RE: Somethin' for nothin'

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>From: Jeff House [mailto:whocasa@hotmail.com]
>Subject: Re: Somethin' for nothin'
>
>Ahhh...they aren't taking it away from you, the *market* is.

No, the brokers are.
If not, then why doesn't TM simply jack up the cost of tickets to what the
"market" will bear, and get rid of these brokers?

>The band negotiates a lump cash payment, right?  It is 
>the promoter and the venue who sets prices.

Seems to be disagreement on this count.
Either way, why should brokers be involved at all???
What is the promoter's or the venue's motivation to give brokers a shot at
selling the best tickets?
Doesn't make sense to me.
The venue and TM have the system to sell, yet only charge what they charge.
Why involve brokers and basically give away money????

>"What gives them the right?"
>Geography, proximity, dumb luck, ingenuity - take your pick.

No thanks.  None are valid reasons.

>>"There *is* a reason why ticketmaster and/or bands don't sell tickets to
the 
>>highest bidder (just don't ask me what that reason is......fairness?)"
>
>Fairness?  Come on.  You aren't that naive, are you?

Yes, I guess I am. ;-()  (sorry for the plagiarism, Fang)

>The reasons are:  money, money and money.

Come one, if this were the reason.....if TM really wanted to make money,
they'd jack the prices up themselves and keep the money instead of giving it
to the brokers.

>Besides, the promoter *is* selling the best tickets to the highest bidder.

>The primary outlets for the front sections are brokers and "VIP" ticket 
>holders (in the case of my local venue).
>
>Do you think they are selling them to brokers at face?  Do you think the 
>promoter has to pay Ticketmaster service fees and commissions on these
front 
>seats?  I think not on both counts.

I don't know, but I'm inclined to say...yes.  
Still, what is the motivation to include brokers at all???
If TM is going to make money off the brokers, surely they can see that there
is much *more* money to be made of the "market demand" and willingness to
pay huge $$$.

>But we live in a capitalist republic where competition at its core, not a 
>democracy.  That's life.

To easy to hide behind the flag.
Competition is great, and I'm *all* for it. 
But you're basing your premise on TM being in collusion with brokers.
If so, it smells awfully fishy.

>Let's try an analogy to sort this out, shall we?

Oh boy!  I love analogies.

>Let's say I am willing to be punched in the face for the entertainment of a

>bunch of people.

Yeah, I bet Kevin Mc *could* charge admit.

>C) Hire a "punch pimp" who will take bids and handles the cash.  The punch 
>pimp gets a commission.  This way I can concentrate on getting myself 
>shit-faced *and* make some money.

Ahhhh, so it's the risk of possibly *NOT* being able to sell the tickets for
folk to punch you in the face, at the high price, that motivates you to have
the pimp do the dirty work.

That way, if people aren't as interested in punching you in the face as your
actuaries thought they would be, you still get a little somtin'-somtin',
while the face-punching ticket-pimp has to eat the ticket.

I think I've got it now.

IT'S STILL NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kevin in VT