In our general area of the world (and others),
Ticketmaster is the primary seller of first-purchase tickets. That is, they sell
the tickets used at the event by the original purchasers and the tickets originally
purchased by one person but then sold to another.
On the one hand, we appreciate some of the features of Ticketmaster, such as a three-day return policy. And Ticketmaster
is certainly more responsive to consumers than it was a few years back. On the
other hand, it is tough to understand the mathematics of an additional $10
convenience fee on a $25 ticket. That’s a 40% mark-up. In the 1990s, Pearl Jam
openly complained about the high service charges of Ticketmaster and the U.S. Department of
Justice opened an antitrust investigation regarding Ticketmaster’s practices
(the investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence to move forward with an
antitrust proceeding).
Even with the charge of $10 for the "convenience" of buying a ticket, it is easy to justify siding with a first-purchase
ticket company when that company is attacking ticket scalpers who are in the
business of beating music fans to the purchase of a limited number of tickets,
with the intent of selling the tickets to music fans at a premium that far
exceeds the 40% mark-up. We have nothing against the people who stand outside a
concert site and buy tickets from one person in order to sell to another. Those
on-site scalpers provide a service and deserve some compensation. At times,
fans of a band will travel to a venue, relying on these on-site scalpers for ticket opportunities.
The scalpers who provide no
value-added service are the ones who buy tickets on-line and then almost immediately
try to sell them at a different on-line site. Probably without fail, an event
that is a sellout within a 15 minute time limit will have plenty of tickets
available after only another 15 minutes, because the scalpers’ only interest in
the ticket purchase was to resell them.
Well, Ticketmaster has sued Higs
Tickets, Inc. (along with John and Patrick Higgins) for copyright infringement.
Clearly, we are on the side of Ticketmaster. The litigation was filed on October
16, 2013, in the Central District of California. Among the allegations are that the defendants
are using bots to circumvent Ticketmaster’s security provisions, are exceeding the
limit of 1000 “hits" per day, and are clogging Ticketmaster’s system with storms of requests.
No comments:
Post a Comment