Standupticketguy blog will be a portal for me, Ryan Martin, to post ticket news, ticket related stories, and general updates regarding my business.
Check back often!
To get started... here is an article by Matt Ryan, an author and graduate student at WVU
THIS weekend's Marshall-WVU football game gives West Virginians quite a bit to be proud of. Competition, school spirit and economic stimulus are but a few results that will emerge from Saturday's showdown.
There is one characteristic of the game, however, that most of the general public bemoans -- ticket-scalping.
Many feel that ticket scalping involves one party taking advantage of another against their will, and the name itself elicits images of a ghastly wartime tactic.
The practice of re-selling tickets couldn't be viewed in a more unfavorable -- or inaccurate -- light.
While ticket-scalping is often assumed to be any resale of tickets, the legal definition is actually more limited. Laws differ by region, but illegal ticket-scalping typically constitutes the resale of a ticket:
1) within a given amount of time (usually a few hours) before the event's posted start;
2) within a physical distance (usually a few blocks) of the venue for which the ticket is valid; and
3) for an amount higher than that printed on the ticket.
I presume the intent of the law is to prevent someone showing up for an event without tickets and somehow being tricked into paying an amount for tickets they will later regret.
This is no different than any other type of buyer's remorse, and is by no means justification for government involvement. Yet policymakers salivate.
It is a dangerous day when a government attempts to protect its citizens from themselves. Many government policies that have long existed attempt to improve upon consumers' own informed choices only to damage them in the end.
Regulations that prevent mothers from carrying their young children on their laps on airplanes have been shown to cause an overall harm to children since mothers would otherwise substitute plane flights for more dangerous car rides.
The Food and Drug Administration routinely delays potential life-saving medication from hitting the market and helping those especially sick individuals who would be willing to take risks on new treatments.
The liberty to make choices -- and to bear their repercussions, both positive and negative -- is vital to the ability of a market economy to thrive.
Issues of personal freedom aside, the resale of tickets is a perfectly viable economic activity that should not be outlawed. If anything, it should be encouraged.
Ticket brokers play the exact same role as stockbrokers. Just as individuals may want to transfer ownership of stocks, so, too, do people wish to transfer ownership of tickets to live events.
Secondary markets -- like the resale of tickets and the stock market -- are commonplace.
Yard sales are a perfect example. Used cars constitute another secondary market.
Many feel that the ticket broker is gaining at the expense of the initial seller -- that, for example, anyone re-selling their tickets to this weekend's game is doing so at the expense of Marshall University.
Somehow, because Marshall could (hypothetically) have charged more for its product, some people seem to think it now has a claim to some or all profits from future transactions.
No such claim exists. Would the initial contractors for a home have claim to profits from every sale of the house? Does a car manufacturer deserve a check for a used car sold above its blue book value?
Of course not -- and football tickets are no different.
In fact, those who put on live events likely gain, not lose, from ticket brokers. The existence of a rigorous resale market gives the signal that the prices they are charging from the outset are probably too low.
Furthermore, in a financial sense, ticket agents assume some of the risk of hosting an event -- not unlike an insurance company assumes some of the risk of you driving a car.
Ticket-scalping laws are yet another example of governments trying to quash markets that serve everybody involved.
It is not surprising that they have little success in doing so. And short of encouraging initial ticket sales to be run through an auction mechanism, there is little government can do that will dent the ticket re-sale market.
So drop the ticket-scalping nonsense.
As with just about every other sector of the economy, getting the government out of the way is the most important step towards getting everyone ahead.
Check back often!
To get started... here is an article by Matt Ryan, an author and graduate student at WVU
THIS weekend's Marshall-WVU football game gives West Virginians quite a bit to be proud of. Competition, school spirit and economic stimulus are but a few results that will emerge from Saturday's showdown.
There is one characteristic of the game, however, that most of the general public bemoans -- ticket-scalping.
Many feel that ticket scalping involves one party taking advantage of another against their will, and the name itself elicits images of a ghastly wartime tactic.
The practice of re-selling tickets couldn't be viewed in a more unfavorable -- or inaccurate -- light.
While ticket-scalping is often assumed to be any resale of tickets, the legal definition is actually more limited. Laws differ by region, but illegal ticket-scalping typically constitutes the resale of a ticket:
1) within a given amount of time (usually a few hours) before the event's posted start;
2) within a physical distance (usually a few blocks) of the venue for which the ticket is valid; and
3) for an amount higher than that printed on the ticket.
I presume the intent of the law is to prevent someone showing up for an event without tickets and somehow being tricked into paying an amount for tickets they will later regret.
This is no different than any other type of buyer's remorse, and is by no means justification for government involvement. Yet policymakers salivate.
It is a dangerous day when a government attempts to protect its citizens from themselves. Many government policies that have long existed attempt to improve upon consumers' own informed choices only to damage them in the end.
Regulations that prevent mothers from carrying their young children on their laps on airplanes have been shown to cause an overall harm to children since mothers would otherwise substitute plane flights for more dangerous car rides.
The Food and Drug Administration routinely delays potential life-saving medication from hitting the market and helping those especially sick individuals who would be willing to take risks on new treatments.
The liberty to make choices -- and to bear their repercussions, both positive and negative -- is vital to the ability of a market economy to thrive.
Issues of personal freedom aside, the resale of tickets is a perfectly viable economic activity that should not be outlawed. If anything, it should be encouraged.
Ticket brokers play the exact same role as stockbrokers. Just as individuals may want to transfer ownership of stocks, so, too, do people wish to transfer ownership of tickets to live events.
Secondary markets -- like the resale of tickets and the stock market -- are commonplace.
Yard sales are a perfect example. Used cars constitute another secondary market.
Many feel that the ticket broker is gaining at the expense of the initial seller -- that, for example, anyone re-selling their tickets to this weekend's game is doing so at the expense of Marshall University.
Somehow, because Marshall could (hypothetically) have charged more for its product, some people seem to think it now has a claim to some or all profits from future transactions.
No such claim exists. Would the initial contractors for a home have claim to profits from every sale of the house? Does a car manufacturer deserve a check for a used car sold above its blue book value?
Of course not -- and football tickets are no different.
In fact, those who put on live events likely gain, not lose, from ticket brokers. The existence of a rigorous resale market gives the signal that the prices they are charging from the outset are probably too low.
Furthermore, in a financial sense, ticket agents assume some of the risk of hosting an event -- not unlike an insurance company assumes some of the risk of you driving a car.
Ticket-scalping laws are yet another example of governments trying to quash markets that serve everybody involved.
It is not surprising that they have little success in doing so. And short of encouraging initial ticket sales to be run through an auction mechanism, there is little government can do that will dent the ticket re-sale market.
So drop the ticket-scalping nonsense.
As with just about every other sector of the economy, getting the government out of the way is the most important step towards getting everyone ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment