Some people have tickets to sell, others would like to go to the event. You would interpose yourself to suck money out of the latter group while providing no service.
You're making the world a worse place.
He's providing liquidity to the market for the tickets. Think about it: if he can come along and sell the tickets for a markup, why won't the sellers sell directly to the buyers and capture that whole amount for themselves? The reason is that they want to unload the ticket quickly and with less hassle, and finding that high-bidding buyer takes more time than finding the scalper. Similarly, why doesn't the buyer seek out a seller himself? Because it takes more time. Otherwise, both would be irrational to interact with him rather than directly. By interposing himself in the transaction, he makes the process easier and quicker for both buyer and seller, and that provided value.
I imagine the event wants to fill as many seats as they can. In addition to ticket prices, they also have food, drinks, merchandise, parking, etc. to sell.
If a scalper buys five face value tickets at $50, they would only need to sell two at $150 (3x prices are common) to profit. Even if they don't sell the other three, they've made money.
So the way I see it:
Venue: Loses food/merch sales for 3 people
Fans: 3 people weren't able to attend (tickets gone, can't/won't afford/buy inflated price)
Scalper: Made $50
Because in this scenario, a program has purchased all the tickets ahead of time, making it basically impossible for a real customer to buy the product for what the seller has determined is a fair price.
From the author's (OP) perspective, this is the exact opposite of what he wants to happen. A great fine dining experience is just that--all about the experience, and that's part of what the author is trying to improve. Creation of a secondary market degrades the experience for both seller (who wants to personalize and develop a relationship with a true customer), and the buyer (who now has to deal with a scalper, or worse, a scalper robot site).
>>The reason is that they want to unload the ticket quickly and with less hassle...
There's a real degree of integrity that the author focuses on, and that's part of this as well. That's why the author is against turning his product into an auction based system, which makes me want to eat at Alinea / Next more. It's not about hassle, it's about what the seller determines to be a fair and reasonable price for his service. Maybe I'm a minority thinking that adjusting that for a price due to a specific advantage (program that buys all the reservations) is wrong, but I certainly can't see how that's making anything better, or offering any 'value' that either buyer or seller (in this scenario) would want.
Oh I don't know, because they want ordinary people without huge fat wallets to get a chance to go along?
>> The reason is that they want to unload the ticket quickly and with less hassle, and finding that high-bidding buyer takes more time than finding the scalper.
Not really, you could very easily set up a website that would do this stuff for the whole industry and cut out the scalpers. The only reason I can think that this isn't common is because people find it distasteful.
>> Similarly, why doesn't the buyer seek out a seller himself?
He often does, just to find some arsehole has interposed himself and is holding a serious proportion of total tickets to ransom.
>> By interposing himself in the transaction, he makes the process easier and quicker for both buyer and seller, and that provided value.
Utter bullshit. Sorry, but it's just nonsense. He inconveniences ticket buyers by holding back tickets they would have bought until he gets paid off. There is no value in what he does.
It's unacceptable.
Oh please. I need to bail on some awesome event because my girlfriend broke up with me or work dropped some unmanageable project on my lap. I don't care who gets the ticket, I just want to get rid of it quickly.
> Not really, you could very easily set up a website that would do this stuff for the whole industry and cut out the scalpers.
It's called EBay, and they haven't replaced the scalpers. Its because scalpers take advantage of a temporal lag between supply and demand. The guy canceling wants his money now. The guy with deep pockets can't be bothered to go looking until the last minute.
> He often does, just to find some arsehole has interposed himself and is holding a serious proportion of total tickets to ransom.
Why did the scalper get there first? Because the seller wanted to unload quickly and the buyer didn't think about it until later. Again, if the buyers were there when the sellers were selling, nobody would sell to scalpers. But the buyers aren't there. Without scalpers, the sellers would have to hold on to the tickets longer.
This is not the same, you are now being disingenuous.
>> It's called EBay, and they haven't replaced the scalpers. Its because scalpers take advantage of a temporal lag between supply and demand. The guy canceling wants his money now. The guy with deep pockets can't be bothered to go looking until the last minute.
This is not about people cancelling, this is about exactly the behaviour described in the original post - buying up large chunks of the available tickets and profiteering off them.
>> Why did the scalper get there first? Because the seller wanted to unload quickly and the buyer didn't think about it until later. Again, if the buyers were there when the sellers were selling, nobody would sell to scalpers. But the buyers aren't there. Without scalpers, the sellers would have to hold on to the tickets longer.
This is not born out in reality. Observe the process of buying tickets to any marginally popular event that doesn't protect against this stuff and you'll find the buyers are there, in droves, but the scalpers still manage to get a lot of the tickets, which are up on ebay and reseller sites at multiple times the face value within seconds.
This is not a service, it is antisocial and it makes the world a worse place.
The fact you have to use contrived examples that bear no resemblance to the original statements tells me you realise this but are arguing for the sake of it. Bye now.
Normally, for events that are "underpriced" people with more time than money can attend events that people with more money than time can't.
You are making a value judgement that people with time should be allowed to go to events, but people with money should not.
That's fine for you to do, but I don't think you can make a global statement that people who enable this opportunity for people with more money than time are making the world a "worse place".
He is not enabling, he is disabling and profiteering, it's incredibly antisocial.
My life has been enriched, and I personally really appreciate that people and services like this exist - I certainly get a great deal of value from them. I'm not sure what's upsetting you so much.
And, honestly, there is a big difference (at least to me) between someone making concert, sport, or event tickets available at a markup, (which, btw, is a pretty common Broadway system these days for plays, done by the theater themselves no third party required) - and buying up all the water after a disaster and selling it at a markup - I would consider that behavior to be anti-social and profiteering.
Leisure activities are entirely optional. Making them available to people who want to see them, and can pay for them, seems to be a positive thing to me.
Oh? Wanted to go see that band you like did you? Waiting online when the tickets went on sale were we? Too bad, I got them first. I don't even want to go but now you're going to have to pay me twice the face value or you're SOL.
That's what's antisocial and wrong about it. And that's why there are now so many situations where event promoters are actively fighting against it.
What's pissing you off, is that prior to ticket brokers, you were able to buy tickets at a lower price than you thought the concert was worth - and now the brokers are making at market at the accurate price, depriving you of the discount.
Event Promoters are pissed off, because they aren't getting their cut of the $$$. You are pissed off because you are paying more $$$ than you would have.
I understand why both of you are pissed off - but don't making global statements like, "Ticket brokers are making the world a worse place" without recognizing that they are also making it a better place at the same time.
I'm sorry for you that you can't see how incredibly antisocial this is.
Ticket Brokers exist because the tickets are being sold for less than what people believe they are worth. That's an economic activity, not a social one. We aren't talking about food, water, or gas in a disaster here - we're talking about luxury items.
If the tickets were sold at the clearing price, then ticket brokers would not exist.
I'm honestly curious - do you find Broadway's latest trend towards "variable pricing" anti-social? From the perspective of the customer, they are doing exactly what the broker's are doing - marking up the tickets to the highest possible price they can get on a per-seat basis - sometimes marking tickets up 2x to 3x what they used to be.
Obviously the producer's are happy with this - because they are now collecting the $$$ themselves. But, from the perspective of a customer - prices are now jacked up to what the market will bear.
I'm interested in your perspective - is the broker "anti-social" because they are depriving the producer of money, or because they are jacking up the prices of tickets to a level that the lower-income fan can't afford?
I think that others who may not have as much money to afford the 3x markup deserve to have their lives enriched too.
Whatever.
To think about the problem differently- occasionally you will come to certain places and see two Starbucks sitting across the street from each other. If you ever wondered why that is, the reason is that in certain locations, demand is so high at peak times that the lines will get so long that large numbers of customers will actually not buy coffee because they aren't willing to wait. Rather than raise prices during these times, Starbucks figured out that it was profitable to open a second adjacent location to service this demand overflow.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but there are two sides to this coin and I think that looking at it from only the customer side is a mistake. The restaurant is losing out on potential profits that the customers are capturing. Traders would simply be capturing the surplus that the restaurant can't or won't. It isn't necessarily being greedy, it's just being smart.
There are legitimate reasons for secondary markets, especially given that the tickets are available for resale by the producer, but we won't go into this now.
You should know that I had the same questions about arbitrage as you, and walked away from millions of dollars as a result. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736330). I gave up everything, lived in a car for three months, and still have absolutely no idea if I'll ever be able to make that back or how I'll provide for my family long-term.
That is why you don't make an argument personal on the Internet (and specifically HackerNews). Because you know absolutely nothing about the person you're calling out.