61–70 of 148 posts
Update: StubHub, via their Twitter account, has promised to get this guy to the Kobe game. https://twitter.com/StubHub/status/684906796813697024
Did the promise not to cancel orders that they received the payment for in the future?
Looks like "ticketsforless.com" got some great free PR (if they manage to spin the media on this) - from the FB comments: Jason Durbin · VP of Ticket Operations at Tickets For Less Jesse Sandler – I’m the VP of Ticket Operations at Tickets For Less. We’ve reached out to TheLeadSports.com and are trying to contact you. We have four seats for you in section 106 for Kobe’s last home game. Please contact me or our Presid…
Stubhub also said they'll get him to the game. No mention of changing policy so that it doesn't happen again. Next time it wont go viral and they wont have to fix it. https://twitter.com/StubHub/status/684906796813697024 ?
Simple way to solve this is to make SH an escrow service that requires the tickets up front. Of course that would increase costs and their responsibility, so it will never happen.
Or SH can work with other stakeholders in the industry to develop alternative systems of digital transfer and record keeping of ticket ownership. Paper tickets have some benefits, but there should be a way to void a paper ticket and convert it to a digital ticket that can be transferred electronically. Escrow costs would be a lot lower of SH is only escrowing digital ownership that can be transferred back to the sell…
For instance, in my market they partner with the Minnesota Twins. Twins tickets purchased through StubHub are "digitally delivered" just as you suggest: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/ticketing/stubhub.jsp?c_id=mi...
On the other hand, the Minnesota Timberwolves have partnered with StubHub's competitor Flash Seats.
The better question is why SH allows sellers to cancel complete orders where payment has already been taken. Frankly, it's ridiculous that the seller had any input a month after the order was marked as confirmed, and I can only assume that payment was taken if SH was willing to issue a nearly $1,000 credit.
SH has no mechanism to ensure delivery of the ticket. The seller holds the ticket, so how can SH compel them to hand it over - short of not releasing the buyer's payment to the seller. Short being the operative word. SH is running a speculative marketplace against n% insurance fee on unfulfilled sales.
To be fair, the very first section of the StubHub user agreement warns about this scenario: "1. Using StubHub Ticket Marketplace. StubHub is a marketplace that allows users to buy ("Buyers") and sell ("Sellers") tickets, related passes and merchandise or other goods (collectively, the "tickets") for events. As a marketplace, StubHub does not own the tickets on the Site nor does it set prices for tickets. Because sell…
That's just ridiculous. Nobody reads user agreements, everybody knows nobody reads user agreements, and pretty much everybody expects that if you purchase something through a company, that company is responsible for delivering. You can't reasonably set up a marketplace, be the middleman for buying and selling, then throw up your hands and say "sucks to be you" when the product you advertise doesn't get delivered to b…
StubHub is a marketplace and sellers frequently sell tickets they don't own. This works out because tickets frequently drop in price shortly before the game and, for the times that they don't, sellers usually eat the loss. But this seller decided not to deliver and, for that, they should be sued. The equivalent in the stock market would be to short a stock and then not pay up when the stock quadrupled. Given that the value of the loss suffered by the buyer is roughly $5k ($6k tickets less ~$k credit at StubHub), it's a good candidate for small claims court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just ridiculous. Nobody reads user agreements, everybody knows nobody reads user agreements, and pretty much everybody expects that if you purchase something through a company, that company is responsible for delivering. You can't reasonably set up a marketplace, be the middleman for buying and selling, then throw up your hands and say "sucks to be you" when the product you advertise doesn't get delivered to b…
The buyer made the mistake of thinking he was dealing with StubHub rather than the seller. If he had been smart, he would have asked asked StubHub for the seller's details with the comment that he would be filing suit against either StubHub or the seller. StubHub is a marketplace and sellers frequently sell tickets they don't own. This works out because tickets frequently drop in price shortly before the game and, fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure you can hold a marketplace to the same standards of a company delivering its own product. I don't need to reed any user agreement to know that. And Stubhub is clearly a marketplace. I would assume this site is just the same as eBay or Airbnb. I know that are some responsibilities of a marketplace, but I also know that I'm ultimately trusting the other transaction part (not the marketplace). If I think this r…
eBay takes complete responsibility for the transactions that they facilitate. eBay guarantees that your item will ship and be delivered within a certain time and will be as described. The seller can still mess with you, but the timeframe is limited and eBay will handle the dispute. AirBnB is more of a "sucks to be you" style when it comes to canceled reservations, which is pretty weak.
The problem here is that getting one's money back doesn't feel like enough, because you're losing out on massive appreciation of the purchase between when you bought it and now.
This is one of the most difficult customer service issues to solve, because the cost to correct the situation in the customer's eyes has no upper bound.
This reminds me of the Hawks v. Pats SuperBowl fiasco last year. Flippers selling tix they didn't have, people buying their flights and then not getting tixs: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/super-bowl-dream... Though in that case StubHub guaranteed the tixs: "Instead, StubHub as of Saturday had spent $5 million on tickets to avoid defaulting on orders. StubHub policy guarantees that fans will get a ticke…
We ran a few blocks from Staples to the stubhub office and they just handed us comparable tickets. It was amazing. One of the nicest and best customer service interactions I have ever had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed; this is probably already fraud between the seller and the buyer, ignoring StubHub's involvement already. It's unlikely we need any laws to "fix" this because the ones that have been around for centuries are probably already sufficient. Small-claims court may already be an available avenue of relief as in many states this would fit under the limit, though the internet can as always make jurisdiction a tricky i…
Would a small claims court in this case do anything besides ensure the buyer got a refund, which they already got anyway?
That said, IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in such a way that it is physically impossible for the seller to take back ownership without the cooperation of the buyer. I'm not sure how this is logistically possible without the seller sending SH tickets when he or she wants to sell them, in which case we'd just be reading an article about how SH accidentally sent out $6k in tickets that were never paid for.
Why would you need to send them to SH? It would go like: buyer pays, seller gives buyer tickets. "Give" may mean mailing physical tickets, or an electronic transfer. It sounds like there are some ticket issuers which make this impossible, but I don't see how giving tickets to SH makes any difference.