3 ms·

>ticket scalping happens because bands sell tickets for less than it's worth, usually to whoever shows up first. the scalper's role is therefore as an arbitrage

>ticket scalping happens because bands sell tickets for less than it's worth, usually to whoever shows up first. the scalper's role is therefore as an arbitrageur, buying something that's mispriced and selling it for market price. Is there any evidence that's the case for zillow? Are they beating everyone to the houses that are mispriced? Ah, you think the outcome of a fully "free" market is the best of all possible worlds. The band wants tickets to be affordable for their fans. Scalpers monopolize the market by using their purchasing power to eat up supply, and resale for their own benefit to those who can afford it - wishes of the bands be damned. The comparison being made, which I'm not sure is true or not, is that Zillow is doing something similar. They are using massive amounts of buying power to consolidate supply of a market, dominating it to the detriment of people with more modest means, that would have been able to afford a home otherwise. edit to add: Yes, they are providing liquidity for sellers, but is that "market efficiency" best for society? Zillow sure isn't providing their service for the greater good.

gruez 5y ago
>Ah, you think the outcome of a fully "free" market is the best of all possible worlds. What gave you that impression? >Scalpers monopolize the market by using their purchasing power to eat up supply Scalpers monopolize the market by buying the tickets the moment they're released. It's not because of their "buying power". They're not using their vast capital reserves to bid up the price of the tickets so nobody can afford it. >The band wants tickets to be affordable for their fans. > [...] - wishes of the bands be damned. Sounds like the bands are ignorant on how reality works and act surprised when things don't go how they expect. If you sell tickets for less than it's worth, and also allow it to be re-sold, there's inevitably people who want to take advantage of this arbitrage opportunity. Thinking that it won't happen and not preparing for this is wishful thinking at best and complicit[1] at worst. [1] "MARCUS: We would say it in the hallways: the reason that we’re successful as we are is because we take those bullets on behalf of the venue, the artists, the promoter." https://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-screwed/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-sc...
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  >It's not because of their "buying power". I am calling "money" buying-buying power. Since without it, you can't buy things. They are using their vast capital reserves to snatch up tickets in a way a normal fan would not do or be able to do at scale. >If you sell tickets for less than it's worth, and also allow it to be re-sold, there's inevitably people who want to take advantage of this arbitrage opportunity. Which is why some bands are actually restricting reselling, linking tickets to purchasers and only allowing resale at cost. Just like some people are suggesting that beyond just Zillow, there should be regulations governing the hoarding of houses by institutional investors that drive up the cost of the place where people live and work. Dominating supply for pure profit is bad enough with music tickets; it's downright unethical for housing.
  - gruez 5y ago
    The fundamental difference is that zillow is buying houses at close to market price on the open market, whereas scalper is buying at significantly below market price and cornering the market (either through bots, or through backroom deals with ticket providers). That difference is what makes "scalpers" arbitrageurs/monopolists (ie. risk-free profit) and zillow market-makers (ie. making money through the spread). For that reason I think the ticket scalper analogy (intended to induce rage) fails. I believe zillow's role is much closer to one of liquidity providers (for stock market) or used car dealerships, which certainly doesn't draw as much hate as scalpers.

gruez 5y ago

>Ah, you think the outcome of a fully "free" market is the best of all possible worlds. What gave you that impression? >Scalpers monopolize the market by using their purchasing power to eat up supply Scalpers monopolize the market by buying the tickets the moment they're released. It's not because of their "buying power". They're not using their vast capital reserves to bid up the price of the tickets so nobody can afford it. >The band wants tickets to be affordable for their fans. > [...] - wishes of the bands be damned. Sounds like the bands are ignorant on how reality works and act surprised when things don't go how they expect. If you sell tickets for less than it's worth, and also allow it to be re-sold, there's inevitably people who want to take advantage of this arbitrage opportunity. Thinking that it won't happen and not preparing for this is wishful thinking at best and complicit[1] at worst. [1] "MARCUS: We would say it in the hallways: the reason that we’re successful as we are is because we take those bullets on behalf of the venue, the artists, the promoter." https://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-screwed/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-sc...

unethical_ban 5y ago
>It's not because of their "buying power". I am calling "money" buying-buying power. Since without it, you can't buy things. They are using their vast capital reserves to snatch up tickets in a way a normal fan would not do or be able to do at scale. >If you sell tickets for less than it's worth, and also allow it to be re-sold, there's inevitably people who want to take advantage of this arbitrage opportunity. Which is why some bands are actually restricting reselling, linking tickets to purchasers and only allowing resale at cost. Just like some people are suggesting that beyond just Zillow, there should be regulations governing the hoarding of houses by institutional investors that drive up the cost of the place where people live and work. Dominating supply for pure profit is bad enough with music tickets; it's downright unethical for housing.
- gruez 5y ago
  The fundamental difference is that zillow is buying houses at close to market price on the open market, whereas scalper is buying at significantly below market price and cornering the market (either through bots, or through backroom deals with ticket providers). That difference is what makes "scalpers" arbitrageurs/monopolists (ie. risk-free profit) and zillow market-makers (ie. making money through the spread). For that reason I think the ticket scalper analogy (intended to induce rage) fails. I believe zillow's role is much closer to one of liquidity providers (for stock market) or used car dealerships, which certainly doesn't draw as much hate as scalpers.