I hope ticket master loses, and the plastic surgeon wins.

@shan6:

The plastic surgeon isn't suing Ticketmaster, he is suing the ticket reselllers.

The problem with Ticketmaster is the inability of their website to prevent scalpers from quickly buying up all the tickets to popular events. If the ticket transactions could be limited to Ticketmaster and the event patrons, there would be no issue.

It is a greedy, slimy practice I agreed. However, if the guy is going to pay that much it must have been worth it to him.

@ClayS: I think than Shan6 said exactly what he meant to say. I agree with him.

Dear Boaz Lissauer: Why do you hate capitalism?

Also, Ticketmaster is a monopoly, sure - but is it an "illegal" one? What does it do that makes it illegal? Simply being a monopoly isn't illegal...

@TheUncleBob: Right...isn't making the business environment unfavorable to competitors part of it? In this case it's totally the other way around -- the ticket resellers are making the environment unfavorable to the monopoly!

Bad practice, maybe. The ticket scalpers not the surgeon. I have no sympathy for the people that pay those prices for tickets, they wanted them bad enough to pay that price so tough luck. Plus the people that pay the overinflated prices for tickets always seem to be the same intolerable asses that have to let everyone within 10 miles know how much they paid for the tickets.

If you were willing to burn $200 for nosebleed seats, then obviously price wasn't an issue. Those re-sellers are a joke on mark-ups. If I REALLY want to go and couldn't get anything thru Ticketmaster, I'll try Ebay or Craig's a couple of days before the show.

Last April I didn't want to pay nearly $100 each for Killers tickets, so I waited and got a pair from Ebay for about $60 each.

I log onto my local radio station's website. FREE TICKETS ARE GOOD! Saw North Mississippi Allstars free last Saturday. Small venue. Bad expensive beer. What more could you want?

I have to agree with other posters. The surgeon doesn't deserve anything, she was stupid enough to pay for the tickets. But I do think that there needs to be stronger regulations on both TM and resellers.

aren't the ticketmaster prices set because of an agreement between the venue and the artist/entertainment? if so then I think the 'Resellers' should only be allowed to sell tickets for the price the venue is selling them for. no markup...no $200 for tickets that are only $50. If they want to enter into the ticket selling market then they should be forced to follow the agreements set by the venue.

@goller321: At least somebody has some common sense here. With the nosebleed tickets being $63, that seems a bit UNDER price for a reunion tour. (Not that I would actually go to a/any reunion tour.)

If you are complaining about the price, DON'T GO.

Also. How is TicketMaster an "illegal" monopoly? What most are complaining about is the "RE"selling of tickets. The law that governs that, goes for ALL tickets.

And as for monopoly. When you go to the movies, do you see TicketMaster on your stub.

Flame on!!!

A crude graph :

Supply (price) Demand

The one in the middle determines the one at the end.

How many people would go to see the Police for $40 ?
(Lots)

$100 ?
(fewer,but still many)

$275 ?
Still fewer,a man's gotta eat,you know...

$720
"I just made millions selling "subprime" mortgages to hillbillies with no job. What do I care what it costs" ?

$2000 ?
Lottery winners. Sting stalkers.

$5000 ?
Sting's mom.

I'm sorry, I just don't see any reason why the government needs to get involved in how tickets for entertainment events are distributed. Are people going to get screwed because they're willing to pay $1,000+ for Hanna Montanna tickets? Does *anyone* really care?

Seriously folks, our government can't even get things like border security right - why are some of you wanting the government to waste time on the distribution of entertainment tickets?

Doesn't the fact that resellers exist prove that the tickets are inefficiently priced in the first place? I hate scalpers as much as anyone but as long as they don't articifially decrease the supply of tickets (buying them all of up and then only selling a portion at greatly inflated prices) I don't see a problem.

Focus: Why should the scalper earn the money that could go to the poor starving artist?

It's cheaper to pay $50 for a bootleg concert on DVD.

Now if we could just get a class action suit agains LiveNation for thier non refundable service charge even if an event is canceled. I contacted a class action law firm and I got a letter back with the response "We are unable to help you with this case based on our relationship with the LiveNation"

Tickemaster and the online scalpers both need to get their hands smacked. Someone needs to force a way for venues to use a set of multiple ticket sellers but also set limits on what kind of fees they can add on for the service. They also need to limit how many tickets can be bought some way.

I would have less issue paying $200 a seat if they money was going to the act and not to a bunch of bottom feeders.

@FishingCrue: If an artist's act is popular enough to spawn scalpers, then he probably isn't starving.

The venues could get rid of this neatly by selling *all* tickets at auction. The price would naturally rise to the maximum value that sells all seats.

Of course I'm guessing poor people would complain like mad if *all* Hannah Montana tickets were $150, but it'd take care of scalper-induced artificial scarcity.

Re: Ticketmaster as an illegal monopoly, I basically agree.

TicketMaster signs so many contracts that it's nearly impossible for a large venue or artist to *not* do business with them. They'll forbid venues from using competing ticket services, forbid artists from playing at non-ticketmaster venues, etc.

I put together a serious proposal for an alternative to ticketmaster, but it became obvious that it wouldn't work because of legal bills. Our best estimates were that it would cost about five million dollars to put together the basic business, and another 100+ million in lawyers to get access to the large market.

IN the meantime, I'm just happy when I see cities like Vegas eschewing ticketmaster altogether. More cities need to do so.

I love it when the amateur economists and free-market simpletons invade these threads. It's always so entertaining, in a "Dumb and Dumber" sort of way.

@castlecraver: Do you have any specific complaints, or are you just attempting to sound superior, without offering any content?

Obviously the issues are complex (e.g. an artist might want to make sure his shows sell out quickly, while ticketmaster might want to maximize their fees and a scalper might want to maximize their total profit, even if this means purposefully failing to sell all seats), but you don't seem to be bringing anything to the converation.

@castlecraver: Are you going to just call people names or are you going to contribute to the discussion?

@ClayS: I know, I was talking about the seperate lawsuits, using one sentance.

I think its ridiculous to say that the surgeon was stupid for paying so much for nosebleed tickets. If the concert you want to go to is sold out EVERY TIME you try and buy tickets then how else are you going to get them? People shouldn't have to miss a concert just because some asshole scalpers bought up all the tickets. A lawsuit is the only way to go about this. Let's have some sympathy for the people here and not the businesses that are screwing everyone over.

@shan6:
Got it. I'm going with the plastic surgeon and Ticketmaster though. I feel that RMG is enabling scalpers to subvert the system. Ticketron is selling tickets at a reasonable price; one that is agreed upon by the artist/venue. If they were an "illegal monopoly", they would be selling the tickets at market prices, the way the scalpers are.

@TheUncleBob: Uh, don't you think that's a little flamebaitish? You can disagree with something crooked while not being against the underlying system.

If RMG buys up all the tickets, there's still a monopoly only magnified by increasing the price by over 300%.

The point isnt that SOME people are willing to pay the ridiculous prices that resellers charge, its that so many people that WANT to go and CANT afford to go to the event by paying what the resellers want dont have a chance to buy a ticket at face value which they COULD afford. Basically This makes it so only the rich can afford to go to concerts and shows. If only individuals who wanted to go to the show were allowed to buy tickets through ticketmaster there wouldnt be ridiculous inflated prices for tickets. Just because enough people with money to buy tickets that fill the stadium think a ticket is worth paying $300 for doesnt mean there arent other people who wouldve gone had they been able to pay face value

"Only the rich can go" is a pretty poor legal argument. Those who have money obviously have more money to spend on frivolous things like concert tickets.

We're not talking about food, water, or even housing here. We're talking about concert tickets. Do people *want* to go to concerts? Sure. Is there any reason these people *need* to go to the concert? Is there a paragraph of the Constitution or some various holy doctrine that says People, rich or poor, have the inalienable right to go to a concert?

Seriously, first and foremost, we need to establish the fact that the government doesn't need to be involved in telling private companies how to distribute tickets to their private events. Let our representatives in Washington worry about real issues and let us figure out a way to bring more concert acts to the cheap seats.

Ticketmaster has an exclusive contract with Live Nation, who promotes probably 75% of all concerts? That is what makes it a monopoly. And the reason service fees are so high is because in exchange for the exclusive agreement, Ticketmaster gives a rebate on part of the service fee back to Live Nation.

That is why it is ironic that the CEO of Live Nation says they are quitting Ticketmaster because service fees are so high, when he could get rid of his rebate and the service fee would drop drastically.

i think the pos ticket resellers who use programs that snatch up all available tickets within the first few seconds/minutes of them being available .... need to die.

and in reference to the people who say "it just capitalism!" What about people who cant easily afford a $200 ticket that was normally $50 before some greedy ticket reseller snatched them all up before anyone else could get them? Oh... I guess because they cant afford an outrageous markup by unscrupulous & greedy ticket resellers, then they dont deserve to go. PFFT!

Supply and demand don't apply.

When a scalper buys a ticket to a concert they have no intention of attending they are artificially increasing the demand by reducing the supply.

@bnb614: Supply and demand do apply. Whether or not scalpers buy tickets the number of tickets on the market is the same. If the scalpers are able to sell the tickets for more than the original price that's because the original price was too low. There is no artificial scarcity here because the number of tickets available is exactly the same whether scalpers buy them or not.

I don't get it. I thought scalping was already illegal. At least judging by my lengthy police record it is. ha. Isn't RMG just an organized scalping agency?

And whether or not ticketmaster is a monopoly seems irrelevant, wouldn't the guvmint have to be the one's suing for that? RMG suing ticketmaster is like me suing Circle-K for not allowing me to buy them out of refreshing soft drinks and satisfying smokes and then selling them for more just outside their parking lots. (gosh on second thought, excellent business model, I hope they win). Whether or not RMG wins doesn't make ticketmaster less of a monopoly. "Ticketmaster won an injunction in October barring RMG from accessing their services" They are just suing to be able to still be customers of TM, right....?

*scratches head**wanders off*

I think that these sorts or arguments fail to ever blame the real villains: Hannah Montana and the Police (and, indeed, any other sort of act which requires tickets to get in). If only these artists would schedule enough shows, the supply of tickets (which is fixed based entirely on the number of dates and the size of the venues). Why, pray tell, do not these "artists" just do five shows a day for a week in every city they visit? Then everyone who wanted to could get tickets (or, more likely, they would come to their senses and stay home).

These tickets are a (artificially) scarce good, and the pricing scheme put forth by the original sellers puts the price too low for that number of tickets, as evidenced by the existence of and prices in the secondary market. All RMG is doing is taking advantage of an arbitrage opportunity, which is made available to them by the original sellers. If you really want to eliminate this practice, then make people buy their tickets in person at the venue in cash. Limit one per person, the eventual attendees must be in line. Of course, don't be surprised when the number of people in line outstrips the number of tickets, and you have to explain to a thousand tweens why they can't get their tickets.

Supply and demand do not apply in this case. Artists have a say in the value of their work and the audience that they want to attract. If they want to perform at a price that allows them to reach people that can't afford high price tickets, scalpers are violating their rights,not just the buyer's rights.

The lawsuit would most effectively be brought by the artists.

Money is a tool like any other. Its use is regulated by what we say is legal and depends on how we decide to interact with each other, not a mysterious "supply and demand, wisdom of the marketplace, law of the jungle" logic puzzle.

@lemur: The number of tickets it not necesarily the same. If a scalper buys 5 tickets @ $20 a piece, and re-sells them for $40, he only has to sell 2.5 tickets to break even. SO once he sells 3 tickets, he can afford to drive a hard bargain on the final 2 tickets, and often times scalpers go home with unsold tickets. Tickets that would have been sold at the original price.

@forgottenpassword: What about people who can't easily afford a $500 television made with $50 worth of parts? Do we really want the government to be allowed to come in and set prices just because someone can't easily afford it otherwise?

@TheUncleBob:

But that $500 TV made from $50 of parts was priced at $500 by the manufacturer and everyone who wants one for $500 can buy one. If you cant afford it for $500 then you shouldnt buy one. The gripe in this article is that people who CAN afford to go to an event for the price stated on the ticket are now unable to go because they cant afford a 500% markup on the ticket price. Big difference here.

I haven't been to a concert by any A list musicians since before the internet boom. I was one of the people who didn't get damn close to the stage then I wasn't going. Now I simply don't bother trying.

@Gorky: So if you ever want to resell anything you've purchased, you should only be allowed to sell it at the manufacturer's suggested retail price?

If I'm correct, aren't there even laws against manufacturers enforcing the suggested retail prices?

Once someone legally buys a product (we'll let Ticketmaster and RMG decide if RMG is illegally purchasing these tickets), it should be theirs to sell for whatever crazy price they want. Seriously, do you want Uncle Sam coming by your next yard sale, setting prices on your items for you? Maybe we should all write letters to congress and ask them to set up a Yard Sale Pricing Committee.

@Gorky: So, you're saying that when RMG buys up tickets for, say, Hannah Montana, the audience is full of only rich people? I imagine that the limousine area of the parking lot must be just chock-full with rich bastards like oil barons and real estate moguls.

If that's true, though, I should point out that those rich bastards are going to get the tickets ANYWAY. They'll just pay the $300 to the poor shrubs who bought the ticket straight from ticketmaster.*** The only reason this isn't going to happen is if the poor shrubs and rich bastards can't get together to cut a deal.

***Note that since we're excluding the poor shrubs who would buy from the reseller at $300, we're now only talking about poor shrubs who, given a choice between $300 and the ticket, would choose the $300.

@BlinkyGuy: Money is a tool like any other, in that you can make decrees about what's legal until you're blue in the face, but people will still use it in a way which maximizes their personal gain. This is an inherent part of human nature, and no number of decrees from on high will change that. Supply and demand do apply in this case, and in every case, and pretending that people will behave in a way contrary to their own interests in order to promote the socially optimal outcome is Marxist babble. (Altruism being a form of personal utility maximization; you give money or other goods to charity when doing so is the most utility-maximizing way of using those assets.)

Artists do have a say in who is admitted to these sorts of functions. By making tickets available to the general public, they effectively grant that decision making power to the market. There's nothing keeping Hannah Montana or the Police or the football teams from distributing their tickets only to their friends and families. If you really want to ensure that only the original purchasers of a ticket are able to use it, you will need to institute a regime like the one I suggested, or have any other way of linking one individual to one ticket. No amount of legalese about how a ticket is a revokable, non-transferable license will change anything.

And, again, if an artists wants to make sure that tickets made available to the public will be available at the desired price, they just need to shift the supply curve (add dates) so it intersects with the demand curve (as snarkysnake illustrated above).