Most active commenters
  • EGreg(5)
  • kbenson(5)
  • carlosjobim(3)

←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 55 comments | | HN request time: 2.055s | source | bottom
1. kassner ◴[] No.44092014[source]
I can’t claim I’m the first one to think about this, but every time Ticketmaster shows up on HN I keep coming back to this idea:

Sell the tickets with regressive price based on time. Sales starts say 2 months before event, initial price is truly exorbitant, say one million dollars. Price decreases linearly down to zero (or true cost price). At any point, people can see current price and the seats left.

Now every potential spectator is playing a game of chicken: the more you wait, the lower the price, but also lower are the chances that you’ll have a ticket. That would capture precisely the maximum amount of dollars that each person is willing to pay for it.

This idea sounds extremely greedy, because it is, so I can’t fathom that no one ever pitched this in a Ticketmaster board meeting.

My idea, however, was a bit less greedy. Once you sold the last ticket, that would be your actual (and fair) price-per-ticket for the concert, and everyone would be refunded the difference. You’ll never know how low it will go, so you shouldn’t overpay and hope it will lower later. I’m pretty sure Ticketmaster will skip this last part if they decide to implement this.

There are multiple issues with my idea, it’s elitist, promotes financial risks on cohorts poorly capable to bear them, etc etc, but it will definitely fix the scalpers problem. Pick your poison.

replies(8): >>44092097 #>>44092362 #>>44092539 #>>44092576 #>>44092782 #>>44097335 #>>44097519 #>>44097795 #
2. jmalicki ◴[] No.44092097[source]
This is a similar idea to a second price auction, but in reverse.

Everyone puts in their maximum price they're willing to pay, and the lowest price that fills the seats is what people pay.

The advantage to this model is that there is no financial risk to overpaying.

Of course with an open bid continuous auction there are problems with bid shading (manipulating the auction by posting prices mostly meant to influence other bidders), but it's overall economically very close to your idea.

replies(1): >>44095581 #
3. edschofield ◴[] No.44092362[source]
That's a Dutch auction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction.

I agree that reverse auctions would be a simple solution the current scalper problem. If demand outweighs supply, scalpers drive up the prices toward their economic equilibrium anyway, making ticket prices just as "unfair" to the poor, but with additional problems of trust...

replies(1): >>44092602 #
4. stavros ◴[] No.44092539[source]
The scalper problem is a mispricing problem: Scalpers are just arbitrageurs because ticket prices are artificially very low.

If you want to fix that, you need to ask yourself "why are ticket prices artificially very low?" first. The answer probably isn't "artists/venues like leaving money on the table".

replies(7): >>44092665 #>>44092853 #>>44093201 #>>44093326 #>>44095521 #>>44097231 #>>44097667 #
5. bsder ◴[] No.44092576[source]
> but it will definitely fix the scalpers problem

Nobody wants to fix the scalpers problem because, to the Ticketmaster monopoly, scalpers aren't a problem. The Ticketmaster monopoly values known, consistent, derisked revenue over possible lottery ticket windfalls with the possibility of complete wipeout. Scalpers do exactly that.

Scalpers are only a problem to fans. And scalpers are only a problem online because they can wipe out the entire ticket base. The "solution" is to introduce offline friction to the problem--anything which requires a person to show up and buy only a limited number of tickets. Unfortunately, that introduces a lot of uncertainty into the system instead of guaranteed cash flow and the business side finds that to be anathema.

However, the real solution is to bust up the Ticketmaster monopoly. If each of the individual actors (ticket sales, venue owner, performers) have to operate independently and have to de-risk at each point, scalpers become an enemy to be neutralized.

I also have a completely unjustified suspicion that scalping is hiding a lot of money laundering so lots of people have vested interest in it continuing.

replies(1): >>44092794 #
6. Hobadee ◴[] No.44092602[source]
That's not actually a Dutch Auction. Sounds more like the "eBay ascending uniform-price mechanism". (From the same Wikipedia article)
7. cr125rider ◴[] No.44092665[source]
What is it then?
replies(1): >>44092797 #
8. EGreg ◴[] No.44092782[source]
Auctions work great for price discovery. Check this out:

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

also:

https://community.intercoin.app/t/applications-of-intercoin-...

9. EGreg ◴[] No.44092794[source]
Let’s put busting the ticketmaster monopoly to the side for a second, and look at the issue regardless of players

If you want to remove scalpers, just make sure tickets are non-transferrable and run an auction for price discovery.

I built it on the blockchain years ago.

replies(3): >>44092831 #>>44095778 #>>44103783 #
10. chmod775 ◴[] No.44092797{3}[source]
My guess: Empty seats look bad and and pricing fans out of concerts may hurt fan relations, even losing them completely.

Also concerts are mainly for the artist to make money. Traditionally they're getting fucked by record labels, making very little on sales of media. Concerts is when you're actually getting paid. It thus being a somewhat less corporate process to decide ticket prices can mean that they just charge as much as they need and want, not as much as they can. Artists are generally considered to be a polar opposite to the "short-term-profit-maximizing" crowd.

11. bsder ◴[] No.44092831{3}[source]
You can't put Ticketmaster aside precisely because Ticketmaster likes scalpers. They don't want to shut down scalpers. Hell, for all I know, Ticketmaster might actually BE the scalpers (talk about paranoia ... but, hey, vertical integration for the win).

Consequently, even if there are "technical" solutions to scalpers, the socio-political aspects prevent the solution from being deployed.

replies(1): >>44099707 #
12. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.44092853[source]
I think a significant portion is that artists like leaving money on the table. being perceived as greedy can cause reputational harm significantly greater than the increased ticket revenues that the market will bear.
replies(1): >>44095770 #
13. bko ◴[] No.44093201[source]
Ticketmaster has it's own resale platform. It's able to double dip. They basically say tickets are relatively cheap and scalpers are the bad guys. They encourage the scalpers. Then they can resell using their own resale platform and they get fees on top of that.

The fees on re-sellers are crazy, and they take fees from both seller and buyer.

Seller Side:

List price: $100

StubHub seller fee (15%): -$15

Seller receives: $85

Buyer Side:

Ticket price: $100

StubHub buyer fee (10-15%, let's use 12%): +$12

Buyer pays: $112

StubHub's Take:

From seller: $15

From buyer: $12

Total StubHub revenue: $27

So they're making an additional ~27% (on the "true" market price) in addition to the ~25% they charge in the primary market. So if the market price was $200, if they just charged that they would make $50. But instead they'll sell it for $100, make $25 on the primary and an additional $50 when sold in the secondary market.

They don't own StubHub but they have their own. In 2017 they opened up TicketExchange which allow the sale and validation of tickets on third-party websites, including StubHub, which they did to capture some of that amount. They get to play like the reasonable party here, the scalpers are taking the heat and they're getting a cut of that.

They do other things that's baffling like selling tickets a year ahead of time, which is kind of weird considering very few people, even big fans, would be really on top of buying tickets a year out. It's obviously designed for scalpers.

You can easily solve this by having the ticket tied to a name and requiring you to show ID, maybe allow others to dump back at face value, but that would likely be gamed as well but not as easily (you dump your tickets and let someone else pick them up at that exact moment). Or make them non-transferrable but that would greatly reduce the value to fans.

replies(4): >>44094176 #>>44097400 #>>44098220 #>>44098252 #
14. jdietrich ◴[] No.44093326[source]
Ticket sales companies and scalpers are holding the bag for everyone else.

It is extremely convenient for artists, promoters and venues that ticketing sites will tack on a bunch of extra fees, take the blame for pushing up the price of tickets, then share out most of that extra cash to everyone else in the chain.

Scalpers are effectively providing financing for the rest of the industry - it's obviously preferable to get paid for the entire tour on the day it's announced, rather than having to bear the cashflow risks yourself. There is of course absolutely nothing stopping a promoter from reserving some proportion of tickets to be sold directly to secondary resellers at substantially above face value, or on an agreed profit-sharing basis.

replies(1): >>44093730 #
15. theamk ◴[] No.44093730{3}[source]
> it's obviously preferable to get paid for the entire tour on the day it's announced

it's only obvious to "private equity" type people.

There is energy in the concerts - and a lot of people go to live shows for that. Otherwise, one would listen to the recording / watch music videos instead - it is cheaper and the seats are nicer too.

If the seats are half-empty, or only full of people who are ready to pay exorbitant prices, that energy is reduced... people like concerts less, and eventually those concerts are not sold out anymore.

So giving up (or even worse, cooperating) to scalpers is like selling your business to private equity - you get some money, they get some money, and your customers/fans are f*d.

replies(3): >>44093824 #>>44094292 #>>44094330 #
16. wredcoll ◴[] No.44093824{4}[source]
This sounds so truthy and yet so lacking in specifics.

Any examples come to mind?

17. kbenson ◴[] No.44094176{3}[source]
It's much more complicated (and worse) than that.

Ticketmaster reserves some seats during sale to be dynamic pricing, which they start higher than normal and then depending on demand and what they see on the secondary market they re-price those as the initial sale or presale is ongoing, just minutes after it starts.

Also, promoters, artists and venues might get their own allotment of tickets to do with as they want, likely negotiated in contracts. Those seem to find their way onto secondary markets often as well.

> They do other things that's baffling like selling tickets a year ahead of time, which is kind of weird considering very few people, even big fans, would be really on top of buying tickets a year out. It's obviously designed for scalpers.

Yes, I've commented on this here before. In some cases it's because tours go on sale at the same time (to generate buzz), and the early events are relatively soon and the last events are quite far out. They also often do release chunks of ticket inventory at later stages. That said, I'm convinced that often brokers are used as a simple way to provide immediate cash and reduce risk. Why would a promoter want to sell out over months when they can sell out immediately and know that regardless of whether the brokers make money (they don't always) they have sold everything and can say the event is sold out and they have cash in hand now and not months from now.

I used to work in this industry and there's a lot of shady stuff that goes on, and it's not all on the broker/scalper side.

> You can easily solve this by having the ticket tied to a name and requiring you to show ID

That's been done for a long time and you can still get around it if the margin is good enough. You just have to either want to go to the event yourself or be willing to one ticket out of the maximum you can purchase as the cost of doing business. You can't really make every seat have a name initially because not everyone actually knows who they're going to invite for sure at time of purchase, so if you want to really make it effective you have to limit the number of tickets per transaction to 4 or less. Even then, people will be incentivized to buy the max and have people go with them to use the extra tickets at cost or more, it may not be brokers but the regular public will do it too.

The actual solution for this is fairly simple. It's supply and demand. Play more shows at a location and the ticket prices will drop. Kid Rock has done it for decades at this point. Artists don't like having to put the extra work in for less money (tickets will be cheaper) and don't want to take the risk that the demand won't be there if they book the venue early. That risk is pushed out to brokers.

replies(1): >>44098292 #
18. toast0 ◴[] No.44094292{4}[source]
>> it's obviously preferable to get paid for the entire tour on the day it's announced

> it's only obvious to "private equity" type people.

I mean, who wouldn't look at their current expenses, look at their future cashflow, and be like hey, it would sure be nice to be paid today for work I'll do over the next year?

Venues need deposits (maybe), transportation needs deposits, set builders need materials, marketing needs budget, merchandise production needs to pay vendors, etc. Insurance needs to be purchased.

It all adds up to it'd be nice to have ticket sales money sooner rather than later.

replies(1): >>44097517 #
19. kbenson ◴[] No.44094330{4}[source]
>> it's obviously preferable to get paid for the entire tour on the day it's announced

> it's only obvious to "private equity" type people.

No, it's obvious. Anyone that has to choose between getting $100 right now or $100 trickled in over months would opt for it right now for many reasons (inflation, the ability it invest it, the ability to use if it needed for unexpected situation, etc).

Wanting events to be populated by people that are primed for an experience and part of that priming bing they don't feel like it was too expensive to go might be another thing the artist or venue wants to encourage.

You can combine these things and make specific trade offs, but that doesn't mean all other things being equal that it's not entirely obvious that you should prefer money now to later.

> So giving up (or even worse, cooperating) to scalpers is like selling your business to private equity - you get some money, they get some money, and your customers/fans are fd.

It depends, probably a whole lot more than you think. Sometimes fans like to know they can go to an event if they care enough. In a world without resale markets that would be entirely dependent on the artist deciding to play more shows, because once tickets are sold they're gone. Secondary markets provide liquidity.

Also, sometimes tickets are available for cheaper* on secondary markets than they were on the initial sale (and this was true even before Ticketmaster started changing prices as the sales went on). That's because brokers take on risk buy buying for an event when it's not entirely sure it will still have demand when it's the event date.

For example, I just went to Stubhub (because I'm not sure Ticketmaster's own exchange will allow you to list for less than sale price) and looked for events starting soon. I found a rock concert in Napa where the Orchestra tickets are cheaper on Stubhub ($94 for two) than on Ticketmaster ($115.40 for two). There are plenty of tickets still on Ticketmaster, and some brokers just want to but their losses.[1][2]

There are plenty of ways to look at reselling to make it seem horrible or to make it seem beneficial. It's neither, it's just a normal function of markets, and the more people try to prevent it the more weird problems we'll have. Want to fix ticket prices? Convince artists to take on risk by playing larger venues (which they might not sell out) or add dates (meanind some days might not sell out). Artists don't want to take on that risk, so we have resellers and higher ticket prices.

1: https://www.stubhub.com/zepparella-napa-tickets-5-31-2025/ev...

2: https://www.ticketmaster.com/zepparella-the-led-zeppelin-pow...

replies(3): >>44095676 #>>44095680 #>>44097638 #
20. immibis ◴[] No.44095521[source]
It's only mispricing if you take market dynamics, and making the most money possible, as paramount. If your goal is to actually bring fans to your show, you might want a different system.

One music festival issues ID-linked tickets using a lottery 8 months in advance. If only the richest people attended, it would actually destroy the festival. And no, they can't hold it more than once each year so that prices drop.

21. immibis ◴[] No.44095581[source]
People don't know the maximum price they're willing to pay. There's actually a probability distribution, not a hard cutoff, and certainly not one known in advance. The higher the price is, the less likely I am to buy it. Auctions work for two classses of people: spherical humans in a vacuum, and economists.
22. mathgeek ◴[] No.44095676{5}[source]
> No, it's obvious. Anyone that has to choose between getting $100 right now or $100 trickled in over months would opt for it right now...

As usual, there are real life edge cases where folks don’t choose just on what makes the most sense financially. Many teachers work less than 52 weeks a year but choose to have their pay distributed over 52 weeks.

replies(1): >>44102552 #
23. dcow ◴[] No.44095680{5}[source]
If it’s a normal function then we sure go through a whole lot of effort to make sure a human and not a python script is buying tickets. If it’s normal, why doesn't the industry embrace it wholesale?
replies(1): >>44102518 #
24. dbspin ◴[] No.44095770{3}[source]
It's hilarious to read this discussion on HN, because the mentalities of artists and corporate business folks are so different. Artists aren't making a rational decision to reduce reputational damage by keeping ticket prices low. They're employing empathy to imagine themselves in the position of their audience - as music fans themselves first and foremost.

Why do people create at all? It's certainly not the most effective route to maximum income. It's a form of connection. Performing is sharing the joy of music and creativity with a group of people who've formed a connection to you through your art.

Now while the industry certainly selects for people who do not think this way (i.e.: performers rather than artists), despite itself it's full of artists whose values are not aligned with whatever kind of homo econominicus maximal self interest, war of all against all that pervades here.

Source - I'm not a musician, but I am a writer and I've directed music videos for numerous artists over the years. The idea that they're all motivated by the same mechanics as faceless entities like ticket master is silly.

replies(2): >>44096005 #>>44096230 #
25. rwmj ◴[] No.44095778{3}[source]
Ticket sellers can easily run their operations using a standard relational database. A blockchain solves no problem they have.
replies(1): >>44096529 #
26. vasco ◴[] No.44096005{4}[source]
Artists charge what they get told to charge. And ticketmaster owns all the venues so if you want to play anywhere, you're going to list at whatever prices the venue lists artists of your level. Humans are all statistically similar for large cohorts. Artists want money as much as other people, specially the ones playing big venues.

First thing to help would be to break up the venue monopoly that ticketmaster created.

replies(1): >>44096113 #
27. dbspin ◴[] No.44096113{5}[source]
The vast majority, hard to quantify, but I'd guess well over 99% of professional musicians (certainly outside the US) never play a ticketmaster venue. They're not operating at that scale. When they tour it's at smaller venues - there are orders of magnitude more small bars and dedicated venues not owned by ticket master.

> Artists want money as much as other people, specially the ones playing big venues.

This is exactly the kind of projection I'm referring to. What makes you believe that most humans want as much money as possible - to the exclusion of all other values? Again, difficult to quantify, but I'd suggest a majority of people would put pure wealth lower down on their priority list than health, family connection, social connection, travel, time to spend on interests etc. This goes double for people who've chosen professions rooted in their own creative expression. All else being equal we'll all choose wealth - but if the cost is exploitation, all else will not be equal for most people.

It seems clear that you're conflating the microscopic numbers of 'major label' artists playing to vast audiences - effectively as employees of 360 label / marketing companies like Live Nation with the supermajority of professional touring musicians.

I'm reminded of the chap I attended college with who sold a salacious story about one of our mutual friends to a tabloid. When we found out this was happening I had a another mutual friend approach him to intervene, but heard back that it was 'too much money to turn down'. Fifteen or so years later this guy is a multi-millionaire who just lost a civil suit (and is under criminal investigation) for fraud and sexual misconduct. Most people do not operate like this - empathy is dimensional.

replies(3): >>44096256 #>>44096301 #>>44097222 #
28. TeMPOraL ◴[] No.44096230{4}[source]
I think of it in a different way:

> Why do people create at all? It's certainly not the most effective route to maximum income. It's a form of connection. Performing is sharing the joy of music and creativity with a group of people who've formed a connection to you through your art.

It's worse. Creating seems to be an effective route to no income at all. Popular entertainment is a winners-take-all market; everyone who isn't one of the few popular artists or performers whose name alone brings in money, have to work hard to get anything at all from their work. The little I heard from various second-hand and third-hand reports from textbook authors, novelists, painters, musicians, etc. suggests that the royalties made from selling their output are laughably low. A big factor in that are the parties in between the artist and the buyers - publishers, labels. Those are some of the "faceless entities" you mention, and they're in a position of advantage over the artists, and they absolutely use it to capture all they can for themselves.

Because of that, to be able to dedicate yourself to your creativity, you have to either have a secondary stream of income (e.g. part-time artists with unrelated dayjob), give up most of control and autonomy (commission work, art-as-dayjob - think e.g. art for videogames), or seek any and all ways of indirectly monetizing your work further.

Focusing on that last part - for musicians, this is primarily live performances and merchandising (self-publishing is also easy today, but so is piracy). But per what I said above, most musicians are starved for money, and this - not greed - is forcing them to be less picky than they'd like. They can't afford to leave money on the table.

The paradox here is that most people - which includes the audience - think like you think, that artists are the opposite of corporate greed, that art is about humanity and not money, etc. Every artist knows that too, and that maintaining this reputation is critical to their income. Between two competing pressures, each artist has to find a point that's acceptable to them.

But this is where Ticketmaster comes in - they offer a way for artists to be more greedy without taking a reputational hit. Their Eternal War with Scalpers keeps the ticket prices up, while all the public outrage gets distributed between the Greedy Corporation and the Scalper Scoundrels.

Not all musicians engage in this on purpose, and for those who do, it's hard to prove. And of course it's just one slice through the complex relationship of artists, public, and countless commercial third parties in between them.

29. TeMPOraL ◴[] No.44096256{6}[source]
> What makes you believe that most humans want as much money as possible - to the exclusion of all other values?

Hardly anyone thinks that. But it's not controversial to believe most humans want enough money to not worry about affording the basics. The thing is, most art as a career doesn't even pay that by default.

30. vasco ◴[] No.44096301{6}[source]
>> Artists want money as much as other people, specially the ones playing big venues.

> This is exactly the kind of projection I'm referring to. What makes you believe that most humans want as much money as possible

You'll notice the following sentences don't mean the same thing:

> As much as other people

> as much money as possible

31. EGreg ◴[] No.44096529{4}[source]
That’s not true. The problem of whether the person actually has the money for the ticket. If it’s done by credit card then you have the problem of refunding so many people and getting a bad reputation with the middleman processor. See, unlike a blockchain, that middleman has policies that penalize legitimate price discovery mechanisms like auctions. So you have to take risks for no reason other than to appease a middleman’s risk department, or get deplatformed… ah the joy of depending on a third party walled garden. In other types of walled gardens, you get why open protocols are better, but on HN it is like, a requirement, to say “blockchain solves no problem”. Just like with capitalism you must say “there is nothing wrong with capitalism but..” and with AI you must say “whatever problem you are describing already existed before so AI didnt introduce any new ones…”
replies(1): >>44097391 #
32. whoisthemachine ◴[] No.44097222{6}[source]
> The vast majority, hard to quantify, but I'd guess well over 99% of professional musicians (certainly outside the US) never play a ticketmaster venue. They're not operating at that scale. When they tour it's at smaller venues - there are orders of magnitude more small bars and dedicated venues not owned by ticket master.

This is probably true, but I'm guessing smaller artists are also at much lower risk of scalpers (at least my anecdata backs that up) so probably much less applicable to the problem at hand.

33. whoisthemachine ◴[] No.44097231[source]
Sometimes you leave money on the table to increase demand.
34. Spooky23 ◴[] No.44097335[source]
Don’t worry, there’s no greedy, rent-seeking rock that hasn’t been overturned. Your idea would cost them way too much money. Since we’ve embraced scalping as a legal business model, Ticketmaster makes money on all sides of most transactions. It’s in their interest to for you to have maximum anxiety and buy as early as possible to increase the odds that you’ll resell.

The bots and scrapers aren’t black hat, Ticketmaster makes some nominal effort to “stop them”, but somehow those pesky hackers manage to figure out how to make Ticketmaster more money. Ticketmaster is adept at making the purchase experience high friction and difficult, so those bots must be really clever. (Lol)

replies(2): >>44097527 #>>44098672 #
35. pornel ◴[] No.44097391{5}[source]
That's just an overcomplicated way of doing pre-authorization.

Talk about decentralisation and anti-deplatforming makes no sense here. Concerts are a physical thing happening in the real world, organized by selected "centralized" entities. Venues can refuse to host an artist. Artist can "rug pull" by refusing to host. Imaginary tokens can't do anything about that, and we already have laws, contracts, and currencies that have been dealing with that for as long as these things existed.

replies(1): >>44097552 #
36. Spooky23 ◴[] No.44097400{3}[source]
Ticketing is like dating websites, many are affiliated in various ways. Ticketmaster doesn’t down StubHub… Livenation (the company that owns them), and operates most of the venues, does. They are structured to have nominal competition to meet competitive bidding requirements for .gov owned facilities.

Long ago I worked for a company that did some novel work in the ticketing and contained reservation space. We didn’t do resale due to the nature of the product, but the fees we extracted were bonkers - the facilities operators basically paid a nominal amount to stand up the platform, and we derived all (and it was a lot of) revenue from the customer - often on a white label basis.

Long story short, Ticketmaster elbowed in and bought the company and the tech once we had traction. That pattern holds in many similar business models.

37. dataflow ◴[] No.44097517{5}[source]
> I mean, who wouldn't look at their current expenses, look at their future cashflow, and be like hey, it would sure be nice to be paid today for work I'll do over the next year? Venues need deposits (maybe), transportation needs deposits, set builders need materials, marketing needs budget, merchandise production needs to pay vendors, etc. Insurance needs to be purchased.

This sounds just like taking out a loan. That money isn't really yours until you do the work. How different is the outcome here vs. taking out a loan for the same purpose, then? Is it cheaper?

38. bugtodiffer ◴[] No.44097519[source]
Or maybe stop all the bullshit and sell the tickets at their real value.

Ticketmaster should be destroyed!

replies(1): >>44097635 #
39. bugtodiffer ◴[] No.44097527[source]
Ticketmaster is reselling themselves, so they only prevent other peoples bots lol
40. EGreg ◴[] No.44097552{6}[source]
Card Network Rules: Payment processors and card networks have rules about the use of pre-authorizations. Excessive or inappropriate use can be flagged, potentially leading to penalties, holds on your account, or even termination of your merchant account. Customer Experience: Imagine a customer who participates in several auction bids and has a pre-authorization placed for each bid. This can lead to: Blocked Funds: A large amount of their credit limit could be temporarily blocked, making it difficult for them to use the card for other transactions. Confusion: Customers might be confused about multiple holds on their account, leading to inquiries and chargebacks. Negative Experience: A poor customer experience can hurt your reputation. Risk of Expiration & Release: If pre-authorizations expire, and the auction is not completed, you might have to re-authorize, which can be disruptive and annoying to the customer. False Availability of Funds: Since not all bidders will win, placing holds on all bidders' accounts gives a misleading view of how much funding you might actually have available to you. Chargebacks & Disputes: Confused customers with multiple pre-authorizations are more likely to dispute charges, which can hurt your merchant standing and reputation. Processor Scrutiny: A merchant running a high volume of pre-authorizations relative to actual sales could be perceived as risky behavior. Processors will scrutinize businesses with higher dispute rates and high pre-authorization-to-capture ratios.
replies(1): >>44104378 #
41. IgorPartola ◴[] No.44097635[source]
You mean at like $3k/ticket for Taylor Swift nose bleeds?
42. dataflow ◴[] No.44097638{5}[source]
> No, it's obvious. Anyone that has to choose between getting $100 right now or $100 trickled in over months would opt for it right now for many reasons (inflation, the ability it invest it, the ability to use if it needed for unexpected situation, etc).

I disagree? Even if your conclusion is somehow true, it seems in no way obvious, and so far as I can the reasoning doesn't make sense. You've left out two crucial factors:

- The assumption that it's $100 now vs. $100 later just seems unfounded. What if it's $100 now vs. $110 later? The payer is can factor in the time value of money, inflation, etc. just like you do; why would they completely ignore that and blindly pay the same amount they would at two different points in time?

- We're not talking about free money, we're talking about payment in exchange for work. You're taking out a loan that comes with obligations. You're going to have to pay it back if for whatever reason you can't do the work. Generally, the earlier you take the loan, the more unpredictable and thus the larger that risk is. Of course details matter here but it's not at all obvious ASAP is the optimal policy. And I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't enjoy being perpetually in debt to someone. I'm not saying it's bad if you're fine with it, I'm saying it doesn't seem remotely true that everyone is fine with it.

replies(1): >>44102394 #
43. tsimionescu ◴[] No.44097667[source]
Are they mispriced? Or is it just hard to price goods where some people are willing to pay a MUCH higher premium than others? That is, if I can sell 5000 tickets at 10$ or 10 tickets at 1000$, the right price may just be 10$. And trying to find a way to convince those 10 people to pay the 1000$ they were willing to, in a way that doesn't affect my reputation too much, may just be too hard.
44. sorz ◴[] No.44097795[source]
The time at which scalpers buy tickets becomes irrelevant. They can resell tickets at arbitrary-high-price + margin because buyer know they will receive refund for the exceed amount, thus pay only (final price + scalper margin) for the ticket eventually.

Bonus: buy ticket from scalpers after price settled, you will get a determined price, no more guessing and find inner peace.

The problem for scalpers is that if they buy too many tickets, the final price may become too high to be attractive for real buyers.

45. carlosjobim ◴[] No.44098220{3}[source]
> (you dump your tickets and let someone else pick them up at that exact moment).

Very easy to counteract, the venue just releases those tickets back for sale in batch at an unspecified date and time.

46. carlosjobim ◴[] No.44098252{3}[source]
> They do other things that's baffling like selling tickets a year ahead of time, which is kind of weird considering very few people, even big fans, would be really on top of buying tickets a year out. It's obviously designed for scalpers.

Serious venues and artists do the same thing. It is to reward the early fans with the cheapest tickets and to get early cash flow. Nothing shady about it.

47. carlosjobim ◴[] No.44098292{4}[source]
> That's been done for a long time and you can still get around it if the margin is good enough. You just have to either want to go to the event yourself or be willing to one ticket out of the maximum you can purchase as the cost of doing business.

You tie each ticket to the name of that specific attendee. The ticket buyer doesn't even have to get a ticket for himself. This is bullet proof, unless scalpers can convince their customers to make a fake ID to attend.

> not everyone actually knows who they're going to invite for sure at time of purchase

Then wait with your purchase until you have figured it out.

48. section_me ◴[] No.44098672[source]
Sounds like Valve/Steam and the CS:GO gambling.
49. mixmastamyk ◴[] No.44099707{4}[source]
TM solved this already, five years ago with their digital tix platform. They got rid of physical tickets, implemented auction pricing for the best seats, and took over the reseller market as well. They became the scalpers and took their revenue.
50. kbenson ◴[] No.44102394{6}[source]
> The assumption that it's $100 now vs. $100 later just seems unfounded. What if it's $100 now vs. $110 later?

The actual situation is that it's $100 now or maybe $110 later or even $90 later, because you don't know what the market is going to do. That is the risk the resellers are taking on. The demand for the product is not static. At the time of sale, a lot of effort goes into making the artist appealing and interesting to audiences so they are more interested in buying a ticket.

> The payer is can factor in the time value of money, inflation, etc. just like you do; why would they completely ignore that and blindly pay the same amount they would at two different points in time?

Of course customers would prefer to pay at the last possible moment. With a static inventory that's released all at once (which isn't really how it's done most times now) they don't really have that luxury for popular events, resellers or not.

My point is that there's no guarantee the value of tickets. Depending on the event, they often reduce in cost. Selling a large amount early reduces risk exposure. These days there's a bit of everything going on, and usually there are certain amounts of inventory released initially, and more come in clumps over time, possibly at different prices depending on demand and what the secondary market looks like, as well as there being a subset of inventory from the very beginning that has dynamic pricing to respond quickly to market conditions and serve some of the need of the secondary market. As Ticketmaster started tun run their own secondary market they quickly utilized the data that gave them to change how they functioned on the primary market.

> We're not talking about free money, we're talking about payment in exchange for work. You're taking out a loan that comes with obligations. ... And I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't enjoy being perpetually in debt to someone. I'm not saying it's bad if you're fine with it, I'm saying it doesn't seem remotely true that everyone is fine with it.

Importantly, there are many links in this chain, and people taking their cut along the way (although less than there used to be since Live Nation /Ticketmaster has serves the role of multiple parties in many cases). This is how the industry works at the large tour level. You contract for a lot of work over a long period, sometimes more than a year, and then proceed to execute on that plan. As someone that gets a normal paycheck, I admit it's not that appealing to me either, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's strange. All sorts of small businesses work on this idea, and when you're doing fixed cost work, you would rather have the money up front, as it allows for more options. Any tradesperson that does large projects has to deal with this to a lesser degree. General contractors, electricians, etc. It's a normal part of contract based work. Most people are forced into what the industry has settled on as acceptable practices and can't dictate difference, so for the vast majority "if you're fine with it" is a foregone conclusion because if you're not you've probably found some other way to make a living.

51. kbenson ◴[] No.44102518{6}[source]
They have, as much as they will try to convince you they haven't, because they've spend so long trying to shift any blame or negative feelings towards resellers. Here's some supporting information to that point:

- Ticketmaster is known to add additional fees to tickets which are actually given in part or in whole to the artist or venue, allowing customers to blame Ticketmaster for high ticket prices so Artists can claim they wanted cheaper tickets that were only $25 (but are actually $40 when you get to the final check out). This has been covered by the major news outlets a few different times and discussed here, so shouldn't be hard to find information on.

- Ticketmaster runs their own secondary exchange now, which verified re-issuing of digital tickets out of their own back-end and guaranteed entry. Can't embrace it much more than that. They get a cut of the sale price on the secondary exchange like all the exchanges do.

- Ticketmaster also reserves a portion of their tickets for dynamic pricing and their price will adjust on the fly during the initial sale period based on demand and what they see them showing up on the resale market as (some tickets show up on the resale market almost immediately).

- Artists want to side with their fans, or at a minimum appear to side with them. That means releasing tickets for "cheap" or at least in a way they can claim they did. Some artists care, some pay lip service. Kid Rock actually seemed to care, as he would play Detroit for seven consecutive days or more to make sure his cheap tickets stayed cheap by providing enough supply that demand was never too high, at least for most seats. I'm sure he would rather not do such a grueling schedule though, which is why he's always been very active trying to get legislature passed targeting resellers.

To me, having worked in this industry in the past, it's always been very clear that the industry does embrace the secondary market, to a degree, while also using it as a convenient scapegoat. If the secondary markets were to be shut down tomorrow, everyone would find at least some aspect of that worse than the current status quo. Some might ultimately find is better, some worse, but it's not nearly as simple as secondary markets just being a problem (for example, they're not just rent-seeking, they're offloading risk and providing liquidity).

52. kbenson ◴[] No.44102552{6}[source]
Yes, I'll admit I was a bit strong in my "anyone would" wording. I'm fairly confident in saying that while some people might opt for delayed payment when pressed and discussed with most if not all would admit to doing so because of their own inability to follow through on what they would acknowledge as the financially smarter option. In that case, it's still obvious what the better option is, even if you feel you can't take advantage of it because of other factors.
53. hakfoo ◴[] No.44103783{3}[source]
Nontransferrable would deflate prices though.

If I spend $nnn on a ticket, there's some reassurance that if I get sick/called into a work or family emergency I can throw the ticket on Craigslist or some officially-sanctioned double-dipping scheme and at least get some of my expenditure back.

How much cheaper does it have to be to compensate for greater risk?

54. kassner ◴[] No.44104378{7}[source]
All of that can be custom for the industry, the same way air travel has had custom rules in credit card processing since forever.
replies(1): >>44107449 #
55. EGreg ◴[] No.44107449{8}[source]
Can be … oh we may negotiate with the middlemen to not deplatform us. How nice. Blockchain doesn’t solve any problems in the same way that giving people universal single payer health insurance didn’t solve any problems since you can always find a good employer who will just treat you well.