5 ms·

I used to do web contract work for a company that was eventually bought by Ticketmaster. I left before the sale. I was actually "let go" because I didn't comply

I used to do web contract work for a company that was eventually bought by Ticketmaster. I left before the sale. I was actually "let go" because I didn't comply with design goals. One of the things that was encouraged in the design was to "hide away" things that detracted the user from checking out quickly. This included: * Smaller font for things that you would gloss over or not even read, when you really needed to read it. * A "time ticker" when one really was not needed. Create the illusion that those seats would be gone if they didn't checkout as fast as possible. In reality users were seldom in any danger of losing the seats. * Put in the users face the event they were checking out for. Keep them reminded that they want to go to this event. Show them stuff about it and then show the cost and fee's in smaller font and break it up into steps so they see a smaller total first, keeps them happy, then add fees on but keep that "time ticker" going so they don't look to much. Working there, I felt almost like we were a sleazy porn site. Edits: clarifications Edit 2: added that I didn't work for Ticketmaster.

giarc 10y ago
Re: the time ticker. Is that true, because if you let that timer expire, you are indeed kicked back to the "Select Tickets" page and have to browse again.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  You're kicked back, but it still creates artificial urgency in the sense that it's applied to shows that will take weeks to sell out any given section. That wouldn't be so bad (airline tickets are similar) except that the "best available seats" function is very unreliable, and sometimes the only choice for picking seats. With no 'new seats if available' option, you're forced to pick blind and under time pressure whether to give up what you have for the possibility of better seats.
- jason_slack 10y ago
  back then, when a user selected seats, they were temporarily "locked" (at least from our end). If other users were "browsing" seats, they would see those seats as unavailable. Honestly, we did this because it was easier to "lock" the seats as it made searching easier for other users on the systems. It lessened the e-mails that said: "I thought I had these seats XYZ picked, but I didn't get them...". We weren't really being nice, but it came off that way. If a user took longer than the 4 minutes or so there would have had to be more users on the system wanting the same type of seats and none available. This really didn't every happen except for insanely popular events, like NYE or some very popular singer, etc. If after 4 minutes, your time was up. You were taken back to search again, but we said "your last seats are still available. Check out now?". I cannot say now-a-days, if the timer has more importance and I cannot say from a Ticketmaster standpoint technically. What I can say is how we used to do it. Edit: added the "Honestly" part, first paragraph.
  - ritchiea 10y ago
    The timer is/was the worst, I once decided not to buy tickets for an event because the timer wasn't giving me enough time to fill out my CC info and I didn't want to bother rushing or filling out some kind of user profile w/saved card to fit their awful UX.
  - patmcguire 10y ago
    Timer is not sketchy if it's long enough, but four minutes is probably too short. You need locking for the reasons you said, and if you didn't have an expiration you'd have fun denial of service either accidentally from users deciding not to purchase, or purposely for the sheer malicious joy or from resellers who would scalp a ticket for a higher price, then use their lock to buy the actual product. Fifteen minutes seems more appropriate, though.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  I think the parent means that they would revoke the tickets from you and put them back for sale, but there was no reason for the time crunch, because there weren't other people looking for tickets at the time.
  - giarc 10y ago
    The parent author responded and so I changed my comment here. Originally I had said TM can't predict traffic after you put tickets in cart, so it makes sense to limit timing. However, it seems like originally the timer only was enabled when there were other users browsing the same event which makes sense.
potatolicious 10y ago
All of these dark patterns (and more!) are common in the consumer web space. While Ticketmaster is a special level of evil, IMO it's important to note that their scummy UX tactics are very much shared by more respectable members of the industry. > "One of the things that was encouraged in the design was to "hide away" things that detracted the user from checking out quickly." This for example is pretty much part of the UX playbook for every consumer web startup of any stripe...
- jason_slack 10y ago
  I can't agree with you about it being part of "pretty much part of the UX playbook for every consumer web startup". I have worked for companies that are really, really transparent about the "small print". They wanted you to know everything and be well informed. These were companies in consumer space too.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    As someone who often does read the small print (and sometimes does then decide not to do business with a company because I don't like their small print) I tend to think dark things of truly hiding away essential information. On the other hand, as someone who now runs B2C sites and has done some of the testing, it is abundantly clear that providing too much in-your-face information during the checkout process (a) doesn't seem to help those who actually do want to find and act on it, and (b) does do horrific things to conversion rates. For example, on the site for one B2C service I'm involved with, removing the in-your-face link to Ts and Cs and dubious "I have read and agree" check box during the checkout process dramatically reduced the number of visitors who'd go off to the Ts and Cs page and get lost there. They're still linked from the footer of every page in the usual place, and a noticeable proportion of visitors do still visit them while browsing and then continue to sign up. Some of those who got lost in the old design have also since visited again and signed up. So, I think it's fair to assume that it wasn't necessarily the Ts and Cs themselves that put people off before, but perhaps more the distraction effect of sticking another possible option in the middle of the sign-up flow.
innocentoldguy 10y ago
I see the "time ticker" thing suggested as a strategy for successful marketing campaigns in pretty much every online marketing book I read. You see it in the offline world as well. "Buy now, because once these prices are gone, they are gone forever . . . ever . . . ever..." I think a lot of companies use some sort of limited-time strategy to pressure people to buy. Most aren't quite as blatant, or short lived, as Ticketmaster's though.
austinjp 10y ago
Much of this reminds me of Vistaprint and Ryan Air. Horrible.
- jansenv 10y ago
  What evils has Vistaprint committed? I'm curious. I know their products suck.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    Vistaprint tries to sell all sorts of addons after you've chosen what you want to buy. Got your business cards? Great—here's a mug, t-shirt, balloon, and hat that all say the same thing. Just finished your purchase? Here's an offer to get 50% more for a "discounted" price (which may actually be higher per-unit than what you just paid, if you used a coupon code). For me, Vistaprint has actually been a good vendor with competitive prices (using coupon codes). Yes, you have to go through the gauntlet of addons every time you check out—but they don't opt you in for stuff so it's not as tricky as some other websites. I have purchased my business cards from them for years (tried Moo and went back), and their prices on holiday cards can't be beat (glossy photos on front and back, matte photo inside for 60¢ each, shipped).
    - jason_slack 10y ago
      Yes, I am so careful when I order from them! Since you mentioned this practice. I don't use GoDaddy anymore because of all the stuff they try and add on and select it by default hoping you don't notice before you checkout.
    - gabeio 10y ago
      I actually had a fairly similar experience while trying to buy flowers for valentines day. At check out they would show you offers for other flowers that looked the same but in actuality cost more (for no immediate apparent reason) and then your total would end up being higher than you had anticipated. They would also stuff your face in other offers like it would be 15% off if you add this mason jar. But then the mason jar adds that 15% back to the cost and more.

giarc 10y ago

Re: the time ticker. Is that true, because if you let that timer expire, you are indeed kicked back to the "Select Tickets" page and have to browse again.

Bartweiss 10y ago
You're kicked back, but it still creates artificial urgency in the sense that it's applied to shows that will take weeks to sell out any given section. That wouldn't be so bad (airline tickets are similar) except that the "best available seats" function is very unreliable, and sometimes the only choice for picking seats. With no 'new seats if available' option, you're forced to pick blind and under time pressure whether to give up what you have for the possibility of better seats.
jason_slack 10y ago
back then, when a user selected seats, they were temporarily "locked" (at least from our end). If other users were "browsing" seats, they would see those seats as unavailable. Honestly, we did this because it was easier to "lock" the seats as it made searching easier for other users on the systems. It lessened the e-mails that said: "I thought I had these seats XYZ picked, but I didn't get them...". We weren't really being nice, but it came off that way. If a user took longer than the 4 minutes or so there would have had to be more users on the system wanting the same type of seats and none available. This really didn't every happen except for insanely popular events, like NYE or some very popular singer, etc. If after 4 minutes, your time was up. You were taken back to search again, but we said "your last seats are still available. Check out now?". I cannot say now-a-days, if the timer has more importance and I cannot say from a Ticketmaster standpoint technically. What I can say is how we used to do it. Edit: added the "Honestly" part, first paragraph.
- ritchiea 10y ago
  The timer is/was the worst, I once decided not to buy tickets for an event because the timer wasn't giving me enough time to fill out my CC info and I didn't want to bother rushing or filling out some kind of user profile w/saved card to fit their awful UX.
- patmcguire 10y ago
  Timer is not sketchy if it's long enough, but four minutes is probably too short. You need locking for the reasons you said, and if you didn't have an expiration you'd have fun denial of service either accidentally from users deciding not to purchase, or purposely for the sheer malicious joy or from resellers who would scalp a ticket for a higher price, then use their lock to buy the actual product. Fifteen minutes seems more appropriate, though.
jonlucc 10y ago
I think the parent means that they would revoke the tickets from you and put them back for sale, but there was no reason for the time crunch, because there weren't other people looking for tickets at the time.
- giarc 10y ago
  The parent author responded and so I changed my comment here. Originally I had said TM can't predict traffic after you put tickets in cart, so it makes sense to limit timing. However, it seems like originally the timer only was enabled when there were other users browsing the same event which makes sense.

potatolicious 10y ago

All of these dark patterns (and more!) are common in the consumer web space. While Ticketmaster is a special level of evil, IMO it's important to note that their scummy UX tactics are very much shared by more respectable members of the industry. > "One of the things that was encouraged in the design was to "hide away" things that detracted the user from checking out quickly." This for example is pretty much part of the UX playbook for every consumer web startup of any stripe...

jason_slack 10y ago
I can't agree with you about it being part of "pretty much part of the UX playbook for every consumer web startup". I have worked for companies that are really, really transparent about the "small print". They wanted you to know everything and be well informed. These were companies in consumer space too.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  As someone who often does read the small print (and sometimes does then decide not to do business with a company because I don't like their small print) I tend to think dark things of truly hiding away essential information. On the other hand, as someone who now runs B2C sites and has done some of the testing, it is abundantly clear that providing too much in-your-face information during the checkout process (a) doesn't seem to help those who actually do want to find and act on it, and (b) does do horrific things to conversion rates. For example, on the site for one B2C service I'm involved with, removing the in-your-face link to Ts and Cs and dubious "I have read and agree" check box during the checkout process dramatically reduced the number of visitors who'd go off to the Ts and Cs page and get lost there. They're still linked from the footer of every page in the usual place, and a noticeable proportion of visitors do still visit them while browsing and then continue to sign up. Some of those who got lost in the old design have also since visited again and signed up. So, I think it's fair to assume that it wasn't necessarily the Ts and Cs themselves that put people off before, but perhaps more the distraction effect of sticking another possible option in the middle of the sign-up flow.

innocentoldguy 10y ago

I see the "time ticker" thing suggested as a strategy for successful marketing campaigns in pretty much every online marketing book I read. You see it in the offline world as well. "Buy now, because once these prices are gone, they are gone forever . . . ever . . . ever..." I think a lot of companies use some sort of limited-time strategy to pressure people to buy. Most aren't quite as blatant, or short lived, as Ticketmaster's though.

austinjp 10y ago

Much of this reminds me of Vistaprint and Ryan Air. Horrible.

jansenv 10y ago
What evils has Vistaprint committed? I'm curious. I know their products suck.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  Vistaprint tries to sell all sorts of addons after you've chosen what you want to buy. Got your business cards? Great—here's a mug, t-shirt, balloon, and hat that all say the same thing. Just finished your purchase? Here's an offer to get 50% more for a "discounted" price (which may actually be higher per-unit than what you just paid, if you used a coupon code). For me, Vistaprint has actually been a good vendor with competitive prices (using coupon codes). Yes, you have to go through the gauntlet of addons every time you check out—but they don't opt you in for stuff so it's not as tricky as some other websites. I have purchased my business cards from them for years (tried Moo and went back), and their prices on holiday cards can't be beat (glossy photos on front and back, matte photo inside for 60¢ each, shipped).
  - jason_slack 10y ago
    Yes, I am so careful when I order from them! Since you mentioned this practice. I don't use GoDaddy anymore because of all the stuff they try and add on and select it by default hoping you don't notice before you checkout.
  - gabeio 10y ago
    I actually had a fairly similar experience while trying to buy flowers for valentines day. At check out they would show you offers for other flowers that looked the same but in actuality cost more (for no immediate apparent reason) and then your total would end up being higher than you had anticipated. They would also stuff your face in other offers like it would be 15% off if you add this mason jar. But then the mason jar adds that 15% back to the cost and more.