4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoThe 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.