Slashdot Mirror
Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'
Hugh Pickens writes "Is a concert ticket a piece of property that its holder has the right to buy and sell as he sees fit, or is it merely a seat-rental contract subject to restrictions determined by its issuer? The Washington Post reports that in an effort to thwart scalpers and dampen ticket reselling on the so-called secondary market, musicians as diverse as Bruce Springsteen, Miley Cyrus, and Metallica have adopted 'paperless ticketing' for some or all of the seats at their live shows. Ticket issuers Ticketmaster and Veritix tout paperless tickets as a way to eliminate worries about lost, stolen, or counterfeit tickets, and to banish long will-call lines. But paperless tickets aren't really tickets at all, but essentially personal seat reservations, secured electronically like airline tickets. Fans buy tickets with a credit card and must then go to the venue with the same credit card and a photo ID to gain admittance. The problem is that Ticketmaster's paperless tickets can't be transferred from a buyer to a second party. The inability to pass along a seat creates what has become known in the industry as the 'grandma problem': it's almost impossible for a grandma living at one end of the country to buy a paperless ticket to giver to a grandchild living at the other end. Without the ability to transfer virtual tickets, brokers and dealers fear being run out of business, and consumers have a harder time selling unwanted tickets. 'People should be free to give away or sell their tickets to whomever they want, whenever they want,' says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.'"
Is the perception by the concert organisers that there's action out there they ain't getting a piece of.
They can't raise their ticket prices too high, or they won't sell enough to fill their venues, and face protests from their audiences. But they'd dearly love to be able to do what the scalpers do which is create a sub-segment of their audience who pays a greatly increased price for essentially the same service.
The only idea they have so far is that if they drive the scalpers out of business... well, what? If they already set the ticket prices as high as they dare, the only effect they will achieve is to piss off a few rich people who will not get tickets where previously they could.
You could view it as preparation for the next logical step - a Dutch auction. Non-transferable tickets would prevent scalpers from waiting for the latter stages of the auction where the tickets get cheaper to snap up a bargain. The Dutch auction means that all the seats in the house go for exactly the price that the market will bear, so they finally get the action they are craving.
Man, you guys are just too used to Microsoft EULAs.
All this talk of no sympathy for scalpers.
Might as well add used book retailers, music traders, software peddlers, refurbished computer sellers.
Just because it's easy to not like scalpers, you are trying to deny consumer choice.
You're part of the problem, assholes.
I am sick and tired of people making a big deal about scalping.
Isn't scalping basically the epitome of free market capitalism?
If I buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are lots, and sell them on eBay for a profit, is that "scalping" 360s ?
When Exxon drills oil in the middle east and sells it to Europe for a profit where there is none, is that "scalping" oil?
"Scalping" is just taking a gamble, buying something that you think will be in demand (tickets), and re-selling for a (hopefully) profit. There is plenty of potential to lose money for scalpers buying tickets to things and them going unsold, this happens all the time.
What is wrong with this? If you wanted your damn tickets, you should have waited in line like everyone else.