I Loathe Ticket Brokers - They Are The Scum Of The Earth (1 Viewer)

[Mark Schermerhorn]

If I supported any "free market" scenario in this case I would support auctions done by the team hosting the event or the event promoters.

I wholeheartedly support artifical price controls for many economic transactions. The example given earlier with Home Depot charging 100 bucks for batteries before a hurricane is a good example of an amoral practice that should be controlled. What we're talking about here with the ticket scalping applies to events which are entertainment by any definition. Because of that, I can't see why price controls should apply. I see no big benefit to society, although letting "real fans" get some chance at lower prices is an idea I like. Tough to implement though.

There are a lot of products/services that should be and are debated as to whether or not they should be subject to price controls. I can't see much room for argument in this case.

At the same time, I do not like scalpers at all. They add no value. They are middle men that aren't needed and are a net drain on society, as much as controlling prices on entertainment can be a drain on society. That's the reason I'd support event promoters and team owners running the auctions or transactions.

 

[MarkHastings]

I do not like scalpers at all. They add no value. They are middle men that aren't needed and are a net drain on society

Exactly, they do nothing to improve the concerts, they don't bring any more revenue to the arenas, and they don't do a thing to give the performers more revenue.

As far as I'm concerned, on a $35 ticket, the arena is only getting $35 no matter what someone pays for it from a scalper.

 

[Steven K]

Mark Hastings,

How is price determined for collectible items? Is it determined by the manufacturer? In that case, there isn't a single baseball card on this planet that should cost more than $1. There isn't a single coin that should cost more than face value. The ONLY thing that keeps these items at the prices they are at, is supply and demand. And surely you aren't saying that the whole collectible market is wrong for what they are doing???

 

[DaveF]

I'm also willing to spend $50-$60 for DVD's that are "Bare Bones" - Does that make it fair to raise the prices?

I'm only willing to pay $5 to $10 for DVDs. It's clearly unfair that they normally sell for the inflated price of $20 to $30. You're right, there should be price controls.

I have no love of scalpers, but if a person is willing to pay the price for a luxury item then the price is clearly "fair".

 

[Patrick Sun]

So ... do you feel bad when you buy a ticket from a scalper for less then face value (when the tickets have gone "cold")?

 

[MikeDeVincenzo]

Glad to see this has sparked a debate with points made for both sides. Its a debate worth having.

Patrick

I've never seen that happen. Ever. But I do live in the NYC area, and it seems that just about anything sells out around here.

One final antecdote. I had an extra ticket for a Tori Amos show at Riverside Church in New York last November. The church was tiny, and the tickets sold out in less than 5 minutes. The face value was $35, and pairs were going for over $500 on Ebay. I was lucky enough to get tickets from Ticketmaster.

I happened to wind up with an extra when someone backed out at the last second. I got there around 5 and prepared myself for a long wait until the doors were opened. Within 10 minutes, a girl came up to me and asked if I had an extra. I said yes. She told me she'd give me $200 for it. Obvoiusly, I thought to myself, this is a hardcore Amos fan like myself. I said, nah, $35 will be fine. She couldn't believe it, screamed, and practically tackled me onto the sidewalk. We had a really enjoyable time watching the show together and conversing and such. At the end of the evening, she thanked me again with tears in her eyes. We've stayed in contact to this day.

Now, you may call me a fool. I could have been $165 richer, instead of one new friend and one enjoyable experience richer.

But its my philosophy that someday, I will find myself on my deathbed. And when that day comes, which will I wish I had more of -- money, or a lifetime of memories of NOT screwing people for money at every turn? From my perspective, the only thing money buys you at the end is a nicer casket.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I've never seen that happen. Ever. But I do live in the NYC area, and it seems that just about anything sells out around here.

It actually happens quite a bit. It is just supply and demand at work—instead of a scarce item, you have an oversupply. Consequently the price drops.

Now this won’t happen for the Cowboys, even in bad times—but the Rangers once again finished last.

For many events that are not sold out, you can pick up tickets from scalpers at considerably below the face value right at kickoff (or whatever) time—or a little after.

Everyone is playing a waiting game, the scalper will take a small (to him) loss instead of losing his entire investment.

In this regard, sporting events are like unsold plane tickets: the cost is already there—you just have to work out how to limit your losses.

Back when the Mavericks were in a tailspin (before the Cuban money infusion), the scalpers were living on short rations.

 

[MarkHastings]

And surely you aren't saying that the whole collectible market is wrong for what they are doing???

No I'm not, but hopefully you can see the difference between a Mickey Mantle rookie card and a Rock concert. I mean, my point has to do more with the example I gave with the Star Wars figures. The main reason why concert tickets are SO in demand is because these scalpers buy them all and nobody gets a chance to get them for the actual price. If it weren't for scalpers, people would at least have a chance to buy tickets the day they came out. The people who are willing to pay hunderds of dollars for tickets are only paying that much because they almost have no choice. If they were given an opportunity to buy tickets at the ticket booth, then maybe there wouldn't be so many people out there dying to go to the concert, and thus the demand for the tickets would go down.

Take (for example) the DVD "What a girl wants". Hopefully anyone here can agree that this is not considering a "Collectible" by any means and I seriously doubt that anyone would be willing to pay $100 to get own this movie, but what if someone out there bought every single last copy available and no one could buy it from the stores. This would automatically make the DVD a "Collectible" if someone were to acquire it. The demand for this DVD would SKYROCKET. In this case, I would agree that it would be considered a collectible, but I HATE...ABSOLUTELY HATE the reasoning behind it. It just seems quite unfair (IMHO) for some person (who has nothing to do with the product) to be allowed to raise the demand and value of something by hording it.

:frowning:

 

[david stark]

I went to a concert last night and paid a scalper for a ticket ($90 CDN for a $30 face value ticket). I enjoyed the show and overall I reckon it was worth it. I should just sort myself out sooner and buy a ticket through official channels earlier.

Anyway what annoys me most about them is that they are most likely just pocketing the cash. It has been mentioned above briefly, but when you compare to shops selling batteries/dvd's they a registered compainies paying taxes etc, scalpers aren't. Despite someone mentioning there were new laws in toronto to stop scalping none of them were evident last night.

When I got withing a block of the venue there were people openly asking for $100/ticket. There were quite a few of them right outside the venue making no attempt to hide themselves form the venue's staff.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Do you think laws that prohibit price gouging should be eliminated to allow the laws of supply and demand to operate freely and unfettered in situations like this?

Yes, absolutely. High prices are the market's response to a shortage, which will lead to an increase in supply. If batteries were going for $99.99 a 4-pack, some people would run to other cities where they could buy them at more normal prices, and bring them back to sell them. The price would fairly quickly settle back to normal, but more importantly, the SUPPLY of batteries needed during the crisis would increase. Keeping them at the normal price just encourages people to hoard them.

However, if a store like Home Depot raised prices that much, they would create so much ill will that the short-term gain they'd make during the crisis would be nothing compared to lost future sales from angry customers.

All anti-gouging laws really do is worsen the problem by keeping the supply down, since nobody has an incentive to go out of their way to bring in more items to sell.

It seems to some people, charging more than your competitors is "price gouging", charging less is an "anti-competitive" attempt to put the other guy out of business, and charging the same amount is "price-fixing".

 

[Max Leung]

Chris, I assume you are not including items that are considered absolutely essential, like water, right?

Anti-gouging laws can serve a positive purpose though...to keep inflation from skyrocketing. Many municipalities notify the public of future price hikes (such as for basic utilities like water, electricity, and gas). You don't want people rioting on the streets because you hiked up the prices by 1000% do ya? Rioting is BAD for business.

 

[MarkHastings]

If batteries were going for $99.99 a 4-pack, some people would run to other cities where they could buy them at more normal prices, and bring them back to sell them.

But what if you couldn't buy the batteries anywhere else? What if every place that sold batteries raised the price to $99 just because they knew that people need batteries and would pay that much because there was no choice?

 

[Lew Crippen]

But what if you couldn't buy the batteries anywhere else? What if every place that sold batteries raised the price to $99 just because they knew that people need batteries and would pay that much because there was no choice?

There are many reasons that this won’t happen in practice. The term for this practice is ‘price fixing’ and it is against the law (actually, I think, several laws). While I am not so naive as to think that price fixing does not occur, were this to occur in actual practice (price fixing in the midst of an emergency), various governments would surely wind up taking action.

Another reason that this would not occur is that the effects of charging $99 for batteries would mean that there would not be many sales. Which would lead one merchant to price his batteries lower in order to draw in customers. And another to beat that price and so on, until supply and demand somewhat evened out.

 

[RobertR]

have to spend (for example) $100 for an item that is clearly marked $35.

You say "clearly marked" as if this is an amount carved into giant stone tablets, with a voice from above booming "thou shalt not buy or sell at anything other than this price. Any other price is immoral".

It doesn't work that way. The "marked price" is simply an offer. There is nothing that says it HAS to be that price. If it goes higher or lower, it's only because that's what the buyer and seller mutually agreed to. I find such a voluntary exchange QUITE moral.

 

[RobertR]

what if someone out there bought every single last copy available and no one could buy it from the stores. This would automatically make the DVD a "Collectible" if someone were to acquire it. The demand for this DVD would SKYROCKET.

Demand changes SOLELY because you have a single supplier instead of multiple ones? I don't think that follows.

 

[Steve Y]

i understand the economics of the ticket scalping operation, but the 'invisible hand' has its hand up more than our pockets, let me tell you. just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

but if you make this sort of scalping illegal (which would be nearly impossible to regulate), you'd have to make a lot of other things illegal, too. it's hard to argue against this on a strictly legal or economic basis. i may not think it's right for someone to 'buy out' a ticket window with the purpose of making me spend $400 more than i have, but in this day and age, right and law don't necessarily correlate.

all it means is the best seats to my favorite shows are consistently sold out and beyond my price range. i can never afford to see my favorite bands from less than a hundred yards away. i just take the knocks.

against this system, the idea of a lottery is very appealing.

steve

 

[MikeDeVincenzo]

Just for the curious...

There's mountains of stuff on Google about gouging that occured during the NYC blackout.

Here's just one report that has the following:

1. A local pizzeria charging $48 dollars for two cheese pizzas.

2. $10 dollars a gallon for gas at a Sunoco station in Orange County, NY

3. $35 dollars for a bag of ice at a Long Island deli

4. $20 dollars for a six pack of beer at Manhattan store.

http://cbsnewyork.com/shamestories/l...233113718.html

Plenty more of this kind of thing to be found if one wishes to find it.

Got greed?

 

[MarkHastings]

just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

Agreed. And considering it is illegal in most states to sell tickets for more than $3 over the price marked on the ticket, I don't understand this "Supply and Demand" mentallity when it comes to scalpers.

But if Supply and Demand is ok even though it is mostly illegal, then continue to argue, I don't see how I can keep arguing against scalpers anymore when I have a law that states it's wrong and I still get people arguing against me. :frowning:

 

[RobertR]

But if Supply and Demand is ok even though it is mostly illegal,

I can cite a number of laws that most people, including you, would agree were BAD and immoral. These examples disprove the idea that you can flat out say legal automatically=good and moral, illegal automatically=bad and immoral. If two people mgree to a mutual, voluntary exchange, I find that moral.

 

[MarkHastings]

If two people mgree to a mutual, voluntary exchange, I find that moral.

The definition of moral is:
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

So once a scalper has broken the law (which makes him a bad judge of character), how can any further transaction be acceptable (even if both parties are in agreement)?

If I agree to pay a man to steal me a TV, does this make it moral? According to you, both parties are in agreement so it must be