4 ms·

It's generally bad and a good example of dumb over-regulation. I await stories about the unintended side effects of the BOTS Act in the coming years. Ticket sc

It's generally bad and a good example of dumb over-regulation. I await stories about the unintended side effects of the BOTS Act in the coming years. Ticket scalping exists for two reasons: 1) The sorts of people who put on public entertainment in size-limited venues are generally left-leaning and do not like the idea of their audience consisting solely of very rich people. This sentiment is fine, but ... 2) As such events typically take place in big cities and modern populations are very large, demand for these entertainment events then radically outstrips supply, meaning the actual natural market price of the tickets rises very fast. The entertainers have a collective freakout and insist that the tickets are sold far below the correct price for social justice reasons, converting the sales of such tickets into a simple race. Having deliberately mispriced their tickets, the only way punters can distinguish themselves and get a ticket is by being faster than the other punters. And that's a contest machines will always win. There are lots of solutions that don't involve Congress. Like, tickets could be allocated through a lottery process where entering requires ID verification. That would make it obvious that getting a ticket is a random process.

woodruffw 10y ago
Both of your points are confabulated, which is unfortunate since I agree with your ultimate conclusion (i.e., that this act's intended goal could be accomplished without legislation). 1) Theater audiences consist largely of tourists, at least in New York. They're spending vacation money, but they're no wealthier than the average American on vacation. Taking out the tourist audience, the city subsidizes the theater district via public school trips (I was the recipient of more than one of these) and other public arts programs. 2) Demand doesn't "radically" outstrip supply, at least not for the vast majority of on-Broadway shows. For most, the two are about equal, and prices reflect this ($30-$50 if you buy at TKTS or reasonably in advance). The exception is blockbusters like Hamilton and The Book Of Mormon (if that's still the case) which are, again, boosted largely by tourist sales.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I was talking about the general case where scalping happens, not particular shows in New York. If no scalping is happening for those shows, then I guess you're right that supply and demand balance there.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> The sorts of people who put on public entertainment in size-limited venues are generally left-leaning and do not like the idea of their audience consisting solely of very rich people. You're completely exposing a bias here. First, public entertainment is by definition always going to be in a size-limited venue unless somehow different parts of matter start to be able to occupy the same space at the same time. Secondly, instead of immediately invoking politics, consider than the artists/talent generally prefer enthusiastic fans of their work over people who would look at the ticket as more of a prestige item: something to impress a prospective client with or just buying a ticket to be seen at some high profile event where you care more about putting pics up on instagram rather than actually appreciating the performance. The artists generally value an enthusiastic response and sincere appreciation of their work and you're shoehorning politics into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Consider than humans are not rational, profit maximizing automatons and do place a nebulous, complex value on things that can not be transferred into currency. Everyone has some things in this world that they consider priceless.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  It's your bias showing here, not mine! Mispricing tickets doesn't guarantee people will be "enthusiastic", quite the opposite. You're more likely to get people who see if they can get a ticket just to avoid being bored on a Saturday and not out of any particular love of the artist - such people are just as likely to win out in an environment where ticket allocation is basically random, which is what happens when tickets are priced below demand. If prices rose, yes you'd get some vanity purchasers, but you'd also allocate tickets towards the genuinely deeply enthusiastic fans who are willing to express that enthusiasm with money. By "public entertainment" I was including things like talent shows on TV where the audience size is unlimited.

woodruffw 10y ago

Both of your points are confabulated, which is unfortunate since I agree with your ultimate conclusion (i.e., that this act's intended goal could be accomplished without legislation). 1) Theater audiences consist largely of tourists, at least in New York. They're spending vacation money, but they're no wealthier than the average American on vacation. Taking out the tourist audience, the city subsidizes the theater district via public school trips (I was the recipient of more than one of these) and other public arts programs. 2) Demand doesn't "radically" outstrip supply, at least not for the vast majority of on-Broadway shows. For most, the two are about equal, and prices reflect this ($30-$50 if you buy at TKTS or reasonably in advance). The exception is blockbusters like Hamilton and The Book Of Mormon (if that's still the case) which are, again, boosted largely by tourist sales.

zigzigzag 10y ago
I was talking about the general case where scalping happens, not particular shows in New York. If no scalping is happening for those shows, then I guess you're right that supply and demand balance there.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> The sorts of people who put on public entertainment in size-limited venues are generally left-leaning and do not like the idea of their audience consisting solely of very rich people. You're completely exposing a bias here. First, public entertainment is by definition always going to be in a size-limited venue unless somehow different parts of matter start to be able to occupy the same space at the same time. Secondly, instead of immediately invoking politics, consider than the artists/talent generally prefer enthusiastic fans of their work over people who would look at the ticket as more of a prestige item: something to impress a prospective client with or just buying a ticket to be seen at some high profile event where you care more about putting pics up on instagram rather than actually appreciating the performance. The artists generally value an enthusiastic response and sincere appreciation of their work and you're shoehorning politics into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Consider than humans are not rational, profit maximizing automatons and do place a nebulous, complex value on things that can not be transferred into currency. Everyone has some things in this world that they consider priceless.

zigzigzag 10y ago
It's your bias showing here, not mine! Mispricing tickets doesn't guarantee people will be "enthusiastic", quite the opposite. You're more likely to get people who see if they can get a ticket just to avoid being bored on a Saturday and not out of any particular love of the artist - such people are just as likely to win out in an environment where ticket allocation is basically random, which is what happens when tickets are priced below demand. If prices rose, yes you'd get some vanity purchasers, but you'd also allocate tickets towards the genuinely deeply enthusiastic fans who are willing to express that enthusiasm with money. By "public entertainment" I was including things like talent shows on TV where the audience size is unlimited.