Ticket Touts

[mrtourette]

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?

Edited October 15, 2013 by mrtourette

[bsolxiv]

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

[bsolxiv]

It's a system that benefits the promoter far more than the punter. Using the NMH example, if you need to sell 4000 Roundhouse tickets then you set them at a price that you think they will all go at, say £40. Under your proposal the promoter would put them at higher (you say £60 although in reality it could be anything) and squeeze what they can out of that particluar stone safe in the knowledge that when demand for those dry up he can just drop it to the safe price of £40 and sell the rest. How does that benefit the punter? Tickets wouldn't any cheaper then they are now, why would the promoter ever do that? They'd just be split into two (initially, just you wait for more) tiers and those with the resolve to wait until they drop to the base price may or may not get lucky, while those who are desperate to see a band (note this is not the same as those who can afford it) would be cajouled into paying the higher price.

[jimmyk83]

But the punter gets to see the band still, just at a higher price. I'm not saying give the promoter the profits - give it to the band. In my example above, Vampire Weekend still haven't sold out at Leeds, would I resent them dropping the price by a fiver to sell all the tickets and maximise profits to the band? Not at all - I'm happy with the price I paid and there can't be any touts because it hasn't sold out.

Alternatively you could auction off every ticket for an event - then you'd definitely pay 1) as much as you could afford 2)what you thought it was worth.

[LondonTom]

Alternatively you could auction off every ticket for an event - then you'd definitely pay 1) as much as you could afford 2)what you thought it was worth.

[frostypaw]

Alternatively you could auction off every ticket for an event - then you'd definitely pay 1) as much as you could afford 2)what you thought it was worth.

[Guest]

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?

[bsolxiv]

*slackjawed*

you've not been doing glastonbury for all that long i'm guessing so not aware of how it got for tickets.... people were getting mugged literally physically for their tickets - ones on ebay etc going for huge figures once the line ups were out. Those lines about taking care with your ticket in the fine guide were deadly serious - the current security measures pay testament to how bad it got

transcribe that to now and this dog-eat-dog world and with your idea those tickets would be snapped up and going at astronomical amounts - there's a huge swathe of the festival's attendees who'd be priced out. a HUGE swathe - overnight it'd become the rich set with every person on a budget gone, suddenly a tightly defined 20% of society not a spread of it all.....

these ideas are demented. are they actually thought through and you're trolling or are they just thrown out there?

[mrtourette]

But the punter gets to see the band still, just at a higher price. I'm not saying give the promoter the profits - give it to the band. In my example above, Vampire Weekend still haven't sold out at Leeds, would I resent them dropping the price by a fiver to sell all the tickets and maximise profits to the band? Not at all - I'm happy with the price I paid and there can't be any touts because it hasn't sold out.

[bsolxiv]

But there's a difference between what you're proposing - setting proces higher than normal and only dropping them to normal prices if not enough people pay the higher price - and that Vampire Weekend example, which is starting at a normal price and going lower (or using something like two-for-one deals) if they're struggling to sell.

[mrtourette]

Of course, but that's not the point. The point is the moral objection to being part of a system where the consumers are open to abuse and manipulation at the hands of promoters, where the costs of a ticket is not defined at the start and can fluctate without warning. If a band/promoter want to overcharge then that's up to them, they'll suffer through a lack of sales, but a system where the promoter can lower and raise ticket prices in line with sales and interest? How is that protecting and offering a fair deal to the punter? I fail to see what benefits such a system would bring, it's exactly what viagogo already do.

[bsolxiv]

Of course, but that's not the point. The point is the moral objection to being part of a system where the consumers are open to abuse and manipulation at the hands of promoters, where the costs of a ticket is not defined at the start and can fluctate without warning. If a band/promoter want to overcharge then that's up to them, they'll suffer through a lack of sales, but a system where the promoter can lower and raise ticket prices in line with sales and interest? How is that protecting and offering a fair deal to the punter? I fail to see what benefits such a system would bring, it's exactly what viagogo already do.

[ceegee]

As a hypothetical: A band bring out a very limited edition vinyl of their album. Should a fan who decides to sell on the record in a few years time sell it at face value even if it is now a collectors item worth hundreds?

[ICGenie]

As a hypothetical: A band bring out a very limited edition vinyl of their album. Should a fan who decides to sell on the record in a few years time sell it at face value even if it is now a collectors item worth hundreds?

[mrtourette]

But rather than viagogo getting the money, the artist would. And I don't have a moral objection to that, nor a system where you or I may pay more money for tickets if they're really worth it. At the moment your "fair deal to the punter" consists of a single arbitrary price for everyone. So if the gig sells out, genuine fans may end up paying over the odds(or arbitrary price) to touts who get the profits. And if it doesn't sell out, everyone has already paid too much.

[tommyds]

As a hypothetical: A band bring out a very limited edition vinyl of their album. Should a fan who decides to sell on the record in a few years time sell it at face value even if it is now a collectors item worth hundreds?

[Guest]

As a hypothetical: A band bring out a very limited edition vinyl of their album. Should a fan who decides to sell on the record in a few years time sell it at face value even if it is now a collectors item worth hundreds?

Edited October 16, 2013 by tonyblair

[bsolxiv]

The artist would? Very naive.

Again, I still can't see why this method would be better than the single price for all. The issues you have with that would still be applicable to your system, tickets would still be bought by touts who would sell them at a profit when the gig sells out, only they'll be charging more as they'd have had to buy them at the higher price. And if it doesn't sell out, then it would never have sold out and the promoer isn't going to sell tickets lower than the acceptable price so the punter never gets a 'victory'. The best they can ever hope for is tickets not to sell well and get reduced to the lower tier cost instead of having a shot at getting the tickets at that price at the start. How is that better?

[mrtourette]

If by a 'victory', you mean getting something cheaper than you're prepared to pay for then no I guess not. But if I saw the world as getting a victory for acquiring something for a slightly lower value than my perceived worth of the item then that would be a pretty boring life. How is it better? When you change the parameters it isn't any better, I was simply suggesting an alternative - but you're clearly happy with the status quo of promoter determined uniform ticket prices, and lazy touts reaping the benefits of sold out gigs.

Edited October 17, 2013 by mrtourette

[bsolxiv]

By 'victory' I mean something that counters the 'defeat' of having to pay more than others to guarantee a ticket, something that evens out the playing field. All I see is a worse situation (paying more for a ticket due to this higher tier) or the same, therefore I can't see the benefit. Not to the punter anyway.

As for me being 'clearly happy with the status quo of promoter determined uniform ticket prices, and lazy touts reaping the benefits of sold out gigs', well done for not reading any of my suggestions. It seems you believe that just because I don't agree with your alternative that I'm happy with the status quo. Either that or it's the good old 'I'm not getting anywhere with this so I'll just throw around some baseless slurs and accusations to make the other guy look bad' approach.

[mrtourette]

From the poster who accuses me of being naive.

The only suggestion of yours (please correct me if i'm wrong) was the "let's cap touts at 10% above the ticket price", which I'm not sure how you'd enforce?

Edited October 17, 2013 by mrtourette

[bsolxiv]

So I've gone from 'clearly happy with the status quo' to at least clearly not being happy with the status quo to the point of suggesting an alternative. I suppose that's a start. Still not sure why not agreeing with your solution is the same as being happy with the current one, but there you go. Like I said, baseless.

How would it be enforced? With regards to online reselling, the same way that it is for sporting events for which the same law is already in place. It isn't perfect, like I said at the time it would largely be unenforcable (or rather not profitable to enforce) at the lower end of the scale like street touts or on eBay. Would it stop touting? No, but it would seriously limit the underhand dealings that viagogo could pull.

And I'm sorry, but if you think that all the additional profits from increased ticket prices would go to the artist, you are a bit naive. Or alternatively the belief is naive. You choose.

[mrtourette]

Apology accepted.

Edited October 17, 2013 by mrtourette

[bsolxiv]

No worries, I'll happily accept responsibility for your shortcomings. Can't help but feel it might not do you well going through life that way though, but if helps you in the short term then feel free.

[LondonTom]

No, just saying using less promotion wouldn't bother me personally.

Edited October 17, 2013 by LondonTom