This is strictly incorrect in the same way that the market for methamphetamine is not a value-destructive business. It's simply an unsavory one.
Scalpers provide immediacy or service in a market where the issuer does not. Speaking specifically to ticket scalpers, I've often found StubHub to be a far superior purchasing experience to TicketMaster.
Scalpers that corner the market can do things that are bad for everyone but them, of course, but till they have pricing power they provide utility to buyers.
Not saying this always happens but it's also not as simple as "people are comfy and thus pay more later".
With profits/volume comes "professionalization" (aka "scale") and the regular Joe gets left behind because they're just in it for one ticket and not thousand(s?).
I'm surprised neither Spotify nor Apple has attempted to launch a TicketMaster competitor (or alliance). We have the technology to distribute tickets to listeners first.
You release based on listening history and e.g. merch purchases. If you limit early release to accounts tied to a personal credit card, you'll limit the scalpers' scale.
Yes, as well as directly distribute tickets to fans. It isn't done because behind scalpers is a massive performance industry.
The idea also applies to things like GPUs and Playstations where they expect to sell out. Start the price high and decrease it over time as you get additional supply. Announce ahead of time that this is your plan along with what the eventual target price is, so people willing to pay the premium to get it early can do so, and others know they just need to wait and the price will drop.
Taylor can always do more shows to increase supply and lower prices. Or do an auction and give all sales above $x to charity so it's clear that it's not about greed and is about stopping the evil scalpers.
If you assume that the only way to make a profit is to provide value, then by a tautology anyone who has the ability to command as profit provides value.
The alternative is also true.
But what could it be?
[0] You need to buy all tickets for scalping to work. Otherwise the official source is constantly becoming cheaper than the price you paid. And your ability to sell to whales is limited. Even if they would've potentially paid up to $10k but they wait, they might decide to buy in once it hits $2k because they expect the price to settle near $1k and don't want to risk missing a ticket. So if you buy in at $1k, you've already missed selling to them. So you can only really sell to people with low margin over your buying price, and if you overshoot the clearing price, you might take a huge loss. So risk-adjusted, scalping becomes unprofitable, and scalpers exit the market, which allows whales to bid under their true maximum price they'd pay, lowering overall prices vs. a market with scalpers.
There is no point arguing with someone so detached from reality.
If you wanted to appear less greedy, you could also do something similar to what the government does for bonds: everyone submits the highest price they're willing to pay. Take the top N offers, and all of those people get tickets at the lowest price out of the top N. So you're encouraged to bid what the ticket is worth to you because you almost certainly will end up paying less than that. If 50,000 people (modulo subdivisions for seat distance) agree a ticket is worth at least that much, then ipso facto that's what it's worth. Again it's scalper resistant because anyone you could resell to already got a ticket at the same price you did.
Point is there are plenty of documented auction styles to choose from depending on exactly what properties they want. It isn't hard. They obviously prefer scalpers exist.
The market giveth and all entités are rational.
> They obviously prefer scalpers exist.
I'm sure they have their reasons for this. But everyone else shouldn't act like scalpers are the bad guy then.
Artists and ticket vendors underprice tickets to assure sold-out venues: they're choosing to buy lower earnings volatility. The notion that tickets are underpriced to make them accessible is tripe.
If I had to guess, it is that event companies / hospitality / ect. are not in the business of beating scalpers at their own game and as long as they price below the scalpers, scalpers will take this risk for them, if tickets are released at prices above scalpers, they are taking the risk of not selling to anyone.
Perhaps more AI/ML accessibility will beat this, but it will only threaten scalper profits as there will always be a margin of error.
If you think meth is good, sure, that's a valid reading of my comment.
Also, I don't know of any multi-millionaire ticket scalpers. They seem more a convenient bogeyman for the ticket-industrial complex than a real problem.
The impliciation that only small outfits can be value positive requires rejecting economies of scale.
Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics compounded by its limited scope: the entertainment complex to which scalpers attach is massive. The shows which scalpers are attracted to are massive. Small shows don't get scalped.
> I don't know of any multi-millionaire ticket scalpers.
Wonder how far the goalposts have to move before you realize how embarrassing this is for your ideology.
Yes, Expedia isn’t an airline and the New York Stock Exchange doesn’t make cars.
> your ideology
Out of curiosity, what ideology would that be?