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

161–170 of 219 posts

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

#161

Post by pessimizer »

Androsynth wrote: post #66
sambe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dema…

Re: Correct Market Pricing 1-This is inherently a class-based argument. It assumes that someone with more money than you isn't a 'real fan' and that his true fans are the squeezed middle class (or whatever class-bracket you happen to be in). 2-The world doesn't owe you anything. Thinking this is unfair because you can't afford tickets to a stand-up comedy show is the epitome of a First-World problem. edit: this isn't…

It is absolutely a class-based argument, and not the fault of scalping, but the class-based argument is a reasonable argument. To the extent that an uneven wealth distribution is based on insider networks, regulatory capture, and rent-seeking, nominal demand is pushed higher than actual utility.

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

#162

Post by btilly »

blhack wrote: post #157
btilly wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling for a basic overview. This stuff is literally economics 101 supply-demand curve material. When you artificially cap the price too low, you create shortages and a black market. Economic theory says that what you should do is set up an auction where everyone says how many tickets they want to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. The bids are sealed so nobody kn…

Everything you just said assumes that there is never a secondary market. There is. That is the problem. Nobody cares about spending $400 for a ticket. To burners, that's a very tiny price to pay to get "home" for a week, and is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the trip. If we can figure out a way (like, hello, names on tickets) to make the tickets non-transferable, then figuring our a reasonable price isn't an…

People who refuse to learn economics keep making the same mistakes. :-(

Nothing that I said makes any assumptions either way about the secondary market. In fact in the real world a secondary market serves a valuable purpose for people who want to go and then are unable due to unexpected circumstances (sickness, loss of income, etc). Or for people who buy an extra ticket to gift a friend, and then find that the friend you had in mind got their own ticket already. There are a lot of reasons other than being an evil speculator to want to sell a ticket on a secondary market.

But even with a secondary market, the mechanism that I describe according theory would vastly reduce scalping. If someone is willing to plan ahead and pay $1000 to be there, they are guaranteed of getting a ticket at the same price as everyone else. Of course there will always be people who fail to plan and buy at the last moment, but theory says that this pool should be much less profitable for scalpers than people who were willing to pay top dollar but got unlucky.

An additional benefit for something like Burning Man is that you get an accurate read of what your actual market is. A non-profit need not use this to maximize profits. If you could, for half again as much, get a space that is 2x as large, can you rent it and still break even? With the rich data set from the auction, you can get a much better read on whether that is feasible than with traditional ways of selling tickets.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

dsl wrote: post #123
vijayr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. I…

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by jim-greer »

pinchyfingers wrote: post #109
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-…

This isn't a situation requiring government action. This is an opportunity for entrepreneurship, where venues will have to take the risk of staying with Ticketmaster, or not. Clearly, Louis CK is exemplifying this.

Entrepreneurs have been trying since 1995 to dislodge Ticketmaster. They've never gotten the big venues to sign on, and I do think is is a classic antitrust violation.

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

#166

Post by blhack »

btilly wrote: post #162
blhack wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you just said assumes that there is never a secondary market. There is. That is the problem. Nobody cares about spending $400 for a ticket. To burners, that's a very tiny price to pay to get "home" for a week, and is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the trip. If we can figure out a way (like, hello, names on tickets) to make the tickets non-transferable, then figuring our a reasonable price isn't an…

People who refuse to learn economics keep making the same mistakes. :-( Nothing that I said makes any assumptions either way about the secondary market. In fact in the real world a secondary market serves a valuable purpose for people who want to go and then are unable due to unexpected circumstances (sickness, loss of income, etc). Or for people who buy an extra ticket to gift a friend, and then find that the friend…

The fact that you would make a blanket statement about somebody learning "economics" as if that is one skill demonstrates your level of understanding here, methinks.

--

I think you don't understand the culture at burning man, which is, or at least triest to be, completely decoupled from the concept of money. In fact, that is one of the 10 core principles.

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

#167

Post by voltagex_ »

callmeed wrote: post #105
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-…

On top of that (somewhat to TM's credit), I remember reading an article stating that they were the only company who had proven they could handle the huge load of online sales for top-tier acts (think Gaga and Bieber). Let's face it, Louis CK's site probably could not handle 100K simultaneous people buying tickets and choosing seats. EDIT: found the article http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/mf_ticketmaster/all/

That's interesting. The Australian branch of Ticketmaster uses queuing and delays to handle load and still often crashes when "big" events go on sale (annual festivals, Radiohead)

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

#168

Post by vacri »

pessimizer wrote: post #160
vacri wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow... you consider a market to be something which maximises all possible monies rather than something where you obtain something for use. No wonder this 'scalpers are helping the system' theme sounds crazy.

No, xenophanes is simply explaining how markets work. Markets are supposed to maximize utility, whether that be monies or laughter at a concert. If a price is too low for demand, any opening that allows middlemen to creep in, raise the price to demand levels, and take the difference, will be taken. If the resellers price too low, they'll just generate an opening for re-resellers. The problem, for me, isn't with scalp…

Part of my response to xenophanes' comment is a visceral response to treating a 'robust market' as a target goal, rather than a journey to an outcome.

The cost of ticket 1001 to a 1000-ticket show is infinity, regardless of whether you have scalpers or not. Increasing the price of the last 100 tickets does not mean you have increased ticket supply, all it means is you have taken 100 tickets from earlier, creating an artificial scarcity, and sold them later. Those hundred buyers that 'don't lose' down the track do so at the expense of a hundred buyers that lost earlier.

xenophanes is making funny with numbers because he's comparing the price of ticket 1001 in the non-scalper system with the price of ticket 901 in the scalper system.

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

#169

Post by enneff »

blhack wrote: post #157
btilly wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling for a basic overview. This stuff is literally economics 101 supply-demand curve material. When you artificially cap the price too low, you create shortages and a black market. Economic theory says that what you should do is set up an auction where everyone says how many tickets they want to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. The bids are sealed so nobody kn…

Everything you just said assumes that there is never a secondary market. There is. That is the problem. Nobody cares about spending $400 for a ticket. To burners, that's a very tiny price to pay to get "home" for a week, and is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the trip. If we can figure out a way (like, hello, names on tickets) to make the tickets non-transferable, then figuring our a reasonable price isn't an…

Just curious: how would the burner community react to being forced to present ID "at the door"?

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

#170

Post by invisible »

jessriedel wrote: post #121
brianpan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a much smaller quantity of seats that need to be acquired to scalp the market and push out competition. The spread is much higher if you know there is a relatively high demand that cannot be justifiably spent elsewhere.
Post reply on HN