What was the effect of not having a GA Only option?

JimmyV

Having now been through the complete process, and even forgiving the miscues and poor communication, it is clear that no GA-only option was and will be suboptimal. Forcing people into reserved seats they don't want does push others back.

I have roughly middle of the road seniority and ended up in the third deck Stone side for both nights in Chicago. We of course don't have solid numbers, but any member with less seniority than me received worse seats than that. 

Every lottery has tweaks and differences. Maybe there will be different rules and more shows next time. This experience, however, was a lesson learned. I will proceed with more caution when making picks in the future. 

jdopj

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

Eddieredder

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

mattcoz

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

know1

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

pjl44

Optimal/suboptimal breaks with whether it improves your personal seating situation. If GA is still going to be in the mix, two thumbs up from me on the GA/Res play with no GA only.

Eddieredder

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

its probably all of the above. never just one thing. 

Lerxst1992

Eddieredder said:

mattcoz said:

GA pushes everyone back, having fewer shows mean a higher percentage of overall members are selecting each show and pushes everyone back, more ten club seating overall means a higher percentage of winners and pushes everyone back, and of course premium seats pushes everyone back.

Also, in those early years, we could only choose one show. So, there was just much fewer club seats and therefore our seats were a lot better.

I'll bet good $ F2F also pushes people back. More entries since they can now unload tix. 

I entered Chicago with late priority with no expectation of winning, but as a backup in case the higher priority shows didn't work out. Zero risk since I can transfer. Pending re-assignment of course.......but you have to assume I pushed people back. 

All these are good explanations why the 10c seats are going to keep getting worse for those of us who joined in last 10 years 

If they're no longer doing GA only,  seems to be minimal reason to pay the annual fee for whats likely to be upper lever upper rows. Might as well risk it all on f2f 

mattcoz

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

I might believe that if there was ever any doubt that these shows would be sold out. Maybe it made it more of a guarantee, so maybe it played a part, but I don't see it being the main factor in the decision.

mattcoz

Eddieredder said:

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

its probably all of the above. never just one thing. 

That's something people never seem to understand.

know1

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

its probably all of the above. never just one thing. 

That's something people never seem to understand.

Nobody is ever going to fully understand any of the decisions that were made by the club or why they were made and what the results were. Even if they came out to and told us. 

kaw753

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

know1 said:

mattcoz said:

Eddieredder said:

jdopj said:

Eddieredder said:

At this point people know GA odds are tough. There are numbers behind this. How many people are GA or bust? I'd bet its a small percentage. So if 90+ percent of people are going GA and then reserved anyway its not going to matter. 

Feels like the issue here was they clearly got way more FC seats and its crossed a dividing line of what people want. 

A lot of people are GA or bust. Secondary accounts, touring partners with multiple accounts, large groups of touring friends who coordinated their choices to increase their odds of GA. 

How much is a lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody knows but the club, and the decision they made doesn't reflect that its "a lot"

Actually it kinda does. They could have made this decision in response to those people trying to game the GA system. If it wasn't "a lot", then it wouldn't have been necessary.

No. It's doubtful that's why the decision was made. No GA only just meant they would sell a lot more fan club tickets. 

its probably all of the above. never just one thing. 

That's something people never seem to understand.

Nobody is ever going to fully understand any of the decisions that were made by the club or why they were made and what the results were. Even if they came out to and told us. 

There might also be something like Ticketmaster have a set of features that they offer fanclubs and the GA only option simply isn't in their product.

Clearly, seniority didn't undergo a whole lot of QA.

SHZA

Lerxst1992 said:

Eddieredder said:

mattcoz said:

GA pushes everyone back, having fewer shows mean a higher percentage of overall members are selecting each show and pushes everyone back, more ten club seating overall means a higher percentage of winners and pushes everyone back, and of course premium seats pushes everyone back.

Also, in those early years, we could only choose one show. So, there was just much fewer club seats and therefore our seats were a lot better.

I'll bet good $ F2F also pushes people back. More entries since they can now unload tix. 

I entered Chicago with late priority with no expectation of winning, but as a backup in case the higher priority shows didn't work out. Zero risk since I can transfer. Pending re-assignment of course.......but you have to assume I pushed people back. 

All these are good explanations why the 10c seats are going to keep getting worse for those of us who joined in last 10 years 

If they're no longer doing GA only,  seems to be minimal reason to pay the annual fee for whats likely to be upper lever upper rows. Might as well risk it all on f2f 

Access to exclusive merch and the forum alone easily makes the annual fee worth it. Getting a band signed poster for $350 is worth many years of annual fees even if you never get tickets. 

know1

SHZA said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Eddieredder said:

mattcoz said:

GA pushes everyone back, having fewer shows mean a higher percentage of overall members are selecting each show and pushes everyone back, more ten club seating overall means a higher percentage of winners and pushes everyone back, and of course premium seats pushes everyone back.

Also, in those early years, we could only choose one show. So, there was just much fewer club seats and therefore our seats were a lot better.

I'll bet good $ F2F also pushes people back. More entries since they can now unload tix. 

I entered Chicago with late priority with no expectation of winning, but as a backup in case the higher priority shows didn't work out. Zero risk since I can transfer. Pending re-assignment of course.......but you have to assume I pushed people back. 

All these are good explanations why the 10c seats are going to keep getting worse for those of us who joined in last 10 years 

If they're no longer doing GA only,  seems to be minimal reason to pay the annual fee for whats likely to be upper lever upper rows. Might as well risk it all on f2f 

Access to exclusive merch and the forum alone easily makes the annual fee worth it. Getting a band signed poster for $350 is worth many years of annual fees even if you never get tickets. 

Well those aren't incentives for me at all. I've been a member for all these years simply for the tickets. I've never bought anything else except a few bootlegs and I could care less about the forum. The activity here is a tiny fraction of what it once was. 

mookieb14

For those with low numbers.  Don’t bother wondering what numbers the people in front of you have.  Most won’t have one.  Premium 

Lerxst1992

know1 said:

SHZA said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Eddieredder said:

mattcoz said:

GA pushes everyone back, having fewer shows mean a higher percentage of overall members are selecting each show and pushes everyone back, more ten club seating overall means a higher percentage of winners and pushes everyone back, and of course premium seats pushes everyone back.

Also, in those early years, we could only choose one show. So, there was just much fewer club seats and therefore our seats were a lot better.

I'll bet good $ F2F also pushes people back. More entries since they can now unload tix. 

I entered Chicago with late priority with no expectation of winning, but as a backup in case the higher priority shows didn't work out. Zero risk since I can transfer. Pending re-assignment of course.......but you have to assume I pushed people back. 

All these are good explanations why the 10c seats are going to keep getting worse for those of us who joined in last 10 years 

If they're no longer doing GA only,  seems to be minimal reason to pay the annual fee for whats likely to be upper lever upper rows. Might as well risk it all on f2f 

Access to exclusive merch and the forum alone easily makes the annual fee worth it. Getting a band signed poster for $350 is worth many years of annual fees even if you never get tickets. 

Well those aren't incentives for me at all. I've been a member for all these years simply for the tickets. I've never bought anything else except a few bootlegs and I could care less about the forum. The activity here is a tiny fraction of what it once was. 

It’s terrific for the fans who love merch and downloads. I’m more of a download person,and am very much enjoying the show I got with this years fee. But if I want a show boot, I’d rather just buy it outright.

they created a great system for fans who were smart enough to join in the 90s. I never liked the idea of buying something and not knowing where the tix were, so am paying the cost of that decision forever. With all the factors now, with f2f,more disposable income, etc, low # fans are getting the best seats for multiple shows each tour and newer members are getting no chance at decent seats (as we age, the concept of seat is becoming paramount, and they’ll never offer a full lottery section for sitting). Or they’ll never tell us what their future  ticketing plans are, or what ticket options members from 2015 onward can expect.

if they did this new no GA to guarantee more 10c sales by putting the same fans in the uppers over and over again, with no way out of the seniority system, then there’s really no reason to stay unless u like merch  I guess.

I really wish they were more transparent at the time of membership purchase, not offering GA only is a huge deal and we get zero information at time of fee renewal. The only reason I don’t have a number under 99xxx, is not knowing seat location (and plenty of early shows had mediocre  10c locations). I know, they owe us nothing. But as a paying customer, I’d not do business this way.

Zod

The seniority has been a bit odd.  It started on the 2000 tour but it was done in sections, then the 2003 tour in specific seats.   So if you joined the fan club in the early years (90/91 to the mid 90s) you got amazing seats every time.   You would of been in the fan club for 7+ years for the 2000 tour and 10+ years for the 2003 tour.  Someone who signed up in 2003, didn't get the same privledge in 2010 or 2013. 

There's not really enough attrition amongst people who signed up for the 10c prior to seniority.    So people got a lifetime of amazing seats for signed up early, even though they didn't know it at the time.  People who signed up late perpetually got mediocre seats.

The GA thing was great as my seats did start to get a fair bit further back, so even with a '98 membership I quite liked the GA option.

I do think this new move makes most people worse off overall.   I think a fair amount of people did GA or bust, especially when it game to the question of, should I travel for a show).  Oh I got GA, that's worth a trip.     But now with a fair amount of people unhappy with the seats, they'll resell them on fan2fan or elsewhere, and a bunch of 10c'ers sit futher back, while non 10c'ers bought the resold tickets.

I think having the GA only option is good.   Sure it's low odds, especially in big markets (I remember smaller markets like Vancouver doing a 2nd draw in 2013), but it keeps people from getting tickets they don't want and reselling them (pushing other 10c'ers further back).

but yah.. If I started getting nosebleeds.. then I would question if it's worth the 35 usd a year, because you can get those fairly easily for most shows.   Which causes a conundrum.  10c secures more tickets than ever before which means they go further back in the arena, which has now disgruntled people.   Maybe they shouldn't try so hard either?

100 Pacer

Zod said:

The seniority has been a bit odd.  It started on the 2000 tour but it was done in sections, then the 2003 tour in specific seats.   So if you joined the fan club in the early years (90/91 to the mid 90s) you got amazing seats every time.   You would of been in the fan club for 7+ years for the 2000 tour and 10+ years for the 2003 tour.  Someone who signed up in 2003, didn't get the same privledge in 2010 or 2013. 

There's not really enough attrition amongst people who signed up for the 10c prior to seniority.    So people got a lifetime of amazing seats for signed up early, even though they didn't know it at the time.  People who signed up late perpetually got mediocre seats.

The GA thing was great as my seats did start to get a fair bit further back, so even with a '98 membership I quite liked the GA option.

I do think this new move makes most people worse off overall.   I think a fair amount of people did GA or bust, especially when it game to the question of, should I travel for a show).  Oh I got GA, that's worth a trip.     But now with a fair amount of people unhappy with the seats, they'll resell them on fan2fan or elsewhere, and a bunch of 10c'ers sit futher back, while non 10c'ers bought the resold tickets.

I think having the GA only option is good.   Sure it's low odds, especially in big markets (I remember smaller markets like Vancouver doing a 2nd draw in 2013), but it keeps people from getting tickets they don't want and reselling them (pushing other 10c'ers further back).

but yah.. If I started getting nosebleeds.. then I would question if it's worth the 35 usd a year, because you can get those fairly easily for most shows.   Which causes a conundrum.  10c secures more tickets than ever before which means they go further back in the arena, which has now disgruntled people.   Maybe they shouldn't try so hard either?

Started before 2000 - 10C was allocating ‘96 and ‘98 reserved seats based on seniority as well but can’t speak to tours prior.

SHZA

know1 said:

SHZA said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Eddieredder said:

mattcoz said:

GA pushes everyone back, having fewer shows mean a higher percentage of overall members are selecting each show and pushes everyone back, more ten club seating overall means a higher percentage of winners and pushes everyone back, and of course premium seats pushes everyone back.

Also, in those early years, we could only choose one show. So, there was just much fewer club seats and therefore our seats were a lot better.

I'll bet good $ F2F also pushes people back. More entries since they can now unload tix. 

I entered Chicago with late priority with no expectation of winning, but as a backup in case the higher priority shows didn't work out. Zero risk since I can transfer. Pending re-assignment of course.......but you have to assume I pushed people back. 

All these are good explanations why the 10c seats are going to keep getting worse for those of us who joined in last 10 years 

If they're no longer doing GA only,  seems to be minimal reason to pay the annual fee for whats likely to be upper lever upper rows. Might as well risk it all on f2f 

Access to exclusive merch and the forum alone easily makes the annual fee worth it. Getting a band signed poster for $350 is worth many years of annual fees even if you never get tickets. 

Well those aren't incentives for me at all. I've been a member for all these years simply for the tickets. I've never bought anything else except a few bootlegs and I could care less about the forum. The activity here is a tiny fraction of what it once was. 

Fair enough. I guess like anything else, whether something is worth it depends on the individual. For many people, ticket access isn't the only member benefit that would justify the rather modest annual fee 

mcatake

I believe PJ Premium is a way bigger problem for quality of seats than the GA option. This is rooted in pure greed.  "in order to offset costs" As if the tour is put on at a financial loss. lol.  What they meant to say was "in order to increase profit"  It's weird I see a lot more people pointing at the GA option and not as much attention on the impact of PJ Premium.