Some Musicians Using Ticket Scalping To Raise Funds For Charity
from the who-needs-tickets dept
Ticketmaster helped build its consumer-unfriendly reputation even more earlier this year, when news emerged that it was collaborating with some musicians and concert promoters to try and push scalpers aside -- and grab their revenues. Scalping's back in the news again this week, but with a slightly different twist: a number of musicians are working with a company called Charity Partners to sell some tickets to their shows at scalper-like prices, then donate the revenues over face value to charity. It's definitely an interesting idea that seeks to do something positive with the excess willingness to pay for certain concert tickets over their face value, rather than let it go to scalpers -- or back into the pockets of the artists and promoters themselves. But will the charity aspect be enough to deflect criticism that this is just another way for musicians to fleece their fans?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charity, high prices, ticket scalping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The myth that setting a market price somehow fleeces the customer has to come to an end.
The sole reason scalpers exist is because ticket prices are set well below their market value. If ticket prices reflected reality, i.e., their market value, scalpers would instantly go out of business.
What exactly is wrong with someone selling a product or a service at the market price? Where is the "fleecing" because someone is willing to pay a grand to see Bruce Springsteen. No one puts a gun to that fan's head. He's willing to do it. Selling a product or service at a price someone is willing to pay is completely rational, reasonable, legal, and moral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Charging market price is only fair, and it is what every other business does. It's not like artists are holding their fans up and emptying their pockets. These fans are people who CHOOSE to pay more for the opportunity of watching the performance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can't argue free in one area and then charge high prices in another with a straight face.
And no, turning off thousands of fans isn't rational or reasonable and moral. It is stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That myth only applies in a truly free market, which we don't have. The problem with equating true market value and willingness to pay in the case of a limited number of seats is that the free market value might be out of reach for a large number of consumers. In that case, like here in America, scalpers are able to function because a band doesn't want the price of the show to be out of reach for their fans, but scalpers can still make money off those willing to pay the higher prices, thus generating more early ticket sales, etc. etc.
After all, you might be able to find 17k people willing to pay $250 per ticket for Disturbed tickets and fill the United Center, because 17k people COULD pay that price. But if 97% of Disturb's fans CAN'T pay that price, they risk alienating them by charging the "true market value".
"The sole reason scalpers exist is because ticket prices are set well below their market value."
Mmmmmm no. That's only part of the reason. The other part is that ticket sellers don't want the hassle of using ALL of the avenues available to get tickets to fans. In many cases, more in sporting events than any other, they want the fans to come to them. Sometimes the fans don't want to. Scalpers also actively market the events, informing their regular clients of times/dates etc.
"What exactly is wrong with someone selling a product or a service at the market price? Where is the "fleecing""
You're probably right, there isn't any true fleecing. Nor is there anything wrong with charging as high as the market will bear. Just don't complain when the bands and artists want to go another route because of the consequences.
"Selling a product or service at a price someone is willing to pay is completely rational, reasonable, legal, and moral."
Well, two out of four ain't bad I suppose. Reasonable and legal, absolutely. Rational...usually, unless you keep doing it after a detrimental economic effect.
Moral...I don't know what that means. It certainly doesn't morally play nicely with Christianity, with all of its messages of giving more and taking less, and of being satisfied with reasonable amounts, rather than whatever "someone is willing to pay" (the parable of the three workers in the vineyard comes to mind). I don't know enough about the other religions to say one way or the other, but what religion EVER stated "And the Lord looked down and said, 'Make sure you get every penny you can, because that is good and just'"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marked Up Tickets
The band Incubus puts together VIP packages, where fans can do a meet and greet with the band before a show and get front row/pit tickets. All of the packages for each city are put up on ebay, fans pay as much as they're willing to pay, and all the proceeds go to the charity the band runs (www.makeyourselffoundation.org)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lottery
Pretty much impossible to scalp tickets in any significant quantity then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes you can, I get NBC broadcasts free over the air. But yet if I wanted to buy ad time on NBC, I would have to pay a market rate.
And lack an understanding as to why music is essentially free. It's free because in the digital age it has very little costs of distribution. However, a live performance is very limited by space and time. To put it another way, I can put up a song on bittorrent and everyone on the planet can download it. But it's impossible for the entire world to attend one of my concerts. Concerts are meat space, they have real and physical costs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now at non Ticket Master events his shows are standing room only, because eather tickets are ONLY sold at the door (several shows in Canada) or tickets are tied to a credit card (your card becomes your ticket and limits per card).
Ticket Master doing offical scalping just means more empty seats and difficulty attracting new fans by having prices in range of them (no im not paying 100+ to go to a group I have never heard of, but I will pay 20ish to see someone whos unknown to me)
Ticket sales are not only about geting the most money for a seat, there about attracting new fans to your act, which drives up CD, Itunes, and tshirt sales and allows you to grow your fan base.
Bands know that old fans are not worth as much as new fans, old fans already have all your CDs, new fans dont have anything yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really? Did you just say that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Who cares?! Owning a solid gold house is out of my reach, so should the government mandate that the prices of solid gold houses be artificially lowered to make them in my reach? Of course not.
"The other part is that ticket sellers don't want the hassle of using ALL of the avenues available to get tickets to fans."
That makes no sense to me at all.
"You're probably right, there isn't any true fleecing."
Close, I am right.
Nor is there anything wrong with charging as high as the market will bear.
Thanks!
Just don't complain when the bands and artists want to go another route because of the consequences.
I won't because I have no cause to complain. There are millions of things on this planet I want but cannot afford. Complaining about things I cannot afford is a pure waste of time.
"Rational...usually, unless you keep doing it after a detrimental economic effect."
What "detrimental economic effect"?! People have been buying tickets at market value, i.e., through scalpers for decades. But yet year after year people keep doing it.
"Moral...I don't know what that means."
Me neither, I just put it in for a hyperbolic joke. ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Obviously you've not been paying attention.
Free for good whose distribution cost is nigh zero.
NOT free for those things that really are in scarce supply.
Try to remember for future reference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The price of tickets is set based on a number of things, including the desire to fill all the seats. Raising the price until only a very few people can afford the tickets isn't realistic.
Example, a few dedicated (read moronic) fans of Madonna are willing to pay thousands of dollars for good tickets. Do you think everyone in the room is that stupid? Nope. IF tickets were $1000 each, it is very likely that the concert venue would be mostly empty.
Now, you could charge $1000 a ticket for a concert in a restricted venue, say like 200 seat night club. Different story, because a true market scarcity has been created. But it is doubtful that in each town there would be 20,000 people willing to shell out $1000 for a concert.
Overcharging for concert tickets is a fast way to run yourself out of business - and because a band or an artist can't make money selling music anymore, this is their only remaining business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Obviously you've not been paying attention.
Free for a good whose supply/distribution cost is nigh zero.
NOT free for those things that really are in scarce supply.
Try to remember for future reference.
(Also, you reply like a certain mentally deficient individual whom I've been encouraging to expand his mental capabilities.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think there's some cops and DAs who'd disagree on that one point, at least when interacting with prostitutes and dealers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In fact im sure there are many things we deal with that have eather Legal or Moral reasons for not charging as high of a price as is charged.
Lower prices also keep away competition because the more profit in a given sector the more likly more people will enter that sector. Thats why products like Hulu are coming out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"old fans already have all your CDs"
Actually, you mean old fans already downloaded all your stuff online, and haven't paid you anything yet. New fans haven't downloaded it all yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So if there is a cost then it is ulimately not an infinite good unless server space, hdd space, electricity, internet fees and time all become free or infinite. Servers fail, hdds crash, time passes, etc...
I say we make all those elements free or infinite so Mike is right, because it is not even about what is best the consumers, but it is Mike being right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Who cares?! Owning a solid gold house is out of my reach, so should the government mandate that the prices of solid gold houses be artificially lowered to make them in my reach? Of course not."
Who's talking about government mandates? And the analogy only works if you've got a limited amount of space in which to build those gold houses, say 30 "house slots". If you have only 30 house slots and 30 people willing to pay 100k per gold house, then you'd be stupid to do anything else. But what if you have OTHER land that has MORE of these house slots (other venues, in nearby cities). By charging what the top tier could afford, you've alienated potentially massive amounts of people that will no longer buy your Gold House art, your Gold House interviews/appearences, your Gold House tshirts/patches/stickers/etc., and possibly, will no longer consider your other Gold House slots that are available because you've done pissed them off. So...THAT detrimental effect.
"That makes no sense to me at all."
I believe you.
"Close, I am right."
I don't deal in absolutes, since I spend so much time each day disproving OTHER people's BS absolutes.
"Thanks!"
You're Welcome!
"I won't because I have no cause to complain. There are millions of things on this planet I want but cannot afford. Complaining about things I cannot afford is a pure waste of time."
I meant from the perspective of the ticket seller and/or venue. Which I think you knew.
"What "detrimental economic effect"?! People have been buying tickets at market value, i.e., through scalpers for decades. But yet year after year people keep doing it."
And as I thought I'd already explained, that's because a decent portion of the less-wealthy fanbase has already been served with the lower priced tix. Afterall, not EVERY ticket sold is then scalped.
"Me neither, I just put it in for a hyperbolic joke. ;-)"
Fair enough. I'm used to Christian retards in my life espousing the "morality" of their religion, even though they often haven't bothered studying that religion's history, origins, policies, beliefs, etc. They annoy me.
You do not....yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This charity crap is just P.R. from the Ticketmaster/LiveNation agglomeration to deflect attention from the fact that they have basically been outed fleecing ticket buyers thru the secondary ticket market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This charity crap is just P.R. from the Ticketmaster/LiveNation agglomeration to deflect attention from the fact that they have basically been outed fleecing ticket buyers thru the secondary ticket market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So, we don't want musicans to charge for music (becauses it's free to distribute (even though it costs time and money to create it), and then, if musicians try to make all they can off concerts, that's fleecing the fans?
What exactly is Carlo Longino's solution? Spend a year recoding music that you can never charge for, and then tour as often as possible for as little profit as possible?
I can't tell if tis is him just being bitter that some musicians make more money then him, of if he just gets mad whenever he has to pay for anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your rant has been duly noted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the real issue bands are geting hit with, scalpers are making the price so high that you cant make new fans since the fans see the lowest ticket is above there budget and never look back.
At the same time, how would you, a fan, like to be told you cant get in because its sold out but you can watch it on TV only to see lots and lots of empty seats.
Why does this happen? Scalpers dont care! For each ticket that cost them 20 bucks, and there able to sell them at 1000 + there making so much profit that thay can eat the loss of a seat not selling The only one whos hurt is the still growing band who gets no say one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: charity
Close. They are doing it for the free press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree with a lot of others here. The point has been made before that the performance is a scarce commodity and a unique experience. If artists were to follow the infinite abundance of the digital medium pushing price to zero, then what's wrong with charging more for live events? If you are getting music for free, it's difficult to criticise the band for using a business model involving higher live prices.
Granted, not all bands are exactly giving away their music for free, but if people are willing to pay extortionate prices for tickets, then let them. It's a luxury commodity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is not true for digital distribution. It does not cost any more to make 2 copies than just one (any difference, such as the hard drive platter has to move a little more so uses more power, is so tiny as to be not measurable, let alone economically significant), so there is no marginal cost. FIXED costs (such as everything you named) do not play a part in price in a competitive market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To the AC:
"So, we don't want musicans to charge for music (becauses it's free to distribute (even though it costs time and money to create it), and then, if musicians try to make all they can off concerts, that's fleecing the fans?
What exactly is Carlo Longino's solution? Spend a year recoding music that you can never charge for, and then tour as often as possible for as little profit as possible?"
If you read the post, you'd see that in this example, the artists aren't making any additional profit, it's going to charity, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Furthermore, I'm not sure where I ever said that musicians should make as little profit from tours as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]