Listen....it LOOKS like it worked

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

MickeyMouse said:

Bentleyspop said:

Triberjay25 said:

https://vipseats.com/search?q=pearl+jam

Starting to pop up on more major scalper sites.  VIP Seats is a pretty well known legit site, they have tickets to every show......

It's  the exact same software with the exact same ticket listings as the link provided above.

Yea most professional scalpers/brokers will list their inventory across all platforms. 

Again, the system worked. The percentage of tickets on the secondary market is remarkably low, which is what they wanted. 

It sounds to me while reading this thread that some people are slowly realizing that scalpers are a necessary evil. For years all I read on this board were "bots and scalpers ruin it for everyone! Die!" and now all I see are "you know, this really hurts the people who didn't get tickets because now we have nowhere to go to get them..."

Necessary? In the sense that people with the funds/motivation to buy from scalpers need them to get into shows, I suppose you're right. But let's imagine a world without scalping. How do the shows/crowds themselves differ? Some people are shut out, but others get in. Who gets in might look marginally different (better? worse?). I think the "necessary evil" bit is implicit fatalism coupled with insidious classism.  

I’m not sure whether these questions were rhetorical or not, but to me at least the answers are not clear. Even if you try to set aside you own particular interests and view it objectively, I think how you look at it depends on both how you conceptualize the distribution of fans relative to their ability to avail themselves of the optionality offered by the scalping market (which, as @MickeyMouse points out, will differ depending not just on the distribution of cash among the fans but on what kind of markup we’re talking about, which depends on the supply/demand dynamics of the particular show) AND how you think about the fairness of the face value ticket price. If you set the face value as the “default” price and think of the scalping market as offering tickets at unfairly high rates, it looks one way. If you think about the secondary market as establishing the “fair” price based on supply and demand, and the initial “face value” sales as essentially a lottery for discounted tickets, it looks another way. 

The above paragraph is based on a process-oriented approach toward this question, but your questions also suggest a potential outcome-oriented approach (under which system would the shows be better?) that I’d prefer not to engage with, because to me it necessarily involves a level of insidious (if not invidious) classism (i.e. rich fans are somehow worse as fans). 

For what it’s worth, I think you and I tend to have the same sympathies and at least on an intellectual level I’d prefer a world with less or no scalping, and I support the band’s efforts in this regard and applaud their success. But also, as someone who could afford to do it if I wanted I sure wish I could hop on StubHub and grab some tickets for Baltimore. 

I appreciate your response and ideas, but this curmudgeonly Leftist must say I'm not sure how much our sympathies align, because I'd never even entertain the notion that the market or supply and demand are reconcilable with fairness. Markets are, by definition, unfair. So, my disdain for the secondary market comes from creating an even less palatable market on top of another. 

Ok, so the questions were rhetorical. Sorry for wasting everyone’s time. 

I tried to choose my words carefully and say we had similar sympathies (rather than “we agree”) because I think you and I both tend to think that the right criterion for judging the extent to which ticket systems are “fair” is the extent to which they result in the most face-value tickets ending up in the hands of people who want to attend the show. My point was that that is (obviously) not the only conception of fairness, and furthermore that there is space to adopt a different definition of fairness that doesn’t simply resolve to “economic might makes right,” and people of good faith could, under certain assumptions, conclude that the availability of a robust secondary market increases overall “fairness” for reasons other than “fuck you I want mine.” 

Taken to the extreme, I think your comment here could be read as completely foreclosing the possibility that any ticket system that operates within the larger economic systems prevailing in the US (and I’d say at least the rest of the portions of the planet that Pearl Jam is likely to play) could be considered “fair” and that any further analysis is useless. Even a system where free, 100% non-transferable tickets were raffled off would privilege those of us who have computers with which to enter it, jobs that allow us to attend the show, access to child care, etc. On the one hand that’s kind of a non-sequiter, on the other once you admit the possibility of fairness within those constraints, were just haggling about the proverbial price.  

I do sincerely appreciate thoughtful responses, so I apologize if I'm coming across as dickish (to you, at least--I'm happy to be dickish to some others). I imagine we're approaching the entire issue from fundamentally different starting points, because, yeah, "any ticket system that operates" under capitalism is unfair. I don't think that necessarily makes all further analysis useless. We can still say X is worse than Y, while recognizing that X and Y are both bad. I guess my point then--as my sleep-deprived mind struggles to recall it--is simply that the frame you offered for reconceptualizing fairness relied on underpinning notions of the market. From my perspective, if the market is fundamentally unfair, the creation of a secondary market that reproduces in magnified form the inequalities of the original market can only be...more unfair. 

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

MickeyMouse said:

Bentleyspop said:

Triberjay25 said:

https://vipseats.com/search?q=pearl+jam

Starting to pop up on more major scalper sites.  VIP Seats is a pretty well known legit site, they have tickets to every show......

It's  the exact same software with the exact same ticket listings as the link provided above.

Yea most professional scalpers/brokers will list their inventory across all platforms. 

Again, the system worked. The percentage of tickets on the secondary market is remarkably low, which is what they wanted. 

It sounds to me while reading this thread that some people are slowly realizing that scalpers are a necessary evil. For years all I read on this board were "bots and scalpers ruin it for everyone! Die!" and now all I see are "you know, this really hurts the people who didn't get tickets because now we have nowhere to go to get them..."

Necessary? In the sense that people with the funds/motivation to buy from scalpers need them to get into shows, I suppose you're right. But let's imagine a world without scalping. How do the shows/crowds themselves differ? Some people are shut out, but others get in. Who gets in might look marginally different (better? worse?). I think the "necessary evil" bit is implicit fatalism coupled with insidious classism.  

I’m not sure whether these questions were rhetorical or not, but to me at least the answers are not clear. Even if you try to set aside you own particular interests and view it objectively, I think how you look at it depends on both how you conceptualize the distribution of fans relative to their ability to avail themselves of the optionality offered by the scalping market (which, as @MickeyMouse points out, will differ depending not just on the distribution of cash among the fans but on what kind of markup we’re talking about, which depends on the supply/demand dynamics of the particular show) AND how you think about the fairness of the face value ticket price. If you set the face value as the “default” price and think of the scalping market as offering tickets at unfairly high rates, it looks one way. If you think about the secondary market as establishing the “fair” price based on supply and demand, and the initial “face value” sales as essentially a lottery for discounted tickets, it looks another way. 

The above paragraph is based on a process-oriented approach toward this question, but your questions also suggest a potential outcome-oriented approach (under which system would the shows be better?) that I’d prefer not to engage with, because to me it necessarily involves a level of insidious (if not invidious) classism (i.e. rich fans are somehow worse as fans). 

For what it’s worth, I think you and I tend to have the same sympathies and at least on an intellectual level I’d prefer a world with less or no scalping, and I support the band’s efforts in this regard and applaud their success. But also, as someone who could afford to do it if I wanted I sure wish I could hop on StubHub and grab some tickets for Baltimore. 

I appreciate your response and ideas, but this curmudgeonly Leftist must say I'm not sure how much our sympathies align, because I'd never even entertain the notion that the market or supply and demand are reconcilable with fairness. Markets are, by definition, unfair. So, my disdain for the secondary market comes from creating an even less palatable market on top of another. 

Ok, so the questions were rhetorical. Sorry for wasting everyone’s time. 

I tried to choose my words carefully and say we had similar sympathies (rather than “we agree”) because I think you and I both tend to think that the right criterion for judging the extent to which ticket systems are “fair” is the extent to which they result in the most face-value tickets ending up in the hands of people who want to attend the show. My point was that that is (obviously) not the only conception of fairness, and furthermore that there is space to adopt a different definition of fairness that doesn’t simply resolve to “economic might makes right,” and people of good faith could, under certain assumptions, conclude that the availability of a robust secondary market increases overall “fairness” for reasons other than “fuck you I want mine.” 

Taken to the extreme, I think your comment here could be read as completely foreclosing the possibility that any ticket system that operates within the larger economic systems prevailing in the US (and I’d say at least the rest of the portions of the planet that Pearl Jam is likely to play) could be considered “fair” and that any further analysis is useless. Even a system where free, 100% non-transferable tickets were raffled off would privilege those of us who have computers with which to enter it, jobs that allow us to attend the show, access to child care, etc. On the one hand that’s kind of a non-sequiter, on the other once you admit the possibility of fairness within those constraints, were just haggling about the proverbial price.  

I do sincerely appreciate thoughtful responses, so I apologize if I'm coming across as dickish (to you, at least--I'm happy to be dickish to some others). I imagine we're approaching the entire issue from fundamentally different starting points, because, yeah, "any ticket system that operates" under capitalism is unfair. I don't think that necessarily makes all further analysis useless. We can still say X is worse than Y, while recognizing that X and Y are both bad. I guess my point then--as my sleep-deprived mind struggles to recall it--is simply that the frame you offered for reconceptualizing fairness relied on underpinning notions of the market. From my perspective, if the market is fundamentally unfair, the creation of a secondary market that reproduces in magnified form the inequalities of the original market can only be...more unfair. 

What if there were a system that operated the way PJ is attempting with this tour, except that the face value of each ticket was $5,000. Which shows would then be operating under the more “fair” system, in your estimation: the ones where tickets could only be obtained for face value, or NY and CO where the secondary market prices were driven by supply and demand?

This is one of those giant douche v. turd sandwich choices, but I’m going with option 1, primarily because I have a soft spot for artists. At least PJ is producing something of value, whereas resalers are not. 

ecdanc said:

  I see, so the relevant question is not who gets the tickets or why, but who is profiting from it. In that case I guess it’s true that our sympathies are not in alignment, residing as mine do with the workaday hustlers of the secondary market over the corporate fatcats at Ticketmaster. 

Apologies if I misunderstood: I assumed the extra money was going to the band, not to TM (which should be fired into the sun). I’m a little skeptical of your image of the proletarian scalpers, so in that case I’ll change my choice to equally shitty. 

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Triberjay25 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Triberjay25 said:

I just wonder how they have pit tickets listed for the LA show?

I stand corrected....If a 10c member entered GA only and got tix then they would know for sure.

Yes those fuckers should be sought out and booted

Agreed.  I can only think whomever is the scalper is going as well and will walk these people in as the notes on the tickets say - 
"Customer will meet rep at venue the night of the event"

How will this work? Wouldn't the scalper have to go into the show? So, we'd have one scalper attending the concert for each listing? 

If I'm a 10c member that won two GA tix then yes...I would enter the show with you and attend myself

I guess there is really no way to stop that type of scalping

This requirement then would, at very least, seem to significantly hamper professional scalpers. 

Yes unless the pros become 10c members and then just sell both tix along with the TM account

Lerxst1992 said:

herogroundzero said:

MickeyMouse said:

Of course it worked. The silent majority agrees with you. The loudest people on this forum are the ones who aren't thinking logically or clearly and are acting like the band and Ticketmaster just killed their family and ate their dog.

Less than 2% of MSG tickets are on StubHub. The fans won. There is no debate or argument to be made against that. Numbers don't lie. Just because YOU didn't win, doesn't mean the new system is flawed.

MOST people who requested tickets in the lotto got them. Just like they said. They (reportedly) doubled the amount of tickets for 10C. That's incredible. This is above and beyond any other fan club I know of. 

The fan-to-fan exchange for the other shows deterred scalpers because there is no money to be made.

Ticket prices are marginally more than for the 2016 tour and in line (or less) than other major "legacy" touring bands.

The majority of complaints I've read on this board the past few weeks come from people who are uninformed, assume they know better, or are just entitled and self-centered beyond anything I've ever seen.

Had this been a traditional tour with 2 night in NY, 2 in Philly, Boston, etc., the praise on this forum would be near universal. The problem isn't the system, it's the lack of shows they chose to do on this first leg that led to demand far outweighing supply in VERY FEW cities. 

right on. i totally give credit where credit is due. pj have risen the occasion big time. single tickets for 10c included. makes me pretty fucking proud they go to such great lengths to make sure stubhub gets fucked over...

Yes, the issue is the lack of shows in the east. And they did keep most tickets off stub hub. But... there are stub hub  tickets and they will be getting bad publicity when these Super bowl prices become widely known. They made choices for this tour and this is the result. so I’d be careful giving any credit to this situation.