Slashdot Mirror
Ticketmaster to Start Online Ticket Auction
Jason1729 writes "According to the NY Times, ticketmaster is going to begin auctioning off the best tickets to events online. They claim it's to eliminate scalping, but in truth it guarantees every seat will be scalped for the highest price with all the money going to ticketmaster. It also eliminates the possibility of getting a decent seat by waiting in line or being lucky."
This is such a great thing!! ...Because Ticketmaster's monopoly and average $10 per ticket fee (half paid by promoter, half paid by customer) is not enough profit. Plus, they even make you pay $2.50 extra when you want to print out tickets on your own printer since they just scan in the barcodes anyway. Sometimes Ticketmaster charges up to 35% of the face value of the ticket.
When was the last time you have been to a major ticketed event where Ticketmaster didn't control everything? Ticketmaster is the primary ticket seller for 27 of the 30 NHL teams and 28 of 30 NBA teams. An anti-trust case has been brought against them in the past, but it was unsuccessful. Ticketmaster has even been accused of signing you up for services you never ordered.
The end-user has really very little choice in matters like this, aside from not going to ticketed events.
Slashdot, where news is relevant... but let's just pretend this is a slashback. Does anyone know what happened to this plan? It seems like it makes a lot of sense for ticketmaster.
1. cut-out middle-man (e-bay)
2. take a percentage of a premium for tickets
3. profit
no ??? needed
It's as simple as supply and demand... the basis of our whole economy. It's a function of a free market and with the internet as a huge enabler, I wouldn't be surprised to see more goods and services sold this way. Just look at how popular sites like ebay, ubid, etc. are. This move attempts to cut out the middle-man and allows ticketmaster (along with the event operators) to reap in even more profits. The only person who gets screwed is the average consumer who can't justify paying increasingly expensive ticket prices. Ticketmaster has nothing to lose by doing this, and only a lot more profit to gain. It's a brilliant business move and one of the side effects of capitalism.
But did it happened?
The tickets business is not a perfect example of capitalism in action, because the sports and concert ticket business is not a friction-free market with perfect information where buyers and sellers can interact directly without overhead costs. Scalpers and companies like Ticketmaster have preferential early access to the best seats before Joe Sixpack does, and hence can charge a premium for these. There is no way for you and I to get access to these tickets.
Companies like Ticketmaster are the reason I look for small, local concerts who handle their own tickets. You are much more likely to get a great seat. At Ticketmaster, you are likely to pay through the nose just for the privilege of attending.
i believe the contract is with the venue not the band, so if the band wants to play at the venue, they have to sell their tickets via ticketmaster.
They already do auctions for the best seats. Where has the author been? I just bought some tickets this way a few weeks ago, and it's a total scam. They also end the auction one day *after* general ticket sales, so if you don't win that auction, you get nothing. Totally evil, and designed to make you bid to the max so you don't get left in the cold. I really wanted to see that concert, though (I rarely find one I want to see), so I bid high just like they wanted.
Ticket prices will go up initially... but I suspect that in the long run this will give a shot in the arm to theaters, which have been doing poorly and ending up doing a lot of annoying advertising. If this works out well for them, they will end up building more theaters and the initially high prices may drop...
What does worry me is that they will try to game the system. With anonymous bidding run by ticketmaster it would be pretty easy for ticketmaster to bid on its own tickets to boost the price, then if they accidentally win just award the ticket to whatever real bidder bid the highest.
If they did that, would it actually be illegal? Otherwise, it seems like something they almost should do to boost profits. They are beholden to their shareholders after all.
Capitalism is a real system, economics is a theory about that system. In the real system of capitalism, i.e. what really exists, there is no such thing as perfect information, perfect competition, market clearing equilibria, non-sticky prices, etc. Arbitrage (e.g. scalping) is rampant. Monopoly power is rampant. That IS capitalism. Maybe you have some kind of dream idea of some kind of capitalism (like 'warm and fluffy capitalism') where everything works perfectly, but if we're talking about the real world, this is as smoothly functioning as capitalism gets.
Ok, first of all, as many people have already pointed out (but few seem to notice), this article is from September, 2003.
In any case, their auctions are not replacing their current ticket selling system, it is just a way for them to make some extra money, and people to be able to score a few last minute tickets at prices that they would be paying scalpers anyways (so basically it is just a way for ticketmaster to make more money). For certain big-name concerts they apparently hold a few sets of tickets and auction them off after the rest of the tickets have sold out. I regularly get concert updates from ticketmaster and it seems like once every month or so there is one of these auctions (the last few I remember are Roger Waters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Madonna...), and they have rarely been of any interest to me... for one thing, these are the kinds of concerts which often have face value prices of $100+ to begin with.
I think most everyone here agrees that ticketmaster has way too much of a monopoly over ticket sales, and their fees are ridiculous. But this whole auction thing is nothing new, and it just moves some money from money-grubbing scalpers to money-grubbing ticketmaster executives, and hardly changes anything. The fact that nobody here seemed to notice that this auction thing has already been going on for some time pretty much proves my point.
On one hand, we have Ticketmaster selling tickets tickets for 1k that otherwise would have been scalped for 1k. The difference here is that the band now gets some of that 1k instead of a person with connections in the office.
BUT Ticketmaster is doing this in an auction format. Something that scalpers already do on eBay. Couldn't it be possible that the bands just avoid Ticketmaster's probably 40% (I'd think it would be even more) comission and just put them on eBay themselves for a substantially reduced cost?
I'd imagine that it wouldn't be that difficult for eBay to implement a system just for concerts. I mean, I imagine that most of Ticketmaster's business is online anyways, eBay is a lot more popular and could easily promote and develop something for tickets.
I mean, the only benefit I can see Ticketmaster has over a tickets.ebay.com type setup would be the physical presence at a few locations... but I believe they hire a different company for that (at the venue). How hard would it be for companies that already sell Ticketmaster tickets to create a business account on ebay to purchase set-priced tickets for customers and print them right there?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
"At Ticketmaster, you are likely to pay through the nose just for the privilege of attending."
And if there are people willing to pay that price, why shouldn't they be sold the tickets? That's how capitalism works - whoever is willing to pay the most gets the goods. The price is determined by how high it can be and still have everything sold. It sounds like an auction is the perfect way to achieve that.
If they charge too much, they'll have tickets left over, which is a waste, so they don't want to do that. If all the tickets are sold then, by definition, they aren't charging too much. More than you can afford does not equate with too much.
Yes, TM is very popular and does have contracts in place with many venues. But the market for entertainment is the real market here, not the market for tickets. You can narrowly define any market (or misinterpret a channel for a market) and start to scream about monopoly powers and the like... but in reality if the tickets are too expensive people just don't go. They find something else to entertain themselves. Also, TM is implementing this but it's really the artists and the venues who want to see these profits. They're tired of making $50 on a ticket that sells on e-Bay for $1000.
> There is no right to purchase tickets for a concert or event. I seriously don't see why there should be any controversy over this - if Ticketmaster (or anybody) can get $1,500 for a ticket then they should be allowed to get $1,500 for a ticket.
Interestingly, many venues for which Ticketmaster sells tickets are public property, bought for some rich bigwigs by the taxpayers. Case in point in is "US Cellular Field" in Chicago. Paid for by the taxpayers, but no taxpayer could afford World Series tickets last year.
Your government at work for you, as always.
My other car is first.
I work at Ticketmaster. turns out to be a great place for a hacker. it's a very pro-Free Software place. all my work is on Linux, and I get to use Linux as my desktop system too. of the half-dozen programming jobs I've had, this is by far the most challenging and interesting.
This is indeed excelent news! Fixed prices for shows have the same problems that fixed prices for everything else: either a) they're too much, so those people who can't afford the price simply don't go and you end up having empty seats, or b) they're too low, so more people than available seats are able to afford them and you end up having tons of people unable to attend the show.
Please note that the above is the case even when you include scalpers in the equation. Why? Because in that case you'll have "x" seats scalped, and "y" seats unscalped, so at the same time "a" and "b": "a" for the "x" seats and "b" for the "y" seats. Only at the instant the show is beginning and the doors are closing the scalpers' prices drop to the middle point to fill the remaining few seats.
So, by having the seats auctioneed way before the show, you solve almost all of the above problems, since the seat price will approach the best it can the ideal offer/demand equilibrium point. Of course this won't be always perfect, but even so, it will be better than what we have today.
Now, I only wish movie theatres start doing this too. If you wish to see the movie the day it's launched, it's just that you pay a premium, with the added bonus of no queues. And if you're price concious with a very limited budget, you can simply wait until the price to drop enough to reach your price point. And in all of this the theatre owners would guarantee many more full houses compared to what happens today, thus more profit, what would in time prompt more theatres to open, thus dropping the prices again. Everyone wins.
Many times (not always, of course) a free market approach is the way to go. This one is a clear example of such a case.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Because in many cases the band would like to actually get their fans at the show. They don't choose Ticketmaster -- they simply have to use them. It's the simple definition of a monopoly and one that's long past due to be busted up six ways from Sunday.
There are a lot of bands that, I'm sure, would like to be able to play smaller shows where the audience can actually see them, but because of the warping of the economics of Ticketmaster they have to play only huge, expensive shows spaced few and far between. I've watched in dismay as the concert circuit has become bifrucated into two spheres -- a. gigantic, expensive shows largely by one-hit-wonder supermegasmash bands or tired old farts, and b. little tiny club tours by bands that just barely eke out an existence. Between RIAA and Ticketmaster the actual music industry is dying.
My book, podcast
So now Ticketmaster is providing you a service whereby you don't have to stand in line to get the ticket you want.
Of course, the greed factor here is you have to buy the tickets ahead of determining whether the venue is going to sell well or not. And if it doesn't sell well, you'll have paid more than what you would have through scalpers.
But at least the scalpers won't be losing (counting their time standing in line for you) money on overhyped events.
Remember, in Capitalist United States, what's illegal for people to do, is OK for a monopoly corporation to do.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
- You won't pay $500 for a bogus/counterfeit ticket.
- You won't have to wait 3 days in line for front row tickets.
Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
They claim it's to eliminate scalping, but in truth it guarantees every seat will be scalped for the highest price with all the money going to ticketmaster. It also eliminates the possibility of getting a decent seat by waiting in line or being lucky.
No bias there at all. Just to add a little counter-spin, it also means it is possible to get good tickets for a show when you want them. Right now the good tickets are, at best, chaotically distributed, meaning there is no way to ensure you get an optimal seat. Really want a good seat? A band you've been a fan of for ten years? Want to treat your girlfriend to an extravagent night out? Tough.
Why can't you get them? Since the best tickets go for the same price as the good tickets, there is no upside in selling the best tickets. They all go to concert promoters and wind up being given to local celebrities in exchange for a possible sound byte on the local news, or given away on the "Annoying Morning Stupidity" show. How does that benefit the real fans?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And how much in taxes does "US Cellular Field" bring in and how many jobs are there to keep it in operation?
Ok, you're right. The government should invest in lots of things which create jobs. How about, in addition to building stadiums, they now create whole new companies? Instead of me having to get a small-business loan and collect capital to start a business, I should just go to the government, and have them finance and own my business making gadgets. After all, this worked great in the Soviet Union and China. And after that, let's just eliminate all private ownership of companies, and place them under government ownership. After all, these companies all bring in taxes and create jobs, right? Why mess around with having to get private capital, when we can just let the government finance and own everything? It'll be so much more efficient.
In Lincoln's own words - freeing the slaves was nothing more than a sociopolitical tool to achieve what Lincoln believed was the correct end result: denying states the ability to secede from a Union that was taxing them into economic oblivion to the benefit of the other states. Yes, most people aren't bright enough (or honest enough) to grasp this single, utter truth. And most people are too lazy (or lack the intellectual honesty) to study things and figure them out: far better to remember snippets of American History - George Washington cut down a cherry tree, Lincoln freed the slaves and FDR won WWII, Kennedy was shot, Nixon lied when he said that he wasn't a crook, Carter farmed peanuts, Clinton was framed and Bush lied - other than that nothing ever happened in Washington.
Got news for ya (even if you don't care) - Lincoln was the worst thing that happened to the Union bar none. Don't like it when your local electees blow all of your taxes on some stadium for millionaires playing for billionaires? Thank Lincoln. Feel a little shafted when your taxes were sucked into that hole in the ground in Boston that went grossly over budget and still leaks? Thank Lincoln. Billions of dollars for bridges in Alaska? $100,000 for the Punxsatawney Weather Discovery Center Museum? Lincoln's entire fiscal attitude was that taxing and spending was a good thing.