3 ms·

Actually, since over 50% of events don't sell out, you can often find below face value tickets on TicketStumbler. The ticketmaster fees are comparable to the on

Actually, since over 50% of events don't sell out, you can often find below face value tickets on TicketStumbler. The ticketmaster fees are comparable to the ones charged by our ticket providers. This is even more true now that we're in a recession. NBA tickets are at all time lows. Expect similar deals for baseball season.

ojbyrne 18y ago
I said "theoretically." Boiled down, you're collecting commissions to aggregate ticket inventory and find the lowest prices for buyers. If every buyer spent the time to find the lowest price (including spending the time to develop the knowledge you guys have of pricing, etc), those commissions would disappear.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Hmm I"m not sure if that would be true since we're paid directly from Stubhub, Razorgator etc. The prices shown on TicketStumbler are the same as those shown on Stubhub (there's no extra fees on our end). Essentially, we try to save people time without costing anything extra. If the user went to all those sites separately they'd still pay the same amount. What you're saying definitely applies to a place like Expedia that tags on extra fees.
- tdavis 18y ago
  Well of course if everybody spent all that time to find the lowest prices and developed knowledge of pricing we'd stop making money. But they're not going to do that, just like everybody isn't going to randomly decide to learn the way air travel works and put Orbitz et. al. out of business. Even if it cost 10% more to buy a ticket through TicketStumbler, which it doesn't (it costs 0%), it would still be worth it. You have to consider the opportunity cost.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    I totally agree and didn't mean it as a criticism in any way. Just that in theory, you're providing a service that lets people convert money (someone's, not sure whose, perhaps completely fanciful) into saved time, and that the article is about you sacrificing time to reduce costs. The vonage example specifically is about that - some slight increase in inconvenience (i.e. lost time) for a cost savings.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Ah I see. Though with cell phone day time rates being what they are, the slight loss in time is well worth it :).
      - ojbyrne 18y ago
        It all depends on what your hourly rate is. Both the phone and your time. See the now ancient Bill Gates Wealth Page (http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html): "Which means that if, on his way into the office, should he see or drop a $1000 bill on the ground, it's just not worth his time to bend over and pick it up. He would make more just heading off to work."
        fallentimes 18y ago
        I'm a long ways from that.
      - mikeyur 18y ago
        I'd toss Vonage and go for Skype-out, save $11/month :P If you're only calling out from it, skype-out is $3/month or $30/yr and allows unlimited calling to the US/Canada.
        fallentimes 18y ago
        In my experience, Skype hasn't been near as reliable.

ojbyrne 18y ago

I said "theoretically." Boiled down, you're collecting commissions to aggregate ticket inventory and find the lowest prices for buyers. If every buyer spent the time to find the lowest price (including spending the time to develop the knowledge you guys have of pricing, etc), those commissions would disappear.

fallentimes 18y ago
Hmm I"m not sure if that would be true since we're paid directly from Stubhub, Razorgator etc. The prices shown on TicketStumbler are the same as those shown on Stubhub (there's no extra fees on our end). Essentially, we try to save people time without costing anything extra. If the user went to all those sites separately they'd still pay the same amount. What you're saying definitely applies to a place like Expedia that tags on extra fees.
tdavis 18y ago
Well of course if everybody spent all that time to find the lowest prices and developed knowledge of pricing we'd stop making money. But they're not going to do that, just like everybody isn't going to randomly decide to learn the way air travel works and put Orbitz et. al. out of business. Even if it cost 10% more to buy a ticket through TicketStumbler, which it doesn't (it costs 0%), it would still be worth it. You have to consider the opportunity cost.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  I totally agree and didn't mean it as a criticism in any way. Just that in theory, you're providing a service that lets people convert money (someone's, not sure whose, perhaps completely fanciful) into saved time, and that the article is about you sacrificing time to reduce costs. The vonage example specifically is about that - some slight increase in inconvenience (i.e. lost time) for a cost savings.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Ah I see. Though with cell phone day time rates being what they are, the slight loss in time is well worth it :).
    - ojbyrne 18y ago
      It all depends on what your hourly rate is. Both the phone and your time. See the now ancient Bill Gates Wealth Page (http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html): "Which means that if, on his way into the office, should he see or drop a $1000 bill on the ground, it's just not worth his time to bend over and pick it up. He would make more just heading off to work."
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        I'm a long ways from that.
    - mikeyur 18y ago
      I'd toss Vonage and go for Skype-out, save $11/month :P If you're only calling out from it, skype-out is $3/month or $30/yr and allows unlimited calling to the US/Canada.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        In my experience, Skype hasn't been near as reliable.