CAPTCHAs are over (in ticketing)

The option that strikes me as missing, is making users pay a cost before they are randomly entered in a lottery for the ticket.

So, for example, everyone pays $0.01 on their credit card, or does a holding charge on their credit card, or registers their identity. All in a 5 minute (or 1 day!) window. And then after the window, tickets are randomly distributed amongst every card which so registered.

You could check multiple things - phone and card and Government ID if necessary (lowering the privacy).

This also feels fairer and less stressful - instead of a lottery based on your internet access, or ability to run lots of browsers at once.

This feels harder for scalpers to do to me, as they need more fake identities, but I'd be curious about the actual ratios when trying it. What goes wrong?

Another one I predict is that you can't buy digitally. For examples, the Lewes fireworks display you have to buy tickets in person in a bookshop in Lewes. Doesn't help if you make a digital ticketing system though!

The Savannah Bananas do that. You have to enter a lottery to buy tickets.

And if your ID doesn't match the ticket, you don't get in.

It's successful in keeping tickets in the hands of families and fans instead of resale.

I suspect the key thing is that the industry really wants scalpers, but must appear to act against them.

> I suspect the key thing is that the industry really wants scalpers

Why?

Well at least one possible reason is that for live events, the company that has an effective monopoly is Live Nation. And they also own at least one of the platforms where scalpers sell their tickets; Ticketmaster.

I also imagine that as an event promoter, being able to say some variation of "Another sold out show", or "Tickets sold out within seconds" creates pressure for buying early for all future events.

It also takes active planned work to implement these solutions. And if they have a monopoly, they have no incentive to do that work.

Actual cash income the moment the tickets go on sale.

Removes all the uncertainty and risk and puts it on the scalpers.

Because Live Nation’s fees are based on ticket price. That incentivizes them to drive prices and transaction volume as high as possible.

Pearl Jam does something similar with annual membership in their fan club. Each concert has some designated seats set aside for members of the club, with the best seats going to the members with the longest consecutive subscriptions. Allowing the membership to lapse resets your priority level if you subscribe again.

This was my theory but there is a problem with it: Unless there is a constant churn of scalpers failing to turn a profit, the scalpers are presumably selling off their tickets at a profit. This means the market demand from individual purchasers exists, and the ticket sellers are just leaving money on the table by not raising their prices.

It's more profitable and predictable for scalpers to immediately buy all tickets. The ticket seller doesn't care if the tickets are sold to fans that will attend, just that they're sold quickly and reliably and non-refundably. It's even better if tickets are sold to scalpers because some of those tickets might never be resold, which means the venue gets the ticket sale but pays none of the cost a real guest would incur.

What matters is selling the ticket, getting a guest in the door is just expense.

Surely selling concessions, parking, and merch is a significant source of income for someone associated with the concert, game, or other event.

Not the ticketing company's problem.

1. The initial price of the ticket serves as advertisement to get more people interested in the event than if it was advertised at the scalped price. Some fraction of the people will end up paying the higher price anyways, even if it was more than they intended to spend. The chance of "getting lucky" and getting a ticket at the low initial price is a powerful draw, especially if each buyer gets lucky a few times.

2. Are you sure the scalpers and the agency selling the original tickets are independent? Even if they are on paper, in many locations there is evidence of a local cartel.

3. The initial sales provide revenue up front to pay for the costs of the event, vendors, etc. This reduces the amount of cash reserves the seller needs, sometimes very dramatically.

4. Many scalped sales (used to be, not as much anymore) were cash transactions. This used to be used as a pretty significant tax dodge: Sell tickets for $50 face value to your affiliated scalper, pay tax on this sale, scalper sells tickets for $200 and does not pay tax on this secondary sale, or underreports the number of secondary tickets sold. Lots of shenanigans here to make your profitable scalping business look like it's making a small loss on paper.

5. Especially in the context of a local or regional cartel, each ticket sale represents the opportunity to move capital between entities. Physical tickets can be an effective vehicle for small-medium scale money laundering: Dirty money/entity buys the tickets, clean entity resells them.

Basically as soon as you drop the assumption that the ticket sellers and scalpers aren't related in some way, there are a lot more profitable reasons for the ticket sellers to "leave money on the table".

We should make it their problem, by artists not selling tickets on those websites but instead using their own resources. Essentially vertical integration, so then you have to care about the end-product and user experience. And, cherry on top, you might be able to charge more aggressive prices if you're not paying the profit of the middle-man.

The way rents/expenses are, an $8 pint at your local has better margin than a $18 pint at the venue.

Can't do that, contracts between venues and ticket vendor preclude non-blessed ticket sales. TicketMaster and LiveNation have boxed this out

Bidding for tickets would cut out the scalpers and maximize revenue for the performers (and ticket agencies). So, if you want to go, pick your ticket class (rough area) and specify how much you’re willing to pay. The ticket seller orders bids by value, taking the top ones first, and then allocates tickets. Anything unsold is offered as usual on a specified day. People that really want to go get to go and the performers benefit rather than the scalpers.

Neither the performers (raises prices for fans artificially) or ticket agencies (leaves money on the table) want scalpers.

It's a hedge. Performers are not in the business of optimizing ROI, they're in the business of performing. Scalpers provide a service: guaranteed income for a fee. There are many analogous examples in other markets where both parties happily take their respective sides of this deal, even though technically one of them is leaving money on the table.

Then there is the slightly more insidious incentive: selling out quickly is in and of itself valuable for a performer: it makes them look popular and exclusive. That alone might just make it worth it altogether.

My understanding is that performers have shied away from this model because it results in less affluent fans being excluded. Lotteries are generally preferred. You could theoretically eliminate lottery scalping by making the tickets non-transferable, but I’m not sure how feasible that would be.

Those may be arguments for why (some) performers and (some people at) ticket agencies don't want scalpers, but empirically, for popular performers, both performers and ticket agencies still set prices lower than the market will bear. They could charge more, but they don't.

Eliminating uncertainty about whether a concert will sell out may be the primary reason.

Net ticket prices might be dictated by the performers and their agents, and the ticket agency might not have the ability to raise prices unilaterally, at least not by enough to stop scalpers.

There's another factor, or side-effect, that might be missed in explaining why an artist or their agent won't set prices higher, even when the artist has a history of having concerts sell out and tickets scalped: scalping is a symptom and sign of scarcity, and scarcity drives interest.

They probably want to set prices as high as possible while still having a high probability that tickets will sell out and make concertgoers panic-buy.

Yep, but that’s not working out for them very well. The only thing that will eliminate the scalpers is reducing the amount of money they can make such that they decide that it isn’t worth it anymore.

I asked why are school vouchers bad since it’s a single payer system.

The “progressives” told me it would starve public schools of funds and students since private schools would admit only the best and brightest

So I said — don’t let the schools choose. Let the people choose. If the school is filled then you use a lottery for who can actually get in, M of N people. Simple.

The industry has middlemen

Crypto removes middlemen

Then you just have auctions and tickets are not transferable. No middlemen. Simple and honest price discovery.

Read this: https://community.intercoin.app/t/intercoin-applications-auc...

This also eliminates uncertainty about whether something will be filled. The uncertainty is only on the side of fans that someine will outbid them for a sold-out concert ticket, and they’ll then get the money back

Decades ago a local popular public magnet high school near me had a lottery system like that.

Students would apply for the school and M of N applicants would be picked randomly.

It turns out the administrators running the lottery would run the randomization program until it gave them the student distribution they wanted (read: the best and brightest, and since it's the south... somehow whiter than expected).

> Performers are not in the business of optimizing ROI, they're in the business of performing.

I have to disagree; performers are absolutely in the business of optimization. Bo Burnham was singing about metrification destroying art 10 years ago. Every standup comic is using social media as a sales funnel to figure out exactly which cities they have an audience in. Even if the performers themselves are not concerned with gaming these numbers, they almost always have someone working for them who does.

So I still don’t quite understand why the scalpers are the ones getting to eat the free lunch.

> selling out quickly is in and of itself valuable for a performer

This one seems like a more likely explanation, but the pattern with a lot of these ticket sales is that the demand is already there organically without scalpers entering the equation. I don’t really follow the space so I really don’t know, but I’d imagine the shows that get targeted the most are the performers who were going to be playing a sold out show regardless of the scalpers.

hedging is a tried and true financial strategy. Transpose this to any producer of commodities and it becomes the most normal thing in the world to take guaranteed cash at a discount for guaranteed delivery of the product. It’s the exact same thing.

(Author here) Yes, every kind of lottery/raffle is a possible solution but only with strong identity verification to avoid double-entry and hence only with sacrificing privacy, as mentioned in the article.

That has been tried before. What happens is that people choose the school where there is easiest to get good grades. Fast forward a generation or two and there is a race to the bottom, schools take their mission to prepare for standardized testing seriously at the expense of learning. Over time, our outcome will depend on what you measure.

School systems are also special because you don't really want to overprovision school seats, so if there at the end of the day are as many seats as there are pupils in the system as a whole, there can only be selection and never competition in the economic sense.

So maybe the lottery shouldn’t be run by the school :)

That seems to be confusing gross and net margin. When considering a question like “who cares if a ticket buyer ends up showing up?” that’s a marginal consumption question and the gross margin applies.