Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Not music, but it's certainly related.
The RFU are taking steps against the secondary market fueling inflated prices - for those who disagree with touting, that's good news.
I keep thinking Jonny's gone a bit weird on me.
and see Biffy Clyro in about 2001. Realised it was too much and sacked it off.
BUT I KEPT MY TICKET AND DIDN'T TOUT IT.
I could have hauled my ass from Bulmershe to Whiteknights and sold the ticket for maybe £10 or £11, but didn't. You're right, my original purchase was flawed, but that's not my argument.
What you said made no sense whatsoever: You bought the ticket, then realised it was too much money so you decided not to even use the ticket, thus making it a bigger waste of money than if you'd actually used it and got to go to an entertaining gig?
And you didn't even sell it at face value, which means that if it was a sold out gig you denied another fan the chance to go for a reasonable price into the bargain.
It was Cooper Temple Clause, not Biffy Clyro.
Whilst your point stands, I had just travelled 2 and a half hours from Watford to Reading on a Friday night to see my better half and we agreed to sack it off. There, you've got the truth from me. Happy now Herr Flick? ;-)
Let's just summarise as you could have made some money but you decided not to. I'm not sure what this bit of the thread is trying to prove anyway... :(
a) to have done so would have involved a 20 minute or so walk
b) my moral compass pointed towards 'no, do not fleece the innocent'.
please file 'rememberthetime' under 'cretin'.
That's how I've read all your posts in this thread.
You are history's greatest monster.
someone's accused me of being History's greatest monster.
In my ever more lengthy defence, I had seen them about 6 weeks previously at the Reading Festival.
solely so I could watch Sky Atlantic whilst simultaneously denouncing everything else Sky / Murdoch centric.
That's brusma for you though I suppose.
You don't change do you!
TCTC in 2001 for £9???? That's ridiculously steep tbh. I think i saw them at Camden Palace for aorund half that in 2002!
I admire your stance.
Whether or not you agree with the trespass interpretation, in this case, people have broken the ticket T&Cs, and Viagogo have turned a blind eye to it in order to collect a profit. I don't have any sympathy with the company, or with the sellers.
Where does it end, though?
Punch in the Clackers
are all in the 3.30pm at Kempton Park.
."The RFU argued in court that the use of a ticket sold for more than the face value price constitutes trespass because its permission to enter the ground automatically expires when there has been a breach of the ticket terms and conditions".
Tell me which part of that sounds unreasonable to you.
We can do this by analogy, if you like: I throw a party and write on the invitation that people can bring friends with them, as long as they don't act like cunts. My mate Dean brings his friend Dave, Dave acts like a cunt, I tell him to get the fuck out. He refuses to leave my house, so I call the police. Who's in the wrong?
and Scarletmist ignored it, they'd have to face the consequences.
I suspected you'd find the flaw in the analogy; I couldn't be bothered reworking it to take the third party into account, because my point is that "trespass" is not just some bullshit law the RFU have pulled out of their arses, it's a legal definition of what happens when you don't have permission to be somewhere.
they should tie the tix to the person (like, say, a party invite).
But they don't, cos the real reason is that they're sore cos they think they've lost out on some deserved coin.
You understand the difference between transferring a ticket at face value and touting, right?
I'm actually genuinely interested in this, now, although I hadn't considered it before. Have you got any objection to touting?
but if you sail to the horizon you fall off.
if you don't want something top be sold on willy nilly cos you're scared you're not getting enough bites of the cherry, tie the sale to the individual purchaser.
Presumably sporting organisations/music promoters don't want to preclude the ability to transfer a ticket at face value.
You talk about these tied sales as though they were an obvious solution, but if that's the case, why haven't they been introduced? I guess there's some big conspiracy I'm missing.
you're just taking the piss now, eh?
guessing there's some quotes missing there or I just read your post wrong, or missed the irony on the last bit?
Consumer protection > Someone making a profit. Ergo = the law gets involved to keep it that way.
We're back to the point where it's either just a simple case of supply and demand, or there's fingers in pies somewhere along the line that means that cleaning all this up isn't a priority for them.
But consumers aren't protected because they don't all have the choice to pay the agreed price because touts have bought x% of the tickets with the sole purpose of selling them at a higher value. This isn't protection. The law steps in to protect them by making touting illegal.
But yeah the Dutch auction idea is a good one. If you take the profit grabbing out of it, it becomes a fairer system.
Mass touting is a pretty shitty game to play when you're on the end of it.
Supposing I wasn't adopting a totally hardcore 'MTFU, it's just supply & demand' stance, and accepted that some kind of restraint on touts would be desirable.
Prevention is the best doo-dah by far, so it'd be better to stop this at source. With a minimal amount of will, it could be done.
But the original sellers aren't arsed about bothering. Either cos they're transferring risk to a third party, theyve got fingers in reselling site pies, or they're just a bit complacent until it starts to hit their bottom line.
So you'd need proper legislation to stop multiple purchases (rather than this spurious trespass nonsense). Which could get interesting when you try to word all the exceptions for mass purchases where tix that end up in the hands of corporate sponsors etc etc etc.
The Chelsea viagogo site does, just presumed it was the same elsewhere.
and the six comments on this story each absolutely nail it in their own way.
#1. "Valuable China Piggy Bank for sale. Contains one ticket for England Rugby match. My daughter dropped the ticket into the pig and my wife has forbidden me to break the pig so I'm selling it. You are paying face value for the ticket of course but the pig has a sentimental value - best offers over 200 quid please...."
#2. "I've never really understood (I mean I technically understand it) the hostility to people selling their tickets, sure if you're selling dozens (but then you shouldn't be allowed to get dozens)".
#3. "Call me a cynic... but the fact it's fairly easy to prevent ticket resale, and the fact that few acts/venues/agencies actually do so tells me this is a "problem" that the people in charge don't actually want solved."
#4. "Surely now ticket sales are mainly online, a Dutch auction would be the way to go? Start the tickets off at some ridiculous price, a million pounds or something and let that fall gradually over the course of a week or so. The first to buy pay most but get the best choice of seats. That would eliminate large scale touting, because a tout could only buy tickets at a price nobody else is willing to pay, so the opportunity to profit would be limited. Touts wouldn't be able to snap up all the tickets as soon as they went on sale (or at least, not at a price they could profit from). The bulk of the tickets would sell at a price most people felt was fair, and all of the money would go to the organisers not some bunch of leeches. Win win."
#5. "Ticket supplier (ie venues and agencies) should buy tickets back, maybe minus an admin fee until the physical ticket is mailed out. The fact they don't helps create the secondary market."
#6. "[Spurious fees, etc]. Now, who's selling tickets above face value?"
Dickheads pay 'over the odds' for a ticket and then moan about it. You pay 'over the odds'; you're fuelling the problem. Same with the price of CDs a few years back. Don't like it? Don't buy it and let the vendor get the message. Don't buy it and then whinge like a fucking baby.
So if I'm a tout I just wait 'til the tickets are almost sold out, buy as many of them as possible until it's sold out then wait for the price to rise again as they become more valuable.
Not to mention the fact that tying ticket sales to ability to pay means you basically end up with a feudal seating system where the richest people get the best seats.
The current one (obviously when we're discussing the big, popular stuff) discriminates against anyone who can't be online trying to buy tickets at 9am on a Friday.
but as systemic problems go, that's several orders of magnitude less severe than discrimination by disposable income.
please. go on...
and so the best choice and, if something's popular enough, could essentially get all the tickets, leaving those with little disposable income no chance of buying, compared to now where they have as much chance as someone who's rich.
But where do you draw the line?
To me, flexi-time-poverty is every bit as valid the alleged "discrimination by disposable income".
It's not as if live music as a whole is in short supply. It's just the mega-acts high profit margins that frequently sell out.
There's an artificial suppression in the supply of big acts that creates and exclusivity and thus drives up the profit margins that allow them to do less work.
The argument that a Dutch auction system will work because artists will just 'play more gigs' is completely cretinous.
- There are a finite number of venues for any given artist and there are other uses for these venues apart from that one artist. - The venues themselves won't just be hanging around waiting for bands/artists to just say, "Hey, I think we'll book another night, yo"
- You may be able to sell out a 1000 capacity venue because you have 1500 people who want to see you but if you booked a second night then you're fucked and your Dutch auction actually fucks you over even more as ticket prices drop massively.
- The band/artist has to actually have time in their schedule to play these gigs. You could argue the first 1000 capacity gig makes such a profit in the Dutch auction that they know they should make another appearance (even if it's half-filled) but that might have to be months later and that will change the numbers again and people's ability to get the tickets.
The fact remains that if a band like Radiohead sold tickets to their next three shows in a row in London by Dutch auction they'd likely go at a very high price and sell out.
So you believe Radiohead (or their management or whoever) would price tickets to their gigs at below market value?
but I think they would have sold them all at 70-100 a ticket and if we had had a Dutch auction those tickets would have been bought at that level.
But I think there are a large number of people who paid to see Radiohead at £50 a pop who wouldn't have felt they could have paid 70 to 100.
If that's what you mean then yes I think they (and almost any band) sell the tickets at below 'market rate'; I don't believe any band sells them at a rate that would leave them out of pocket or slim to no profits.
By 'market value' I mean what people would be prepared to pay for the tickets and the gig sell out (so theoretically the average price in the dutch auction I suppose). I hadn't really thought about this before but instinctively (and perhaps cynically)I would guess tickets prices would be set at a level where the seller believes they will maximise revenue.
but obviously they want to sell all the tickets and they have to consider the mean not the mode...or is it the mode not the mean? You get what I'm driving at: they are also gambling in terms of numbers of people and how many of them are willing to pay that price so I think the level comes down because as long as the overall profit is good it's not a problem.
The Dutch Auction maximises that profit if your band is worth it; for smaller bands I guess they'd likely lose out.
-- re: finite venues / extra gigs. First off, with the PJ example: she could could very easily have found a UK venue outside of London to play as part of her tour. That's a fact. Back to the ~1000 size show... talk of finding an extra venue at short notice misses the point somewhat because, as you acknowledge, if a band has a succesful tour then they can do another. No need for it to be at short notice.
So it might be a few months later, and people's ability to get the tickets will change. And? Popular band comes back to play again soon non-shocker. That's how it happens now. Yes, some promoters could try to rinse fans by attempting to hold back pre-arranged second shows, but I can't see how that would work. After a couple of cynical attempts, the bad press wouldn't be worth it.
But, really, how often does a band unexpectedly sell out a venue to the point where they wish they could have played another night right away? Not many. Those that do play consecutive nights often have extra dates cued up ready. i.e. PJ, who announced a small tour of european dates with oh-so-convenient ajacent gap dates for additional shows in each city. Lo and behold, shows sell out and extra dates sprang up. The promotor obviously anticipated the shows would sell out and made appropriate provisions. So this unexpected extra date thing isn't really the problem you present it as.
If there /was/ a drop-of-a-hat second show (which you acknowledge to be unlikely), why would ticket prices "drop massively"? Because demand for the second show is marginally leaner? There'd only be a massive drop if there were enough rich divs willing to spunk an ungodly amount on the first gig. More fool them.
But even if a massive drop transpires, who is the "you" that's getting fucked over if (as is likely) tix for the 2nd gig go a lower average price? Not the band/promotor. They know in advance that the extra gig (like any gig) will either probably turn a profit worth earning or it probably won't. And they'll make a call on whether it's worth their while to take the punt (like they would on any gig). You could try to claim that fans are being fucked over. Wouldn't really be true though. As said, more fool the rich div fan that pays more than they were prepared to for gig #1.
-- re: smaller bands being fucked over by a Dutch Auction. How/Why would a Dutch auction change the number of people willing to pay enough to see the band? The fact remains that the touting thing is only really an issue at premier events. So simplicity reigns for small and medium sized gigs.
-- re: Radiohead charging below market value. They won't go for
a Dutch auction because it would be seen as mercenary capitalism. Which it is. Fine for esyJet, but not really Radiohead's look, is it? But they'll definitely have done their sums. All bands will have. There might not be a Dutch auction It's a rare (non-existant) occasion when gigs are advertised with a bunch of tix at reduced rates for the unemployed/students/other poor section of society. So fixed tix prices aren't some sort of egalitarian choice.
-- re: a Dutch Auction maximises that profit if your band is worth it. Well, if the profit is being maximised on the original ticket sale, the scope for touting is decreased. You or I may not like the means to the end, but it's a valid logical way to cut back on touting. One way. There are others. But, as seems to be the case (in the absence of any other explanations), original sellers aren't arsed about bothering to clear this mess up cos they're transferring risk to a third party (and the occasional lawsuit profitably claws back a few quid when they get jealous about someone making a few quid despite that risk transferance). Or they've got fingers in reselling site pies. Or they're just a bit complacent until it starts to hit their bottom line.
Chalk it up as a victory if you like. See you around.
I'm explaining it every step of the way. All I can hear from the other side is the sound of tiny violins.
so how about explaining why rather than asking him to explain what he patently means?
I think I've been rather blunt in explaining how I see things.
Or rather that it was clearly incomparable so not to be taken entirely seriously.
just differing levels of transparency of supply&demand being in play.
PJ Harvey was/is charging a few quid more than I expected and not touring any closer to Glasgow than London (or a Euro city). As much as I'd fucking love to see her again, I wasn't prepared to cough up for tix to one of those shows, I couldn't justify it to myself on the basis that there might be a show in Scotland announced in the near future. Or even one next year or whatever. So what did I do? Not buy a ticket is what I did. I'm not prepared to be played like that.
She could quite easily have toured a few more dates, but there's little doubt she'd be able to run a solid profit from playing a few more gigs. Not doing so is her perogative. Not paying over the odds is mine.
Which means you had the option to pay over the odds. What if the Dutch Auction model meant the prices never even got close to what you considered 'a few quid more than you expected' because all the fans with more disposable income who were up for paying over the odds bought them all?
The point is that a Dutch Auction could rob you even of that choice and if you only wanted standing tickets (which traditionally are more popular) it has an even greater chance of doing so.
Or I suck it up.
She could EASILY do the former.
But has chosen not to. So I'll do the latter. Supply & demand.
as the one about being made* "discrimination by disposable income".
*the case isn't actually being made, it's being rebuffed at every waaaahmbulance accompanied attempt to assert it.
Not sure I follow. If the tix have sold at 'market value', why would their value rise*?
*to any great degree. obviously if something sells out weeeell in advance then there will always be a few people who decide at the last minute that they want to go and will be prepared to pay top dollar to compensatye for their lack of foresight.
after all the tickets are sold there will still be a demand so at that then it will be possible to sell them on for whatever you want.
The band could tour some more dates if there's such an overwhelming demand.
If easyJet sold out of all of their flights and had customers wanting more flights, they'd lay more flights on.
The analogy's not perfect, obviously (are they ever?), cos there are only 365 days in a year, and runway time/space is prolly not limited. But I digress. The point is that I refuse to believe that bands are running on max 'capacity' or 'productivity' or whatever. But if they were, tough titty on those who can't afford it.
just link an e ticket to a photo ID, if you want to resell you just sell back to the venue at cost and they sell it to someone on a waiting list. Or even let you do it yourself, but the most basic bit of data miming would be able to spot the touts versus someone buying a 4th ticket they don't need for beer money.
Why is this a stupid idea?
El Reg reply #3 (and #5, partially) concurs.
I mean it may be expensive, but this isn;t really an issue for smaller venues/promoters is it? surely it is in the promoter's interest, not only will they have an excuse to charge more (no touts! will be the cry) but also they will be able to charge any secondary buyers the fees and charges they put on without refunding the old ones. I wouldn;t like that bit, but shirley the promoters would?
i've seen suggestions that it's all a fix. i have no evidence. so i'm left wondering the same as you.
'necessity' is the best thing i can come up with. they're happily selling out of tix and making a tidy profit. why get involved with 'complication' (to them) until they absolutely have to?
I sold a Leeds ticket on Viagogo once because my friend could no longer go (I say 'sold', somebody bought it but it was fraudulent. Had to go all watchdog on their asses to get the money). Are we saying that I shouldn't have done that?
give their spare tix away on twitter to a random person that names your favourite song, and then put it into the post late, without the buyer paying timely delivery, whilst not bothering to pass on any kind of booking code? Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?