Ticketmaster Verified Resale, Dynamic Pricing, etc.

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove 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  

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

dankind said:

Merkin Baller 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.

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove 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. 

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

Zod said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove 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.