Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#51

Post by Androsynth »

joezydeco wrote: post #45
Androsynth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I'm confused, isn't scalping a necessary side effect of the process? It seems natural if you sell tickets at a constant price over time and don't adjust that for higher demand (as event gets closer in time) or lower supply (as tickets are sold). Also, is scalping a bad thing? It seems to me that they are making the market more efficient.

Scalping confuses demand. If 1000 people want to see a show in a theatre with 1000 seats, that would be an ideal market. But in reality you get 2000 people trying to buy tickets for that show. 1000 are the fans and 1000 are people trying to buy the tickets to flip them for a profit. The artificial demand creates a market that benefits nobody except the scalpers. The fan loses by paying higher prices, and the artist l…

But if the customers are willing to pay the scalpers price, that means the demand exists.

You say 'flip them for profit' as if thats a bad thing, but as long as people buy those tickets, its just smoothing out the market.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#53

Post by mhartl »

blhack wrote: post #49
drcube wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain the Burning Man comment please. I'm involved in the local Burners scene, but I've never been to the the big one in Black Rock City. My wife is going this year with a friend, but she was gifted a ticket. So I would like to know what stupid decisions and exacerbated problems I will see if I decide to buy a ticket for next year's burn. Thanks.

The bmorg completely disenfranchised large parts of the community with a "ticket lottery". Earlier this year, we were seeing theme camps with something like 10% "success" rate in the lottery, and a lot of the major camps weren't going to be able to go. It was only through a last-ditch effort, cancelling a second lottery and giving the tickets to "established" camps that they were able to get some of the major theme c…

It's not the scalpers who are to blame. It's bmorg (and the broader Burner community) that's at fault for ignoring basic economics and human behavior. Everyone with a rudimentary understanding of game theory saw the whole mess coming a mile away.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#54

Post by drivingmenuts »

Androsynth wrote: post #51
joezydeco wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scalping confuses demand. If 1000 people want to see a show in a theatre with 1000 seats, that would be an ideal market. But in reality you get 2000 people trying to buy tickets for that show. 1000 are the fans and 1000 are people trying to buy the tickets to flip them for a profit. The artificial demand creates a market that benefits nobody except the scalpers. The fan loses by paying higher prices, and the artist l…

But if the customers are willing to pay the scalpers price, that means the demand exists. You say 'flip them for profit' as if thats a bad thing, but as long as people buy those tickets, its just smoothing out the market.

This is the artist himself saying that he'd rather have true fans in the seats at a reasonable price, rather than have the tickets snapped up by the asshole with the biggest wallet (not sorry for editorializing, that's the politest version of my view of scalpers).

The add-on effect he's looking for is fan retention over time. If 500 people bought from a scalper at some much higher price, there's a small chance that they will become disgruntled and stop being fans. In the long term, he could lose that business.

But if he himself levels out the market, the fans have less to lose. Sure, the artist takes a hit, but that's on him. He can always do something different next time if he's dissatisfied with his revenue.

Remember that this is a guy who made so much money the last time, that he was somewhat nervous. I don't think he's thinking about it the same way you are.

As for "not doing anyone any favors": way I see it, he's doing his fans a favor by keeping the ticket prices affordable.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#55

Post by sambe »

joezydeco wrote: post #45
Androsynth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I'm confused, isn't scalping a necessary side effect of the process? It seems natural if you sell tickets at a constant price over time and don't adjust that for higher demand (as event gets closer in time) or lower supply (as tickets are sold). Also, is scalping a bad thing? It seems to me that they are making the market more efficient.

Scalping confuses demand. If 1000 people want to see a show in a theatre with 1000 seats, that would be an ideal market. But in reality you get 2000 people trying to buy tickets for that show. 1000 are the fans and 1000 are people trying to buy the tickets to flip them for a profit. The artificial demand creates a market that benefits nobody except the scalpers. The fan loses by paying higher prices, and the artist l…

How is there artificial demand? The scalpers aren't buying tickets for fun - there has to be someone to flip them TO. These people are fans and they create the demand, as stated in the grandparent.

Edit: a common "rebuttal" in this thread (see diek, potch, drivingmenuts) seems to be that there is an assumption of correct market price being the aim. That isn't the assumption or the point. The point is that excess demand creates the problem. There are several approaches to this (first come first served, lottery, aftermarket) but getting rid of scalpers doesn't solve the fundamental problem. The only thing they (may) be doing wrong is going against the wishes of the artist (if they prefer to use another method). It's not clear that e.g lottery is better than finding the true price (or vice versa).

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#56

Post by mhartl »

warfangle wrote: post #40
mhartl wrote: post #15

For his shows, C.K. saw scalping rates as high as 25%, driving up the price of his shows for people who wanted to attend, by those who didn’t. The only people driving up the price of the shows are people who want to attend. How could it be otherwise? People who don't want to go to the show certainly don't raise prices. If scalpers can profit, it means you aren't charging market price. Policies like the one described…

Problem with scalpers is they reduce the supply of the tickets endemically, thus driving the market price up. If the scalpers aren't involved at all, the market price is lower than the scalped price.

The scalpers are the market-makers. If there were an official market, the scalpers would be out of business overnight.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#57

Post by Androsynth »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #38
Androsynth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I'm confused, isn't scalping a necessary side effect of the process? It seems natural if you sell tickets at a constant price over time and don't adjust that for higher demand (as event gets closer in time) or lower supply (as tickets are sold). Also, is scalping a bad thing? It seems to me that they are making the market more efficient.

Market efficiency is not necessarily a person's aim.

Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. If people are willing to pay $150 for tickets and hes charging $50 (or whatever it is), he's only doing himself a disservice.

If people are willing to pay that much and he delivers a show that is up to his normal standard, they won't hate him for charging them that much; quite the opposite actually. It's only the price gauging and poor service of monopolies that people tend to hate (and for good reason).

Now, if you are saying 'what about the people who cant afford $150 for tickets?'. If it's not a charity show, the world definitely does not owe you tickets to a stand-up comedy show. On the other hand, charity shows are fine, but he should call it like it is if thats the case. $50 for tickets means the rich will pay less than theyre willing to pay and the poor won't get in anyways. No one wins in that situation.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#58

Post by mhartl »

diek wrote: post #41
mhartl wrote: post #15

For his shows, C.K. saw scalping rates as high as 25%, driving up the price of his shows for people who wanted to attend, by those who didn’t. The only people driving up the price of the shows are people who want to attend. How could it be otherwise? People who don't want to go to the show certainly don't raise prices. If scalpers can profit, it means you aren't charging market price. Policies like the one described…

You're operating on the flawed assumption that the sole endeavor here is to extract as much money from consumers as possible. If $45 a ticket allows Louis C.K. to make a tidy profit while still being affordable for his fans, but a third party buys all the tickets and resells them for $55... sure, some of his fans may shrug and say, "Well, I guess $55 isn't too bad" (price elasticity, etc, etc)... but why would Louis…

You're operating on the flawed assumption that the sole endeavor hear is to extract as much money from consumers as possible.

No, that's why you have an initial lottery. With a lottery, poorer fans still have a chance to get a ticket.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#59

Post by dkokelley »

joezydeco wrote: post #45
Androsynth wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I'm confused, isn't scalping a necessary side effect of the process? It seems natural if you sell tickets at a constant price over time and don't adjust that for higher demand (as event gets closer in time) or lower supply (as tickets are sold). Also, is scalping a bad thing? It seems to me that they are making the market more efficient.

Scalping confuses demand. If 1000 people want to see a show in a theatre with 1000 seats, that would be an ideal market. But in reality you get 2000 people trying to buy tickets for that show. 1000 are the fans and 1000 are people trying to buy the tickets to flip them for a profit. The artificial demand creates a market that benefits nobody except the scalpers. The fan loses by paying higher prices, and the artist l…

The artificial demand you mention is essentially speculation. The scalpers are betting that the actual price attendees are willing to pay is higher than the initial selling price, which leads them to buy the ticket. This system still requires players who ultimately purchase the tickets for the utility of seeing the show. If $100 tickets ultimately get sold for $2,000 to actual attendees, the original seller significantly underpriced their tickets. There was a full market of people willing to buy the tickets for $2,000 for the show. Scalpers didn't mess with this market or confuse demand. They made the market efficient. The fans who valued the show the most got the enjoyment utility of attending. This system primarily hurts the fans who couldn't afford the more expensive tickets. On the other hand, without a secondary market, the fans who valued the show the most are harmed.

The only way that scalpers can create artificial demand is if there are no attendees willing to pay the price scalpers want to charge. In that scenario, scalpers sell to other scalpers at higher and higher prices, and the last person (scalper) to buy loses. If the last scalper buys the ticket for $4,000 and there is no party willing to buy the ticket for at least that AND see the show, the scalper is left with two options - go to the show (which by definition for the scalper provides less utility than the ticket price warrants), or sell the ticket at a loss (or possibly for $0, if there are no buyers).

I think there is a good analogy to other forms of speculation, particularly in commodities. Speculators "drive up" the price of oil by buying and selling it for more and more, but as long as consumers are willing to pay for that oil, the price is justified, and the original sellers forfeited their potential profit.

Granted, oil and housing speculation can lead to bad things for the economy as a whole. Here I think the analogy fails, since tickets are inherently a temporary market with an expiration date. Without an expiration date you can have bubbles, and bubbles can burst.

Re: Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself

#60

Post by blhack »

mhartl wrote: post #53
blhack wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bmorg completely disenfranchised large parts of the community with a "ticket lottery". Earlier this year, we were seeing theme camps with something like 10% "success" rate in the lottery, and a lot of the major camps weren't going to be able to go. It was only through a last-ditch effort, cancelling a second lottery and giving the tickets to "established" camps that they were able to get some of the major theme c…

It's not the scalpers who are to blame. It's bmorg (and the broader Burner community) that's at fault for ignoring basic economics and human behavior. Everyone with a rudimentary understanding of game theory saw the whole mess coming a mile away.

The broader burner community (hi!) were the ones screaming at the borg that this was a terrible idea. They didn't care.
Post reply on HN