3 ms·

> Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2] I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the abstract talks about ticket win

> Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2] I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the abstract talks about ticket window prices. Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Or am I misunderstanding the term "ticket window"? As a lay person, my gut asks: if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the "weighted average of seats normally available to the public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.) > if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist? Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less. [1] https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999 https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999
hervature 3y ago
The scalper is trading volatility (they may or may not sell the ticket for a higher price) for the opportunity of a return. The venue is getting the opposite side of the deal. Guaranteed income now.
- crabmusket 3y ago
  But if, on average, scalpers didn't get their payout, then they wouldn't take the risk right? Unless scalpers as a class are economically irrational?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > if, on average, scalpers didn't get their payout, then they wouldn't take the risk The point is they can get their pay-out while the venue/artist and consumers win. Scalper gets paid. Venue and artist get stability. Consumer who buys from the scalper gets availability. And the other 90% of consumers get cheaper prices.
    - crabmusket 3y ago
      I see, I guess that makes sense in theory.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the "weighted average of seats normally available to the public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.) > if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist? Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less. [1] https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999 https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2487999

hervature 3y ago

The scalper is trading volatility (they may or may not sell the ticket for a higher price) for the opportunity of a return. The venue is getting the opposite side of the deal. Guaranteed income now.

crabmusket 3y ago
But if, on average, scalpers didn't get their payout, then they wouldn't take the risk right? Unless scalpers as a class are economically irrational?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > if, on average, scalpers didn't get their payout, then they wouldn't take the risk The point is they can get their pay-out while the venue/artist and consumers win. Scalper gets paid. Venue and artist get stability. Consumer who buys from the scalper gets availability. And the other 90% of consumers get cheaper prices.
  - crabmusket 3y ago
    I see, I guess that makes sense in theory.