3 ms·

This is ultimately a supply and demand problem. If tickets sell out on the secondary market for 10 or 100x the face value, then that's the fair market price. Ei

by ch4s3 5mo ago

This is ultimately a supply and demand problem. If tickets sell out on the secondary market for 10 or 100x the face value, then that's the fair market price. Either artists should charge more, or perform more shows.

johnpaulkiser 5mo ago
I think its more complicated than that. An artist is pretty constrained by how many shows they can play in a given area which makes the total market for any given show really small and trivially manipulated for profit.
- ch4s3 5mo ago
  Then she should charge more.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
OtherShrezzing 5mo ago
The last/marginal ticket in the venue sells for 10x face value. The majority of tickets don’t sell for much more than face value. Taylor Swift can’t realistically play more shows than she did during the Eras Tour, and it’s unlikely that she’d have sold a million seats in London if she were charging much more than she did.
- ch4s3 5mo ago
  It seems like you could sell tickets in tranches at tiered prices. It seems very tractable. I suspect artists don't want to look greedy by personally charging what fans are often willing to pay.
- redox99 5mo ago
  > The last/marginal ticket in the venue sells for 10x face value. That's only if the event sells out. The ticket should have sold for a higher price such that the demand was exactly the number of seats available.
smrq 5mo ago
This may come as a shock to capitalists, but some artists don't want to charge their fans more. Fugazi famously capped their ticket prices at $5 because they wanted their shows to be affordable.
tomhow 5mo ago
No, it‘s an audience/artist experience problem. I worked for one of Australia's biggest outdoor summer music festivals through the 2000s (I built a direct ticket selling platform for them). Their popularity grew each year, and, sure, they could have just raised their prices to try and match supply and demand. They 100% did not want to do that because they knew it would completely change the audience demographics and make a less fun event for everyone to attend and a less fun event for the artists to perform at, thus making it harder to attract audiences and artists in future years. They ended up being acquired by a company that was much more into charging top dollar to big-spenders. The company was ultimately acquired by Live Nation and the ticket prices kept increasing until suddenly ticket sales stopped, and that whole category of festivals is now largely dead in Australia.
- ch4s3 5mo ago
  It sounds like they found the price ceiling. Trying to pick your customers is a fools errand, particularly with a music festival where tastes change and people age out.
  - tomhow 5mo ago
    The point is that it's not simply “a supply and demand problem” when you factor in downstream effects. The product is not merely the performance; the audience makeup and energy is a crucial part of the experience, and they also influence the artist's ability to deliver the best performance. It's no good optimizing for simple supply and demand in one year if it destroys the product and therefore demand in subsequent years, which is what we're seeing the market. I'm familiar with libertarian principles, but every libertarian economist I've paid attention to has emphasized the importance of second-order effects.
    - ch4s3 5mo ago
      I mean sure, you don;t want to drive away your audience, but the existence of a second hand market with much high prices clearly means you aren't pricing tickets correctly. The existence of the scalper with the 10 or 100x price is the second-order effect of under pricing, and everything Ive read already suggests that audience makeups are changing at music festivals as more tickets are bought second hand at these considerable markups.
pibaker 5mo ago
There is a physical limit to how many shows you can put on and the Economics 101 explanation of ticket pricing misses the part where the price of the ticket is a part of the whole image the musician is selling to the audiences. Taylor Swift can probably still sell out if she raises the price ten fold, but what kind message does this send to her average listeners? What does it mean if the most popular popular musician of our times prices the populace out? You can of course dismiss the likely negative responses as emotional and irrational, but that's the whole deal with art and culture. You can't build a fan base without catering to their emotions. And then on the other extreme of music you have people like Fugazi, whose low ticket pricing is very obviously a part of the band's entire artistic and ideological project. If you want to see what happens when you apply supply and demand to ticket pricing, you can just look at your nearest big league sports team. The recent trend seems to be jacking up the prices as much as they can get away with and catering more and more to VIP guests who spend a fortune in one of those "hospitality" suites. Perhaps not a coincidence that less and less people, especially younger people, around me are casually into sports these days. They got told that they are not welcome in the corporate owned sports venue and they take their attention elsewhere, and all it's left are a dwindling set of diehard fans and C-suite people who are there not for sports but for overpriced steak dinners and are too nicely dressed to cheer for their home team.

by ch4s3 5mo ago

johnpaulkiser 5mo ago

I think its more complicated than that. An artist is pretty constrained by how many shows they can play in a given area which makes the total market for any given show really small and trivially manipulated for profit.

ch4s3 5mo ago
Then she should charge more.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

OtherShrezzing 5mo ago

The last/marginal ticket in the venue sells for 10x face value. The majority of tickets don’t sell for much more than face value. Taylor Swift can’t realistically play more shows than she did during the Eras Tour, and it’s unlikely that she’d have sold a million seats in London if she were charging much more than she did.

ch4s3 5mo ago
It seems like you could sell tickets in tranches at tiered prices. It seems very tractable. I suspect artists don't want to look greedy by personally charging what fans are often willing to pay.
redox99 5mo ago
> The last/marginal ticket in the venue sells for 10x face value. That's only if the event sells out. The ticket should have sold for a higher price such that the demand was exactly the number of seats available.

smrq 5mo ago

This may come as a shock to capitalists, but some artists don't want to charge their fans more. Fugazi famously capped their ticket prices at $5 because they wanted their shows to be affordable.

tomhow 5mo ago

No, it‘s an audience/artist experience problem. I worked for one of Australia's biggest outdoor summer music festivals through the 2000s (I built a direct ticket selling platform for them). Their popularity grew each year, and, sure, they could have just raised their prices to try and match supply and demand. They 100% did not want to do that because they knew it would completely change the audience demographics and make a less fun event for everyone to attend and a less fun event for the artists to perform at, thus making it harder to attract audiences and artists in future years. They ended up being acquired by a company that was much more into charging top dollar to big-spenders. The company was ultimately acquired by Live Nation and the ticket prices kept increasing until suddenly ticket sales stopped, and that whole category of festivals is now largely dead in Australia.

ch4s3 5mo ago
It sounds like they found the price ceiling. Trying to pick your customers is a fools errand, particularly with a music festival where tastes change and people age out.
- tomhow 5mo ago
  The point is that it's not simply “a supply and demand problem” when you factor in downstream effects. The product is not merely the performance; the audience makeup and energy is a crucial part of the experience, and they also influence the artist's ability to deliver the best performance. It's no good optimizing for simple supply and demand in one year if it destroys the product and therefore demand in subsequent years, which is what we're seeing the market. I'm familiar with libertarian principles, but every libertarian economist I've paid attention to has emphasized the importance of second-order effects.
  - ch4s3 5mo ago
    I mean sure, you don;t want to drive away your audience, but the existence of a second hand market with much high prices clearly means you aren't pricing tickets correctly. The existence of the scalper with the 10 or 100x price is the second-order effect of under pricing, and everything Ive read already suggests that audience makeups are changing at music festivals as more tickets are bought second hand at these considerable markups.

pibaker 5mo ago

There is a physical limit to how many shows you can put on and the Economics 101 explanation of ticket pricing misses the part where the price of the ticket is a part of the whole image the musician is selling to the audiences. Taylor Swift can probably still sell out if she raises the price ten fold, but what kind message does this send to her average listeners? What does it mean if the most popular popular musician of our times prices the populace out? You can of course dismiss the likely negative responses as emotional and irrational, but that's the whole deal with art and culture. You can't build a fan base without catering to their emotions. And then on the other extreme of music you have people like Fugazi, whose low ticket pricing is very obviously a part of the band's entire artistic and ideological project. If you want to see what happens when you apply supply and demand to ticket pricing, you can just look at your nearest big league sports team. The recent trend seems to be jacking up the prices as much as they can get away with and catering more and more to VIP guests who spend a fortune in one of those "hospitality" suites. Perhaps not a coincidence that less and less people, especially younger people, around me are casually into sports these days. They got told that they are not welcome in the corporate owned sports venue and they take their attention elsewhere, and all it's left are a dwindling set of diehard fans and C-suite people who are there not for sports but for overpriced steak dinners and are too nicely dressed to cheer for their home team.