4 ms·
> > Those $100 face-value tickets were selling for 10 to 50x their price on secondary markets. Either she truly believed her tickets were only worth $100 (unlik
by ChadNauseam 2y ago
> > Those $100 face-value tickets were selling for 10 to 50x their price on secondary markets. Either she truly believed her tickets were only worth $100 (unlikely), or she was deliberately underpricing to maintain her image as an artist who cares about fan access.
> No, those $100 tickets are mostly worth $100.
No, all of those tickets were worth more than $100, which you see from the fact that, if you had one, you could sell it for more than $100.
- tpm 2y agoYou would only see it if you sold all of them for more than $100.
- ChadNauseam 2y agoThis is a totally idiosyncratic definition of "worth". If I say a company is worth $100 a share, that doesn't imply that you could simultaneously sell every single share for at least $100
- tpm 2y agoYou inserted 'simultaneously', not me. But if you are not able to eventually sell all the tickets for more than $100, clearly not all of them are worth more than $100. Some, at the right time and place, might be, but not all.
- hughesjj 2y agoSelling 1 ticket for 100x != Selling all tickets for 100x Especially not when many of those 100x prices are from scalpers or rescalpers in the first place. Once a ticket is seen as an investment vehicle it gets divorced from the intrinsic value of "seat at concert I'd like to go to".
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe article claims that 95% of tickets are grabbed by "The profiteers, the bots, the scalpers, the ticketing reseller". I'm not sure if it's hyperbole or not.