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.'"

Comments

Limited Options

[Nerdfest]

Of course they flourish. When these are used, people really aren't given another option in most cases. This is much like saying "Despite outrageous fees, TicketMaster flourishes".

Re:Limited Options

[CastrTroy]

You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts. When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it. I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices, and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.

Re:Limited Options

[HungryHobo]

What I find amusing is how many people in this topic are deluded that this is a good thing.

Sure people hate scalpers but all this will mean is that ticketmaster will do what the scalpers used to do but screw you far harder.
They'll follow the airlines and just charge 10 times as much for a ticket shortly before the show vs the price 6 months before.
They'll up the prices based on how many hits their website gets for that concert.
And finally they won't ever give you a refund or (and this is where they become worse than the scalpers) let you sell the ticket if you find yourself unable to go.

you'll play just as much money to get the tickets as you ever paid to a scalper but the middlemen at ticketmaster will be getting all the cash.(clap your hands and believe, believe real hard if you want the band to get any of the extra income)

I'm with you on the smaller gigs thing.
better atmosphere, better music, better prices.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts.

This I'll agree with. TicketMaster have created a monopoly on the ticket industry and therefore the "convenience" of buying tickets from them is rather akin to a convenience charge to buy Microsoft Windows or gasoline anymore.

When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it.

This, however, I will wholeheartedly disagree with. The last rock concert I went to at {$Major_Venue} was phenomenal. The crowd of thousands was entirely into the show to the point where people stood when the band fired some cannon shots to start the show and never sat down again. Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar. That and extreme pyrotechnics.

There's vast differences between a show at a bar (I've been to hundreds) and a rock concert. Namely a show at a bar is something you can do because it's Friday. A major concert event is an uncommon special occasion.

I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices,

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?

and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.

It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting. I'm a music lover and I assure you I am not poor.

If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

Ok, rich boy.

See, you lost me right there. I never said I was rich, I just said I was far from bring poor. I work a lot of hours and yes, I make a decent living. Your sour grapes go nowhere to further your argument and instead make you appear to be a sad, pathetic retch who would rather complain than change something about their life.

As I said before; If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it. I didn't like my lot in life so I worked to change it. I worked hard and earned every damned penny. So if you think your tirade against people who have earned their success is going to take anything away from me then you're delusional.

Go sit at a free show and delude yourself into thinking this is the be-all and end-all to music. But always remember that the band you're seeing is most likely doing this so they can ultimately wind up in a large venue playing to thousands of fans. That's what drives musicians and that's what created the music industry and those mega successful bands are where your local, indy bands got their inspiration.

Go sit and suffer in silence in the filth you've created for yourself and let the world be.

Re:Limited Options

[Dishevel]

You are so right. I say go even further. Kill scalpers on sight. Greedy motherfuckers charging MARKET VALUE for the stuff that they own? WTF?!?!?!

What was that sarcasm tag thingy? Oh well fuck it. Not like the mods would know either.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument.

My statement was meant to be taken as a whole. People need to learn to accept their lot in life. If you don't like it, change your situation. Complaining about it focuses negative energy and generally gets you nowhere but further down in the hole.

I'd never presume to make a judgment about what a person has or earns; however I make judgments all the time about someone who earns X but wants to live the lifestyle of someone who earns X*2. I know many people who have combined household incomes that are well below my own income but who are perfectly happy. Conversely, I know people who's incomes are vastly superior to my own who are miserable.

We live to our means and easy credit and "keep up with the Jones's" syndrome runs rampant in our society.

My argument is to live within your means and be happy with what you have. Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. Hence my statement that if you don't like what you have, work to change it. If you're not willing to take positive steps to change what you have; don't complain about it, and certainly don't rail against someone who has [more|better|different] standard of living than you. It does no good for anybody. Am I wrong?

This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"

It's not even a case of mentioning money; it seems to be a case where someone mentions something that would require money, and that in and of itself becomes a target of ire.

One of my goals in life was to have stability and financial security. I achieved that some years ago and now I'm working towards the next level. I have my own goals in mind. I also have non monetary goals which I'm also working to achieve. There are people who have other goals in life, many of which are non monetary, which make them happy, and that's great for them.

If you're not happy in what you're doing or where you are, you have to ask yourself why you're doing it or why you're there. If there's a drastic change necessary to alter your situation to the point where you're happy you should consider making it. One area where I draw the line is people who don't feel the need to improve themselves or their personal situations. That's always driven me up the wall.

Back to the topic at hand, if premium concert tickets at major venues is one of your goals in life, you'll prioritize it and find a way to make it happen. If it's not a priority it won't happen. Sometimes it takes sacrifice in other areas of one's life to attain certain other things and that's a choice we all have to make. When I was struggling working 3 jobs to make ends meet, there were times when I decided that I was simply going to have {$X} and there was nothing anybody could to do stand in my way, and I made it happen.

For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?

Had this problem myself

[commodore64_love]

Bought tickets to see the show in Seattle and Portland back in March but then got laid-off in April, and sent back home ~2000 miles away. I couldn't sell the tickets on ebay because they were tied to me (had to show ID and credit card to gain entrance). And I couldn't get a refund either.

So basically I got screwed. I ended-up flying across the country rather than waste the tickets. Like downloading games, it takes away your right to resell the used product to someone else

Re:Had this problem myself

[CastrTroy]

Seriously, when I started reading I thought the "Grandma Problem" was going to be, "My grandma died and I can't go to the concert". I think that what really has to change here is to make it so that scalpers can't get a large number of tickets. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism which could accomplish this, but it would solve most of the problems. Since all sales are made online, they could track things such as IP address, credit card numbers, shipping address, captchas and many other things to figure out if somebody is buying too many tickets, or using a computer to buy a lot of tickets. Probably not fool proof, but if they make it hard enough, it could really cut down on scalpers.

The REAL problem....

[Dr_Barnowl]

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.

Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[hawleyal]

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.

ObAutomotiveAnalogy

[Rogerborg]

This is like buying a car in order to drive to a Miley Cyrus show where she jumps around in hot pants, but then being unable to sell it afterwards.

No, wait... that's a bad analogy. It's like renting a car to watch Miley Cyrus jiggling around in a crop top, but then... uh... maybe it's like buying a tank of gas to go and watch her writhing around glistening with sweat...

Wait - what are we talking about again?

Re:ObAutomotiveAnalogy

[jht]

I'd mod that as funny if I had any points right now. In fact, even Chris Hansen would mod that as funny.

Then he'd show up at your house with a camera crew.

Empty seats

[Culture20]

With virtual tickets, concerts will end up with a certain amount of empty seats as people's plans change or they become sick and can not give the tickets to a friend. Empty seats are a sign of a bad concert, as anyone knows. Of course they'll soon realize that an old airline trick will fix that with a bonus: oversell concerts, and tell the overflow they're on "standby" until the next concert. Full seats and extra money!

e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[DrYak]

There seem to be two solutions to such a problem :

- A solution I've often found in concerts in Switzerland : (Secutix)
the e-Ticket is simply a 2D-barcode (although it's not "paperless" because most people still print it instead of sending it to smartphones screens) it *is* tied to an identity.
BUT
to enter the concert you are only asked to have a valid barcode. the identity only comes into play if several people attempt to enter the concert using the same barcode (only the one with the matching ID is allowed in).
That doesn't stop you from giving a ticket to a friend.
But that throws distrust on scalper : How do you know the guy is selling you a legitimate ticket and not copying the same single barcode to several clients ? (in which case only the first one can get in before the system detects duplicates).

These e-tickets don't remove your right to resell, but a resell can only happen between trusting friends.

- A solution I've found in German Trains :
the e-Ticket is tied to an identity, but it is not that complicate to refund it and invalidate the barcode, then buy a different ticket.

You can't directly resell a ticket, but you won't lose the ticket.

And the last solution :
Most of those situations still have classic tickets for situations where the e-Ticket doesn't do the trick.

The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[Joce640k]

Grandma should be allowed put a different name on the ticket than the one on her credit card. All the grandchild needs is some ID with a matching name on it. Problem solved.

Can I patent this process please?

Right...

[spamuell]

...says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.'

Yeah, and an unguarded forest is much safer for little girls delivering food to their sick grandmothers, says the attorney representing the National Association of Transvestic Wolves.

Re:My heart cries for the scalpers

[Eponymous Coward]

As much as I hate scalpers, I hate Ticketmaster 10x more.

IAATM (It's Always About The Money)

[q2k]

From a purely technical standpoint, allowing the buyer to log in and change the owner of the ticket would be trivial. Upon the change, the system sends a new password to the new email address, and that person must log in and add a credit card number that will be used for verification at the venue. Paperless tickets exist for only one reason. Ticketmaster wants to capture the value in increased demand by raising prices instead of seeing it go to the middlemen.

What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[brunes69]

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.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Dr_Barnowl]

You're really just pointing out one of the problems with so-called free market capitalism. The much touted advantage of capitalism is that market competition drives down prices, which increases utility to the consumer. But it doesn't work so well, as in the cases you suggested, where there is a limited supply of non-fungible goods.

Exxon provides value by moving the oil from one place to another where it is more useful. In your example, if Xbox 360s are in short supply in one part of the country but plentiful in your local Walmart, you are providing value by moving the goods to where they are needed. If you are selling them on to locals, the value you are providing is that some people can translate a higher price into getting their Xbox earlier than if they'd had to wait for new stock - an Xbox now is worth more than an Xbox in the future. This is only really true if the demand outstrips the supply - if the demand and supply are similar, then you're just hoarding Xboxes for profit. But the supply chain for Xboxes is such that you can be reasonably sure that some more will be along soon.

In the case of concert tickets, there is no value to geographic translocation (the concert is in a fixed venue), or early acquisition (the concert is at a fixed time). The value the scalper is providing is that you don't have to queue to get your ticket, and you have a higher probability of getting a ticket because fewer people want to pay their higher price.

The problem being that the scalper is part of the reason they provide value ; they quickly buy up large quantities of tickets from the vendor, which artificially increases the scarcity of the goods. That isn't free-market capitalism, because they are distorting their market. If the organizer did their sums right, they should have enough seats for everyone willing to pay their stated ticket price. I'm not saying they do ... but in this case, the scalper is the reason for their own existence - the reason you're willing to pay the scalpers prices for a ticket is because the scalpers have bought them instead of you. They're not adding value and making a fat buck doing it and that annoys people. It's rent-seeking behaviour - they are profiting from the mere ownership of those tickets for a while.

If concert goers didn't have to pay their inflated prices, they'd have more disposable income remaining and organizers might put on more dates in bigger venues to capture that, resulting in money going toward what people actually want, which is live music performances.

Re:First Sale

[CastrTroy]

I'll tell you who cares. The fans who can't get a ticket unless they pay 10 times the original price because all the tickets were bought up by scalpers 45 seconds after they went on sale. In this case, Ticketmaster is actually trying to do something that's good for the people who want to see the show, and isn't good for the people who just want to resell their tickets. Now, there are some downsides, especially for those who wanted to see the show, but something happened, and now they can't see it, and they can't resell the tickets. Which group of people do you think is larger? Maybe Ticketmaster thinks it is better to help the larger number of people who want to see the show see it for the real price, than to worry about the much smaller percentage of people who can't resell their tickets. Maybe they will get that part figured out as well, and nobody will have any reason to complain.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[elrous0]

No, they're called "wankers."

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

That's not enough. Wimbledon for example prevent people from buying more than two tickets. But there are still scalpers in operation. They put adverts in the classified adds to buy Wimbledon tickets at something above face value. Then they re-sell them for a much greater price outside the venue.

(At least that was the case, going back a few years, I'm not sure what they do now.)