930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: sweetcell on October 31, 2007, 02:58:00 pm
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
So, it's better to force the ~95% of consumers who don't currently pay scalper's prices to pay those inflated prices just to cut off the scalpers?
wait - is ggw arguing against free market economics?!? economic liberals would say that scalpers prices aren't inflated, they're at market equilibrium. by offering tickets at less than that equilibrium price, there is an inefficiency. prices should be raised. that would be the theory. the reality is that it still sucks.
and yes, i'd rather have more money go to the artist than scalpers. i prefer basing my purchase decision on the price that the artist sets. seeing van halen isn't worth $150 to me, so i don't buy.
my ideal solution is cutting out more of the scalpers. too easy for any shmuck anywhere to buy tickets and resell them, no intention of or ability to attend required. when there are 10 scalpers for every person who can actually attend the event, the prices will be driven up artificially. it's a false demand.
overall, i've calmed down a little on the scalper issue - because i've been able to pick up several cheap tickets from wannabe scalpers who had to dump their tickets.
-
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
please.
I know there's an appropriate "nigga please" joke in here somewhere, it's just not coming to me....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by le sonick:
please.
I know there's an appropriate "nigga please" joke in here somewhere, it's just not coming to me.... [/b]
must.....think.......harder....
-
Economic liberalism would argue against government interference in setting prices, but would not necessarily be against one of the participants (i.e., artists) freely selling at levels below fair market prices.
So, if the artists and producers are the ones getting screwed by scalpers, why haven't they all raised their prices to equilibrium levels?
-
If I'm reading things right, he luuuuuuvs scalpers. There the ones enabling him to charge $100.
Originally posted by le sonick:
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Economic liberalism would argue against government interference in setting prices, but would not necessarily be against one of the participants (i.e., artists) freely selling at levels below fair market prices.
we're in total agreement. artists do indeed have the right to charge whatever they want, including "below market" prices (i believe in a past scalping thread, i said exactly this and you disagreed... wish there was a search function). furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
So, if the artists and producers are the ones getting screwed by scalpers, why haven't they all raised their prices to equilibrium levels?
they're not getting screwed, they're making a business decision. sometimes it's hard to gauge demand, sometimes artists want to charge as little as economically possible, sometimes they're just dumb.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
If I'm reading things right, he luuuuuuvs scalpers. There the ones enabling him to charge $100.
Originally posted by le sonick:
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
[/b]
i'm pretty sure rhett is being faceatious here, and i certainly hope sonick is too. scalpers aren't enabling high prices, demand from fans are fueling those prices. all the scalpers in the world wouldn't allow JZ to charge $10,000 a ticket, right? and in a complete absence of scalpers (will-call only, must enter venue upon getting a ticket, one ticket per customer, etc), JZ would still sell out small venues at $100 a pop.
-
Only in your DC101 world would Ramshead Live be considered a "small venue". :p
-
don't listen to DC101, and never have. don't listen to music radio at all.
newsflash for all suburban-dwelling government-working former-socially-connected hipsters: for Jay-Z (i.e. the context i was writing in), RHL is a very small venue. he sells out places ten times as big.
-
the problem with scalpers is that they can sometimes create a "false" higher demand.
When tickets sell out faster because scalpers yank up the tickets, it makes the tickets seem ultra scarce. even though hundreds are still available, they have gone from being available at one select location (be it the box office or ticketmaster.com) to several locations scattered around.
When a show sells out in minutes with tickets costing $40, ebay and CL tickets can go for $200 and up in the first 2 days, then drop back for even under $100 after that and then perhaps shooting back up a bit as the show date nears.
Is this normal market demand? or do scalpers create a false panic in consumers causing the price to shoot up with people thinking there are no tickets left for sale.
I like the idea of the will call only sales in a way, but if you buy tickets and cannot use them, it creates a problem with getting rid of them. If i buy tickets to a show in December and when it comes, i cant go, i'd lke to be able to sell them for face value or even a bit cheaper to recoup some of my money.
I know some artists have gone to auctioning off their best seats to the highest bidder. That seems cool, and even giving some of the proceeds to charity and stuff as to not appear greedy.
Who should sit in the front row of a show: The people with the most money? or people with the fastest fingers?
some questions may never be answered!
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
You are now arguing against free market economics. If the seller has made a conscious decision to sell below market price, then there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency.
-
do you guys really get screwed over/out on tix so much that you think about this so much?
-
rhett might be the only one who agrees with me (dangerous sign, i know), but any show that scalpers are actively seeking out is not worth going to in the first place.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
the problem with scalpers is that they can sometimes create a "false" higher demand.
could not agree more.
i wish there was some way for the promoters/ticket sellers to ensure that only folks who actually want to go to the show get first crack at tickets. impossible to prove/enforce, of course, and i suspect some people would go ape-shit and cry human rights violation if anyone tried.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you guys really get screwed over/out on tix so much that you think about this so much?
No. That was my point in the original thread. If artists raise the original price to match the scalper's price, then you have 100% of the people paying the scalper's prices 100% of the time rather than the small group of people who pay them now. That's not an economic argument, that's just an observation.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
You are now arguing against free market economics. If the seller has made a conscious decision to sell below market price, then there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency. [/b]
not quite: i'm arguing that artists/promoters have the right to limit arbitrage, and wish more was done to limit it.
you wrote "there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency" - define "wrong". illegal? no, for the most part. undesirable? against wishes of those offering the product? subject to having the activity curtailed to for public benefit? yes. just because there is a free-market explanation for something doesn't make it "good" in my books.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you guys really get screwed over/out on tix so much that you think about this so much?
coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.
the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
You are now arguing against free market economics. If the seller has made a conscious decision to sell below market price, then there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency. [/b]
not quite: i'm arguing that artists/promoters have the right to limit arbitrage, and wish more was done to limit it.
you wrote "there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency" - define "wrong". illegal? no, for the most part. undesirable? against wishes of those offering the product? subject to having the activity curtailed to for public benefit? yes. [/b]
You are further arguing against economic liberalism now by introducing the idea of some regulator coming in to police the process.
You're some sort of commie, ain't you....?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You are further arguing against economic liberalism now by introducing the idea of some regulator coming in to police the process.
you don't need a regulator for everything. you can set up rules that require no government intervention. extreme example: will-call only, name on order must pick-up showing original credti card, must enter venue upon receiving ticket. don't see any regulators, government or otherwise, involved. was that anti-free market? or does free-market = capitalist anarchy, where no rules are good rules? again, i'm just saying that limits can (and should) be set.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You're some sort of canadian, ain't you....?
corrected :)
i find it surprising how blindly some people kowtow to supply and demand.
-
The government is not the only regulator. Even self-regulation is still regulation.
And you've done a bit of a 180 on the supply-demand issue. Originally, you appeared to support the idea that ticket prices should be set at equilibrium levels to eliminate scalping. Now you are saying you don't "kowtow to supply and demand," but instead want some form of regulation.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The government is not the only regulator. Even self-regulation is still regulation.
uh, sure... but i'm not seeing your point. are you saying that regulation of any form is undesirable?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And you've done a bit of a 180 on the supply-demand issue. Originally, you appeared to support the idea that ticket prices should be set at equilibrium levels to eliminate scalping. Now you are saying you don't "kowtow to supply and demand," but instead want some form of regulation.
it's called a hierarchy of preferences: current scalper free-for-all < scalper's money going to artists <<< mechanisms that allow artists to sell to fans at their set price without interference and false demand. no 180's involved.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.
the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.
But this thread has almost nothing to do with live music, and everything to do with an excruciatingly boring discussion of economic cliches. Just saying. :)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.
the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.
But this thread has almost nothing to do with live music, and everything to do with an excruciatingly boring discussion of economic cliches. Just saying. :) [/b]
why are you up at 5:12am ???
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
why are you up at 5:12am ???
Jet lag!
-
Originally posted by 6949:
Originally posted by le sonick:
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony. [/b]
Post of the week frontrunner.
I must say you've been on fire lately, 69 . . .
-
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Originally posted by 6949:
Originally posted by le sonick:
you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers?????
please.
Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony. [/b]
Post of the week frontrunner.
I must say you've been on fire lately, 69 . . . [/b]
Thanks, but I'm going to top that post right now...
I've only paid a scalper once over the cost of the actual ticket. It was for Daughtry at the 930 club. I paid double.
-
Originally posted by 6949:
Thanks, but I'm going to top that post right now...
I've only paid a scalper once over the cost of the actual ticket. It was for Daughtry at the 930 club. I paid double.
Ah, that's so sad. No wonder you're moving to the left coast.
Brian
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
No. That was my point in the original thread. If artists raise the original price to match the scalper's price, then you have 100% of the people paying the scalper's prices 100% of the time rather than the small group of people who pay them now. That's not an economic argument, that's just an observation.
the scalpers would just increase their prices
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Economic liberalism would argue against government interference in setting prices, but would not necessarily be against one of the participants (i.e., artists) freely selling at levels below fair market prices.
So, if the artists and producers are the ones getting screwed by scalpers, why haven't they all raised their prices to equilibrium levels?
RE: Sweetcell's initial premise. In true free markets, not all products are (or need be) priced the same. There should be spikes in times of extreme shortage or scarcity, but that does not mean you raise ALL prices to dampen occasional peaks. Raising general market prices is intended to decrease demand. For instance, would it be worthwhile to raise electricity prices by 500% because there are 10 hours during the summer in which power prices spike up to $5000/hour? Nope, doesn't make sense. The $5000/hour is the price mitigator there -- industrials will go offline in order to 'make' $5000/hour rather than pay $5000/hour.
There's a difference for concert tickets; folks who have to pay scalpers must do so because they were not first responders to the ticket sale. Or, are willing to pay a premium to have someone else do the work of getting a prime seat.
Granted, some shows sell out incredibly fast and even if you're there at your computer at 10:00 a.m., you can miss out. Perhaps higher prices overall would dampen that (have to say, you could get good Police tickets at Verizon for several hours -- I think that was about pricing).
But for a general admission show, it would be of little help against scalpers to raise all prices. 'Cuz there will still be those folks who missed the sale, found out about the show late, etc.