←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.282s | source
Show context
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 #
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 #
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 #
dbspin ◴[] No.44095770[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 #
1. TeMPOraL ◴[] No.44096230[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.