Secondary Ticketing Sites

[mjsell]

Recieved this email at 3am this morning regarding a petition to create laws governing secondary ticketing sites. Thought it would be good to get peoples take on it. Barring a couple of valid points I think it's utter bullshit.

Apologies for the long quote but thought I would include the whole response.

Quote

Government responded:

That legislation bans unauthorised re-selling of football tickets. In 2016 different laws governing concert ticket resales were independently reviewed. The resulting report proposed no legal changes.

It is an offence for an unauthorised person to sell a ticket for a designated football match in person, or via the internet under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure public order, by preventing the unauthorised resale of tickets and thus maintaining the segregation of rival fans. The same public order concerns do not apply to concert tickets where there is no significant history of disturbances between different groups of fans.

The Government has sympathy for those fans that wait anxiously for tickets to come on sale only to be frustrated when they cannot get tickets but then find that they are almost immediately being sold at a grossly inflated price on the secondary ticketing market. Professor Waterson, who undertook an independent review of online secondary ticketing such as this, took into consideration the football and Olympic legislation as well as new rules that had been set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, in his report of 26 May 2016 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-secondary-ticketing-review-published-today) he did not recommend further legislation or the extension of the football legislation to other events. Instead he called for the existing rules to be more vigorously enforced and for the event organisers to take greater responsibility for the way the ticketing market operates. The Government will respond formally to Professor Waterson’s report in due course.

Consumers and the economy benefit in various ways from the existence of a well-functioning secondary ticket market. First, it creates a safe and straightforward way for consumers who have bought tickets, often much in advance of the event, to get some money back if they cannot use them. Second it provides an opportunity to attend events for people unable or unwilling to participate in the original primary ticket sale. This may include tourists wanting to attend a local event as well as those more spontaneous in their behaviours. Depending on the popularity of the event they may have to pay a premium over those who bought tickets from the primary source, but this is a value judgment for them to make. For some events, buying tickets in the secondary ticketing market close to the actual date of the performance, may actually provide a cheaper means of access giving people who might not otherwise have been able to afford the event, the chance to do so. Not everyone wants to join the (virtual) queue to buy tickets when first on sale. For them secondary ticketing meets a consumer need. Thirdly therefore, secondary ticketing is a viable profitable service which some people, both as purchasers and sellers, desire and banning it is liable to push such tickets onto the black market where there are less protections.

One of the recommendations made by Professor Waterson in his review, is that primary ticket vendors do more in regards to deterring mass purchasing by individuals not intent on attending the event including those using digital ticket purchasing software (“bots”) to purchase excessive number of tickets. This currently deprives consumers of the chance to acquire tickets at the price originally established by the event organiser. He believed that organisers should seriously consider requirements for individuals to prove they are indeed individuals by means such as confirmed identity technologies. He also recommended that private ticket vendors report “bot” attacks to the police so that they can be investigated.

The Government will consider the specific issue of bots and whether there is scope for further Government intervention in this area.

In addition, Professor Waterson has produced some practical guidance that should be taken into account by consumers when purchasing tickets. These practical tips are available through the Citizens Advice consumer helpline website.

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by mjsell

[Hugh Jass]

It's quite simple really. Secondary ticketing should be allowed, but it should be illegal to make huge profits from reselling, say no more than 10% on the original price.

When touting stops being worth it people will stop.

[mjsell]

I really hate the utterly pointless petition process. Anyone know what percentage that acheive the 100,000 signatures required to be 'discussed in parliament' actually go on to make any change to legislation/ have any impact at all? I get that not all petitions that are debated are valid enough to push through changes but what is the point of allowing this forum to exist if it achieves absolutely nothing. Maybe increase the required signatures and then properly debate the ones that succeed - not just have 5 MPs discuss it in a broom cupboard somewhere.

[cammie81]

No mention of the bands that pre-allocate tickets to these sites:

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2012/02/last-night-channel-4s-dispatches-revealed-that-reselling-website-viagogo-has-been-allocated-9000-tickets-for-coldplays-20.html

I agree with Hugh, you could still have these sites but limit the amount they could make as well as only allow them to be sold a few months before the event. Certainly not on the day of the original ticket sale.

[Tuna]

I got this email this morning too. They've completely glossed over the point of internal resales and immediately fucking the client base out of them. The sympathy they give the touts is a massive shame too. 

[Tuna]

Also the way they say "sites should prevent the use of bots" as if the sites give a shit about the fan base. I mean, they're the ones that own the secondary sites too! Ridiculous. They won't change anything, obviously, unless they're told to. 

[bennyk]

personally think tickets should only be available for resale through secondary ticket sites of the artist has approved this to happen. For example Twickets....plenty of artists have pledged any resale goes through there. 

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

I got this email this morning too. They've completely glossed over the point of internal resales and immediately fucking the client base out of them. The sympathy they give the touts is a massive shame too. 

Yeah its the reason I decided to share it on here, I needed somewhere to vent. The point that begins 'thirdly' is the one that really made me see red.

[stuartbert two hats]

Perhaps a well functioning secondary ticket market would be useful.  Something like Scarlet Mist with a small handling fee to allow for a well resourced, sustainable operation.

These legalised touts are nothing of the sort, they're rip off merchants of the highest order.  I'd much rather take my chances buying tickets from a dodgy bloke on the night of the gig.  The black market was never as dysfunctional as the thieves in suits are today.

[Tuna]

Well those who are vehemently against it, I would hope, would use those websites. But it's all useless on a nationwide level if there's this essentially legalised internal corruption that the government is so happily ignoring. 

[cornish hick]

we said exactly the same at work here today as you guys have been saying.

[mungo57]

if I were an artist with the money and the know how I would promote myself and insist on photos from punters a la Glastonbury being added to the tickets and then only that person can get into the gig.

Might cause a logistical nightmare at the door but at least the artist would know their fans aren't being shafted.

[StLewi]

53 minutes ago, mungo57 said:

if I were an artist with the money and the know how I would promote myself and insist on photos from punters a la Glastonbury being added to the tickets and then only that person can get into the gig.

Might cause a logistical nightmare at the door but at least the artist would know their fans aren't being shafted.

The artists must be in on it. They must know what's going on, and they're probably massively benefiting from it.

Take The xx for instance. You could sign up for pre-sale tickets before general sale. These pre-sale tickets were sold via one single ticket agency, which was SongKick. I was lucky enough to get through and get a ticket for my chosen date. At the point of purchase, there was no option for an eTicket, it was simply a physical ticket that would be sent in the post. Later that day, after the gigs had 'sold out', hundreds of tickets were being advertised on the resale sites at inflated prices. And guess what, the majority of these were eTickets. That's clear proof that that SongKick allocated Viagogo, Stubhub, GetMeIn, etc. a boat-load of  eTickets, as if you purchased through the official channel, you could only purchase physical paper tickets.

Artists aren't making money on the sale of their music anymore. So, instead, they're reaping the rewards of this ridiculous, immoral practice and, in the process, fucking their fans over and making a massive profit. 

Then you have The xx posting all sorts of shit on social media "Thank you so much for selling out Brixton, we've added two more dates" - how many dates would they have sold out if it wasn't for resale sites being allocated hundreds?!

Edited February 21, 2017 by StLewi

[Cammers]

I feel as though this petition could have been worded better.

Realistically, I don't think many people would honestly want the closure of secondary market sites.

In actual fact, most people are happy they exist but we absolutely need some regulation like legal requirement for photo ID or automatic selling price limits. 

Surely you could have a system where by you enter the details of the event (band / location / venue) and it would check the face value of that event set by the promoters and put a +25% limit on your sell back price?

[mungo57]

26 minutes ago, StLewi said:

The artists must be in on it. They must know what's going on, and they're probably massively benefiting from it.

Take The xx for instance. You could sign up for pre-sale tickets before general sale. These pre-sale tickets were sold via one single ticket agency, which was SongKick. I was lucky enough to get through and get a ticket for my chosen date. At the point of purchase, there was no option for an eTicket, it was simply a physical ticket that would be sent in the post. Later that day, after the gigs had 'sold out', hundreds of tickets were being advertised on the resale sites at inflated prices. And guess what, the majority of these were eTickets. That's clear proof that that SongKick allocated Viagogo, Stubhub, GetMeIn, etc. a boat-load of  eTickets, as if you purchased through the official channel, you could only purchase physical paper tickets.

Artists aren't making money on the sale of their music anymore. So, instead, they're reaping the rewards of this ridiculous, immoral practice and, in the process, fucking their fans over and making a massive profit. 

Then you have The xx posting all sorts of shit on social media "Thank you so much for selling out Brixton, we've added two more dates" - how many dates would they have sold out if it wasn't for resale sites being allocated hundreds?!

That sounds rather shady to me mate.

Not a fan of the XX at all myself but even if I was I wouldn't be now after reading that.

 

[StLewi]

I bet it's happening with all the big bands.

[evilduck]

The funny thing is that now the XX have a thing going with twickets to facilitate swapping tickets for their brixton gigs due to all the different support acts. So they appear on the surface to be nice and care about their fans, when they are actually probably shafting everyone initially.

[Hugh Jass]

Is that the actual band doing that though? Is Jamie Xx himself sending these tickets off?

Or is it being done by a member of their management or promotion team without them being aware?

[DeanoL]

Huh, never knew that was the reason for the football rules before but it does make sense. Always wondered why it applied there and for nothing else.

[ghostdancer1]

2 hours ago, StLewi said:

The artists must be in on it. They must know what's going on, and they're probably massively benefiting from it.

Take The xx for instance. You could sign up for pre-sale tickets before general sale. These pre-sale tickets were sold via one single ticket agency, which was SongKick. I was lucky enough to get through and get a ticket for my chosen date. At the point of purchase, there was no option for an eTicket, it was simply a physical ticket that would be sent in the post. Later that day, after the gigs had 'sold out', hundreds of tickets were being advertised on the resale sites at inflated prices. And guess what, the majority of these were eTickets. That's clear proof that that SongKick allocated Viagogo, Stubhub, GetMeIn, etc. a boat-load of  eTickets, as if you purchased through the official channel, you could only purchase physical paper tickets.

Artists aren't making money on the sale of their music anymore. So, instead, they're reaping the rewards of this ridiculous, immoral practice and, in the process, fucking their fans over and making a massive profit. 

Then you have The xx posting all sorts of shit on social media "Thank you so much for selling out Brixton, we've added two more dates" - how many dates would they have sold out if it wasn't for resale sites being allocated hundreds?!

often the people advertising on the ikes of Viagogo, Stubhub etc. don't have tickets. they list speculative tickets, then if they sell a ticket for massive amounts, then try actually track down a ticket. if they find one for below what they sold the imaginary ticket for, they're in profit. if not, they just cancel the sale. it's win win for them.

 

good post here regarding U2's tickets going up on secondary ticketing sites and how touts advertise on those sites, often without actually having any tickets

https://theringer.com/how-u2-fans-are-getting-squeezed-by-ticket-sellers-c049f88fabbd#.go39ko8ne

Quote

Before tickets ever go on sale, a short seller posts a fake listing on a resale site at an inflated price. It looks just like any other ticket posted for sale, with no indication that it doesn’t actually exist. Incredibly, many of the top ticketing sites allow this practice — and as we’ll explore later, insure against it. The short seller merely makes up a seat location, then picks a price hoping it will be significantly higher than the actual market price for that ticket leading up to the event. He’s fishing for suckers. He’s fishing for you.

And when you go on a resale site and buy that fake listing, the short seller gets notified that his fake listing sold. He immediately goes looking on the open market for a ticket in a comparable or better location than the fake listing, but at a lower price. Guess who keeps the difference in money? (Hint: not you.)

i'd say the vast majority of those xx tickets on secondary sites don't actually exist at all.

 

i'd say the vast majority of those xx tickets on secondary sites don't actually exist at all.

Edited February 21, 2017 by ghostdancer1

[StLewi]

2 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Is that the actual band doing that though? Is Jamie Xx himself sending these tickets off?

Or is it being done by a member of their management or promotion team without them being aware?

They know it's going on. They know there are hundreds of tickets on resale sites. What are they doing to stop it? Bands of that size can surely say "we're not playing unless there's an ID ticketing system." Yes, I agree there needs to be some laws in place to stop touting, but until there is, bands need to stand up for their fans.

Edited February 21, 2017 by StLewi

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, StLewi said:

They know it's going on. They know there are hundreds of tickets on resale sites. What are they doing to stop it? Bands of that size can surely say "we're not playing unless there's an ID ticketing system." Yes, I agree there needs to be some laws in place to stop touting, but until there is, bands need to stand up for their fans.

And themselves.

They're being paid a fee based on X amount of tickets being sold at £Y. If any tickets are being sold for more than £Y, they're losing out. This is why I can't believe the likes of Take That etc. don't know that tickets are being put directly on the secondary market. Because there's no way their manager accepts it without demanding the band get a cut of it.

[briddj]

Any band's management for any tour could all but stamp out secondary sales by making their tour tickets ID (a la Radiohead). Yes, scummy Viagogo still allow the sale of ID tickets (in a scurilous way) but it's nothing like the same.

Anyone who doesn't is basically allowing the secondary selling and it is likely the management are involved in supplying tickets to the secondary sites at least some degree.

Take Ed Sheeran and his massive attack on people selling the tickets on/suggesting fans use Twickets. First off, he could have made his tickets ID tickets. Secondly, the chance of getting tickets for huge acts on Twickets is slim because a: so many people are tracking so few tickets that come up on that platform and b: the touts are monitoring that platform too (both the internet and the dodgy bloke outside the venue variety) to pick them up at face.

I'd also say that while a lot of tickets are ending up on these sites, people also need to realise that if was outlawed it doesn't mean you will easily get a ticket to the popular bands they follow. Most of these gigs don't sell out in super fast time purely because touts are buying them all -- only a % are being taken by them and for these popular shows the simple fact is that demand is way outstripping supply and most of them will sell out straight away with or without the touts. (Not a defence, just a statement of fact).

Viagogo is also 100% picking up unwitting custom by paying a huge amout to google to be at the top of any search for band tickets. So many people will jus click the first link without any having an idea they are not buying direct from a ticket company. They must be making an absolute fortune. And as they are not a UK company - they are based in Switzerland - there's a limit to what can be done anyway.

[waterfalls212434]

tory government, did you ever expect them to give a flying fuck......is it something they can get rich or powerful off? no? well theres your answer because that is literally all those bastards care about.

[The Red Telephone]

Think its been posted on another thread, but can you imagine how much Glastonbury tickets would go for if they were sold in the "normal" way and then go on secondary sites? £600-700 maybe?

It may have a few minor flaws, but the way GFL sell their tickets has to be applauded.