3 ms·

It seems like a step in the right direction to combat scalpers. I've wondered though... Why not have a non-transferrable ticket system? If you can't go then yo

by seandoe 5mo ago

It seems like a step in the right direction to combat scalpers. I've wondered though... Why not have a non-transferrable ticket system? If you can't go then you return your tickets to the pool and if they sell you get your money back.

samarthr1 5mo ago
What seperates _your_ tickets from any other returned ticket? Wouldn't a proportional return not be better?
ssl-3 5mo ago
Non-transferable tickets suck for their own reasons. Someone in a group gets sick or otherwise can't make it? Their seat is now either empty, or their ticket goes back to the pool. They can't give that ticket to someone else. That's a big deal for a whole slew of reasons. Let's pick just one reason and run with it. Five 11-year-old-ish girls want to go see Olivia Rodrigo. These kids haven't ever even been inside an arena before and aren't experienced enough to go on their own, and the tickets are expensive. One of the moms of the group decides that she'll take them all. No problem, right? Except: This mom gets sick. She can't go. And she can't just give her ticket to one of the other moms or dads because it is non-transferable. And the kids still aren't big enough to turn loose in a crowd without an adult. The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard."
- registeredcorn 5mo ago
  If there were a caveat for something like that, like say, "adult supervision for minors is required. Transfer between legal guardians is permitted, provided they can prove ..." or some kind of language like that. Are there other common cases that would apply? I assume there are probably some other situations, but I can't think of what they might be. I also find it hard to understand why a little bit of leeway couldn't be baked into the language of the transferable nature under certain circumstances. Presumably the venue wants people to have a good time so they will want to come back again and again, right? Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc.
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    So how do those rules work, exactly? How do we even prove that the kids are kids? How do we prove that the kids even exist? > or some kind of language like that. There's nothing accomplished here but handwaving and added burden. --- > Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc. In this second scenario, scalping goes like this: "For sale: Two tickets to $hot_show. Entry instructions provided upon delivery." And then the buyer buys the tickets at whatever that price is, and goes to the show. They give their ID, the "guards" ask them basic questions, and they answer those questions. After that, they get turned loose inside like every other concert-goer. This is just handwaving and extra burden, as well. --- Unless... unless we make it totally Gestapo-like. Because the best part of going to see a show is the lengthy interrogation that happens beforehand. (If the goal is to make shows less popular, then this is a sure-fire way to improve that metric!)
- LeoPanthera 5mo ago
  The UK is proposing a law that will make it illegal to resell a ticket for greater than the face value. That honestly seems like a very pragmatic solution to me.
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    "Great news, gentlemen! We've made [drugs/gambling/guns/scalping] illegal! That problem is solved!"
    - LeoPanthera 5mo ago
      This seems unnecessarily cynical.
      - ssl-3 5mo ago
        It may be the case that your perspective differs from my own. I've gambled, and bought drugs, and done all kinds of other illegal things in my life. I knew that it was illegal. I did it anyway. I haven't bought or sold any illegally-overpriced concert tickets yet, but I'm not yet done living my life, either.
    - onion2k 5mo ago
      Perfect is the enemy of good. If a law can end the easier parts of the problem then the overwhelming majority of the issues go away. For example, the UK banned the private ownership of 'short guns' in 1997 and there hasn't been a mass shooting since. The second order effect of that was an increase in knife crime, but that's OK (in the sense that it's another problem to deal with). Trading fighting gun crime for fighting knife crime is a huge win if it removes a problem like random mass shootings. In this case, removing all of the incentives for legal ticket scalping at source would mean people can mostly benefit from access to tickets. The second order effects are likely to be an increase in ticket prices because now people with more money will be willing to pay more at source, and an increase in 'sniping' services that automate buying as fast as possible. Those are acceptable downsides if it removes people from the market who only skim profits by scalping and offer no useful additions.
- hunter2_ 5mo ago
  An actual transfer is needed when selling to someone you don't know/trust. But for the moms in your example, handing over the ticket just means temporarily handing over the account: share the password (assuming no password reuse habits), send over the MFA OTP, whatever it takes. It's not ideal, but it avoids the scalping that comes from more streamlined transfers; scalpers can't easily sell burner accounts if account creation needs a non-VoIP phone number or similar.
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    That doesn't work, either. We can't assume that mom-passwords aren't being reused. We can't assume that mom-phones are secure. We can't assume that the requisite moms are even aware of the same kinds of things that we here on HN are aware of. We can't assume anything, except this promotes a new friction. But even then: So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are? Great! This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts. (This is just more theatrical burden.)
    - haritha-j 5mo ago
      Reminds me of how there are people selling single game steam accounts now, to take advantage of regional pricing.
    - hunter2_ 5mo ago
      > We can't assume that mom-passwords aren't being reused. We can't assume that mom-phones are secure. We can't assume that the requisite moms are even aware of the same kinds of things that we here on HN are aware of. Fair enough. So rather than mom1 telling mom2 how to use mom1's account on mom2's device, mom1 lets mom2 borrow mom1's device for the show. Not her main phone where everything is logged in, but a tickets-only device where the only thing she logged into was the ticketing app. > this promotes a new friction. Yes, but again, the alternative is letting scalpers have their way. > So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are? Yes, this is how tickets work. If you show ID, it's to be able to drink, and you're doing that with a different employee than the one who takes your ticket. Note that I'm not talking about will-call or guest list entry, I'm talking about arriving with a ticket. The shift from "dumb" paper/email/PDF tickets that can be shared freely to "smart" tickets that require an app that mixes something TOTP-like into your ticket isn't for the venue to know your identity, it's to prevent multiple people from showing up with the same ticket following improper duplication. > This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts. No, because creating an account requires a non-SIP phone number.
- well_ackshually 5mo ago
  Tough fucking luck. I missed out on Alive 2007 because I was too young, on Lady Gaga because my partner got sick and we had to resell the tickets (at the exact same price we bought them for. And someone else bought them for that exact same price). Will I ever see Muse? Fuck if I know. > The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard." Life is hard and they missed Olivia Rodrigo. The kids will survive through it, I promise. It's life, they'll see another concert. Most children in the world do not go to see concerts at 11 either.
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    Understood: Kids aren't important. Or perhaps: The suffering is the point. Copy! Over!
    - well_ackshually 5mo ago
      Kids aren't important when you're trying to make everyone's lives worse, indeed. I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ?
      - ssl-3 5mo ago
        > Kids aren't important when you're trying to make everyone's lives worse, indeed. Understood it the first time, thanks: Kids aren't important. Their feelings might not even be real; and even if they are real, then the disappointment will just toughen them up (the suffering is the point). I do not agree with what I think you're repeating, but I do believe that I've heard it twice, now. > I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ? Go ahead and dig around. My writings here are an open book. My words can live in your head for as long as you want them to. You don't need me to tell you that you're free to make as many comparisons as you wish, regardless of any incongruity in those comparisons. You're a free-thinking adult like [most of] the rest of us here on HN are. What say you?
- mattalex 5mo ago
  Then allow resale through the platform at the original purchase price. You still have no scalping, but you recover the ability to back out due to unforeseen events
- ffaccount2 5mo ago
  How is this different from, let's say, plane tickets? And nobody says that tickets must not be cancelable. Just no reselling on your own.
  - willsmith72 5mo ago
    Let's not make air travel the customer experience bar for anything please
- EdgeExplorer 5mo ago
  This is a pretty niche problem compared to the every-ticket-of-every-big-show scalper problem. This affects <1% of ticket buyers. Scalpers currently affect 100%. Seems like a pretty reasonable trade-off. Also, solvable. Everyone needs an ID that matches ticket or to be accompanied by someone with an ID that matches a ticket purchased in the same transaction (cap number of non-ID tickets per ID ticket, don't let people appearing over 30 in on a non-ID ticket). Then, when buying tickets, allow specifying a named alternate for each ID ticket in case the person can't make it.
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    That's one problem. I can think of many other instances of other problems. If you cannot do so, then you aren't really following along very well.
    - paintbox 4mo ago
      How many solutions can you think of?

by seandoe 5mo ago

samarthr1 5mo ago

What seperates _your_ tickets from any other returned ticket? Wouldn't a proportional return not be better?

ssl-3 5mo ago

Non-transferable tickets suck for their own reasons. Someone in a group gets sick or otherwise can't make it? Their seat is now either empty, or their ticket goes back to the pool. They can't give that ticket to someone else. That's a big deal for a whole slew of reasons. Let's pick just one reason and run with it. Five 11-year-old-ish girls want to go see Olivia Rodrigo. These kids haven't ever even been inside an arena before and aren't experienced enough to go on their own, and the tickets are expensive. One of the moms of the group decides that she'll take them all. No problem, right? Except: This mom gets sick. She can't go. And she can't just give her ticket to one of the other moms or dads because it is non-transferable. And the kids still aren't big enough to turn loose in a crowd without an adult. The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard."

registeredcorn 5mo ago
If there were a caveat for something like that, like say, "adult supervision for minors is required. Transfer between legal guardians is permitted, provided they can prove ..." or some kind of language like that. Are there other common cases that would apply? I assume there are probably some other situations, but I can't think of what they might be. I also find it hard to understand why a little bit of leeway couldn't be baked into the language of the transferable nature under certain circumstances. Presumably the venue wants people to have a good time so they will want to come back again and again, right? Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc.
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  So how do those rules work, exactly? How do we even prove that the kids are kids? How do we prove that the kids even exist? > or some kind of language like that. There's nothing accomplished here but handwaving and added burden. --- > Perhaps something as easy as "If one friend can't make it, you can give it to a different friend." Then, at the door, the guards can look at the ID of someone and ask basic questions; "What is (person)'s name? What town does (person) live in?" Etc. In this second scenario, scalping goes like this: "For sale: Two tickets to $hot_show. Entry instructions provided upon delivery." And then the buyer buys the tickets at whatever that price is, and goes to the show. They give their ID, the "guards" ask them basic questions, and they answer those questions. After that, they get turned loose inside like every other concert-goer. This is just handwaving and extra burden, as well. --- Unless... unless we make it totally Gestapo-like. Because the best part of going to see a show is the lengthy interrogation that happens beforehand. (If the goal is to make shows less popular, then this is a sure-fire way to improve that metric!)
LeoPanthera 5mo ago
The UK is proposing a law that will make it illegal to resell a ticket for greater than the face value. That honestly seems like a very pragmatic solution to me.
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  "Great news, gentlemen! We've made [drugs/gambling/guns/scalping] illegal! That problem is solved!"
  - LeoPanthera 5mo ago
    This seems unnecessarily cynical.
    - ssl-3 5mo ago
      It may be the case that your perspective differs from my own. I've gambled, and bought drugs, and done all kinds of other illegal things in my life. I knew that it was illegal. I did it anyway. I haven't bought or sold any illegally-overpriced concert tickets yet, but I'm not yet done living my life, either.
  - onion2k 5mo ago
    Perfect is the enemy of good. If a law can end the easier parts of the problem then the overwhelming majority of the issues go away. For example, the UK banned the private ownership of 'short guns' in 1997 and there hasn't been a mass shooting since. The second order effect of that was an increase in knife crime, but that's OK (in the sense that it's another problem to deal with). Trading fighting gun crime for fighting knife crime is a huge win if it removes a problem like random mass shootings. In this case, removing all of the incentives for legal ticket scalping at source would mean people can mostly benefit from access to tickets. The second order effects are likely to be an increase in ticket prices because now people with more money will be willing to pay more at source, and an increase in 'sniping' services that automate buying as fast as possible. Those are acceptable downsides if it removes people from the market who only skim profits by scalping and offer no useful additions.
hunter2_ 5mo ago
An actual transfer is needed when selling to someone you don't know/trust. But for the moms in your example, handing over the ticket just means temporarily handing over the account: share the password (assuming no password reuse habits), send over the MFA OTP, whatever it takes. It's not ideal, but it avoids the scalping that comes from more streamlined transfers; scalpers can't easily sell burner accounts if account creation needs a non-VoIP phone number or similar.
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  That doesn't work, either. We can't assume that mom-passwords aren't being reused. We can't assume that mom-phones are secure. We can't assume that the requisite moms are even aware of the same kinds of things that we here on HN are aware of. We can't assume anything, except this promotes a new friction. But even then: So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are? Great! This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts. (This is just more theatrical burden.)
  - haritha-j 5mo ago
    Reminds me of how there are people selling single game steam accounts now, to take advantage of regional pricing.
  - hunter2_ 5mo ago
    > We can't assume that mom-passwords aren't being reused. We can't assume that mom-phones are secure. We can't assume that the requisite moms are even aware of the same kinds of things that we here on HN are aware of. Fair enough. So rather than mom1 telling mom2 how to use mom1's account on mom2's device, mom1 lets mom2 borrow mom1's device for the show. Not her main phone where everything is logged in, but a tickets-only device where the only thing she logged into was the ticketing app. > this promotes a new friction. Yes, but again, the alternative is letting scalpers have their way. > So we're letting anyone in with a valid ticket-holding account on a pocket supercomputer, without verifying that they are who they say they are? Yes, this is how tickets work. If you show ID, it's to be able to drink, and you're doing that with a different employee than the one who takes your ticket. Note that I'm not talking about will-call or guest list entry, I'm talking about arriving with a ticket. The shift from "dumb" paper/email/PDF tickets that can be shared freely to "smart" tickets that require an app that mixes something TOTP-like into your ticket isn't for the venue to know your identity, it's to prevent multiple people from showing up with the same ticket following improper duplication. > This means that the scalpers have moved on from just selling tickets, and pivot over to selling entire ticket-holding accounts. No, because creating an account requires a non-SIP phone number.
well_ackshually 5mo ago
Tough fucking luck. I missed out on Alive 2007 because I was too young, on Lady Gaga because my partner got sick and we had to resell the tickets (at the exact same price we bought them for. And someone else bought them for that exact same price). Will I ever see Muse? Fuck if I know. > The end result of this is stupid: "Sorry, kids. None of you get to go to the concert that you already have a ticket for. Life is hard." Life is hard and they missed Olivia Rodrigo. The kids will survive through it, I promise. It's life, they'll see another concert. Most children in the world do not go to see concerts at 11 either.
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  Understood: Kids aren't important. Or perhaps: The suffering is the point. Copy! Over!
  - well_ackshually 5mo ago
    Kids aren't important when you're trying to make everyone's lives worse, indeed. I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ?
    - ssl-3 5mo ago
      > Kids aren't important when you're trying to make everyone's lives worse, indeed. Understood it the first time, thanks: Kids aren't important. Their feelings might not even be real; and even if they are real, then the disappointment will just toughen them up (the suffering is the point). I do not agree with what I think you're repeating, but I do believe that I've heard it twice, now. > I sure hope I wont't find anything in your history protesting against widespread surveillance, because as we know, its's to protect the children. But you're not a hypocrite picking and choosing your arguments to make shitty points on HN, right ? Go ahead and dig around. My writings here are an open book. My words can live in your head for as long as you want them to. You don't need me to tell you that you're free to make as many comparisons as you wish, regardless of any incongruity in those comparisons. You're a free-thinking adult like [most of] the rest of us here on HN are. What say you?
mattalex 5mo ago
Then allow resale through the platform at the original purchase price. You still have no scalping, but you recover the ability to back out due to unforeseen events
ffaccount2 5mo ago
How is this different from, let's say, plane tickets? And nobody says that tickets must not be cancelable. Just no reselling on your own.
- willsmith72 5mo ago
  Let's not make air travel the customer experience bar for anything please
EdgeExplorer 5mo ago
This is a pretty niche problem compared to the every-ticket-of-every-big-show scalper problem. This affects <1% of ticket buyers. Scalpers currently affect 100%. Seems like a pretty reasonable trade-off. Also, solvable. Everyone needs an ID that matches ticket or to be accompanied by someone with an ID that matches a ticket purchased in the same transaction (cap number of non-ID tickets per ID ticket, don't let people appearing over 30 in on a non-ID ticket). Then, when buying tickets, allow specifying a named alternate for each ID ticket in case the person can't make it.
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  That's one problem. I can think of many other instances of other problems. If you cannot do so, then you aren't really following along very well.
  - paintbox 4mo ago
    How many solutions can you think of?