Scalping used to be illegal in the US until Ticketmaster made it part of their business model.
A really nice move.
This legislation also looks at limiting ticket fees retailers can charge.
I’m sure people will complain because it won’t be 100% effective and that therefore makes this useless, but that’s daft, using that logic we shouldn’t bother with any laws, as they can all be broken. We shouldn’t just do nothing because a solution isn’t flawless.
In the background, the CMA is also currently investigating Ticketmaster for their surge pricing shenanigans. Fingers crossed they rule in a way that puts people first (and if they don’t, politicians update the law with surge pricing algorithms in mind).
Good moves are being made here.
But ticketmaster can still fuck everyone over though, right? Right?
Ticket master will put a high face value on the ticket then sell it to you at a “discount”.
Touts can then sell for face value and make a profit
Isn’t it the artist or promoter who set the face value price?
Hahaha, no
The artist doesn’t get any say in it, and the promotor is only able to suggest pricing but can’t enforce it
Do you have a source for this? The Ticketmaster FAQ states the artist or promoter sets the base price.
base price
That was my original point. The artist or promoter is able to set the face value price, but Ticketmaster adds fees on top.
Not to disagree but they also state when you sell tickets on Ticketmaster, the fees are passed on to the buyer and you will get 100% of what you ask for your tickets, yet on the same page if you do the math on what you ask for and what it says you will get, it doesn’t match (what you will get is lower than 100% of what you ask for). They’re literally lying to your face.
They do, that’s ticket masters entire value add for them.(Well that and the fact that they control a lot of venues).
You get mad at ticket master and not the artist.
they can just tack on more fees.
The article states that the government will regulate the fees that can be charged on top of the face value.
Under the plan, which could form part of next year’s King’s speech, anyone selling a ticket will not be allowed to charge more than they paid for it. Resale platforms will be allowed to charge fees on top of that price. These extras will also be limited, to ensure that they can’t be inflated artificially to offset profits forfeited owing to the legislation. The scale of the ceiling on service fees is yet to be determined.
Just buy this 400 quid loaf of bread and get the ticket at face value
I don’t need the ticket but that sounds like some quality bread!
I honestly feel like the free market is fine for setting the price of luxuries like concert tickets…
Ah yeah, and that’s why the ticket I bought for £20 resold for £200
Don’t be a bleeding idiot
I’m sorry, are you complaining that prices are kept artificially low?
Because I thought the question was about consumer freedom to buy something instead of the expensive ticket, not seller freedom to make as much money as possible.
I’m complaining that resale is exploitative, and that’s very much intentionally a thing the market encourages
And what about the fact that often, tickets are for only bought by resellers, who then markup the price by 200% - 1000%
I’ve seen some gigs where they sold out seconds after being put up, all bought in milliseconds by automatic bots, and then every single ticket was resold by the same bots for stupid profits
And I’m saying you can just choose not to buy the tickets at that price. That’s the free market in action.
There are lots of cases where the free market is clearly inappropriate. For example, I can’t just choose not to have basic utilities like water and heating, so there needs to be an appropriately regulated market to prevent price gouging. But if prices get gouged on tickets for Taylor Swift or whatever, then who cares? So only rich people can go to her concert - big deal, people who can’t afford it can:
- go to a cheaper concert by a less popular artist
- buy her album for much less
- stream her album for even less
What are the consequences if we had this model?
And you think it’s good that bots can automatically buy every single ticket, only to resell it at extortionate prices?
Wow, that’s a ass-backwards view if I ever saw one
You didn’t reply properly. I explained the alternatives which all seem reasonable to me, which you didn’t respond to at all, and I asked you a question which you didn’t answer. I’ll answer, and explain again, but if you reply in the same dismissive way without answering properly, you’re not worth trying to hold a discussion with.
you think it’s good that bots can automatically buy every single ticket, only to resell it at extortionate prices?
I don’t think it matters. It’s like asking if I think it’s good that diamonds are expensive due to supply-side uncompetitiveness; if you can’t afford it, you can just not buy it. Nobody needs a diamond. There’s no communist utopia where we’re handing out diamonds or Taylor Swift tickets to all citizens, right? There’s a limited number of tickets, and the people running the show can decide whether to hand them out by selling them for what people are willing to pay, by lottery, or by the current hybrid system: well below market value, but with a lottery to decide who gets to pay the suppressed price.
If the sellers’ lottery system is not working, or if they’re pretending it’s a lottery system when in fact all the tickets go to “resellers”, then that’s their problem. It’s not causing societal harm; the same number of people get to see Taylor Swift either way, and getting to see her isn’t important enough for the government to step in and say that Taytay tickets must be delivered by lottery system.
It was never about the bots; you’d be complaining if the sellers sold at market value as well; so it’s really about prices.
The government getting involved in enforcing prices is risky business and can introduce very bad unintended consequences. If nothing else, it’s just something that the government then has to do, which costs money. So it should be done in situations where the consequences of not doing so are clearly bad. The consequences of the prices of the following getting really high are really bad for society:
- Food
- Water
- Sanitation
- Healthcare
- Heating
- Electricity
- Transport
- Internet
Where does tickets to the biggest music superstars come on this list? Waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down. It is not worth spending taxes on making sure that Taylor Swift’s ticket delivery lottery remains a true lottery.
allowing people to participate in cultural events is also very important, and buying a CD or streaming is not the same.
Culture is much more important to the well being of the people than you think and it’s a good thing that the government is getting involved.
So what is considered a luxury? Is a hot meal? A house? Warm clothes? To me, art should be consumed by all not the the rich.
Liverpool matches are art? Not lately…
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
I’m sure there’s a grey area somewhere, but concert and football tickets are not it. There are many affordable ways to experience art, what we’re talking about is tickets to see the most popular entertainers in the country. Tickets to see your local band or Sunday league club play are free or cheap.
You think that, until you realize that live nation controls almost every venue in your city/state/country and then you start getting juiced for even smaller acts.
If they want to keep their vertical integration they should have to play by some rules.
Live Nation’s annual profit is under a billion dollars, on a revenue of about 23 billion, which is a profit margin of about 4%. I agree they should have to play by some rules, and having an effective monopoly on ticket sales risks abuse of that monopoly, but it is not currently happening to any great degree, and it has nothing to do with the high cost of tickets. Also their business practices in general, with predatory pricing, should be legal, but again, this has nothing to do with whether, in principle, there needs to be government intervention to enforce artificially cheap ticket prices.
So making sure there is an unattainable area to all is fine with you? So where is the line?
“Making sure there is an unattainable area” is a weird way of putting. It’s fine that some experiences (whether to do with art and entertainment or other things) that are out of reach of almost everyone - there always will be. Almost no-one can have the experience of sitting in the best box in the best opera house. Almost no-one can experience going to space. Does the government need to regulate prices of those experiences?
You ask “where is the line” as if you are not drawing one. But you are, you just don’t even see it; there are still experiences you think should receive free market prices, you just haven’t thought much about them. I’m not drawing a line - I’m saying the government should keep out of enforcing prices in entertainment and can’t think of a scenario where it would be necessary.
You say you’re “not drawing one (line)” but then explain why you would. My point is not the best seat but a seat.
Regulating outside influences is smart. The U.S. is a great example of why. It is cheaper to get 2 tickets to Ireland plus concert tickets and board then to see the same group in L.A., CA. There are every few regulations stopping ticketmaster from scalping the ticket on stubhub, a ticketmaster subsidiary.
My point is not the best seat but a seat.
So for you, the government should step in to regulate the price of concert tickets for basic seats, but not for the best seats. How many regular seats should be sold at below market value at each venue? All of them? What about when the venue upgrades 90% of their seats to “premium” seats and takes those out of the lottery sale and sells those for market value - is that OK? Are you satisfied if just two seats per performance are lotteried? Per tour?
These are all political decisions now. Some civil servant is being paid to make them as a full-time job, and everyone’s taxes are paying for it. Why is that a good use of public money? Shouldn’t we instead put that money towards paying a civil servant in the department of health, or the foreign office, or justice? Or towards paying a nurse or police officer? All so that the correct number of people can experience Taylor Swift in a concert instead of on spotify, and watch a football match in a stadium instead of at the pub?
but then explain why you would.
I think I’ve been clear that there is no line in entertainment where the government should be involved in price regulation. What line do you think I have drawn?
The U.S. is a great example of why. It is cheaper to get 2 tickets to Ireland plus concert tickets and board then to see the same group in L.A., CA. There are every few regulations stopping ticketmaster from scalping the ticket on stubhub, a ticketmaster subsidiary.
How is that different from Ticketmaster selling the ticket for a higher price in the first place?
How free is the market?
Very. You have the 100% option of not buying scalped shit at all times.
Completely?
I think you’re living in a fantasy land
