TicketMaster's Fan2Fan is now Fan2Bot

mr bungle said:

Zod said:

Lets go back to printed tickets you have to spend half a day lining up for, so that if you want to sell/trade your only option is in person hours before the show

I don't think TM is going to invent anything better.   All Fan2Fan is, is the regular resell portal but the price is locked.  I don't think they put too much effort into it.   It does have the advantage that we can sell without needing to raise our prices just to get our money back.  I do like that aspect of it.

I don't think they're ever going to do something sophiticated, like tie the poral into the 10c's portal, so they can restrict access to tickets.

It was only a matter of time, with more bands using fan2fan (like U2 and the cure) that scalpers would figure out work arounds.

Maybe go back to 2018, no transferability?  1 ticket of the pair can be transferred kind of thing.

Fan2Fan has also made tickets completely disposable.  Put in for everything, sell back the ones that aren't good.   Pushing many 10c'ers further back.

The last sentence is DEAD ON!  Yes, TM and the new system is totally fucked up.  But 10c members are cannibalizing each other by putting in for more tix than they actually intend to use.  Thus, boxing out members who actually want the tix, or pushing members further back than they should be.

mpedone said:

pjl44 said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

marumaruko said:

PJNB said:

and there it is.
"Only request tickets for shows you can definitely attend" 

This should be tattooed on our arms. You don't know if you can make it happen, don't request and wait until you can be sure. 
Tickets will be eventually available if everyone follows along. 

Also, before anyone says "But no one will restrain themselves" - that's the mindset that is hindering the people. Just do what is ideal and you'll see.  

It’s kind of a non sequitur. Getting rid of priority doesn't have anything to do with choosing only shows you can definitely attend. If anything, getting rid of priority may just encourage choosing more shows, since you no longer can assume you’re likely to score a top-ranked show. Only select shows you can definitely attend is a more appropriate response to a question such as whether you could be selected and charged for numerous shows. And as someone else mentioned, we never truly know which shows we can "definitely" attend... 

With no priority AND F2F, there is no disincentive to putting in for as many shows as you can afford, or even multiplying your chances by putting in for the same shows as your spouse/concert buddy. Hell, I thought about it. I'm not likely to go to Chicago, but my brother-in-law lives there, and we've enjoyed the city. Why not secure tickets and sell them if the plans fall through? Seatlle? Never been. Might be cool to see PJ in their "home" city. Can always just sell them later. Fortunately, I wasn't comfortable spending that much money (and even more for travel costs) and restricted myself to realistic/local shows.

Bringing back priority and/or show-by-show draws could ease some of this, as you'd see a broader spread of people getting tickets, but you're still going to have a ton of people shut out of more in-demand shows like MSG and Seattle, and be in this same boat of fighting bots for tickets. Make 10C tickets non-transferable again and you'd see a lot fewer people putting in for 5+ shows they aren't really sure they can make. No, we're never 100% sure either way, but if you're faced with the choice to spend $350+ and maybe eat that money or just not get tickets to a show you're only 50% likely to actually attend, I would think most people would hold back. Unfortunately, that's not an option in NY, IL, CT, and CO, and it would only drive up the prices from the bots who snatch up the non-10C seats.

Given ticket prices being what they are, the last sentence of your first paragraph would be the disincentive for a lot of people 

That's where F2F comes in. Ticket prices SHOULD be a deterrent, but if you know that you can recoup that money if travel plans don't work out, why not take a chance?

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

craigraether said:

Last night at 10pm did two Coordinated drops for both LA shows, both in Sec E row1, asked that the tickets be posted as singles going one by one, Show 2, then Show1, then Show2, etc. All 4 tickets were secured. BOTs not fitting singles. I figured if I lost one ticket of the pair, I would lose to fan which is fine. During that time 2 pairs of floors further back came up and sold. Just an idea for those doing seated drops in desirable locations. Maybe wait 5-10 between tickets. Any one who sees the second one might just think it's the same ticket as they pop up again after they sell before they disappear. Good Luck and Beat the BOTS... Prob not advisable for GA, but might work if you lose it would be to a fan not a BOT... 

BRONDO said:

Missoula floor pair face value been up all morning sec3

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered.