Ticket Touts

[jeffie]

Morality

You buy a ticket for a gig, realise you're a bit strapped for cash and sell it on for twice what you paid for it.

You find a ticket to a gig, in an envelope with buyers name and address on, you're a bit strapped so you sell it for face value.

You find a wallet with £200 in, and name of owner, you keep it.

You find a nice smartphone at Glastonbury (obviously the owner should have got insurance), you keep it.

Someone leaves their tent open with a nice music player in the front, you take it.

So where does the line get drawn?

[Mr.Tease]

I find it quite sad that some of the pro-tout people on this thread seem to be surrounded by money grabbers, and so think the world is all 'dog eat dog' too. Time to find some new friends, methinks!

Sure there are some people in life motivated only by money, but there are plenty of people who aren't. Has no one ever helped you out when you've been broke? If you looked around and paid a bit more attention you might notice people helping each other out, people being motivated by all kinds of different things- that's not some socialist fantasy, it's a fact.

[mrtourette]

I have no problem if an individual buys a ticket fair and square on the open market and then can't go and decides to sell it to someone who can. If that seller wants to make a profit and the buyer is willing to pay then that's up to them.

I have a problem if a company is set up with the express intention of using nefarious means (under-the-tabe deals with promoters, flooding ticket releases with an army of employees with company credit cards) to purchase as many tickets as possible (at the same time denying those tickets to people whop genuinely want to go) so that they can then sell those tickets on to the same people they denied the opportunity to purchase in the original sale at an increased price.

The problem is where do you draw the line, how you define a private/individual sale for the 'right' reasons from what viagogo and the like do. Obviously these aer businessess are set up to offer a front that it's individuals trying to re-sell tickets they can no longer use, and some of the time it is, but that's also a convenient thing to hide behind while practicing the far more profitable business of mass ticket purchase/mark-up that has nothing to do with an individual trying to sell on an unwanted ticket.

You also have to be comfortable in categorising the 'old-fashioned' street touts or the bedroom touts who use their savings to buy four extra tickets for Reading of V and use the profits from a modest mark-up as their beer money for the weekend (though that was more prevalant back in the days when these festivals instantly sold out). Are these people as bad as viagogo? Should any kind of re-selling be banned, and thus shaft the person who bought four tickets and had a mate pull out and jut wants to get back what he paid?

The option to re-sell a gig/concert/festival ticket should not be made illegal, but there should be a limit to any mark up (say 10%). This would be difficult to police rearding bedroom or street touts but would address what it hink is the biggest problem, the online touts/re-sellers and their horrendous fees and mark-ups.

[mrtourette]

Frosty, unfortunately, as I'm sure you are well aware, that's the lesson learned by the young. It's not their fault. As I said neoliberalism has won the fight. Thatcher, Blair, now Cameron, have all led to this.

[jeffie]

What's that concept called where when the argument degenerates to the point of someone mentioning the Nazis it's accepted that it's got so retarded and cliched that it's pointless carrying on?

[Mr.Tease]

I was just trying to make the point that people who have grown up with the view that money is all that is important, as stated a few times in this thread, are purely a product of the "system".

[mrtourette]

I was just trying to make the point that people who have grown up with the view that money is all that is important, as stated a few times in this thread, are purely a product of the "system".

Not a biggie is it?

[jeffie]

They have, and it's a complete con- a real shame some people swallow it. If money was the be all and end all and everyone is motivated solely by greed for money above anything else, why do they think their parents decided to have and keep them? Kids are really costly- they won't be getting their money back. Shouldn't they have sold them on ebay or something?

[mrtourette]

They have, and it's a complete con- a real shame some people swallow it. If money was the be all and end all and everyone is motivated solely by greed for money above anything else, why do they think their parents decided to have and keep them? Kids are really costly- they won't be getting their money back. Shouldn't they have sold them on ebay or something?

[bsolxiv]

What if....

A band (lets say Coldplay for the sake of argument) are about to play an arena with 20,000 seats.

They release all the tickets 3 months in advance for £500 each. Obviously this is a ridiculous price, but some will be prepared to pay it (touting proves this). They then (at an unannounced time) drop the price to £300 - more people buy (those that can afford, and those that are worried it will sell out before it gets any cheaper). The price then drops to £150, then £100 etc. until the tickets sell out.

As the band is controlling the price, they will get all the money from the sales in what is essentially "reverse touting". Obviously the amounts are ridiculous, but if that ticket is "worth" that much to you, you'll pay it, and in modern times of piracy and illegal downloading - bands are using their live work to make their money. You could easily apply it to any band, and adjust the price according to their size.

Thoughts?

[mrtourette]

Completely unethical and immoral. Some people will pay that even if they can't afford it, and it isn't right to use the threat of not getting a ticket to essentially force people to enter the race at the higher price.

[bsolxiv]

Completely unethical and immoral. Some people will pay that even if they can't afford it, and it isn't right to use the threat of not getting a ticket to essentially force people to enter the race at the higher price.

Edited October 15, 2013 by bsolxiv

[jimmyk83]

none of us are moral... ? What an utterly hopeless outlook you have.

and plainly, very convenient

[jimmyk83]

Look at someone like Streisand, she commands £200-£300 per ticket at her shows. Do you think most regular fans could afford that? At least in my example (not saying it's right or wrong BTW) some people might get a cheaper ticket.

[bsolxiv]

I fail to see how anyone would get a cheaper ticket. If she commands the amount you say (and presumably has worked out that she will sell out at that price), why would there would still be tickets available below that price level? Or have I misunderstood your system?

[russycarps]

So the best way to ensure people get cheaper tickets is to increase the price tenfold?

[The Naughty One]

Ahhh, morality defined by linguistics.

I love that, me.

So let's try things another way (in language more suited to your thinking), shall we....?

You know those worthless scum on benefits? They're worthless because they contribute nothing to society, right?

Care to tell me what contribution to society you've made by denying someone something they could have bought for £X, and instead making them pay £Y for exactly the same thing?

There is adding value, and then there is adding nothing (just like those benefit scroungers). Guess which one you are?

Edited October 15, 2013 by The Naughty One

[mrtourette]

Look at someone like Streisand, she commands £200-£300 per ticket at her shows. Do you think most regular fans could afford that? At least in my example (not saying it's right or wrong BTW) some people might get a cheaper ticket.

[bsolxiv]

So the best way to ensure people get cheaper tickets is to increase the price tenfold?

[russycarps]

Not at all, I just used Coldplay as an example because I knew some people would be prepared to pay that much. Plus the thread is about touting, not getting cheaper tickets, and the problem (on this thread) seemed to be with touts gaining remuneration for little or no work. My idea (FWIW) ensures the band get the money from the ticket sales, at what people are prepared to pay.

Change my example from Coldplay to Neutral Milk Hotel and start at, say, £60. NMH are legendary to some and they will pay that to see them. If they don't all sell, drop the price to £40. Everyone gets value for money surely?

[jeffie]

what if they all sell out at £60 and you can only afford £40?

Edited October 15, 2013 by jeffie

[elias]

I have no problem if an individual buys a ticket fair and square on the open market and then can't go and decides to sell it to someone who can. If that seller wants to make a profit and the buyer is willing to pay then that's up to them.

I have a problem if a company is set up with the express intention of using nefarious means (under-the-tabe deals with promoters, flooding ticket releases with an army of employees with company credit cards) to purchase as many tickets as possible (at the same time denying those tickets to people whop genuinely want to go) so that they can then sell those tickets on to the same people they denied the opportunity to purchase in the original sale at an increased price.

The problem is where do you draw the line, how you define a private/individual sale for the 'right' reasons from what viagogo and the like do. Obviously these aer businessess are set up to offer a front that it's individuals trying to re-sell tickets they can no longer use, and some of the time it is, but that's also a convenient thing to hide behind while practicing the far more profitable business of mass ticket purchase/mark-up that has nothing to do with an individual trying to sell on an unwanted ticket.

You also have to be comfortable in categorising the 'old-fashioned' street touts or the bedroom touts who use their savings to buy four extra tickets for Reading of V and use the profits from a modest mark-up as their beer money for the weekend (though that was more prevalant back in the days when these festivals instantly sold out). Are these people as bad as viagogo? Should any kind of re-selling be banned, and thus shaft the person who bought four tickets and had a mate pull out and jut wants to get back what he paid?

The option to re-sell a gig/concert/festival ticket should not be made illegal, but there should be a limit to any mark up (say 10%). This would be difficult to police rearding bedroom or street touts but would address what it hink is the biggest problem, the online touts/re-sellers and their horrendous fees and mark-ups.

[eFestivals]

I really think you have lost the plot

The assumptions you make are scary. Can you please quote me where I have referred to people on benefits as scum? Or anybody else for that matter?

I didn't say that you thought them scum. I merely couched what I was saying in language far more familiar to people within society, in the hope that you might manage to grasp a better understanding than you have so far.

The point is, if a person on benefits is not contributing to society and is therefore worthless (in an economic sense) to society, the exact same applies with touting.

Both adds nothing of (economic) value to society.

There's good reason why someone on benefits is economically inactive. To be deliberately economically inactive and think that's an economic contribution to society - as is being expressed here - is being deliberately obtuse (or alternatively, very stupid ).

Also, my morals are not defined by linguistics but I'm not sure you realise that words actually have meanings.

Yes, they have meanings - meanings that a person chooses to put on them.

When there's no distinctly defined language for a situation it doesn't get to mean that that situation doesn't exist. Instead, words have to found to apply to that situation.

So instead of actually thinking about what I've said and addressing what I've said, you've copped-out by reverting to a use of language which suits your argument but which does not suit the situation.

Hence me saying that your morality is being defined by linguistics, rather than consideration.

Another one, show me where I said tout is adding value to the ticket?

If you're not adding value but are profiting, how is your gain economically justifiable?

The best answer you could come up with is "because I can".

Now, if you apply the morality of "because I can" to other things along with the "no added value" and a financial gain, there's only one thing which fits - theft!

We are actually on the same side regarding touting, it is wrong in my eyes but people shouldn't dish out harsh insults whilst hiding behind their computer screen.

Right, so you wouldn't condemn and insult a paedo, is that what you're saying?

Just as you're allowed to form and express your own opinion about a paedo, others are allowed to form and express their opinion of touts.

Just because you don't agree with that opinion doesn't get to mean that you have a right to deny that person their opinion or their right to express it.

Touts are scum.

Get over it.

[ICGenie]

I find it quite sad that some of the pro-tout people on this thread seem to be surrounded by money grabbers, and so think the world is all 'dog eat dog' too. Time to find some new friends, methinks!

Sure there are some people in life motivated only by money, but there are plenty of people who aren't. Has no one ever helped you out when you've been broke? If you looked around and paid a bit more attention you might notice people helping each other out, people being motivated by all kinds of different things- that's not some socialist fantasy, it's a fact.

[frostypaw]

Look at someone like Streisand, she commands £200-£300 per ticket at her shows. Do you think most regular fans could afford that? At least in my example (not saying it's right or wrong BTW) some people might get a cheaper ticket.