nine inch nails doing a us tour with physical tickets from box offices only.....opinions?

[Gnomicide]

3 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Genuine question, how do you feel about football clubs selling tickets based on membership, loyalty points etc etc.

the other thing that i keep thinking about is that first stone roses comeback gig where you had to turn up with a piece of memorabilia to gain entrance.

This is a form of turmoil for me, this last week having brought it into focus again.

As you may know Mardy, Libpool are off to Kyiv for the Champions League final. 

1st lot of tickets went to people who've been to all home and away games in the competition. Next lot were people who went to all the home games.

So, if someone has forked out for a season ticket and been to all home games in the cup PLUS only missed one away game, they have no advantage over someone who doesn't have a season ticket but has been to 6 cup home games.

Part of me screams unfair, part of me screams why should regulars be blocking out tickets. But I tend to side on behalf of the regulars. Having said that, do I think the same should apply to gigs? Should I have more of a shot at a Glastonbury ticket than someone who's never been before? Hell no.

[Mardy]

Well, i'm pondering ways of ensuring the fairness of tickets in relation to commitment etc. How do you feel about overseas fans buying up City's tickets, and coming along as a tourist experience, say? 

[Mardy]

I think that’s really admirable of Glastonbury's part, the definite decision not to offer any advantage to returning festival goers. But i can see arguments for say, that stone roses thing too. 

I donkt know how you balance things with gigs, but i genuinely believe that just hammering away at f5 on a friday morning 18 months before a gig happens isn’t the best way to do it.

[Odessa]

1 minute ago, Mardy said:

Well, i'm pondering ways of ensuring the fairness of tickets in relation to commitment etc. How do you feel about overseas fans buying up City's tickets, and coming along as a tourist experience, say? 

That's fine. I'd do the same if I was going to Spain or Italy or wherever during the season.

[Gnomicide]

Just now, Mardy said:

I donkt know how you balance things with gigs, but i genuinely believe that just hammering away at f5 on a friday morning 18 months before a gig happens isn’t the best way to do it.

The current system clearly favours those with more mates or those a little more savvy and organised. I still consider myself a Glastonbury newbie as I've only been to 7 but I've only got my own ticket twice. 

This in itself is a disadvantage to people who are no less committed but perhaps less inclined to call on the help of others. 

[Mardy]

3 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

The current system clearly favours those with more mates or those a little more savvy and organised. I still consider myself a Glastonbury newbie as I've only been to 7 but I've only got my own ticket twice. 

This in itself is a disadvantage to people who are no less committed but perhaps less inclined to call on the help of others. 

Yeah, i'm not thinking so much about Glastonbury, i guess because tickets can’t be resold, i dunno. Perhaps people are less likely to buy them on a whim. 

 

[Gnomicide]

13 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Yeah, i'm not thinking so much about Glastonbury, i guess because tickets can’t be resold, i dunno. Perhaps people are less likely to buy them on a whim. 

 

You're right. Someone a few pages back mentioned prohibiting the resale of tickets for more than 10% of face value but why stop there. Prohibit resale for more than face value. You may miss out if you've bought tickets and had to pay booking fees but why should you make ANY profit? You should just be glad to be cutting your losses if you can't make a gig.

It wouldn't stop the touts flogging tickets outside a gig (unless they were arrested) but at least you think they've made an effort rather than the Viagogo crowd.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Gnomicide

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, Gnomicide said:

You're right. Someone a few pages back mentioned prohibiting the resale of tickets for more than 10% of face value but why stop there. Prohibit resale for more than face value. You may miss out if you've bought tickets and had to pay booking fees but why should you make ANY profit? You should just be glad to be cutting your losses if you can't make a gig.

It wouldn't stop the touts flogging tickets outside a gig (unless they were arrested) but at least you think they've made an effort rather than the Viagogo crowd.

That was me who suggested the 10% thing, and it was just to cover various fees.

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, Mardy said:

Yeah, i'm not thinking so much about Glastonbury, i guess because tickets can’t be resold, i dunno. Perhaps people are less likely to buy them on a whim. 

 

I think the deposit system leads to more people buying on a whim. There’s a guy in our group who’s put a deposit down four years in a row and hasn’t been once in that time. As the “leader” and chief organiser of our T-Day team I’m starting to wonder why we bother trying for him.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Mash011 said:

The level of staggeringly awful takes coming out in this thread is quite impressive. The suggestion that having to physically queue up at a venue is in anyway "fairer" or preferable to an online system is just unfathomably absurd. The suggestion that people deserve to go to a gig more simply because they live near the venue, or can afford to take time of work to queue up... the idea that those people will enjoy the gig more than those whose personal circumstances preclude that... that those who can't do that simply "can't be bothered". It requires such a total disconnect from the realities of how people actually live, such an elitist attitude that I can't believe people are genuinely taking that side.

In summary, come off of it @eFestivals.

I didn't say it was fairer. I said it was no more or less exclusionary as other systems.

Seems like people want the world on a plate, and it's thought nasty if anyone refuses to bend to their own preferences.

[Fishman]

12 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

I once had my mother queue up at Liverpool Royal Court for Cinderella tickets. God bless the bloke explaining to her it wasn't a panto.

Crikey ... that's one hell of an admission (and I'm not talking about the mother bit).

[Mash011]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't say it was fairer. I said it was no more or less exclusionary as other systems.

Seems like people want the world on a plate, and it's thought nasty if anyone refuses to bend to their own preferences.

Those entitled fucks with their lives and jobs! They just want the whole world on a plate!

(and for the record it is obviously more exclusionary - not in the sense that it excludes more people from the gig since tickets remain finite but that it excludes people in vast numbers from even trying for tickets in the first place)

Edited May 16, 2018 by Mash011

[Gnomicide]

6 minutes ago, Fishman said:

Crikey ... that's one hell of an admission (and I'm not talking about the mother bit).

Zero fucks given

Despite the look on that album, they were actually a rather excellent blues rock band. Tom Keifer (singer) is still producing some fine tunes.

[Mardy]

12 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

This is a form of turmoil for me, this last week having brought it into focus again.

As you may know Mardy, Libpool are off to Kyiv for the Champions League final. 

1st lot of tickets went to people who've been to all home and away games in the competition. Next lot were people who went to all the home games.

So, if someone has forked out for a season ticket and been to all home games in the cup PLUS only missed one away game, they have no advantage over someone who doesn't have a season ticket but has been to 6 cup home games.

Part of me screams unfair, part of me screams why should regulars be blocking out tickets. But I tend to side on behalf of the regulars. Having said that, do I think the same should apply to gigs? Should I have more of a shot at a Glastonbury ticket than someone who's never been before? Hell no.

Yeah, I've been following this quite closely. Some of my friends from Liverpool have been trying to get tickets, and have involved in this seasons away matches etc. They've said there's much more of a 'family' feeeling to this seqson's exploits, lots of people helping each other out, and looking out for each other. More so than in other recent years. Everyone seems properly taken with it.

I really don't know how you reconcile the loyalty/devotion aspect of it to ideas of fairness. The line is different for everyone, I guess and we all draw it in a different place. I do think football benefits from having a following there, and in contrast to the other poster from yesterday, I sort of understand why some people have a problem with football tourism, i.e people flying in to a foreign country and going to it as an 'experience' with no emotional investment etc. It's got be detrimental, at some point, to the atmosphere. Same as gig chatterers, i guess. Mind you, I see that AFC Wimbledon are saying that they won't let you renew your season ticket if you've been to less than 80% of games, which is taking it to the opposite extremes.  

 

Overall, whether it's football or gigs, i guess I want people there who really want to be there. How you identify that, I don't really know, but the NIN's way is, as least, attempting to address that.

 

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

Those entitled fucks with their lives and jobs! They just want the whole world on a plate!

In this instance, yes they do.

Any system preferences some at the expense of others. You wanting it preferenced to your advantage is not surprising and is not wrong, but it *IS* you wanting it prefenced to your advantage. That can be recognised and said.

It's not a human right that everything must be done to your advantage or even towards the bulk of people, and in the case of an oversubscribed gig a 'queue up' method very clearly preferences the most determined of that band's fans. If a band wants to do that, why not?

 

22 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

(and for the record it is obviously more exclusionary - not in the sense that it excludes more people from the gig since tickets remain finite but that it excludes people in vast numbers from even trying for tickets in the first place)

Like I say, that's largely a "can't be bothered" factor. Just about everyone somehow manages to wangle things to do their bestest-thing-ever. It's a choice about how much you're prepared to put yourself out to obtain those tickets.

[Mash011]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

In this instance, yes they do.

Any system preferences some at the expense of others. You wanting it preferenced to your advantage is not surprising and is not wrong, but it *IS* you wanting it prefenced to your advantage. That can be recognised and said.

It's not a human right that everything must be done to your advantage or even towards the bulk of people, and in the case of an oversubscribed gig a 'queue up' method very clearly preferences the most determined of that band's fans. If a band wants to do that, why not?

 

Like I say, that's largely a "can't be bothered" factor. Just about everyone somehow manages to wangle things to do their bestest-thing-ever. It's a choice about how much you're prepared to put yourself out to obtain those tickets.

The idea that fans who can't go up to physically queue just "can't be bothered" is pure ignorance and elitism that has been rightfully rubbished by numerous people in this thread. 'If they really liked the band, they would've been richer/lived neared the venue/quit their job.' And an online system has less inherent preference to certain people than what you're suggesting by orders of magnitude.

[Mardy]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not a human right that everything must be done to your advantage or even towards the bulk of people, and in the case of an oversubscribed gig a 'queue up' method very clearly preferences the most determined of that band's fans. If a band wants to do that, why not?

This is what I've been badly trying to articlulate over the last couple of days. Neil puts it better than I can.

 

[Odessa]

15 minutes ago, Mardy said:

I do think football benefits from having a following there, and in contrast to the other poster from yesterday, I sort of understand why some people have a problem with football tourism, i.e people flying in to a foreign country and going to it as an 'experience' with no emotional investment etc. It's got be detrimental, at some point, to the atmosphere.

I don't disagree with you. For the Manchester derby or a Wembley final or whatever other big game, I'm glad the membership system keeps regular or semi-regular attenders able to get all of the tickets.

But for yr average home game against mid table clubs and below, the games wouldn't sell out without the tourists and the stadium upgrades reflect the demand from them too. They're not stopping any "real" fans from going. The atmosphere at all the big English stadiums is long gone for 99% of games anyway, and a change in ticket policy isn't gonna change anything unless standing sections and cheaper tickets are brought in.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Odessa

[Odessa]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In this instance, yes they do.

Any system preferences some at the expense of others. You wanting it preferenced to your advantage is not surprising and is not wrong, but it *IS* you wanting it prefenced to your advantage. That can be recognised and said.

It's not a human right that everything must be done to your advantage or even towards the bulk of people, and in the case of an oversubscribed gig a 'queue up' method very clearly preferences the most determined of that band's fans. If a band wants to do that, why not?

 

Like I say, that's largely a "can't be bothered" factor. Just about everyone somehow manages to wangle things to do their bestest-thing-ever. It's a choice about how much you're prepared to put yourself out to obtain those tickets.

It's just a silly argument though about the "most determined". I'm very determined to go to All Points East and the QOTSA gig in London this summer, as well as TRNSMT in Glasgow. I wouldn't have travelled to London twice and Glasgow once just to buy tickets though, the idea of having to do that to "prove" I want to go is absolutely absurd.

[Mardy]

2 minutes ago, Odessa said:

I don't disagree with you. For the Manchester derby or a Wembley final or whatever other big game, I'm glad the membership system keeps regular or semi-regular attenders able to get all of the tickets.

But for yr average home game against mid table clubs and below, the games wouldn't sell out without the tourists and the stadium upgrades reflect the demand from them too. They're not stopping any "real" fans from going. The atmosphere at all the big English stadiums is long gone for 99% of games anyway, and a change in ticket policy isn't gonna change anything unless standing sections and cheaper tickets are brought in.

Sorry @Odessa, that came across asa bit rude describing you as 'the poster from yesterday'. Apologies.

 

Yeah, I think all of these things are symptomatic of small incremental changes, in both football and gig-going;  over-expansion of football clubs etc, greed from the clubs, ticket agencies etc. I see it as all connected and the answer needs to be radical rethinking of these things rather than just a tinkering with some details. I had such high hopes for AFC Wimbledon and FCUM and they've both fucked it, as far as I can see.

When you've got a situation where, as an example, Peter Kay can sell 94 stadium dates out 2 years in the future, there's something very unusual going on culturally

[Mardy]

hehehe, that all read much more as joined up in my head. I'm posting in between other stuff. Not very coherent this morning

[Quark]

1 minute ago, Mardy said:

hehehe, that all read much more as joined up in my head. I'm posting in between other stuff. Not very coherent this morning

Only this morning?

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

The idea that fans who can't go up to physically queue just "can't be bothered" is pure ignorance and elitism that has been rightfully rubbished by numerous people in this thread. 'If they really liked the band, they would've been richer/lived neared the venue/quit their job.'

It's not ignorance, that's for sure - cos it's a system i've bought tickets to, for more than half of my life.

How it's elitist i've no idea either. A person either has the opportunity to do it or not, with nothing meaningful about that due to their position in society.

It's inconvenient for many, and more inconvenient for those further way, sure. But if you really want to go you'll probably find a way of getting there, or your mate will be able to get there to get the tickets for both of you. 

(that para directly above is what people say about Glasto every feckin' year. It gets admired then, not condemned )

Quote

And an online system has less inherent preference to certain people than what you're suggesting by orders of magnitude.

Everyone thinks there should be even preference until they're the one to lose out, then they seem to think the system should be changed to favour them in some manner so that someone else loses out instead - as goes round on these forums each and every October after the Glastonbury ticket sale.

Fact is, there can never be 'fair' when demand outsrips supply, cos the only 'fair' would be everyone getting the same outcome.

All around these forums (and the wider web) you can find posts from people saying that tickets should go to "real fans" (not an idea I particularly disagree with). The question is then about how do you identify those real fans. One way might be to have them put themselves out to get tickets.

Edited May 16, 2018 by eFestivals

[Mardy]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

Only this morning?

[Odessa]

33 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Sorry @Odessa, that came across asa bit rude describing you as 'the poster from yesterday'. Apologies.

 

Yeah, I think all of these things are symptomatic of small incremental changes, in both football and gig-going;  over-expansion of football clubs etc, greed from the clubs, ticket agencies etc. I see it as all connected and the answer needs to be radical rethinking of these things rather than just a tinkering with some details. I had such high hopes for AFC Wimbledon and FCUM and they've both fucked it, as far as I can see.

When you've got a situation where, as an example, Peter Kay can sell 94 stadium dates out 2 years in the future, there's something very unusual going on culturally

Football is fucked in general with regards to greed. City's revenues from ticket sales makes up about 1% of their total revenues, if that, and they've put my season ticket up a measly £5 the past couple of years. Obviously I can afford that but it just feels insulting being squeezed for every last penny they can take even though they clearly don't need it at all. And we have it relatively good with prices compared to what the other top clubs in England charge. I'm slowly falling out of love with it as it's all way too corporate these days.

Gigs are going in a similar direction, as we're now being charged straight off the bat what the touts used to resell tickets at. At least with bands though gigs are now how they earn most of their money, so you can forgive it a bit more in the less extreme cases. I think they're reaching a breaking point too with the amount of gigs and festivals that are having to do buy one get one free offers etc. due to poor sales, so hopefully it doesn't get much worse.

With football, the clubs make so much money from TV deals that they're ripping match-going fans off essentially for the sake of ripping them off.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Odessa