5 ms·

Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. If people are willing to pay $150 for tickets and hes charging $50 (or whatever it is), he's only doing himse

Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. If people are willing to pay $150 for tickets and hes charging $50 (or whatever it is), he's only doing himself a disservice. If people are willing to pay that much and he delivers a show that is up to his normal standard, they won't hate him for charging them that much; quite the opposite actually. It's only the price gauging and poor service of monopolies that people tend to hate (and for good reason). Now, if you are saying 'what about the people who cant afford $150 for tickets?'. If it's not a charity show, the world definitely does not owe you tickets to a stand-up comedy show. On the other hand, charity shows are fine, but he should call it like it is if thats the case. $50 for tickets means the rich will pay less than theyre willing to pay and the poor won't get in anyways. No one wins in that situation.

fusiongyro 14y ago
> he's only doing himself a disservice. How precisely is the scalper, by increasing costs and adding _no value_ doing us a service?
- jbooth 14y ago
  By increasing liquidity!!
- Androsynth 14y ago
  Just because he is doing himself a disservice doesn't mean the scalpers are doing us a service.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    As worded it is implied that the scalper is doing _somebody_ a service, and I disagree with that.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      If they weren't doing anyone a service, they wouldn't make money.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        Of course they don't and still do: through speculation, they're artificially taking control of the supply allowing them to re-set its price point without providing value. The tickets would sell all the same through the original provider at the original price, they just inserted themselves between the producer and the consumer (usually through brute-forcing the producer's ordering scheme) in order to extract wealth from the consumer. That's parasitism.
        philwelch 14y ago
        That's pretty much impossible. If the market clearing rate is face value, scalping tickets for more than that wouldn't be viable. Do you think running a corner store is "parasitism"?
- sambe 14y ago
  They are doing a service to anyone who buys scalped tickets, who is happy to pay extra rather than not go. Competition at this price is lower. I know many people who have happily paid well over face value on several occasions. Of course everyone would rather pay an artificially low price. Wanting a better deal isn't the same as the premium being extortion. You may not like scalping but there's no point being blinkered about it.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    Except they're only paying extra because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The competition is higher at the lower price because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The arguments for scalping only work if the effects of the scalping are ignored. Eliminating scalpers benefits everyone.
    - sambe 14y ago
      It's not so much an argument "for scalping" as an argument against being emotional and extreme. So, once again, - no, not everyone benefits. Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. They got what they wanted at a price they could afford. Disliking something is not the same as it being inherently and totally evil.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        You're putting words in my mouth. > Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. Again, this is assuming that the amount of competition for the tickets is not affected by the scalpers. In reality, the scalpers are exactly the ones driving the scarcity.
        ionforce 14y ago
        That's the whole point of scalping, to affect access to tickets. Has more money => has more access to scalped tickets vs normal tickets
- vacri 14y ago
  The value that scalpers add is that you can get tickets at a later time. That's about the only value I can see that they provide, and whether that benefit is moral or not I guess depends on whether you believe in first-come-first-served for that item.
dagw 14y ago
First of all, just because there are a number of people willing to pay $150, that doesn't necessarily mean there are enough of them to sell out every show. So now he either has to lower prices as the dates approach or play to half full venues. Both of which are obviously sub-optimal. Secondly you're ignoring the broader message sent by charging $150. Even if he can find enough people willing to pay that to fill a small venue, it risks sending the wrong message and pissing off people who might otherwise have bought his DVDs, watched his TV shows or gone to other shows. So now instead of being seen as broadly popular "man of the people" who "sticks up for his fans" with wide appeal, he's seen as a stuck up rich fucker entertaining other stuck-up rich fuckers. This will have obviously negative effects on his TV ratings, where I suspect is where he makes most of his money.
balloot 14y ago
What Louis CK is essentially saying is that given a large amount of money already in the bank, it is more valuable for him to have affordable tickets than it is for him to maximize revenue. That is a decision that is perfectly rational. Not everyone gets their full utility from making the absolute maximum amount of money possible. Also, a side effect of this is that below-market value tickets create a shortage, which in turn makes it valuable to be the first to learn about new tickets. This has to be driving signups to his mailing list and twitter feed.
vacri 14y ago
Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. God bless the US health system! $50 for tickets means the rich will pay less than theyre willing to pay and the poor won't get in anyways. No one wins in that situation. Economists are crazy. A full house is a full house. The people who win are the people who attended. How you can possibly say 'no-one wins' from a full house of successful comedy on the cheap is beyond me. Yeah, bummer, the cheap tickets to a very entertaining night left us all feeling crappy...
jeffool 14y ago
>Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. Except fans. Who can now buy his DVDs or other swag. (Or afford both his show, and rent.) If your goal is to get as much money as quickly as possible, there's another word for that. Short-sightedness.

fusiongyro 14y ago

> he's only doing himself a disservice. How precisely is the scalper, by increasing costs and adding _no value_ doing us a service?

jbooth 14y ago
By increasing liquidity!!
Androsynth 14y ago
Just because he is doing himself a disservice doesn't mean the scalpers are doing us a service.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  As worded it is implied that the scalper is doing _somebody_ a service, and I disagree with that.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    If they weren't doing anyone a service, they wouldn't make money.
    - masklinn 14y ago
      Of course they don't and still do: through speculation, they're artificially taking control of the supply allowing them to re-set its price point without providing value. The tickets would sell all the same through the original provider at the original price, they just inserted themselves between the producer and the consumer (usually through brute-forcing the producer's ordering scheme) in order to extract wealth from the consumer. That's parasitism.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        That's pretty much impossible. If the market clearing rate is face value, scalping tickets for more than that wouldn't be viable. Do you think running a corner store is "parasitism"?
sambe 14y ago
They are doing a service to anyone who buys scalped tickets, who is happy to pay extra rather than not go. Competition at this price is lower. I know many people who have happily paid well over face value on several occasions. Of course everyone would rather pay an artificially low price. Wanting a better deal isn't the same as the premium being extortion. You may not like scalping but there's no point being blinkered about it.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  Except they're only paying extra because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The competition is higher at the lower price because, ta-da!, the tickets were scalped. The arguments for scalping only work if the effects of the scalping are ignored. Eliminating scalpers benefits everyone.
  - sambe 14y ago
    It's not so much an argument "for scalping" as an argument against being emotional and extreme. So, once again, - no, not everyone benefits. Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. They got what they wanted at a price they could afford. Disliking something is not the same as it being inherently and totally evil.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth. > Without the higher price tickets available from the scalpers, they would not have been able to go. Again, this is assuming that the amount of competition for the tickets is not affected by the scalpers. In reality, the scalpers are exactly the ones driving the scarcity.
      - ionforce 14y ago
        That's the whole point of scalping, to affect access to tickets. Has more money => has more access to scalped tickets vs normal tickets
vacri 14y ago
The value that scalpers add is that you can get tickets at a later time. That's about the only value I can see that they provide, and whether that benefit is moral or not I guess depends on whether you believe in first-come-first-served for that item.

dagw 14y ago

First of all, just because there are a number of people willing to pay $150, that doesn't necessarily mean there are enough of them to sell out every show. So now he either has to lower prices as the dates approach or play to half full venues. Both of which are obviously sub-optimal. Secondly you're ignoring the broader message sent by charging $150. Even if he can find enough people willing to pay that to fill a small venue, it risks sending the wrong message and pissing off people who might otherwise have bought his DVDs, watched his TV shows or gone to other shows. So now instead of being seen as broadly popular "man of the people" who "sticks up for his fans" with wide appeal, he's seen as a stuck up rich fucker entertaining other stuck-up rich fuckers. This will have obviously negative effects on his TV ratings, where I suspect is where he makes most of his money.

balloot 14y ago

What Louis CK is essentially saying is that given a large amount of money already in the bank, it is more valuable for him to have affordable tickets than it is for him to maximize revenue. That is a decision that is perfectly rational. Not everyone gets their full utility from making the absolute maximum amount of money possible. Also, a side effect of this is that below-market value tickets create a shortage, which in turn makes it valuable to be the first to learn about new tickets. This has to be driving signups to his mailing list and twitter feed.

vacri 14y ago

Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. God bless the US health system! $50 for tickets means the rich will pay less than theyre willing to pay and the poor won't get in anyways. No one wins in that situation. Economists are crazy. A full house is a full house. The people who win are the people who attended. How you can possibly say 'no-one wins' from a full house of successful comedy on the cheap is beyond me. Yeah, bummer, the cheap tickets to a very entertaining night left us all feeling crappy...

jeffool 14y ago

>Leaving money on the table does no one any favors. Except fans. Who can now buy his DVDs or other swag. (Or afford both his show, and rent.) If your goal is to get as much money as quickly as possible, there's another word for that. Short-sightedness.