OFF: TicketMaster bidding

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> => This loses some revenue but gains on the
> => administrative convenience of tickets being sold at the same price.
>
> ...and TicketMaster is all about convenience. :-\

Fair point :-(

> => 3) This is good in that it garners the consumer surplus previously
> => available to scalpers to the ticket sellers, and gives it, assuming
> => some sort of efficient market, to the acts and promoters themselves.
>
> Well, since TicketMaster deals a lot with sheds that it owns
> (indirectly), then I guess they've found a way of diverting money from
> scalpers to themselves.

Ah. I guess so then.

> Unfortunately, as the SCI lawsuit shows,
> TicketMaster are a bit greedy about sharing the wealth, and would
> rather be exclusive ticket sellers for events.  But, hey, why
> complicate matters by allowing some kind of choice as to where you can
> buy your ticket? ;-)

Worrying, but I guess it's reasonable to allow owners to make their own
tickeet arrangements(*)

> I do agree that higher ticket sales may allow promoters to solicit a
> higher performance fee, so some of the increased profit may "trickle
> down" to the actual acts.  Unfortunately, because TicketMaster also
> owns the venues, too, in many markets, then are in a position to
> dictate terms strongly: accept this deal or find somewhere else to
> play!  (Good luck, buddy!)

(*) Yes, clearly barriers to entry etc provide some interference with
markets and therefore monopolistic pricing. Still, even Ticketbastard
can't auction something for more than a bidder is willing to pay so
basically this is at worst still just a cash transfer from scalpers to
Ticketbastard themselves?

> => The job of the auction is to find those people who
> => want to spend the money on the ticket rather than other things and those
> => will be the most keen fans.
>
> If you can tell me a way to write off ticket prices as a business
> expense, then I'm sure I *might* have a fighting chance showing how
> "keen" a fan I am against corporations that routinely buy choice seats
> to schmooze clients.  (I know someone who worked in sales for a very
> large industrial firm that had to do precisely this kind of
> schmoozing.:)  But even then, I doubt my pockets are as deep.  So I
> guess I'm not as "keen" a fan after all.  (Note that said schmoozer I
> know said he often had tickets go unused, either because the client
> wasn't interested in that event, or because he'd have a basket of
> things from which to choose.  The upshot being that some of the
> "keenest" fans at some concerts were totally invisible...;)

I see the inefficiency here too.  Clearly it'd be more efficient just to
schmooze by giving the scmoozee cash to spend as they like, and this
would then avoid distorting the tickets' markets. However, presumably
this isn't done because it makes these bribes recogniseable for exactly
what they are. The solution is to ban in kind bribes as well as the cash
sort.

> I've heard tell that a lot of those small-theatre shows that the
> Rolling Stones played "for the true fans" on their USA tour were
> mostly populated by Hollywood stars and corporate types that needed to
> be seen to be there.

Well OK, but that just means it was more important for them to be there
than it was for sonme fan.

> Luckily, I think it's easier to prove your
> loyalty as a fan when you earn $20 million per movie than when you
> don't. :-)

In the same way that it's easier to buy a beer.

> => People who'll travel internationally to see
> => a band won't cavil about paying more for the ticket if it guarantees
> => they'll get one.
>
> Yeah.  I don't know of anyone who complains when they have to pay more
> for something.

They're not. They're just paying Ticketbastard instead of a scalper.
Unless of coure the scalpers weren't very efficient prior to all this,
but I'm assuming that the change is coming about because, through Ebay,
they were all too efficient.

> (Prior to that, the actual "keen fans" would camp out on the lawn
> beside Cassell Coliseum a day or so before tickets would become
> available for a given game, to be sure they were first in line and
> could get one.  Now, "keen fans" only have to be sure to get their
> [extra] $39 cheque into the Althletics department on time before the
> season starts.  On the non-student side, the amount of your "voluntary
> donation" determines from which crop of seats you may choose.  The
> higher your "voluntary donation," the better your seat will be,
> although---it should be stressed---all tickets cost the same price, we
> are assured.  It's only the "voluntary donation" that differs.;)

OK, I'm not sure I get all this but basically I'm happier to get into a
bidding war than I am to sleep on the pavement all night and to some
extent scalping came down to basically paying someone to do the pavement
thing.

> => In short, IMHO: Bravo Ticketmaster!
>
> Yes, thank you for realising that you, too, can get in on the scalping
> game due to the handy monopoly you exercise (at least in the USA).

Scalpers had the money before anyway and that didn't do us much good. At
least if Ticketbastard can get some monopoly profits then it raises the
return on organising more concerts, so it's still a plus to us.

> It seems to me that this is just moving money from scalpers to
> TicketMaster, but effectively extending scalping to all seats, not
> just the prime ones.  I like TicketMaster about as well as I do
> Microsoft, so forgive me if I don't join in your round of applause. :-)

That's OK Paul, I really didn't expect you to. I'm still optimistic that
we'll have a rare old discussion on this one over several pints one day....

> Perhaps one day there will be reached a price level at which large
> numbers of people decide it's "too expensive," and hence prices will
> have to come down to increase attendance.

Maybe, but I suspect that would happen in such an environment of
falling disposable incomes that a lot of us would still be out of the
game.

> Until that time, I guess an
> ever-shrinking number of buyers will dominate the prices upwards.

That doesn't make sense: if there are monopolistic profits to be had
from gigs, it raises the gain from having more gigs.

> I know that I have stopped going to a lot of live events because I can
> no longer afford to.  I'm not the only one, too, who is tired of the
> ever-widening and increasing "convenience charges" being piled on.  I
> know it rankles others, too, when you pay half as much again as the
> face price in "convenience charges."  But, because TicketMaster is the
> only game in town in many cases, you either have to lump it or not go.
> If ticket prices increase, more people will choose the latter, I
> believe.  Bravo TicketMaster!

I'm kinda on your side on this one and similarly suspicious of all these
transaction charges.

How's the monopoly protected?

FoFP