4 ms·

Ticket scalping also involves equally fun acts & regulations. Luckily the laws are changing (for the better) which is one reason why it was a good idea to inves

Ticket scalping also involves equally fun acts & regulations. Luckily the laws are changing (for the better) which is one reason why it was a good idea to invest in us :-D.

r7000 18y ago
Ticketing has been a weird market. There is a strong expectation among consumers that there is a 'fixed price' (face value) and that anything else is 'unfair'. Demand is constrained completely by a venue's capacity leading to all the obvious problems for over-subscribed events.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  We deal with this every day. An interesting trend is that we've seen more people buying from ticketmaster (since events are selling out & season ticket sales are down) even when tickets on the secondary market are cheaper and "below face". It's ridiculous how obsessed people are with face value even when it's arbitrary and doesn't really mean anything; it gives them a sense of fairness. Also, venues have incentive to sell out as higher margins are associated with concessions, alcohol sales and merchandise. Teams might tell the newspapers they hate the secondary market, but in reality, the majority of them love it. Some even cater to it.
  - r7000 18y ago
    That is incredible. I knew the feeling was strong but to actually influence buyers to pay face value over a discount wasn't what I expected. I guess I was more cynical but the instinct is very strong. It is probably a remnant from when there was no other reasonable option. Why ticket reselling became so vilified I always put down to fan enthusiasm (and therefore irrationality).
- demallien 18y ago
  This is an important point that the author of the article seems to have not noticed. His whole argument is based on the idea that rent control leads to a decrease in supply, with a resulting hike in price due to unmet demand. But I wonder just how many apartments can really be built in Manhattan? Or in intra-muros Paris, or in the City in London...
  - Retric 18y ago
    Manhattan could have 3x the number of apartments by increasing average building size, granted transportation would become an even larger problem. However, when you increase the cost to live somewhere you decrease the number of people who want to live there so it's probably not a problem. IMO rent control is best when it limits how much above inflation you can increase rent per year. At 3.5% over inflation you can basically double the real cost over 20 years, but people can plain ahead and know they will not be forced out next year. The major problems seem to occur when rent suddenly goes up 20 percent with little notice or fall significantly below market. PS: London and Paris are less developed than Manhattan, but they seem to want to maintain their historic look which limits growth. DC has started building down because they can't increase building height which is extremely expensive.
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    Given that there are 113 cities in the world with greater population density than NYC, I'd say it would be possible to build more housing. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-... But rent control is probably not the whole story. I'm not familiar with NYC laws but I'm sure there's a lot of regulatory red tape besides rent control that keeps housing scarce and expensive.
    - pchristensen 18y ago
      Don't make the mistake Manhattan or NYC with the New York Metro area (used in your link). Manhattan: 1.6M people, 23 sq mi, ~70K/sq mi (more than double #1 on the list) NYC: 8.3M, 305 sq mi, ~27K/sq mi (would be #2 on that list) NY Metro: 17.8M, 8700 sq mi, 2K/sq mi So while NY Metro could definitely use more housing, you're talking about CT farmland, the Poconos, Hudson county, etc.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Demand is constrained completely by a venue's capacity This is an example of the "We Have No Competition" fallacy. It is a fallacy because substitutes for the demand are possible. In the present case, substitutes could take the form of events on other nights at the same venue, other existing venues, new venues, venue expansion, virtual venue axpansion via remote-viewing technologies, recording for later viewing, etc.

Ticket scalping also involves equally fun acts & regulations. Luckily the laws are changing (for the better) which is one reason why it was a good idea to invest in us :-D.

r7000 18y ago

Ticketing has been a weird market. There is a strong expectation among consumers that there is a 'fixed price' (face value) and that anything else is 'unfair'. Demand is constrained completely by a venue's capacity leading to all the obvious problems for over-subscribed events.

fallentimes 18y ago
We deal with this every day. An interesting trend is that we've seen more people buying from ticketmaster (since events are selling out & season ticket sales are down) even when tickets on the secondary market are cheaper and "below face". It's ridiculous how obsessed people are with face value even when it's arbitrary and doesn't really mean anything; it gives them a sense of fairness. Also, venues have incentive to sell out as higher margins are associated with concessions, alcohol sales and merchandise. Teams might tell the newspapers they hate the secondary market, but in reality, the majority of them love it. Some even cater to it.
- r7000 18y ago
  That is incredible. I knew the feeling was strong but to actually influence buyers to pay face value over a discount wasn't what I expected. I guess I was more cynical but the instinct is very strong. It is probably a remnant from when there was no other reasonable option. Why ticket reselling became so vilified I always put down to fan enthusiasm (and therefore irrationality).
demallien 18y ago
This is an important point that the author of the article seems to have not noticed. His whole argument is based on the idea that rent control leads to a decrease in supply, with a resulting hike in price due to unmet demand. But I wonder just how many apartments can really be built in Manhattan? Or in intra-muros Paris, or in the City in London...
- Retric 18y ago
  Manhattan could have 3x the number of apartments by increasing average building size, granted transportation would become an even larger problem. However, when you increase the cost to live somewhere you decrease the number of people who want to live there so it's probably not a problem. IMO rent control is best when it limits how much above inflation you can increase rent per year. At 3.5% over inflation you can basically double the real cost over 20 years, but people can plain ahead and know they will not be forced out next year. The major problems seem to occur when rent suddenly goes up 20 percent with little notice or fall significantly below market. PS: London and Paris are less developed than Manhattan, but they seem to want to maintain their historic look which limits growth. DC has started building down because they can't increase building height which is extremely expensive.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  Given that there are 113 cities in the world with greater population density than NYC, I'd say it would be possible to build more housing. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-... But rent control is probably not the whole story. I'm not familiar with NYC laws but I'm sure there's a lot of regulatory red tape besides rent control that keeps housing scarce and expensive.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    Don't make the mistake Manhattan or NYC with the New York Metro area (used in your link). Manhattan: 1.6M people, 23 sq mi, ~70K/sq mi (more than double #1 on the list) NYC: 8.3M, 305 sq mi, ~27K/sq mi (would be #2 on that list) NY Metro: 17.8M, 8700 sq mi, 2K/sq mi So while NY Metro could definitely use more housing, you're talking about CT farmland, the Poconos, Hudson county, etc.
DabAsteroid 18y ago
Demand is constrained completely by a venue's capacity This is an example of the "We Have No Competition" fallacy. It is a fallacy because substitutes for the demand are possible. In the present case, substitutes could take the form of events on other nights at the same venue, other existing venues, new venues, venue expansion, virtual venue axpansion via remote-viewing technologies, recording for later viewing, etc.