Secondary Ticketing Sites

[FuzzyDunlop]

Just now, eFestivals said:

but if there's no refunds available, that's inevitably a loss overall for ticket buyers, because there wouldn't be a buyer for every unwanted ticket.

With touting, a punter can make up the loss on one ticket by selling another at above face value.

And this is why the govt said refunds had to be available before the resale of tickets for profit was acted against, which the promoters refused to do.

But if sites such as twickets were legal. I.e. no profit made. There would be no loss for a ticket buyer.

The profit is what I believe should be illegal.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, rivalschools.price said:

Some of the things done made no difference whatsoever and seemed to miss the point.

For example, they made it Law that if you are selling a ticket on one of these sites, you must let the buyer know the original face value.The problem was touts buying in bulk and putting them straight on resale sites minutes after they had sold out.Hows making them list face value going to stop them?

They also seem to want to treat a tout and someone who can't go anymore so wants to sell their ticket on as the same type of person when this is clearly not the case.

Making it illegal to sell a ticket on above face value is the simple and obvious way to solve it once and for all,I've no idea what is stopping them.(for a start, I bet the touts aren't paying income tax on their earnings from ticket sales)

From the govts point of view, it's about a fair deal for consumers, where the consumer isn't losing out.

If no-resale for profit - just that - was done, the consumer loses out unless there's a way for the consumer to be guaranteed their money back on a ticket ... which is something only the promoter can do.

If the govt acted against resale and did nothing else, that ends up pretty much guaranteeing the position of current promoters against new competition, and I can see exactly why the govt wasn't prepared to go along with what the promoters were asking for which ensured their positions.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

But if sites such as twickets were legal. I.e. no profit made. There would be no loss for a ticket buyer.

The profit is what I believe should be illegal.

not true . There's only that 'no loss' is there's a buyer for the ticket - which there won't always be.

Which is why it also needs promoters to give refunds, which they won't do.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Just now, eFestivals said:

not true . There's only that 'no loss' is there's a buyer for the ticket - which there won't always be.

Which is why it also needs promoters to give refunds, which they won't do.

But selling for profit only works for over subscribed events. Otherwise the buyer would buy a ticket from the venue at face value.

So you can get a buyer at face value.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

But selling for profit only works for over subscribed events. Otherwise the buyer would buy a ticket from the venue at face value.

So you can get a buyer at face value.

but selling for profit is, for standard punters, the make-lost-money-back method for the tickets they might sell which don't reach face value.

To do it evenly, if a punter can't make (back) money, that punter shouldn't lose money either.

A law that (only) banned for-profit sales would in-effect be channelling promoters free money. It needs another side - refunds at source - to give it balance.

I'm all for govt acting against touting, I just don't see why govt should guarantee the current big promoters market position as a side-consequence. That creates another problem when solving the first one.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

But if there's no buyer at face value, then there'll not be a buyer at above face value, surely so anti-making a profit legislation doesn't mean that the punter loses out. 

but that then ends up as legislation to make punters lose money.

It's a view, but it's not the sort of view any political party will be keen to implement. Govts are meant to help support consumers rather than introduce legislation to fuck them over.

Which is why a ban on for-profit sales needs something to give it balance from the point of view of the genuine punter with a not-in-demand ticket they no longer need.

Edited March 14, 2017 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

21 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

But if there's no buyer at face value, then there'll not be a buyer at above face value, surely so anti-making a profit legislation doesn't mean that the punter loses out. 

You're looking at a single sale in isolation and are totally correct. But lawmakers will be looking at the sum total of effects across all consumers. So yeah, some consumers wil have tickets they can't sell and can't get a refund on, thus losing out. But other consumers will have tickets they can make a profit on. Overall, it broadly evens out. It might not feel even if you suddenly can't make a gig you paid 80 quid for and can't shift the ticket while having never sold,something at a profit, but when taken as a whole it evens out .

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But lawmakers will be looking at the sum total of effects across all consumers.

that's the sort of wording I should have used, as it nails where legislators will be coming from.

 

[Tuna]

Viagogo cementing their place as the literal worst: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/21/viagogo-snubs-mps-inquiry-into-online-ticket-reselling

[cammie81]

22 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Viagogo cementing their place as the literal worst: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/21/viagogo-snubs-mps-inquiry-into-online-ticket-reselling

Hopefully this will anger the MPs enough that they do something serious about this issue. Doubt it though.

At least the touts of the pre-internet days would have to stand in the rain and take losses on certain events. The main sellers on these sites (many of who have companies for this exact purpose) never get never a venue.

[arcade fireman]

I don't know why artists/venues don't offer a returns/resale policy a little like Glasto. Especially with most tickets being electronic now.

For any gig people have a window until a certain amount of weeks before the gig until which they can apply to return tickets for the resale.

There is then a resale of tickets which get returned. The only difference with the Glasto resale would be those that get sold first are those that get returned first - the buyer can be charged an extra 10-15% resale convenience charge on top of their ticket. 

For gigs not in such demand, those that return their tickets later might not get their money back, but then they could at least recoup some of the money on the secondary market. Plus in those instances they wouldn't have sold for more than face anyway given the demand was low.

It would at least massively decrease secondary market prices for gigs in big demand as many fans would hold out and take their chances for the resale rather than pay massively inflated prices. The "convenience fees" might even make some extra money. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by arcade fireman

[brettredmayne]

https://www.musicweek.com/live/read/see-tickets-launches-fan2fan-resale-platform/067917

 

well done seetickets

[Harry49]

One partial solution is for the event organiser to run its own ticket resell solution.

For example I bought tickets for various cricket matches in the upcoming ICC champions trophy. These were secured via a lottery and as I wanted to go to at least one game I selected 3 games of various popularity hoping to get at least 1 game. As it turned out I was lucky ang got tickets for 2 games. The ICC today launched via the tournament ticket site the option to resell any tickets you secured but now cant make or in my case dont want to due to being lucky in lottery.

The resold tickets are at face value and I only get refund if they are resold, otherwise I go to match or lose money.

The lottery aspect of purchase is different but this is a case of the organiser providing a fair solution. I dont see why this could not be done with high profile(sell out) gigs. eg, Ed, Adele etc

[briddj]

17 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

I don't know why artists/venues don't offer a returns/resale policy a little like Glasto. Especially with most tickets being electronic now.

For any gig people have a window until a certain amount of weeks before the gig until which they can apply to return tickets for the resale.

There is then a resale of tickets which get returned. The only difference with the Glasto resale would be those that get sold first are those that get returned first - the buyer can be charged an extra 10-15% resale convenience charge on top of their ticket. 

For gigs not in such demand, those that return their tickets later might not get their money back, but then they could at least recoup some of the money on the secondary market. Plus in those instances they wouldn't have sold for more than face anyway given the demand was low.

It would at least massively decrease secondary market prices for gigs in big demand as many fans would hold out and take their chances for the resale rather than pay massively inflated prices. The "convenience fees" might even make some extra money. 

There is absolutely nothing to stop a ticket company/venues from starting to offer returns for sold out gigs other than laziness.

As the poster above notes, See Tickets have made a massive step forward by allowing people to list the tickets bought through them for resale. Be interesting to see how it works in practice though.

[Tuna]

The immoral nature of these ticketing services is spreading: pressure has been put on Everton FC to sever ties with StubHub - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/mar/22/everton-supporters-trust-stubhub-tickets

These issues could be gaining a bit of momentum... 

[briddj]

It's been "gaining momentum" for 10 years but will never be ended under a Tory government.

[Tuna]

I don't really think that's the realistic end goal - but publicity should go some way to making the public more aware, which can only be a good thing. 

[zero000]

A large part of the problem is the greedy promoters bypassing primary ticket selling sites and giving allocations directly to the secondary ticket sellers (viagogo getmein etc...) . I haven't quite worked out how it's not defined as fraud to advertise these tickets as being "sold on" so to speak when they're not at all.

It's an absolute scam and I'm far from being 100% anti-tout by any means.

[rivalschools.price]

On 14/03/2017 at 8:21 AM, eFestivals said:

not true . There's only that 'no loss' is there's a buyer for the ticket - which there won't always be.

Which is why it also needs promoters to give refunds, which they won't do.

Why do promoters need to give refunds if someone buys a ticket but later realises they can't make it for whatever reason?

if I buy a ticket to a football match and later find that I can't make it, i can't ring them for a refund.Same with cinema tickets, flight tickets, holiday bookings,train tickets, etc etc.

No idea why people who buy concert tickets need to be able to get a refund if they suddenly get invited to a wedding or their shift at work changes.

They law needs a simple change- 

- resale at face value or less- legal

- resale above face value - illegal

That's all it needs, I'd even go as far as saying that the seller can't recoup their booking fees or postage.If they genuinely bought a ticket but plans later changed then chances are they would be glad to recoup the ticket value and be prepared to take a hit on fees.

This would stop any need for any special system to 'beat the touts' such as providing ID at the venue or joining memberships.

Also, let's be honest about this, it's not really about someone buying a ticket then later realising that they can't make it.Its about people deliberately buying bulk tickets for the sole reason to sell on at a profit.

[rivalschools.price]

39 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

You can get refund fro cinema tickets up to a few hours before the screening. 

But I agree with your general point. 

Thanks.

I haven't been to the cinema for years so I should stick to what I know, ha ha.

[eFestivals]

58 minutes ago, rivalschools.price said:

Why do promoters need to give refunds if someone buys a ticket but later realises they can't make it for whatever reason?

because if punters are going to be dis-allowed to profit via a restrictive law, then punters shouldn't be forced to lose out via a restrictive law.

It's about balance.

Football is different. The restrictions were put on footie ticket trades for different reasons to anything about profit.

And the cinema is different. No one is proposing laws to restrict trades in cinema tickets, and anyway there's no physical restriction on capacity via a film's non-availability (as there is for a band, where their existence as a physical individual limits availability). The free market can operate freely.

If you like, it's the difference between a normal product where supply can be increased to satisfy demand - standard free market rules - and land where that cannot be done and so shouldn't be treated by the same 'free market' rules (particularly as we all need land to live). If that confuses you, I suggest a good read about land reform that's happened in every country in the world ... apart from the UK (so we tend to have a mental block around it).

1 hour ago, rivalschools.price said:

No idea why people who buy concert tickets need to be able to get a refund if they suddenly get invited to a wedding or their shift at work changes.

Because at the moment they can sell their ticket perhaps for a profit via the standard rules of society (free market, essentially).

That right of freedom (in what's being advocated) is going to be removed, and at a personal cost to those who can no longer off-set the loss on one ticket via the profit on another. Balance!

Care to tell me how popular govt legislation is which in-effect says "we're going to force you to be a loser, which you weren't forced to be before"?

You might regard that as politicians covering their own arses over legislation that would undoubtedly be unpopular with the people who'd then be losing out, but actually, that idea of creating a fair balance within restrictive legislation is actually a very standard attitude towards legislation on its own merits.

[DeanoL]

On 3/22/2017 at 9:00 AM, briddj said:

There is absolutely nothing to stop a ticket company/venues from starting to offer returns for sold out gigs other than laziness.

"Laziness" is always a nice way to make the argument but for ticketing companies "laziness" translates as "need for more man-hours" which means direct costs. 

(It's also not that simple as to what constitutes a 'sold out' show - once one person returns a ticket, it's not sold out any more until that ticket is resold, and you're in a market where a sudden influx of returns could actually be disruptive - many modern pop acts expecially have a very small window of fame and that ticket you buy when they're the hot thing might not seem such good value ten months later. Or even if a band you like put out a new album between sale and gig and it's absolutely terrible.)

1 hour ago, rivalschools.price said:

They law needs a simple change- 

- resale at face value or less- legal

- resale above face value - illegal

That's all it needs,

Except you are missing one crucial element that's also needed: enforcement. It's not an easy thing to do. There's an established way of doing a total ban on sales (as per football tickets) but face value or not is going to be a lot trickier to spot.

[Hugh Jass]

I actually miss the days when you could buy and sell tickets on eBay, used to pick up tickets ridiculously cheaply a day or two before the gig (paid a fiver for a pair of Oasis tickets once).

[rivalschools.price]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

"Laziness" is always a nice way to make the argument but for ticketing companies "laziness" translates as "need for more man-hours" which means direct costs. 

(It's also not that simple as to what constitutes a 'sold out' show - once one person returns a ticket, it's not sold out any more until that ticket is resold, and you're in a market where a sudden influx of returns could actually be disruptive - many modern pop acts expecially have a very small window of fame and that ticket you buy when they're the hot thing might not seem such good value ten months later. Or even if a band you like put out a new album between sale and gig and it's absolutely terrible.)

Except you are missing one crucial element that's also needed: enforcement. It's not an easy thing to do. There's an established way of doing a total ban on sales (as per football tickets) but face value or not is going to be a lot trickier to spot.

I agree enforcement would be an issue on minor transactions and small websites(or even good old fashioned touts outside a venue) but at least Stubhub, Viagogo Andy the like would have their wings clipped.

[briddj]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

"Laziness" is always a nice way to make the argument but for ticketing companies "laziness" translates as "need for more man-hours" which means direct costs. 

(It's also not that simple as to what constitutes a 'sold out' show - once one person returns a ticket, it's not sold out any more until that ticket is resold, and you're in a market where a sudden influx of returns could actually be disruptive - many modern pop acts expecially have a very small window of fame and that ticket you buy when they're the hot thing might not seem such good value ten months later. Or even if a band you like put out a new album between sale and gig and it's absolutely terrible.)

 

Return would only be possible if the ticket resells, otherwise the original buyer has to keep it. It's really not that difficult, as See Tickets are showing (finally). The secondary buyer pays a transaction fee, and it's done - costs are covered. The band in no ways loses out.