That phrase doesn't usually entail cutting off or reducing the existing supply to inflate worth.
The end of the ticket tout?
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
Of course, this makes me think of software "Piracy"
(By Software i mean anything digital)
Software Piracy exists because the legitimate owners of the software are artificially inflating prices beyond what a good part of the customer base is willing to pay.
(The fact that some are not willing to pay anything at all is a subset of this and shouldn't be considered a general case)
The fact that for "Software", unlike concert tickets, the supply is essentially infinite also with effectively zero marginal production costs, demonstrates nicely that "Software" is a heavily rigged market.
Like with concert tickets, how do you determine what a "Fair" price is?
They might still do? IIRC asset recovery stuff can be separate to the actual case itself. Though I guess in this case the purchasers of the tickets weren't defrauded directly - they agreed to pay a price and did indeed receive a ticket for that price. The people defrauded are the venues/artists by the false/additional identities used in purchasing the tickets - this didn't directly cause a financial loss for them though. Obviously it has a side effect of increasing demand/inflating prices for anyone buying in a secondary market.
Its the mass buying/false identities that got them I think - obvs the ridiculous 7k ticket brought them the attention but if they weren't using additional identities then they're not necessarily breaking the law AFAIK? I'd presume they'd need a bigger margin to make it viable as they will periodically get some tickets canceled etc..
Well I guess it is an inefficient market and they're not necessarily the brightest of people - though anyone doing anything too stupid will perhaps go out of business and the rest ought to sort of evolve/optimise over time.
Firstly they likely maintain quite a large spread in the market they create which will account for having excess inventory at the end of the night. Secondly I would suspect they perhaps don't get too many people just walking past the venue who would suddenly drop what they're otherwise planning to do in order to attend the event. People turning up late without a ticket have already committed to trying to find a ticket and likely know full well they'd need to pay a premium.
Alternative is they'd be pitching to people who are already planning to do something else that evening or are just heading home etc..
The poster was just making a reference to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
The poster said they found a demand (for the tickets) and they've supplied it - and that is what they've done - there is a demand for them (that often exceeds the original supply) and they do indeed supply that demand. That there is some original supply for them doesn't negate that - the primary market has a fixed price/doesn't adjust in response to demand but operates on a queue system... getting ahead in the queue has value and they have the means to do this so they can exploit the additional demand for these tickets by selling them on at a profit.
That isn't a comment on the morals of what they're doing etc...
Not the correct analogy.
The correct analogy is you arrive early, buy all the face masks (Say), then stand outside later in the day selling them on at ten times the prrice.
The early Bird gets the Worm and all that.
No matter what your take on the touting thing is, it’s difficult to argue that this is wrong, it may not be charitable, it may be deemed selfish, but there’s nothing illegal about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2017
- Posts
- 9,649
- Location
- Beds
I mean, they haven't supplied the demand any more than it was already supplied.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Selling 1 or two is fine but selling couple millions worth. Different story.
That doesn't matter, the demand is still there and they've got in early and are able to supply it - albeit they're happy to adjust their prices in response to the demand.
Arguably though they're also supplying a different sort of customer in addition to those who'd have otherwise purchased directly upon initial release - there is also a demand for people to be able to buy tickets on a whim later on, separate from the demand generated by the fans who anticipate these sales in advance and would otherwise hoover up all the tickets immediately upon release... they cater to that demand too.
Err.. they created the demand by buying the tickets in the first place. If they didn't buy them then a genuine customer could.
There was plenty of demand already there but yeah they’ve added to it at the point in time. Yes if they didn’t buy tickets then a genuine customer could. Not sure what your point is?
I'd hope so. I guess it's no different to recovering drug money. You can't give it back to the users (for obvious reasons), or the suppliers (another obvious
), i'd assume portions of it go directly to the local communities who are affected, and hopefully put to use to steer would-be users away from drug use.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Yes. Well not the slap your hand away part.
If a million people want a product but there is only 100 of them and someone buys all 100 to sell on then the price will be set by supply and demand
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 248
Haha that's the spirit!!