The end of the ticket tout?

[LuckyBenski]

given I can walk past touts and not have to deal w/ them, i'd far prefer the legal system had dealt w/ ticketmaster's monopoly and ****ty "service" charges and ****ty practices of hiving off premium tickets immediately and putting them on their own resell sites.

Given the pair in OP were running on a similar level - they had their own website and were doing pretty much what you describe... I'd say hopefully it sets a precedent. It was the first conviction for a new entity so hopefully their rules will eventually include anyone interfering with ticket availability.

 

[Orionaut]

The thing is, how do you determine the fair price (And/or a fair way of distributing) a limited commodity such as a concert ticket?

#1 "It costs £X/unit to provide the commodity, we will make a fixed mark up of Y% and sell Z units on a first come first served basis"? (Nominal pricing, gives poorer people a chance)

#2 "It cost £X/unit to provide the commodity, we have Z units, we will set the price at such a level that we only have Z buyers"? (Maximum pricing, Poor people have no chance, only the super rich have any chance at all)

or

#3 "something in between"

Touting essentially fulfils the role of #3, and provided that the overall proportion of tickets bout by touts remains low, then it is really fair enough IMO.

Where it becomes not-fair (Either to the buyers or the promoters) is where touts manage to snatch up a large proportion of the available tickets before anybody else gets a look in.

Although I don't know off hand what a reasonable proportion should be.

Perhaps the promoters should get in on the game and tout their own tickets (eg say, 70% fixed price, first come first served, 30% go to auction, best price wins)

 

[chroniclard]

Isn't this what capitalism is all about - buy low, sell high? It's worse in other areas - if the video game model was applied then customers would have to pay real money to buy an envelope that only might have a ticket inside. Or how about used cars? Some of them sell for far more than the original purchase price. All these people did was to improve the efficiency of the business. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

lol ticket loot boxes, hoping for that ticket to see Eminem, end up with 10 tickets to Peter Andre.

 

[Greebo]

Still not much of a deterrent. They made over £6m from the tickets and got 6.5 years between them. They will be out in half of that for good behaviour so it works out at around £2m for every year inside.

 

[Jean-F]

A £75 ticket was sold for £7000, that's pure greed and day light robbery.

While I’m totally against gouging, it sounds like good business to me, although whoever stumped up 7 grand for a £75 ticket definitely needs his bumps read, unless he had a mug waiting, willing to go to 10 grand.
Mind you, had it been for Stevie Nicks in her heyday, and there’d been a guaranteed anything goes meet with the star in her hotel suite after the gig, I might have gone to £100 for the ticket

 

[dowie]

Touts are fine.

Using api to buy hundreds of tickets at a time not.

There is a difference.

I’m not sure that that was the issue so much as using fake identities/pretending to be someone else etc...

Must be a fair few people out there earning a reasonable part time wedge just with their own identities...

If the industry genuinely wanted to crack down on touts then they could make the tickets non-transferable - use names tickets etc... and/or their own buyback program.

 

[dowie]

A £75 ticket was sold for £7000, that's pure greed and day light robbery.

I don’t think it was sold, they just attempted to.... and for a charity gig too!

On the other hand - how much money s being left on the table by the artists/venues here??? They’re operating an inefficient market and others are coming in and exploiting that inefficiency.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

To be fair if these pair didn't get greedy they wouldn't be locked up by now. Why make millions and get caught.

If the industry genuinely wanted to crack down on touts then they could make the tickets non-transferable - use names tickets etc... and/or their own buyback program.

This is very true!

 

[dowie]

To be fair if these pair didn't get greedy they wouldn't be locked up by now. Why make millions and get caught.

AFAIK if they'd just used their names (and/or perhaps somehow involved close friend/family with their agreement) then they perhaps could have just carried on legally.... softly softly catchy monkey.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

AFAIK if they'd just used their names (and/or perhaps somehow involved close friend/family with their agreement) then they perhaps could have just carried on legally.... softy softy catchy monkey.

idiots.

 

[NVP]

I never knew this was illegal, in fact I still don't how it is illegal. Find a demand and supply it.

Say you went to the only supermarket to buy an item you wished then someone slaps your hand away, grabs all of the items and says you can have one at 5 times the price.

Is that really supply and demand?

 

[dowie]

missed this post but:

I never knew this was illegal, in fact I still don't how it is illegal. Find a demand and supply it.

It isn't necessarily illegal - they used some additional identities and so committed fraud - they weren't convicted for being ticket touts per se

Say you went to the only supermarket to buy an item you wished then someone slaps your hand away, grabs all of the items and says you can have one at 5 times the price.

Is that really supply and demand?

Slapping your hand away would be assault!

Though yes if someone buys things in short supply ahead of you in anticipation of excess demand then. Yes they basically are doing what the other person said "Find a demand and supply it."

In the case of touts they're taking on some risk (arguably not enough as it seems to be a highly inefficient market) and holding tickets which allows people to pay a premium a order to attend some sold out event.

I mean the in person touts essentially act like market makers almost in so far as they stand outside venues and offer to buy tickets too.

The service is that someone holding a ticket who can't go anymore has a secondary market through which to dispose of it (perhaps at a loss to them - though not always if in high demand) and someone say wanting to join a group of friends at the last minute has a secondary market make through which to buy a ticket (usually at a premium to the face value).

Arguably the venues and artists are leaving money on the table here and unlike financial markets there is nothing preventing them from controlling the middle man or doing a deal to appoint an official middle man and close out the touts if they wish. If they wish to prevent any significant premium being paid in a secondary market then they could control that too and just have the secondary market as a first in first out queue of willing buyers.... a reserve list for spare tickets essentially.

 

[Semple]

Plus it was a charity gig, so they were trying to profit from a charity ticket.

I think that was the tipping point. I read in the article that Sheeran's manager was fuming that someone was trying to profit from a charity gig, if they wanted to pay 7 grand towards the charity for a ticket, then obviously fair enough to them.

Still not much of a deterrent. They made over £6m from the tickets and got 6.5 years between them. They will be out in half of that for good behaviour so it works out at around £2m for every year inside.

Yeah it's always disappointing when you read of cases like these where people have made a small fortune, spend a bit of time inside and still have that wealth to come out to. I'd have hoped the courts would have taken back that money.

To be fair if these pair didn't get greedy they wouldn't be locked up by now. Why make millions and get caught.

Exactly this. They seemed to have developed some software that could pick up these tickets much quicker than the general public. If they were only selling them for £10 over the face value, despite selling hundreds of thousands of tickets, they'd have probably skated under the radar and not been caught.

 

[Semple]

In the case of touts they're taking on some risk (arguably not enough as it seems to be a highly inefficient market) and holding tickets which allows people to pay a premium a order to attend some sold out event.

I've never truly understood the business model of ticket touts. I've been into events literally as the main event is starting, and you've got touts outside still trying to sell tickets at some stupid price over face value. Surely when you're at the point where the main event is started, you'd be better of shifting your remaining tickets at whatever you can get them for. Otherwise they become just a worthless bit of paper and devalue your previously sold tickets.

 

[sanaxe1]

I've never truly understood the business model of ticket touts. I've been into events literally as the main event is starting, and you've got touts outside still trying to sell tickets at some stupid price over face value. Surely when you're at the point where the main event is started, you'd be better of shifting your remaining tickets at whatever you can get them for. Otherwise they become just a worthless bit of paper and devalue your previously sold tickets.

The problem being, if they lowered the price once the show started no one would buy them at the inflated price and just wait for them to drop the price. Its the same with anything really.

 

[NVP]

Though yes if someone buys things in short supply ahead of you in anticipation of excess demand then. Yes they basically are doing what the other person said "Find a demand and supply it."

No they're not, the demand is already supplied. They are simply taking the existing supply and passing it to those who "demand" at an inflated price.

If they created a new supply, then yes I'd agree, but that is not the case.

 

[Orionaut]

Say you went to the only supermarket to buy an item you wished then someone slaps your hand away, grabs all of the items and says you can have one at 5 times the price.

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.

 

[dowie]

No they're not, the demand is already supplied. They are simply taking the existing supply and passing it to those who "demand" at an inflated price.

Eh? The poster said "Find a demand and supply it." - that's what they've done. I agree with you the demand is already there - that is what they're exploiting... Yes they are simply taking the existing supply and passing it on.

 

[pepp77]

Still not much of a deterrent. They made over £6m from the tickets and got 6.5 years between them. They will be out in half of that for good behaviour so it works out at around £2m for every year inside.

I would expect as the money was gained from what has been determined an illegal means that the money will be confiscated and into the government it will go.

 

[wolfie138]

Still not much of a deterrent. They made over £6m from the tickets and got 6.5 years between them. They will be out in half of that for good behaviour so it works out at around £2m for every year inside.

hopefully those three years will be spent having done to them in the showers what they did to the people who bought their tickets.