4 ms·

I disagree with that. There are many reasons artists want to keep prices low. In this case maybe you don't want to reserve your ticket a full year in advance. A

I disagree with that. There are many reasons artists want to keep prices low. In this case maybe you don't want to reserve your ticket a full year in advance. An artist might also want their work to be accessible to more people than those that can afford a $1000 ticket. Raising the price is too simplistic an option.

dublinben 10y ago
The problem is that they aren't keeping prices low. They are setting an artificially low face value, and then letting scalpers capture all the excess value. The real cost to see Hamilton right now is $1000+, not whatever (lower) number is on the ticket. By not allowing incredibly devoted fans to participate in an auction for tickets, they are actually making shows less accessible for the people who want it most. It's unfair that you can get to see a performance for $50 because you happened to get a ticket, but I am unable to even if I'm willing to pay $500.
- oarsinsync 10y ago
  > It's unfair that you can get to see a performance for $50 because you happened to get a ticket, but I am unable to even if I'm willing to pay $500. The person who can only afford to pay $50 might consider it unfair that they can't get to see it just because you can afford to pay $500.
developer2 10y ago
This ideal world where the everyman can buy a ticket for a low cost doesn't exist, though. The scalpers buy up a huge chunk of the tickets, which takes away a large number of tickets that could have been bought by "real people". The reason the show is booked until 2017 is not because people have bought all the tickets, it's because the scalpers have.
Trundle 10y ago
You disagree with what? You wanted a way to stop scalpers and he gave it to you. Artists might prefer to reward luck over purchasing power but so what? In a situation where multiple people have competing interests, I hardly think it's obvious that we should just be going with "it's a problem that artists don't get everything they want."
mabbo 10y ago
Let's say the market will pay $1000 for a ticket. The show would like to see the tickets be $100, so that people who only have $100 can see it. Tickets go on sale for $100, and 100 are bought by a single scalper for $10000. The scalper now needs to sell only 10 tickets at the market rate to break even. Since he only needs to sell 10, he starts by trying to sell them for $1500, knowing he'll initially have few sales, but that he can lower his price later if he needs to. Now what you have is tickets being sold for $1500, and likely empty seats in the theater. The show is making 1/10 the income it might have made and won't be able to run as long, so even fewer people can see it. The larger the margin between market rate and actual rate, the fewer people who will see it, the shorter the show will run, and the more expensive tickets will be for normal people. The smart move is for the theatre to sell all tickets at a falling price: every day, tickets for the show on day X are cheaper than they were yesterday by an amount determined by how many tickets were sold. All seats will be sold at the market rate and scalpers have little margin to take.

dublinben 10y ago

The problem is that they aren't keeping prices low. They are setting an artificially low face value, and then letting scalpers capture all the excess value. The real cost to see Hamilton right now is $1000+, not whatever (lower) number is on the ticket. By not allowing incredibly devoted fans to participate in an auction for tickets, they are actually making shows less accessible for the people who want it most. It's unfair that you can get to see a performance for $50 because you happened to get a ticket, but I am unable to even if I'm willing to pay $500.

oarsinsync 10y ago
> It's unfair that you can get to see a performance for $50 because you happened to get a ticket, but I am unable to even if I'm willing to pay $500. The person who can only afford to pay $50 might consider it unfair that they can't get to see it just because you can afford to pay $500.

developer2 10y ago

This ideal world where the everyman can buy a ticket for a low cost doesn't exist, though. The scalpers buy up a huge chunk of the tickets, which takes away a large number of tickets that could have been bought by "real people". The reason the show is booked until 2017 is not because people have bought all the tickets, it's because the scalpers have.

Trundle 10y ago

You disagree with what? You wanted a way to stop scalpers and he gave it to you. Artists might prefer to reward luck over purchasing power but so what? In a situation where multiple people have competing interests, I hardly think it's obvious that we should just be going with "it's a problem that artists don't get everything they want."

mabbo 10y ago

Let's say the market will pay $1000 for a ticket. The show would like to see the tickets be $100, so that people who only have $100 can see it. Tickets go on sale for $100, and 100 are bought by a single scalper for $10000. The scalper now needs to sell only 10 tickets at the market rate to break even. Since he only needs to sell 10, he starts by trying to sell them for $1500, knowing he'll initially have few sales, but that he can lower his price later if he needs to. Now what you have is tickets being sold for $1500, and likely empty seats in the theater. The show is making 1/10 the income it might have made and won't be able to run as long, so even fewer people can see it. The larger the margin between market rate and actual rate, the fewer people who will see it, the shorter the show will run, and the more expensive tickets will be for normal people. The smart move is for the theatre to sell all tickets at a falling price: every day, tickets for the show on day X are cheaper than they were yesterday by an amount determined by how many tickets were sold. All seats will be sold at the market rate and scalpers have little margin to take.