Did Jets fans sell out? So what!
BY ANTHONY RIEBER | anthony.rieber@newsday.com
November 25, 2007
The behavior of Jets fans during last Sunday's game against the Steelers was a hot topic more than once this week.
A day before the harassment story, "Gate D-Gate," broke, Jets fans were on the hot seat for allowing Steelers fans to take over Giants Stadium. It didn't feel like a Jets home game, that's for sure, with yellow-clad Pittsburghers waving "Terrible Towels" all day. Kellen Clemens said he had to go to a silent count because of the pro-Steelers noise. Jets safety Kerry Rhodes said he was "ticked off." Tight end Chris Baker called it "irritating."
Even Newsday's NFL columnist, Bob Glauber, called what Jets fans did "inexcusable."
Where did Steelers fans get the tickets? Obviously from Jets fans, who decided to sell out rather than contribute to a meaningless sellout in a lost season. Giving up their seats didn't sit well with Jets players Rhodes and Baker and with Glauber, who wrote on his Newsday.com blog, "You cannot allow your stadium to be invaded by that many fans from the opposing team."
Uh, Bob, I love you, big guy, but you're dead wrong. Here's the way I tally it:
Jets tickets: $80. Re-sale value: $120. Making a few bucks from re-selling your tickets and sitting home on a cold, rainy day and watching an upset win: priceless.
What it is about sports tickets -- any entertainment tickets, for that matter -- that the people who buy them are not supposed to re-sell them? For whatever they can get? To whoever wants them?
If I buy a car from my next-door neighbor for $5,000 and want to sell it to the guy across the street for $6,000, is there a law that says I can't? This idea that fans should not re-sell their tickets comes from the days when ticket-scalping could only be done by shady characters in back alleys. The laws were made to protect us by politicians who, by the way, can get tickets for any hot event by having an aide make a phone call to the team.
Well, there's this thing called the Internet now, and re-selling and buying tickets is as easy as one-two-three, click.
Let's say 10,000 Jets fans put their tickets for the Steelers game up for sale and 10,000 Steelers fans clicked and bought. How is that a bad thing? Jets fans have endured enough in a season that has had two highlights in 12 long weeks (three if you count the bye week). Aren't they allowed to make back a few bucks for what so far has been a bad investment in money, time and sanity?
(I'm not telling any fan to do anything illegal when it comes to re-selling tickets. Many teams now have ticket resale areas on their Web sites, and other legal ticket brokers operate on the Web. Make sure what you're doing is on the up and up. But don't feel dirty if you do it.)
I once had tickets for a Yankees-Red Sox game at Yankee Stadium and ended up getting offered concert tickets for the same night. No way I was going to miss Anne Murray and Neil Diamond singing the best of Tom Jones!
(OK, just wanted to see if you were paying attention. It was the Dave Matthews Band.)
So I put the Yankees-Red Sox tickets up on a legal ticket-selling site for a wee bit over face value. The tickets were snapped up within a day.
I guess the person who brought the tickets could have re-sold them for a huge profit or could have even been -- gasp! -- Red Sox fans who wore Big Papi jerseys and booed Derek Jeter. Big deal.
As for the Jets, they have only two home games left, against Cleveland and Kansas City. Probably won't be a ton of demand for the Chiefs game, but maybe a few Dawg Pounders want to travel from Ohio to the Big Apple? Make the sale.
The Giants probably will have a wild-card berth sewn up when they host the Patriots on Dec. 29. If the Pats are going for 16-0, people from New England are going to want those tickets. Ka-ching, Giants fans!
You can watch it on the big screen you buy with the profit. And if Patriots fans make too much noise and "take over" Giants Stadium?
Turn the sound off.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
TICKETMASTER MAKES A LOT OF MONEY
Found this article posted today on www.cnnmoney.com. Everyone complains about TM's excessive service charges.... and with reason.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/11/pf/raw_deal_ticketmaster/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Hankering for some live music or sports this fall? Be prepared to shell out some cash. Above and beyond the rising face value of tickets is a heaping helping of service fees.
Nearly anyone who has ever ordered a ticket through Ticketmaster will say the charges, which can be as much as 40 percent above the face value depending on the event, are excessive.ticketmaster.03.jpg
The company claims it's the cost of doing business, but consumers are tired of paying through the nose for nose-bleed seats, and even some politicians are considering capping the fees levied by ticketsellers.
There is no doubt that Ticketmaster has mastered the ticket-selling business. The company, which is a division of IAC InterActive Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500) has 9,000 clients (mainly arenas, stadiums and theaters) in 20 countries and exclusive rights to sell tickets through its Web site, retail outlets and call centers.
Last year the West Hollywood, Calif.-based company sold more than 128 million tickets with a face value of over $7 billion and raked in the service fees.Post your thoughts and see what others think
On top of the face value of a ticket, which is determined by the promoter, venue or artist, Ticketmaster levies a convenience charge that covers the costs of providing tickets at local ticket outlet locations, staffing call centers and ongoing maintenance of its Internet-based system. But ticket buyers must pay this charge regardless of how they purchase their tickets, be it on the phone, online or in person.
In addition to the convenience charge, there is also an order processing fee which covers taking and maintaining the order, arranging for shipping or coordinating with the box office will call. And in almost all cases, additional delivery prices may be charged based on the delivery method.
Standard mail and will call are usually, but not always, free, although other delivery options, like FedEx, UPS and even email cost extra.
There can also be a facility charge, which varies depending on the location and goes directly to the venue, not Ticketmaster.
So say you purchase a $35 ticket through Ticketmaster for an upcoming event, there could be a convenience charge of $8.35 (per ticket) in addition to a $3.15 order processing fee and $1.75 fee for an e-ticket. That adds up to a whopping 38 percent premium over the face value of the ticket price.
"Like any business, we have every right to seek a fair return on our investment and efforts," the company said in a statement.
Even artists have complained that the company's anticompetitive practices result in unfair markups of their concert tickets. In 1994, the rock band Pearl Jam attempted to sue Ticketmaster for refusing to lower its service fees for the band's tickets. But because Ticketmaster had exclusive contracts with so many large venues, Pearl Jam had no alternative but to cancel their tour.
Mass. Senator Michael Morrissey, co-chairman of the Legislature's Consumer Affairs and Professional Licensure Committee, said he is looking into legislation that would address the initial sale of tickets through Ticketmaster.
"We, in the Senate, might try to deal with a cap on charges," Morrissey said. Legally, he explained, the restrictions on administrative charges are a gray area but a greater level of transparency should exist as to what the charges cover specifically, in addition to a limitation on how high they can go.
"We are going to try to do something to reduce some of the burden on the public," he said.Tell us about another raw deal
Until then, and aside from appealing to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, as Pearl Jam unsuccessfully attempted to do, what is an average concert goer to do?
The best solution is to circumvent Ticketmaster altogether by purchasing tickets directly from venue box offices. When this option is available, there is generally no convenience charge levied.
There are also a number of online competitors, like Tickets.com, that have popped up in recent years hoping to take a bite out of Ticketmaster's business. Sometimes, an act's fan club will provide tickets to a show on its own Web site via a rival ticketing agent with lower fees and charges.
But in many cases when the venue isn't offering advanced ticket sales and no other Web sites are selling them, the consumer has few choices: cough up Ticketmaster's fees, or try to purchase from a secondary seller (reselling is restricted in some states).
And if you do end up scoring some sought after seats through Ticketmaster, at least you can appreciate the fact that that "convenience" charge means that you didn't have to camp out in a folding chair all night.
This kind of reminds me of the Wal-Mart issue. Nobody likes Wal-Mart because they are bigger, better, and make more money than everyone else, causing small shops to close down. Well, you have to admit, TM is bigger, better, and makes more money than everyone else. The only difference is that Wal-Mart has real competition (Target etc.) and doesn't use monopolistic strategy (Walmart doenst go around buying up mom and pop shops, and they dont raise their prices at a store just because its the only store in town). People shop at Wal-Mart because Wal-mart has lower prices than competitors. People 'shop' at ticketmaster because they have exclusive (cough cough monopolistic) agreements to be the ONLY ticket seller for a majority of venues.
Personally, I don't complain about TM's service fees because what I pay for a ticket is what I pay.... would be nice to not pay the service fees but I'm still happy to pay that price for the ticket. The problem is, they are making so much money that their customer service should be top of the line, and it isnt. Oh well, its not like everyone is going to stop buying tickets from ticketmaster soon. Ticketmaster knows they don't need to charge as much as they do, and they know other ticket services can do what they do for cheaper (ticketweb... ticketwest... livenation tickets..) and thats why TM buys them out. It is just a matter of time before these competitors wise up and realize they can take market share away from TM, and don't have to join them.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/11/pf/raw_deal_ticketmaster/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Hankering for some live music or sports this fall? Be prepared to shell out some cash. Above and beyond the rising face value of tickets is a heaping helping of service fees.
Nearly anyone who has ever ordered a ticket through Ticketmaster will say the charges, which can be as much as 40 percent above the face value depending on the event, are excessive.ticketmaster.03.jpg
The company claims it's the cost of doing business, but consumers are tired of paying through the nose for nose-bleed seats, and even some politicians are considering capping the fees levied by ticketsellers.
There is no doubt that Ticketmaster has mastered the ticket-selling business. The company, which is a division of IAC InterActive Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500) has 9,000 clients (mainly arenas, stadiums and theaters) in 20 countries and exclusive rights to sell tickets through its Web site, retail outlets and call centers.
Last year the West Hollywood, Calif.-based company sold more than 128 million tickets with a face value of over $7 billion and raked in the service fees.Post your thoughts and see what others think
On top of the face value of a ticket, which is determined by the promoter, venue or artist, Ticketmaster levies a convenience charge that covers the costs of providing tickets at local ticket outlet locations, staffing call centers and ongoing maintenance of its Internet-based system. But ticket buyers must pay this charge regardless of how they purchase their tickets, be it on the phone, online or in person.
In addition to the convenience charge, there is also an order processing fee which covers taking and maintaining the order, arranging for shipping or coordinating with the box office will call. And in almost all cases, additional delivery prices may be charged based on the delivery method.
Standard mail and will call are usually, but not always, free, although other delivery options, like FedEx, UPS and even email cost extra.
There can also be a facility charge, which varies depending on the location and goes directly to the venue, not Ticketmaster.
So say you purchase a $35 ticket through Ticketmaster for an upcoming event, there could be a convenience charge of $8.35 (per ticket) in addition to a $3.15 order processing fee and $1.75 fee for an e-ticket. That adds up to a whopping 38 percent premium over the face value of the ticket price.
"Like any business, we have every right to seek a fair return on our investment and efforts," the company said in a statement.
Even artists have complained that the company's anticompetitive practices result in unfair markups of their concert tickets. In 1994, the rock band Pearl Jam attempted to sue Ticketmaster for refusing to lower its service fees for the band's tickets. But because Ticketmaster had exclusive contracts with so many large venues, Pearl Jam had no alternative but to cancel their tour.
Mass. Senator Michael Morrissey, co-chairman of the Legislature's Consumer Affairs and Professional Licensure Committee, said he is looking into legislation that would address the initial sale of tickets through Ticketmaster.
"We, in the Senate, might try to deal with a cap on charges," Morrissey said. Legally, he explained, the restrictions on administrative charges are a gray area but a greater level of transparency should exist as to what the charges cover specifically, in addition to a limitation on how high they can go.
"We are going to try to do something to reduce some of the burden on the public," he said.Tell us about another raw deal
Until then, and aside from appealing to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, as Pearl Jam unsuccessfully attempted to do, what is an average concert goer to do?
The best solution is to circumvent Ticketmaster altogether by purchasing tickets directly from venue box offices. When this option is available, there is generally no convenience charge levied.
There are also a number of online competitors, like Tickets.com, that have popped up in recent years hoping to take a bite out of Ticketmaster's business. Sometimes, an act's fan club will provide tickets to a show on its own Web site via a rival ticketing agent with lower fees and charges.
But in many cases when the venue isn't offering advanced ticket sales and no other Web sites are selling them, the consumer has few choices: cough up Ticketmaster's fees, or try to purchase from a secondary seller (reselling is restricted in some states).
And if you do end up scoring some sought after seats through Ticketmaster, at least you can appreciate the fact that that "convenience" charge means that you didn't have to camp out in a folding chair all night.
This kind of reminds me of the Wal-Mart issue. Nobody likes Wal-Mart because they are bigger, better, and make more money than everyone else, causing small shops to close down. Well, you have to admit, TM is bigger, better, and makes more money than everyone else. The only difference is that Wal-Mart has real competition (Target etc.) and doesn't use monopolistic strategy (Walmart doenst go around buying up mom and pop shops, and they dont raise their prices at a store just because its the only store in town). People shop at Wal-Mart because Wal-mart has lower prices than competitors. People 'shop' at ticketmaster because they have exclusive (cough cough monopolistic) agreements to be the ONLY ticket seller for a majority of venues.
Personally, I don't complain about TM's service fees because what I pay for a ticket is what I pay.... would be nice to not pay the service fees but I'm still happy to pay that price for the ticket. The problem is, they are making so much money that their customer service should be top of the line, and it isnt. Oh well, its not like everyone is going to stop buying tickets from ticketmaster soon. Ticketmaster knows they don't need to charge as much as they do, and they know other ticket services can do what they do for cheaper (ticketweb... ticketwest... livenation tickets..) and thats why TM buys them out. It is just a matter of time before these competitors wise up and realize they can take market share away from TM, and don't have to join them.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
AHHHHHH HANNAH MONTANA!!!
Everyone knows that Hannah Montana, aka future president of the USA, is the hottest thing in town, and will be at least for the next few months. Ticket brokers agree that this is the HOTTEST tour EVER. Which is saying a lot. Asking brokers when the last time they saw a tour do so well for brokers and they scratch their heads.... not even U2 generated demand like Hannah Montana for tickets on the secondary market. So what is it about her? Is she super talented? Does she have the best writers writing her TV show and her music? Nope! She simply appeals to the most powerful age group in America like nobody else has done before. For example, look at what this mom (and her husband lawyer) are doing just to get Hannah Montana tickets. Ridiculous and wrong on so many levels.
http://www.ticketnews.com/North-Carolina-Parent-Sues-TicketsNow0100807
North Carolina Parent Sues TicketsNow Over “Hannah” Prices
Mon, 10/08/2007 - 3:13pm — TicketBuzz
By Alfred Branch, Jr.
It was only a matter of time.
Disgruntled North Carolina parent Lyn Peraldo, upset over the price she paid for Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus tickets, filed suit against TicketsNow last week alleging the company and others essentially conspired to rig the system.
Peraldo was allegedly shut out when she tried to buy tickets last month for the Nov. 25 Montana show at the Greensboro Coliseum, and went onto TicketsNow.com and bought four tickets for more than $1,000 as part of a birthday gift for her six-year-old daughter. She then filed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that TicketsNow and others in the “ticket brokering industry” possess “a sophisticated system and the means (internet, telephone, pre-purchase and in person) to purchase at face value a number of the tickets identified herein in such quantities that Plaintiff and many others had no realistic opportunity to purchase said tickets from the ‘Greensboro Coliseum’ for face value, it being the specific business plan, intent and goal of Defendant to acquire and immediately resale as many of said tickets as possible at grossly inflated prices, which in this case it did to Plaintiff.”
"I watched parents with little girls, bursting into tears, walking back down toward me, saying they'd sold out," she told North Carolina TV station WGHP. The lawsuit is seeking in excess of $10,000 in damages.
According to a copy of the lawsuit, provided by WGHP, Peraldo claims she bought four tickets from TicketsNow.com for $225 a piece, despite the face value of the tickets being $56. She also allegedly paid a service charge of $135 and a shipping fee of $14.95.
Neither Peraldo nor a representative for TicketsNow returned messages at press time seeking comment.
Details of the lawsuit aside, what is really interesting here is the question of the legitimacy of ticket reselling. Hannah has brought out some very passionate parents (ok, and sometimes very mean parents) which has led brokers to passionately defend themselves. So who is right? Do parents have the right to be pissed at ticket brokers? Are ticket brokers wrong for selling tickets above face value?
There are some things being said in this debate that I would like to comment on:
1) "Ticket brokers are exploiting parents and the children who want to see Hannah"
Wrong. Selling tickets is not a trick. Brokers do not trick parents into buying tickets. It is not a scam. There is a product and a price, and parents choose to pay that price for the product, just like going to the grocery store and paying $5 for a case of Pepsi. The origination of the product is irrelevant to the sale of the product. So are Pepsi Distributors exploiting parents? They are making a profit that PepsiCo, the producers, don't see.
2) "Ticket brokers do nothing but take money away from those that really deserve to be making money"
Wrong again. Ticket brokers provide a service. Ticket brokers provide a means for fans to get tickets when they are unable to beat the masses on ticketmaster.com to get tickets. If reselling tickets was illegal and ticket brokers did not exist, would parents be happier then? Not if you ask the thousands of parents that paid the fair market price for tickets on the secondary market and made their children happy. Also, its not like Hannah, the promoters, or anyone else involved in making the tour happen is losing money when TicketsNow makes a sale.
3) "Ticket brokers cater to the rich"
True. Actually, lets think about it. Brokers provide a means for wealthy people to get the seats they want for the shows they want to go to. But what you never hear about... because nobody complains about this.... is that brokers allow the less wealthy fans to buy tickets often at a huge discount for less popular events. Season ticket holders to any baseball, basketball, or hockey team practicaly give tickets away for a lot of games, giving people without a lot of money a chance to see their favorite team at a huge discount.
4) "Ticket brokers are not good people, they simply make a living by leaching off the work done by promoters who make the event happen"
Wrong. Ticket brokers are good people. They are sales people and smart businessmen/women. If they were dirty low lifes, they wouldn't make it as a ticket broker. Believe it or not, there is a lot of competition and not every broker makes money. More importantly, ticket brokers provide a service and in the case of a lot of broadway shows, can provide financing for the show itself.
In the end, this is really about a bigger problem.... kids are spoiled and parents are so confused and so clueless as to how to make their kid happy that they spend $800 for one night of entertainment.
http://www.ticketnews.com/North-Carolina-Parent-Sues-TicketsNow0100807
North Carolina Parent Sues TicketsNow Over “Hannah” Prices
Mon, 10/08/2007 - 3:13pm — TicketBuzz
By Alfred Branch, Jr.
It was only a matter of time.
Disgruntled North Carolina parent Lyn Peraldo, upset over the price she paid for Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus tickets, filed suit against TicketsNow last week alleging the company and others essentially conspired to rig the system.
Peraldo was allegedly shut out when she tried to buy tickets last month for the Nov. 25 Montana show at the Greensboro Coliseum, and went onto TicketsNow.com and bought four tickets for more than $1,000 as part of a birthday gift for her six-year-old daughter. She then filed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that TicketsNow and others in the “ticket brokering industry” possess “a sophisticated system and the means (internet, telephone, pre-purchase and in person) to purchase at face value a number of the tickets identified herein in such quantities that Plaintiff and many others had no realistic opportunity to purchase said tickets from the ‘Greensboro Coliseum’ for face value, it being the specific business plan, intent and goal of Defendant to acquire and immediately resale as many of said tickets as possible at grossly inflated prices, which in this case it did to Plaintiff.”
"I watched parents with little girls, bursting into tears, walking back down toward me, saying they'd sold out," she told North Carolina TV station WGHP. The lawsuit is seeking in excess of $10,000 in damages.
According to a copy of the lawsuit, provided by WGHP, Peraldo claims she bought four tickets from TicketsNow.com for $225 a piece, despite the face value of the tickets being $56. She also allegedly paid a service charge of $135 and a shipping fee of $14.95.
Neither Peraldo nor a representative for TicketsNow returned messages at press time seeking comment.
Details of the lawsuit aside, what is really interesting here is the question of the legitimacy of ticket reselling. Hannah has brought out some very passionate parents (ok, and sometimes very mean parents) which has led brokers to passionately defend themselves. So who is right? Do parents have the right to be pissed at ticket brokers? Are ticket brokers wrong for selling tickets above face value?
There are some things being said in this debate that I would like to comment on:
1) "Ticket brokers are exploiting parents and the children who want to see Hannah"
Wrong. Selling tickets is not a trick. Brokers do not trick parents into buying tickets. It is not a scam. There is a product and a price, and parents choose to pay that price for the product, just like going to the grocery store and paying $5 for a case of Pepsi. The origination of the product is irrelevant to the sale of the product. So are Pepsi Distributors exploiting parents? They are making a profit that PepsiCo, the producers, don't see.
2) "Ticket brokers do nothing but take money away from those that really deserve to be making money"
Wrong again. Ticket brokers provide a service. Ticket brokers provide a means for fans to get tickets when they are unable to beat the masses on ticketmaster.com to get tickets. If reselling tickets was illegal and ticket brokers did not exist, would parents be happier then? Not if you ask the thousands of parents that paid the fair market price for tickets on the secondary market and made their children happy. Also, its not like Hannah, the promoters, or anyone else involved in making the tour happen is losing money when TicketsNow makes a sale.
3) "Ticket brokers cater to the rich"
True. Actually, lets think about it. Brokers provide a means for wealthy people to get the seats they want for the shows they want to go to. But what you never hear about... because nobody complains about this.... is that brokers allow the less wealthy fans to buy tickets often at a huge discount for less popular events. Season ticket holders to any baseball, basketball, or hockey team practicaly give tickets away for a lot of games, giving people without a lot of money a chance to see their favorite team at a huge discount.
4) "Ticket brokers are not good people, they simply make a living by leaching off the work done by promoters who make the event happen"
Wrong. Ticket brokers are good people. They are sales people and smart businessmen/women. If they were dirty low lifes, they wouldn't make it as a ticket broker. Believe it or not, there is a lot of competition and not every broker makes money. More importantly, ticket brokers provide a service and in the case of a lot of broadway shows, can provide financing for the show itself.
In the end, this is really about a bigger problem.... kids are spoiled and parents are so confused and so clueless as to how to make their kid happy that they spend $800 for one night of entertainment.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Welcome to Standupticketguy!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
