OFF: TicketMaster bidding

[Paul Mather]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 05:29:28PM +0100, M Holmes wrote:

=> > 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.

Or, alternatively, that it was easier for them to facilitate being
there, by virtue of having deeper pockets to procure what soon became
very expensive tickets.  My point in mentioning the "for the true
fans" small theatre shows debacle is that "the true fans" were priced
out of attending by those with peripheral interests (*musically
speaking*) but with very deep pockets.

=> > (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.

I mention this because, IMHO, "keen fans" are ultimately not measured
by the size of their bank balance.  To me, it takes more dedication to
sleep out to get tickets than it does to add $39 to daddy's annual
credit card bill.  Sure, the new system is more convenient, but I
think it is all about money, not how much of a fan you are.

If tickets were priced according to what percentage of your assets
they represented, then I would concede that the highest-bidding fan
was indeed the keenest.  But they're not.  Someone with a large
disposable income can bid a large amount that represents an
insignificant blip on his or her income---perhaps even bidding an
amount that exceeds the total resources of an avid fan.  That high
bidder may have a negligible interest in the band, but see the high
ticket price as no barrier whatsoever to attendance.

I don't believe there is any correlation between fan loyalty and the
size of your wallet, measured in absolute terms.

(Note, I'm not suggesting at all only loyal/starving fans deserve to
see a band.  I'm just saying I don't think the amount you pay for a
ticket determines how much of a fan you are.)

=> 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.

Or, by increasing their monopoly profits, they may be able to cement
further that monopoly, which may degrade service overall by reducing
choice and introducing further potential for monopolistic abuses.  So,
I am undecided whether it is a plus to us.

=> > 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.

Because of the Pareto distribution of incomes, that is true.  (A few
people can always easily outbid the many, and given the finite
capacity for venues, it is possible that most can be excluded by the
deep pockets of a minority.)

=> > 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.

But the choice of how many gigs you can have is limited by the touring
calendar, the availability of cash cow bands, and the geography of
venues.  Most concert goers are not "repeat offenders," in that they
probably will not see the same band more than once on a tour (and with
many bands it's not worth doing so as you get the same show anyway).
So there is an incentive to squeeze more money out of each concert
attendee as being the easiest solution to maintaining a target gross
for a gig.  (Milk 'em as much as you can, because this may be your
only chance.)

Given that venues have finite capacity, profits can still be increased
despite shrinking numbers of buyers in the face of rising ticket costs
because you are effectively weeding out those that can't afford/won't
pay but still have enough high-rollers to fill up the place.
(Historically, this seems to be playing out, as there still appear to
be sufficient people willing to pay ever-increasing ticket prices to
maintain their continued rise, despite the overall numbers of people
buying tickets declining.)  I guess the breaking point of the "bleed
'em dry" strategy is when even the high-rollers find it all too much
and so venues start to look threadbare. :-)

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa