OFF: TicketMaster bidding

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:02:57PM +0100, M Holmes wrote:
>
> => > I don't believe there is any correlation between fan loyalty and the
> => > size of your wallet, measured in absolute terms.
> =>
> => Me neither.
>
> Great!  I'm not sure why you tried to derail this into an argument
> over socialism or the Common Agricultural Policy or other
> politically-charged topics.

I used them as means of illustration of points.

> My main disagreement with you was your
> statement that the "most keen" fans will be the highest bidders, in
> other words, that how high you can/will bid directly correlates to how
> big a fan you are.  I don't buy that (no pun intended).

Yes, that seems to be the main area of disagreement.

> => I do believe there's a correlation in what's bid. It's what
> => you'll give up, not what you have let afterwards.
>
> And I believe what you give up is not easily measured by how much you
> bid.  (I also believe that what you give up is a relative measurement,
> not an absolute one.)

OK, if we're not to use actual money, which is the normal measurement of
what people will give up (in that the money is a measure of whatever
they would instead purchase) then how would you suggest it be measured
and how might we put in place a system of paying for gigs based on it?

> => Just about every economist in the world disagrees. The common reckoning
> => is that people will bid what something is worth to them.
>
> "Worth" is a subjective term, and not easily quantified by looking at
> absolute bid prices.

I agree that it's a subjective term. Economists expec that peopkle will
reveal subjective worth by pricing something through offer. How else do
you think personal preference might be quantified?

> If I have $1 billion in assets and you have $10,000, and (even though
> I've never heard of the band in question) I want the child of my
> secretary to have front row seats at a hot-ticket concert, I may
> readily bid $1000 to ensure that simply because $1000 may not even
> register on my financial radar.  For you, though, it would probably be
> a struggle to justify that amount for a single ticket.  In relative
> terms, $1000 is "worth" less to me than to you.  And, of course, in
> terms of who is the biggest fan in this scenario, well, the "keenest
> fans are the ones with the highest bids" theory would say that would
> be me.

No, it might the kid on whose behalf you're bidding.  See my previous
agreement on bribes, and why it's better for everyone that they happen
in cash.  What we have her is just another example of the hospitality
scenario.

> ("Luckily" for us, the kinds of bands we listen to rarely sell out
> shows, so being priced out of a venue entirely is unlikely to happen.

Ticketmaster can only be taking money from scalpers by introducing a
bidding scheme *unless* tickets are already generally underpriced - I.E
fans would on average pay more than they're currently being charged.

> Being priced out of "the best seats" is another matter.  C'est la
> vie...)

> For me, Cameron Diaz or some other celeb or corporate type paying
> $5000, say, to attend a small-theatre Rolling Stones show tells me
> *nothing* about how big a fan he or she is of the band vs. anybody
> else.  It just tells me he or she has $5000 to burn on a ticket.  (And
> the fact that several celebs were reported to have stayed only long to
> be caught on film by the photographers [i.e., seen to be there] makes
> me suspicious that some weren't very big fans at all.:)

Agreed.  What I'd say is simply that it was worth 5000 to them to be
there.  It gets tricky when there are reasons to be at a gig other
than to see a band.  I daresay a few of us have been at gigs more
because a certain member of the opposite (or same) sex was there than
due to the particular band that was playing.

> => > 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.
> =>
> => All of which can be increased with investment of that extra money.
>
> Unless something has changed, I don't believe you can increase the
> number of days there are in a year no matter how much money you have. :-)

Hey: we could move to Mars!

Cheers

FoFP