing is raising the price to what the market will bear.
Which is why this isn't about economics. It really is strictly about fairness, which is entirely orthogonal.
I'm not talking about fairness or economics, I'm talking about greed, and how a person inserts themselves into a process solely because they want money. A middleman who adds no additional value to anyone but themselves.
Today's reality: A guy discovers a band he likes is playing in town in 10 days, hops on to stubhub, and buys a ticket at 300% markup.
Your fantasy world where scalpers magically disappear: A guy discovers a band he likes is playing in town in 10 days, hops on to Ticketmaster and buys a ticket at msrp.
Actual reality if scalpers magically disappeared and prices stayed the same: A guy finds out a band he likes is playing in town in ten days and tries to buy a ticket, but he finds out that the entire concert sold out 5 months ago and he is just shit out of luck.
You may believe that a scalper holding a ticket hostage for a higher price adds no value, but the mere fact that you buy from them at all is a testament to the value they created: they held on to a ticket that you were too fucking slow to buy, and kept it out of reach to all the people who were poorer than you, and did so long enough for you to realize that the concert existed and you wanted to buy a ticket to it. And you begrudgingly admitted that that value was worth the markup you paid the minute you consented to buying it.
No, they were most likely going regardless of the ticket price, they are just less deterred by it.
Artists are the problem in this market. They should charge more (which eliminates the incentive to scalp), or play more shows (increasing the supply and lowering market prices) if they don't want to charge more.
These issues don't have perfect Econ 101 answers. Artists can't just play more shows as touring is pretty demanding, and charging more means only wealthier people can attend which (rightfully) looks bad and is a legit moral issue.