3 ms·

>Even at 2-3x price, the price of the ticket is a relatively small portion of the total cost of attending. This is irrelevant. The fact is that it's 2-3x the c

by ue_ 10y ago

>Even at 2-3x price, the price of the ticket is a relatively small portion of the total cost of attending. This is irrelevant. The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. Imagine if you go to buy a bar of chocolate, and it's $1 as it usually is. Then one day you've found out that the only way to buy it is from the weird guy outside the shop, who has purchased the entire supply of chocolate and is selling them at $3. I would be upset about it. The actual original price it irrelevant, no matter how cheap it is to get it. The fact is that you're making someone pay 3x as much which is frankly horrible behaviour. >People without money get screwed out of entertainment? Boo Hoo. How about Healthcare or housing? You know, actual essential things. So you think it's okay for someone to do something bad, so long as it's trivial and not related to one's bare survival? >Thinking that being a hardcore fan makes you somehow more deserving to attend is entitled child mentality, plain and simple. I agree. But being so greedy as to purchase thousands of tickets in order to sell them at a significant markup later on is also childishly greedy, moreso in fact than the child who believes he deserves to see something he likes without having to pay 3x the cost beacuse some guy has decided to be greedy. >If you can't afford the auction price of the ticket, sit at home and watch their live youtube videos. That's totally fine. But being denied a service because of someone else's greed is extremely ethically and morally questionable in my opinion. I'm a social anarchist. I don't have any problem if you decide to sell something at whatever price you want. But I maintain that it's abhorrent, greedy, disgusting, horrible, childish and at the least questionable for one to force this practice upon others who would have no problem affording the original product. Whether it's a ticket or a chocolate bar or food or even hospital or housing, it's the same principle, and I fail to see why it does not apply to those but it does apply to tickets. >It's arguably not even much worse and you won't have to deal with the smelly crowds. Don't try and undersell something that people would have otherwise wanted in order to make yourself feel better about supporting abhorrent and greedy behaviour please.

saosebastiao 10y ago
> So you think it's okay for someone to do something bad, so long as it's trivial and not related to one's bare survival? If buying low and selling high is so bad that it should be outlawed, you can kiss everything you know goodbye.
LordKano 10y ago
This is irrelevant. The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. I can understand people being upset by price gouging on water and food. I have, personally, sworn off doing business with Cheaper Than Dirt because of how they price gouged customers after Sandy Hook but nothing they did should be illegal. If you skip this year's Kenny Chesney concert and the scalpers take a bath, it'll be easier and cheaper to attend next year.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical. >We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter? Somebody wants it; I can't see why gouging is only an issue when it's basic utilities. You probably have to get into a whole issue on what qualifies as 'need'. >price gouged customers after Sandy Hook but nothing they did should be illegal. Sure.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical. It doesn't mean that it's unethical either. Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter? We have the word "Luxury" for a reason. Items that are not vital for survival are optional. You don't have to face death as the alternative to acquisition of such items. Somebody wants it Irrelevant. The person who has it gets to decide what they want in order to part with it. No matter how much I may want a 72 Camaro, unless I am able and willing to give up enough money, I'll never get one.
soundwave106 10y ago
From what I can see, absurdly inflated scalping prices is only an issue for a handful of bands out there: the bands whose fanbase has outstripped the capacity of where they are booked at. This is only a small percentage of bands out there. Your chocolate comparison in other words only works if the weird guy bought up only the most popular brand. The generally crappy experience of Ticketmaster / Livenation and the high ticket prices of certain artists certainly have deterred me from supporting this "greed" very much. Instead, I've tended over the years to go for local scale up to medium-high sized concert events. I've rarely run into these sort of scalper issues as a result. Judging by the continued high prices of certain tickets, I'm atypical. But this isn't life or death type items like food or healthcare, where capitalism runs into morality issues. This is music. If you aren't happy about certain portions of the music industry, the best way to express that is to not support this side with your dollars -- not as an absolute rule perhaps, but definitely as a factor in your decision. Because I'm probably not the only one deterred by very high prices and the general crappy experience of Ticketmaster, I do believe that these things do indeed damage the brands of certain artists. If artists want to implement solutions to help those that can't afford market rates (like the many-times mentioned lotteries) to broaden appeal, that's fine. In fact, I'd suggest that would be a good idea: brands are often more important than chasing the short-term dollar. Creating fan clubs, and have ticket clubs allocated by lottery (perhaps adding a bonus of rewarding loyalty, such as increasing your lottery chances based on your membership length): that's probably good for your image, and thus your business. But IMHO this type of initiative has to be artist driven.
matwood 10y ago
> The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. Imagine if you go to buy a bar of chocolate, and it's $1 as it usually is. Then one day you've found out that the only way to buy it is from the weird guy outside the shop, who has purchased the entire supply of chocolate and is selling them at $3. I would be upset about it. The actual original price it irrelevant, no matter how cheap it is to get it. The fact is that you're making someone pay 3x as much which is frankly horrible behaviour You do realize the price is not set by the scalpers, but by the market? This is basic market economics (there is also time-decay so perhaps not completely basic but still). The supply is small, and the demand high. The price will move to a level where all tickets are sold. The scalpers certainly don't want to have any tickets leftover because then they become worthless. People incorrectly think that if scalpers were removed they would be able to attend all the events they want to attend at some very low price. This is flat out wrong.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >You do realize the price is not set by the scalpers, but by the market? Yes. I never claimed it doesn't make economical sense. I was trying to make the point that people are engaging in behaviour I regard as abhorrent. The scalpers are doing it, even if they don't set the prices. Sweatshops also make economic sense.

by ue_ 10y ago

saosebastiao 10y ago

> So you think it's okay for someone to do something bad, so long as it's trivial and not related to one's bare survival? If buying low and selling high is so bad that it should be outlawed, you can kiss everything you know goodbye.

LordKano 10y ago

This is irrelevant. The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. I can understand people being upset by price gouging on water and food. I have, personally, sworn off doing business with Cheaper Than Dirt because of how they price gouged customers after Sandy Hook but nothing they did should be illegal. If you skip this year's Kenny Chesney concert and the scalpers take a bath, it'll be easier and cheaper to attend next year.

ue_ 10y ago
>If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical. >We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter? Somebody wants it; I can't see why gouging is only an issue when it's basic utilities. You probably have to get into a whole issue on what qualifies as 'need'. >price gouged customers after Sandy Hook but nothing they did should be illegal. Sure.
- LordKano 10y ago
  That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical. It doesn't mean that it's unethical either. Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter? We have the word "Luxury" for a reason. Items that are not vital for survival are optional. You don't have to face death as the alternative to acquisition of such items. Somebody wants it Irrelevant. The person who has it gets to decide what they want in order to part with it. No matter how much I may want a 72 Camaro, unless I am able and willing to give up enough money, I'll never get one.

soundwave106 10y ago

From what I can see, absurdly inflated scalping prices is only an issue for a handful of bands out there: the bands whose fanbase has outstripped the capacity of where they are booked at. This is only a small percentage of bands out there. Your chocolate comparison in other words only works if the weird guy bought up only the most popular brand. The generally crappy experience of Ticketmaster / Livenation and the high ticket prices of certain artists certainly have deterred me from supporting this "greed" very much. Instead, I've tended over the years to go for local scale up to medium-high sized concert events. I've rarely run into these sort of scalper issues as a result. Judging by the continued high prices of certain tickets, I'm atypical. But this isn't life or death type items like food or healthcare, where capitalism runs into morality issues. This is music. If you aren't happy about certain portions of the music industry, the best way to express that is to not support this side with your dollars -- not as an absolute rule perhaps, but definitely as a factor in your decision. Because I'm probably not the only one deterred by very high prices and the general crappy experience of Ticketmaster, I do believe that these things do indeed damage the brands of certain artists. If artists want to implement solutions to help those that can't afford market rates (like the many-times mentioned lotteries) to broaden appeal, that's fine. In fact, I'd suggest that would be a good idea: brands are often more important than chasing the short-term dollar. Creating fan clubs, and have ticket clubs allocated by lottery (perhaps adding a bonus of rewarding loyalty, such as increasing your lottery chances based on your membership length): that's probably good for your image, and thus your business. But IMHO this type of initiative has to be artist driven.

matwood 10y ago

> The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. Imagine if you go to buy a bar of chocolate, and it's $1 as it usually is. Then one day you've found out that the only way to buy it is from the weird guy outside the shop, who has purchased the entire supply of chocolate and is selling them at $3. I would be upset about it. The actual original price it irrelevant, no matter how cheap it is to get it. The fact is that you're making someone pay 3x as much which is frankly horrible behaviour You do realize the price is not set by the scalpers, but by the market? This is basic market economics (there is also time-decay so perhaps not completely basic but still). The supply is small, and the demand high. The price will move to a level where all tickets are sold. The scalpers certainly don't want to have any tickets leftover because then they become worthless. People incorrectly think that if scalpers were removed they would be able to attend all the events they want to attend at some very low price. This is flat out wrong.

ue_ 10y ago
>You do realize the price is not set by the scalpers, but by the market? Yes. I never claimed it doesn't make economical sense. I was trying to make the point that people are engaging in behaviour I regard as abhorrent. The scalpers are doing it, even if they don't set the prices. Sweatshops also make economic sense.