8 ms·

I think this is great if your goal is to clear the market at a competitive price. But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. That makes the p

by bo1024 4y ago

I think this is great if your goal is to clear the market at a competitive price. But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. That makes the problem a lot harder. The obvious thing to do is have a lottery, but it's hard to stop people from using multiple identities (especially scalpers).

danuker 4y ago
These are called Sybil attacks.
judahmeek 4y ago
If they want to sell tickets below market price, there's not a good solution. If they want some people to be able to buy tickets below market price, then they could use some form of scholarships.
Ferret7446 4y ago
> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price And I want to experience being a dragon, unicorn, billionaire, etc. We can want impossible things, but ignore reality at our own peril. You can't "beat" the market, you just force the market underground (black market, scalpers). The market ALWAYS pays what it can afford. If demand is greater than supply, and someone is willing to pay more for it, refer to Economics 101.
- blowski 4y ago
  The market! The market! The market! This invisible beast which controls everything for all eternity! There are always ways of influencing the market. Taxes, subsidies, regulations, advertising. It requires imagination, but let's not feel ourselves enslaved completely to the invisible hand of the new leviathan.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    "Influencing the market" is just a way of introducing unenforcable or ineffective rules, or unintended consequences. You want to tax resale of tickets at above face value at 100%? Sure. Now enforce it. I mean, it's been illegal in many states for a while now anyway. Back in the day, before the web, anyone who wanted a ticket at face value could get one. You just had to wait in line. For a long time. And back then, people said that system was unfair, because wealthy people could afford to take the day off of work, while poor people couldn't. Or wealthy people could simply pay other people to wait in line for them. And the wealthy people realized, hey, the limit is 8 tickets but I'm going with just a group of 4... I can buy all 8 and sell 4 to people at the end of the line for a profit. And they did! And so waiting in line became fruitless, unless you were really, really, really early, because all the wealthy people (scalpers) would buy the max number of tickets and the show would sell out fast. Now we have the internet and nobody has to wait on a line, everyone can log in at the exact moment, but people once again say this is unfair. The idea that you can somehow ignore, heavily influence, or override the free market in concert tickets is nonsensical.
    - blowski 4y ago
      So we can influence the market for travel, healthcare, education, military, environment, food, children’s toys, etc. But not for tickets to watch Taylor Swift?
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Seems a bit of a weird question. Considering how often it's discussed on HN what the unintended effects are of regulations on healthcare, education, and environment. I would wager more than 5% of posts that got more than 100 comments in the last 5 years have discussions about that topic.
        blowski 4y ago
        There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here. 1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form. 2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects. 3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so. The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2. The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing. Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Well 2. is only a subset of 1., on a long enough time scale, as all human 'influences' will vanish too. Animals, even plants, experience market forces to some extent. So I would say 'You cannot influence the market over millions of years, it will always revert to form.'
        blowski 4y ago
        Within the next million years, I predict we’ll find different solutions. For now, I’ll focus on the next few decades.
deanc 4y ago
It’s really easy in many European countries to prevent identity abuse. In Finland there is a system called “strong authentication” where you log in with your bank. It’s directly tied to your social security number and banks do a very strict job of identifying you in person before you open your accounts. It works and I’ve not heard of anyone gaming this system. It’s used by the banks themselves, the government, tax office etc. This is the solution. Strong authentication into a lottery.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > This is the solution. Strong authentication into a lottery. I really don't like using a lottery, because it assumes that everyone who wants to go to a particular concert has the same level of desire to go. A lot of people might just kind of want to go, while for others going is the most important thing in the world. With a lottery system, each of those people have an equal chance of getting to go. It seems unfair to me. I want a system that allocates tickets to the people who want to go the most. I know an auction type system isn't completely fair, since some people have more money than others, but it least it has some semblance of trying to distribute tickets to people who want to go the most.
  - tromp 4y ago
    > I want a system that allocates tickets to the people who want to go the most. I can't think of a better way to measure desire than willingness to spend a long time waiting in line. So perhaps sell the more expensive lottery tickets online (with some proof of unique identity), and cheaper lottery tickets at the venue itself (still tied to identity) on a single day a few months in advance.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > who want to go the most. And then there is the difference in means. I barely want to go to tswift, but it's no skin off my budget. My friends 15yo daughter is dying to go but its like 100% of her income for the next 3 months.
    - 4y ago
jzwinck 4y ago
Sell a fraction of tickets at higher prices (perhaps via auction) ahead of time, and sell the rest at the door. Scalpers cannot pretend to be multiple people if they have to enter the venue and pay. The known-price door tickets set a bound on the value of advance tickets, with the latter having a premium for certainty of getting in. Younger people with less money will place less value on certainty (they can wait in line at another concert). Scalpers can still buy advance tickets and scalp them, but they have reduced pricing power because buyers might rather take a chance at $50 door tickets than pay $500 to a scalper. And there may be less bad press about tickets costing $500 if most of them are sold at the door for $50.
- pas 4y ago
  sell low price vouchers, require ID for them, make them refundable in 90+ days or in person with ID only set up a membership/trust/reputation system for fans and/or frequent venue goers (eg. locals), and if they actually show up to gigs, then you can reduce the refund wait time for them, etc.
matwood 4y ago
> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. Then do more shows. If the goal is to satisfy as many fans as possible across all economic spectrums, then more shows is the only answer.
maerF0x0 4y ago
> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. IMO artists should stop trying to sell below market and instead move the market by increasing supply. TSwift tickets wouldnt sell for $1000 a ticket if she played 3 nights... It's also a contradictory goal to what basically everyone else in the industry cares about (eg vendors, venues, crews etc). Perhaps for super super stars like tswift she'd literally end up playing 24/7/365 ... But for a lot of artists additional nights would really change the curve. I'm curious how alternatives might effect elasticity, something like simulcast at theaters for less than live in person?
FateOfNations 4y ago
Not particularly hard... you give a name at time of lottery entry that must match photo identification presented at the door. Making the tickets refundable would probably help too (they could be sold in a subsequent lottery round, or at the door).

by bo1024 4y ago

danuker 4y ago

These are called Sybil attacks.

judahmeek 4y ago

If they want to sell tickets below market price, there's not a good solution. If they want some people to be able to buy tickets below market price, then they could use some form of scholarships.

Ferret7446 4y ago

> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price And I want to experience being a dragon, unicorn, billionaire, etc. We can want impossible things, but ignore reality at our own peril. You can't "beat" the market, you just force the market underground (black market, scalpers). The market ALWAYS pays what it can afford. If demand is greater than supply, and someone is willing to pay more for it, refer to Economics 101.

blowski 4y ago
The market! The market! The market! This invisible beast which controls everything for all eternity! There are always ways of influencing the market. Taxes, subsidies, regulations, advertising. It requires imagination, but let's not feel ourselves enslaved completely to the invisible hand of the new leviathan.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  "Influencing the market" is just a way of introducing unenforcable or ineffective rules, or unintended consequences. You want to tax resale of tickets at above face value at 100%? Sure. Now enforce it. I mean, it's been illegal in many states for a while now anyway. Back in the day, before the web, anyone who wanted a ticket at face value could get one. You just had to wait in line. For a long time. And back then, people said that system was unfair, because wealthy people could afford to take the day off of work, while poor people couldn't. Or wealthy people could simply pay other people to wait in line for them. And the wealthy people realized, hey, the limit is 8 tickets but I'm going with just a group of 4... I can buy all 8 and sell 4 to people at the end of the line for a profit. And they did! And so waiting in line became fruitless, unless you were really, really, really early, because all the wealthy people (scalpers) would buy the max number of tickets and the show would sell out fast. Now we have the internet and nobody has to wait on a line, everyone can log in at the exact moment, but people once again say this is unfair. The idea that you can somehow ignore, heavily influence, or override the free market in concert tickets is nonsensical.
  - blowski 4y ago
    So we can influence the market for travel, healthcare, education, military, environment, food, children’s toys, etc. But not for tickets to watch Taylor Swift?
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Seems a bit of a weird question. Considering how often it's discussed on HN what the unintended effects are of regulations on healthcare, education, and environment. I would wager more than 5% of posts that got more than 100 comments in the last 5 years have discussions about that topic.
      - blowski 4y ago
        There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here. 1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form. 2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects. 3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so. The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2. The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing. Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Well 2. is only a subset of 1., on a long enough time scale, as all human 'influences' will vanish too. Animals, even plants, experience market forces to some extent. So I would say 'You cannot influence the market over millions of years, it will always revert to form.'
        blowski 4y ago
        Within the next million years, I predict we’ll find different solutions. For now, I’ll focus on the next few decades.

deanc 4y ago

It’s really easy in many European countries to prevent identity abuse. In Finland there is a system called “strong authentication” where you log in with your bank. It’s directly tied to your social security number and banks do a very strict job of identifying you in person before you open your accounts. It works and I’ve not heard of anyone gaming this system. It’s used by the banks themselves, the government, tax office etc. This is the solution. Strong authentication into a lottery.

cortesoft 4y ago
> This is the solution. Strong authentication into a lottery. I really don't like using a lottery, because it assumes that everyone who wants to go to a particular concert has the same level of desire to go. A lot of people might just kind of want to go, while for others going is the most important thing in the world. With a lottery system, each of those people have an equal chance of getting to go. It seems unfair to me. I want a system that allocates tickets to the people who want to go the most. I know an auction type system isn't completely fair, since some people have more money than others, but it least it has some semblance of trying to distribute tickets to people who want to go the most.
- tromp 4y ago
  > I want a system that allocates tickets to the people who want to go the most. I can't think of a better way to measure desire than willingness to spend a long time waiting in line. So perhaps sell the more expensive lottery tickets online (with some proof of unique identity), and cheaper lottery tickets at the venue itself (still tied to identity) on a single day a few months in advance.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > who want to go the most. And then there is the difference in means. I barely want to go to tswift, but it's no skin off my budget. My friends 15yo daughter is dying to go but its like 100% of her income for the next 3 months.
  - 4y ago

jzwinck 4y ago

Sell a fraction of tickets at higher prices (perhaps via auction) ahead of time, and sell the rest at the door. Scalpers cannot pretend to be multiple people if they have to enter the venue and pay. The known-price door tickets set a bound on the value of advance tickets, with the latter having a premium for certainty of getting in. Younger people with less money will place less value on certainty (they can wait in line at another concert). Scalpers can still buy advance tickets and scalp them, but they have reduced pricing power because buyers might rather take a chance at $50 door tickets than pay $500 to a scalper. And there may be less bad press about tickets costing $500 if most of them are sold at the door for $50.

pas 4y ago
sell low price vouchers, require ID for them, make them refundable in 90+ days or in person with ID only set up a membership/trust/reputation system for fans and/or frequent venue goers (eg. locals), and if they actually show up to gigs, then you can reduce the refund wait time for them, etc.

matwood 4y ago

> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. Then do more shows. If the goal is to satisfy as many fans as possible across all economic spectrums, then more shows is the only answer.

maerF0x0 4y ago

> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price. IMO artists should stop trying to sell below market and instead move the market by increasing supply. TSwift tickets wouldnt sell for $1000 a ticket if she played 3 nights... It's also a contradictory goal to what basically everyone else in the industry cares about (eg vendors, venues, crews etc). Perhaps for super super stars like tswift she'd literally end up playing 24/7/365 ... But for a lot of artists additional nights would really change the curve. I'm curious how alternatives might effect elasticity, something like simulcast at theaters for less than live in person?

FateOfNations 4y ago

Not particularly hard... you give a name at time of lottery entry that must match photo identification presented at the door. Making the tickets refundable would probably help too (they could be sold in a subsequent lottery round, or at the door).