Ticketmaster Verified Resale, Dynamic Pricing, etc.

24

Comments

  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,061
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.
    I have a paper ticket from every show I have seen since 1994. Never cared to use electronic tickets. Don't plan on starting any time soon. 
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 4,020
    pjl44 said:
    cutz said:
    Posted this in 2016:  https://community.pearljam.com/discussion/259338/lawmaker-fighting-ticket-freeze-out-in-name-of-springsteen#latest

    Lawmaker fighting ticket freeze-out in name of Springsteen

    Well, at least ther trying. And Ticket Master wants stronger laws? Ain't they part of the problem too?



    TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Tens of thousands of fans will crowd into MetLife Stadium three times over the next week to watch Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, some because they acted quickly enough to buy tickets at face value — and others because they were willing to pay more on the secondary market.

    U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey has been seeking for seven years to solve the frustration shared by most people when they try to buy tickets to popular concerts, Broadway shows and sporting events through Ticketmaster.

    He first introduced the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act — called the BOSS Act in homage to Springsteen — in 2009 after the New Jersey rocker complained fans were directed to a website owned by Ticketmaster where tickets were being offered at more than four times their face value.

    The law would crack down on the use of computerized bots used by ticket brokers to snap up tickets, and also force Ticketmaster to disclose exactly how many tickets are on sale for each show to cut down on some of the mystery.

    "This is a disaster. We all know what they're doing. It's the fans vs. the brokers. I stand with the fans," the Democratic lawmaker said. "I'm going to keep on exposing these people and little by little we're getting to the promised land, as Bruce would say."

    ___

    WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BUY TICKETS?

    More than half the tickets for many events are held for industry insiders or otherwise unavailable to the general public, according to a report by New York's attorney general released in January.

    Investigators in Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office found that third-party brokers resell tickets on sites like StubHub and TicketsNow at average margins of 49 percent above face value and sometimes more than 10 times the price. Some brokers use illegal specialty software, called "ticket bots," to quickly purchase as many desirable tickets as possible for resale at significant markups, they said.

    The report cited a single broker buying 1,012 tickets within one minute to a U2 concert at Madison Square Garden when they went on sale on Dec. 8, 2014, despite the vendor's claim of a four-ticket limit. By day's end, that broker and one other had 15,000 tickets to U2's North American shows.

    Regular concert fans also lose out when tickets are released to artist fan clubs or sold ahead of time to certain credit card holders.

    "The battle is an uphill one for fans. It's obviously galling that you can be first online or be at the box office or the computer terminal and you realize you're closed out of getting tickets and they're already popping up for sale on some secondary site; it's just maddening," said Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the consumer advocacy group NYPIRG.

    ___

    BOSS vs. BOTS

    Pascrell isn't the only member of Congress looking to address the issue. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, and Rep. Paul Tonko, a Democrat from New York, introduced the Better Online Ticket Sales Act in April.

    The BOTS act would make the use of the computer hacking software an "unfair and deceptive practice" under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

    Pascrell said that legislation wouldn't deal with the transparency issue he believes needs to be addressed.

    His legislation would also require them to list all-in prices, so people waiting a half-hour just find out if they're getting tickets know exactly how much they'll cost before being surprised at the checkout.

    "I think there's a mounting sense among the ticket-buying public that something has to get done," Haven said. "When that anger will actually translate into political pressure to get something done, I think we're closer to it, but it's still probably going to take more work."

    ___

    WHAT TICKETMASTER SAYS IT'S DOING:

    Ticketmaster says it is "at war with the bots." The company says it wants "stronger laws and greater enforcement to punish those who want to deny real fans the opportunity to get tickets."
    Usually the hair on the back of my neck stands up when people start talking about legislation, but I'm on board with banning bots and transparency on onsale quantities. 

    Banning bots sounds like a false flag. We know bands and promoters directly distribute thousands of tickets per show to resellers.
    True, but it's 2 different activities. Hell, that one CBC story laid out the TM strategy of allowing the bots to operate. I'm ok with bot-banning and we can talk about that diversion separately. 
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 10,121
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.

    Paper tickets aren't gone...they are dwindling yes, but I still opt for them every time except when not available. That was 2 shows for me...Fenway 2018 PJ 10 club tix, and I ordered the souvenir paper copies later as I (like many here) collect my tickets (stubs in the old days).

    Just had paper tix Saturday night for Deep Purple, face value was printed on them.

    This weekend we rock Portland
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 4,020
    Poncier said:
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.

    Paper tickets aren't gone...they are dwindling yes, but I still opt for them every time except when not available. That was 2 shows for me...Fenway 2018 PJ 10 club tix, and I ordered the souvenir paper copies later as I (like many here) collect my tickets (stubs in the old days).

    Just had paper tix Saturday night for Deep Purple, face value was printed on them.

    Yeah, same here. I can get the same hard tickets for virtually every show I go to. Unless it's one I StubHub. 
  • deadendpdeadendp Northeast OhioPosts: 8,421
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.

    I could swear that these are paper... :wink:
    2014: Cincinnati
    2016: Lexington and Wrigley 1
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,905
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 4,020
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    I'm jealous of both your communication skills and stash of hash
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,905
    pjl44 said:
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    I'm jealous of both your communication skills and stash of hash
    You're too kind :) I'm lucky to have a job where I get to practice all the time (communicating, not hash).
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,498
    deadendp said:
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.

    I could swear that these are paper... :wink:


    I dont recall getting that option for the Tool shows, but they do look nice!
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 3,602
    deadendp said:
    dudeman said:
    Why even have face value then? It seems like anymore, buying concert tickets is like an auction. 

    Technically there is no face value anymore. Paper tickets are long gone and the e tickets ive used dont have a price on them.

    I could swear that these are paper... :wink:


    I dont recall getting that option for the Tool shows, but they do look nice!

    I don't believe you had the option for Tool - I think they are electronic tickets only, and won't be delivered until a week or two before the show.

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,836
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,498
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 

    I'm with the standard model that Tool is using also. Much fairer than 10c. 

    I agree the execution of how Tool tickets went from $180 to $400 can be vastly improved. 

    There is an awkwardness you are alluding to, that one fan  pays $180 to sit 3rd row and the fan in the next seat could pay $600.

    My contention is the 2nd fan is buying a ticket to a sold out tour and paying a premium for that. Market forces at work.

    Unlike 10c where the unfortunate souls sitting in the next zip code behind a barn pay the same exact price as front row. Socialism? And ticket location info about that barn is not provided at time of purchase.

     I can not imagine a more unfair ticketing system than that
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 10,121
    Poncier said:
    Ticketmaster's massive expansion of what they sell now as "Platinum" tickets (they sell balcony seats as platinum for many shows now)
    So for shits & giggles I just looked at the seat map for Tool at the TD Garden in Boston.
    They are selling Balcony 314 row 15 as Platinum. Literally the last row in the balcony, in a section just before you hit the turn at the opposite end of the stage and this is considered a "platinum" ticket and sold by TM for a huge mark up over face. I mean whether its Maynard, Danny or Live Nation who's behind it, don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just make the face value of crap seats nearly $300.00 rather than telling me its a premium "platinum" seat and worth a larger price of admission.
    Its one of the worst seats in the building. Maybe 97th percentile of bad.

    https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/01005717C0DD5F7B
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 3,602
    Poncier said:
    Poncier said:
    Ticketmaster's massive expansion of what they sell now as "Platinum" tickets (they sell balcony seats as platinum for many shows now)
    So for shits & giggles I just looked at the seat map for Tool at the TD Garden in Boston.
    They are selling Balcony 314 row 15 as Platinum. Literally the last row in the balcony, in a section just before you hit the turn at the opposite end of the stage and this is considered a "platinum" ticket and sold by TM for a huge mark up over face. I mean whether its Maynard, Danny or Live Nation who's behind it, don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just make the face value of crap seats nearly $300.00 rather than telling me its a premium "platinum" seat and worth a larger price of admission.
    Its one of the worst seats in the building. Maybe 97th percentile of bad.

    https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/01005717C0DD5F7B

    This bullshit makes the $500 VIP ticket seem like an amazing bargain.

  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,525
    Poncier said:
    Poncier said:
    Ticketmaster's massive expansion of what they sell now as "Platinum" tickets (they sell balcony seats as platinum for many shows now)
    So for shits & giggles I just looked at the seat map for Tool at the TD Garden in Boston.
    They are selling Balcony 314 row 15 as Platinum. Literally the last row in the balcony, in a section just before you hit the turn at the opposite end of the stage and this is considered a "platinum" ticket and sold by TM for a huge mark up over face. I mean whether its Maynard, Danny or Live Nation who's behind it, don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just make the face value of crap seats nearly $300.00 rather than telling me its a premium "platinum" seat and worth a larger price of admission.
    Its one of the worst seats in the building. Maybe 97th percentile of bad.

    https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/01005717C0DD5F7B

    This bullshit makes the $500 VIP ticket seem like an amazing bargain.
    https://cbsloc.al/33f6ksp
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 3,602
    dankind said:
    Poncier said:
    Poncier said:
    Ticketmaster's massive expansion of what they sell now as "Platinum" tickets (they sell balcony seats as platinum for many shows now)
    So for shits & giggles I just looked at the seat map for Tool at the TD Garden in Boston.
    They are selling Balcony 314 row 15 as Platinum. Literally the last row in the balcony, in a section just before you hit the turn at the opposite end of the stage and this is considered a "platinum" ticket and sold by TM for a huge mark up over face. I mean whether its Maynard, Danny or Live Nation who's behind it, don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just make the face value of crap seats nearly $300.00 rather than telling me its a premium "platinum" seat and worth a larger price of admission.
    Its one of the worst seats in the building. Maybe 97th percentile of bad.

    https://www1.ticketmaster.com/event/01005717C0DD5F7B

    This bullshit makes the $500 VIP ticket seem like an amazing bargain.
    https://cbsloc.al/33f6ksp


    What a shit show.

    So glad I'm over going to games & gave up my Bruins tickets.


  • ZodZod Posts: 6,251
    The thing is, if VIP/Platinum tickets don't sell at their inflated prices, they'll drop the price later, or turn them into regular tickets for sale.  It creates the flexibility to create that extra revenue for the promoter.    That's the big thing now.  Trying to maximize the revenue from ticket sales.  Basically bands/promoters were leaving a bunch of money on the table and it was all being made by scalpers/resellers.  I understand it and I mostly agree with it.

    The problem is, it's making tickets really expensive.   Not only are they using tiered pricing, but face values are skyrocketing too.  Our rolling stones tickets which were regular FV tickets, 5 rows up beside the stage, were $395 USD.    It was the 2nd highest section (the pit, and first rows behind the pit were $495).   The vip/platinum tickets were way more expensive than those.   We paid it because it was a bucket list thing.  One of the biggest rock bands we'd never seen.   No way we do that twice, let alone pay VIP/Platinum prices.   It was the same with GNR.  We went as soon as the reunited, and it was $275 usd for face value for the pit and closer seats.  We paid that in 2016, but when they came back in 2017 we skipped it.  Great show but too expensive, and don't want to make the effort for nosebleeds.

    While I realize that the amount of arena/stadium rock bands that I'd go see are dwindling, the current ticket situation is making me go to less concerts.   I know I made conscious decisions to skip shows in the past few years because the ticket prices were too high (I used to be willing to miss some work to travel, but the ticket prices are tipping the scale).

    I did read that ticket sales as a whole are going down.  Maybe I'm not the only one.   I suppose it could be less bands touring that can sell out venues, but I think the ticket prices are tipping to too high.  Of course the Stones show looked like it was sold out, so it's working for some artists.

    I also know a large amount of shows I've been to were in Vancouver which is sort of a smaller market.   It's amazing how many shows I was able to pull great tickets for (often in the pit, side stage, first 10 rows on the floor kind of thing).   Between the old 90's, call a TM in a different province when tickets go onsale, to the benefit in the 00's of being an early adopter of internet sales, to utilizing fan clubs, presale codes, knowing to hold off if you don't pull good tickets right away.   I did pretty good.  Seattle (with over double the population) was always way more challenging for tickets than Vancouver shows.    I guess I was spoiled :)
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,905
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    Of course it does. Every penny that scalpers make that isn't in turn made at the initial sale is a penny not going back to the artists in any way, shape or form. If you don't see this, that's not my fault. If $500,000 are spent on tickets and only $200,000 of them are from initial on-sale, the rest of that revenue generated went into scalpers' pockets.

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    I'm all for the initiative of stopping re-buying, but unless that's legislated, why is Ticketmaster at fault because buyers buy? If they didn't, money is left on the table, and the buyers' re-buying experience is tainted and potentially fraudulent. You find that better?

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    I don't think you understand what I wrote if you think these are in any way, shape or form related. Band gets paid a fixed amount but the resale market has no ceiling, meaning money left on the table goes into the pockets of those who haven't earned it. 

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    So businesses shouldn't look for progress that align benefits for clients with benefits for the business? I disagree with you. Aligning business decisions so that clients see more value and the business sees more value, is the right way to do business. If skeptics want to universally condemn a business because they're too cynical, that's not my fault. 

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
    It wasn't too layman for me. It was too factually inaccurate for me. I'm a big fan of simple. 
    Your pertinent lines are underlined above, and my responses are bolded. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Horse2345Horse2345 Posts: 2,885
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    UBC 92, Vancouver 93, Vancouver 98, Seattle 02, Vancouver 03, Vancouver 05, Gorge 06, Gorge 06,Seattle 09,Seattle 09, Vancouver09, Montreal 11, Toronto 11,Toronto 11, Vancouver 11,Vancouver 13, Seattle 13
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 4,020
    Horse2345 said:
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    Not only TM, but also the artist, promoter, etc. They have seen all this revenue going into scalpers' pockets and want to keep it in their bucket. As they should.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 3,602
    pjl44 said:
    Horse2345 said:
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    Not only TM, but also the artist, promoter, etc. They have seen all this revenue going into scalpers' pockets and want to keep it in their bucket. As they should.


    This is what it's about. Sure, you can look at it as a money grab by Ticketmaster, but why should they stand by and watch other entities who are literally just flipping the tickets for their real market value, take the money that would have gone to TM had they priced the tickets correctly?

    I believe it was you, @pj44 who remarked that the horses have left the barn on the whole scalping / resale industry, and the comment hit the nail on the head.

    Things will never again be like they were in the 90s, people can either adapt or stop going to concerts, there really aren't any other viable options here. It is what it is. 


  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,905
    pjl44 said:
    Horse2345 said:
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    Not only TM, but also the artist, promoter, etc. They have seen all this revenue going into scalpers' pockets and want to keep it in their bucket. As they should.


    This is what it's about. Sure, you can look at it as a money grab by Ticketmaster, but why should they stand by and watch other entities who are literally just flipping the tickets for their real market value, take the money that would have gone to TM had they priced the tickets correctly?

    I believe it was you, @pj44 who remarked that the horses have left the barn on the whole scalping / resale industry, and the comment hit the nail on the head.

    Things will never again be like they were in the 90s, people can either adapt or stop going to concerts, there really aren't any other viable options here. It is what it is. 

    Some people want to try to wind back the clock and complain about today's realities. Others see the world moving and try to adapt to the realities it imposes. A third kind just know that they're paying more than they used to, are angry, and will complain at any stakeholder who takes their money. I think that third kind represents the majority sadly. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,836
    benjs said:
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    Of course it does. Every penny that scalpers make that isn't in turn made at the initial sale is a penny not going back to the artists in any way, shape or form. If you don't see this, that's not my fault. If $500,000 are spent on tickets and only $200,000 of them are from initial on-sale, the rest of that revenue generated went into scalpers' pockets.

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    I'm all for the initiative of stopping re-buying, but unless that's legislated, why is Ticketmaster at fault because buyers buy? If they didn't, money is left on the table, and the buyers' re-buying experience is tainted and potentially fraudulent. You find that better?

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    I don't think you understand what I wrote if you think these are in any way, shape or form related. Band gets paid a fixed amount but the resale market has no ceiling, meaning money left on the table goes into the pockets of those who haven't earned it. 

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    So businesses shouldn't look for progress that align benefits for clients with benefits for the business? I disagree with you. Aligning business decisions so that clients see more value and the business sees more value, is the right way to do business. If skeptics want to universally condemn a business because they're too cynical, that's not my fault. 

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
    It wasn't too layman for me. It was too factually inaccurate for me. I'm a big fan of simple. 
    Your pertinent lines are underlined above, and my responses are bolded. 

    Platinum ticketicking doesn't give the band one extra cent.  Like I said they have a contract already so anyone scalping or selling for over face value is making the money, not the band.  The venue can resell for whatever they want and they get the money, not the band.

    Your last statement makes it abundantly clear that you are ok with what TM is doing so that is fine.  Their further use of blockchain will quite possibly make it so you can not sell your ticket at face value to someone and have to purchase at a marked up or at least tack on more fees.

    Purchasing power will further be taken away from the consumer and leveraged even more in favor to the corporation.  

    I'm all for progress but price gouging just isn't it...

    You being a fan of simple is inaccurate...C'mon now.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,836
    pjl44 said:
    Horse2345 said:
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    Not only TM, but also the artist, promoter, etc. They have seen all this revenue going into scalpers' pockets and want to keep it in their bucket. As they should.


    This is what it's about. Sure, you can look at it as a money grab by Ticketmaster, but why should they stand by and watch other entities who are literally just flipping the tickets for their real market value, take the money that would have gone to TM had they priced the tickets correctly?

    I believe it was you, @pj44 who remarked that the horses have left the barn on the whole scalping / resale industry, and the comment hit the nail on the head.

    Things will never again be like they were in the 90s, people can either adapt or stop going to concerts, there really aren't any other viable options here. It is what it is. 

    Emek and Sperry currently do this with their "archived" posters.  They do realize that there is a secondary market for their prints and they charge more for them but they do sell them below market value.

    What TM is doing though is to make maximum profits for the corporation and not the band.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 3,602
    pjl44 said:
    Horse2345 said:
    I laugh that anybody thinks that the new ticket pricing has anything to do with anything other than TM making more money. Anytime anybody has a monopoly on anything it's all about them making as much money as they possibly can. 
    Not only TM, but also the artist, promoter, etc. They have seen all this revenue going into scalpers' pockets and want to keep it in their bucket. As they should.


    This is what it's about. Sure, you can look at it as a money grab by Ticketmaster, but why should they stand by and watch other entities who are literally just flipping the tickets for their real market value, take the money that would have gone to TM had they priced the tickets correctly?

    I believe it was you, @pj44 who remarked that the horses have left the barn on the whole scalping / resale industry, and the comment hit the nail on the head.

    Things will never again be like they were in the 90s, people can either adapt or stop going to concerts, there really aren't any other viable options here. It is what it is. 

    Emek and Sperry currently do this with their "archived" posters.  They do realize that there is a secondary market for their prints and they charge more for them but they do sell them below market value.

    What TM is doing though is to make maximum profits for the corporation and not the band.
    I think platinum tickets are bullshit. 

    I am on board w/ ideas like tiered pricing (from the get go, not a month later when the market’s been set), or other new ideas that can get the maximum # of tickets into the hands of fans for a fair price. 

  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 4,020
    benjs said:
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    Of course it does. Every penny that scalpers make that isn't in turn made at the initial sale is a penny not going back to the artists in any way, shape or form. If you don't see this, that's not my fault. If $500,000 are spent on tickets and only $200,000 of them are from initial on-sale, the rest of that revenue generated went into scalpers' pockets.

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    I'm all for the initiative of stopping re-buying, but unless that's legislated, why is Ticketmaster at fault because buyers buy? If they didn't, money is left on the table, and the buyers' re-buying experience is tainted and potentially fraudulent. You find that better?

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    I don't think you understand what I wrote if you think these are in any way, shape or form related. Band gets paid a fixed amount but the resale market has no ceiling, meaning money left on the table goes into the pockets of those who haven't earned it. 

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    So businesses shouldn't look for progress that align benefits for clients with benefits for the business? I disagree with you. Aligning business decisions so that clients see more value and the business sees more value, is the right way to do business. If skeptics want to universally condemn a business because they're too cynical, that's not my fault. 

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
    It wasn't too layman for me. It was too factually inaccurate for me. I'm a big fan of simple. 
    Your pertinent lines are underlined above, and my responses are bolded. 

    Platinum ticketicking doesn't give the band one extra cent.  Like I said they have a contract already so anyone scalping or selling for over face value is making the money, not the band.
    You don't know that and we've already cited a number of situations where the artist worked out arrangements to share that revenue. If Metallica is working with them to divert premium seats, all bets are off. 
  • ZodZod Posts: 6,251
    benjs said:
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:


    As far as I know TM only makes money on service charges.    The prices of the tickets being tiered to maximize revenue benefits the promoter and the band.




    Its been proven that some of the "verified resale" tickets available are just Ticketmaster selling seats above face value, so they don't only make money from service charges.

    And the promoter in the vast majority of cases is Live Nation, who by the way is also Ticketmaster. They merged in 2010.


    I also had to sell a pair of GNR tickets a few years ago (bought a better pair).   TM's cut was nasty.    Stubhub was a fair bit cheaper.   If your a person trying to sell an extra pair you already have to ask way above face just to break even :(
    That's another good point. Convenience has definitely come with a cost. It's the same when you're selling stuff on Ebay. Ebay takes their slice, PayPal takes their slice, then you rub your chin a little. 
    I do believe that you are the only person in the discussion that doesn't have a problem w TM and or the Platinum seats.
    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    Of course it does. Every penny that scalpers make that isn't in turn made at the initial sale is a penny not going back to the artists in any way, shape or form. If you don't see this, that's not my fault. If $500,000 are spent on tickets and only $200,000 of them are from initial on-sale, the rest of that revenue generated went into scalpers' pockets.

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    I'm all for the initiative of stopping re-buying, but unless that's legislated, why is Ticketmaster at fault because buyers buy? If they didn't, money is left on the table, and the buyers' re-buying experience is tainted and potentially fraudulent. You find that better?

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    I don't think you understand what I wrote if you think these are in any way, shape or form related. Band gets paid a fixed amount but the resale market has no ceiling, meaning money left on the table goes into the pockets of those who haven't earned it. 

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    So businesses shouldn't look for progress that align benefits for clients with benefits for the business? I disagree with you. Aligning business decisions so that clients see more value and the business sees more value, is the right way to do business. If skeptics want to universally condemn a business because they're too cynical, that's not my fault. 

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
    It wasn't too layman for me. It was too factually inaccurate for me. I'm a big fan of simple. 
    Your pertinent lines are underlined above, and my responses are bolded. 

    Platinum ticketicking doesn't give the band one extra cent.  Like I said they have a contract already so anyone scalping or selling for over face value is making the money, not the band.  The venue can resell for whatever they want and they get the money, not the band.

    Your last statement makes it abundantly clear that you are ok with what TM is doing so that is fine.  Their further use of blockchain will quite possibly make it so you can not sell your ticket at face value to someone and have to purchase at a marked up or at least tack on more fees.

    Purchasing power will further be taken away from the consumer and leveraged even more in favor to the corporation.  

    I'm all for progress but price gouging just isn't it...

    You being a fan of simple is inaccurate...C'mon now.
    No, but the promoter makes a guarantee to the band.  Say, we'll pay you 1.4 million to do this show.  Then the promoter needs to generate that money.  It was one of the reasons promoters were selling tickets to scalpers.   The guarantee was more than the value of all the tickets at face value.   It's the same thing with platinum tickets.  Promoter pays band X amount of money, then they need to figure out how to make that from ticket sales.   If the promoter is able to use things like platinum tickets to charge more, it creates opportunity to pay the bands larger guarantees.

    Ergo platinum tickets do result in the bands getting paid more.  Yes the promoter probably makes more too, but they also need to figure out how to pay higher guarantee's to the band.

    Platinum tickets are not the same as paying over FV.   The revenue goes to band to the promoter just like regular tickets, and the promoter pays the amount guranteed to the band.  
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,905
    Zod said:
    benjs said:
    benjs said:
    pjl44 said:
    Zod said:
    Poncier said:
    Zod said:










    Nope. I'm right there with pjl44. Dynamic pricing and high-priced options optimize the amount of revenue that an artist can receive, whereas a fixed price that's below an optimal price will sell out the venue and forfeit potential revenue to the resale market. In both cases roughly the same cumulative revenue can be generated by the market, but a greater percentage of the revenue earned reaches the actual stakeholders and the risk of empty seats can be mitigated with a dynamic pricing model.

    In addition, in a free market like this one, static pricing means that a select few get the best seats in the house way below their market value by fluke at the initial on-sale, but the cumulative amount paid for the best seats in the house is typically way more than that (since someone is buying once at face value, and then someone may re-buy for three times the price).

    In terms of equitable distribution of revenue (either from first sales or resales), with blockchains, there's a logical next step where tickets are 'contracts' and ticket resales proportionally send revenues back to the stakeholders in prescribed ratios and also truly fight the potential of fraudulent tickets. This isn't just guesswork or original thought - Ticketmaster acquired a ticketing blockchain company last year.

    I apologize if I didn't communicate this well - got to love hash :) 
    Absolute babbling above...

    First paragraph-Selling at the "same price" for every location in the venue doesn't actually lose anyone money if priced right and it sells out. The object is to make money so selling out a venue, while priced right is a sure fire way to doing that. The Misfits show is a perfect example of that where overpriced tiers aren't selling out because demand isn't high enough and prices are dumb.   

    Of course it does. Every penny that scalpers make that isn't in turn made at the initial sale is a penny not going back to the artists in any way, shape or form. If you don't see this, that's not my fault. If $500,000 are spent on tickets and only $200,000 of them are from initial on-sale, the rest of that revenue generated went into scalpers' pockets.

    If you think that selling row 1 and nosebleeds at the same price is leaving money on the table then I'll agree because but I'm not paying $250 for nosebleeds. Price them right and I'll buy.

    Paragraph 2- Stop the rebuying.  I thought that's what we were all arguing about?!?  Many fans like to be "in the building" so they don't care about where they are.  

    I'm all for the initiative of stopping re-buying, but unless that's legislated, why is Ticketmaster at fault because buyers buy? If they didn't, money is left on the table, and the buyers' re-buying experience is tainted and potentially fraudulent. You find that better?

    Of course "cumulative pricing" would be more when reselling is involved.  It's what we are arguing about...

    Paragraph 3-  Using a damn blockchain is only going to help bots acquire more of the better seats.  Computers always find a way...  The way the reselling works right now is that TM sells tickets at a marked up price to pad their pockets and not make additional revenue for the band.  There is already a contract in place with the band.   Band gets paid X amount whether it sells out or not.  This is the reason TM does what it does.

    I don't think you understand what I wrote if you think these are in any way, shape or form related. Band gets paid a fixed amount but the resale market has no ceiling, meaning money left on the table goes into the pockets of those who haven't earned it. 

    Using the Blockchain may help with fraudulent tickets but that is because TM WANTS you to use their system and  scalp from them and not Joe in the parking lot because it is revenue that they potentially are losing on.

    So businesses shouldn't look for progress that align benefits for clients with benefits for the business? I disagree with you. Aligning business decisions so that clients see more value and the business sees more value, is the right way to do business. If skeptics want to universally condemn a business because they're too cynical, that's not my fault. 

    TM's motto "fan Verified" is a crock of shit and they can care less who gets the tickets as long as the money trail ends up with them.  They can care less what the band does or doesn't make too.

    I apologize if it is too layman for you- got to love k.i.s.s. 
    It wasn't too layman for me. It was too factually inaccurate for me. I'm a big fan of simple. 
    Your pertinent lines are underlined above, and my responses are bolded. 

    Platinum ticketicking doesn't give the band one extra cent.  Like I said they have a contract already so anyone scalping or selling for over face value is making the money, not the band.  The venue can resell for whatever they want and they get the money, not the band.

    Your last statement makes it abundantly clear that you are ok with what TM is doing so that is fine.  Their further use of blockchain will quite possibly make it so you can not sell your ticket at face value to someone and have to purchase at a marked up or at least tack on more fees.

    Purchasing power will further be taken away from the consumer and leveraged even more in favor to the corporation.  

    I'm all for progress but price gouging just isn't it...

    You being a fan of simple is inaccurate...C'mon now.
    No, but the promoter makes a guarantee to the band.  Say, we'll pay you 1.4 million to do this show.  Then the promoter needs to generate that money.  It was one of the reasons promoters were selling tickets to scalpers.   The guarantee was more than the value of all the tickets at face value.   It's the same thing with platinum tickets.  Promoter pays band X amount of money, then they need to figure out how to make that from ticket sales.   If the promoter is able to use things like platinum tickets to charge more, it creates opportunity to pay the bands larger guarantees.

    Ergo platinum tickets do result in the bands getting paid more.  Yes the promoter probably makes more too, but they also need to figure out how to pay higher guarantee's to the band.

    Platinum tickets are not the same as paying over FV.   The revenue goes to band to the promoter just like regular tickets, and the promoter pays the amount guranteed to the band.  
    Thanks for the details on this. I wasn't sure precisely how it worked, just knew that there's a correlation between the amount the buyer pays and the amount the band receives on platinum tickets.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Spark28Spark28 Posts: 64
    Ticketmaster doesn't have nearly as much control as many of you think on a lot of these items.

    To have verified resale, the band/promoter have to agree to turn on resale for the event. Once the decision is made to turn on resale, the fees, as with all the ticket service fees, are split between TM and the promoter/venue. With the number of resale sites out there, it isn't possible to stop the resale of tickets. Measures have been put in place to control the resale like digital tickets, rotating barcodes, block chain, etc., but it will continue to happen and in many states must be allowed to happen. It comes down to does the promoter want the primary tickets listed with resale tickets that could be above or below the "face value".

    The promoter chooses to sell platinum tickets. The promoter chooses to sell VIP packages. The promoter chooses to have special presales. Bands can chose their promoter. Bands can take a smaller paycheck and dictate not to use some of these options. Ticketmaster just facilitates these transactions. If Ticketmaster did not facilitate these transactions, they would shift to another site that would. 
Sign In or Register to comment.