Spotify will start reserving concert tickets for fans
hollywoodreporter.com
hollywoodreporter.com
When artists become popular, they often complain that the people they are making their music for, their biggest fans, tend to be the people least able to afford the concert tickets.
The artists are often totally willing to set aside a chunk of tickets at a much cheaper price, but they need to be able to guarantee that these tickets aren't just purchased by scalpers and resold at the market price.
So if you can actually tie ticket availability to genuine listening patterns of this artist over time, in a way that is very difficult to game, then this could be huge.
Obviously you can worry about scalpers that will now try to open 1000 different Spotify accounts so that they can buy up 1000 tickets. But it should be pretty easy for Spotify to look for signals that indicate real human listeners, I would think.
lest you desire verifiable gov based ID tracking?
You've just described a direct sale by the artist. These tickets always come with additional perks that you don't get buying normal tickets.
Resale would be someone buying those tickets then selling them again (hence the re in resale).
I'm pretty sure some bands were doing this a decade ago.
Even UEFA, among the most corrupt organizations in the world, does this for football tickets, you can buy 2 tickets and can change one name exactly once or sell them back to the organization.
At this point if you allow scalpers it's a decision not a technical problem.
Unless you're forced to buy exactly two tickets [0], I don't see how that prevents scalpers? Pay people 100% of their purchasing cost and -IDK- 5% of the scalping profit to use their name to purchase the ticket and hand over the creds to do the ticket owner reassignment.
[0] In which case, I suppose it's a huge "fuck you" to people who aren't particularly social.
2 tickets: you can either sell them both back, OR change ONLY one name once. This means you have the option of buying two tickets up front, before you lock-in your companion.
It works well, I’ve experienced this for festival tickets.
It doesn't have to be perfect to be effective.
It does not prevent scalpers altogether, but it makes it harder and less profitable.
Generally, people do not want to go to an event alone, you'd go with a friend, partner, spouse, whatever.
So the scalper's profitability calculation goes from "buy 10 tickets for 100$ and sell them at 10x price to anyone" to "buy 2 tickets and sell 1 of them at less than 10x to people who want to attend the event alone". The profitability went from 10000 to less than 80.
Does Spotify putting itself as a middle-man help much, considering the artist has become a big enough operation to have to care about the issue in the first place ?
Yes, with discovery and lowering the barrier to entry. There's quite a few bands I'd have considered joining their fan-club for if it was easy as clicking a button and not having to trust yet another third-party site.
The point of a listening history is that it's so, so, so much more work to generate one that has been active for years and looks genuine and each one can only focus on a few artists at a time.
lower price /psa
It's not easy. There's already a market for fake listens that require real looking accounts. That existing infrastructure can be directly reused to harvest these tickets.
To keep the spammers out, limit the model to paid accounts. And just let Spotify provide the incredibly useful service of carving out a chunk of tickets for the biggest (Spotify) fans of every artist. It's hard to hate on it as someone who doesn't use Spotify -- after all, they're reserving tickets for proven fans. I hope Bandcamp and other streaming services do something similar so non-Spotify listeners can benefit and we can really squeeze the scalpers out.
I've wondered though... Why not have a non-transferrable ticket system? If you can't go then you return your tickets to the pool and if they sell you get your money back.
Wouldn't a proportional return not be better?
Someone in a group gets sick or otherwise can't make it? Their seat is now either empty, or their ticket goes back to the pool. They can't give that ticket to someone else.
That's a big deal for a whole slew of reasons. Let's pick just one reason and run with it.
Five 11-year-old-ish girls want to go see Olivia Rodrigo. These kids haven't ever even been inside an arena before and aren't experienced enough to go on their own, and the tickets are expensive. One of the moms of the group decides that she'll take them all. No problem, right?
Except: This mom gets sick. She can't go.
And she can't just give her ticket to one of the other moms or dads because it is non-transferable. And the kids still aren't big enough to turn loose in a crowd without an adult.
The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard."
Are there other common cases that would apply? I assume there are probably some other situations, but I can't think of what they might be. I also find it hard to understand why a little bit of leeway couldn't be baked into the language of the transferable nature under certain circumstances. Presumably the venue wants people to have a good time so they will want to come back again and again, right?
Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc.
How do we even prove that the kids are kids? How do we prove that the kids even exist?
> or some kind of language like that.
There's nothing accomplished here but handwaving and added burden.
---
> Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc.
In this second scenario, scalping goes like this: "For sale: Two tickets to $hot_show. Entry instructions provided upon delivery."
And then the buyer buys the tickets at whatever that price is, and goes to the show. They give their ID, the "guards" ask them basic questions, and they answer those questions. After that, they get turned loose inside like every other concert-goer.
This is just handwaving and extra burden, as well.
---
Unless... unless we make it totally Gestapo-like. Because the best part of going to see a show is the lengthy interrogation that happens beforehand. (If the goal is to make shows less popular, then this is a sure-fire way to improve that metric!)
That honestly seems like a very pragmatic solution to me.
I knew that it was illegal. I did it anyway.
I haven't bought or sold any illegally-overpriced concert tickets yet, but I'm not yet done living my life, either.
For example, the UK banned the private ownership of 'short guns' in 1997 and there hasn't been a mass shooting since. The second order effect of that was an increase in knife crime, but that's OK (in the sense that it's another problem to deal with). Trading fighting gun crime for fighting knife crime is a huge win if it removes a problem like random mass shootings.
In this case, removing all of the incentives for legal ticket scalping at source would mean people can mostly benefit from access to tickets. The second order effects are likely to be an increase in ticket prices because now people with more money will be willing to pay more at source, and an increase in 'sniping' services that automate buying as fast as possible. Those are acceptable downsides if it removes people from the market who only skim profits by scalping and offer no useful additions.
But do you really think that selling/having illicitly overpriced concert tickets will have the same domestic ire as illicitly selling/having a short gun does? Will the incentive really be gone?
Or do you think that perhaps it will be seen ~the same as selling/having some weed is, instead?
The incentive will remain, but doing it at scale will be much harder. That automatically reduces the scale of the problem to what individuals (or small groups) can do. Essentially the law is stopping the mechanisation of scalping rather than scalping itself. That's probably good enough.
If for instance they allow reselling the ticket at the same price, processing fees could be exempted from that calculation. So charging the nominal price, but with enormous fees that go to the seller's pocket in a roundabout way will work.
If processing fees are caped, the seller can request payment through a middle item that is nominally valued the same as the ticket but can actually be paid for more.
Or the reseller will accept generous tips in exchange for the ticket at the nominal price. etc. etc.
As long as there's someone willing to pay, money will find the way to the reseller.
Most courts will not convict your only for your actions but for the intention that fulfilled your actions. That's also why in most countries, murder and attempted murder will have the same consequences.
So you can hide your fees however you want, the court will interpret your intentions, and you'll have a hard time justifying your $250 processing fee for reselling a concert ticket.
Imagine you've instituted this ban, and some concert has face-value $100 tickets that now have $400 market value. The reality isn't going to be "there's now lots of $100 tickets available on StubHub", it's going to be "StubHub has no tickets, and some shady black-market website has tickets available for $400 with no consumer protections".
That said, I'm not totally against this world, since all of these inconveniences will add friction and make it less attractive and profitable to buy and scalp lots of tickets. But since I often find out about concerts kind of late, I'm also happy that there's tickets available for me at any price. I'd probably end up going to fewer concerts if we killed the legal resale market.
It's not ideal, but it avoids the scalping that comes from more streamlined transfers; scalpers can't easily sell burner accounts if account creation needs a non-VoIP phone number or similar.
We can't assume anything, except this promotes a new friction.
But even then: So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are?
Great! This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts.
(This is just more theatrical burden.)
Fair enough. So rather than mom1 telling mom2 how to use mom1's account on mom2's device, mom1 lets mom2 borrow mom1's device for the show. Not her main phone where everything is logged in, but a tickets-only device where the only thing she logged into was the ticketing app.
> this promotes a new friction.
Yes, but again, the alternative is letting scalpers have their way.
> So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are?
Yes, this is how tickets work. If you show ID, it's to be able to drink, and you're doing that with a different employee than the one who takes your ticket. Note that I'm not talking about will-call or guest list entry, I'm talking about arriving with a ticket. The shift from "dumb" paper/email/PDF tickets that can be shared freely to "smart" tickets that require an app that mixes something TOTP-like into your ticket isn't for the venue to know your identity, it's to prevent multiple people from showing up with the same ticket following improper duplication.
> This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts.
No, because creating an account requires a non-SIP phone number.
I stopped reading after that. I'm not sorry.
Non-transferable tickets are bound to a specific name iiuc.
> The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard."
Life is hard and they missed Olivia Rodrigo. The kids will survive through it, I promise. It's life, they'll see another concert. Most children in the world do not go to see concerts at 11 either.
Or perhaps: The suffering is the point.
Copy! Over!
I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ?
Understood it the first time, thanks: Kids aren't important. Their feelings might not even be real; and even if they are real, then the disappointment will just toughen them up (the suffering is the point).
I do not agree with what I think you're repeating, but I do believe that I've heard it twice, now.
> I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ?
Go ahead and dig around. My writings here are an open book. My words can live in your head for as long as you want them to.
You don't need me to tell you that you're free to make as many comparisons as you wish, regardless of any incongruity in those comparisons. You're a free-thinking adult like [most of] the rest of us here on HN are.
What say you?
You still have no scalping, but you recover the ability to back out due to unforeseen events
And nobody says that tickets must not be cancelable. Just no reselling on your own.
Also, solvable. Everyone needs an ID that matches ticket or to be accompanied by someone with an ID that matches a ticket purchased in the same transaction (cap number of non-ID tickets per ID ticket, don't let people appearing over 30 in on a non-ID ticket). Then, when buying tickets, allow specifying a named alternate for each ID ticket in case the person can't make it.
I can think of many other instances of other problems.
If you cannot do so, then you aren't really following along very well.
I suppose in theory some scalper somewhere could be demanding "venmo me $1000 in a separate transaction or I won't give you the ticket," but in practice it doesn't appear to be happening to any great extent, or to be a workable business model like standing outside the venue once was. I think it just feels a lot more of a scam-risk to the average person than meeting someone at the venue who is clearly holding a physical ticket. You don't have to 100% eliminate any possibility of scalping, just shrink the market enough to make it not worth the bother.
(And I say this as someone who kinda liked the option to overpay for tickets if I missed out on getting them at face value).
Mobile number => single human has limited number of accounts and there is a limit to how many tickets an account can buy.
So scalping does happen, but only a relatively small limited amount.
Or, when a tour is announced, start tickets at 10X the regular price and have it drop down to the regular price over the course of a couple of weeks in a simple time based mechanism. After that, if tickets are not sold out it continues to drop until sold or it hits a reserve price for Door tickets.
Good for artists, fair from a market perspective and gets rid of scalpers
A person purchasing a ticket a month or two in advance prior to the show off loads the risk from the venue. They purchase the ticket thinking they can make the show in two months because the event is a long ways away. People know what they are going to do a week advanced most of the time and therefore might just forego purchasing the ticket a that point in time, because there it has instant depreciating value at the point of sale.
And with your particular pricing scheme, there is arguably still nothing stopping scalpers from scooping up the tickets after the price drops to a level likely to be profitable for them but before fans had the time to react. In fact it would probably benefit the scalpers even more because they will have more time to track price drops than your average fan!
The average event either doesn’t sell out or takes a while to sell out.
Only the megastars that can command high-priced tickets would attract the old and square, which is okay because the megastars are old and square themselves by the time they've built that old and square audience. The hip and with it music fans have already moved on to seeing the next up-and-comers that play for free.
Bad for fans,
just because you can pick a solution that can extract the most amount of money from the thing, doesn't mean you're required to do so, (nor are you required to suggest it.)
I think it's because extracting maximum value from your fans in the short term is not great if you want to have a musical career. The ones ending up with tickets will ideally, for themselves at least, be more or less indifferent to going to the concert: yes, they may get a lot out of it, but they also paid so much it was barely worth it.
Worst case, they will suffer from winner's curse, like auction winners often do: they won the auction because they were the ones who, more than everyone else, overestimated how much they'd get out of the concert.
Can you imagine the crowd mood if half the audience regrets spending so much money, and the other half is largely indifferent?
It's because artists dread this outcome that they hate scalpers, rather than becoming scalpers themselves.
Non-transferable I think? But you could resell them via ticketmaster maybe for facevalue?
It was amazing, we sat on the ticketmaster page, refreshed over the course of a day and we got 8th row for I believe $75 - it was an amazing concert, and being able to pay a reasonable price for tickets like that was amazing.
Sorry, I only thought about this for 5 seconds, but there are markets where scalping doesn't cause issues. We could look at those.
I suppose if we're requiring showing ID to attend anyway, it's not a lot worse to add an online ID verification step in order to be allowed to be a "sender" in the transfer system, and an identity is only allowed to have like 5 distinct "friends" in a rolling 12-month window.
Part of me thinks that Ticketmaster/Live Nation probably makes so much money from their own in-house scalping operation that they don't want to fix any kind of scalping problems for fear they would be somehow obligated to not participate themselves.
My dad used to joke about how many signs he'd say at baseball games saying scalping is against the rules but somehow hearing loads of StubHub ads whenever he would listen to a game on the radio.
Limiting the number of tickets someone can buy doesn't protect against scalping.
It works at a small scale: 5 people, 5 tickets each, and $100 profit on each seat after everyone else gets paid? That's not so hard to keep track of, and it brings in $2,500.
It also works at a larger scale: 50 people. 5 tickets each, and $100 profit on each seat? Keeping that all in-line is definitely sounding like Real Work, but it also sounds like a tax-free $25,000.
UEFA limits this for football games by allowing you to purchase only two tickets and changing only one name, and the two tickets must go together. Or you sell back the ticket to the organization and they sell it back to random fans.
Darn, guess I'm not a true fan or I would've booked a private jet.
They haven’t all universally built in overbooking as a critical part of their competitive price structure or whatever, and we can stop it before it starts.
EU version for flights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passengers_Rights_Regulati...
1. I like live concerts but I don’t spend my days listening to a lot of music. I would be considered “not a fan” by these metrics.
2 The monopolistic aspect. I subscribe to a much smaller Spotify competitor, now I’m at a disadvantage.
3. I don’t consider scalping a problem. The market price is determined by demand. It’s also been a problem that has been solved by artist presales and fan club gates.
I also think that as a recognized monopoly Ticketmaster should have more limitations on its business model. For example, their compassion on resale tickets should be limited. At present, they are encouraged to double dip on fees by finding ways to send more tickets to the secondary market.
It's the same logic for de-googlers. You can't De-Google yourself and then bitch about some Google products work better on Google products.
If you are a proud edge-lord/hipster with your obscure choices, you should also learn to deal with consequences.
Scale brings advantages. You can't have it both ways
I use a competitor to Spotify because I like the other product better overall. It’s a better value and better suited to my needs. I never said I’m using something else just to stick it to Spotify or become an edgelord.
I’m perfectly happy to be “punished” by missing some concerts. I think you misunderstand my comment as complaining about the situation. I really don’t care that much, I just am giving my opinion that this is a system that doesn’t seem ideal to me.
Many artists are struggling to fill seats right now. The industry can have fun trying silly schemes like this while they cancel tours in oversized venues.
Harry Styles is playing in my city, he's apparently very popular, but there's still plenty of tickets available for as low as 47€ for tomorrow.
I think some artists want to appeal to the poorer people so pricing their tickets higher or letting the free market work out the price would damage their reputation. So it doesn't seem to be a real problem we need to solve. It's a problem some artists feel they have. Let them figure it out.
If I was an artist and I expected a full venue with tickets that cost 10, I'd start selling them at 1000, then at 500, 200, 100, 50, 20 and finally 10. If someone buys all of them at 1000 and only that person shows up - awesome! Maybe there will be less drug sales because 1 person bought all tickets but that 100x per ticket could be used to pay the vendors.
I don't know why this is being made to look like an insurmountable problem. We're talking about multi-billion dollar companies, organising billion dollar tours.
> If she sells all tickets at $10k each then maybe she'd clear the market, but she'd piss off a lot of fans
If I was conspiracy-minded, I'd say blaming "the scalpers" would be a very convenient way of dodging responsibilities while taking a cut.
This allows scalping.
And then, since scalping is not prevented, all that these measures really accomplish is to theatrically increase the burden for everyone else.
It's not exactly a project Manhattan level of breakthrough we're talking about here. The incentives to scalp are vastly reduced. Sure, I could buy four tickets and resell three of them, but I would still need to physically go to the venue to walk people in. It just doesn't scale.
The platform doesn't need to support it, not do the rules and laws.
It's very straightforward: The buyer either meets my terms or there is no sale.
Awesome. Let's just add the frictions of flying to the concert-going experience.
That's a pretty good way to eliminate scalping: Just make it such a pain in the ass to attend that the seats never sell out to begin with.
Other than being terrible, this sounds like a great idea!
As a side note, this notion that a phenomenon being the result of market forces means it is fair and has no issues seems to be a blinkered view of the world. Surely enjoying high quality art should be possible for a broad section of society?
If anything, as an artist, I'm incentivised to seek out the whales that can absorb ridiculous prices, because they are the ones that will buy the 25 limited editions of my album.
It's not necessarily a choice between the 1000 genuine fans vs the 10 posers. If the artist is popular enough, it's between the 1000 rich genuine fans, and the 1000 broke genuine fans, so might as well please the rich. It's a selection that already happens when picking the venues. It's always London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo, and never Skopje or Pine Bluff, AK.
I'd also like the news to talk about the show "so popular people are willing to pay a fortune to see" rather than the one with plenty of cheap seats still available.
I was reading an article earlier this week about "blue dot fever". Promoters like ticketmaster show the available seats as blue dots on a plan of the venue. The more blue dots, the more seats available, which seems to lower the demand even more, by signalling that the show is not popular, which drives the status-seekers away.
To me it seems it IS an economics problem - the artist needs to make money and they need to decide whether they want to optimize for the profit from ticket sales or for the profit from merch or from a broader fan base. But it's an economic problem for the artist, it's not really a societal problem or anything more major.
As a disclaimer, I'm not rich and I don't care for concerts anyway. It just doesn't make sense to single out tickets for concerts as some special thing. As an example, I'm OK with not being able to buy some fancy ethically sourced gourmet food yet I still support the company that makes it. Or maybe I won't buy it often, but I'll save up and buy it once in a while. Many parallels to be made, but of course not perfect. Still, it's not a necessity, so it's strictly an economic problem (not a moral one), mainly for the artist. Whether they want to solve it and how they want to solve it is their issue. Whether it's non-transferable tickets or ID-bound tickets with a strict policy on how they're transferred or an auction or a lottery or whatever.
Harry Styles is giving more than 20 concerts in Europe, but only in Wembley or Amsterdam.
I can't attend most of the concerts I would go to if they were in my city and cost nothing because they're far away from where I live org because they cost a lot. I still enjoy the recordings I can download. I treat concerts as a luxury, not a necessity or a right.
Geez. It is really not that hard to imagine a better outcome here.
A reasonable distribution distribution could be whatever is the result of the following: (a) each seat is priced by the artist/venue/whatever however they wish, and (b) everyone who genuinely intends to attend the concert themselves and/or is purchasing on behalf of another known person whom they believe would genuinely attend the concert themselves gets an equal opportunity to purchase the tickets at the time of release.
How you achieve such an outcome is an interesting question with lots of possible approaches, but what outcome would be adequate to achieve than the status quo really isn't some sort of unanswerable question.
It should be obvious we want a system that is optimally beneficial to artists and fans rather than middlemen.
Because there is demand for it. A lot of people like going to live music and theatre events and scalpers make it more difficult and more expensive for them.
Why shouldn't anything be done? Because capitalism is God?
Scalpers make it possible to get a ticket at market price, instead of maybe being able to get it for less and maybe not being able to get it at any price. It's not at all clear that the latter is better.
In that world, there wouldn't be scalpers.
If the scalper has enough customers that he can sell out the show above the face price of the tickets, the existence of those customers is sufficient to make it "practically impossible to get a ticket at face price" whether the scalper exists or not.
The only thing scalpers make possible, is pricing out people that the vendor wanted to sell tickets to.
I'm absolutely not convinced that the problem is as widespread as people make it out to be, outside of a few big names or events.
> Why shouldn't anything be done? Because capitalism is God?
Because it's just the system manifesting itself. There are winners and losers, and the winners are usually those with the most money.
I really find it odd to see people being this vocal for Taylor Swift tickets or Pokemon cards. If I use my capital to buy ten houses to rent, then I'm an investor. If I use it to outbid a city for electricity to feed my data center, then I'm a captain of industry. But the shiny charmander card is where people draw the line?
this isn't just about trendy commercial items. Michael Sandel in 'The Moral Limits of Markets' called this 'Skyboxification'. These mechanisms like scalping affect sport events where people of different classes used to sit next to each other and where now low income earners are either priced out or delegated to the backrow. Cultural spaces that do not separate people into 'winners' or 'losers' but treat people equally are the basis of any civil society. It's where people from different walks of life come into contact.
One guy driving a nicer car or having a nicer watch than another person is fine but when you start tearing apart culture, sports, art, music you end up with well, the US of today https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-money-cant-buy_b_1442128
For the same reason anything is ever done about anything -- because it upsets a large enough portion of your community.
Taylor Swift can’t realistically play more shows than she did during the Eras Tour, and it’s unlikely that she’d have sold a million seats in London if she were charging much more than she did.
That's only if the event sells out. The ticket should have sold for a higher price such that the demand was exactly the number of seats available.
They ended up being acquired by a company that was much more into charging top dollar to big-spenders. The company was ultimately acquired by Live Nation and the ticket prices kept increasing until suddenly ticket sales stopped, and that whole category of festivals is now largely dead in Australia.
It's no good optimizing for simple supply and demand in one year if it destroys the product and therefore demand in subsequent years, which is what we're seeing the market. I'm familiar with libertarian principles, but every libertarian economist I've paid attention to has emphasized the importance of second-order effects.
Only if you think spending power is the only criterion that matters when considering who you want coming to the event, and my whole point is that this is not (always) true, given that audience demographics influence the experience and the quality of the performance.
> everything Ive read already suggests that audience makeups are changing at music festivals as more tickets are bought second hand at these considerable markups
For some events, sure, like Coachella and concerts promoted by Live Nation, whose approach is to maximize ticket revenues and who are able to take a cut of the resale price via Ticketmaster's official resale marketplace (though, as I explained in the first comment, this can damage the experience and destroy the brand value of the festival over the long term, as happened in Australia).
Other festivals, like Glastonbury, actively eschew this approach, and have remained relevant and youth-oriented for five decades now.
And the very reason we're having this conversation is that some artists want to reserve at least some of their tickets for buyers who can be qualified more by authentic enthusiasm than spending power, with listening time on Spotify being an interesting proxy for authentic enthusiasm.
Taylor Swift can probably still sell out if she raises the price ten fold, but what kind message does this send to her average listeners? What does it mean if the most popular popular musician of our times prices the populace out? You can of course dismiss the likely negative responses as emotional and irrational, but that's the whole deal with art and culture. You can't build a fan base without catering to their emotions.
And then on the other extreme of music you have people like Fugazi, whose low ticket pricing is very obviously a part of the band's entire artistic and ideological project.
If you want to see what happens when you apply supply and demand to ticket pricing, you can just look at your nearest big league sports team. The recent trend seems to be jacking up the prices as much as they can get away with and catering more and more to VIP guests who spend a fortune in one of those "hospitality" suites. Perhaps not a coincidence that less and less people, especially younger people, around me are casually into sports these days. They got told that they are not welcome in the corporate owned sports venue and they take their attention elsewhere, and all it's left are a dwindling set of diehard fans and C-suite people who are there not for sports but for overpriced steak dinners and are too nicely dressed to cheer for their home team.
Why should that lock me out of a reasonable reservation system?
We have a massive centralization problem in these industries and this doesn’t fix it.
For example - allow ticket resale only through the official platform and cap it at the original sale price.
Another approach - check IDs at the door and only let the original ticket purchaser through.
The real problem is that scalping is insanely profitable for Ticketmaster & co. They take a cut of the original sale and every subsequent transfer, most of them at highly inflated prices, from both buyer and seller. Why would they give that up?
That obviously doesn’t work because money can still change hands outside the official platform, unless you mean resale to a random buyer selected by the platform, in which case the resale is not terribly different from a refund and restock for any event where scalping is a problem.
You simply can’t stop scalping if you allow resale. Heck, people even attempt to scalp things where there’s no official resale mechanism (e.g. I change my id at this second, you immediately change yours).
Defeating bot buyers, scalpers and resellers would actually be a noble goal but its' really the tip of the iceberg. If anyone was actually interested in tackling this (hint: they aren't) then you need to tackle a much bigger problem: the venue monopoly with Ticketmaster and Live Nation.
Many venus, particularly larger venues, have exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster also has an official platform for reselling tickets, of which they get a cut. In a more equitable world, you would only be able to resell tickets for their face value. It's alleged (and I believe this) that Ticketmaster only releases a tiny portion of tickets to the general public. The rest they have arrangements to sell through scalpers and resellers and their own platform because, hey, they make more profit that way.
There was a time when businesses were a tool to generate income. Small businesses still work this way. But any sufficiently sized company now is just a tool to speculate on and make a capital gain on. Ticketmaster doesn't need to grow into a trillion dollar company but they want to and, at a cewrtain point, the only way companies can continue to grow is by cutting costs and raising prices.
Back in the nascent days of Internet music piracy it was pointed out that almost no bands make enough money from selling music to live on. It's why the biggest anti-piracy advocates were huge bands like Metallica. Most bands make their living for performance fees ie playing concerts. And even then they might make barely enough to cover gas. What really gets them over the line is selling merch at the venues.
I'd say that music would be in a better state if bands could see more of the value of their labor from playing concerts. But even concerts aren't about bands or their fans anymore. They're about upselling premium services to high-net-worth clients. You ever notice that at sports venue, for example, general seating always gets mysteriously ripped out and replaced by suites? Same principle: venues make more per square foot from a corporate suite than they do from sports fans. There was a time when ordinary people would be fans of their home teams and just go to every home game. That's increasingly out of reach.
In short, the entire system is broken. Spotify participating in it won't change anything.
Maybe there’s still another way for scalpels to game this system, I don’t know, but I’ve been to a few concerts in Paris and I’ve never seen scalpels hanging outside the venue selling tickets, which would be the norm in Germany, so maybe the system does work.
So if not seeing them there means the problem is solved, this problem is in fact easy to solve.
No, the real solution is to make tickets strictly id-bound and non-transferable in any way.
I don’t understand this. If you can’t resell for higher than ticket price, how do they make any profit? Are you saying they’d sell the cheaper ticket for the more expensive ticket’s price? Wouldn’t price stick to the ticket, since presumably different price tiers afford different location/etc?
Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor did this in 2018 and it was infinitely better (I also met a lot of people just standing in line—we recognized each other at the show later and ended up throwing each other around in the mosh pit—a great time) [1].
It was a far more sane (and exciting) experience.
Not really. The place that sells the tickets doesn't have to be the performance venue itself.
This sort of distribution was quite common pre-Internet. In theory it's even easier now, because so many of the venues have (unfortunately) consolidated under vertically integrated ownership (e.g. directly owned by Live Nation). Which incidentally, after scalping, is the biggest reason that ticket prices are so high in the first place.
Overall, that was the last really "old world" experience I had that reminded me why technology isn't always the right solution to a problem. Since then it's felt like this [1].
Also economics of paying linesitters make it relatively much less attractive than all-digital scalping. So I think you have a solid plan. Should greatly reduce scalping.
Reminds me of technologically-inclined woman who pointed out the flawed thinking behind a grocery store handing out first-gen iPads to their shelf stockers. “I love my iPad at home but this will cost them so much time compared to pen and paper.” (Gotta go find out whatever happened to putting an RFID tag in every product, maybe they needed to hit 1/10 of a cent instead of a penny or something)
Above-face-value ticket resale is illegal here and it helps a lot. But you need to make sure this gets prosecuted hard.
It's actually a lot easier, the scalper would just hand a wad of cash to the teller and walk away with a stack of tickets to resell.
1. When an event sells out you can join the 'waitlist' and people can offer their tickets back to the ticket company who give the person at the top of the waitlist the opportunity to purchase. All at face value. Good for the artist too as there is less chance of empty seats when people can't make it.
2. QR code tickets that rotate meaning they can't be screenshotted and sold.
One way is to run an auction and provide every attendee on site with a credit code they can apply to next year’s auction. That way you tip the scales slightly towards previous attendees in a way a scalper can’t reliably access.
Another way is to run separate auctions: one for previous attendees, one for fan club members, and one for GA.
The aversion to auctions transforms everything into a lottery but I can see why they do it. The event operator takes all the heat and the artist keeps much of the benefit.
Reality is there is no good solution IMO, no matter what you do, someone is missing out. Just the reality of supply vs demand.
Presumably individuals involved in these cases are already tapped out for how many performances they can do, so why not have other people put on the same show to expand the supply?
Er, I don't feel like you're thinking of what "supply" means here. We can't clone humans (yet). How many times do you expect a singer to sing in each city in a tour?
That is essentially what they have done. Ticketmaster is basically "We take PR heat to make you more money".
If there is room for arbitrage (which is what scalping really is) then the tickets are too cheap in the first place.
Markets are more efficient than you give them credit for. If there was no value-add it wouldn't happen. The value-add is that the scalpers take the risk and hassle off of the artist/venue. They can instantly sell out and then get back to worrying about the actual performance. Selling the tickets at their fair market value initially sounds good in theory, but then you have to spend weeks and months trying to get them sold, which is not a core competency a musical artist really wants to have. It is advantageous to underprice and know that you are sold out upfront and let someone else deal with the slog.
It's much the same as why wholesalers sell to Walmart for pennies on the dollar instead of trying to capture the retail market themselves. Selling direct to retail seems like a good idea... until you have to do it and realize you'd rather get back to what it is you're actually good at producing.
They're just profiting from the difference between the cost of the item and what people are willing to pay for an item. Simple market economics, right?
As should be obvious: Since it can be explained by capitalism and we even have a nice neat concise word with which to describe it, then there's nothing to hate there. /s
> It's much the same as why wholesalers sell to Walmart for pennies on the dollar instead of trying to capture the retail market themselves. Selling direct to retail sounds good... until you have to do it and realize you'd rather get back to what it is you're actually good at.
It is not the same. Unlike Wal-Mart, scalpers do not buy truckloads of tickets at wholesale prices. They instead buy truckloads of tickets at retail prices -- and then increase the price even more.
And unlike a manufacturer like Proctor & Gamble (with zero or very limited direct-to-consumer sales), the combination of venue, artist, and ticket broker (eg Ticketmaster) is already equipped to handle direct consumer sales. They're quite good at doing so and their entire business model revolves around maintaining this ability.
The scalper is just an added, unnecessary layer. If scalpers somehow disappeared completely today, then yesterday's sell-out shows will still be sell-out shows tomorrow.
Scalpers provide zero value to the transaction.
Clearly that's not true. Retail charges what the consumer is willing to pay. If the tickets were sold retail there would be no consistent arbitrage opportunity.
There may have been some point in history where artists tried to sell retail, which may be the source of your confusion, but nowadays these tickets are purposely sold below retail value so that they can sell out fast to the retailers, removing the risk at the origin.
Smaller/lesser known acts still have to focus on the retail market as there is no middleman willing to step in and take on the retail role, which may also be the source of your confusion, but that isn't the segment of the market we're talking about.
> Scalpers provide zero value to the transaction.
Aside from the value of knowing that all the tickets are sold, which is of enormous value. It is estimated that it costs around five million dollars to put on a single Taylor Swift performance. At that scale, things get scary fast if you find out that tickets still aren't sold at the last minute.
Markets are pretty efficient. It wouldn't happen if there was no value in it. Why would an artist give up the profits captured by the retailers if there was no value in having a retailer? They wouldn't, of course. Even if they have no personal need for even more money, that is money that can be used to better serve the fans. It is not given up lightly. It is given up because it is worth it.
Read that again.
Scalpers buy tickets at the same (retail) price that you or I do, from the same retail outlets that you or I also buy from.
They then raise the price.
The additional price of scalping adds no positive value to me.
(And to be very clear: I don't give a fuck if scalping adds value to the artist, the venue, the scalper themselves, or any entity other than myself. You can keep trying to persuade me to believe that I am motivated by something other than my own self-interest, but you'll just be wasting your time.)
The game of semantics isn't going to get you far. You could equally say that scalpers buy same wholesale tickets that you and I do. The words "retail" and "wholesale" are useful to illustrate the market dynamic, but they aren't rules.
> The additional price of scalping adds no positive value to me.
The value to you is that artists like Taylor Swift can justify putting on a show that cost five million dollars, which is presumably the appeal. If the risk was all on her shoulders, why would she take the risk? There'd be no incentive to. That would be insane, frankly.
I mean, I'd personally much rather watch some unknown artist in a dingy bar that can't find a market that is willing to buy tickets, but if you're attending performances where these retailers are prevalent and tickets are worth thousands of dollars I expect you are going to be disappointed if it is no different than a dingy bar experience. The five million dollar spend is necessary to appeal to the audience. Ain't nobody dropping five million big ones for no reason...
And, well, if you are like me and don't care about those big shows then scalpers aren't even involved. They aren't touching tickets from small time, unknown artists even with a ten foot pole. In that case, sure, there is no positive value to you if you have no interest in seeing Taylor Swift in the first place, but in that case Taylor Swift herself doesn't provide positive value to you either, so who gives a shit?
> You can keep trying to persuade me
Of what benefit would there be in persuading you? You're not going to find any. This might be the most hilariously out of touch thing I've read on HN yet.
So that distinction about Wal-Mart was just... resolutely bullshit. You're just here to waste time. Copy.
> The value to you is that artists like Taylor Swift can justify putting on a show that cost five million dollars, which is presumably the appeal. If the risk was all on her shoulders, why would she take the risk? There'd be no incentive to. That would be insane, frankly.
I do not give a fuck about what artists like Taylor Swift consider to be a risk.
> I mean, I'd personally much rather watch some unknown artist in a dingy bar that can't find a market that is willing to buy tickets, but if you're attending performances where these retailers are prevalent and tickets are worth thousands of dollars I expect you are going to be disappointed if it is no different than a dingy bar experience. The five million dollar spend is necessary to appeal to the audience. Ain't nobody dropping five million big ones for no reason...
Ah. So without scalpers, there would be no reason to perform.
This might be the most hilariously out of touch thing I've read on HN yet. (<-- I like this line. I shall use it here, myself. Thanks!)
No. It's the same market dynamic. Artists with a large market sell their tickets below fair consumer market value for the same reason manufacturers with a large market do. There is tremendous value in letting a middleman buy your product in bulk. Hence why the producer is willing to see the point of value go for a reduced price.
> I do not give a fuck about what artists like Taylor Swift consider to be a risk.
Her fans do, though. It affects their experience engaging with her. If you aren't a fan then it doesn't really matter, does it?
> So without scalpers, there would be no reason to perform.
Not at all. Why respond before giving even a modicum of thought?
Spotify's solution can't remain completely anonymous because Spotify will need to limit botters and verify attendee identity at the door. So we're all just pretending that ID isn't involved, and there's no reason Spotify needs to be in the middle.
Spotify's solution obviously sucks for non-platform users, and if the implementation is "sort fans by listen hours in the last month to find true fans", it would also suck for fans who can't listen at work, fans who were on vacation, fans who don't like the latest album as much, etc. This is basically the modern equivalent of JPop/KPop acts putting concert lottery tickets in CDs and forcing a gross incentive on the fan.
So instead of scalpers trying to simply get to the front of the queue, they'll be automating plays on spotify (hogging bandwidth, something spotify is already stingy with), and 'sharing' tracks with others, meaning it incentivises spam and fake activity.
Probably not a big issue to be fair, and if it only works legitimately 10% of the time it's still a win.
But if there's one company that can take a decent idea and execute poorly, it's Spotify.
Spotify is using this to encourage this type of person, a chronically online hater who has too much money and influence, to increase their usage on their app. How many people will this actually help?
I think the image people have in their minds of scalpers is flawed. It's often a coordinated and organized group of "fans" who buy these tickets for "themselves". They are the first one's to criticize scalpers and form the common idea of one (namely, not them, they are certainly not a scalper).
The solution is to stop expecting so much from an artist. These tours and concerts literally shorten their life spans. Live events have lost the plot (the irony of everyone recording a live event). I no longer care about seeing an artist in person. I'm not in the stratospheric class that can do it, nor will I ever be, nor do I want to be associated with the typical concert goer.
I think the better solution would be to create artist communities that are interested in their music. I would love to connect with people who do, but at the moment there are 0 practical options. I'm always stuck with snarky Redditor's who think it's weird that I actually like the music.
Or they're going to put it as a drop down from the "Repeat" button, or something stupid like that, to cause people to click it by accident.
And when you disable it in the settings they'll stop, but only for 6 months when they cram it down your throat again in a new place in the UI.
I secretly wish Spotify would fire their entire product and dev teams, allow third party clients again, and just focus their energy on increasing their catalog and paying artists more.
I don't want to see lyrics, I don't want AI shuffling, I don't want videos, I don't want concert tickets.
What's the difference between someone that wants to transfer their tickets from someone the know versus a scalper? Trust.
So when you buy a ticket you put, say, $1000, in escrow. The tickets have your name and ID on them. You can transfer the ticket to someone else. However, after the concert, the $1000 gets returned to the final person named on the ticket.
If the transfer is between trustworthy people, then the final ticket holder will give the money back to the original person.
There is no incentive to transfer money to the scalper, however. (Especially if scalping is illegal).
This doesn't eliminate scalping, but it significantly reduces it.
Critique?
We need a solution that demands only the former, not the latter, because the ticketing people have no incentive to eliminate scalping. It's good for them.
It gets a little confusing because situations like TFA make it seem like the ticketers want to help, and while they might be interested in the goodwill of ensuring that some of the tickets sold go to known actual fans first, they definitely aren't interested in losing the "collect a fee multiple times" aspect of maximizing resale which includes zero-trust transactions.
I just want Spotify for music (playlist, recommendation, lossless audio). I don't need their podcast, audiobook, ChatGPT, concert tickets etc. This just makes their app bloated for features I will never use.
> Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.
Meh, I’m being kinda unfair b/c the experience is gonna be better. Shame Spotify forces streaming from phone (YouTube Music can run on HomePod itself like Apple Music). YouTube Music via HomePod might play the audio from a music video instead of playing the real song, so does make sense to shuttle normies to the Apple service, but guess I don’t find the situation perfect.
I have avoided building my own stack by uploading everything into Youtube Music (which used to be Google Music, which ... whatever.)
It gets a little worse every day, and one day it'll get bad enough where the pain of sysadmining something new will be preferable to them.
No you do not. Just use an external drive and an MP3 player like some kind of caveman. There are plenty of high quality models out there. Additionally smart phones will let you store music on them to listen to using the player app of your choice (VLC or something).
Uhh, no you don't? Nearly all of my Bandcamp purchases, except the literal one or two physical-only purchases that didn't also come with a digital copy, are all available to stream to my heart's content via the Bandcamp app and their website.
I mean, I also download it all because I DJ, but yeah... having access to it whenever I want is entirely effortless and doesn't require anything beyond Bandcamp itself.
And if I want to listen to a random song I don't have while I'm outside... I just don't.
But concert tickets, notifications, etc., seems like a no-brainer. That is firmly within the category of music.
Mind you, I definitely have complaints about the app (like notifications interrupting music, their abysmal lock screen widget, and their "randomization" that always ends up playing the same few songs from a list of thousands); but I also understand why they want to expand.
Expand to all Google Play Music features pls Spotify (play counts & the impossible upload-your-own-music to Spotify’s cloud)
I'd have fewer complaints if I could hide the sections I'm not interested in (new releases, audiobooks, podcasts, concerts, etc...).
I have plenty of frustrations with the app, but not with the core offer as a delivery mechanism for various types of audio entertainment and information.
I listen to soma.fm and radioparadise.com .. I read one music magazine and listen to some of the music recommendations from there, but following any of it, over time, is a lost cause for me.
I was just remarking to someone how music apps are the least interesting, personal, and innovative of all the things I live with.
Examples: we still can’t manage playlists of albums, or down signal genres of music or even artists, or separate “calm” music for sleep from all the other generative playlist rankings they use.
Apple Music is entirely useless to me since the only “for me” stuff they’ll generate is music for sleeping. As if I don’t do other things.
Youtube music thinks "videogame music" is a genre and lumps them all together, if you make the mistake of including even one song from a game OST any recommendations go out the window.
For example, a "chill" mix with videogame music in it will happily start including Doom Eternal tracks because "they're the same thing, right?"
Whenever Spotify removed human curation from their recommendations to rely on more ML-algorithms was when it stopped being useful to me.
Went back to trackers myself, only place where musical discissions/recommendations are actually useful and wanted.
I gave up on recommendations and I just playlist my own music preferences over time. Like in the days of old.
I realize that sounds like an Ad but I’ve been using it for a few months and I feel like I’ve rediscovered my joy for music again.
Plex is 16 years old and the Lindy effect applies.
They know it's not worth it either, they just want to push more users to the monthly subscription for that sweet ARR.
If you're paying $750 you might as well use Roon like the rest of the audiophile freaks.
Jellyfin has a Music Server although a bit limited compared to Plexamp.
Navidrome is a Music Server with similar functionalities.
Symfonium is a Music Player which can connect to various Music Servers like Navidrome, Plexamp, or just files on the network.
vs a bit of ai slop to make my own music player?
the only things i care about is some essy enough to use upload process, basic serving, then that theres some smart enough local caching on whatever device im using
Either way part of me feels like it’s for the best. One off payment for lifetime membership of an app that has continual development isn’t a great business model.
Netflix will never allow you to pay a one time fee for life, neither will any other streaming service on the planet.
Meanwhile, plex is a company that has employees. If I like plex, use it heavily, and want to support them I can do so with money. There are alternatives that are completely free, but I don’t like them as much and the minimal cost for plex is totally worth the value for me.
To each their own!
I recently learned that two tracks on one of my favorite recent albums are straight up missing on streaming services. This only strengthened my resolve to stay the hell away from them.
Way back when, I had a very impressive iTunes catalog of actual media files that I had locally. I spent hours curating my CD rips and even the recordings from vinyl. I added id3 tags and artwork. It was glorious and was larger than my 80GB iPod could handle, so my iPod had curation as well.
Then iTunes went all streaming and wiped out my local library, not the media files, just the library. Gone. Poof. And just like that, I was done. I recently dug out the hdd with the media, and using iTunes now to find local stuff loaded onto my device is a constant fight with trying to avoid its clearly preferred Music+ nonsense.
I'm close to getting back to looking for a better music app to source my large local library. Just haven't quite gotten there yet.
Well, I am close to finally build that better music app for my large local libary of music.
(I actually do already use my own written player since 15 years, but it was always just a quick hack and never the thing)
I also do use spotify for finding artists, but have the same complaints that they are just repeating. (Also I hate the spotify app)
Rick Beato has a good video on why so many new generation superstars like Gracie Abrams are nepo babies who all the time and money in the world to chase music as a career.
1/ Sorted. Some buyers have priority. They can be sorted by price paid, by amount of minutes listened, depends on the sale.
2/ Random with KYC. Everyone has the same chance to purchase.
look at the monthly active users chart after this deal! promoted.
._.
For concerts, I built a PWA that pulls my Navidrome artists and queries the Ticketmaster API for shows that match within a 75 mile radius once a day. It displays them in a list with their name, the venue/location and a link to buy tickets.
Artists lose, even if they get paid and all the tickets technically are sold out. Fans lose. The only people who win are scalpers who just abuse the system.
Scalpers don't buy tickets and not sell them. The most scalped concerts are obviously the most attended
> fans can’t afford the tickets
See above. I assume what you are upset about is that rich fans are the ones going.
> less connection with the artists, less interest in music overall
I think you need to explain your logic here.
Arguably if rich people are just buying the $1000 concert tickets just to flex and take pictures for IG, that's a seat that could be going to a 17-year-old who loves the band's music but can't afford more than $100. The 17-year-old meanwhile may never get to go to a show of any of their favorite bands due to this situation, meaning they miss out on this meaningful chance to connect with the music in a personal, in-person way.
Basically the case hinges on the assertion that the richest fans are not the same as the most serious fans.
Back in my day 17-year-olds, especially those who would want to attend concerts, were interested in discovering music. Some of those discoveries would absolutely be artists selling out stadiums where tickets can sell for 10x face value, sure. But some of those discoveries were artists relegated to playing in dingy bars where a cover charge would be unthinkable. One might not have been able to see all of their favorite bands (i.e. the most famous among them), but seeing some of those artists would be quite realistic.
Does what you are saying imply that music fans today have converged on listening only to a small group of superstars despite music discoverability never being easier?
Maybe teens today discover bands from the 20% of the time that the "music" credit on TikTok isn't incorrectly "<account_name> original audio" or from Shazaming what they hear on TikTok. But I agree with you actually that whatever happens with the arena superstars it's a good thing if young fans discover and connect with the smaller acts touring in small venues.
I don't have the data to say whether this happens or not (edited to add: and the numbers are obviously made up), but the logic is perfectly sound; nothing would stop it from happening today.
No they won't. The venue now has 1/5th the people buying booze. They're gonna HATE that night.
I'm upset that artists make the tickets affordable for different groups, and their fans want to see the concert. You have 2 sides that are in agreement. Then there's a 3rd, independent side that decides to abuse the system to make profit, hurting 2 other sides.
Imagine that you pay road tax and the government builds highway. Everyone's happy. Now there's a militia that sets up checkpoints and takes a toll for driving on the highway. Unrelated 3rd party tries to benefit by abusing the system.
> Scalpers don't buy tickets and not sell them. The most scalped concerts are obviously the most attended
If you buy 100 tickets for $100 and sell them for $300 you need to sell only 34 tickets to break even. The concert hall could be sold out and half empty at the same time. Of course there are concerts where scalpers will sell 100% of what they got, but they don't need to.