Posts filed under ‘scalping’
Is a scalping bot a bot, if it looks and smells like a bot?
I was surprised by the candour of this website TicketBots – automating human efforts.
“Ticketmaster Helper Application is designed to help brokers, so that they get more organized and save time while purchasing tickets. This product is legal and developed by authorizing the lawsuits. Ticketmaster helper application just helps the user to reduce manual work that user does while purchasing tickets. It is just a transformation of human efforts into an automatic process of buying tickets.“
It appears that they are covering a fair few of the scalping opportunities with a suite of offerings:
Westpac and Moshtix wear the blame for Splendour Ticketing Meltdown
In a public relations nightmare for all parties involved, the eagerly awaited onsale for for the annual Splendour in the Grass festival hit had a major meltdown as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. Online blogs were aflame with fans venting their frustrations with the problems getting hold of tickets.
Of course, the Fairfax Media owned Herald could not miss the opportunity to take a free jab at the Rupert Murdoch News Corp owned Moshtix.
We believe that we own the tickets we buy, but do we?
I have been watching this movement with interest since the start of the year.
The Fan Freedom Project rails against the “new restrictive paperless ticketing technologies under the guise of innovation and convenience.“
It is the terms and conditions that are now being applied to paperless tickets that the Fan Freedom Project sees as restrictive:
Two types of paperless ticketing, both of which have negative implications for fans of live events:
- Restricted transfer (closed-loop system administered by the ticket agent)
- Prohibition of ticket transfer (ticket tied to one credit card or ID)
While I applaud the sentiment and the call to action for change, I am not so sure about the statement – “We the fans believe we own the tickets we buy.” My understanding is that a ticket is just a licence to attend an event at a specific location, date and time (and maybe seating location). Does the consumer really own it and own what? Any opinions?
Take a look at the infographic for a quick summary of the issues.
The Risk of Getting Tickets for the London Olympics
An interesting contradiction reported in How to get an Olympic seat.
THE ADVICE: Apply for lots of tickets, but beware if you get them – you will have to pay for all of them.
“The official advice is that to maximise your chances of getting tickets, you will need to apply for lots of things. But be warned: if you get everything you apply for, you are committed to buying all those tickets“
Won’t that just encourage a secondary market for scalpers?
“It will be illegal to sell tickets for a profit, unless you are an authorised partner, … So if you put tickets up on, say, eBay, you will be committing an offence. However, London 2012 is developing an online exchange through which people can resell them.“
I hope the online exchange is up and running and road tested well in advance of tickets going on sale.
Are ticket prices that depend on demand, really equitable?
There seem to be quite a few articles (re-purposed press releases?) about dynamic pricing lately. I wonder if ‘someone’ has decided that it is the answer to extract more revenue from the marketplace.
“‘dynamic’ or ‘variable’ pricing — a ticketing philosophy that has theaters and arenas boosting ticket prices based on hot-selling shows and popular game days. Prices also can decrease based on demand.“
“It’s going to give the buying public more power and more options,” said Sammy Wallace, vice president of event programming at Germain Arena in Estero. “You could pay more for a ticket, or you could pay less. It’s really up to you.”
Is it too cynical to suggest that you could pay more for a ticket or not go, it’s really up to you?
“Overpriced tickets can cut out budget-minded buyers, while underpriced tickets can lead to ticket scalping because some fans are willing to pay much more for the best-possible seats. Dynamic pricing helps correct that.“
I find the concern for the “budget minded buyers” a convenient social equity argument and I wonder how often dynamic pricing goes the other way? Didn’t that used to be called discounting of less desirable seats to acquit social accessibility responsibilities?
“Economics is driving this new ticketing trend. Dynamic pricing is a response to many factors, including higher production costs and artist fees, lackluster ticket and album sales, and the looming specter of ticket scalpers.” I think the real driving factors have been identified here and … sorry … the consumer and better or more equitable service is not identified as a driver.
Hang on … who runs the venue – The venue management or Ticketmaster?
It may be me being thick, but this article seems to continue the confusion over who runs a venue, who hires the venue and owns the act and who is just an agent.
This article would be amusing if it were not for the large number of annoyed customers and fans judging by the comments.
Just because you can gouge some customers does not mean you should disadvantage all customers. This is a shortsighted tactic that hopefully will be discouraged by consumer backlash.
Or am I just being naive?
Some classic quotes for your amusement:
“Ticketmaster, the official ticket agency for the O2, tells fans that using “market-based pricing” for tickets will give them a better chance of seeing their favourite groups than using set prices.“
“The most expensive price of all – £675.03 for a pair of tickets in block A1 – was charged by Simply Red, the Mancunian band fronted by Mick Hucknall, the Labour-supporting singer whose songs include ‘Money’s Too Tight (To Mention)’.“
Why do we charge £200 a ticket? Because the touts do, says the O2
Who is Paperless Ticketing Really Looking After?
It appears that Paperless Ticketing gets rid of individual tickets issued before an event, but as applied by Ticketmaster it depends upon the one credit card to identify the rightful attendees.
“It’s the ultimate in convenience if you’re a consumer,” says Jeff Kline, president of Cleveland-based Veritix.
Oh please!
There are numerous examples of how this compromises convenience, gift giving being buy one example. The helpful answer of Ticketmaster to gift givers is to buy paperless tickets “on the credit card of the person attending the event and [then] reimburse them.” Sort of discounts the warm and fuzzies from the gift of giving …
It is hard to see any real benefits to consumers with the dependence upon a credit card for identification and store of value and the only real benefits seem to be the agents extending control from the primary market to the secondary market. “Veritix and Ticketmaster say they aren’t against reselling, or even reselling at a profit — they just oppose it being done outside their own electronic walls. Both companies have set up their own reselling sites and require consumers to use them if they want to resell a paperless ticket. The companies then collect a fee, typically about 20 percent of the value of the transaction.“
“The debate revives a long-running question about the nature of a ticket: Is it a piece of property that its holder has the right to buy and sell as he sees fit, or is it merely a seat-rental contract subject to restrictions determined by its issuer?“
READ FULL ARTICLE ONLINE AT THE WASHINGTON POST ‘Paperless ticketing’ aims to thwart scalping at concerts, sports events
moshtix Anti-Scalping Survey
Take the moshtix Anti-Scalping Survey – In response to the Government issues paper to investigate ticket on-selling.
Government Review – Ticket Scalping: Ticket onselling and consumers
“The Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council (CCAAC) is conducting a review into ticket onselling and its impact on consumers.
Under its terms of reference CCAAC will examine the following matters as part of its review:
- whether there is consumer detriment and, if so, the level of detriment posed by ticket onselling practices;
- the views of stakeholders affected by ticket onselling practices, including consumer groups, ticketing organisations, auction/reselling websites, and peak sporting and live entertainment bodies;
- actions currently undertaken by industry that seek to limit ticket purchasing by scalpers for re sale;
- the identification of any non regulatory options that could address any harmful practices arising from ticket onselling practices;
- the effectiveness of consumer information to address any consumer detriment associated with ticket onselling practices;
- the effectiveness of current legislation related to ticket onselling practices;
- the impact of technology on ticket onselling practices; and
- the effectiveness of international approaches that address any consumer detriment related to ticket onselling and the appropriateness of these approaches for the Australian marketplace.
The Issues Paper examines current practices relating to ticket onselling and considers possible market responses, including both regulatory and non-regulatory options, and their cost and effectiveness.“
Interested parties are invited to comment on the paper and the closing date for submission is Friday 23 July 2010.
Dynamic Pricing Is The Key To Sporting Industry’s Woes
Yes this article is about sport in America, but get over it 
We can still learn from it.
The language is interesting for a start:
“Without fans in the stands, sponsorships become worthless …“
“… why these teams, and many others, suffer the indignity of playing in front of half empty stadiums …“
What about the fans themselves? Maybe I am being a little customer focussed here. But, isn’t a half empty stadium rude to them and a handicap to their enjoyment of the event? A live event (whether sport, theatre or a concert) is just that live – with a live audience. Half an audience is only half as exciting.
I find the demand equation mooted by blogger Marty Teller of interest:
(Team Affinity X Performance) / Opportunity Cost (other options) = Price Willing to Pay
“Besides winning, isn’t growing revenue the primary goal of any sports team (and any business, for that matter)?“
Yes, access and equity may be concepts important to not for profit and funded organisations, but a team without fans or supporters is a hobby, dare I say an amateur pursuit. I prefer the perspective of Theodore Levitt “The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer”. With that sort of focus, revenue follows.
However, the article then turns focusses on dynamic pricing as the answer to the secondary market and hence an advertisement for QCue.
