CAPTCHAs are over (in ticketing)

I am unsympathetic when people insist on selling things for the wrong price and then come up with these elaborate schemes for fixing the problems they themselves caused.

If they would simply sell tickets for the prices people are willing to pay in the first place then they wouldn't need to invade privacy or any of this stuff. I've heard the arguments they use to justify why they don't and they're all hogwash.

Why do you think they don’t?

Because the whole business of scalpers is exploiting the difference between the list price and the price people are willing to pay. If this gap didn't exist scalping wouldn't be profitable.

(As far as this article as discussing. They also serve some use for reselling tickets when you meant to go but can't but this doesn't have any more downsides)

Yes, but what do you think is the reason why they are not doing what you argue they should do?

Because there is a perverse incentive for performers to lean into scalping: selling out quickly is a mark of success. NPR's "Planet Money" had an episode a while back that covered exactly this.

Not all artists lean into it of course, and it's usually not the actual artists anyway but labels, producers, etc.

In that same episode they covered how LiveNation owns both TicketMaster and many venues themselves, and leverage access to the venues for power in the ticketing market.

It may have been this one but I'm not 100%: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/25/195641030/epis...

This problem with this is that it assumes a supply and demand shaped problem that markets solve.

You can’t just make more Taylor Swift to meet demand. You can’t open more Taylor Swifts in different regions. Acts have a very low very rigid upper supply limit. So if you price up at that demand it puts it out of reach of almost everyone. And that’s a bad outcome for almost everyone.

Because artists need an at least semi-competent vis-a-vis, AKA audience. This is the main proposition for entering a stage to begin with. And chances are that the most economical potent ticket buyers are not in this group and probably also not the most enthusiastic about the act. So there's a natural incentive to aim not for the highest cap, but for a somewhat realistic medium. I.e., "the prices people are willing to pay" are probably not the prices artists are willing to perform at.

(Edit: there's a reason for opera houses providing cheap standing room for enthusiasts – it keeps the art alive.)

If people paying high prices for tickets makes the event worse, as people seem to believe without evidence, then prices will come down, solving the problem naturally. These arguments make zero sense.

I think, in terms of art, it's more like a death march: events will become more exhausting and less emotional rewarding for the performers, so there will be less events, which will be even more exhaustive as they are exclusive. So, under these conditions, there may be no performances, at all, as relevant performers just give up. (Art is not a simple product and may scale inversely.)

I am unsympathetic to people who insist on reducing everything to its market value.

I've heard the arguments they use to justify why they do and they're all hogwash.

About 30 years ago there was a computer shop that initially carried a lot of equipment, so it was popular among the enthusiasts. Then they decided to optimise things, drop less popular choices and only sell to the general public.The enthusiasts left. Then left the general public . Turned out that when a layman wanted to buy something they usually seeked advice of a local expert, a computer enthusiast.

> I am unsympathetic to people who insist on reducing everything to its market value.

What is wrong with market price?

that it reduces everything including culture to just one metric, money. Are you a fan of a band? can't go because you got outsold by some rich person that maybe cares or maybe not, it doesn't matter, they just have more money that you.

The space at a concert is limited so some form filtering will have to happen, but if the only metric is market price that's a pretty sad society specially when we're talking about culture IMO

If you insist on only seeing Taylor Swift, this is what you get. There are way more talented artists than will ever play at these giant stadium shows. She isn't a better musician than all of those other artists, she is just more popular.

Two big leaps in your answer: 1. that the person paying more is rich and 2. that the person paying more likely doesn't care about the band

The way I see it, it is also highly likely that the person paying more is of average income and just convinced themselves to pay more because they are superfans

ah, I tried to avoid that leap with the "it doesn't matter" but probably didn't come across properly.

The point I'm making is that market value reduces the problem to just money which is being taunted as a magic solution, which might work in some cases but market value doesn't exist in a vacuum and it has side effects. As the topic being discussed is culture it introduces a lot of biases into society that I would find problematic.

Also, if we want to talk in pure capitalist terms, Ticketmaster is already a monopoly of sorts in the music buisiness, there's no "market value" if there's no pressure to lower prices, they can make the experience as bad as possible without repercussions other than people not going to concerts anymore which as a society would suck

Thanks for the comment. Couldn't have said it better. Also, good point about Ticketmaster. One seller, incomparable goods.

Those repercussions are essentially just a form of market feedback through demand contraction, i.e. it is the inevitable result of human action under conditions of scarcity and subjective preference, a natural outcome. The market would correct itself. If no one goes to Ticketmaster, someone else could (and if there is demand (among other things), most likely will) take its place, and they will no longer be a monopoly, simply put.