Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregdoesit | Hacker News Reader

I was having the same question.

Original situation: tickets are priced too low, and sell out almost immediately, with scrapers buying much of the tickets, then reselling them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller is leaving money on the table, scrapers are making a killing.

Current situation: tickets are priced at market value thanks to dynamic pricing, so they no longer sell out instantly, and scrapers are discouraged from buying them. Fans are furious! Plus: the band+seller make more money than before, scrapers make close to none.

View on HN

> Fans are furious!

Fans who remember when Ticketmaster didn't have a vertical monopoly on arena tours are furious at how everything they warned other fans or the industry about 20 years ago came boringly true.

Fans who had a slim chance of affording a $60 ticket that they had a slim chance of actually buying under the old model are furious because now they have a zero chance of affording any ticket to any in-demand show.

Fans who could always afford and always bought $250 tickets, whether through resellers under the old model or first parties under the new model, are less angry but still have complaints about how Ticketmaster is still as bad 20 years into selling tickets online at the actual ticket sales motion - carts getting dumped out before the end of the transaction, timeouts due to overloaded infrastructure, bad venue experiences. (Resellers could actually exchange money for goods and services about as well as or better than TM, and when the tickets were legit they actually got you into the venue 100% of the time.)

All three face the same core problem - Ticketmaster's monopoly makes their lives worse.

Artists _who are big enough for TM to pay attention to_ are about the only typically shorted party who like how this played out. The rest of the industry is basically locked out with few or no alternatives depending on the market.

You can ban resale (except at face value), and enforce this technologically. Some people are doing this already.

How will you prove whether it was resold at face value or not? I could see a 'refund' and then it replenishes on the website, and then ID verification to use it. Like refundable airline tickets with a fixed price.

Yah you just force ID and you can trade back your ticket. Only get refund if they resell it.

Names get associated with a ticket and they refuse entry if you bought a scalped ticket. You’re told to ask for a refund from the scalper

Yep. I'm using a no-good horrible app called "DICE" to access smaller venues here in LA. One of the simple tricks is that they don't show you the ticket until just before the show. Can't be seen, can't be sold.

Interesting - I actually like the experience of using DICE here in London, UK. The UX I thought is pretty neat, presenting me with the artists I’ve told them I like to listen to. I thought the ticket experience is pretty cool too.

I don't think any app holding my tickets should also request my entire address book and other data to give me those tickets. Otherwise it's kinda sorta fine.

On iOS that’s entirely optional. But that’s a very valid position. I also detest when apps do this.

I've used DICE in NYC and Berlin. I like the app.

I hate Dice. Mainly because of their instance of getting your phone number and requiring their phone app to use your ticket. But almost every time a venue is selling tickets on Dice I've discovered that they're also for sale on Resident Advisor (https://ra.co/) for ~5% cheaper. And RA let's you get PDF tickets.

> You can ban resale (except at face value)

In this scenario, the band+seller are leaving money on the table again.

And this is a problem why?

This of it like this: scalpers are currently taking money away from artists. Banning ticket resale would prevent scalpers from profiting, but does nothing to help the artists capture the money they've been missing all along.

You may or may not consider that to be a problem.

Some bands prioritize access to their shows for all incomes over maximizing profit.

How do they do this, free shows?

Yes.

That's nice, but not really relevant to the thread.

Are you being serious?

By setting the price to something acceptable to them and not tolerating scalpers who try to push the prices up.

Yeah I was being serious, I don't disagree with that if that's what the artist wants. I think it's more likely most will opt to take higher prices though if they can get them, though.

Everybody understands economics. Everybody pretends not to when it's in their benefit.

> Current situation: tickets are priced at market value thanks to dynamic pricing, so they no longer sell out instantly

And that means that ordinary working class people can't afford a lot of concerts any more. Entertainment only for the rich elites, bravo.

Well we can go to concerts. Just not the expensive ones.

You're right, and this is the thing that's frustrating about the conversations here--I guess I'm not surprised that this is an audience that doesn't get it. A lot of music acts, even popular ones, were broke as hell for a long time. It is reasonable and, I think, actively laudable to want folks who are not of the Patagonia-jacket class to be able to see them live for a reasonable price.

There is a point where decent people can go "y'know, I make enough money" and not seek to squeeze out every ounce of blood from that stone; those same decent people can find it objectionable that other people attempt to do so on top of it. Not everything must be profit-maximized. Sometimes things like "bringing joy" might actually be more valuable.

And even if you are a meat-variant paperclip maximizer, there's obvious value into getting people who do not make onewheel-through-San-Francisco money into your music or your art. The people who currently make that money are usually older and will eventually age out. I still go see certain 90's bands every time they roll through in no small part because I saw them as a kid and I think they're fun.

I think I am in total agreement with your comment and I have another angle to add for your consideration:

Assume someone wanted to sell highly sought-after tickets for less than the market clearing (profit maximizing) price—as you suggest. Lowering the price will increase demand (because more people can afford them). We now have more demand for the tickets; how will that demand be expressed?

Will some people stand in line for days to get the tickets? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily that others because they are "richer" in disposable time?

Will some people write software to shave milliseconds off of their ticket-buying reaction time? Is that a form of payment that some people can "pay" more easily than others because they have the requisite skills?

Will some people pay others to do the above (or something similar)?

It seems to me that these are all forms of payment and that the total payment (in currency or otherwise) will approximate the market-clearing price in pure currency from the other scenario.

What do you think?

I think the obvious answer is a fair lottery for reasonably-priced, non-transferable tickets.

> I'm not surprised that this is an audience that doesn't get it. A lot of music acts, even popular ones, were broke as hell for a long time. It is reasonable and, I think, actively laudable to want folks who are not of the Patagonia-jacket class to be able to see them live for a reasonable price.

I think we get the motivation, but what they are trying to do is not possible in a market without implementing strict rules. It is noble that a provider of a luxury, supply-limited service wants to provide it for a cost below market. It really is! But in practice it will never work because scalpers will arbitrage that price up to the real market price. If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?

If I’m a manufacturer of a very nice car and can only make 1000 of them a year, but still want to sell them for $5,000 so low income people can afford it, that plan is just not going to work. This is actually currently happening with Raspberry Pi computers. The only ones you can currently get are for higher prices on the secondary market.

> If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?

The optimal solution is to give a quota for fan clubs and the rest away personalized in a fair lottery, while requiring proof that you can't attend for a valid reason (e.g. a doctor's note) to be eligible for a refund/swap.

> what they are trying to do is not possible in a market without implementing strict rules

Then implement the strict rules!

> If you disallow scalpers somehow

Easy: tickets are non-transferrable. Names are printed on the tickets, and you present ID when attending the show. A looser alternative (since there are legitimate reasons why someone might want to give a ticket to someone else) is that tickets can only be re-sold at face value. Downside here is the only way to enforce that is digital-only tickets, but these days that's maybe not much of a problem.

> If you disallow scalpers somehow, you will sell out instantly and then only lucky fans get the service, rather than rich fans. Is that any better?

Yes, it's much better. Not perfect, but strictly better.

Your car analogy is not relevant, as it involves manufacturing. Concert ticket sales do not benefit from economies of scale in the same way.

> Then implement the strict rules!

Who are you suggesting should implement and enforce these rules?

And who determines what a fair ticket price is that will allow fans of all income levels to be able to afford it? If you really want to give poor people access to these cultural opportunities then I would imagine the price is going to have to be pretty low. I remember a $25 ticket being too expensive for me when I was broke. But with your system I would have been able to buy courtside tickets to the NBA finals for about $15? Nice!

This is a silly and frankly ungracious misreading. Nobody is saying that an artist shouldn't be able to price something however they'd like, to target whatever cohort they'd like to target. But if an artist wants to charge $X, a scalper who charges $X+$Y is an asshole, and cutting out those scalpers is a good thing.

Fair ticket lotteries for those willing to pay the artist's desired price are almost certainly the most fair, least evil way to do it.

I had the impression from you previous comments that you wanted the strict rules to prevent artists from maximizing ticket prices since the context is 'ordinary working class people can't afford a lot of concerts any more".

But if you are ok with artists setting high ticket prices as long as scalpers don't get any then I don't disagree.

The context that I am operating under "artists wanting to make things affordable for ordinary people, at their own expense no less, should not have to battle scalpers to make it happen".

Can't argue with that.

In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above face value. It seems to work OK.

It's not so clear to me that's any worse than the current situation with scalpers. Replace "elites" with "those that managed to get the ticket purchase page to load before all were sold out".

Tickets are the exact same price as they were before though, you're just buying them first party instead of third. I would much rather the artists get half the extra money than scalpers getting all of it. There are also plenty of mid sized venues that have less popular acts and cheaper tickets.

They couldn't go anyway considering the only way to get a ticket was to pay a scalper the 2k now going to the artist. Economics would suggest making it affordable to average joes means staying in town for a while and doing 15 shows instead of 2.

Its not like theres more rich people today than in the past. If anything theres less. I think this just demonstrates a gutting of the middle class more than anything. People are like "why are these so expensive!" not realizing they are in that bucket. People will get to do less nice things in the future.

Another explanation is that the internet has simply increased information flow and therefore competition for luxury goods which has then increased prices.

that's a stretch. sure you might need to save to see Megadeth or Beyoncé or some huge act but there is tons of music from smaller artists that still charge very reasonably.

at some point, you'll have an impossibly large fan base to entertain, and with that comes huge ticket prices

Some bands don't want to maximize their profits. Shocker: Some artists want people of all incomes to enjoy their work.

But allowing scalpers/TM to do pure market pricing can fuck over the ability for a lower-middle income person to see these kinds of shows that to them might be the equivalent cost of a weeklong vacation.

Therefore, the idea (which should be at the discretion of the artist and only the artist, to hell with TM) is "charge an affordable price and ban scalping". Scalping can be controlled by technology; making sure any resales/transfers of ticket ownership go through the ticketing agency and only for the original price.

I think it's worth mentioning that price is only one way to allocate the scarce resource. What strikes me as better socially and for the liveliness of the audience is to offer discounts to the top 25% of fans, as determined by Spotify or Apple Music, and then let the free market fill in the rest. Some balance of this would let regular fans get a shot while also maximizing revenue for the other block of tickets.

Life is too short and there are big problems to deal with - my grocery bill went up by 25% in the last couple of months, and my salary is still the same. My rent went up by more than 9% this year.

I don’t feel bad for people dropping hundreds, thousands of dollars to watch a band or a comic. I don’t feel bad for TM either - they are a monopoly.

The Whole situation is just terrible. Same for sports events

Me - I’m happy watching my favorite artists on YouTube or buying their singles or MP3s wherever available.

I agree with you and food and shelter are way more important but culture is important. I live in NYC and it's very easy for me to see artists I listen to for ~$35 every other night of the week. I can easily skip big, expensive acts and not really be missing out on anything.

But there are many people living in an area that don't have an opportunity to see smaller acts and only get access to stadium type shows in the closest major city. It's a shame people are missing out on culture due to monopolistic greed.

You'll never remember the time watching an artist on YouTube but you would certainly remember going to their concert. The same as sports.

There aren't enough seats at these events to make it possible for everyone that wants the cultural experience to have it.

If you accept this as true, how do you propose tickets are distributed, if not to the highest bidder?

I don’t have an answer to your question. That said, if every experience is sold to the highest bidders, only rich people can experience these events, isn’t it?

Maybe I am just old - what is so special about these events anyway? Everything is expensive, it is super crowded, everyone around you is sweaty, many drunk/high…

> only rich people can experience these events, isn’t it?

This is how it already is. There is a ton of stuff that only rich people can afford to experience. Luxuries cost money. Seeing the Rolling Stones live in concert is a luxury.

> what is so special about these events anyway?

I'm with you here. I'd take watching a big concert or sporting event from home over live in person any day. I honestly think the majority of people that attend these big events mainly do it so they can tell people they did. Same reason people go to Times Square on NYE.

I remember going to an event that had Ed Sheeran, Beyoncé etc. It wasn’t anything special - we had to wait for hours to get in, we weren’t allowed to take even water bottles, long lines for the bathroom, even longer lines to buy overpriced water, irritated cops everywhere…

Maybe I am just wired stupid or something - I didn’t enjoy the event. I am happy with YouTube and Spotify

The crux of it is this change was implemented at a time when people are already being squeezed five ways from Sunday by everything else.

It may feel more fair that the fastest clickers win and ticket prices don't change (and many people don't get them) versus the fastest clickers get the cheapest tickets and other people have to pay 2-5x as much.

Do you have a source for the last sentence?

I think he's using logic.

The secondary market is sometimes the primary market.

John Oliver did a bit on this awhile ago on how artists will get large blocks of tickets that they immediately put onto the resale market. Has a nice benefit of the show being almost immediately sold out plus doesn't it has slightly better optics since its not as obvious the venue/artist is "reselling" the ticket for a multiple of the "original" cost.

https://youtu.be/-_Y7uqqEFnY?t=1023

I think the premise is wrong because:

- "tickets are prices too low": What do you mean by "too low"? Is the price that's set by the people involved low? Or is it what they think the value of the ticket is?

- Can you imagine if bananas were now $50 per banana? I mean, if there was only ONE company selling them, it would actually probably have already happened. So that would ultimately be the "market value".

What's the price of a GPU- the MSRP or the current bid for the only one available on eBay? In my opinion, it's the value I can actually buy the thing for.

Key difference:

> the only one available

> all the tickets since day one

I don't think there's a difference there. If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP, the price is 2-3x MSRP. Whether it's day one or day N, the price is what you can buy it for that day.

Exactly. And people forget that market prices do not always go up. I've been to quite a few sporting events where I bought scalped tickets day of for less than face value. Tickets have expirations like options do. No seller wants to be still holding tickets when the event starts.

That's not what we're comparing.

> If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP.

If you want to extrapolate, it should be

> Last year's $100 model has been selling for $500 on ebay. The new one would cost $110 but because of that, we'll now price it $550, because people pay for that.

But hey, if you agree with that, you agree with that. I don't.

Why would I not agree with people or organizations choosing the price they sell their products and services for? Outside of discriminatory practices (and I don't consider price differentiation to be discriminatory) or emergency scenarios (gouging for gas in a hurricane for example) I don't find lowering or raising prices on what is unquestionably entertainment to be immoral in any way. Why do you?

Value is set by markets. If people are willing to pay more than the price than there will be a shortage meaning the price is too low, some people who want to buy a ticket can't.

Yes, that's what I said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com