Live data from Hacker News

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

thenextweb.com

191–200 of 219 posts

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

#191
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"more time and resources than you can jump ahead of you in line and, as a result either deny you an experience or make you pay more out of pocket for it." Isn't that the way the world works? We aren't talking about access to food, education, or healthcare here. We're talking about entertainment. Is there a particular reason why someone with more time or money shouldn't have an edge and be able to spend their money to…

Scalping is asshole behavior. It is that simple. Don't sugarcoat it in talk of 'smoothing' markets. The scalpers do not add any value to the transaction. They merely inflate the price. I'm so sick of HN over-intellectualizing topics in order to avoid the difficult discussions of ethics. I'm guessing they're avoided because (gasp) it isn't objective. The horror!

[deleted]

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

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true fans are poor? What does having a fatter wallet have to do with your taste in comedy? Also, fans don't work the way you think they do. If I like Louis CK, I like Louis CK . If he chooses to charge $500 for a ticket, I will just watch him on TV. It won't cause me to resent him. In a perfect market, if enough people feel the same way, the price will drop down into the range that I am comfortable paying. If, on…

> So true fans are poor? No? True fans are alone, and true fans are not necessarily the earliest at the gate. If scalpers can grab half the tickets before the show's sold out by buying in bulk, they're going to make a lot of money. Because now they control the product. > he needs to increase supply by touring more. He's booked 67 dates, he's only one guy, touring more? He'll need to put his million of sales in clonin…

> true fans are not necessarily the earliest at the gate

Without scalpers, "first at the gate" is the only way to get tickets.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he is doing himself a disservice doesn't mean the scalpers are doing us a service.

As worded it is implied that the scalper is doing _somebody_ a service, and I disagree with that.

If they weren't doing anyone a service, they wouldn't make money.

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

#194
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are doing a service to anyone who buys scalped tickets, who is happy to pay extra rather than not go. Competition at this price is lower. I know many people who have happily paid well over face value on several occasions. Of course everyone would rather pay an artificially low price. Wanting a better deal isn't the same as the premium being extortion. You may not like scalping but there's no point being blinkere…

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.

Suppose there are 1000 tickets for a show that are $20 each. There are 5000 people in town who would buy a ticket at that price. Without any scalping, the first 1000 people who show up get a ticket and 4000 people go home unhappy.

With scalping, the first 1000 people who show up still get tickets. 900 of them are scalpers. (So if you were in the first 100, you still got to pay face value.) I'm being very generous with this scenario--I've personally never seen a situation where this was a real problem, as I've gone to every ticketed event I've ever wanted to paying face value.

The 900 scalpers all pick different prices. At $40, there are about 2000 people left in town who want to buy a ticket. Some of them get tickets, but the other scalpers get wise and think, why not charge more? So they charge $50. Or $60. Eventually they reach a point where there are exactly n tickets left, and exactly n people left in town who are willing to buy at that price. If the scalpers overprice the ticket, no one will buy, so they'll need to lower the price again. But generally, what's reached is a fair price that sees all the tickets go to people who actually were willing to buy them at the price they bought them at.

So let's look at what's happened. Without scalping, you have 4000 people who missed out on buying tickets because they weren't first in line and 1000 people going to a show. With scalping, you still have 1000 people going to a show, but instead of all of them being picked on the less-than-perfectly-fair basis of who was first in line (which is a disadvantage to people with more work, more responsibilities, inconveniently timed emergencies, and slow internet connections), some of them are picked based on who was first in line, and some of them are picked based on who was willing to pay more (which is a disadvantage to people with less money).

You might think, well, it's better to be unfair to busy people than to be unfair to poor people. But let's change this thought experiment and say the face value of the tickets was $60 to begin with instead of $20, and at $60, there are exactly 1000 people in town who are willing to buy a ticket. Now there are no scalpers (or if any scalpers do show up, they can only resell the ticket for face value anyway). I would argue that this scenario is strictly less fair than the scenario where the face value was $20 and there was some scalping, because at least in the first scenario, it was possible to get a lower price by getting in line first!

Fundamentally, what difference does it make who's setting the price? You might say, well, if the face value was $60, at least the performer (or the venue, or the ticket vendor) is getting the extra money, not just some "scalper". But the scalper is effectively getting in line for you. He's going out of his way to do the leg work for you. You know who else we pay a premium to for doing the leg work? Shopkeepers. Sure, if we really wanted to, we could go to some warehouse and save some money by buying all our stuff off a pallet. (You still can if you want to--it's called Costco.) But maybe I'd rather some other guy does all that legwork for me, and in exchange, I'll pay more. And if you're running around doing legwork for other people, you are benefitting those people.

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

#195
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.

Scalpers can only make money if there are more people willing to buy tickets at the face value than there are tickets available.

Here, go learn what a demand curve looks like and then think more carefully about this: http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/microeconomics/...

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As worded it is implied that the scalper is doing _somebody_ a service, and I disagree with that.

If they weren't doing anyone a service, they wouldn't make money.

Of course they don't and still do: through speculation, they're artificially taking control of the supply allowing them to re-set its price point without providing value. The tickets would sell all the same through the original provider at the original price, they just inserted themselves between the producer and the consumer (usually through brute-forcing the producer's ordering scheme) in order to extract wealth from the consumer.

That's parasitism.

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

#197
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-…

> Until that happens any ticketing disruption is doomed

, in the US.

There's a very similar reason why Spotify started in Sweden, and took years until jumping the pond.

I'm not saying everything is better in Europe, and in fact I've no clue about the ticket sales situation in most European countries. But I am saying that, much as many would like to forget, innovation and market disruption is not a US monopoly.

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scalping is asshole behavior. It is that simple. Don't sugarcoat it in talk of 'smoothing' markets. The scalpers do not add any value to the transaction. They merely inflate the price. I'm so sick of HN over-intellectualizing topics in order to avoid the difficult discussions of ethics. I'm guessing they're avoided because (gasp) it isn't objective. The horror!

If I'm a person who's willing to pay above face value for a ticket but didn't get in line fast enough, the scalpers provide tremendous value to me.

...unless the scalpers were the reason you weren't in line fast enough.

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

#199
post #129

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.

You can set minimal price in multi-item auction. You don't have to sell out for auction to end. And you don't have to sell for zero if there are not enough buyers.

As for the second argument, I don't suggest ending it minutes or even hours before the event. Rather days or weeks. The point is that all people who want to go can declare how much they are willing to pay beforehand and if their best offer gets beaten by scalpers, the scalpers won't profit by selling tickets for more money to them just before the show.

My suggestion is not to remove scalpers altogether but limit their opportunities for earning and helping artist extract some of the additional wealth that currently goes to scalpers. Those scalpers that remain would provide legit service of providing tickets to people who couldn't attend an auction.

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

#200
post #157
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…

Say the tickets are $400 as you said, then everyone who got one bid > 400 dollars everyone who didn't get one claimed the most they were willing to pay is < 400 dollars. Assuming they weren't lying were is the secondary market? You are unable to sell your ticket for more than you paid for it so the secondary market acts as loss reduction device not a money making endeavor.
Post reply on HN