Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V3 #219

At 5:41 7/3/96, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com wrote:
>From: born2run@pipeline.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:22:00 GMT
>Subject: Re:  Scalping
>
>apparently Hootie and the Blowfish
>have decided not to honor tickets in the first ten rows at their Jones
>Beach concert because the discovered that these tickets were "held back" by
>someone at the venue in violation of their performance contract.  Take a
>wild guess at who these tickets were set aside for.

I really don't know; I'd guess music-industry insiders.  But I do not
defend holding back tickets if the artists' contract stipulated this
wouldn't be done.  (BTW, I bow to no one in my disdain for industry
insiders who come to Who shows to mingle and schmooze in the hospitality
suite while the show provides background music and their seats go
unclaimed.  But I don't condemn their activity, just their lack of taste.)

>Second, you assume that the most committed fans are the ones prepared to
>spend the most money on a ticket.   I'd like to hear you explain why this
>is the case.

I won't try to make Kevin's argument for him.  But I will note that it's
impossible to administer "committment tests" to determine who is most
deserving of tickets, or even to arrive at a standard by which to measure
this.

>I agree that scalping is driven by market forces.  Put simply, there would
>be no scalping if tickets were originally sold at the prevailing market
>price.  But the market system is hardly sacred -- market principles are
>routinely compromised in order to further other, competing values.  Why
>should ticket sales be any different?

Market principles are _not_ compromised in many other cases, too (e.g.,
shoe production).  Why should ticket sales be any different?

>But even when analyzed from purely a market standpoint, scalping has some
>serious problems.  First of all, scalping violates free market principles
>in that scalpers have special access to tickets.

A free market does not require equal access to tickets.  All it requires is
that force not be involved in the distribution.

  Second, scalping is
>arguably redundant.  The "great public service" that ticket scalpers
>provide is one already being provided (purportedly) by Ticketmaster at a
>substantial charge.  Scalpers do not compete directly against Ticketmaster,
>they simply add an additional layer of complexity and administrative
>expense.

Which _would not be paid_ if people _were not willing to pay it_.  Again,
the buyers drive this buggy.

>Price gouging may bring scalpers a healthy
>profit, but it results in there being empy seats at "sold out" shows --
>something that shouldn't occur in an efficient market.

The goal is not efficiency but the perservation of individuals' rights to
freely buy and sell their property.  Scalpers may indeed buy up extra
tickets to try to prop up their prices, but they cannot do this
indefinitely because tickets they  sell must then make up for the money
they pay for the extra tickets, plus  their profit, which is impossible
beyond a certain point.  _If_ you see empty seats (and I rarely if ever
do), it's the result of a maximum exercise of people's choices; the former
holders of those seats willingly sold them because they valued the money
more than the show.  Furthermore, any scalper who routinely misjudges his
market and buys up more extras than he can make up in sales will soon be
out of business, and those who stay in business, grow and prosper are those
who most accurately judge the net effect of hundreds of individuals'
choices.


Alan

"When I'm on stage, it's not like bein' possessed...it's just...*I* *do*
*my* *job*."                 - Pete Townshend