Posted on 10/23/2007 5:33:39 AM PDT by suspects
There are people paying $250 this week for Hannah Montana concert tickets with a face value of 25 bucks. For those of you not blessed with 13-year-old daughters who watch the Disney Channel, Hannah Montana is a fictional pop star played by the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus - also known as the Achy-Breaky Heart guy.
Anyone who’d pay 10 times face value for tickets to watch a cable TV actress sing bad pop music for pre-teens is a dope who shouldn’t have access to a checkbook without adult supervision.
On the other hand, there are people prepared to pay $500 to sit in the worst seats at Fenway Park [map] tomorrow night to watch a game they could see on HDTV for free. That person can be reached in care of this column. ASAP.
No questions asked.
How much is a ticket worth? Like everything else in life, it’s worth what a willing buyer will pay for it. Regardless of whether the state of Massachusetts likes it.
This is why so-called ticket scalping is illegal. The Legislature sees happy buyers doing business with contented sellers and concludes that something terrible must be happening:
“All these people, happily doing business and making money without government supervision? Where the hell do they think they are - New Hampshire?”
This is why the term “scalping” is so ludicrous. When I pay you $200 for Springsteen tickets, I’m getting something I want more than I want the 200 bucks. You’re getting something you want more than the tickets - my money. Who’s getting “scalped” here?
Scalping only makes sense if I’m being forced to pay for something I don’t want - say, like Deval Patrick’s drapes. But nobody’s putting the governor behind bars. Yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Not everywhere.
You might want to read up on first sale doctrine. A lot of companies would like to have control over items after they sell them. Generally speaking, they don't get it.
Is that true, or not?
Big difference. Companies that issue stock WANT the price of that stock to go up. Promoters who sell tickets, and the entertainers themselves have a very real reason to want to keep ticket prices to their performances within a certain range since. Since the performer is the one doing the work it is the performers right to say how much a ticket will cost. Like I said already, this problem is getting so out of hand that we are already starting to see stronger controls against scalping.
Of course they don’t. No one HAS to do anything.
What I am saying is that scalpers are first taking advantage of buyers by artifically shrinking the supply of tickets and then raising the prices, and are taking advantage of the performers by profiting off of their work. This is why it is illegal in many places and why much stronger measures are being taken to prevent it.
Thank you. That was my first point, to which you replied "Bullcrap" .
Scalping was illegal in most jurisdictions long before the internet and online ticket sales. The principal reason that it is illegal is stadium owners have a bigger and more well oiled lobby than scalpers.
So you admit that the laws are designed to protect the profits of the entertainers, and not the rights of the ticket owners?
Yes. I have been saying that all along. Entertainers put their names on those tickets. Their reputation and goodwill amongst their fans are on the line. This is why they will put a price of $40 on a ticket when there are people out there willing to pay $400. They know that most of their fans cannot afford to pay $400 and therefore will price them at a level they feel will not anger them. Of course they may be able to sellout an event at much higher prices but they know that it will come at the cost of losing fans who cannot afford the asking price; who in almost all cases far outnumber those who can. This is why they set up deals with contractually approved vendors to sell tickets at a specific price, and this is why it is illegal, unethical, and immoral to scalp tickets.
I was refering to your assertion that scalping really is the best way.
I never asserted such.
Why? The acting is awful on that show.
Don't watch.
And that is called business! Every retail business buys goods in bulk, and takes a risk that they can resell those goods at a marked up price with the intent of making a profit. If they mark them up too far, the consumer shops somewhere else, and the business is left holding stock that it can't move. The risk is even higher for goods that have a shelf life, like event tickets. In exchange for the higher risk, businesses expect to make higher profits. It's called supply and demand.
In a capitalist economy, demand and the promise of profits drives supply. In a socialist economy, government sets the price and limits the profit, thus killing any motive to increase supply. Which do you believe in?
And it present the dad in a good light. He sometimes is the butt of jokes but not always. He also gives his daughter good advice, which she sometimes doesn’t take and regrets later.
I think where we disagree is that I don’t consider scalping to be unethical in the least. It’s just commerce. Unfortunately the there are no areas of life left that the state seems to be able to keep it’s nose out of. I think it’s a shame that people support this.
What inalienable right grants you cheap access to live shows? And No I am not a scalper, I never go to concerts and only go to sporting events if a friend gives me a free ticket.
You are missing his point. The buyers out there are PAYING these ridiculous ‘scalping’ prices. If you buyers would STOP paying the prices, the people who bought these tickets would go out of business and or greatly cut down on scalping in the future. This is pure economics. The software programs are obviously illegal and I hope those people go to jail but that doesn’t change basic economics of supply/demand.
Please read my posts before claiming that I ever said that I have an inalienable right to cheap access. If I can’t get/afford a ticket to something so be it. It won’t ruin my world. It has everything to do with the rights of the performers who obviously don’t want tickets to their events to be priced so that only people with alot of money can afford to see them, thus alienating a large part of their audience. It’s how they wish to market themselves and their product (talent) and is the reason why they contract vendors to sell tickets at a certain price.
Performers have no inalienable rights to have their tickets not resold. Writers have MSRPs on books. If the first print 200 years from now becomes a collectors edition, am I not allowed to sell it higher (or even 2 days later)? Barry Bonds’ record HR baseball MSRP is at retail $4.99 but goes for $750k because it’s part of history (big event—just like a concert). If performers were that worried about keeping pricing down they would do more tours in the same cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.