←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
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 #
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 #
rwmj ◴[] No.44095778[source]
Ticket sellers can easily run their operations using a standard relational database. A blockchain solves no problem they have.
replies(1): >>44096529 #
1. EGreg ◴[] No.44096529[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 #
2. pornel ◴[] No.44097391[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 #
3. EGreg ◴[] No.44097552[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 #
4. kassner ◴[] No.44104378{3}[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 #
5. EGreg ◴[] No.44107449{4}[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.