Comment by bonestamp2
2 years ago
There's another good point in here. Why do they hold the ticket until just before the event? I bought tickets to a concert for my wife's favorite band. Then, my wife's work scheduled an event for that same week and she had to leave town. So, what I really wanted was a refund so someone else could buy the tickets. They don't do that of course. So, then I wanted to sell the tickets for face value... but ticketmaster didn't "deliver" the tickets to my account until the day before the event!
I watched for a month leading up to the event as the ticket prices plummeted while the scalpers were desperate to get at least something for their tickets before my ticket was even delivered to me.
As soon as they take my money, they should update the database to show that the ticket is mine. If I want to sell it, I should be able to do that immediately too.
But, from what I've read, that instant resale ability only belongs to their "partners" who resell a lot of tickets, and you need access to their "TradeDesk" tool to do it: https://tradedesk.ticketmaster.com
Just vote with your pocket and don’t buy tickets from them. I do that - yes I don’t get to go to major concerts but there are still so much more that is not on ticket master. I found a lot of new entertainment and was happy to pay $4 fee instead of whatever TM charges nowadays.
They have an effective monopoly.
On large venues for big name artists.
Granted, I live in NYC, which probably has one of the most vibrant local music scenes in the country. But it's not like nowhere else has local bands that play at small venues.
It feels like a lot of the people that complain about ticketmaster's monopoly have never branched out from Billboard chart artists.
3 replies →
Not just on tickets, but on venues, catering, security, logistics. It's pretty bad.
... for a completely optional form of entertainment.
At the very least you have the choice not to go to any concerts until there are better options. You can also make that clear to your favorite bands.
13 replies →
That's the secret.
If nobody used them, they would go away.
That's not really possible, because they contractually require venues and performing artists to only perform at their venues
This kind of gross exclusionary contract should be illegal (it's kinda the same BS that Google does with Android OEMs - contractually force them to [1]), but for some reason antitrust avoided acting on the matter (including allowing acquisitions in the space) for quite some time
[1] > Predicating the availability of any of Google’s apps, including the Google Play Store, on OEMs not taking advantage of the open source nature of Android on devices that will not include Google apps seems much more problematic than Google insisting its apps be distributed in a bundle. The latter is Google’s prerogative; the former is dictating OEM actions just because Google can. https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...
Our options shouldn’t be see no concerts from successful musicians or pay monopoly pricing. This is something government should solve.
9 replies →
That might have been true in decades past.
They now, having merged with LiveNation, have effective ownership of all major and semi-major venues around the country. They also aren't just doing concerts, they're doing sporting events and other live entertainment as well.
They aren't going anywhere. They are just too big, and too ingrained.
1 reply →
While this is literally true, solutions in the form of "if everyone would just X" are not solutions at all.
That's why they've done so much to force performers to use them.
See Tickets seems to be on the rise recently, which I've been glad for
[flagged]
I did that for several years. I don't really consider it voting though because nobody is counting the votes -- they still sell out of tickets with higher profits each year.
This began a lot more on third party sites like stubhub due to Covid and the massive amount of cancellations; before most places paid out after the sale, and if the buyer wound up having an issue (due to the seller mistake, selling it multiple times, whatever) they would charge the seller and usually assess a penalty.
But when everything in the world was being cancelled I assume they didn't have all the money just sitting around to reverse and it was a ton of thrash to deal with. As someone who had bought tons of tickets and sold some, it was a mess. I had a ton of credit card refunds back, the third party sites had to reverse payments, etc.
Waiting until after the event is just less overhead. Guarantees the transaction happened without a hitch.
There are some POS and broker sites that still pay on transfer, but none of the "primary" secondary market does.
I’ve never dealt much with TicketMaster, despite them being a monopoly. So my questions here may just be out of naiveté:
1) Why would TicketMaster pay event organizers ahead of time, if the event might be shit and attendees may demand their money back? Rather than having to deal with a lot of chargebacks and making it their own problem with the banks, they might prefer to make sure the event goes off without a hitch and refund people while they still can. Rather than subsidizing the refunds they make the event organizer have to get (and pay for) financing instead, backed by their payout. They might also offer such financing.
2) I get that they hold event organizers hostage by making contracts with the venues for years, that might be an antitrust issue but it’s separate from 1.
3) Why would TicketMaster make scalping easy? Middlemen would just buy up all the tickets and then pump and dump the price, much like early crypto investors in a meme token or altcoin do. So they don’t “deliver” the ticket to you until just before the event, exactly for that reason.
With ChatGPT it’s now easier than ever to impersonate thousands of people at scale, with credit cards and everything. But I will admit, showing up to an event at least once confirms there is a human behind the account. But a first-timer buyer? Shouldn’t be able to resell, no.
#1 and #3 are related. They make scalping easy so they get all of their money immediately and can pay event organizers ahead of time. I personally think scalping should be straight-up illegal but business schools loove it and consider it an excellent example of helping with liquidity in a system and finding the true "willingness to pay" price of something.
willingness to get ripped off LOL
I built a blockchain-based solution.
It features a price discovery mechanism: you auction off M tickets to M people, the price goes up every time after M people buy and the oldest buyer is booted when the others buy, but can buy back in again. Buyers can set a “reserve price” to automatically bid up to that price.
No scalping, because tickets aren’t transferrable.
Similarly, you can disallow transfering of bearer token X but let the user sell it back to the central market maker and someone else buys it. Enforcing commissions on sales.
Blockchain makes all this work, decentralized.
Tbf, this does sound like a fairly efficient anti-scalper strategy, so I guess there's at least some upside to this mess.
I guess it depends on your definition of scalper. It prevents mom and pop from reselling their unwanted tickets. If they stopped there and prevented all reselling I'd be fine with that even though I'd lose out on some money in this one case.
But then they literally built a whole platform (link in my last comment) for actual scalpers to resell tickets in bulk. So, they're not trying to prevent scalping, they're just ensuring that only their "partners" can scalp.