OFF: TicketMaster bidding

[IAN ABRAHAMS]

I dunno, it was just real nice to ring the Phoenix in Exeter, talk to a
human being, be charged 50p for booking Hawkwind tickets and 30p for posting
them. A far cry from the way these things usual work!

Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "M Holmes" <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: OFF: TicketMaster bidding


> 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
>
>