Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Why is this allowed?
decided it was better for them to provide a forum to syphon off money from ticket reselling rather than take any kind of legal steps to get rid of it. music industry YAY
But there was A BIG DISCUSSION about ticket touting between The Industry and The Government a few months ago. Ticket reselling for music event isn't illegal, regardless of the price. The Industry had their opportunity to press their concerns to The Government to make it illegal (like it is for football tickets*), but instead they decided that using the publicity gained to push the likes of Seatwave and Viagogo was a better idea.
Saying all that though, certain football clubs make a mint by allowing ticket resellers to become "partners", so while it probably wouldn't make that much difference overall events like Glastonbury that try hard to combat touting would be able to force eBay to remove the auctions.
Don't they have a whole photo, registration, etc. system in place meaning you can only sell them back to the Glastonbury organisers?
Which are not photo ID'd so they can still tout them as compensation for the disruption.
(which I imagine is what caused this thread)
also if you look on ebay, which is what i did after seeing this thread, there are loads on there too. some people charging RIDICULOUS amounts for them.
in the sense that they have your name, address, and photo on them. but the stewards don't really check your photo, especially if you arrive on the wed afternoon when it's mobbed. so if you look like someone else on the photo, you can get away with it. i guess if they ask you to prove who you are, you're fucked, but tbh what with trying to get 180,000 people on site, they're not really going to.
I have no perception of time beyond a month ago
Glastonbury actually tracked down some sellers last year and banned them from ever going to the festival if I remember correctly
can this be my job plz? i'd be well good at it.
incidentally, the football reselling thing is about crowd safety rather than anything financial (at least in original implementation, not sure if they've exploited it now though. probably)
the only other way to stop it would be to do ID name checks at the gate but the event is far too big to do that. I wouldn't buy a 2nd hand ticket, it's too risky with the photo (although they don't look THAT hard)
and several people were refused/checked up on as it clearly wasnt them in the photo and they had no other ID.
Untill the government make it illegal to resell (highly unlikely) Glastonbury pretty much has the best system to stop touts so far. I'd doubt any more than about 100-200 people get in with shifty tickets, Im sure it was thousands before.
They've done about as much as they can to ensure that people buying tickets are actually intending to go to the festival, which means that you don't really get tout bastards buying up big tranches of tickets to rip people off with.
then encourage people to use Viagogo or whattever it's called, which is effectively the same inflated price bullshit deal motherfuckers.
what I kind of felt at the end of it was there was no real reason to make it illegal, the only people it would benefit are people who don't have much money. I hated when people said it means real music fans can't get the tickets - surely if you are paying well over the odds for tickets then you are more of a fan. I remember when I was 16 and pay £120 for an oasis ticket at the Albert hall that I couldn't really afford but saved and wanted it so went. The guy that sold them tickets was a cunt though, the show was for charity – maybe he donated the profit he made.
I sound a bit stupid here because I do no all the reasons but if promoters sold tickets at the market value it would solve the problem, and the money would at least go to the pockets of the musicians and people who put the shows on rather than some guy on eBay. I think this is the way it is going with the prices for shows at the o2 for Bon Jovi.
People who have little money can still see shows, but either less or smaller (not necessarily worse) artists
It's bald fascism left me speechless.
What a meths. :(
And surely the fact that reselling could be stopped like with Glasto means that not even the artisits are too concerned with it. The costs can't be that high, Rage included it in thier tickets for the free gig at the weekend.
Charge lots just because you think you can get away with it and you risk killing off a lot of your fanbase. The people with the money to afford steep tickets aren't always your best fans.
Also, people tend to resent promoters charging shitloads just because they can. If I pay more than £20 for a ticket, I expect to see more than just a band trundling through their hits for a little under an hour.
Do you mean they included the costs in tickets for other gigs? Obviously the costs of putting a gig on are pretty high but if you set out to do a free gig then you'll be relying on people giving up their time for free and/or sponsorship supplying a lot of money in exchange for their own advertising.
The first half of your statement contains two arguments that are 'strawmen', surely?
'Why should ticket prices be affordable to all?' No one's saying they should. But prices should be fair and reasonable. Someone selling tickets on their own to make a fat profit for themselves isn't reasonable and nor would it be right if all tickets were sold in some kind of insane auction that made them more expensive the more people who were trying to get them. The only things that should determine if you get to see the band you want are:
- if you have the cash to afford the reasonable and fair price for that performance
- if you are lucky enough to be one of the people who gets through to the phone line, queue at the box office, whatever in order to purchase that ticket
'And surely the fact that reselling could be stopped like with Glasto means that not even the artisits are too concerned with it.' - we can't make this leap of logic at all. Not everyone can be Fugazi and do their best to control every aspect. There will be a LOT of people who'll be at Glastonbury who have paid the normal price. We're talking about (thankfully) a small percentage of the audience. I think generally artists have been critical of touting but 'going on strike' probably won't help.
With Rage what I was trying to say is that as the tickets were free they would have had to keep costs to an absolute minimum, meaning if adding photos to tickets significantly increased costs they couldn't of done it - therefore (I guess) it can not cost much to prevent ticket reselling in this way. The system is there why is it not used more?
Would you agree that if it costs little more to the artist or promoter to implement then anyone who would attract massively inflated resell prices could demand this from a promoter? (excluding festivals where there are so many bands)
I agree that "Someone selling tickets on their own to make a fat profit for themselves isn't reasonable".
I haven’t argued it was right to put ticket prices up sky high, but if you can't stop people paying higher price surely the artist should get the money rather than somebody at their computer with a credit card, no?
What is a reasonable and fair price? Again I am not argueing that prices should be put up just interested in why people feel that music events should be priced lower than their market value. The prices should reflect both the costs and demand of a product. I would really like a shiney new Bose stereo but the cost is 'unfair and unreasonable' for my budget so i haven't got one - but I am losing the point here.
Hahahahahahahahahha. Hahaha. Ha.
he was a cunt
Just looking back at it.....The Effectiveness of Methods Used by Promoters to Control the Secondary Ticket Market
Lolworthy quote "I would also like to convey my appreciation to DrownedInSound.com for helping with the collection of data and all those who took the time to fill in the questionnaire."
But what makes this different from any other supply and demand issue? I can see how it'd be barred for football (tribalism?), but music doesn't tend to have that schism within a crowd (although I've more animosity toward mobile wavers than away fans).
Yes, folk with a big credit card limit and the cajones to match can scoop up a ticket allocation, but that happens with other stuff all the time.
Resold tickets are always gonna go for ridonculous headline prices, but that's because there are people around that are prepared to pay it.
Specifically regardin Glastonbury, I've sacked that off of my list of places to consider going to after the daftness of 6 or so years ago. There was supposedly a pre-registration scheme that gave you a priority on booking. But all it seemed to be was a registration for an email alert telling you they were on sale. After trying all through the night with 2 phones + the internet I'd had no joy. And yet freebie pairs were getting given away left, right, and centre to chancers who came up with the flimsiest of sob stories on stuff like Chris Moyles' breakfast show &c. The cynic in me suspects that most of these sob stories had been lined up by the shows beforehand and that it was all just massively unnecessary hype. Anyway, I came to the conclusion that as brilliant as Glastonbury most definitely is, it's really not brilliant enough to justify jumping through hoops and spending all night refreshing and redialling for the priviledge of being able to hand over, £400 or however much it costs for a pair of tickets when you've added on booking fees and service (ha!) charges.
Which brings me to wondering why cash-poor folk unable to afford the scarce resource of high-demand tickets are more hard-pressed by any of this than the time-poor peeps unable to spend their time queueing up all night to (maybe) get tix in the first place.
Tickets are a finite resource so supply and demand tends to kick in. It sucks a massive one. But then so does so much else in life. What am I missing here?
It's never going to be a vote winner.
But, afaik, it's never been a good enough reason on its own for legislating against something. <cough>shitey-feckin-landlords</cough>
Why would you be up all night?
I love Glastonbury. I love how they have tried their hardest to make sure people buying tickets want to go and can't really sell them on for personal profit (especially since the festival doesn't make one)and I love their £50 deposit scheme to make paying for the ticket more managable
I love Glastonbury.
I respect their efforts to keep things 'real' and make it less worth the while for snidey folk. And it seems to have improved things markedly over the past five years or so, which is nice. Might even think about going back one day.
...and anyhoo, if tickets go on sale in the morning, and sell out in a few hours, I'm prolly gonna be at work, so it's even more inconvenient. But that's just life I guess.
Tickets went on sale at 9.00am on a Sunday and were available for about 12 hours. I got mine in 10 minutes and so did most other people I know who tried to get one. This was the first year in the last three that tickets sold out on ticket day.
I'd been to Glasto twice previously and never really kept up to speed with developments, other than what gets put out as news. I got burned and have been to other stuff (TiTP, Leeds, &c.) in the meantime.
I've acknowledged that they've improved things. If they've done as well as you say, it seems even dafter that people are paying mega top dollar for Glasto tix this year.
is that these days for so many of the bigger events, that demand is being generated artificially purely to generate a profit (both professional touts and chancers who can see an opportunity to make a quick couple of hundred quid). Who's to say that if you took the secondary market out of the equation tickets for (say) Reading/Leeds would sell out in an hour or two and we wouldn't go back to the situation of ten years ago where it took a couple of weeks for them to sell out - bear in mind that since introducing their anti-touting measures, it's actually been very easy to get hold of a Glastonbury ticket, they've been available for weeks or months before selling out.
If, as you say, this is just market forces at work, then the original promoters should really just be setting those prices in the first place and sharing the ticket price amongst those involved in putting on the show rather than allowing (or even encouraging) touts to get involved.
by taking the 'heat' out of the market. Which is good.
On that basis, I agree that there's a chance that touts and chancers are ramping up prices by artificially restricting supply. But that's only happening cos there's a demand to suit.
Presumably, the touts and chancers manage to sell their tickets at a profit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So there's something else going on.
There may be a legit reason why they do, but I have to wonder why big fests are able to sell blocks of tickets for next year's event the day after this year's one finishes. But then they put sales on hold. Seems like that's all a part of artificially restricting supply in order to maximise prices.
Surely if people weren't prepared to pay the touts' supposedly exhorbitant prices then they'd be a marginal problem. But people do cough up. People with more money than sense who have fallen for the hype and turned something into a must-have-at-all-costs situation.
Apparent/percieved control of supply happens all the time in other industries as a way of maximising profit. Just seems like promoters aren't prepared to push it to its limit and the touts take up the slack.
I feel like I must reiterate that I'm not a fan of what leeching touts and chancers get up to. They're shoddy opportunists. But I'm finding it hard to get overly outraged about it when, on the one hand, promoters seem to be employing similar tactics, and on the other hand, at the end of the day, people are actually paying up.
it's a utopian thought though. as glastonbury has somewhat limited touting, i like how despite tickets being sold out for an event such as glastonbury you still have the chance to go. the problem with this is that prices tend to be inflated and there is little chance of going for face value. this is in large part due to sell-outs becoming increasingly common now due to touting and people gobbling up tickets for resale, as the internet has made this more widespread and easier to do (sitting on your arse rather than queuing). though i understand the point up there about "those who pay more are bigger fans" in the sense of they are more willing to pay extra to go, the problem is that it only benefits those who are re-selling them, which is very wrong. and financial means of the "fan" may dictate how "devoted" they are to a band, which is kind of nonsensical and unfair.
all in all, the perfect ticket reselling thing is ATP, when you always seem to get people offering tickets for face value or a lot less, as that is a GENUINE example of someone selling a spare ticket and they simply need to make some money back on it (with a very limited chance of making profit due to circumstance). in a utopian world everything would be like this, the need to shift the spare ticket would be more than the demand for the rebuying, so people would stop buying tickets for things they have no plans on going to, instead just reselling tickets to make extra cash.
it's hard to legislate for but it would be nice if festivals go out of fashion (surely they will soon, it's been trendy for too long) because perhaps we might see less of this for these events.
i just think it's important to concentrate on eradicating the profiteering seller rather than the opportunistic (not unethically) buyer who is getting a second chance to go to an event, as the latter(ignoring the inflated prices they have to pay this way) is quite a positive thing for the consumer/public/whatever
between profiteering seller and someone who genuinely wants to sell their ticket?
Eg: I'd think twice about watching a Champions League final match if I thought I could get 10x what I paid for it because someone has more money than sense.
I'm no touting advocate, but greedy touting only exists because people are prepared to pay up. I've never known of any event where I've not been able to get a ticket legitimately, but wanted to go so much that I was prepared to spunk up daft amounts of cash into the hands of chancers. More than anything, if a ticket is becoming a really big deal, I'd be massively worried about it being fake.
I'm struggling to get past the feeling that sometimes, for some stuff, the harsh reality of supply and demand is always gonna kick in.
I'd say it's equally as likely that "those who pay more are fairweather fans with bigger levels of disposable income". They probably spent a grand on a telly, too, but it doesn't mean they're more of a film buff.
Fair point about festivals going out of fashion, though. At least for the big dogs. There was a setback a couple of years ago (although mainly an across-the-board financial thing, I guess), and there seem to be ever more niche mini-fests and city-based blowouts as alternatives.
Even live music in general looks like it might cool off a little. Prices for tix are creeping up (due to a drop in revenue from recorded music?) and more clubby/dance music looks like it might be shaping up for a revival.
that was my point too though, with that argument the richer people are, by default, the "biggest" fans. which is obviously nonsensical.
about drawing the line "between profiteering seller and someone who genuinely wants to sell their ticket", that's the unfortunate and real consequence of such a utopian, black-and-white view about re-selling tickets from what i said before. in dreamworld, the only person selling their ticket would be someone who suddenly can't make it and only want facevalue. yet, you could have this view, stick it on ebay (after not knowing/finding anyone to buy it in your social circles), winning bid is twice face value, and suddenly you are profiteering. i just think as it is pretty impossible to legislate (though seatwave is the wrong approach anyway IMO) this kind of thing because as you said, supply and demand dictates the price of the resale value of the ticket and there is very little anyone can do about stopping it, as someone reselling a ticket can always claim to be doing it because they innocently can't go anymore, even if they have been touting it for profit all along.
because then those who want to go to the event but didn't get it first time around will hold out for the legit way of getting them next time around...? it won't eradicate touting, but may stop the demand for buying tickets until nearer the event.
But why can't they just keep all tix on sale from 'day 1' and avoid the drip-drip phasing and restriction of supply?
Again, it's not a tout-killer in itself. But it removes what are, apparently, narrow and sometimes inconvenient windows of opportunity for purchases. And hopefully that'd take some of the 'heat' out of the sales process.
I guess, ulitimately it's not the world's biggest problem. Glasto has reined it in severely. Other big events should probably follow their lead if they're fussed by being associated with being a touting magnet.
I just felt sympathy for the person mentioned in the thread who got refused entry to Glasto after not having ID for the ticket that obviously did not have a photo of them on. Just unsure if punishing the "buyer" is worthwhile, the problem is the seller making profit and taking the face value ticket sold officially away from someone who wants to go... But it's Glasto's laws and obviously they have to uphold the measures they have put in place.
Anyway, I'm too 'cool' to go to any gigs with high demand (i.e. arsing around waking up at 9am for tickets) so I don't face this problem much, ha :D
you make the act of purchasing the ticket a risky thing to do - i.e. the odds of being able to use it are slim - then it decimates the market for secondary sales. Given how well the measures were publicised, I think in that kind of case it's really a matter of buyer beware. I'm pretty sure they won't waste their time or money like that again.
and it's not overly hard to get a ticket first time around, especially with the deposit scheme, it's just that the ticket is then not going to be used at all and it just seems a bit of a waste whilst the seller is laughing his arse off after (likely) making a big profit.
I know it needs to be done though. Went to Glastonbury last year, enjoyed it in parts, way too big and too much walking and too many people and too much hassle and too much camping though. Not really an outdoor person when there are 100,000 people in your way.
that there was a legit&official dedicated returns scheme for Glasto tix for anyone unable to go.
So all this talk of ebay sales sounds a little odd.
it closed last month some time - obviously they need time to resell the tickets, print them and send them out.
Promoter not willing to refund the ticket at a late stage. They allow a 'reasonable' period where refunds are available, but not prepared to take on the burden of risk for not selling it. Which is fair enough.
So we have a twilight period. If someone has left it this late to decide to go to something that is known to be v popular every year, and want to pay dafty big bucks for tix that have been fairly readily available for a while now, then more fool them.
Without trawling ebay for evidence, it would seem like this is a relatively rare case.
(if you can't see that, the current bid on that ticket is £455. the original price of the ticket was £185 + p+p).
i sent an email to glastonbury yesterday with links to them all. (i have time on my hands.)
i just hope that the photos get blacklisted.
chances are these people wont get in, if they aren't already being chased down (by all means forward the ebay links on to Glastonbury) It's pretty strict. Most of the tickets onsale on ebay are car parking ones from the looks of it.
i emailed the seller telling her that her photo would very likely be blacklisted. so either glasto have done something, or she's taken it down herself.
Cleaning up the intertrons, one ticket at a time! :-)
that is damn cool as heck.