5 ms·

So you're a ticket scalper? That's nothing something to be proud of. You say your friends detest resale sites but it sounds like you just became one yourself

So you're a ticket scalper? That's nothing something to be proud of. You say your friends detest resale sites but it sounds like you just became one yourself unless I'm misunderstanding what was happening here.

culturestate 4y ago
Scalpers don’t typically sell tickets for less than face value.
- xnorswap 4y ago
  Nor is OP if you take their 20% discount into account. Scalping tickets designed to be heavily discounted for fans, then re-selling them to anyone for profit is scummy even if the price still comes under the non-fan price. At best you're just denying other fans the chance to get discounts for your own profit.
  - culturestate 4y ago
    OP bought one set of season tickets to their favorite baseball team, went to the games they wanted to see, and sold tickets to the games they didn’t want to attend to other fans for less than face value and (presumably) without the outrageous fees that you’d pay at Ticketmaster, et al. Every casual season ticket holder does this, but most of us don’t systematize it - we just send messages to our group chats, and if nobody wants the tickets for that game then the seats stay empty. There’s absolutely nothing scummy or untoward about OP’s approach.
    - xnorswap 4y ago
      Perhaps I'm mis-reading the plural here, but how many season tickets do you consider a "set"? Given OP bragged about seeing "6-7 games for FREE", it implies a lot of profit was made on the rest of the re-sold tickets. There's a big difference between being a season ticket holder and buying multiple season tickets for the purpose of reselling and subsidising your own ticket.
  - tessierashpool 4y ago
    it's just arbitrage. scalping tickets isn't morally distinct from any other form of "buy low, sell high."
    - ohwellhere 4y ago
      I see your point. I'm not sure you're objectively wrong. But it feels wrong. :) Where there is sufficient demand for things to sell out to people who want the product, but are unable to get it because someone has used a bot to scoop them up at superhuman speeds... that doesn't feel exactly like the moral equivalent of other forms of arbitrage. _Especially_ when the sellers themselves would prefer that not happen. The bands want the tickets to go to the fans at no higher than the price the venue sets. Sony wants more gamers to have PS5s at the price they set. It feels like the marketplace would function perfectly fine, and the true seller and the final buyer want it to work one way, but third party interlopers are taking advantage of other aspects of the scale and technological basis of our marketplace. Market makers provide value; scalpers rent seek. I think that's a valid moral distinction.
      - tessierashpool 4y ago
        I can see where you're coming from, but I have pretty bad news, which is that the last line just doesn't match reality, at least not in the United States. It might make sense in theory, but it just isn't true: > Market makers provide value; scalpers rent seek. In the United States, event tickets are functionally a monopoly. In practice, Ticketmaster/Live Nation is a rent-seeking market maker which crushes small events and blocks value from being created. Here's a deep dive on that, just under 20 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Y7uqqEFnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Y7uqqEFnY This doesn't mean that scalpers can't also be rent-seekers, but given that scalpers are highly competitive and Ticketmaster is a monopoly, I think the scalpers aren't in a position to seek rent. This part has a similar flaw: > someone has used a bot to scoop them up at superhuman speeds... that doesn't feel exactly like the moral equivalent of other forms of arbitrage. High-speed trading is all about bots and arbitrage. This isn't the first time those two things have been combined. There are corners of New York where they're practically synonymous. This one has factual issues also: > The bands want the tickets to go to the fans at no higher than the price the venue sets. It's only true of _some_ bands. There's evidence (in that deep dive video) that Justin Bieber has probably scalped tickets to his own shows, at scale. I'm not saying that if Justin Bieber does it, it automatically can't be scummy. That seems like a very very hard argument to make. I'm a musician and I would not want to have that kind of relationship with my fans (if I had any, beyond a few repeat listeners on Spotify). I'm just saying, there's a lot in this comment which makes intuitive sense but doesn't actually line up with the reality of the situation.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    > Scalping tickets designed to be heavily discounted for fans. You’re making a very strong assumption here. Teams are selling at a bulk discount, that’s it. There’s nothing to suggest that they are doing it to be benevolent.
- bko 4y ago
  They sell if for the market price, and often times they get burned and sell below face value. If you see concert tickets available through the official venue, you should look at resale prices and you could often get cheaper prices as scalpers misjudged the demand or supply
thefourthchime 4y ago
Most tickets are "scalped" these days, either by credit card companies, the artist themselves, the venue, etc... A minority of tickets are sold through the normal retail channel these days.
macinjosh 4y ago
IMO "scalping" is OK and is just selling for what the market will bear. There is demand for something with limited supply (aka scarcity) so prices will go up. I also don't buy that it is unfair to the artist because if their tickets are being "scalped" they could just as easily add more dates to each venue to provide more supply to the market. Some artists do this but many just want to breeze through town in one show.
- xnorswap 4y ago
  If tickets were sold for "market price" then the vast majority of people would be priced out of many events because the wealthy are so much wealthier than the average person that they'd simply monopolise a whole lot of entertainment. Not entirely unlike what has happened to the housing market in cities like London or Vancouver. If you're okay with huge swathes of the population going without whole sectors of entertainment because "it's a free market" then you're entitled to that opinion. That isn't a society I value.
  - SeanAnderson 4y ago
    The scenario you're outlining seems to favor the consumers of art over the creators. Am I understanding you correctly? It's my opinion that tickets should be sold for as much as the market will handle assuming the additional proceeds go directly to the artist. Any other approach is charity at cost to the artist.
    - xnorswap 4y ago
      I think that's a very naive perspective, it encourages a romantic view of entertainment where an artist is selling their own trade themselves. That isn't the reality of the world. Maximising the profit of the entertainment "artist" is in reality maximising the profits of the rights holder which in many cases is itself a large corporation such as the NFL. Do I value the consumers of football over the NFL? Heck yes I do! It's why for instance Germany has their 50%+1 rule, to help make sure that fans rather than corporate owners benefit from the sport. Even in the case of things like solo artists, I don't want to live in a world where only the super rich can see an artist live, and everyone else has to suck it up because it maximises the money for the artist.
bko 4y ago
Scalping is necessary for a lot of events. For instance, a few years back concert sales used to sell a year ahead of time. Who decides they want to go to a concert a year from now? So after a few days they're all sold out to scalpers. Maybe without scalpers they would get sold out by maybe 6 months. But who plans to go to a concert 6 months from now? It's unreasonable. So the alternative is to never get to go to concerts unless you're a fastidious planner. The other side is even if you want to go to a concert and buy tickets a year ahead of time. What happens if something comes up? You can't resell them. Having the ability to resell your tickets is a huge value to people intending to go to the concert. You can argue that there should be a better distribution mechanism and I agree, but scalpers are not the problem
- andreilys 4y ago
  Scalpers buy with the intention of flipping tickets for higher prices. They are effectively rent seeking parasites that distort the market and make things worst for regular people. There’s nothing wrong with reselling tickets if something comes up, but if you buy up bulk tickets to flip them for profit that is scummy behavior.
  - mbostleman 4y ago
    >>[Scalpers] are effectively rent seeking parasites that distort the market and make things worst for regular people.>> I'm trying to understand this sentiment from a totally unsentimental, mechanical view of economics. I've always had a problem with the negative sentiment towards what people refer to as "price gouging" and it strikes me that scalping is similar. >>if you buy up bulk tickets to flip them for profit that is scummy behavior.>> For me to relate to this, the "buy up bulk" part would have to be qualified. Does that mean buying so many that the market is cornered - hence forming a monopoly? If that's the case yes - I can ethically map monopolies and anti-competitive behavior to "scummy behavior". But if, for whatever reason, I have some statistically non-significant amount of tickets - say 10 or 15 for a 50k-100k stadium event - and standing on the sidewalk outside, there is plenty of demand for those tickets at say double the original price, it's not clear to me how that is ethically problematic any more than the buying any other asset that you expect to appreciate. But maybe what I'm describing does not fit the definition of "scalping"?
Mwow 4y ago
I would disagree based on what their motivation was. Borderline perhaps.

culturestate 4y ago

Scalpers don’t typically sell tickets for less than face value.

xnorswap 4y ago
Nor is OP if you take their 20% discount into account. Scalping tickets designed to be heavily discounted for fans, then re-selling them to anyone for profit is scummy even if the price still comes under the non-fan price. At best you're just denying other fans the chance to get discounts for your own profit.
- culturestate 4y ago
  OP bought one set of season tickets to their favorite baseball team, went to the games they wanted to see, and sold tickets to the games they didn’t want to attend to other fans for less than face value and (presumably) without the outrageous fees that you’d pay at Ticketmaster, et al. Every casual season ticket holder does this, but most of us don’t systematize it - we just send messages to our group chats, and if nobody wants the tickets for that game then the seats stay empty. There’s absolutely nothing scummy or untoward about OP’s approach.
  - xnorswap 4y ago
    Perhaps I'm mis-reading the plural here, but how many season tickets do you consider a "set"? Given OP bragged about seeing "6-7 games for FREE", it implies a lot of profit was made on the rest of the re-sold tickets. There's a big difference between being a season ticket holder and buying multiple season tickets for the purpose of reselling and subsidising your own ticket.
- tessierashpool 4y ago
  it's just arbitrage. scalping tickets isn't morally distinct from any other form of "buy low, sell high."
  - ohwellhere 4y ago
    I see your point. I'm not sure you're objectively wrong. But it feels wrong. :) Where there is sufficient demand for things to sell out to people who want the product, but are unable to get it because someone has used a bot to scoop them up at superhuman speeds... that doesn't feel exactly like the moral equivalent of other forms of arbitrage. _Especially_ when the sellers themselves would prefer that not happen. The bands want the tickets to go to the fans at no higher than the price the venue sets. Sony wants more gamers to have PS5s at the price they set. It feels like the marketplace would function perfectly fine, and the true seller and the final buyer want it to work one way, but third party interlopers are taking advantage of other aspects of the scale and technological basis of our marketplace. Market makers provide value; scalpers rent seek. I think that's a valid moral distinction.
    - tessierashpool 4y ago
      I can see where you're coming from, but I have pretty bad news, which is that the last line just doesn't match reality, at least not in the United States. It might make sense in theory, but it just isn't true: > Market makers provide value; scalpers rent seek. In the United States, event tickets are functionally a monopoly. In practice, Ticketmaster/Live Nation is a rent-seeking market maker which crushes small events and blocks value from being created. Here's a deep dive on that, just under 20 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Y7uqqEFnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Y7uqqEFnY This doesn't mean that scalpers can't also be rent-seekers, but given that scalpers are highly competitive and Ticketmaster is a monopoly, I think the scalpers aren't in a position to seek rent. This part has a similar flaw: > someone has used a bot to scoop them up at superhuman speeds... that doesn't feel exactly like the moral equivalent of other forms of arbitrage. High-speed trading is all about bots and arbitrage. This isn't the first time those two things have been combined. There are corners of New York where they're practically synonymous. This one has factual issues also: > The bands want the tickets to go to the fans at no higher than the price the venue sets. It's only true of _some_ bands. There's evidence (in that deep dive video) that Justin Bieber has probably scalped tickets to his own shows, at scale. I'm not saying that if Justin Bieber does it, it automatically can't be scummy. That seems like a very very hard argument to make. I'm a musician and I would not want to have that kind of relationship with my fans (if I had any, beyond a few repeat listeners on Spotify). I'm just saying, there's a lot in this comment which makes intuitive sense but doesn't actually line up with the reality of the situation.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  > Scalping tickets designed to be heavily discounted for fans. You’re making a very strong assumption here. Teams are selling at a bulk discount, that’s it. There’s nothing to suggest that they are doing it to be benevolent.
bko 4y ago
They sell if for the market price, and often times they get burned and sell below face value. If you see concert tickets available through the official venue, you should look at resale prices and you could often get cheaper prices as scalpers misjudged the demand or supply

thefourthchime 4y ago

Most tickets are "scalped" these days, either by credit card companies, the artist themselves, the venue, etc... A minority of tickets are sold through the normal retail channel these days.

macinjosh 4y ago

IMO "scalping" is OK and is just selling for what the market will bear. There is demand for something with limited supply (aka scarcity) so prices will go up. I also don't buy that it is unfair to the artist because if their tickets are being "scalped" they could just as easily add more dates to each venue to provide more supply to the market. Some artists do this but many just want to breeze through town in one show.

xnorswap 4y ago
If tickets were sold for "market price" then the vast majority of people would be priced out of many events because the wealthy are so much wealthier than the average person that they'd simply monopolise a whole lot of entertainment. Not entirely unlike what has happened to the housing market in cities like London or Vancouver. If you're okay with huge swathes of the population going without whole sectors of entertainment because "it's a free market" then you're entitled to that opinion. That isn't a society I value.
- SeanAnderson 4y ago
  The scenario you're outlining seems to favor the consumers of art over the creators. Am I understanding you correctly? It's my opinion that tickets should be sold for as much as the market will handle assuming the additional proceeds go directly to the artist. Any other approach is charity at cost to the artist.
  - xnorswap 4y ago
    I think that's a very naive perspective, it encourages a romantic view of entertainment where an artist is selling their own trade themselves. That isn't the reality of the world. Maximising the profit of the entertainment "artist" is in reality maximising the profits of the rights holder which in many cases is itself a large corporation such as the NFL. Do I value the consumers of football over the NFL? Heck yes I do! It's why for instance Germany has their 50%+1 rule, to help make sure that fans rather than corporate owners benefit from the sport. Even in the case of things like solo artists, I don't want to live in a world where only the super rich can see an artist live, and everyone else has to suck it up because it maximises the money for the artist.

bko 4y ago

Scalping is necessary for a lot of events. For instance, a few years back concert sales used to sell a year ahead of time. Who decides they want to go to a concert a year from now? So after a few days they're all sold out to scalpers. Maybe without scalpers they would get sold out by maybe 6 months. But who plans to go to a concert 6 months from now? It's unreasonable. So the alternative is to never get to go to concerts unless you're a fastidious planner. The other side is even if you want to go to a concert and buy tickets a year ahead of time. What happens if something comes up? You can't resell them. Having the ability to resell your tickets is a huge value to people intending to go to the concert. You can argue that there should be a better distribution mechanism and I agree, but scalpers are not the problem

andreilys 4y ago
Scalpers buy with the intention of flipping tickets for higher prices. They are effectively rent seeking parasites that distort the market and make things worst for regular people. There’s nothing wrong with reselling tickets if something comes up, but if you buy up bulk tickets to flip them for profit that is scummy behavior.
- mbostleman 4y ago
  >>[Scalpers] are effectively rent seeking parasites that distort the market and make things worst for regular people.>> I'm trying to understand this sentiment from a totally unsentimental, mechanical view of economics. I've always had a problem with the negative sentiment towards what people refer to as "price gouging" and it strikes me that scalping is similar. >>if you buy up bulk tickets to flip them for profit that is scummy behavior.>> For me to relate to this, the "buy up bulk" part would have to be qualified. Does that mean buying so many that the market is cornered - hence forming a monopoly? If that's the case yes - I can ethically map monopolies and anti-competitive behavior to "scummy behavior". But if, for whatever reason, I have some statistically non-significant amount of tickets - say 10 or 15 for a 50k-100k stadium event - and standing on the sidewalk outside, there is plenty of demand for those tickets at say double the original price, it's not clear to me how that is ethically problematic any more than the buying any other asset that you expect to appreciate. But maybe what I'm describing does not fit the definition of "scalping"?

Mwow 4y ago

I would disagree based on what their motivation was. Borderline perhaps.