Louis C.K. sees ticket scalping drop over 96% by selling tickets himself • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by jessriedel » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:35 PM UTC

brianpan wrote: post #64

dkokelley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 significa…

I'm definitely not an econ expert (far from it). Scalpers may not be confusing demand. But aren't they're artificially constraining supply? There are a limited number of shows and seats available. If I'm a scalper and I buy the last 100 seats (or rather, I have the last 100 seats not taken by someone who actually is going), I can now sell the tickets at a premium. If there are only 75 more fans that want to go, they…

In the short term, there are a fixed number of hard drives (and beach balls, and microwave ovens, ...). Why don't we have to worry about hard drive scalpers artificially constraining the supply?

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

#122

Post by pbiggar » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:38 PM UTC

beambot wrote: post #19

ef4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And number 2 is invalidated by the fact that the terms allow you to sell your ticket, just not for more than you paid.

Huh? Many sporting event tickets have the same terms ( tickets cannot be sold for more than face value ), but that doesn't stop scalping.

Scalping here is prevented by the customers knowing that the tickets will be canceled, and so they'll be out of pocket.

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

#123

Post by dsl » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:39 PM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #116

cletus wrote: post #26

This is of course interesting and will lead to inevitable comments about disruption being needed in event ticketing. Let me save you the trouble as this has been rehashed many times already: the problem here is Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues and the entertainment's willingness to let Ticketmaster be the "sacrificial anode" and focus of ire from both audiences and performers. There was a deal done some years ago-…

"Ticketmaster's exclusives on venues" Sorry for the dumb question - does this mean that nobody else can book these venues? If that is the case, can't CK (and other comedians) find a neutral venue (or a venue that is not already on Ticketmaster's list)? At least in his case, he doesn't need sophisticated venues (like the ones need for an opera, or a circus for example) Also, for disruption - can't a company buy/build…

Effectively. You can still book venues, you just can't sell tickets to your event without Ticketmaster being involved.

A company called Livenation went around about 10 years ago and bought all the venues large enough to hold a profitable concert or show, then a few years back merged with Ticketmaster.

Livenation won't sell you one of their venues. Building a new one large enough to be profitable is near impossible. It's not just a building, its massive parking lots, planning and building commissions, working with local police for traffic management, unions for load ins/outs, getting sizable power feeds from your local utility, multi-million dollar sound systems, concessions contracts, medical services, etc., etc., etc.

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

#124

Post by rquantz » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #112

fusiongyro wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they're only paying extra because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The competition is higher at the lower price because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The arguments for scalping only work if the effects of the scalping are ignored. Eliminating scalpers benefits everyone.

Scalping benefits people who wouldn't have gotten tickets in a non-scalped sale (e.g. because there were twice the amount of people interested at face price than tickets available) and are willing to pay more to get the tickets. Scalpers are exploiting the rigid pricing and release schedules of the tickets. I don't support scalping but wish the artists and promoters would step up the fight themselves too.

I don't support scalping but wish the artists and promoters would step up the fight themselves too.

That's exactly what Louis CK is doing.

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

#125

Post by paulsutter » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:44 PM UTC

Ticketmaster IS the scalper. Ticketmaster is the party listing the tickets on Stubhub.

The whole system is indeed a mess. Legislation may be the only way to get things unstuck.

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

#126

Post by blhack » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:45 PM UTC

mhartl wrote: post #101

blhack wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Two tickets per person

"Up to four" covers two. There was an early lottery that allowed four. (I got four myself.)

Was that the lottery back in, like, November? The lottery in January only allowed 2 per person.

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

#127

Post by blhack » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:46 PM UTC

mhartl wrote: post #102

blhack wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some screamed about the lottery, but capping secondary sales at face value is a deeply entrenched (and, in my view, terribly misguided) part of Burner culture.

Please explain why capping secondary sales is a terribly misguided thing...

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

#128

Post by ionforce » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:53 PM UTC

fusiongyro wrote: post #113

sambe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much an argument "for scalping" as an argument against being emotional and extreme. So, once again, - no, not everyone benefits. Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. They got what they wanted at a price they could afford. Disliking something is not the same as it being inherently and totally evil.

You're putting words in my mouth. > Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. Again, this is assuming that the amount of competition for the tickets is not affected by the scalpers. In reality, the scalpers are exactly the ones driving the scarcity.

That's the whole point of scalping, to affect access to tickets. Has more money => has more access to scalped tickets vs normal tickets

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

#129

Post by cbr » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:55 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #114

Why not just sell the tickets via Dutch multi-item auction with bidding. If auction ends sufficiently close to the event scalpers can't get much profit from rich fans because they don't have much time to find buyers and price at what they bought tickets is closer to the market value. Also scalpers coul only sell for profit only to people who didn't attend the auction or decided to pay more then they declared during a…

> Dutch multi-item auction with bidding.

Some events fail to sell out because they were priced too high, but others don't sell out because there's not enough interest. So you'd need to set a price floor.

> If auction ends sufficiently close to the event...

People don't know whether they've gotten in until after the auction ends. End it close enough to the event and people are unhappy they can't plan.

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

#130

Post by larrys » Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 9:55 PM UTC

"You’ll see that if you try to sell the ticket anywhere for anything above the original price, we have the right to cancel your ticket (and refund your money). This is something I intend to enforce."

How? He doesn't claim that he will check id's for all sold tickets (he says he might) and he may not be on strong legal footing to take a chance and deny entrance to someone who shows up with a ticket that they purchased.

Using stubhub as an example I'm wondering what the connection is legally between a representative from louisck seeing a particular seat is for sale on stubhub and then cancelling the ticket making the assumption of course that the person buying the ticket posted it there (and it's not a typo or other error or even some kind of "denial of seat" attack against the true purchaser).

"Tickets may not be resold for any amount above face value."

How is that going to be enforced? What is the cross check between a particular seat and proof that a ticket was sold for a higher amount?

Edit: Also what happens if you want to buy a ticket as a gift for someone? How can it be proven that a ticket was not a gift and that it was resold at a price higher than face value?