Conference mr1pst::music

    re -.1.  Believe it.  Proud has nothing to do with it.  Wanting
    very much to go to a show:  that has something to do with it.

    I don't think buying a scalped ticket is illegal, tho someone
    might correct me on it.  And selling a scalped ticket is perfectly
    legal in Massachusetts if you have a permit to do so.

    
    Paying a ticket 3, 4 times its face value is ridiculous. I am not
    against paying big bucks for a ticket if that's what its worth.
    When you pay $200 for a ticket which says $75 on it, then you
    are contributing to someone's indecent money making. Even if you
    may not be charged for buying a scalped ticket, you still promote
    black market.
    
    Because of the popularity of this practice, the fans who can only
    afford the face value and who want to see the show as much as you do,
    never get a chance to sit at the front rows, no matter how early they
    show up at the box office.
    
    Lale

    re -.1:
    I know. It bites, doesn't it?

    Anyhow, we've been down this rathole before.  It boils down to
    it's the way things work.  Not much you can do about it.
    Lale, let me know when you form the world's first Concert
    Consumer Union.  I'll join if the dues are small enough and
    you figure a way around the Ticketmaster racket.

    Tom

    
    Please don't take this wrong, but I've always found that people who buy
    scalped tickets are either too lazy or too clueless to get tickets by
    'normal' means.
    
    Of the dozens and dozens of shows I've seen, I've never bought a
    scalped ticket and I've always gotten into any show that I wanted to
    see (and I'm now giving myself a big pat on the back 8^) ).
    
    Later...       
    Steve

    
>    Lale, let me know when you form the world's first Concert
>    Consumer Union.  
    
    
    I always knew I was going to be someone important, some day ;-)
    
    Lale
    

    i saw van morrison recently, sitting in the 24th row of
    the balcony at the wang center.  tickets, through
    tickmetmaster (or ticketpro or whatever)
    was $31.50 plus $4 handling for $35.50.
    tickets from a ticket agency (10th row floor)
    were only $50.  For an extra $15, i'll go with
    the ticket agency.
    
    i would never pay three times face value.
    double would be my limit (if i really wanted to see the group).
    
     
    

    >Please don't take this wrong, but I've always found that people who buy
    >scalped tickets are either too lazy or too clueless to get tickets by
    >'normal' means.
    
    Well, I won't take it wrong, but I'm neither lazy or clueless, and when
    Paul came to Worcester in 1990, I tried the "normal" means, and it was
    sold out. So I was faced with a decision to buy scalp tickets at a
    price I really didn't want to spend and get to see a concert by a guy
    who had a large influence on me, enough to learn to play music and get
    into bands and gig, which I'm still doing, and a chance to see a guy
    who had not toured in 13 years, and this was maybe the last time for
    him to come around...or not pay the money, and maybe never get a chance
    to see him play some of my favorite music live. 
    
    So, I bought the tickets...this was the first time I've had to buy a
    scalped ticket for any show, because I am not lazy or clueless, but
    since it was "sold out" I did it willingly, and I'm glad I did.
    
    Maybe it's easier to get tickets to his show this time because he's
    playing bigger venues, and the people who saw his last tour who went
    just to see a Beatle won't be going this time.
    
    Please don't take This wrong, but to categorize people as lazy or
    clueless because they are a victim of the stupid way tickets are sold
    these days, is Ridiculous.

    
    Not to fly down a rat-hole, but how is the way tickets are sold today a
    problem?  Yes, paying upwards of $7 for service charges is a bit crazy,
    but at least the rules are clearly spelled out.
    
    When there's a show with 20,000 seats and 50,000 people want to go,
    then obviously some people aren't going to get to see the show, and it
    has nothing to do with how tickets are sold.
    
    And I'm sorry I offended anyone with the "lazy and clueless" stuff.  It
    just irks me when people go to scalpers because that keeps them in
    business and gives them a reason to buy tickets to scalp the next time.
    
    Later...
    Steve
    

    You're right, we have been down this rathole before.
    
    There's no shortage of people here that also think that scalping
    SHOULD be legal.  Such people (and I am one) see it at as
    straightforward, ordinary capitalism at work.
    
    BTW, last I checked it was NOT legal in Massachusetts, but  is
    definitely legal in New Hampshire.

    RE.23
    
    WELL SAID.....this whole Ticketmaster/computer deal is a real drag.
    The wrist-band bit doesn't seem much better, maybe a little better, but
    the ol' daze of getting tix at the box office....
    
    That's the ticket

    
    Capitalism indeed. The rule of supply and demand. But capitalism
    was already at work setting the price at $75. Capitalism is already at
    work when they make the tickets available to AMEX members before they
    open the box office to the public (I know two shows where this was
    done, Paul Simon - Born At The Right Time and Phantom Of The Opera ;
    card members got the decent seats, students got lousy seats).
    
    Capitalism is still not encouraging chaos though, not yet anyway.
    
    What provoked my reaction was the bragging I sensed in note .12.
    It was as if "the more you pay for a ticket, the better you are".
    Is this a new resource to show-off ? You paid that much, well,
    I paid twice as much, how'bout that ?  I don't think paying $200
    for a $75 ticket is something to proudly announce. Besides I don't
    believe the story. 
    
    Lale
    Say you wanna revolution, well you know, we all wanna change the world.

    
    Ahh, capitalism - my favorite subject!
    
    As a *staunch* capitalist, I support all of its principals.  The problem
    I have with is short-sighted suppliers.
    
    The promoters are making big bucks, as well as ticket agencies, etc.,
    etc.  But what happens in the future when the price of tickets has 
    sky-rocketed so high that no one can afford it?  They'll come down you
    say.  Maybe so.  
    
    But by then the hard-core fans will already have been disenfranchised 
    with the system and may have stopped going to concerts.  The groups
    have started playing to a different audience.  Maybe the new fans are
    more fickle.  Maybe they don't like experimentation.  Who knows?  In
    any case, the whole "concert event" may change from "giving a chance
    for real fans to hear the band" to "playing for the people who are left
    being able to afford to hear them play."  Where can that lead?
    
    It's a loss of an art in my book.  You see the same exact thing
    happening in sports.  No ratholes (whoops, too late), but the people who 
    follow baseball are a different lot than the old days.  People will deny 
    the change, some will relish it, but in the end, when the die-hard, 
    supportive, interested, caring, support base goes trouble lies ahead.
    
    Maybe I'm overaxaggerating.  But I think "greed" under the guise of
    capitalism is not in any one's best interest - the supplier ends up
    losing the people who can support him for the long term (all for short
    term big bucks), and the demanders lose the product they once valued.
    It's anti-capitalist since the self-interests of both parties are lost.
    
    - Sean

    
     It just comes down to what is it worth to you ? Isn't that what goods
    are supposed to sell for ? Find out the highest price someone will pay
    and charge it. I wouldn't call that greed. Otherwise, we all could be
    guilty of charging our employers too much out of greed. The only reason
    that ticket prices are what they are, is because there is a customer
    base willing to pay that much. Personally I don't wish to spend what
    they're asking for concert tickets these days. Others may feel
    differently. But as long as there are people willing to pay, the price
    will stay there. 
    
     I don't think ticket prices will make any noticable difference in a
    music group's following. I still like and listen to many acts, but I
    choose to not pay what I think are too high a price for concert tixs.
    Are the groups/promoters greedy ? I don't think so. Today's hot act 
    could be tomorrow's lounge act. Can't blame them for making what ever
    they can, while they can.
    
     Re scalpers: They also provide a service. If somone is willing to pay
    a large fee for front row seats, they should be able too. I don't think
    anyone has a right to expect to be able to camp out at the box office
    and get front row seats. It's a business, and money is the object. As
    far as 'ins' with a ticket agency, that should be part of the deal too.
    If someone ( a ticket agency) is paying a few bucks extra for choice
    seats, and then resells them to a customer , they should be able to get
    what ever someone is willing to pay. Afterall, isn't that what the true
    value of the seat is ?
    
     Going back to the $200  McCarney tix. If that's what someone is
    willing to pay, then that's what it's worth. plain and simple. Now for
    most people this may seem insane, but it doesn't really matter. It's
    the free market at it's best (or worse) depending on which side of the
    buck you're on.
    
     Bob
    
  

I'm convinced that prices should go up as the seats get closer.  I'm sure the
problem would be explaining the myriad of ticket prices would take too long
for Ticketmaster and the box office.

Tim
  

    Since this turned to a discussion on tickets! Could someone please 
    explain how the very first person at a ticketmaster outlet gets tickets
    that are in one of the LAST runs of the pavilion at Great Woods. People
    after that got seats that are way off to the side and way in the back
    also. What happened to the whole front of the pavilion? I know about
    The Golden Circle ( first 10 rows of Sec. 2 ( the middle section ) and
    than an arc cutting through sections 1 and 3. 
    
    Thanks
    Chris

    re: .29
    
    Chris, you're question is obviously leading to the presumption  that
    prime tickets are sold before-hand to businesses like AMEX, Scalpers,
    Ticketron.
    
    You may not like it, but they are entitled to do that if they think
    it's better for business.  They are entitled to do that even if,
    as Sean suggests, it's NOT actually better for business (not that
    I accept Sean's logic).
    
    How is the best seats going to the people willing to pay the most money
    any different from the best goods (cars, houses, etc.) going to
    the people willing to pay the most money?
    
    Tickets are commodities.  When you don't charge the market value for
    such a commodity, you a) are not making as much money as you could and
    b) you create an after-market such as "scalpers".
    
    Now regarding "greed", at the risk of offending, I would suggest that
    feeling that you shouldn't have to pay more to get better seats is
    also motivated by "greed" - you WANT those seats those seats and you
    want something that prevents someone else who is willing to pay more
    for them from getting them.
    
    The "greed" we accuse the scalpers of, is what our countries economic
    policy is BASED on: free-market capitalism.   The "greed" that
    motivates us to stop scalpers with laws runs *exactly* COUNTER to 
    to that.  It could reasonably seen as a form of socialism.

    
    Dave, you make good points.
    
    I still think overly-inflated "what the market will bear" prices are at
    the expense of a solid customer base.
    
    You're in a band.  Who do you want to please (i.e. collect money for
    services rendered, in this case a concert)?  The people who "happen"
    to have enough money for your "show of the year" (you by chance are
    *it* this year) or the people who *really* likes your music and are
    willing to come back for 10 or 12 tours?  I know lots of people who
    "had" a $200 to blow on Stones tix.  I only know a few who've bought
    everything they ever did, saw them as often as possible, and kept
    up on their music - most don't have $200 "right now", but spend well over
    that over the course of time - they got the nosebleed seats.  They
    might have slept out for better, but...
    
    I dunno, its tough, 'cause I agree with you in a lot of ways.  And
    perhaps you and others are right.  In any case, my anxiety is already
    starting for Moody Blues and Steely Dan tix!
    
    - Sean

    re .30, I'd support govt price controls.  

    Is $ the only thing that matters?  (thought question)

    ref. .28
    
>I'm convinced that prices should go up as the seats get closer.  
    
    Most definetely. That is the ultimate solution. This is almost always
    the case in Germany. I cannot understand why they don't do it here
    aswell.
    
    ref. .30
    
    Dave,
    
    I did not know (up until this discussion started) that there was any
    such thing as "legal scalping". In this note, I talk about illegal
    scalping, ok ?  

    Scalping is not something desirable, not even in the name of
    capitalism.  Black market does not enchance the economy, it brings it
    to a complete halt. If I remember my Economics 101 well, black market
    is not working for the economy, it is working against it.
    
    Dictionary definition of black market: Goods are sold illegally at
    prices above the legal maximum price. Now, you may argue that having
    ceiling prices does not match with the principles of capitalism, you
    would be right, but that is what we have here, it is not %100
    capitalism. And like Tom says, I'll take government controlled prices
    anyday. I have seen black marketing at its peak when I was a kid,
    believe me it is not something to encourage. Right now in Russia, the
    transition to capitalism is not working at all because everything, and
    I mean *everything* is in black market. You cannot buy anything by
    regular means from a store; bread, meat, everything is in black market
    at ridiculous prices. Economy has stopped.
    
>    How is the best seats going to the people willing to pay the most money
>    any different from the best goods (cars, houses, etc.) going to
>    the people willing to pay the most money?
    
    Hardly comparable. But if you want to go for that analogy, I'll tell
    you that one is legal and the other is not. When you purchase an
    expensive car, hopefully, both you and the seller are paying your
    taxes. Assume an unrealistic case where your fave car is $30,000 and
    you have exactly that, and some guy purchases all the cars of that make
    in town and tries selling them for $50,000. Some people will buy it for
    $50,000, the $20,000 will be gained from the air without tax or
    anything and you won't be able to get your fave car because you don't
    have that much.  I know it is a silly example but I am just trying to
    follow your analogy. 
    
>    Now regarding "greed", at the risk of offending, I would suggest that
>    feeling that you shouldn't have to pay more to get better seats is
>    also motivated by "greed" - you WANT those seats those seats and you
>    want something that prevents someone else who is willing to pay more
>    for them from getting them.
    
    I agree wholeheartedly. The solution to that is having different prices
    for different seats, sold through the ticketmaster or the box offices,
    legally.
    
    I have two little, very recent, stories, I am putting them here not
    to make a point (they don't have a point) but, simply, to share :
    
    1. Seinfeld will be in Rochester on May 14th and I'd like to see him.
    In the net, I saw an ad for two tickets. The person selling them
    mentioned that the face value was $28. Me being the naive myself,
    did not think that she would be asking anything more than that.
    Although I was the first to respond to the ad, I did not get the
    tickets because someone offered much more.
    
    2. A colleague of mine was selling two tickets for Don Giovanni,
    at face value. Excellent seats. I had to turn down because I
    didn't think I could afford $80 per ticket, although that was what it
    was worth.
    
    Lale

    In recent years, I've come to accept the fact that if I want to see
    someone who is *really* popular then I'll have to get tix from a
    scalper.  I'm not a staunch capitalist, but I am a realist, and if I
    want to see a particular act perform, and I have the money, then I'll
    pay what I have to pay to see them.  
    
    Because of scalper prices, last year I could only afford to go to *4*
    rock concerts.  I saw Bruce Springsteen twice and U2 twice.  There are
    others I would have liked to see, but those are two of my favorite
    bands and I made my choice, and didn't regret it.  I wish I could have
    gotten cheaper seats but I couldn't, AND to the person who thinks
    everyone who buys scalper tix is just lazy, both my daughter and I did
    try to get tix at regular price.  We stayed on the line with
    ticketmaster, in each instance, until we finally got through to find
    out that the shows were sold-out.  I really don't see what this has to
    do with being lazy, since it's no fun to keep redialing, and getting a
    busy signal for a couple of hours on end!!!!  
    
    The fact is that there are just more people who want to see the popular
    performers than there are seats, and so supply and demand comes into
    play, and scalpers thrive.  I don't like it, but it's the way things
    are, and it's my choice whether I want to see someone perform badly
    enough to pay up to $150. dollars for a ticket.  I've been to enough
    concerts to know that certain performers, such as Springsteen, U2, and
    Van Morrison are worth the price for me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re -.1
    
    	Lorna,
    
    just out of curiosity - how good were the seats that you got?
    
    					- Jim
    

>    I still think overly-inflated "what the market will bear" prices are at
>    the expense of a solid customer base.
    
    I don't think any price that is "what the market will bear" could be
    reasonably described as "overly inflated".
    
    
>    You're in a band.  Who do you want to please (i.e. collect money for
>    services rendered, in this case a concert)?  The people who "happen"
>    to have enough money for your "show of the year" (you by chance are
>    *it* this year) or the people who *really* likes your music and are
>    willing to come back for 10 or 12 tours?  
    
    Sean, in order to avoid a rathole,  I'll only say that I really  don't
    believe it works that way.  For one thing, I think that the willingness
    to pay big bucks to see me is a measure of how much they *really*
    like my music (more than how many people "happen" to have enough
    money for this years show).
    
    And as someone else mentioned, in the music business you're here today
    and gone tommorrow.  For that business I'm DEFINITELY more inclined
    to not give away money I can make now for money I supposedly MIGHT
    be able to make 10 or 12 tours from now.
    
    You may reasonably differ, but I that's really how I feel about it.

    re .35, how good were the seats?  for each of the shows?  I'd say
    average.  They weren't great, but they weren't terrible either.  Not so
    bad that was upset, but not so great that I was thrilled.  Acceptable.
    
    BTW, I realized after I entered that note that I actually didn't have
    to pay scalper rates for either of the two U2 concerts I went to last
    year.  We were lucky enough to get tix at face value for those two
    shows, and for one we were second row from the stage.
    
    However, I did pay scalper prices for Springsteen, plus drove to NJ,
    and stayed overnite in a hotel, for one of the shows, so it was really
    just the two Springsteen shows that I went broke over.  BUT, one has to
    realize what Bruce means to me.  I *love* his concerts.
    
    And, I just bought Van Morrison tix from a scalper.  But, Van and Bruce
    are my 2 top favorite singers in the whole world.  I would not pay that
    much to see just anybody.
    
    Lorna
    

    Some of the following notes were originally posted in topic 360.

    re: Lale
    
    > In this note, I'm talking about illegal scalping. OK?
    
    Understood but definitely not OK: the question is SHOULD it be illegal?
    
    You're arguing that scalping should be illegal because it's
    wrong. You say it's wrong because it's illegal.
    
    That's hardly convincing is it?
    
    And on top of that, the presumption that scalping is illegal is, as you
    now know, FALSE in many places.  Thus, all the arguments you've made that
    scalping is bad don't hold in such places.
    
    1) Where scalping is legal it does not create a "black market"
       according to the definition of "black market" you found in
       your dictionary ("goods sold illegally").
    
    2) Where scalping is legal, scalpers pay taxes (they do here in NH).
    
    3) Where scalping is legal, the criticism you gave for my analogy
       ("one is legal, and the other is not") is invalid.
    
    	db

    
    Dave,
    
    There was a note in here, from you, addressed to me. I read it in a
    rush before I left. It was definetely not the note in .27. I was
    invited to a loooong lunch (I am on vacation) and when I came back that
    note was gone, now there is .27 instead. I had all my defense prepared
    for the previous note, now I'll have to start all over again ;-) Oh,
    well.
    
    >> In this note, I'm talking about illegal scalping. OK?
    
    >Understood but definitely not OK: the question is SHOULD it be illegal?
    
    Maybe not. When it is not illegal, then presumably economy will not
    suffer from it and parties will pay their taxes.  
    
    >You're arguing that scalping should be illegal because it's
    >wrong. You say it's wrong because it's illegal.
    
    I was worried that I would give an impression that I am "for"
    everything that is "legal" and "against" everything that is "illegal".
    There are many things that are legal and I am against and vice versa. 
    In the ticket selling case, however, I favor control. When it is legal,
    there is control. So, I might not have any problems with "legal
    scalping", like I said before, I did not know that there was any such
    thing, and I am still not clear on how it works (no upper limit on the
    ticket price ?), it might very well be the solution to a messy problem.
    But how and why "legal scalping" is better than having different prices
    for different seats and not having scalping at all ? I think the ideal
    case is when tickets are priced according to good/bad seats, front rows
    more expensive and no scalping. 
    
    
>    1) Where scalping is legal it does not create a "black market"
>       according to the definition of "black market" you found in
>       your dictionary ("goods sold illegally").
    No, what creates black market is having a ceiling price. Whenever there
    is price control (combined with shortage), there is a chance of black
    market, theoretically. And we do have price control, because what we
    have is not a hundred percent capitalism, we still have the government
    monitoring things. So, the cause of black market is not us (buying
    scalped tickets) but we can discourage it by avoiding doing business
    with illegal scalpers. 
    
>    2) Where scalping is legal, scalpers pay taxes (they do here in NH).
    That's much better, don't you think ? Of course I'll prefer legal
    scalping to illegal scalping. That's why I do not object to your
    "scalping should be legalized" statement. But I would still like to
    know how that's superior to having varied price/seat tickets and not
    having any scalping at all.
    
>    3) Where scalping is legal, the criticism you gave for my analogy
>       ("one is legal, and the other is not") is invalid.
    Of course. I am arguing against illegal scalping. You were saying that
    people who have more money buy better houses, they should also be able
    to buy better seats. They will be able to buy better seats when the
    prices are set according to seats. But they won't be able to buy
    anything when it is all sold out. People who were in the line before
    them will get the tickets.  It seems fair to me. But if we still need
    scalpers then they have to be legal, so that at least taxes get paid.
    
    I am not in bands and stuff like that, so I don't know how and where the
    performers get their money, but with scalping, it seems, the artists
    are not getting what the people are paying to see them. 
    
    Lale

    
    Once upon a time, there was a far away country. This country was
    famous with the way they made coffee. In this country, coffee
    drinking was a nation wide tradition. This country did not raise
    coffee itself,  but imported it. The way they made their coffee
    was special and the whole nation was addicted to it. One day, things
    started to go "different" in the countries where coffee was raised and
    this country could not import coffee for a while. There was a smart
    scalper who saw the shortage coming. He also saw the easy way to make
    money. He went out and purchased all the coffee in the market and then
    started to sell it at an outrageous price. The rich minority did not
    mind, they paid what he asked for and got their coffee. The rest of the
    nation, because they could not afford the high black market prices,
    had to give up on their traditional coffee drinking. The story teller
    was very young at the time but she was old enough to see that there was
    something "inappropriate" going on. She swore that she would never
    buy anything from a scalper for the rest of her life.
    
    Lale

re .24
>    I don't think any price that is "what the market will bear" could be
>    reasonably described as "overly inflated".

    Tell it to the folks in Somalia.

    I have only paid scalpers prices twice and both were from agencies in
    New Hampshire - 1 time to see Paul McCartney and once to see
    the Rolling Stones.  The only reason I did that was because I
    wanted to see them badly otherwise I have always gone through the normal
    channels.  It is difficult to get tickets throught normal channels
    though.  You either have to take a day off of work to go stand in
    line for the tickets or stand in line for the wrist bands, or spend
    the whole morning on the phone redailing to get through to
    Ticketron.  Mostly I don't have the time to waste so I don't get to 
    see many of the groups I would really like to see.  And if I am lucky to
    get tickets they seats are usally mediocre to lousy.
    
    The people who usually get the front row seats are mostly someone
    who knows someone who work at the theater/stadium/arena.  It's
    still who you know NOT what you know to get tickets.
    
    Just my 2 cents.
    
    Mo
    

>    But I would still like to
>    know how that's superior to having varied price/seat tickets and not
>    having any scalping at all.
    
    I haven't said "scalping is better than varied tickets prices". 
    
    I have said "scalping should not be illegal".
    
    The choice between legalizing scalping and criminalizing it is not
    the same choice as having varied ticket prices and scalping. 
    
    Concert promoters and artists have apparently chosen not to have
    varied ticket prices.  I have no control over that decision, nor
    do I wish to exert any.
    
    However, in the absence of varied ticket prices I think scalping is
    just ordinary capitalism/free-market economics at work, and thus
    shouldn't be illegal.
    
>    I am not in bands and stuff like that, so I don't know how and where the
>    performers get their money, but with scalping, it seems, the artists
>    are not getting what the people are paying to see them. 
    
    Indeed they are not.  But that is a choice THEY have made.
    
    What I think is significant is that the scalper is NOT somehow taking
    money away from the artists.  The artist COULD get the money now going
    to scalpers by charging the true market value of their tickets.  They
    choose not to.
    
    But lots of people seemed to be confused about this and see
    scalping as  taking money away from artists. 
    
    	db

    Scalping is a topic that brings very heated discussions within my
    circle of friends.  Thankfully, I've only done it about 4-5 times in my
    20+ years of rockin' and rollin' so I consider myself very lucky.  
    
    The first time was for Bruce Springsteen in 1978 at MSG.  Good floor
    seats, great show and worth the bucks.  The second time was for Bruce 
    Sprinsteen in 1983 at Giants Stadium.  Decent field seats, OK show, 
    overinflated pricing (after all this was in the midst of his media 
    overexposure).  Third time was for Pink Floyd in 1987, one of the great 
    shows I've ever seen, great seats, decent pricing.  Then it was U2,
    Nassau Colliseum, good seats, decent price.  The last time was for Paul
    Simon at Nassau, face value.  After all, his type of fan isn't going to 
    bother going out to the show to scalp.  They'll either have the
    tickets, go to a ticket broker beforehand or not bother.  We figured
    the worst that'll happen is that we won't get tickets and then go home.
    
    I'm now of the belief that I've never scalp for over face value again. 
    At this point in my life, no one is worth it (unless Jimi or John
    Lennon come back from the great beyond).  To me, scalpers are scum and
    they use the theories of "free enterprise" to justify ripping people
    off.  I've finally put music in perspective in my life and now it's
    only a show.  Yes, I know it's all about supply and demand and if we
    didn't pay for the tickets then the brokers would be forced to be 
    realistic in their pricing.  
    
    I don't condem people for going to brokers - I have friends who don't 
    have the time or inclination to stand on line or press the redial 
    button to get tickets, instead they'd rather spend the premiums.
    
    Who I feel sorry for are the kids - they can't afford any of this and
    they're the ones who are the next generation of music fans.  I grew up
    in an environment where Central Park shows were either one or two
    dollars and if you couldn't get tickets you could hear everything by
    setting up your blanket out on the lawn.  We saw (and heard) great
    bands give great performances.  Now at an average of $25+ a ticket,
    plus parking, and maybe (very rarely) a t-shirt it's getting to be way
    too expensive even for me.  I don't go to see alot of bands for this
    reason.
    
    To me the one band that has it together in terms of scalper scum and
    tries to do good by their fans is the Grateful Dead.  They've had a
    mail order operation set up for years and you'll most likely get tickets
    as long as you "follow the rules".  They take an active interest to
    ensure that scalpers DON'T get tickets and their fans benefit because
    of it.  And, I've received first row, center seats from mail order (as
    have many of my friends).  If other bands copied their involvement in
    this process you'd see the problem diminish to a certain extent.  I
    don't believe it'll ever be eliminated, but it'll be cut down.
    
    Fredda

    .33, best comments I've read on the subject.  

    
    ref. .33
    
    Well put.
    

>    Who I feel sorry for are the kids - they can't afford any of this and
>    they're the ones who are the next generation of music fans.  
    
    So true.
    
    Lale

    I also wish that other bands would do what the Grateful Dead do.
    
    	db

    re: .33 Turnof 
    
    > To me, scalpers are scum and they use the theories of "free enterprise"
    > to justify ripping people off.  
    
    If concert promoters start charging what the scalpers get (i.e. the
    market value) would that also be ripping people off?
    
>    I don't condem people for going to brokers - I have friends who don't 
>    have the time or inclination to stand on line or press the redial 
>    button to get tickets, instead they'd rather spend the premiums.
    
    See, I look at it as paying someone for the service of getting me
    the tickets.
    
    A philosophical question: is it immoral to hire other people buy
    tickets for you?

    
     I wonder what McCartney, U2, and big acts like that feel about
    some individual or agency getting a much bigger percentage on a
    ticket than they do?
    
     Here in Tennessee scalping is legal. People who bought tickets
    to resell at a 300 to 500% markup paid street people to wait in
    line at the box office for a Garth Brooks concert last year.
    People waited up to 3 days at the box office. 
    
     The strangest part for me is that this particular box office
    charges a handling fee on tickets for their own arena.
    
     It's a weird world.  I wouldn't pay more than 3 or 4 bucks to
    see anybody. Period. But that's me...
    
     Paul Wheeler 

    
     In .38 I meant to say 3 or 4 bucks above ticket price to see
    anybody...

    Is it immoral to hire other people to buy tickets for you?
    
    A good question.  Very philosophical one at that.  I, personally would
    never hire anyone to do that for me.  I'm of the belief that either
    myself or one of my circle of music friends will get the tickets, if
    not then, it wasn't really a show I want to see.
    
    BTW--(I forgot to mention this the other day) -- the first time I saw
    Bruce Springsteen in 1978, his organization did a mail order for the
    tickets.  This also occurred for his concerts in 1980.  I was,
    therefore, very suprised when he didn't do it after that point.
    
    I still feel that the bands should take a more active interest in how
    and who gets the tickets.  Bands often in interviews speak of how much
    their fans mean to them and how without their support they wouldn't be
    where they are, etc, etc.  
    
    I could go on and on, but ...... (work calls!)
    
    Fredda  

    
    so i just paid $100 to see 'your favorite band' here.
    the concert starts and some a**hole in front of me
    decides to stand and sing throughout the entire
    show.  it would be bad enough if i paid face value
    for the ticket but $100!  of course, the guy
    standing and singing may have paid $100 and wants
    his money's worth  ;-)

    
    If someone is buying a significant percentage of a product that is in
    the market and then making no-tax-net-profit by selling it at
    outrageous prices, I think that is immoral. Ticket or bread, doesn't
    matter what, I believe it is immoral, it is bad for the consumer, bad
    for the economy. In this (ticket) case it is bad for the music, bad for
    the performer, bad for the fans.
    
    Scalper is eliminating the fans' chance of getting that ticket from
    the box office at the price it was meant to sell for, even if the
    fans have to wait in the line for it.
    
    Lale
    

    if I ask someone to buy me the Ticket is one thing, but the people have
    bought the ticket before I asked ! and the reason I must ask (if I want 
    to really go to this show) this person to get me a ticket is because
    this person has been more or less handed them before I could get to the
    window at the box office. If this never happened I would have got the
    ticket at the Box Office at the face value, not needing to ask someone
    else to get me a ticket at a higher price then face value.
    
    if 10 years ago I could get the ticket at the box office with somewhat
    of a hassle (sleeping out standing in line) and now I can get it from
    someone else, who gets them from the box office, for 2 times the face 
    value. What will happen in 10 years ? pay 4 times the face value to 
    someone else who gets it from someone else who got it from the box 
    office ?
    
    Chris

    
    Good point and it leads to more succint way of stating the issue.  With
    or without scalping, you would have to "invest" something to get a good
    seat.
    
    Old days:  people invested time and effort (to sleep out at the box office)
    New days:  people invest money
    
    The way I see it, if I were a band and I was gonna make the same money
    in either case, I'd be doing my darnedest to keep the former group of
    fans happy with the product.  Why?  because that type of investment 
    doesn't come easy, whereas the latter type often can. If the former group 
    is happy, they will most likely be the ones to continue supporting
    shows and recordings.  
    
    See, if I get the *same* amount of money for this *particular* show (as a 
    member of the band), I might as well (i.e. it is in my best interest in 
    a capitalistic sense) additionally insure continued/future income.  The 
    people who invest effort probably like the music more and will probably 
    keep that money coming tour after tour.
    
    Still, cutting out scalping isn't enough - you also gotta cut out the 
    graft (giving first dibs on seats to selected agencies, radio stations,
    etc.).  
    
    I also wouldn't mind seeing the computer agencies go.  This is because 
    my "service" suffers due to them.  Many operators don't know how to let
    me pick my seats when I don't like the one the computer tells me is
    best, etc.
    
    A successful capitalist not only gets the most he can for his product,
    he makes an effort to provide good service and tries to keep the customer 
    happy.  Else his profit boom may be short lived.
    
    - Sean

    
    Whoa folks...  for the record, scalping is illegal in MA. (period)
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You cannot get a "permit" to scalp tickets, you can, however, get
    an agents license.  The latter would allow you to charge a "fee"
    over the printed price of the ticket.  I don't know if there are
    restrictions governing the amount the fee.
    
    I don't know the law in New Hampshire, but who cares...  how many
    concerts are held here anyway...?  With the exception of Hollman (sp?)
    Stadium in Nashua and The Casino at Hampton (neither of which are a
    "great" place to see a concert) I don't know of any good locales.
    
    Tim 

    ..New Hampshire ticket agencies (legalized scalpers??)...have tickets
    to every major venue in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and many other
    states not just N.H........./k 

    
    ref. .44
    
    >if I ask someone to buy me the Ticket is one thing, but the people have
    >bought the ticket before I asked ! 
    
    Chris, I loved this. Exactly. The guy buys the tickets before I ask
    him to. Those overzealous scalpers ;-)
    
    BTW, I am reading a book called "BANKRUPTCY 1995 - The Coming Collapse
    of America and How to Stop It". It advises that we should stop buying
    tickets from scalpers. Well, actually, it hasn't said that yet, but I
    am only half way through the book, I am sure it will mention that
    somewhere in the rest of the book ;-)
    
    Lale

    
    I have used an agency in NH several times. First time was to get Eric
    Clapton tickets for Great Woods, those were $65 and were fantastic
    seats!! The original cost was about $35ish so I didn't feel it was that
    bad.
    
    They I got my Dire Straits tickets that way also, good seats at $50.
    
    The second time I wanted to see Clapton, the tickets were ridiculous!!
    This was after his Tears In Heaven song came out and everybody wanted
    to see him!! So, we paid $100 for our seats. I was more disappointed by
    the crowd (which was very young and not really into alot of his older
    stuff) then by the fact of paying $100.
    
    The more an artist gets popular, the harder it is too see them.
    
    I tried all normal means of getting tickets, but I swear these normal
    agencies put their phones on busy right at the start of the sale. 
    
    So, why bother with the hassle?  I use the agency for special shows
    that I want to see.
    
    Mary
    

>    So, why bother with the hassle?  I use the agency for special shows
>    that I want to see.
    
	Mary, 

    the hassle and disappointment of not getting the ticket you want would
    most likly never happen if the agencies did not exist....the shows sell
    out so fast is because these agencies get something like 1/3 of the
    tickets...maybe more as it seems. I'd pay more to the artist, like the
    closer I want to sit the more the ticket really cost, not pay some
    out of state agent what he/she thinks he/she should get for it.
    I personally don't think these agents are do me any kind of service.
    
    
    Chris

    
    re: .13 (Hey, I know I'm late, but I was out of town, OK?)
    
    Yeah, Lale, you did detect a note of pride in my note about paying $200
    for a McCartney ticket.  Guess you know me too well.  Of course, the
    pride came from the fact that I got better seats than the guy who paid
    $325.  I would have been even prouder if I'd paid face value for the
    tickets, though!
    
    "Scalping" is totally legal here in CA.  I wouldn't even consider
    taking the time off from work to go stand in line for tickets and hope
    that they were distributed fairly.  I'd rather decide to go at the last
    minute and then make a few phone calls to ticket brokers.  After all,
    that's what the Gold Card is all about, isn't it?   *8')
    
    P.S. Haven't read all of the unseen, yet, but did you guys actually forget
    	 Lale's B-day (4/29) ???
    

    Re -.1
    
    >Did you guys actually forget lale's B-Day (4/29)?
    
    	*of course* we didn't forget!!  ( and i'm glad you liked the tape,
    Lale ) :-)
    
     	I think that maybe that .33 put it the best way ( BOY that was a
    good note :-) ) - scalping ( be it legal or not ) changes the *type* of
    commitment that people put into attending concerts, from a commitment
    of time and effort, to money.  This, I think, is kinda sad.  The
    devoted fans who are willing to sleep out/wait in lines, but don't have
    a great deal of disposable income are forced back into the
    high-altitude seats, but others can decide at the last minute to spend
    some bucks and still get good seats.  Now if people are willing to pay
    the money, they should be able to get decent seats, but i object to ALL
    of the good seats being shuttled away to agencies, leaving
    mediocre-at-best seats for the true fans who put in the time.  Just
    doesn't seem fair.
    
    	The fact remains that this type of thing will probably continue to
    go on for any popular performer who comes around.  Luckily all the
    people I enjoy listening to aren't all that popular :-)
    
    				2 cents -    Jim
    	

    It's really a change in the industry.  Back when R & R began,
    the moneyed interests didn't pull the strings.  Who wanted to
    go to a rock and roll concert? just a bunch of scruffy folks.
    But since it's matured, money talks.  

    ref. .51
    
    Your "entrance" was totally unexpected, glad to see you're still alive.

    I don't claim to know you "too well". As a matter of fact, I don't 
    think I know you at all. 

    You paid for the tickets with your gold card ? Hmmmm. That means
    there is a receipt. I would love to see that. My fax #: 613-723-3937.

    >I wouldn't even consider taking the time off from work to go stand
    >in line for tickets and hope that they were distributed fairly. 

    So, you don't care if the tickets are distributed fairly or not ?
    Meine Damen und Herren, I rest my case !

    Lale

    ref. .52
    
    >disposable income 
    
    Jim, I like this term. I don't have a disposable income, I guess that's
    why I don't have a gold card.
    
    >Luckily all the people I enjoy listening to aren't all that popular :-)
    
    I bet it is no problem to find tix to Rev Hort Heat or Lollapoulaouza ;-)
    
    Lale
    ps: I treasure the tape.

    
    

..    >I wouldn't even consider taking the time off from work to go stand
..    >in line for tickets and hope that they were distributed fairly. 

..    So, you don't care if the tickets are distributed fairly or not ?
..    Meine Damen und Herren, I rest my case !

    I sure hope that you don't use this type of logic when dealing with
    customers...
    
    If anyone else is truly interested in seeing my MasterCard bill, I'm
    more than willing to put an edited (no account numbers) image of the
    bill (just paid it last night) up on the net to establish my veracity. 
    Seems like a stupid thing to brag about, anyway...
    
    I think emphasis on bands' responsibilities to the fans is just wishful
    thinking.  Concerts are money-making propositions (for the most part,
    or at least they're intended to be), not rewards to faithful followers. 
    Scalpers, brokers, entrepeneurs, or whatever you want to call them
    fulfill a useful function or they wouldn't exist.  Given the
    opportunity (and vision) I would gladly engage in a little brokering
    myself (in tickets, coffee, *OR* computers).
    

    
    Resposibilities of the bands to the fans - wishful thinking?
    
    	hmmm.  Well, it may be at that, but it *is* the fans who buy the
    CD's, T-shirts and tickets.  And at every award show, it's always *the
    fans* who are thanked the most, by far.  Now, whether its merely
    hyperbole or not is debatable, but I think most, if not all popular
    performers feel at least a small debt of gratitude to the fans who
    support them ( ie- buy their products ).  And some bands, like the
    Grateful Dead as people have pointed out, go out of their way to
    discourage scalping.  Chris Robinson ( are you listening, Lorna :-) )
    is fairly outspoken on the subject - that and concert security :-).
    
    	it seems that, while concerts are viewed as money-making ventures,
    there is a deeper core there - many performers perform for the *fans*
    and love of music.  To view it as simply profit-based is, i think, a
    bit shallow.
    
    				2 more cents,
    
    						Jim

    
    >           -< why would we care about your mastercard bill? >-

    Hell if I know - I can't believe someone would expect me to fax a copy
    of it...
    
    >	it seems that, while concerts are viewed as money-making ventures,
    >there is a deeper core there - many performers perform for the *fans*
    >and love of music.  To view it as simply profit-based is, i think, a
    >bit shallow.
    
    I have to agree - but I bet that profit motive sure makes those shallow
    ticket brokers happy...  As a fan, I have to say that, while I don't
    exactly *love* paying higher prices, I do enjoy the ability to decide
    to attend an event at the last minute and still get good seats.
    

Re -.1,
    
>               -< so, what's this debate really about, anyway? >-
 
    	uh . . . ticket scalping ( moral/immoral, good/bad ) I thought you
    knew . . .:-) :-)
       
    
    >>	it seems that, while concerts are viewed as money-making ventures,
    >>there is a deeper core there - many performers perform for the *fans*
    >>and love of music.  To view it as simply profit-based is, i think, a
    >>bit shallow.
    
 >   I have to agree - but I bet that profit motive sure makes those shallow
 >   ticket brokers happy... 
    
	Thanks - this is my point, exactly.
    
    	Picture this - A poor kid ( perhaps an aspiring musician ) longs
    with all of his heart to see Foo in concert.  When he hears tickets are
    going on sale, he scrapes together the $30.00 face value and camps out
    for 3 days, just to be first in line.  He forks over his hard-earned
    cash, and finds out his seat is halfway back - not nessicarily a *bad*
    seat, but he's certainly disappointed he didn't get closer.  Now,
    because the scalper agencies snarfed up all the good seats, someone
    with enough disposable income can get 2nd row a day before the concert. 
    Does this seem a bit inequitable?  Who put in for effort to get the
    seat?  Who would you consider the more dedicated fan? Now, I know money can
    buy everything ( even love? ) and that the closer seat is certainly worth 
    more than the further back seats, but I still object to scalpers getting 
    first choice of ALL the good seats, or even most of them.
    
    	I would have no problem, if there was some sort of sliding pay
    scale - close seats being higher prices, far seats/obstructed view
    being less - at least you would know where you stand.  but the fact
    that the agencies are guaranteed the tickets before the general public
    gets a crack at them seems unjust, to say the least.
    
    	Someone made a good point a few back - nothing wrong with having
    someone buy tickets for you - but someone buying them *before* you get
    to, and forcing you to buy through them ( if sold out ) . . .  
    
    			call that - 6 cents . . . 
    
    
    					Jim
    

>    	hmmm.  Well, it may be at that, but it *is* the fans who buy the
>    CD's, T-shirts and tickets.  
    
    Is it the fans that won't pay more than $15 for a ticket, or the fans
    that will pay nearly anything for a ticket?
    
    There's a running sub-theme in many of these notes that the people
    willing to pay the scalpers are somehow not fans, or not "loyal"
    fans or better to the artists in the "long run" and that's where I 
    think the argument defies my notion of logic.
    
    >	it seems that, while concerts are viewed as money-making ventures,
    >there is a deeper core there - many performers perform for the *fans*
    >and love of music.  To view it as simply profit-based is, i think, a
    >bit shallow.
    
    Without a doubt "many" performers love performing for the fans, but I
    think to think that the most dominant reason for concert tours is
    something other than making money may be naive.
    
    Tours usually require a massive "investment", are grueling to the
    artists due to the travel, the publicity, time on the road, etc.
    
    What's more is that the consistent theme I hear is that only the big
    stars really make money on albums because they are in a position
    to negotiate for that.  The viewpoint of the average MTV band is that
    the albums are to bring the audience to the shows, and I've heard it
    (directly in at least 3 cases) that artists really make their money
    on the tours because that's where they have the most control over
    how much they get (and if you think about it, you have to admit that
    seems intuitive.)
    
    I just don't buy the notion that too many artists are out there doing
    5 shows a week, traveling every day, sleeping in a different place
    without the comforts of home because they want to "do it for the fans".
    
    You may reasonably differ however.
    
    				2 more cents,
    
    						Jim

    
    
    Yeah, Jim, I see your point.  I don't know how the scalpers end up
    getting all of the good seats, though.  That's why I wouldn't bother to
    stand in line for tickets - I'm sure the whole thing is rigged somehow.
    
    I think one of the ways the good seats get "pre-allocated" is through
    season ticket sales...  Don't know about the rest.  I can tell you that
    a lot of the comp seats don't show up on the seating diagrams, so the
    artists' guests don't figure into this problem in most venues.
    
    I tend to agree with most of .60, myself...    
    

    re: .59 CarollJ
    
>    	Picture this - A poor kid...
    
>    Does this seem a bit inequitable?  
    
    No more so than countless other examples of capitalism I can cook up.
    
    > Who put in for effort to get the seat?  
    
    The "effort" Bill Gates expends to earn $1,000 for a rare baseball
    card maybe one zillionth of the effort some dedicated teenage
    baseball fan working at McDonald's who dreams of someday owning
    such a card expends to earn that. 
    
    But Bill Gates can buy it on a whim without even thinking twice
    before that kid can earn half that.
    
    Is that inequitable?  Perhaps.  But that is capitalism.
    
    To suggest that the government should have laws that ensure that
    commodities like baseball cards, concert tickets or whatever 
    go to the people who are by some definition most "deserving"
    is to suggest a different form of government.
    
    	db - who probably won't be able to respond for awhile

    Re -.1
    
    	You do have a point, db, but I do think that those who may be
    devoted fans, but just don't have the $$$$ ought to be able to have a
    shot at getting the good seats.  it just seems the way the system is
    set up now is ripe for exploitation.  The more I think about it, the
    more the price scale senario makes sense ( more $$$ for a better view ).
    
    	You're also probably right about the 'running sub-theme', but then,
    everything is relative - the guy who is willing to skip a meal a day
    for a few weeks to afford to see Foo compared to the guy who has no
    problem paying major $$$ to see Foo.  Who's the 'better' fan?  Beats
    me, I just work here :-)
    
    	I dunno - maybe I am being naive, but it seems like there are
    definitely better ways to do this than the current system.  I do find
    it encouraging that outlets are trying different techniques ( ie -
    wristbands ), even if they don't always work well ( ie - wristbands ).
    
    				Young  Jim
    

    btw - my last reply should be "Re -.3" - y'all snuck in on me :-)
    
    						- Jim
    

>    	You do have a point, db, but I do think that those who may be
>    devoted fans, but just don't have the $$$$ ought to be able to have a
>    shot at getting the good seats.  
    
    I understand the sentiment.  In fact, I can even say that I "agree"
    with the sentiment.  However, the implicit suggestion in it is
    that we shouldn't have a free market "in this case" and that's
    dangerous talk IMHO.
    
    > it just seems the way the system is  set up now is ripe for
    > exploitation. 
    
    Agreed.
        
>    	You're also probably right about the 'running sub-theme', but then,
>    everything is relative - the guy who is willing to skip a meal a day
>    for a few weeks to afford to see Foo compared to the guy who has no
>    problem paying major $$$ to see Foo.  
    
    The presumption here is that by not allowing people willing to pay
    more money to buy the better seats, more "dedicated" fans will be able
    to see the show.
    
    At the risk of sounding disagreeable, that just seems clearly
    counter-intuitive to me.
    
    I can honestly tell you that I think any ceiling on the price will
    cause more less dedicated fans to get tickets. 
    
    I can think of numerous shows I've been to that I was anything but a
    dedicated fan, but heck, the price was decent and I had nothing better
    to do that night.   Without a doubt, more dedicated fans than I didn't
    get tickets due to sell-outs.   And without a doubt, a more dedicated
    fan would've got to go if I had sold my ticket to a scalper who then
    sold it to someone willing to pay more.
    
    I think in the presence of tickets prices that are below what the
    market will bear, scalpers actually FACILITATE more than "prevent"
    tickets going to more dedicated fans.
    
    I can only tell you that I truly believe that and see plenty of
    substantive evidence to support that, and little to challenge that.

    >I sure hope that you don't use this type of logic when dealing with
    >customers...
    
    I don't know you at all.
    
    >Given the
    >opportunity (and vision) I would gladly engage in a little brokering
    >myself (in tickets, coffee, *OR* computers).
    
    I don't know you at all.
    
    Lale

    Re .65 ( db )
    
    	Dave - when you're right, you're right :-)
    
    Perhaps some sort of arragement where the *best* seats in the house
    are, in a way, auctioned off to the highest bidder, and then scaled price
    seating from there?
    
    I realize I'm dreaming, by the way :-).  it's tough to take a
    completely holistic/disinterested third party view, though.  
    
    And maybe if there was only *one* location ( the box office ) to buy
    tickets?  Stand in line, the ones who put in the effort to get in front
    get to decide first which seats they'd like - the more expensive up front,
    or the cheaper ones further back.  And a special line for the *really*
    good seats, which go to the highest bidders.  Would this satisfy all
    types of fan?  Probably not, but it's kind of a moot point because this
    type of set-up would never happen anyways, right?
    
    	                	dreaming ( again! ),
    
    						Jim

    I should think that buying up the entire supply of something so that
    you can control the supply and gouge the purchasers would fall under 
    anti-trust legislation.
    
    In any case, ethics, morality, fairness, etc. mean nada these days. 
    Only $$$$ means anything anymore.
    
    I avoid this problem by seeing bands I like before they become famous
    and ignore them later. (Actually I mostly listen to more obscure bands
    these days who are not very likely to become mass commodities.)
    
    - Dave

    >I should think that buying up the entire supply of something so that       
    >you can control the supply and gouge the purchasers would fall under       
    >anti-trust legislation.
    
    Scalpers do not buy anything close to the entire supply.  And even if it
    were the entire supply, it would only apply if ONE scalper was buying
    everything instead of many scalpers, which is what actually happens.
    
    Since your argument doesn't apply, I have to think you have some other
    reason for thinking they are amoral right?

    the only way for ticket sales to be fair for all is MAIL-ORDER.
    most shows are set up well ahead of time that a mail-order system for
    someplace like the Centrum could be set up.
    if the order is high and the band can add another show to fill the
    demand (meaning more money for the band without breakdown and travel)
    then do it, they could make most very happy to get the chance.
    a system for ordering tickets by mail could be put into the local
    papers to show people how to make the request....
    but the only problem with this is that the Centrum (or anyother venue)
    would lose money (I assume kickbacks) from the scalpers. the extra
    money made from the scalpers does not get the bands I sure.
    
    Chris

    
    I'm not too sure what I think of Mail-Order (or on the same plane,
    phone-only sales).... they're sometimes good and sometimes bad (read
    on.)
    
    Yes, it's very fair... almost too fair.  The problem is that the people
    who are willing to put in the effort needed to get good seats may get
    left out whereas a casual fan has the same chance with minimal effort.
    
    When U2 came to town last year for the arena shows, most of the shows
    were phone-order only.  I found this to be pretty fair (I guess because
    it worked for me pretty well...).  I think this is a good way to go
    when there's a show were the number of people who want to attend is
    several times the capacity of the venue.
    
    The phone-only sales worked well for me because I was willing to spend
    the time and a small bit of $$$ (in long distance phone calls) to figure 
    out how ticketmaster ran things, which phone numbers were valid to call,
    etc, etc.  People who didn't put in the effort had a much smaller
    chance of landing seats.  As it turned out, my research payed off... I
    tried for tickets for 5 shows and got tickets to all 5.  Also, this
    method of ticket buying minimized the amount of tickets available to
    scalpers (close to zero).  Ticketmaster (and Ticketpro) did this by
    cross-referencing credit card numbers against other orders to be sure
    people weren't buying multiple orders... this made it tough on
    scalpers.
    
    Anyway, did I think this was fair?  Yea, in this case.  Do I want to
    see this for all shows.  No way.  For shows with less demand, I'd like
    to be able to wait in line and have a better shot at good seats.  So
    how do we make it easy for people who WANT to go the show to get
    tickets?  By not buying from scalpers and therefore putting them out of
    business... this will cause A LOT MORE TICKETS to be available for the
    shows to the people who SHOULD get them... the fans.
    
    For big arena shows (like Metallica, Peter Gabriel, REM, etc), scalpers
    generally get about 1/4-1/3 of the tickets available.  No scalpers
    means that those tickets will be available by normal means.
    
    And for those who say they like the flexibiltiy of deciding on whether
    or not to go to a show at the last minute and are willing to pay the 
    big bucks to do it... 
    Tickets are (or should be) a first-come-first-served basis.  How would 
    you like it if at the grocery store when waiting in line someone behind
    you waved a $100 bill at the cashier and the cashier said "Yes Sir, 
    please step in front of all these other people because you have the 
    cash to do it".  I think this is exactly what you're doing when you 
    buy from scalpers.  Should your money earn you special treatment?  
    
    Later...
    Steve
    

    ...some comments after watching this string for a while. My comments
    are directed at noone in particular.
    
    I approve of reselling tickets at a price above the printed face value.
    ANY price above the printed face value. The face value is artificial,
    in no way representing the worth of the ticket. The true value is
    determined by agreement between the buyer and the seller. What would
    a ticket with NO price printed on it be worth? Whatever the buyer and
    seller could agree on. Until they agree on a price the value is
    indeterminate.
    
    I detect a certain attitude in some of the notes that "true fans"
    should have some right to the show above the more casual attendee,
    and I disagree. While it's unfortunate that people who live and breathe
    for a certain artist may not get to see the performance, they get
    nothing but my condolences. (And possibly my seat if they can offer
    me something in return.) The casual fan has the same "right" as anyone
    else to the show.
    
    I also detect, from no particular note, an attitude that sleeping out
    for tickets should somehow entitle the purchaser to better access to
    the performance than someone who would instead spend an amount over
    the face value. And I disagree. Both potential attendees have something
    above and beyond the face value of the ticket they are willing to trade
    towards the purchase. One has money, the other has time. I personally
    get real irked at being unable to see a show because the tix got
    scoffed by those who had the time to camp out. I do NOT, however, find
    anything unfair about it. They are using something they have (time) to
    get the "upper hand" on those without that particular commodity. I see
    nothing wrong with that, and conversely feel no guilt about using
    another commodity (cash) to advance my own interest.
    
    re: good seat should get bigger prices. I agree, and submit that such a
    process is already in place. "Golden Circle" seats are an example, but
    they bear the mark of the artificially set printed value. My point
    could easily be proven by finding who owns front row center and then 
    offering them enough cash to part with the seats. The price may be well
    above anything you'd consider reasonable, but you'll either get the
    tickets or be unable to establish their true value.
    
    Tickets also have a time value. See what the seat is worth 10 minutes
    after the show starts. As the close of the show approaches the value
    approaches zero.
    
    re: gov't price controls. Human compassion might sway me to agree with
    such a scheme for life's necessities, though I believe it would
    assuredly create a black market and destroy the very thing it was
    designed to assist. Concert tix, however, are not a necessity.
    Regulation would open Pandora's Box.
    
    It's unfortunate when someone doesn't get to see their favorite act,
    but the playing field is ultimately level. Some people simply have
    different things to offer.
    
    I'll be off the net for awhile should anyone respond to this entry.
    
    Edd

    If you have to get tickets for scalpers (or touts as they're more
    commonly known in the UK), there is a way to get them at a great price.
    
    Now, it works best in stadiums, i.e where its not all seater. I did
    this when I saw Bowie at Wembley in 1987. Four hours before he was due
    on stage, the guy wanted 75 pound for an 18 pound ticket ($150 for $35
    at 1987 exchange). I refused. I missed the support act (Big Country).
    Half an hour before Bowie was on, the same guy wanted 40 pounds for the
    same ticket (he still had quite a few left). I refused again and told
    him I'd come back in half an hour, just as Bowie was due on. He was
    desperate to sell, and I got the ticket for ten pounds (8 pounds less
    than face value).  
    
    Okay, I missed the first five minutes of the concert while I got in,
    but what a saving, and you can still push your way to the front!
    
    Ian

    <<< Note 412.74 by WELCLU::BROWNI "The Man who sold the World">>>
    
    
    your idea does work on the person who is selling extras or even fake
    tickets outside the venue.....the scapers we are talking about are not
    even in the same state as the venue....question, do these out-of-state
    scalpers eat the cost of tickets they do not sell ? I don't think so. I
    have the feeling that these scalpers notify the box office of the venue
    and tell them these are the blocks of tickets we still have and now you
    can sell them at face value.....I know this is happening....at
    Greatwoods a few years back, I called the GW box office and asked if
    they had tickets (anything) for Clapton...they said not at this time,
    but show up about 3 hours before show time we should have a few
    hundred. Don't tell me the stage setup allowed this, these tickets were
    lawn tickets and seat tickets (that were no where near the stage). So I
    asked the people that were sitting around me where they got their
    tickets....all of them got them from the out-of-state ticket agent, I
    told them I got my ticket at the box office for face value at show time
    ....a few were very pissed off that they spent 2 to 3 times over they
    price. so tell me who is doing us a service ? I think they are doing us 
    a dis-service.
    
    
    Chris

     re .73 excellent points !
    
    
     I still don't understand  
    
    1. why anyone who resells a product(tix) for true market value
       to a willing buyer is "scum".
    2. Why anyone (or almost everyone) who buys from a reseller is not a 
       "true fan"
    3. why if some poor young "true fan" can not afford a ticket to see
       his/her most favorite performer in the whole world, that they have
       been denied some "right". and the performer faces losing their
       "true fan" base. 
    
    
    
     I can't believe how many people aren't living in the real world. The
    real world is not fair. Never has been, never will be. Money is #1. 
    If somone offered you $1 million for your front row tix or backstage
    pass to your all time favorite performer, would you sell ? $10 million?
    As the old joke goes, now that we've established what you are, we're
    just working out the price.....  It's too bad that concerts are
    expensive. It's not fair that someone can buy front row tixs to a sold
    out show hours before curtain time, just by flashing the gold card.
    
     But like someone else just mentioned, even if you had govt controls,
    you would still have a black market possibilty. As long as you have a
    willing buyer and and a willing seller, fair market value will be
    reached. Laws will hamper, but not prevent this from happening.
    
    Bob                 
     

    
    A ticket scalping story (and a true one at that)...
    
    A few years ago I was waiting for tickets (to INXS at the Centrum) at
    the "??? Store Annex" in Marlboro (sorry, I forget the name).  The
    Annex sold a couple of T-shirts and ticketmaster tickets... seemed
    hardly enough income to keep the store open.
    
    Anyway, I was 2nd in line and about 15 minutes before tickets went on
    sale, the owner came in and fired up the machine.  About 5 mintues
    later a sleazy looking guy with a briefcase cruises up, knocks on the
    door, and gets let in with the ticketmaster guy.
    
    10:00 rolls around the the guy with the briefcase opens it up and
    inside there's hundreds of tickets to everything imagineable... and for
    ten minutes, the both stand there pumping out tickets which immediatly
    go into the briefcase (I couldn't believe they were so candid about
    it... bit mistake on their part which I'll get to in a second).  By the
    time I get my tickets, I'm in the 200's sections (upper balcany) and I
    was quite irate!
    
    I got home and made some phone calls to ticketmaster telling them what
    I'd seen and how unhappy I was.  I wrote a couple of letters to TM and
    to the state Atorney General telling them what happened...
    
    And to my suprise (and glee), about a month later the Annex was closed!
    
    Later...
    Steve
    
     

    Great story Steve. Bravo for pursuing that.

    I personally would never buy anything from a scalper unless it is
    to survive. It's a matter of choice. I wish my friends, my colleagues
    and my fellow MUSIC noters wouldn't buy tickets from scalpers but
    they do and that's their choice. All I can do about it is to catch
    them up, grab them from their hair and peel their skin off ;-)
    
    This has been fun. When we are done with scalping, let's re-visit the
    censorship note, or better yet, let's go back to the "to tape or not to
    tape" topic which I believe is now trapped in the archived version ;-)
    
    Lale

>>>    They aren't.  If they waited in line like the rest of us, then more
>>>    power to them.  If, however, they got big blocks of seats before tix
>>>    went on sale by means we all do not have access to, then I'd like
>>>    to know why they get this privilege.  This is the type of scalping most
>>>    of us are complaining about.  
   
   
   So if I understand your point, it's ok to hire a dozen kids to stand in 
   line at the box office and buy tickets for resale ? And it's ok 
   to personally stand in line, to buy tickets for reselling ? And it's ok
   to buy anybody else's tickets (who has also stood in line) and resell
   at what ever price you can get for them ? The only thing you don't like,
   is if someone works out a deal with the box office, or promoter, or someone
   close to the performer, where a block of choice seats are obtained by a
   method other than box office sales, and then re sold at fair market value 
   (as determined by what people willingly pay)
 
>>>    Why is it all so "funny" and secretive?  As far as I see it, the only 
>>>    people benefitting are the scalping agencies themselves - what's in it
>>>    for the box office?  If something is, why doesn't the box office just 
>>>    come right out and say "Sorry, we're giving rows A->DD to agencies X, Y, 
>>>    and Z - get those seats from them."  

   How do we know that the box office, or the group itself, isn't scalping
   these seats to the scalpers ? Do you really believe that the scalpers
   are paying face value for a block of choice seats for a hot act ????? 
    
   If 50,000 people want to attend an event that can only service 20,000 , how
  do you decide who goes and who doesn't ? A capitalistic society uses money
  as it's meter. Many here are suggesting that a queue is the only fair
  approach. Using the queue, it doesn't matter what you are willing to pay,
  only that you were lucky enough to be able to stand in line before the 
  product ran out. hmmm, where have we seen this failed model for distributing
  resources, before ???

Bob 

    re .78, I saw a similar thing happen once at a Ticketron outlet (back
    when they sold tickets to the Centrum).  I was waiting in line for
    Bruce Springsteen tickets (several years ago), and the first show had
    sold out, and a second show hadn't gone on sale yet.  I was waiting
    around for the second show to go on sale, when the guy at the machine
    peeled off all these tickets and gave them to some guy with a
    briefcase.  I walked over and said, "I thought you said the show was
    all sold out."  He said, "It is."  I said, "So what are these tickets
    you're giving him then?"  One of the guys looked at the other guy and
    said to him "What do you want to do?"  The other guy said, "How many
    seats do you want?"  I said, "Two."  The guy told the other guy, "Sell
    her two tickets."  The guy sold me two tickets, face value, to the
    Springsteen concert and I left.
    
    Lorna
    

    These are the same type of folks who will be "scalping" penicillin 
    in times of emergency too.  Forgive me questioning the ethics of 
    people who are more than willing to screw over other people for 
    personal monetary gain.
    
    "Scalping" tickets certainly isn't the same degree of moral and ethical 
    lack as "scalping" penicillin, but it is certainly of the same type.
    It all contributes to the same net result.
    
    - Dave

    
    > These are the same type of folks who will be "scalping" penicillin
    > in times of emergency too.  Forgive me questioning the ethics of
    > people who are more than willing to screw over other people for
    > personal monetary gain.
    
    screwing people for monetary gain ?  I suppose you donate your paycheck
    back to your employer ? If 2 people agree upon a price , of their own
    free will, aint nobody getting screwed. It's really funny how profit
    is such a dirty word. "Personal monetary gain" is what pays most
    people's bills. Call it a paycheck, call it profit, call it a price
    for service and/or convience....
    
    By some people's definition here, we should all pay wholesale cost for
    everything and never buy retail. After all, low moral retailers have
    the nerve to make a profit !!!!
                                                                 

>    If 2 people agree upon a price , of their own
>    free will, aint nobody getting screwed. 
 
    Horse hockey.  How much are you paying for medical insurance
    these days?  You consider it fair?  How about taxes?  How about
    living in this environmental filth that's been left for us?
    You like your choices when it comes to automobile insurance?

    Just because somebody has a "choice" doesn't make the price fair.
    

    
    
    >  Horse hockey.  How much are you paying for medical insurance
    > these days?  You consider it fair?  How about taxes?  How about
    > living in this environmental filth that's been left for us?
    > You like your choices when it comes to automobile insurance?
    
     Sorry, you're comparing apples and oranges..... Nobody is forcing you
    to buy a concert ticket. Last time I checked, taxes weren't optional.
    
    automobile insurance and medical insurance...... hmmm, aren't these
    prices regulated by law instead of the free market ????? 
    
    re "fair" : Who said life was fair ?
    
    Bob 

    
    Dave;
    
>    >I should think that buying up the entire supply of something so that       
>    >you can control the supply and gouge the purchasers would fall under       
>    >anti-trust legislation.
>    
>    Scalpers do not buy anything close to the entire supply.  
    
    I will re-word then, buying the entire supply of something or any
    proportion of the entire supply to sell it for more is immoral.
    
    Bob;
    
>    Nobody is forcing you
>    to buy a concert ticket. Last time I checked, taxes weren't optional.
    
    So, when something is not a necessity it is ok to scalp at outrageous
    prices ? What guarantees that the scalper won't do the same thing on
    necessities, like the penicillin example given before ?
    
    It doesn't matter whether it is ticket or medicine, it is a matter
    of principle.
    
>    re "fair" : Who said life was fair ?
    
    Why not at least try to make it as fair as possible ? Some people take
    this attitude when they see something wrong : "Well, it was already
    wrong when I got here, so I will just continue contributing to it".
    
    Lale

    
>>    I will re-word then, buying the entire supply of something or any
>>    proportion of the entire supply to sell it for more is immoral.
    
      what part is immoral ? do you consider retailers immoral ? Don't
      they do the exact same thing. Have you ever seen the markups on some
      of the stuff they sell. And they sell necessities of life such as bread,
      and milk, and medecines......
        
>>    So, when something is not a necessity it is ok to scalp at outrageous
>>    prices ? What guarantees that the scalper won't do the same thing on
>>    necessities, like the penicillin example given before ?
    
>>    It doesn't matter whether it is ticket or medicine, it is a matter
>>    of principle.
    
    what do you consider "outrageous prices " To a very poor, starving, fan,
    $20.00 may seem outrageous. To someone else, $20.00 is nothing for a ticket,
    and as was cited earlier, to Bill Gates, $1,000.00 for a ticket may be
    nothing.

    One person's scalping is another's service charge. Suppose you really
    wanted to see a certain concert. Tickets are due to go on sale for
    one show. people are expected to camp out several days & nights 
    before hand inorder to get the few tickets available. Due to a variety
    of reasons, you are not able to camp out. These reasons could be ,
    health, time, location, family, etc. Is it morally ok for you to hire
    someone else to camp out for you? You are willing to pay the person
    for their time. (How much would you be expecting to receive if someone
    wanted to hire you ?) Would you accuse this person of "scalping" you because
    you paid them to do something that you could not do yourself ? Now maybe
    all "scalped" tickets aren't obtained this way, but the theory is the same.
    You are paying someone what both of you agree is a fair price for something
    you could not obtain yourself.


>>>>>    re "fair" : Who said life was fair ?
    
>>    Why not at least try to make it as fair as possible ? Some people take
>>    this attitude when they see something wrong : "Well, it was already
>>    wrong when I got here, so I will just continue contributing to it".


      I'm not saying that we should ignore wrongs. I'm saying that life
     is not fair. Why do some people have more money than others, why do
     some people suffer ? Why do some people get cancer ? None of this
     is "fair".

      I'm saying that you can not make everything fair. If 1,000,000 people 
     want to get into a concert that seats 50,000 , life will suddenly be 
     "unfair" for 950,000 people. How do you suggest we make things "fair" 
     for these people. 
 

 Bob

    someone said somethink like....if the scaler were to stand in line with
    us or hire 10 people to stand in line/buy the extras from people in
    line, what so different ? at least we have a chance to get tickets at
    face value before the scalpers get them....read before we ever had a
    chance. Personally I would never buy one from the out-of-state agent
    because I feel the way it works is not fair to ME, if you wanna buy a
    ticket to see someone/a band go ahead and fuel the fire or in Buffett's
    words PISS IT AWAY !....I like my money in my pocket.
    	the way it works now we don't have the odds in our favor (or at
    least even odds ) to get the tickets at a face value. 
    	someone selling a ticket on the street even at face value
    might be selling a fake...this happens alot ! so you ask why some
    states don't allow scapers ? this might answer that question. 

re:              <<< Note 412.85 by CPDW::PALUSES "Bob Paluses @MSO" >>>

>     Sorry, you're comparing apples and oranges..... Nobody is forcing you

    The diff is only a matter of degree.

>    to buy a concert ticket. Last time I checked, taxes weren't optional.

    Yes they are.  You can go to jail, you can hide from the law, you
    can skip the country, you can kill yourself

>    automobile insurance and medical insurance...... hmmm, aren't these
>    prices regulated by law instead of the free market ????? 

    Whoops.  Got me there

>    re "fair" : Who said life was fair ?
 
    Life's not fair.  People can be.   

    Scalpers are not retailers and retailers are not scalpers. If scalpers
    were doing the same thing as retailers they would be called retailers
    and not scalpers.
    
    Retail *business* has never been considered immoral or illegal, any
    time anywhere. Retail business has evolved from necessity. A retailer
    may be dishonest/indecent/immoral just like anybody else. I will
    consider a retailer immoral if he is doubling the price of milk seeing
    that his competitors have run out of it.
    
    Whereas scalping is illegal in most places and there is a debate going
    on about its morality. 
    
    I will buy that there is a similarity between a retailer and a scalper
    who has a permit, works legally, pays his taxes and even employs one or
    two people (thus helping them provide a living for themselves). But then 
    I will call this person an agent or some such term instead of scalper 
    because by my definition scalping is immoral and illegal.
    
    Lale

>>>>    to buy a concert ticket. Last time I checked, taxes weren't optional.

>>    Yes they are.  You can go to jail, you can hide from the law, you
>>    can skip the country, you can kill yourself


 That doesn't prevent their payment. If you owe the govt tax money, it
can seize your assets, and your estate if you choose to kill yourself.
Hiding out or leaving the country doesn't forgive your debt. You still
owe the money.


 Allow me to define how I'm using optional. Optional = something you spend 
your money on through your own decision making for your own enjoyment.
for example, you may decide to go to a ball game or a concert or out to 
dinner. ALL of these are choices. Nobody is telling you that you have
to do any or all of them. You will not be jailed if don't do any of them.
You will not have the government chasing you, if you don't do any of them.
The fact that you really really really really want to go, doesn't mean that
you HAVE to go. You may not have enough money to do any of them.
You may have enough money to do one of them. YOU then decide where to spend
your money. Usually you make your decision based on what your perceived 
return on investment will be. Everybody's personal rate of return will 
probably differ. Meanwhile the people competing for your entertainment money
are pricing their product accordingly. If the ballgame tickets are priced
too high, you may go somewhere else. the market is constantly keeping itself
honest. the problem most people seem to be having is understanding that the
scalpers can't sell for more than the market will bear. If they are able to
get facevalue * 10 for their tickets, it's because they are worth that much
to somebody. 



>>>>    re "fair" : Who said life was fair ?
 
 >>   Life's not fair.  People can be.   


 Sounds nice, but apply it to the example I gave of 1,000,000 people wanting
to see a concert that seats 50,000. What's fair ? Who goes and who can't.

    
>> Scalpers are not retailers and retailers are not scalpers.
    
    I was responding to the comment that was made about "personal profit
    being imoral"
    
    I'm using the term scalper loosely, for anyone who buys tickets for
    the purpose of reselling them. I'm not spcifiying whether licensed
    or not for the purpose of this discussion. Call them agents, scalpers,
    what ever you want. I don't see what their selling price has to do with
    morality. Is an auction immoral ? after all someobody may have bought
    a one of a kind antique last year for $100.00 and now they have the
    imorality to auction this off to the highest bidder. What if they get
    $100,000  now. Are they a slimeball ? Maybe it's only worth $100,000
    to one person. maybe the rest of the world thinks it's woth $1.00 ...
    Does this matter, so long as a buyer and seller have reached an
    agreement on it's value ? Should the government control prices ? 
    
Bob

    re .91

> That doesn't prevent their payment. If you owe the govt tax money, it
>can seize your assets, and your estate if you choose to kill yourself.

    Owe nothing.  Live in poverty.  Make it hard to find yourself.
    All is a matter of choice, except death.
    Everything else is a matter of degree.
    I evade taxes: I pay the price
    I get scalped:  I pay the price.
    That's all folks!  :-)

    
>to see a concert that seats 50,000. What's fair ? Who goes and who can't.
    Fair is if I get to go.

    ;-)   

    
    >even fake tickets outside the venue.....
    
    Is a fake ticket what I think it is ? Do they do that too ?
    
    Another thing that came to my mind is monopoly: If there would be
    10 scalpers standing side by side, selling tickets to the same show,
    then the argument of free market would be true. They would have to
    compete with eachother (unless of course they all agree to sell 
    at the same price which is something to expect from these people)
    and the market would decide the value, the buyers would have a choice
    etc etc. But it is not like that. Because the scalping business (!)
    is small in scope and there aren't many scalpers in the same area
    for the same show, it sort of creates a monopoly in which the scalper
    decides the price of the ticket and not the buyer.
    
    Lale

    re .93  free-market scalping.

    I wonder what would happen if Massachusetts decided that EVERYONE
    could scalp tickets legally, not just the agencies that forked over
    the cash to the government for the privilege.  Today, you can get
    busted in Massachusetts for selling your own privately-purchased
    ticket - at ANY price - including $1, because you don't have a
    license.  

    Maybe then you'd have bunches of scalpers standing outside the
    venue, competing with each other.  Wonder if that would help.
    Right now, it's a black market, which always drives prices up
    to ridiculous levels.
    
    In other words, perhaps the problem is that the free market is
    not free enough.

    ?

    > I wonder what would happen if Massachusetts decided that EVERYONE
    > could scalp tickets legally, not just the agencies that forked over
    > the cash to the government for the privilege.
    
    
    I'd agree with that. Open the market completely, you'd probably
    encourage price wars with more competition. The closer to event
    date you got, you may even get 'clearance sale prices' as the 
    scalpers try to dump their remaining inventory before it becomes
    worthless.
    
     This would also allow private parties to provide competition for
    the scalpers, again lowering the prices.
    
    Bob
    

    now that is someting to think about but as we know our goverment would
    only screw it up worse :')
    
    Chris

    
    If you can buy a license to scalp, then you've got the free market you
    were asking for.  I don't know that licenses are required for the
    ticket brokers here in CA, but I can tell you that southern Orange
    County has over two Yellow pages full of ticket agencies to choose
    from.  Some of those agencies were asking a lot more than $200 for the
    seats I got, too.  So I laughed at their asking price and moved on to
    the next listing.
    
    Instead of complaining about something you can't change (human nature
    and the profit motive), why not find some sort of opportunity in the
    situation?  If you've got a credit card, and you're willing to stand in
    line or camp out overnight, start your own little ticket brokerage.
    
    

    
    
    >start your own little ticket brokerage.
    
    I feel like applying a "2 by 4" on your head ;-)
    
    Lale

    re: .70
    
    Sean, I still don't understand why you think that fans who aren't willing
    (or capable) of paying big bucks for tickets are better in the "long
    term".
    
    I'll also add another reason why I don't buy it: I don't think that the
    people paying big bucks for tickets are typically "Joe Moneybags". 
    From my experience, the people using scalpers are just regular lower
    and middle class people like me who ARE dedicated fans and thus are
    willing to pay big bucks even though it means major sacrifices.
    
    As I've said before, I think the scalpers HELP insure that the loyal
    fans DO get the tickets.

    re: .86 Eskicioglu
    
>    I will re-word then, buying the entire supply of something or any
>    proportion of the entire supply to sell it for more is immoral.
    
    This is a rather startling statement Lale.
    
    Lale, basically you've just declared capitalism to be "immoral".
    
    Stores buy a portion of the supply of goods to sell them for more.
    Investors buy a portion of the supply of stock to sell it for more.
    Collectors buy a portion of the supply of coins/stamps/cards to sell 
      them for more.
    Digital buys a portion of the supply of various kinds of hardware and 
      software to sell it for more.
    
    	db

    
    Dave;
    
    >Lale, basically you've just declared capitalism to be "immoral".
    
    But it is, isn't it ? It is a mean, cruel, shameless system and I am
    enjoying every moment of it ;-)
    
    Please read .90.
    
    Buying and selling is not "tu kaka". Pretending to be an end-user
    (I believe the term in economics is "ultimate consumer") and buying
    some significant amount of a good/commodity from the retailer/supplier
    that serves the end user and then selling it for more to the end-user
    is immoral.
    
    When I was a kid my dad used to take me to the movies every Sunday.
    And in front of the theatre there would be a couple of guys selling
    tickets for best seats for twice the face value. I always hated that.
    The same guy can do the same thing with milk and bread when he sees
    the opportunity.
    
    From the discussions in this note I have learned that nowadays there is
    an established (sort of) business that is legally re-selling tickets.
    The reason why I feel comfortable with the legal-scalping is; I am
    hoping that the government wouldn't let these people scalp medicine
    or food or any other vital thing.
    
    I realize that the days when I sat down on a highway with 12,000 other
    students to block the traffic between two major cities to protest
    capitalism is long gone. I am as capitalist as you are but some
    principles have remained and I will apply them as long as I can. I will
    not buy anything from a scalper unless it is to survive.
    
    Lale

    > Please read .90
    
    Lale, I find .90 to be a straightforward "status quo" argument.
    
    Is the only way you can differentiate scalping from "buying and
    selling" is that it is illegal in some places?   Does it being illegal
    really prove that it's immoral?
    
    You sat on a highway - that's illegal.  Have I proven that what you did
    was immoral?  I certainly don't think so.
    
    I want to know what makes scalping different.  You're answers only
    demonstrate that other people think it's different but do not say
    WHY they think it's different except for the following argument:
    
    > Pretending to be an end user...
    
    Put the cart behind the horse: the only reason scalpers have to do that
    is because it is still illegal in some places.  If it weren't illegal,
    they wouldn't have to "pretend" to be end users and thus this argument
    boils down to the same thing as many of the other arguments:
    
    	You describe something negative about scalping that only
    	applies when scalping is illegal.
    
    It's like "we shouldn't legalize alcohol because the people that make
    it are criminals" even though they would NOT be criminals if it
    were legal.
    
    I'd really like to discuss cogent reasons why people SHOULD regard
    scalping as different than buying and selling other than arguments to
    the effect that "they do" or that it happens to be illegal in some
    places which doesn't address the "why" part of the question.
    
    	db

    
    Dave, I am sure I will see you in my dream tonight ;-) Or nightmare 
    rather ;-) And I don't even know how you look like !

    Well, let's c now :

    I already said that I was not "for" everything that was "legal" and I 
    was not "against" everything that was "illegal". I can give you some
    examples over mail ;-)  
    
    About scalping, if I say anything  more, I'll be repeating myself, so,
    I will ask a question instead:

    I will use milk as an example. If you are not a milk drinker (I
    personally hate the stuff myself) then take it as a symbol of something
    essential. 

    One fine day, as usual, you go to your regular supermarket to buy milk,
    but when you get there, you find out that they have run out of it. You
    don't give it much thought and drive (walk, bike, hike. Here, once and
    for all I apologize for all the assumptions) to another supermarket. To
    your surprise, they have run out too. You try another one, and then
    another one. All the supermarkets in your neighbourhood have
    conspicuously run out of milk. As you are heading back home, you see a
    neighbour carrying a box of milk. You ask her where she got it from and
    she tells you that some guy in the next street is selling milk in his
    basement. You go to the address given to you and surely enough this one
    guy is selling milk in his basement. His basement is packed full of
    cartons and bags of milk. Because milk is essential for your family you
    buy some. Each bag of milk has a little red A&P sticker on it that says
    $3.49 (this point is very important : A&P price tag that says $3.49)
    and you have to pay this man $10 for each bag you buy. 

    Now the question: Is there anything, anything at all, wrong with this
    scenario ? If there is anything negative about this man scalping milk
    please say so. Use any pronoun you want, immoral/indecent/dishonest,
    anything ?

    If you think what the milk scalper is doing is not right in anyway,
    then you and I are in synch. If you think what he is doing is perfectly
    ok, then we don't have much to discuss, all we can do is to say
    "everybody's moral values" are different and leave it at that. 

    Or maybe, just like John, you would like to go into milk scalping 
    business yourself ;-)

    Lale
    
    scalp vt (1676) 1 a: to deprive of the scalp b: to remove an upper part
    from 2 a: to screen or sift (as ore or meal) in order to remove foreign
    materials or to separate out coarser grades b: to remove a desired
    constituent from and discard the rest

    
    
    re the milk salper:
    
    just because the little A&P sticker says 3.49, that doesn't mean
    he paid 3.49. Maybe this "milk Scalper" hired a truck and driver
    to go where there was milk and bring back a shipment. Isn't he entitled
    to make a profit ?
    
     The milk is very similar to a concert ticket. It has a finite shelf
    life. If he prices it too high, he won't sell as much and will risk
    being stuck with spoiled milk. Same as a concert ticket , if it's
    priced too high, none will sell, and they are pretty much useless after
    the date of the show.
    
     Your problem seems to be with profit. You are not willing to let
    anyone make money becaue YOU think it's immoral. Back to your milk
    analogy. If there is suddenly a shortage of milk, you should certainly
    expect to pay more. However, the free market will still be in effect.
    If milk is priced too high (compared to other beverages) then consumers
    will switch over to other substitutes. (Tea ? Coffee, powdered milk,
    kool aid)
    
     If concert tickets are priced too high, many will not sell and people
    will spend their entertainment dollars somewhere else.
    
    
    Bob
    
     

    re: .104 OTOOA::ESKICIOGLU (Lale)
    
>    Now the question: Is there anything, anything at all, wrong with this
>    scenario ? If there is anything negative about this man scalping milk
>    please say so. Use any pronoun you want, immoral/indecent/dishonest,
>    anything ?
    
    Lale,
    
    The answer is, "yes" what that man is doing is wrong.
    
    However, what I've been trying to get you to do is to provide some
    way to differentiate scalping from other accepted forms of capitalism.
    
    With that in mind, I will tell you how I differentiate scalping from
    your milk example:
    
    	a) Milk is not a luxury commodity, concert tickets are.
    
    	   The difference is that for a non-luxury commodity you can get
    	   any price you ask if you corner the market.  A luxury product
    	   is STILL subject to what the market will bear.
    
    	b) Your example is a clear-cut monopoly.  Scalpers do not have
    	   anything near a monopoly.
    
    So my question to you, is how is scalping different from everyday
    buying and selling?

    
    Bob; (ref: .105)

    >Profit is not a dirty word

    No, it is not. Profit is real nice when it is not at the expense of
    others. When it is not a rip-off. I am not against profit as long as 
    it is made the fair/honest/decent way.

    The fact that we chose this system doesn't mean we should agree with 
    all aspects of it. I am against explaining everything with "well,
    that's capitalism" chorus. We *can* improve the system.

    There are other "very capitalist" actions that I consider "awful".
    A couple that spring to mind:
    
    Destroying tons and tons of eggs/potatoes or pouring coffee into the 
    sea, just so that the excess produce wouldn't lower the price margin is
    also capitalism. And I am against food destruction when there are so
    many people over the world, starving. When the farmers crashed their 
    excess eggs I believed they did something immoral.

    I also find the telephone business scams immoral. That is capitalism 
    too. But it is a rip-off, it is taking advantage of the naive. Indecent
    (and yet quick and easy) money making. 
    
    I don't know how you feel about these, you probably think that trashing
    produce not to lower the prices is just a part of casual capitalism,
    thus it is ok. I hope my assumption is wrong. 
    
    I also don't approve of Sunday shopping. I believe one day a week the
    stores must remain closed. There are people ages 16 to 60 working in
    those stores who may or may not have families and who need to rest
    one day. Couldn't capitalism survive without Sunday shopping ?
    
    >You are not willing to let anyone make money becaue YOU think it's
    immoral. 

    Luckily we have democracy. I alone don't make the rules. You and I 
    together make the rules, that's why we are discussing. (Although it
    started to get a bit tiring ;-))


    Dave ; (ref: .106)     
    
    >    So my question to you, is how is scalping different from everyday
    >    buying and selling?

    I don't know, Dave. 	
    - Maybe because it just doesn't sound right
    - Maybe because the guy who scalps tickets today might scalp
      necessities in case of emergency  
    - Maybe because it increases the price margin and makes 
      luxuries/necessities unaffordable 
    - Maybe because it is not good for the economy 
    - Maybe because it might lead to chaos or monopoly 
    - Maybe because it is unfair to the concert goers 
    - Maybe because the soundman is not getting what he deserves 
    - Maybe because the performer is not getting what I pay to see him 
    - Maybe because the scalper is not paying his taxes 
    - Maybe because I don't need the scalper's *service* and he is hindering 
      my chances of getting good seats by being over-zealous and purchasing 
      the tickets to serve me better (!) 
    - Maybe because this is the way I am 
    - Maybe all of the above.

    I don't know.

    Lale

Lale,    

 >>    Profit is real nice when it is not at the expense of
 >>   others. When it is not a rip-off. I am not against profit as long as 
 >>   it is made the fair/honest/decent way.

    I agree. we just differ on what is fair/honest/decent.


>>    There are other "very capitalist" actions that I consider "awful".
>>    A couple that spring to mind:
    
>>    Destroying tons and tons of eggs/potatoes or pouring coffee into the 
>>    sea, just so that the excess produce wouldn't lower the price margin is
>>    also capitalism. And I am against food destruction when there are so
>>    many people over the world, starving. When the farmers crashed their 
>>    excess eggs I believed they did something immoral.

I may be naive, but I thought most of the world hunger problems were due
to politcal and distribution problems and not supply. Your main argument
seems to be comparing a concert ticket to neccesities of life like food
and medicine. I refuse to follow the theory that allowing ticket scalping
will lead to milk and medicine scalping. It could never happen. Food
and medicine directly affects everyone. I haven't seen anyone scapling
hepatitus or flu vaccines in the yellow pages lately. Milk isn't scalped
because it is in great supply. It is in great supply because it is a known
need.

Seriously now, do you really put concert ticket prices on the same level 
of importance as food and medicine availability ?  The government makes
sure that we have an ample supply of food and medicine available because
it is perceived as a neccesity of life. 

>>    I also find the telephone business scams immoral. That is capitalism 
>>    too. But it is a rip-off, it is taking advantage of the naive. Indecent
>>    (and yet quick and easy) money making. 

 Lets agree that all scams are immoral. Let agree, for discussion, that
scalping is immoral (to some) The problem is in legislating morality.
You may feel it is immoral for someone to scalp tickets, but the buyer
and the seller may be perfectly happy and wish you would mind your own
business. Meanwhile someone else may feel that the music being played at
the concert is immoral and all the people who attend the concert are 
also immoral. The group and the audience may feel that what they are doing
is not immoral, and wish that the protesters outside would mind their own
business. They say if you don't like the music, don't listen to it. But don't 
begrudge those who do so willingly. The same is true for scalping, if you 
think it's imoral, don't deal with them, however don't begrudge others who
choose to do so.
    
>>    I also don't approve of Sunday shopping. I believe one day a week the
>>    stores must remain closed. There are people ages 16 to 60 working in
>>    those stores who may or may not have families and who need to rest
>>    one day. Couldn't capitalism survive without Sunday shopping ?

  Sticking to the subject, does this mean you don't approve of Sunday 
concerts. I'll bet there are a lot of 16 to 60 working an event
who need to rest one day......
    

    re .108, so, let me get this straight.  Are you saying that you don't
    think concert tickets are a necessity of life?  Hah!  And you call
    yourself a fan!!   :-)
    
    Disgusting.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lale,
    
    This is getting boring.
    
    We're in a rut with this scalping -> milk business and I think we could
    get out of the rut if you would directly address this one point we have
    made about it:
    
    	Milk is not a luxury item.  It should be (and is) treated
        differently under the law because people HAVE to buy milk
    	and thus need the government's protection even to SURVIVE.
    
    	Someone running the milk scheme is a clear-cut THREAT to health/life.
    
    	Someone doing the same with concert tickets is not a threat to 
    	your life. 
    
    	How more clear cut a distinction could there be for why government
    	intervention is justified in the case of milk, and not in the
    	of concert tickets could there be?

    Buy low, sell high, it's America!
    
    The milk 'scalper' is taking ADVANTAGE.....
    
    The ticket 'scalper' is taking a RISK....
    
    there is a *big* difference....
    
    8^)

    
    Shut up and play yer guitar!  *8')
    
    Milk, schmilk!  Any time you take a major position in a market you're
    taking a risk.  Your milk can go bad, the buying public's tastes may
    change, and then there's always the threat of government
    intervention...
    
    This is getting pretty boring...
    
    Scalpers may be able to affect some kind of momentary fluctuation in
    the availability of goods, but in a true free market (without some sort
    of criminal influence), the price of goods will fall to what the public
    is really willing to pay.  Who says that you can't scalp the scalper by
    buying from his suppliers (at a higher price) and selling at a lower
    price?  Your profit will be a little lower, but the competition will
    generate lower prices for the consumers.  (Surprise!  This is the way
    scalping works, too!)
    

    
    All milk discussions aside for a moment . . .
    
    What I still object to with scalping is the fact that the "services"
    seem to have a near-monopoly on all of the better seats, purchasing
    them *before they become available to the general public*.  If they are
    buying them for the face value ( ie printed on the ticket ) then the
    performers/stadium people aren't making any money, unless through
    kickbacks, etc.  This is the part that I find *reeaaallllly* sleazy,
    and I applaud the noter a few replies back who blew the whistle on that
    outlet who was participating in this.  
    
    Perhaps mail-order is ultimately the best way to go . . .
    
    				Jim
    

>    What I still object to with scalping is the fact that the "services"
>    seem to have a near-monopoly on all of the better seats, purchasing
>    them *before they become available to the general public*.  
    
    Let's remember what a monopoly is.
    
    It's when ONE company owns the entire market and thus has advantages
    such as price setting.
    
    To say that "services" (plural == several services) have a monopoly, is
    a self-contradiction.  It's like saying that the oil companies have a
    monopoly on oil.

    >   seem to have a near-monopoly on all of the better seats
    		       ^^^^  :-)
    
    Sorry -  what I should have said is :
    
    What I still object to with scalping is the fact the the "services",
    however many of them there are, are able to snarf up all or most of the
    better seats, purchasing them *before they become available to the
    general public*
    
    True, the scalpers don't have a monopoly, as they are competing against
    themselves -that wasn't my point.
    
    					- Jim
    

>    What I still object to with scalping is the fact the the "services",
>    however many of them there are, are able to snarf up all or most of the
>    better seats, purchasing them *before they become available to the
>    general public*
    
    This strikes me as a straightforward example of wholesaling.
    
    From my Random House dictionary:
    
    	Wholesaling - the sale of goods in large quantities, as to
    		retailers rather than to consumers directly.

    No, Dave - no objection to wholesaling - my BJ's card is still valid
    :-)
    
    but read *before they become available to the general public*
    
    it just seems to me that the concert promoters would want everyone to
    have an equal oppurtunity to get tickets - often the number of tickets
    is limited to 2 of 4 per person - why do you think this is?  So people 
    don't snarf up huge blocks of good seats and resell them at higher prices. 
    Scalpers somehow circumvent this through crooked ticket outlets ( like
    the example posted previously ) or bribes/kickbacks.  *This* is what I
    object to, specifically - certainly not to wholesaling in general!  
    
    						;-) - Jim
    

    This argument has been going on for awhile now, when are you guys gonna
    agree that you'll never agree?
    
    What bothers *me* is that it's gotten to the point where shows are just
    too expensive.  These $25 and up ticket prices are prohibitive to a lot
    of people...heck, they're prohibitive to me and I have a good income! 
    I wouldn't even think about ticket agencies since the face value of the
    ticket is already too high for me!  And it's not just rock music, I
    can't afford a BSO subscription, weekly trips to posh jazz clubs in
    Boston or to go see "Les Miz" either.
    
    There's a band from the DC area called Fugazi (they play hardcore) and
    these guys have a quasi-socialist attitude about their shows.  They
    dictate ticket prices to promoters so as to make it possible for people
    to afford the shows.  No, they don't make a lot of money. Which I guess
    is the whole point, eh?
    
    I never have been able to see the Stones, but at this point I wouldn't
    want to...sitting in a stadium using binoculars to see what's going on
    and hearing nothing but gated snare drums isn't my idea of a quality 
    experience.  Might as well stay home and do the pay-per-view...
    
    							Brian

    I gotta agree with .118.  It simply costs too much no matter how
    you cut it.

    Also, I have read and carefully digested each and every argument
    presented in this string.  ;-)  and I have come to the following
    carefully considered and logical conclusion:

	    SCALPERS S***!

    ask yourself, guys...  it being a free market and fair and all that...
    HOW COME WE HATE 'EM SO MUCH?!!!

    gotta be a reason	 - they are despicable scumbags

        :-)         :-)         :-)         :-)         :-)         :-)

    > So people don't snarf up huge blocks of good seats and resell them at higher prices. 
>     Scalpers somehow circumvent this through crooked ticket outlets ( like
>     the example posted previously ) or bribes/kickbacks.  *This* is what I
>     object to, specifically - certainly not to wholesaling in general!  
    
    OK, let's understand something.  When I say "scalping should not be
    illegal" I mean just that.  It should not automatically be illegal
    to buy tickets and sell them at a higher price.
    
    However, if a concert promoter does want to give everyone an equal
    chance, he is allowed to impose limitations on buying the tickets.
    We don't need a scalping law to accomplish that.  When he sells a
    ticket, he CAN attach limitations to the ticket.
    
    There is nothing out of the ordinary for that in our capitalist
    society.   Next time you're in a restaurant have a look at a ketchup
    bottle.  Chances are good it will say "Not for Resale".  The idea is
    that the Ketchup company sells to the restaurant at a special price and
    doesn't want the restaurant to use that price to go into the business
    of selling ketchup.
    
    They didn't need to make "re-selling Ketchup" illegal.
    
    In fact, many concert tickets have "not for resale" on them.  If that's
    what the promoter wants it's FINE with me.   And I expect that you'd
    agree with what I've said.
    
    However, here's something I suspect you might not agree with.
    
    I think that the concert promoter SHOULD be allowed to:
    
    	o Not place any such limitations if he so chooses
    
    	o He should be allowed to give scalpers first crack "before
          they become available to the general public" if he feels
    	  that's in his best interests
    
    I.E. he should most definitely be allowed to do what you object to.
    
    That is NOT the case (at the moment) in Mass, for example.  Mass has
    an explicit anti-scalping law.
    
    

    re: .119 Westervelt
    
    > How come we hate them so much?
    
    If we hate them so much, how come we patronize them so often?
    
    	db

    
    Re - dave
    
    ok - I'll agree - promoters should be able to allow resale of tickets
    when in their best interests - after all - it's their show - they pay
    the bills.  but when would it be in their best interests?  Why keep
    everything so shady?  afraid the fans would boycott?
    
    					jim
    

	Bob;

>we just differ on what is fair/honest/decent.

	Exactly. What's the problem ?

>I may be naive, but I thought most of the world hunger problems were due
>to politcal and distribution problems and not supply. 

	Most of the world's hunger problems might be due to political and/or
	distribution problems, but not all. Here in my home town (where
	farmers crashed their eggs and burned their potatoes) we have a lot of
	starvation. Every year twice I work as a volunteer collecting
	food for Ottawa Food Bank. 

>Your main argument
>seems to be comparing a concert ticket to neccesities of life like food
>and medicine. 

	My theory is "today concert ticket tomorrow necessities of life". I
	have lived in countries in which necessities of life could only be
	obtained in black market. It can happen. A couple of countries are
	experiencing severe black market situations right now, as we speak.
	Who guarantees that the guy who scalps tickets today won't scalp bread
	in disaster ? I don't want to encourage him, so I don't buy any
	tickets from him. I wish you didn't either but that's all I can do:
	Tell you how I feel about it and wish you didn't. That's all. 

>I refuse to follow the theory that allowing ticket scalping
>will lead to milk and medicine scalping. It could never happen. Food
>and medicine directly affects everyone. I haven't seen anyone scapling
>hepatitus or flu vaccines in the yellow pages lately. 

	It can happen. It does happen. I have seen surgery times or hospital
	beds being in black market. 

>Seriously now, do you really put concert ticket prices on the same level 
>of importance as food and medicine availability ?  

	No, I don't think that they are equally important. It is just a matter
	of applying a principal to smaller scale of something that is more
	serious. 

	I also don't think that it is ok to rip-off just because something is
	*not* a necessity. Say, you are buying a diamond ring for your wife,
	would you like to be given a scratched diamond for the price of a
	clean diamond ? 

	I have a colleague, he pushed his car down into the river to get $5000
	from the insurance company. To my amusement, the police found the car
	and returned it back to him ;-) Maybe this was the worst thing he was
	capable of doing, maybe he will never do anything more dishonest than
	that. But I cannot know for sure. What he did was pretty big for me, I
	don't want to have much to do with him. I don't trust him. Maybe the
	scalper won't scalp medicine but I don't trust him. 

>The same is true for scalping, if you 
>think it's imoral, don't deal with them, however don't begrudge others who
>choose to do so.

	1. I think scalping is immoral
	2. I don't deal with them
	3. I had to look "begrudge" up in the dictionary
	4. I don't begrudge others who choose to do so
	5. I *wish* they choose not to do so
	6. I begrudge others who brag about paying more and more for tickets
	8. Where did # 7 go ?
	7. Ah here it is ;-)
   
>Sticking to the subject, does this mean you don't approve of Sunday 
>concerts. I'll bet there are a lot of 16 to 60 working an event
>who need to rest one day......

    I am hoping that they get their Thursdays off. If they work 7 days a
    week then they too need to rest one day. It doesn't have to be Sunday.
    I know that at least one day rest is necessary because many months I go
    working across week boundaries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Dave;

>Please address this one point

    	You mean it is not already addressed ? Dave, I did answer your
    	questions even before you asked them.

	Dave, your very first reply to this topic was : "that is ordinary 
	capitalism". I oppose to explaining the right/wrong of something by
	saying that it is casual capitalism. That's why I gave those examples
	in my previous note (I believe .110, not sure). Something can comply
	with all the rules of capitalism and still can be immoral.

>This is getting boring.

	I agree. I said that it was getting tiring. It was fun before John
	made his grand entrance ;-) Just kidding, what I meant to say was, it
	was fun before we all started to post the edited revisions of our
	previous replies. My last question to you was the milk scalper and you
	answered that. And my last answer to you is "I don't trust someone who
	scalps tickets, he might very well be more harmful to society if he
	sees the opportunity". 
    
>    	How more clear cut a distinction could there be for why government
>    	intervention is justified in the case of milk, and not in the
>    	of concert tickets could there be?

	Maybe we don't need a more clear cut distinction. I believe I said 
	numerous times before that I would feel more comfortable with legal
	scalping, maybe because it would attract people who like doing 
	business only the legal way and maybe that would make me feel more
	secure. I don't know. Scalping, as it is, just doesn't feel right.
	That's me. I counted many reasons. There are things I don't like
	about it and they are all combined to form my overall opinion. I
	am annoyed that it increases the price margin and makes it hard for me
	(or for my 19 year old student niece) to afford. I don't know what
    	the dominating reason is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	John;
    
>Shut up and play yer guitar!  *8')
    
	I am not a guitar player, but you claim to be one, so you shut up
	and play yer guitar ;-)

>This is getting pretty boring...
    
	I was enjoying it before you got here ;-)

>Scalpers may be able to affect some kind of momentary fluctuation in
>the availability of goods    

	Momentary ? Scalpers may be able to make the goods unavailable 
    	alltogether. That's why they are bad. Throughout the history, there
    	have been many cases of severe black market cases. I have experienced
    	a few of them and people are experiencing some in several countries
    	right now (e.g. Russia).

	But, honestly, how much did you *really* pay for those tickets ?

	;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everybody;

	I won't be able to note until next Friday, %30 of my  implementation 
	plan is due 28th of May. And Jim is going on vacation tomorrow night
	until 1st of June. But we will be back. We will resume replying to 
	this note if necessary but we hope we won't have to. Since everything
	has been said already.

	See you in June

	Lale

    Re -.1
    
    I agree with you Sean.  Just seems that they're acting, in db's words
    "counter-intuitively" ( I love that phrase )
    
    db - you're obviously a very intelligent guy - my hat is off to you -
    but i think Brian was right a few replies back - we should just agree
    to disagree.  btw we *do* agree on something - see the music censorship
    note :-)
    
    As Lale said, I'm off on vacation as of 12:00 today til the 1st of June
    - have fun *working*, everyone! ( heh heh heh ) ;-)
    
    				Adios,   Jim

>    ok - I'll agree - promoters should be able to allow resale of tickets
>    when in their best interests - after all - it's their show - they pay
>    the bills.  but when would it be in their best interests?  
    
    It really depends on the situation.  If there's going to be a
    guaranteed sell-out (Bruce Springsteen doing one show at the Garden
    for example), it's not in there best interests.
    
    If it's not clear that there will be a sellout, I would definitely
    sell tickets to scalpers.  The tickets they sell to scalpers are
    "sales" like any other.  If the scalper doesn't sell the seat,
    the promoter STILL gets the money.  Not so with Ticketron.
    
>    Why keep everything so shady?  afraid the fans would boycott?
    
    The way tickets are CURRENTLY sold (not going after full market value)
    there might be such a concern today.
    
    However, I think there's a good liklihood that promoters will slowly
    migrate towards charging market value for tickets, possibly directly
    using the scalpers as retailers.  The change will be gradual and
    because of that, I think people will get used to it.
    
    I can you all saying "NEVER!", but I think the combination of the
    clear opportunity and the profit motive is too strong for artists,
    promoters and such to resist.  I think they'd do it now if it weren't
    for the backlash they'd get from fans who currently expect to pay
    less than market value for their tickets.
    
    I think the promoters WOULD like to get the $300 folks are paying
    for front-row tickets.  You may differ.
    

>    If we hate them so much, how come we patronize them so often?

    hate being held by the short hairs

    Lale,
    
    Are you planning to address .110.  As I've said, I just don't buy
    this "today tickets, tommorrow milk" because one involves a threat
    to life and health and the other involves a threat to your getting
    Bowie tickets.  There is a CLEAR-CUT line that can be drawn between
    the two.
    
    I really wish you'd speak to that comment.
    
    And besides, you can use an argument like that to justify nearly
    any position: "today they kill fetuses, tommorrow they'll kill
    newborns"; "Today we give kids condoms, tommorrow we'll teach them
    sexual skills".
    
    But there's other reasons I just don't buy it.  For example, the amount
    of capital needed to corner the milk market is at least 6 orders of
    magnitude higher than the amount needed to snarf up all the best Bowie
    tix.  It just strikes me as beyond far-fetched.
    
    I'm not sure that there's anyone in the world rich enough to even
    contemplate doing that.

    Re -.1
    
    gradual change . . .
    
    already happening - Gold Circle seats at Great Woods . . .
    
    
    					- Jim
    

>>    If we hate them so much, how come we patronize them so often?
    
>    hate being held by the short hairs
    
    If someone with a Bowie ticket is capable of "holding you by the short
    hairs" I would say that you have an unhealthy compulsion with regard
    to going to concerts.
    
    Another good question:
    
    	If we think what they do is so scummy, why do participate in it
    	so much.
    
    I see two answers:
    
    	o Their OWN greed overcomes their moral conviction or
    
    	o They moral conviction regarding scalping being wrong isn't
    	  at all strong.
    
    Like most moral issues, the best answers are found within oneself.

    >If we think what they do is so scummy, why do we participate so much?
    
    Obvious - because *they have all the good tickets* - if we want good
    seats, often we *have* to go to a scalper because they *already have
    the tickets!* before we get a chance to buy them!!  That's the whole
    point, Dave - the part I think is lame is that these guys get a chance
    to buy the tickets at face value and resell them to me *before* I get a
    crack at the face-value!!  ( am I repeating myself, here? ;-) )
    
    	No problem with the promoters upping the prices for the good seats.
    
    	No problems with having no ceiling on ticket prices.
    
    	my problem is with the way it is occuring now - why keep a pretense
    of equality about it?  Why not tell us ( the public ) - these front
    sections are going to be sold to these agencies and will not be
    available except through them.  If they feel so morally correct about
    it, why are they so sleazy about it?
    
    		Now I'm really confused :-)
    
    						Jim
    

    > >If we think what they do is so scummy, why do we participate so much?
    
    > Obvious - because *they have all the good tickets* - if we want good
    > seats, often we *have* to go to a scalper because they *already have
    > the tickets!* before we get a chance to buy them!!  
    
    Uh... I really don't think that answers my question.
    
    Unless you think that buying tickets from scalpers doesn't contribute
    to the "scumminess".
    
    I mean, your answer is someone stealing the Mona Lisa, and you buy it
    knowing it was immorally acquired and saying (paraphrasing) "If we want
    the Mona Lisa we *have* to go to an art their because they have it."
    
    > If they feel so morally correct about it, why are they so sleazy 
    > about it?
    
    Because they know that not every one else accepts their moral right to
    do that.
    
    It's like gays who believe being gay is morally acceptable but don't come
    out and say "I'm gay", for fear of losing their jobs/businesses/etc.
    
    Do you fault them (gays) for doing that?  I don't, and I would grant
    the same consideration to concert promoters.  Years and years of doing
    it a particular way have caused people to have certain expectations
    on how tickets are distributed, even though they are not entitled
    to that.

    
    
    interesting timing with this note and the censorship note. 
    
    It would seem that morality is in the eye of the beholder ??? Not such
    an easy thing to legislate.
    
    
    Bob

> I would say that you have an unhealthy compulsion with regard
>    to going to concerts.

no argument there!  ;-)  Just like some folks have an unhealthy
compulsion with regard to endless unresolvable debates...  :-)

Guess i'll just give up that particular brand of fun due to my
(internal) moral outrage.  Political correctness does have its
costs.

[... naw, I'd rather pay the bucks and bitch about it   :-)   ]

Cheers, everybody.  

>> I would say that you have an unhealthy compulsion with regard
>>    to going to concerts.

>no argument there!  ;-)  Just like some folks have an unhealthy
>compulsion with regard to endless unresolvable debates...  :-)
    
    No argument there either.  ;-)

    I'm reposting this with some grammatical errors and typos corrected .
    It had enough typos and errors to be potentially confusing.
    
    > >If we think what they do is so scummy, why do we participate so much?
    
    > Obvious - because *they have all the good tickets* - if we want good
    > seats, often we *have* to go to a scalper because they *already have
    > the tickets!* before we get a chance to buy them!!  
    
    Uh... I really don't think that answers my question.
    
    Unless you think that buying tickets from scalpers doesn't contribute
    to the "scumminess".
    
    I mean, your answer is like someone stealing the Mona Lisa, and you
    buying it knowing it was immorally acquired and saying (paraphrasing)
    "If we want the Mona Lisa we *have* to go to an art theif because they
    have it."
    
    > If they feel so morally correct about it, why are they so sleazy 
    > about it?
    
    Because they know that not every one else accepts their moral right to
    do that.
    
    It's like gays who believe being gay is morally acceptable but don't come
    out and say "I'm gay", for fear of losing their jobs/businesses/etc.
    
    Do you fault them (gays) for doing that?  I don't, and I would grant
    the same consideration to concert promoters.  Years and years of doing
    it a particular way have caused people to have certain expectations
    on how tickets are distributed, even though those expectations are
    expectations they are not really entitled to have.

    
	I am very reluctant to pursue this stale topic, however, I see
	that I have been asked a question, so I'll be answering. Hope it
	will be the last time. 

	Dave ;

>    Lale, please respond to .110
>    Lale,
>    Are you planning to address .110.  
>    I really wish you'd speak to that comment.

	Gee, I guess you *really* want me to answer, huh ?   ;-) ;-)

	May I re-post some of the reasons I have already listed ? Or do you want
	me to re-format them or something ? I believe I already answered your
	questions when I said :

}    I don't know, Dave. 	
}    - Maybe because it just doesn't sound right
}    - Maybe because the guy who scalps tickets today might scalp
}      necessities in case of emergency  
}    - Maybe because it increases the price margin and makes 
}      luxuries/necessities unaffordable 
}    - Maybe because it is not good for the economy 
}    - Maybe because it might lead to chaos or monopoly 
}    - Maybe because it is unfair to the concert goers 
}    - Maybe because the soundman is not getting what he deserves 
}    - Maybe because the performer is not getting what I pay to see him 
}    - Maybe because the scalper is not paying his taxes 
}    - Maybe because I don't need the scalper's *service* and he is hindering 
}      my chances of getting good seats by being over-zealous and purchasing 
}      the tickets to serve me better (!) 
}    - Maybe because this is the way I am 
}    - Maybe all of the above.
}
}    I don't know.

	Or when I said :

}	Maybe we don't need a more clear cut distinction. I believe I said 
}	numerous times before that I would feel more comfortable with legal
}	scalping, maybe because it would attract people who like doing 
}	business only the legal way and maybe that would make me feel more
}	secure. I don't know. Scalping, as it is, just doesn't feel right.
}	That's me. I counted many reasons. There are things I don't like
}	about it and they are all combined to form my overall opinion. I
}	am annoyed that it increases the price margin and makes it hard for me
}	(or for my 19 year old student niece) to afford. I don't know what
}    	the dominating reason is.

    	I really don't have much to add other than to quote a fellow noter
    	who wrote to me in a mail message

	" When I make a point I like to know that they have
	considered the point and understand why they don't accept it - or just
	have them tell me they accept the point but don't find it compelling. "

	So I will say I that I accept the point, I just don't find it
    	compelling.

>I just don't buy this "today tickets, tommorrow milk" 

	What can I do ? I cannot make you buy it. I believe each scalper
	(the ones that comply with the real meaning of the word, not the
	legal, legitimate, tax paying businesses) has a potential for
	scalping necessities for money. Because I have seen necessities
	being scalped. You obviously don't have the fear I do. 
	    
>    "Today we give kids condoms, tommorrow we'll teach them sexual skills".

	Yeah !

	;-)
    
	Dave, I don't use the same technique in every discussion ;-)
	I am fairly creative.

	Besides, I don't have anything against those two examples you 
	have given, therefore I wouldn't need to argue in that way.
	I doubt any of my friends will kill newborns and I long as you 
	feel comfortable in doing so I don't see a lot of disadvantages 
	in teaching youngsters sexual skills, hopefully the advise giver 
	is an expert thereof ;-)

	I just thought of two other things I have seen in black market :
	
	1. Taxi license plates. Government had a limit on the number of
	taximetercabrioles that could work in one town, so the old 
	licenses had to be recycled. Scalpers bought all the ones they
	could lay their hands on and the people who had to drive a
	taxi for a living had to come up with big bucks.
	
	2. Telephone numbers : Before NT came into our lives (not Windows
	NT, Northern Telecom) the phone system in Istanbul was pretty
	congested. In order to get a phone number you had to wait for a
	subscriber to die. These ever so hard to get phone numbers were
	issued by the PTT for a negligible fee. Demand was huge
	(Istanbul's population is now 8 million) and supply was close to
	zero. The rest you can imagine. 

	I realize that neither of these real blackmarket situations
	constitute an analogy for the ticket scalping. I just put them in
	for variety. They do make a point though, that scalping for
	necessities can happen. 

	Lale

>	So I will say I that I accept the point, I just don't find it
>    	compelling.
    
    Thank you.  Believe it or not, I'm extremely grateful.

>>I just don't buy this "today tickets, tommorrow milk" 

>	What can I do ? I cannot make you buy it. 
    
    I made two points regarding that:
    
    	a) no person on earth has the financial resources to
    	   accomplish that and 
    
    	b) the government can/should/does and WOULD take action in the 
    	   case of necessitities.   The clear distinction between tickets
    	   and milk is that one is a clearcut luxury and the other is
    	   a clearcut necessitity.
    
    Certainly if you believed (EITHER of) these two things you would not
    fear the "Milk scenario".  That you do, clearly indicates that you do
    not believe iether of these two things. 
    
    Explaining why you don't agree is is "what you can do".
    
>>    "Today we give kids condoms, tommorrow we'll teach them sexual skills".

	I just thought of two other things I have seen in black market :
	
>	They do make a point though, that scalping for necessities can happen.
    
    Being that it's not germaine, I will grant you the point that scalping 
    necessities can happen.  OK?
    
    The issue I take is that I don't believe the government should take
    action in the case of luxuries but SHOULD/CAN/DOES take action in the
    case of necessities.
    
    The difference is that in the case of luxuries the market has the
    power and the options to deal with the scalper: it can stop buying.
    
    The market does NOT have that option in the case of a commodity and
    THAT is why it needs the government's intervention.

    Beats me why anyone would go to see Greatful Dead, Who, Stones, etc.,
    etc., when there are better bands that aren't famous yet that you can
    see for peanuts.  There are lots of bands that are better than any band
    you can name...there will ALWAYS be better bands; the GD, Who, STones
    were "better bands" that replaced whatever was before them...
    
    Besides, you've already heard everything the popular bands know...you
    ain't gonna be surprised by anything they do (musically).
    
    Go see the unknown.  Take a chance.  The famous bands bore me.  
    
    Better still, learn to play an instrument, or sing.  Music, like sex,
    is a better participation sport than a spectator sport.  
    
    I think I'd rather spend 200 bux on a hooker than a scalper... ;-) ;-)
    
    Carl

    > I'd rather spend $200 on a hooker than a scalper...
    
    Same result...
    
    Edd
    

    
    Well, I must confess I'm glad to see one of my favorite bands taking
    what appears to be an active role in some of this monkey-business... 
    which is what I'd been lobbying for back in the beginning.
    
    Sources tell me that Steely Dan tix for the Montain View (CA)
    "Shorline" show are going on sale this morning - *all* the tickets,
    as no advance ticket sales were allowed "at the request of the
    artists!"  ??
    
    - Sean

    Well, considering the madness of trying to score tix on the day they
    went on sale, I have to thank the scalpers. I picked up two more
    tickets Saturday, inside the shed, for $60 a piece. (I have 6 now.)
    
    Time or money. Some people have one, some folks have another.
    
    Edd

    
    Wanna trade? :^) :^) :^) 
    
    (time for money, that is, not tix)
    
    Btw, glad to see you got the tix you were looking for!  
    
    - Sean

    Rathole moved:
    
    > "I'd rather play to an empty house than to one filled by scalpers."
    
    Bulltwockey. Nice PR. Real PC. Pure BS. 1960's Flower-talk...
    
    What should BJ give a care what I paid for the ticket? (Assuming I'd
    part with my money to see him.)
    
    If he wants the prices to come down he can make it happen. Tour more
    often and play more dates. Supply and demand ain't rocket science...
    
    Edd

    Supply and Demand ? yeah the scalper buy up the supply and demand more.
    
    thats BS.

    The scalpers don't demand a given price. They offer, and the buying public 
    has the option to purchase or not.
    
    Incredibly fair.
    
    Edd
    
    

    so you're saying that the buying public buys all the tickets they want 
    at face value then the scalpers get the rest ? 
    They then set a price above face value and if we want we can then buy 
    the tickets from them....?
    
    >Incredibly fair. ? 
    
    I think not....tell that to the person that was shut out at the 
    box-office
    
    this debate really gos nowhere....
    
    all I can say is that I would never buy a ticket from a scalper and I
    would hope others can see that doing so only drives the price up....

    > so you're saying that the buying public buys all the tickets they want 
    > at face value then the scalpers get the rest ? 
    
    nope, I'm saying the public (of which scalpers are a part of) have a
    number of chances to buy tickets a various prices. They have just as
    many chances to "just say no" to any price.
    
    > I think not....tell that to the person that was shut out at the 
    > box-office
    
    I can't buy the car I want at a price I'm willing to pay. Is that
    unfair? The car actually costs much less, but there's all these middle
    men making a profit. They ask more for the car than I will pay, so they
    don't get my money. I think that's fair.
        
    
    >...doing so only drives the price up....
    
    I agree 100%. But the market will bear the price, so I have to believe
    that this discretionary product is under-priced to begin with.
    
    Edd

    
    It's pretty simple really... if people continue to pay ridiculous
    prices to scalpers the scalpers will continue to charge these
    ridiculous prices. If people refused to pay scalper-scum for tix they'd
    soon disappear. 
    
    							-jeff

    Edd's argument makes emintly good sense. Concert ticket prices are not a
    function of supply and demand market dynamics. They are fixed by the
    industry parties that have a vested interest in promoting the artist so
    that they can part you from your money at the record store. The object
    is not to make a ton of money at concerts. High ticket prices would be
    bad PR.

    --Ron

    
    
    beating the Billy Joel scenerio into the ground....
    
    if he plays one concert per location, supply is very short, scalpers
    can buy up a decent amount of tickets, resell, etc. 
    
    If he plays 10 shows per location, scalpers would not be able to, 
    nor would they risk, buying up all available tickets. Plenty of supply 
    for everyone.
    
    I like B.J alot but I agree with the previous noter who said his
    comments were pure B.S. . It's just another example of the over
    simplified message. "Just Say No", "Peace", etc. If he really want to 
    make sure that his shows aren't sold out to scalpers, he should just
    do more shows....
    
   Bob

    WRT Billy Joel's need to play more concerts per venuw:
    
    I'm a bit uneasy about the direct implication that an artist has no
    right to control the price of his or her works and/or concerts.
    
    Let's say an artist wishes to spread the joy of painting among the
    masses, and so decides to offer paintings at a cheap price. Let's say,
    however, that some people who'd like ot make money off this practice
    have the opportunity to purchase the best of these paintings (at the
    artist's) price) and then resell them at astronomical prices. Applying
    th rationale used on Mssr. Joel, the artist is then compelled to paint
    more paintings in order to accomplish the original purpose.
    
    I think the problem of scalpers is one more akin to commodity trading
    than anything else- except that the SEC has no jurisdiction to prevent
    monopoly and/or insider trading. An artist *should* be able to control
    pricing of concerts, IMHO.
    
    Bob
    

    Re: .153
    
    A friend of mine is a painter who belongs to a small artists'
    collective that operated out of a storefront in the downtown of
    Worcester. MA.  
    
    One day in an effort to move some paintings, he hung a sign labelled
    "Cheap Art: Make Offer" in the window and was quite willing to let his
    work go for whatever someone was willing to pay (in his mind the true
    value of it). Anyway, the other collective members got quite upset
    saying he was going to deflate the prices for their stuff by selling
    his too cheap...sheesh.
    
    							Brian

    Re: .153 (Ashforth)
    
    > Monopoly promotes unethical behavior
    
    Why do you believe that scalpers have a monopoly?  Is there just one
    scalper out there?  Or perhaps a cartel?  Do you think all the seats
    in the house were tickets bought from scalpers?
    
    I can not see what monopoly has to do with this?  Please explain?
    
    Bob, I think Billy Joel does have the same control over his prices
    that any other offerer of a commodity has.
    
    If I start selling 1 gigabyte hard drives at $10 each, but can only
    make so many at a time, there is nothing to prevent someone from
    buying them all up in various ways and reselling them for $500.
    
    IMHO, the control you seek for Billy Joel goes beyond control
    of the ticket face price, it's control of the market price.
    
    Sorry, can't do that in a free market economy - wouldn't want to
    either.
    

Re .155:

There's no big issue to discuss here, Dave- if scalpers had to stand in line like
anyone else and purchase the tickets, then it would be free market economy.
(When'd you ever hear of a scalper camping out all night to get a good place in
line?) That's the real issue, the advantage of getting tickets *before* anyone
has access to them on a free market basis, thus turning what the artist intended
to be a fixed price into a competitive, highest-bidder situation.

Bob

    Bob,
    
    Inherent in your note is the "charge" that scalpers get their tickets
    before anyone has access to them.
    
    Maybe that does happen.  I don't know.  But what I want to know is
    why YOU are under the impression that that's how scalpers get their
    tickets.
    
    Do you think Billy Joel sells tickets to scalpers before they go on sale?
    
    I was under the impression that scalpers get their tickets by HIRING 
    people to stand in line or making high dollar offers to people with
    tickets.
    
    I'm not asking this with a mind to debate you on whether it happens.
    I'm just asking why YOU think it happens to see if there is some
    substantive evidence you are familiar with that I'm not.
    
    As a "suspicion" it seems plausible.
    
    	db

Dave, I'm going on the word of stalwart fellow noters who have indicated that
this (i.e., "insider" massive ticket purchases prior to retail availability) is
the norm for scalpers. I have little direct knowledge of this, but I trust the
word of noters who have stated publicly that this is a fact.

"Trustworthy hearsay," I guess I'd call it.

(FWIW, I have no problem with anyone who wants to stand in line and buy tickets
just to make money by reselling them- to me, that *is* free market.)

Bob

    Wow. That's news to me. I always thought that scalpers hired people to
    stand in line and that that's why promoters have the ticket limit on
    per-person puchases at the window. Did I miss something or am I just
    naive?

    --Ron

> Did I miss something or am I just naive?

Or mebbe both? <g> While I do, as I said, believe the folks who've stated that
large numbers of tickets are sold to scalpers *before* they're publicly
available, I don't see any way that would prevent other enterprising individuals,
who lack the "inside connections" to do this, from doing just what you describe.

Bob

    The reason I tend not to believe it is that most promotors seem to go
    out of their way to avoid scalping by having limits, NOT doing mail
    order, etc. etc.   Why would they impose policies to inhibit scalping
    while selling to scalpers?  
    
    I'd also be curious to know how your noter knows that this is going on?
    
    > I trust the word of noters who have stated publicly that this is a fact.
    
    My personal experience with people offering "facts" in notesfiles would
    incline me to say that you are definitely a trusting kinda guy.
    
    	db

    
    In replies .78 and .81, Steve (Owen ?) and Lorna, respectively, are
    telling "briefcase" stories. I believe them both.
    
    >how your noter knows that this is going on?
    
    Your fellow noter has seen it happen right before his/her eyes.
    They are sharing what they have experienced. I have no reason to think
    that they are lying.
    
    Lale

     
    re. proof of scalpers getting early tix:
    
    When you are standing 1st in line when tickets go on sale at 10:00 am,
    even considering the worst case scenario of every other person standing at
    every other TicketMaster and every operator's first caller all BEATING you
    to the punch, simple math doesn't add up when your "best available" seat 
    pops up in the 40th row.
    
    Ticketmaster is an out and out joke in this deptartment, but others
    aren't a whole lot better.
    
    I can't argue against a merket-driven economy, but I sort of think that
    if any producer decides that he wants to sell a commodity at a certain
    price, that is his FREEDOM.  And extraneous, making-money-from-money, 
    people who neither produce nor consume middle men are decidely 
    ANTI-capitalism.  They destroy the products perception (value) in the
    eyes of the consumer, and don't even consume (or enjoy) the product.  Yes, 
    they enjoy the money.  But, capitalist that I am, I just don't hold
    favor to people who make money by producing zilch (and don't tell me 
    they produce a service).
    
    Money for services rendered - fine.  Not money for someone to transfer 
    the service at a higher rate, skim some off for himself, and finally get 
    the service out.  What is efficient or desirable about an nd expensive
    and redundant service?  About the only capitalistic thing I see about
    it is that capitalism allows for the production of low quality goods
    for consumers who accept and are willing to pay for it.  Doesn't mean
    I won't try to stop it from happening.
    
    - Sean

    
    I agree with every word Sean has written in the previous note.
    
    Excellent note, Sean. 
    
    Lale
    

    	about the volume of tickets these out-of-state ticket agents (what
    I still call a scalper) get.....the last tour of Clapton was enough 
    proof for me to believe that these agents (sic) get tickets in blocks
    I bought one ticket at the Greatwoods box office @1.5 hours before show
    time in the 6th or 7th row !!! GREAT huh ! well for me....but not for
    the people who were sitting around me, they all bought their tickets
    from the same agent in RI for @3x the face value....how did this agent
    get rows of tickets ? by chance ? I just can believe that all the
    people they so-call get to stand in line bought 3 rows worth of tickets
    by chance....maybe they did but for some odd reason I feel that someone
    is making big bucks by scamming us to believe that they are doing the
    buying public a favor....
    
    Chris

    I not going to defend ticket outlets lick Ticketron et al. Frankly I
    hate the bastards and the whole system. But there are a lot of things
    that go on with ticket sales that have nothing to do with scalping, in
    it's the conventional sense. For instance, radio stations give away lots
    of tickets. It's been my impression that they get consideration in the
    form of ticket deals for helping to promote the event (like when the
    spots say "QUESTIONABLE CONCERTS and WXXX present..." and on another
    station the same show is promoted as "QUESTIONABLE CONCERTS and WZZZ
    present..."). These deals are all made before tickets go on sale to the
    general public. Maybe (I don't know) they can't print tickets or are
    unable to print tickets until the day of the show when the ticket data
    is on line.

    Also, "sleazy looking" means nothing when you're talking about people
    that work around the fringes of r&r radio and concert promotion.

    --Ron

    For me the basic question remains:  How come no matter how fast a
    concert sells out, the ticket agencies that advertise in the Boston
    Phoenix *always* have plenty of good seats available, for 2 or 3 times
    the face value?
    
    That, right there, tells me something "funny" is going on.
    
    Plus, I did see what I said I saw in .81.  
    
    Also, I bought my Neil Young tix, for the Great Woods show, last month,
    from a scalper a couple days after the show had sold out and I had
    fairly good seats.  They were about 20 rows back in the Section 1.  
    
    I've *never* gotten seats that good, for Great Woods, when I've managed
    to get through before the show is sold out, and buy them at face value
    straight from Ticketmaster.
    
    Lorna
    

    BTW, I guess ticket scalping isn't solely an American problem.  Last
    month when my daughter went to Dublin to see U2, she had purchased one
    ticket prior to going over.  After she got to Ireland, she bought a
    ticket for the other U2 concert, from a scalper, on the street in
    Dublin.
    
    Lorna
    

    One source of tickets for scalpers is freebies given to "sponsors". 
    For example, some major businesses in Worcester regularly get blocks of
    "comp" tickets to Centrum shows.  Now the people who get these tickets
    at the office may decide to unload them to a scalper rather than use
    them.  This works great for rock shows, the bank president probablky
    will hang onto the Neil Diamond tix but pass on Megadeth. 
    
    Other recipients of chunks of seats may include the promoter himself,
    radio stations, newspapers, etc.
    
    Another source is swapping.  Many years ago while waiting in line for
    Bob Seger tix in New Haven (this was in the days where the box office
    had exclusive access to the first thirty rows on the floor), I saw two
    guys with briefcases swapping tickets.  They were also asking people in
    line if they were not buying their limit (four seats), would they mind
    buying a few extra, etc.
    
    							Brian

    The promoter may also need to acquire tickets for VIPs like friends and
    family of the band and other people associated with the event. Of
    course, none of this makes you feel any better when you've given it your
    best effort and can only come up with seats 40 rows back.

    --Ron

    RE. LAST
    
    It depends on the venue for VIP tickets.  I've been on the guest list,
    and every place we went to was different.  Some actually give lawn
    tickets to the VIP's (luckily I never got them).
    
    Anyway, this has been my experience.
    
    Nancy

>    Money for services rendered - fine.  
    
    The "service" that scalpers provide are:
    
    	o Hiring people to stand in line
    	o Buying tickets from other people
    	o Providing their clients with the fruits of "bulk buying power"
    	  which might include getting tickets before they go on sale.
    
    More examples provided on request.
    
    To me, this is everyday ordinary capitalism.
    
    If they are violating a contract of some kind, then yes, that's wrong.
    
    The point is, that the scenario you all object to could happen legally
    and happens in everyday ordinary run-of-the-mill legal capitalism.
    
    	db

    >	o Providing their clients with the fruits of "bulk buying power"
    > 	  which might include getting tickets before they go on sale.
    
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    
    Yeah, my local drug dealer provides me with "bulk buyuing power" too
    
    8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    							Brian

We've all had the same experience. You want to get good seats for a
show that you really care about. So you stay home, spend an hour
hitting the redial button on your phone, and strike out because you
never really had a chance. There simply aren't any good seats to be
had unless you're willing to pay through the nose for them. 

The simple truth is that ticket distribution isn't fair to the public.
So what can we do about it (besides complaining about scalpers)? How
about a law requiring that a certain percentage of seats be made
available to the public? Anyone interested in lobbying for it?

Barry

    >>	o Providing their clients with the fruits of "bulk buying power"
    >> 	  which might include getting tickets before they go on sale.
    
    >ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    
    Brian, 
    
    When you recover your composure, perhaps you can tell me how this
    is any different from things like large department stores getting
    the best prices and first pick of goods, large dealerships getting
    the first pick of cars, and about a zillion other things.
    
    Have you never heard of such things?   What country did you say
    you live in?  (I've heard MA described as a "socialist state"
    but always thought that was an exageration, if only slight).
    
    	db

    db, you've got the wrong analogy. Bear in mind that whenever any single
    party (or company) has exclusive access to a commodity prior to it
    being available to any other party, that is *not* free market
    capitalism. What if someone had the prerogative to sit in the studio at
    every recording session and have "right of first refusal" on any track,
    and then mastered and resold the best sessions at five times the price
    of other CDs and or cassettes?
    
    I'd love to hear why you think offering the services of "bulk buying
    power" is a *benefit* to the public, rather than an offense. If they
    did not offer this "benefit," prices would be lower and any
    individual's chance at getting a good seat would be, at least to an
    extent, determined by their willingness/stamina/whatever to get a good
    place in line.
    
    All IMHO, o' course.
    
    Bob

>    I'm never for government intervention.  I'd rather see "we the people"
>    do something about it.  And the only way that'll happen is if people
>    don't support them.  

Get real. You have about as much chance of organizing a successful boycott
against ticket scalpers as you do of flying to Mars. If you want to change 
things, you have to work within the system, which means changing the laws.

Barry

    > determined by willingness...to stand in line.
    
    Is that any more "unfair" to those of us who don't have the time to
    camp out than using an agency is to those who can't afford to pay big
    bux for a seat?
    
    > (to the effect of) "I don't believe anyone wants the service."
    
    After playing "redial roulette" to get lawn seats for Steely Dan, and
    then making one phone call to get decent tickets, I doubt I'll ever
    bother with the "authorized outlets" again. My time's too valuable to
    plan an entire day around getting tickets.
    
    I find value in the service.
    
    Edd 

>    db, you've got the wrong analogy. Bear in mind that whenever any single
>    party (or company) has exclusive access to a commodity prior to it
>    being available to any other party, that is *not* free market
>    capitalism. 
    
    Umm, I don't know why you think it isn't (you gave no reason), and I
    don't know why that does NOT apply to my analogy, and thus I'm at a
    loss to understand what you are saying.
    
    
    > What if someone had the prerogative to sit in the studio at
>     every recording session and have "right of first refusal" on any track,
>     and then mastered and resold the best sessions at five times the price
>    of other CDs and or cassettes?
    
    I would say that they wouldn't sell many if they sold above the 
    market value.  Do you think CD's are currently priced below the
    market value, like concert tickets?   I've read a whole LOT of
    articles suggesting that they are actually priced above the optimal
    point in terms of Keynesian economics (I.E.  if they reduced their
    price, they'd make more money in volume).
    
>    I'd love to hear why you think offering the services of "bulk buying
>    power" is a *benefit* to the public, rather than an offense. If they
>    did not offer this "benefit," prices would be lower and any
>    individual's chance at getting a good seat would be, at least to an
>    extent, determined by their willingness/stamina/whatever to get a good
>    place in line.
    
    Bob,  I'm surprised that you're asking this question.
    
    If there were no "benefit", why do you suppose so many people are
    using scalpers?  
    
    One obvious benefit is that, you do NOT have to stand in line for what only
    amounts to a chance of getting a ticket.
    
    You don't think that's a benefit?  Oh that's right, I forgot... you're a
    consultant.  You can always take the day off to stand in line...
    
    ;-)
    
    I agree with .-1.  I don't think it's "fairer" that people who can
    afford stand in line get the tickets at all.  Ironically, one set
    of the people who can "afford to stand in line" is the people scalpers
    hire.
    
    I don't think it's more unfair that the people who can pay more money
    for the tickets get them before the people who can't (or won't).
    
    Is it unfair that you get preferential goods and services than an
    unemployed garbage collector because you can pay for them?
    
    You seem to have this theory of fairness that money should be
    neutralized as an advantage in distributing concert tickets.  That
    sure doesn't seem like "free market capitalism" either.
    
    	db

.177> Is it legal?  Yes.

Ticket scalping is not legal.    

    db, why so many people use these scalpers is they seem to get the
    tickets before the buying public can through normal means (by phone,stand 
    in line).....if ticketmaster has a deal with these people then why
    don't they say they do.....it might be they DON'T but some of the
    ticketmaster outlets must be setting aside tickets for these
    out-of-state agents, is that right ? (I don't know if this is happening
    but if it is then we the public are not getting a service)
    
    scalping is legal is some states, RI can sell tickets for venues in MA
    at a profit....sad but true.

>>   then making one phone call to get decent tickets, I doubt I'll ever
				       ^^^^^^
But I thought that the seats you had were obstructed by someone dancing...
Oops, wrong rathole...

I really hate to do lengthy quotes, but in this case I'm afraid context would be
*totally* lost otherwise- sorry.

>>    db, you've got the wrong analogy. Bear in mind that whenever any single
>>    party (or company) has exclusive access to a commodity prior to it
>>    being available to any other party, that is *not* free market
>>    capitalism. 
    
>    Umm, I don't know why you think it isn't (you gave no reason), and I
>    don't know why that does NOT apply to my analogy, and thus I'm at a
>    loss to understand what you are saying.

Sorry, I thought the reason was self-evident: I'm referring quite explicitly to
the practice of obtaining tickets *before* the buying public has the oportunity
to do so- to use Lale's succinct term, the "briefcase" scenario. That's called
monopoly, not free-market competitiveness.
    
>>    I'd love to hear why you think offering the services of "bulk buying
>>    power" is a *benefit* to the public, rather than an offense. If they
>>    did not offer this "benefit," prices would be lower and any
>>    individual's chance at getting a good seat would be, at least to an
>>    extent, determined by their willingness/stamina/whatever to get a good
>>    place in line.
    
>    Bob,  I'm surprised that you're asking this question.
    
>    If there were no "benefit", why do you suppose so many people are
>    using scalpers?

Because there is no alternative for getting a good seat if all the tickets for
same have become unavailable before the publics gets a chance at them. All that
has happened is that the price has increased.


There are really two different actions being discussed here: (a) that of using
whatever techniques (whether legal or not) work to get a bunch of tickets through
public channels, and (b) that of cutting off the public's opportunity to buy
good tickets by buying them all beforehand. I find (a) unethical, just as I do
the commodity market: the profiteer adds no value, but merely reaps a profit
because they have enough capital to hoard a scarce commodity. However, I find
(b) illegal, immoral, *and* indefensible within any interpretation of capitalism.

Bob


    

    Whoa folks. Can we get a handle on what in fact scalping is first?
    So many of these replies presume greatly varying definitions.

    Here's my cut: The unauthorized resale of scarce tickets at a premium

    Ticketron et al are not scalpers.

    RE: RI

    Can someone in RI legally purchase a $30 ticket to a show and when it's
    sold out sell it out front for a profit? I didn't think there were too
    many places where this was still legal.

    --Ron

    
>>    Can someone in RI legally purchase a $30 ticket to a show and when it's
>>        sold out sell it out front for a profit? I didn't think there were too
>>        many places where this was still legal.
    
    Well, no.  But someone like, say Roth ticket agency, can purchase a $30
    ticket to Great Woods (MA) and sell it to you for $150 at their
    establishment in RI (they may even mail 'em to you).  Roth is not the
    original ticket vendor (like Ticketmaster) - they can buy tickets from 
    Ticketmaster and resell them for whatever they want, legally.
    
    - Sean

    
    Scalping is a DISSERVICE to me.
    
    >I don't understand
    >why a solution for all is worse than a solution for some.
    
    My sentiments exactly. I can see that scalping is convenient/beneficial
    to some of you and I am not against that. I am against the part
    where it ruins my benefits (such as getting a good seat at face value).
    There are solutions (we've talked about some of these in this thread)
    that would please all (except the scalper). None of these solutions
    will work as long as you keep going to scalpers.
    
    I wouldn't mind it at all if the solution for some was neutral (at
    least) for the rest.
    
    Lale

        
    question is where do the scalpers get the good seats from ? isn't it
    likely that many of these good seats start out as promotional, vip,
    etc seats. Could it be so simple that a scalper obtains access to
    a list of who gets these seats. (WXYZ radio, newspaper, joe banker,
    etc) Now all scalper has to do is make offer for tickets, right ?
    If you're mr mucky muck at WXYZ radio or ABC bank and someone offers
    a huge chunk of money for your block of tickets, maybe you sell some or 
    all of them) 
    
     Now from an ethical standpoint. Lets say that 10% of the tickets are
    giveaways/promotional tickets. Some will be won by that lucky 7th
    caller. Some may go to the radio station mgr's daughter. Is it
    unethical for him to sell them or use them, or must he give them all 
    away ???  Either way, not matter when you stand in line, those seats
    were never for sale anyways. The fact that they ended up for resale 
    does not affect your ability to have had a chance at them in the 1st
    place.
    
    
     Bob
    
     Bob

    Bob, if that were true wouldn't that kinda go along the lines of
    PAYOLA ? when a radio station gets LP/CDs from a record company they
    are stamped "promotional not for resale" they can give them away but
    not sell them. would getting a block of tickets be any different ?
    
    Chris

>    ...when a radio station gets LP/CDs from a record company they
>    are stamped "promotional not for resale" they can give them away but
>    not sell them. would getting a block of tickets be any different ?

    No, it's not the same as promotional copies of records. Those are
    special pressings that aren't accounted for in the royalty computations.
    That's my understanding of why the record company puts the NOT FOR
    RESALE notice on them. In other words, if anyone was to purchase the
    promotional copy, the artist would get 0 royalty on the sale, 0% of the
    purchase price. That's not allowed by contract. So no money is to ever
    change hands for that copy. This is supposed to thwart the ability of
    those independent promoters that record companies use from trying to
    make money on what the record company supplied to them free of charge
    and thereby interfere with the flow of the promotional material.

    --Ron

re: LEDS::BURATI 
    
>>.177> Is it legal?  Yes.

>Ticket scalping is not legal.
    
    Scalping IS legal in many states including NH.

>    Our way (no pre-selling to scalpers) gives "you" (pre-selling to scalpers 
>    is okay) AND "us" what we want.  
    
    No it doesn't it "give me what I want".  I can't afford to take a day
    off and go down to the  Berklee office (I live in NH) to get decent
    seats for Larry Carlton or Steve Morse.
    
    > We can, if we choose wait in line for great seats.  
    
    You seem to not accept that seem people do not have the ability to
    "choose" to wait in line.
    
    You also seem to be working on the axiom that it is "fairer" to give
    tickets to people who can wait in line instead of those who can't.
    
    I don't buy that.
    
    You also seem to think that it is unfair to give the tickets to
    people who are willing to pay more for them than those that won't.
    
    I don't buy that either - that is called "Capitalism".
    
    > You can, if you choose, get great seats buy paying big bucks
>    to the scalpers who sent someone to stand in-line to get the tickets 
>    they will resell to you.
>    
>    Your way only benefits you.
    
    What do you mean it only benefits "me"?  It benefits everyone who
    is willing to pay more money to get a good seat.  It benefits everyone
    who doesn't have the time to wait in line.
    
    Any argument that says that "more" people benefit from non-scalping is
    obviously flawed because for every ticket that is scalped, 1 person
    benefits  and 1 person loses.  If the ticket is NOT scalped, again
    1 person benefits, 1 person loses.
    
    I could argue that your way only benefits you because you can wait
    in line and I can't.

>>    If there were no "benefit", why do you suppose so many people are
>>    using scalpers?

>Because there is no alternative for getting a good seat if all the tickets for
>same have become unavailable before the publics gets a chance at them. All that
>has happened is that the price has increased.
    
    No Bob, what clearly has additionaly happened is that who got the
    ticket also changed.  It went into the hands of someone willing to
    pay someone for the service of obtaining htem.  That is the
    "service" the scalper provides.

>There are really two different actions being discussed here: (a) that of using
>whatever techniques (whether legal or not) work to get a bunch of tickets through
>public channels, and (b) that of cutting off the public's opportunity to buy
>good tickets by buying them all beforehand. I find (a) unethical, just as I do
>the commodity market: the profiteer adds no value, but merely reaps a profit
>because they have enough capital to hoard a scarce commodity. However, I find
>(b) illegal, immoral, *and* indefensible within any interpretation of capitalism.
    
    Bob, suppose I make the worlds only supply of a particular perfume.
    
    Is it "illegal, immoral and indefensible" for me to enter an exclusive
    contract for a store to market it?
    
    I think the fallacy of your thinking is that the public has some kind
    of god-given equal right to first shot of this commodity because it's
    concert tickets and not some other commodity like perfume.
    
    Concert tickets are a commodity.  Perfume is a commodity.  I fail
    to see the distinction between them that is significant in this case.

Bob


    

    I think that's perfectly fair.
    
    Edd

    Re: .196
    
    Well, I guess that wraps it up, then  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    						Brian

    Oh, yuk, I'm being *reasonable*...
    
    Edd

    But is it legal in states that actually have major sporting and concert
    events? Like Mass, CA, CO, MD, even CT?

    I recall just watching a TV show (48 Hours I think) on McCartney's tour
    where the police were busting scalpers left and right. But I don't know
    where they where at that point. Minnesota maybe. In short, I'm under the
    impression that most places that have have big sold-out events on a
    regular basis also have passed anti-scalping laws. So NH doesn't, OK.
    But that's hardly a typical example.

    --Ron

    re .199, I'm pretty sure it's legal in Connecticut.  I've bought my
    recent overpriced tickets from an agency in Hartford, that advertizes
    in The Boston Phoenix.
    
    Lorna
    

>    re .199, I'm pretty sure it's legal in Connecticut.  I've bought my
>    recent overpriced tickets from an agency in Hartford, that advertizes
>    in The Boston Phoenix.
    
    Lorna, ticket agents aren't scalpers. They are authorized ticket
    resellers. The promoter allows them to sell tickets at a premium in
    exchange for being part of the ticket distribution system.

    As someone that's attended a number of concerts in Hartford, I'm almost
    certain that scalping (real scalping) is completely illegal in CT.

    Can we nail this terminolgoy down so that we're not talking at cross
    purposes? I think your beef is with concert promoters. They control
    ticket sales.

    --Ron

    Well, why is it that even when concerts sell out in half an hour the
    ticket *agencies* always have good seats available at 2 or 3 times the
    face value of the ticket?  How do they get them?
    
    I have taken time off from work, and waited hours in line, for tickets,
    and had them sell out before I got my turn.  Then, I have gone home,
    called a ticket agency and been able to get good seats but at 3 times
    the face value.  
    
    So, it is not always the case that those who are willing to take time
    off and stand in line will get tickets at face value.  I have taken
    time off, and stood in line, only to have to ultimately buy from the
    ticket agencies at inflated prices.  
    
    I have, also, spent entire mornings trying to get through to
    Ticketmaster, to charge tix at face value, only to have them be sold
    out by the time I do get through.  Then, I call the ticket agencies and
    get good seats but at 3 times the face value.
    
    Why does this happen?  Why do the authorized ticket agencies always
    have good seats available, even for shows that sell out within half an
    hour????
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
     Lorna, and other anti -scalpers, I've brought up what I feel is a
    likely scenerio for how agenices get a hold of good seats to sold out
    shows. (.189) I've yet to see any anti-scalpers refute this as a 
    likely possiblility or tell me why this is unethical, etc.
    
    
     Bob                            

    
    Bob,
    
    So it is not the fault of the scalper but it is the fault of Mr.
    Mucky Muck at WXYZ radio ?
        
    >Some may go to the radio station mgr's daughter. Is it
    >unethical for him to sell them or use them, or must he give them all 
    >away ???  
    
    I don't know. I guess, if he is given them to give away, then maybe
    he should give them away. I don't mind him using some himself or
    giving two to his daughter either. I somehow think that selling them
    is not right. He received them to give away, he chooses to sell them.
    Did he ask the person who gave them to him, "hey, may I sell these ?"
    He is making use of his position to make a few bucks. Doesn't seem
    right. There is a starting point to everything. He sells them to
    scalpers, then scalpers sell them to consumers, prices get higher
    and higher etc. Let me put it this way, if I received tickets to
    give away, I wouldn't even think of selling them. Yes, I find that
    unethical. 
    
    Besides, if they are given to the 7th lucky caller, at least I have a
    chance to win them ;-)
    
    Say, your friend who owns a shampoo factory, gives you samples
    to distribute to your colleagues, to promote his product. Would
    it even occur to you to sell them ? 
    
    Cheers
    
    Lale-anti-scalper

    re .203, well, it seems unlikely to me that promotional tickets could
    account for all the tickets that the agencies and scalpers seem to get
    their hands on.
    
    Also, I don't see why promotional tickets should even be given out for
    the performances of mega stars, such as Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel,
    Rod Stewart, Neil Young, U2, etc.  These shows are guaranteed to sell
    out.  It's not as though nobody will show up, if they don't give away
    some promotional tickets.  So, what's the purpose of this, anyway?
    
    Lorna
    

    > So, what's the purpose...
    
    To get WXYZ to promote the show.
    
    Edd

    Lorna,

    Radio ticket giveaways are mostly for the benefit of the station's image
    -- it makes them look involved in important goings-on. I think they get
    the tickets in exchange for running promotional spots and plugs and
    being able to say that they "present in association with...". Even for
    big names, when a promoter signs on the dotted line for three nights, he
    wants to minimize the chance that he'll sell only 2.5 shows. So any
    radio promo helps. Also, doing it this way helps the promoter's bottom
    line by lowering his advertising costs. This arrangement is to the
    promoter and radio station's mutual benefit. They are all in it to make
    money. Concert overhead is enormous (consider insurance and police
    costs) and can quickly eat up what profit is left in the end. If the
    promoters don't make a profit you're going to find concerts are fewer
    and further between. So every bit helps. Those last 1000 seats may be
    the only money t he promoter gets to keep. And don't forget that the
    promoter isn't just one person, it's a small company that has 
    to make payroll until the next show.

    There's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

    --Ron

    
    
    > So it is not the fault of the scalper but it is the fault of Mr.
    >    Mucky Muck at WXYZ radio ?
    
     I don't see where fault comes in. Suppose you own a radio station.
    Because of business ties, you get x amount of tickets (most likely 
    really good ones) for every event. As was mentioned earlier, some
    concerts may appeal more to your audience than others. In the case
    of a rock station, they would probably not be giving away Neil Diamond
    tickets. 
    
     My question is therefore, is it unethical for them to give these
    tickets to family, friends, friends of friends, etc. And if someone
    gives me a ticket (or block of tickets) is it unethical for me to
    sell them ?I've got to believe that deals are worked out all the time
    and eventually a scalper has the tickets available.
    
    Many people view this as a service. It's certainly easier than calling
    up everyone you know, finding out if they have tickets, and would they
    be willing to sell them. 
    
     Therefore, these tickets are not for sale to the general public, 
    they've already been accounted for. However, some people may not/can not
    use them, and therefore offer them up for sale. At this point they are
    sold at what ever the market will bear.
    
    
     Very similar to season ticket holders for a football or baseball team.
    They usually get 1st crack at playoff tix. (which some may resell)
    usually there are people hunting down these season ticket holders
    willing to offer a tidy sum in exchange for their playoff tickets.
    
    
     Bob  
        

    season ticket holders have to BUY their playoff tickets.
    i would have a problem if season ticket holders got them
    for free and then turned around and sold them.
    i have no problem with scalpers that get the tix
    by standing in line or paying someone else to stand
    in line.  it's the back door and briefcase deals that
    annoy me.  
    
    if a radio station gets them for free, they shouldn't sell them.
    if they get them in exchange for advertising, they 'paid' for them.
    sell em if you want.
    
    this rathole (scalping) is bigger than the people who insist
    on standing at concerts rathole.  
    
    willie

    re: .201 Burati and St. Hilaire
    
>    As someone that's attended a number of concerts in Hartford, I'm almost
>    certain that scalping (real scalping) is completely illegal in CT.
    
    Ron, I have here in front of me a copy of the Worcestor phone book
    and there is an ad for a place called "Ticketworld" with offices in
    Springfield and Hartford.  
    
    The advertisement says:
    
    	 	Choice seats to all 
    
    		o Concerts
    		o Sporting Events
    		o Theatre
    		o Corporate Accounts Welcome
    
    		Anywhere in the world.
    
    That sure sounds like an unauthorized ticket seller to me and if it
    was illegal in CT, I doubt he'd be advertising openly in newspapers and
    phonebooks.
    
    > I didn't think there were too many places where this was still legal.
    
    I think your perception that this is something that is gradually
    being eliminated is wrong, but I don't know what it's based on.
    
    I did read an article about scalping a few years back and the article
    said it was legal in about a dozen states and several states where
    it is illegal are considering legalizing it.
    			
    	db

re: where ticket agencies get good seats

Most respectable ticket agencies (Out Of Town Tickets in Harvard Square comes 
to mind) establish a relationship with the local promoters, and buy blocks
of tickets directly from them for every show. Think of them as being season
ticket holders for Great Woods, similar to having season tickets for the
Bruins or Celtics. They even get the same seats for every show usually.

At one time the promoters didn't really care if some of these ticket agencies
then sold them for more than legally allowed. Why should they? Their job was
just to get rid of the tickets, they didn't care what they eventually got sold
for. 

But as the scalping situation got worse, and more artists complained about it,
that situation has changed some, and some of the out-of-state ticket agencies
have had their contracts cancelled. But I believe that most of the in-state
agencies still have contracts with Tea Party Concerts, and that's how they
get their tickets.

Others are right in that many of the good seats are reserved for business
use - you'd be surprised at how many tickets never reach the public at all.
The band (each band on the bill) gets tickets, sometimes hundreds. The
record company get tickets, also sometimes hundreds. Retail gets tickets
(Tower gets an allotment of tickets for every single show at Great Woods.)
Radio stations get tickets (WBCN alone has an entire row in Section 2.) The
press gets tickets. Sponsors get tickets (Miller Beer, etc.). And then the 
ticket agencies also get some good seats off the top. 

Anytime I've actually bought tickets to a show, I've almost always gotten 
lousy seats. Every time I get free tickets (which is most of the time),
they've always been in the first three sections of Great Woods, or in
the lower level in Worcester, or whatever.

alan

    re .211, why do you always get free tickets?  Is that a question I can
    ask in notes?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

> why do you always get free tickets?  Is that a question I can ask in notes?  
> :-)

No big deal. It's just that before coming to DEC I worked in the music
business for almost 10 years, and still have a lot of friends there... I 
still keep my fingers in the pie, as they say, and I still get invited to 
a lot of shows/events.

alan 

    
    Ok, let me try and help some folks with how scalping agencies get
    tickets...
    
    When I was in high school, I worked for the middle man... the guy who
    dealt directly with the "ticket agencies" (ie, scalpers).  The deal was
    that we were given LARGE amounts of cash, sent out to wait in line, and
    for every 10 (or so) tickets we managed to get, we got to keep two.  We
    were allowed to buy tickets from other people in line... for anywhere
    from 1.25 * face value... up to 2 times face value (depending on the
    show... we were told in advance how much above face value we could buy
    tickets for).
    
    There legions of 'us' out there for every show buying up LOTS of
    tickets.  When U2 came to the Centrum on the Joshua Tree tour, four of
    us managed to get over 100 tickets... now ask me how scalpers get all
    the tickets and why it's so hard to get them through normal means....
    
    You see, if the scalpers go away (by vitrue of you boneheads who
    continue to use them to STOP USING THEM), getting tickets through
    normal means will be MUCH easier.  When I got tickets for big shows
    back then, you could bet that upwards of 30% of the people
    waiting in line were buying for scalpers.  We would walk up and down
    the line, figure out how many tickets people (normal ticket buying
    people) were buying, then offer them extra money if they'd buy extra
    tickets for us (up to the limit... usually 8 for most shows).
    
    For those of you still using scalpers... you don't kill a virus by
    feeding it.  All you're doing is perpetuating their business by buying
    from them.  You give them more money, with gives them more buying
    power, which allows them to buy up even more tickets for the next show.
    
    Later...
    Steve
    
    
    

    RE: .210 

    OK, db. I give up. I'll try to get some information on what is
    considered illegal scalping. I'm not talking about ticket agents. I'm
    talking about about guys that stand out in from of sold out shows
    mumbling as you walk by that they have tickets. They mostly mumble to
    dejected people walking away from the box office. They mumble because if
    they get caught trying to sell a $25 ticket for $100, they get dragged
    of to jail. I've seen them in Hartford. I've seen video of them being
    arrested in other cities. I know a few people that in days past would
    pay these kind of guys $500/seat to get into a sold out Springsteen show
    in Chicago. (yeah they had money to burn)

    There was even a sketch about it on Seinfeld last year (with crazy Joe
    Devola) where George and Kramer were trying to scalp their tickets to an
    opera.

    --Ron

    
    Ron, that was one hilarious episode.
    
    Speaking of Seinfeld, I thought "scalped tickets to surgeries"
    was funny too:
    
    :Have you ever seen these operating theaters that they have with
    :stadium seating? You don't want them doing anything to you that makes
    :other doctors go, "Well, I have to see this. Are you kidding? Are they
    :really going to do that? Are there seats? Can we get in?"
    :
    :I wonder if they ever have scalp tickets to an operation? "I got two
    :for the Winslow tumor, who needs two?"
    :
    :(By the way, don't think I didn't see the scalp tickets-scalpel joke
    :opportunity. I just passed. if you'd like to make one, be my guest.)
    
    Lale

    
     Re .199
    
      I'm in Knoxville Tennessee. There's a 26,000 seat stadium that 
    has a major act almost every week, and a 90,000 seat stadium used
    occasionally for concerts but mostly for University of Tenn football.
    There's also a 3000 seat stadium and several 5 to 700 seat theaters,
    all within a few miles of each other. Ticket scalping here is
    completely legal. I can sell tickets for 100 times face value if I
    want to, right in front of the facility.
    
     For the record, I think ticket agencies are scalpers at best.
    
     Paul W.

    Well, kids, don't try it in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts (we're
    on the cutting edge of government regulation here dontchaknow), because
    I just called the Atty General's office and you'd be busted if you're
    caught. According to the person I spoke with, scalping = the sale of
    tickets by anyone not licensed. Of course, they said no one would bother
    anyone in the sale of a ticket between to private parties, like at work,
    etc and at face value. (We have great laws here that make all sorts of
    things illegal but not enforced. That way the state is always assured
    that if it can bust you on a whim when it lacks evidence on some other
    charge.) Anyway, you best not stand out on the sidewalk hawking them
    babies for more than face value in the Bay State.

    Licensed agents are only supposed to mark the ticket price up $2.50.
    Anything more than that violates their license and they could be
    prosecuted for it in some unmentioned way. I'm sure, however, that
    manpower constraints require them to focus on rapists, murderers and
    (other) thieves. At least I should hope so. But if you got a gripe and
    want to bitch, bitch to your state rep. After all, that's why we have
    the Mass legislature, to make sure nobody makes money in this state.

    --Boris Burati

     After all, that's why we have the Mass legislature, to make sure nobody 
   makes money (except them) in this state.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

    I had known that the "Commonwealth" (i.e. you must share your wealth)
    of MA had a specific law against scalping.
    
    I have been meaning to mention that if you see scalpers being dragged
    away by the police in other states like CT they may be being arrested not
    for "scalping" but "solicitation".
    
    As I've said, reselling tickets is legal in many states.  MA, however,
    gave up on true capitalism a long time ago.  I've always found some
    irony that the historic event that symbolizes "revolt against unjust 
    taxes" (the Boston Tea Party) took place in the state that now arguably has
    some of the most unjust and burdensome taxes in the country (take for
    example, the way they charge non-residents the same income tax as
    residents, which is taxation without representation).
    
    But don't get me started... ;-)
    
    	db

    Dave,
    
    	I have no problem with ticket agencies selling off blocks of seats
    to re-sellers - what I have a problem with is the fact that they're not
    up front about it - Why can't they tell us?
    
    	The way it is now, I think the general assumption is that if you go
    and camp out overnight for tickets, you'll get excellent seats. 
    Promoters still want people to do that ( it looks good ), so it seems
    that they're less-than-forthcoming about what happens behind the
    scenes.
    
    	I know you're fairly adamant about not wanting any gov't
    interference - the only thing I would suggest is some form of truth-in-
    advertising type law ( before you flame me, I realize that they don't
    promise *good* seats to people first in line, just the best seats
    *available* ).  It just seems that the concientious thing to do would
    be to let the public know how these things are done . . .
    
                                              two cents,
    
    							Jim C

    Jim,
    
    I certainly won't flame you.  I really don't have much of an opinion
    about it other than I'm not sure what you had in mind when you said
    "they should tell us".  What form would that be?  A press conference?
    An ad in the Globe?  I'm not really arguing here, mainly just curious:
    what did you have in mind?
    
    I won't flame you because it doesn't bother me that you have an opinion
    on what you think they SHOULD do.  
    
    I would only be bothered if you started dictating what they should be
    forced to do.
    
    I would like to see concert promoters do what Sean suggested.  I don't
    find myself disagreeing with what many you "would like to see."

re .221:

db, something in your note actually makes me think there's some agreement on at
least part of this ucky (technical term) situation- i.e., your statement WRT
"monopoly."

The only part of scalping which seems anti-free-market is the practice of making
it *impossible* (as in monopolizing) for anyone to purchase good seats *except*
by going through scalpers. So, announcements like "Tickets go on sale at xxxx
time-and-date, available through xxxx agencies and/or other outlets" are
misleading at best if *all* the best seats have been sold to block-purchase
scalpers through "standard" marketing channels. Announcing that "Scalpers 'R' Us
has already purchased the entire 15 front rows and is reselling at five times
face value" would be free market, but would get the bad public image which would
probably (fairly, IMHO) go with the news. Announcing a face price for which only
second-class seats can be bought might even be a violation of truth in
advertising, close kin to bait-and-switch; I'm not certain of the legalities
which might affect this.

The "suitcase scenario" is another story, in which the monopoly is being created
outside "official" channels to benefit the individuals who have the access
necessary to take advantage of it. I'd think that this would be unethical on the
part of the individuals doing the selling simply because it hurts their
employers (the ticket outlets). Even if the normal face value goes into the
company coffers, I'd guess that overall ticket sales for those outlets would
suffer once it was obvious that "good" seats were never available there. This
would also seem to be a case where buyers are hurt by having (again, by virtue of
a monopoly) to pay a higher price in order to get a good seat, and thus would be
fair game for anti-scalping laws.

Wandering lines and purchasing tickets through others seems a semi-scummy way
to make a living, but does seem to fit within "free enterprise." There's lots of
practices which I may not personally like, but which I can't condemn as unethical
or immoral, and this is one such.

(Maybe we should rename this note "The thread that wouldn't die- just when you
thought it was safe to open MUSIC..." <G>)

Bob

re: .224

> (Maybe we should rename this note "The thread that wouldn't die- just when you
> thought it was safe to open MUSIC..." <G>)

Hear! Hear!

:-)

Hal

    Bob,
    
    
>The only part of scalping which seems anti-free-market is the practice of making
>it *impossible* (as in monopolizing) for anyone to purchase good seats *except*
>by going through scalpers. 
    
    Bob, I can't buy Paul Mitchell Shampoo except going thru Beauty Salons
    who sell it with a much higher markup than a supermarket or CVS would.
    
    Is this anti-free market?  Is this a monopoly?
    
    As I said in my last message, one of the things that you guys are
    failing to do is tell me how what is done with tickets is any different
    than what is done with other commodities.
    
    And I think all this "monopoly" stuff is a waste of time because even
    if it's true it's NOT the real issue with you and I think I can prove it:
    
    	What if the concert promoters were to sell not to ONE scalper
    	but to ALL ticket agencies (but not the public).   That is
    	clearly NOT a monopoly in that it is available thru several
    	sources and and there would be price competition between
    	those sources.
    
    That would NOT make you happy right?  If so, can we put aside the
    monopoly rat hole for now?

    Actually, that would be fine by me. To follow your analogy, I'd only
    have an issue if the buyer at K-Mart could get Paul Mitchell Shampoo,
    but immediately sold *all* of it off at personal profit to beauty
    salons. My main issues are twofold:
    
    (1) Dishonesty. If *all* good tickets are sold to high-markup ticket
    agencies, then it's unethical to pretend otherwise. The commodity
    markets disgust me, frankly, but they are quite open about what they
    are. (I have *no* idea if this happens, it simply sounds quite possible
    from the comments of others who buy a *lot* more concert tickets than
    I.) If good folks are going to stand in line for the best tickets they
    can get, they deserve to know what that "best" actually is. Market
    analogy: bait-and-switch.
    
    (2) Under-the-table opportunism. (Aka "suitcase scenario")
    If enterprising hustlers convince folks standing in line to resell
    tickets at a profit, no problem. However, if someone in a pivotal
    position- like behind the counter- utilizes said position to profit by
    screwing his or her employer as well as folks who *have* lost either
    vacation time or pay (like we consultants who can "take the day off"
    <g>), that's an unfair monopoly which helps only the profiteer. To
    carry on with the commodity analogy, think of this as "insider
    trading."
    
    I don't see either of the above as fair "free-market" practices. The
    first is deceitful, selling something which isn't available for
    purchase. The second avoids competition by creating a *closed* market
    in which the only benefits are reaped by the opportunistic seller and
    the opportunistic buyer.
    
    It might offend a lot of folks, but an open *auction* of the best
    tickets to the highest bidders would be more ethical, IMHO. Ironically,
    it might also be more profitable for all concerned parties.
    
    Hope this clarifies where we *don't* necessarily disagree..
    
    Bob

    Sean,
    
    I apologize.  I knew that you are not advocating government regulation,
    but you are shouting the same slogans and giving the same reasons as 
    those that would.
    
    I was trying to attack the justifications typically given for
    regulation, however the person presenting them (you) was not giving
    them for that reason, and thus it was quite reasonable for you to
    assume that I was calling you a regulator.
    
    By having the change be consumer driven it is undeniable that you
    believe in and advocate the free market system.  It's those that
    seek regulation who aren't free market believers.
    
>    *IF* Paul Mitchell sold all his shampoo to Shear Happiness for $5 a
>    bottle, and they sold it to us for $10 a bottle, great.  Until!!!! the 
>    consumers tell Paul that they don't want to pay that much and will stop
>    purchasing until they can get it at K-Mart for $5.50 a bottle.
>    
>    One of 2 things will happen.  People will want Paul Mitchell products
>    so bad that they will apathetically keep paying $10 a bottle (what
>    we have with tix now) ---  Or they will boycott Shear Happiness until
>    Paul Mitchell decides its in his best interest to give the conumers
>    a better deal. 
    
    Hey Sean, maybe I can help you out there.
    
    I am probably going to end up being in tribute band.  Tribute bands
    are to major acts what "Shear Happiness" is to Paul Mitchell Products.
    
    Tell all those people buying scalpers tickets to Kansas shows to come
    see my band instead until Kansas and their promoters make efforts
    to satisfy you.   
    
    ;-)
    
    	db
    

>    Tell all those people buying scalpers tickets to Kansas shows to come
>    see my band instead until Kansas and their promoters make efforts
>    to satisfy you.   
    
    Dave, I for one, would prefer to see your band any day instead of
    buying scalped tickets for any other show.
    
    Lale
    

>    Dave, I for one, would prefer to see your band any day instead of
>    buying scalped tickets for any other show.
    
    Lale,
    
    I was going to tell you that if we ever "make it big" and you wanted to
    see our show, you could call me and I would make sure some good
    tickets got put aside for you.
    
    Then I thought, "No, that would be unfair".   ;-)
    
    	db

    
    >Then I thought, "No, that would be unfair".   ;-)
    
    Ha ha ha. This was really good Dave. This laugh is worth the tickets.
    Yes, it wouldn't be fair, but it's the thought that counts.
    Besides, I will see many of your shows before you make it big. When you
    make it big, I can comfortably leave my place to younger people.
    They have to experience too. 
    
    I will have stories to tell.
    
    Lale
    

    
    Dave, I'll go see your tribute band (as I've seen others) just for
    the fact that those types of bands play the covers better than the 
    originals often do!!  
    
    - Sean

    RE: "Scalping" origins
    
    Probably from unwelcome middlemen taking "Something off the top".
    
    - Dave

    Has anyone noticed that ticket prices have started soaring?
    
    Eagles "Golden Circle" tickets are $100 apiece.  Barbra Streisand
    is selling some (thru charities) for $1000!!!   Pink Floyd tickets
    are over $60 I hear.
    
    My source of information?   An article in the Atlanta Constitution
    last week that included statements from the management of these
    groups and concert promoters.   The cause for the change "we were
    sick and tired of seeing the money going to scalpers".
    
    Now, we can continue arguing whether or not this is a good thing,
    but in the case of the Streisand tickets, the enormous difference
    between the fair market value and the traditional ticket prices
    is going to charities instead of scalpers.   In the case of the Eagles,
    it's going to the artists instead of the scalpers.  In the case
    of Floyd, it's going into production (more lasers, effects, better
    sound, etc.) or at least, so say the promoters.
    
    Now, is this "fair", "right", "reasonable", "optimal", etc.   We could
    argue that (again) for awhile.
    
    However, one thing I think that can reasonably be said, is that it's
    BETTER than it used to be.  Your chances of getting tickets probably
    hasn't changed much, at least the money is going to more appropriate
    places.
    
    	db

    
    I'm not sure of your point here, Dave.  You title your note with "I
    Told You So," but I'm not sure what prognostication you made came
    true.
    
    First off:
    
    >                               The cause for the change "we were
    > sick and tired of seeing the money going to scalpers".
    
    If this is what you're basing the rest of the note on, I'll stop right
    here.  My opinion is that this is patent bs.  Not only is it not
    preventing scalpers from getting the money, I don't think it had
    anything to do with the price increase.
    
    - Sean

    Sean,
    
    Perhaps we could debate whether it "prevents" the money from going to
    scalpers.   If that's the case, it only means that the free market
    value of those tickets is even higher than what the Eagles are
    charging.
    
    But one thing that simply can't be denied is that it reduces the
    amount of money the scalpers can make.
    
    And in turn, I think that will cause scalping to diminish
    significantly.
    
    

    Raising the face value of tickets (even to ridiculous levels) will not
    eliminate scalping - all it will do is raise the price of scalped
    tickets too.
    
    Scalping will end when people stop buying scalped tickets. Scalping is
    a result of the law of supply and demand. As long as the demand is
    higher than the supply, then some portion of the poeple will be
    prepared to pay anything for tickets.
    
    I don't deal wih scalpers, not because what they charge is too high,
    but because I have no recourse if the tickets are not genuine. It's
    pretty easy to get ahold of a scanner and color printer these days,
    and tickets can be knocked out easily. I've twice seen people fighting
    over the same seats at the Centrum, no doubt because at least one of
    them had purchased a counterfeit ticket.
    
    By making the face value of tickets expensive, not only does it cost
    the legimitate consumer more to attend ashow, it also encourages bogus
    tickets because criminals can make more money on each transaction.
    
    To change the subject slightly:
    
    I don't mind paying more when I get something for my money (as in the
    case of Pink Floyd), but I can't see paying more just because some band
    members inhaled a little too deeply in the 70s and spent their
    allowance (as in the case of the Eagles).
    
    Brian

    
    > Perhaps we could debate whether it "prevents" the money from going to
    > scalpers.   If that's the case, it only means that the free market
    > value of those tickets is even higher than what the Eagles are
    > charging.
    
    There's good business and bad business.  I've voiced my opinion on this
    way back.   Capitalist that I am, I don't believe that your long term
    success is best served by "what you can get on the street right now."
    You've got several things to accomplish in order to keep customers
    coming back, and continually scalping them for the highest price you
    can get out of them may work for the short term, but it eventually dilutes
    your customer pool.  I suspect that you'll hear more and more people
    arguing the same thing my friends do when I ask them what shows they
    are going to see this summer -- "None.  It's not worth the price or the
    hassle.  If I wait out at 6:00 am and am first in line I get row RR. 
    The only way to get good seats is to pay the $%@#@ scalpers."
    
    And I'm not bothered by the local yahoo waiting in line *WITH ME* to 
    buy a few seats to sell at his high school.  It's the institutionalized
    scalping that suplies blocks of seats to Roth or Out-Of-Town or Tickets
    USA that is killing the event of the concert.
    
    Service, Dave.  If you want to be successful, you want to make sure
    customers are happy and coming back.  They're not, and it'll get worse.
    Sure, the Eagles sold out, and so will other regroups, etc.  For a
    while.  Pretty soon, people get tired of being scammed.  I'd like to
    see a pre-emptory strike against this, for the sake of the live music
    I love.
    
    > But one thing that simply can't be denied is that it reduces the
    > amount of money the scalpers can make.
    
    I may disagree here too.  The people paying the scalped prices *now*
    are in the class of not having to worry about the price.  A few $$ more
    won't stop them.  Are they the type of fan that will keep coming back
    for shows?  I bet usually - not.
    
    My opinion, but I see the live show as on its way out because of the
    shoddy way the business surrounding it has been handled.  Its a shame
    for the art.
    
    - Sean

>    Raising the face value of tickets (even to ridiculous levels) will not
>    eliminate scalping - all it will do is raise the price of scalped
>    tickets too.
    
>    Scalping will end when people stop buying scalped tickets. 
    
    I guess I'll have to agree that if people stopped buying scalped
    tickets, there would be no scalping.
    
    However, in my opinion,  that will never happen.   I certainly don't
    even see a "trend" towards it.  In fact, I see a trend AWAY from it.
    It has become legal in several more states recently, and the number
    of ticket agencies (scalpers) in this area has increased dramatically.
    
    > Scalping is a result of the law of supply and demand. As long as the
    > demand is higher than the supply, then some portion of the poeple will
    > be prepared to pay anything for tickets.
    
    To make a long economics story short:
    
    Scalping is the result of the difference between the face value of the
    tickets and their actual value (what people are willing to pay for
    them).
    
    Scalping will continue as long as that difference is large enough to
    make it worthwhile for scalpers.
    
    I applaud what Pink Floyd and Barbara Streisand are doing.  They are
    merely being pragmatic and saying "it's crazy that people will spend
    that kind of money, but if they are it's better that that money go
    into charities, better productions, (or in the case of the Eagles,
    the artist's pockets) etc. than into the pockets of scalpers".
    
    re: Sean
    
    Well Sean, obviously I don't buy it.
    
    We've gone over this before, so rather than write a long reply I'll
    just say that your feelings on this are based on what seems to me
    like a radical presumption:  that people the people who are paying
    big bucks for tickets are less "loyal" than the ones who tell Billy
    and Elton "screw that, I ain't gonna pay it".
    
    I think that's obvious, but reasonable men may differ.
    
    And fwiw, my observation is that the people paying the big bucks are
    NOT "rich" people, just fanatical fans.   
    
        	db

I agree that paying more money for something on the order of the Pink Floyd
spectacle is fine.  From everything I've heard, no expense was spared...

I remember seing Emerson Lake & Palmer when they toured with the 70 piece
orchestra.  They played a few dates and cancelled the tour because they were
losing money.  Those tickets were an outrageous $12 (in 1978).  They should have
charged more like $15-20 to make money.

In the case of the Eagles, they just want more money, but people are paying it
so who cares...  My personal impression is that the Eagles are making the money
due to the "once in a lifetime" opportunity type marketing.  It would be
interesting to see if they go on tour next year, like Steve Miller or some of
the other popular 70's acts if they charge the prices they're getting this year.

Tim

    whats the top price for the floyd shows ? $75 ? Im not sure what is
    different between the tickets I got for $40, Im on the floor in the 4th
    row, they are not center section but what the hell ! Yes even at $75
    Floyd's show sounds like it will be worth it !
    
    the Eagles on the other hand.....they better be taking the tickets at
    the gate to greet everyone who shelled out the kinda money to hear a
    greatest hits show, man they didn't even bother to make a new LP. If
    they had then I might be will to pay the price. If they tour next year
    noone will pay that price....for the scalpers, they are the ones who
    can afford to pay $100 because they have the cash flow....at least they
    should....
    
    
    I have not heard what they(scalpers) want for Eagles tickets but I'd
    bet the $50 lawn tickets at Greatwoods are getting at least $150 maybe 
    more...I don't dare guess what the good seats are going for !
    
    

    
    > like a radical presumption:  that people the people who are paying
    > big bucks for tickets are less "loyal" than the ones who tell Billy
    > and Elton "screw that, I ain't gonna pay it".
    
    It's not so much that as it is that the pool of people you draw concert 
    attendance from is dwindling - *because* so many people are saying "screw 
    it" 
    
    You can have a huge pool of people paying $15 to see shows, or a smaller
    pool who'll pay $1000 each.  By your definition, $1000 is still market 
    value, if you can fill the stadium with people willing to pay that price.
    
    What market do the bands want?  Will you wish you hadn't pissed off the 
    larger customer base sometime in the future?  
    
    The people I know who are hard-core fans of bands, the ones who follow 
    them, the ones who buy every CD, and who've supported the band in the 
    past, are, in my experience, the FIRST ones to start saying "screw it" 
    to the institutionalized scalping.  
    
    - Sean

>    The people I know who are hard-core fans of bands, the ones who follow 
>    them, the ones who buy every CD, and who've supported the band in the 
>    past, are, in my experience, the FIRST ones to start saying "screw it" 
>    to the institutionalized scalping.  
    
    My experience is that those "hard-core fans" ARE the ones paying
    the big bucks for tickets.  
    
    	db

    >To make a long economics story short:
    
    >Scalping is the result of the difference between the face value of the
    >tickets and their actual value (what people are willing to pay for
    >them).
    
    >Scalping will continue as long as that difference is large enough to
    >make it worthwhile for scalpers.
    
    Gosh thanks. I knows I shoulda stayed in kolege, I coulda learnt all
    this ekonomics stuff. :-)
    
    On a more serious note, I am not surprised to find that we disagree on
    this matter. Even I, however, am quite surprised by how glib you are
    about it, chalking the whole thing up to "pragmatism". Dave, I have to
    go back way before the "Great Purge of '92" to remember you being so
    wrong about something and so cock-sure about it at the same time.
    
    This move by the performers in question may put a few creepy people who
    hang around the outside of stadiums out of business, but it does not
    effect the core of the problem which is the selling of huge blocks of
    tickets to speculators. It is doubtful that anything will stop that
    problem and I guffaw loudly at the suggestion that this is some
    altruistic response by performers.
    
    The prices will rise, the "institutional scalpers" will make ever more,
    the fans will complain loudly but go anyway, the stadiums wont care
    because they sold out and barely lifted a finger to do it, and the
    performers will be the same phoney-balogne performers: raging capitalists
    in socialist clothing.
    
    This "pragmatism" is nothing more than a simple escalation of the war.
    
    Brian

    
    > Scalping is a result of the law of supply and demand. As long as the
    > demand is higher than the supply, then some portion of the poeple will
    > be prepared to pay anything for tickets.
    
    Brian, suppose we sold tickets the following way: everyone sends in a
    bid for tickets in the amount of "the most you are ACTUALLY willing to pay".
    A bid constitutes a committment for that amount if you get the tickets.
    Let's say there are 10,000 tickets and they get sent to the top 10,000
    bidders.
    
    In this situation "demand is higher than supply" but hopefully you'll
    agree that there would be no scalpers in this situation?
    
    That is in direct conflict with your (above) claim about scalping.
    
    My theory predicts that there would be no scalping in that scenario.
    
    Actually it's not "my theory" at all:
    
    You're right about it being a function of "supply and demand" but
    you've applied that law incorrectly.   Here is an exact quote from
    my freshman economics book:
    
    	"The theory of supply and demand leads to the following
    	 prediction:  The potential for a profitable black market
    	 always exists when effecitve price ceilings are imposed, 
    	 it will pay some people to buy at the controlled price
    	 and sell at the black-market price."
    
    Compare this with what I said:
    
    >Scalping is the result of the difference between the face value of the
    >tickets and their actual value (what people are willing to pay for
    >them).
    
    >Scalping will continue as long as that difference is large enough to
    >make it worthwhile for scalpers.
    
    	db

    
    Dave, I don't think anyone disagrees with the textbook definitions of
    supply and demand.
    
    I also happen to agree that your scenario about ticket bidding would 
    result in tickets being sold for about the same price as the currently 
    scalped ones, maybe more.  There are simply enough people willing to pay 
    huge sums of money for the limited seating a typical concert offers.
    
    The real point is, given the mechanics of supply and demand, and the
    "market value" of a concert ticket at this nanosecond in time, is it
    "good business" to sell tickets this way anyway?  Define "good business" 
    as "good for the longterm as well as short-term."
    
    You wave off that question with an unqualified "yes."  Yes, it is good
    to get as absolutely much for a ticket as possible, else the evil black
    market will get that price from you anyway (p.s. the black market can
    be derailed by the controllers of supply).
    
    Selling a house at 80's prices during the boom was a good idea - for
    the sellers.  *Bad* idea for the buyers.  That is exactly what is
    happening now.  We are the buyers.  People accept your "market value"
    for the time being, soon they won't.  I'd like to avoid the crash, 
    because when it does crash, it won't just magically revert to
    reasonable market prices with no ramifications - the industry damage
    will have already been done, a lot of would-be bands wouldn't be, and
    the caliber and character of musicians may have been greatly altered.
    
    Nothing lasts forever on "today's" simple supply and demand.  You've got to
    nurture the demand, worry about the future, be careful of dangerous trends,
    follow the business carefully and prudently, and keep the quality of
    your product high.
    
    You seem to think current demand will hang around stable no matter what
    you do to the product or how you price it.  "What can I get for this
    product right now?" is your one and only rule, and, in my opinion, a 
    recipe for a business' long-term failure.  But great if you want to make 
    a quick buck.  :^)
    
    Sounds like you believe people who shell out $1000 for tix couldn't
    possibly be fickle about where they spend their entertainment dollar,
    nor do you believe that, eventually, other fans will get fed up.
    
    - Sean

    I heard Steven Sondheim on the radio yesterday giving a talk in NYC. 
    His comment on the trend for Broadway shows being so bombastic was that
    when ticket prices are so high that folks can only see one show a year
    they want to think they got their money's worth, so producers go for
    these big over-the-top shows so as to justify the ticket prices.   He
    mentioned that when some people are asked how they liked a popular hit
    show, the answer would be "we had great seats"...not that they liked
    the show!!
    
    Anyway, $100 Eagles tickets are paving the way for rock shows to go the
    way of the Broadway musical.  I have stated elsewhere in here that I do
    not ever intend to go to Great Woods.  For *anybody*.  I will not
    support that kind of bullsh*t. 
    
    And we can thank scalpers for this.  So what if the scalpers all go
    out of business but tickets stay at $100?  I like Pearl Jam's attitude
    where they requested Ticketraper NOT print ads on the back of PJ tix
    and they even wanted a statement saying "the service charge on this
    ticket does not go the band".  But I think it's a losing battle.  
    
    I just wish the fans who pay these prices would wise up and stop
    letting themselves get raped by their heroes.  Why can't Fugazi be on
    the top of the charts so we could afford to go to some rock shows at
    reasonable prices  8^)
    
    								Brian

    > You seem to think current demand will hang around stable no matter what
    > you do to the product or how you price it.  
    
    Wow!  I think it is clearly YOU who assume that!
    
    You seem to think that if I let people buy tickets at $10 that they'll
    be "loyal" and be around for my next tour, regardless of the popularity
    of my next product/album (which no one can predict) or what happens in the
    future.
    
    > "What can I get for this product right now?" is your one and only rule,
    > and, in my opinion, a  recipe for a business' long-term failure.  
    
    This is NOT my "one and only rule".   Like you, I weigh the benefits
    and risks of "cash in now" and "longterm growth".  The pages and pages
    that I've written on it don't seem to be justly characterized as a
    "wave off".
    
    However, I reject (with stated reason) the arguments you've made that
    pricing the tickets lower brings in more "loyal" fans.  The best
    example: I can't imagine how you'd bet your financial well-being on the
    presumption that fans that blow off your concerts for a few extra bucks
    are more likely to be "loyal" than ones willing to pay "anything" to see
    you.   
    
    Doesn't that assertion seem the least bit odd to you?
    
>    Sounds like you believe people who shell out $1000 for tix couldn't
>    possibly be fickle about where they spend their entertainment dollar,
    
    What's important here is not whether the $1000 fans are "fickle" but
    whether or not they are more or less "fickle" than the $20 fans.  I believe
    that fans who will shell out $1000 for tix are *** LESS *** "fickle"
    than ones that "pass" on any ticket above $20.
    
    I'm astonished that you could feel otherwise, but you're entitled to
    your opinion.
    
    	db

    
    > However, I reject (with stated reason) the arguments you've made that
    > pricing the tickets lower brings in more "loyal" fans.
    
    This is only part of my argument.  I'm willing to surrender this facet
    of the discussion and concede victory, if only because it is an
    opinion-based argument, and one I really only harped on back in round 1.
    
    I think a larger problem is the fact that a growing number of people
    are disatisfied enough with the current product to stop buying it.
    A big reason for that disatisfaction is the scamming and corruption
    involved with ticket sales.  The consumer has no say anymore, and when
    that happens the consumer stops buying.  I feel that, although, you'll
    still see sellouts, the cutomer pool will be smaller.  Bands may regret
    that in the long run.
    
    - Sean

    Can someone splain me what constitutes a "loyal" fan? Or what the
    difference between a loyal fan and a casual fan is?
    
    Edd

>    Can someone splain me what constitutes a "loyal" fan? Or what the
>   difference between a loyal fan and a casual fan is?

Sure. A *loyal* fan doesn't duck when about to get hit by flying manure, i.e.,
when the sh*t hits the fan. (Or when tickets cost $100 face price plus 100%
scalpers' markup?)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribe...

Bob

    >    Can someone splain me what constitutes a "loyal" fan? Or what the
    >   difference between a loyal fan and a casual fan is?
    
       Dave's definition of a "loyal fan": 
    
    		A loyal fan is someone who will pay nearly anything
         	to see the artist
    
       Sean's definition of a "loyal fan": 
    
    	       A fan who would normally come to see the artist 
    	       everytime but would stop going to all future concerts the 
    	       first time the artists "pisses him off" by charging "too 
               much" for a ticket.
    
       Dave's definition of a "casual fan": 
    
    		See Sean's definition of "loyal fan"
    
       Sean's definition of a "casual fan": 
    
    		See Dave's definition of "loyal fan"

I'm sorry Dave, but I don't agree that being a loyal fan of the music
requires putting up with everything that the music *business* tries to 
do to get more money from the fans.

-Hal (who knows better than to enter a db debate,
      but can't seem to help himself :-)

    > I'm sorry Dave, but I don't agree that being a loyal fan of the music
    > requires putting up with everything that the music *business* tries to
    > do to get more money from the fans.
    
    I'm sorry Hal but you don't really disagree with me, I just didn't
    cast the definition properly.
    
    I didn't intend to state that as a "requirement" of loyalty, but rather
    an "indication".
    
    In the context of this debate, I think it's quite reasonable to say
    that a fan willing to pay big bucks for a ticket is MORE indicative of
    a loyal fan than one that says "fuck this, I ain't never goin' to one
    of this guy's show again" when the price goes above $20?
    
    Wouldn't you agree?
    
    	db

re: .256

>    I didn't intend to state that as a "requirement" of loyalty, but rather
>    an "indication".
>    
>    In the context of this debate, I think it's quite reasonable to say
>    that a fan willing to pay big bucks for a ticket is MORE indicative of
>    a loyal fan than one that says "fuck this, I ain't never goin' to one
>    of this guy's show again" when the price goes above $20?
>    
>    Wouldn't you agree?
    
Not necessarily.  It might very well be more of an indication of amount of
disposable income.  Or an indication of lack of good judgement. :-)

Actually, I'd say you're part right.  A fan who can afford obnoxiously
high ticket prices is probably more likely to pay the bucks than a non-fan
who can afford the prices.  But a fan who can't afford the obnoxious prices
is probably marginally if at all more likely to buy than a non-fan who
can't afford it.

I think what Sean might be trying to say is that the size of the pool of 
people who can afford the obnoxious prices is likely to diminish with time.

Personally, I've stopped going to big rock shows for many reasons.  One of
them is the obnoxious ticket prices.  Another is that modern sound persons
seem to all be deaf and run things so loud that you can't hear all of the
parts of the music.  Yet another is that the crowds are obnoxious.  If I'm
going to have to put up with too-loud sound and obnoxious crowds I'd rather
go to a small club where at least I can see the band and get a drink without
standing in long lines. :-)  I'm fortunate in that a lot of the music I like
plays the small-club circuits rather than the arena-type venues.

-Hal

    re: Sean
    
    > I'm willing to surrender this facet of the discussion and concede
    > victory, if only because it is an opinion-based argument, and one I
    > really only harped on back in round 1.
    
    Sean, while I appreciate the offer, I reject the offer of "victory"
    because you grant it without acknowledging "validity".
    
    I'm only concerned with concessions of the ladder, and totally
    uninterested in the former.
    
    I.E. if you don't want to continue addressing my points that's fine. 
    You needn't feel obligated to placate me with an insincere "victory".
    
    ;-)
    
    	db

>Not necessarily.  It might very well be more of an indication of amount of
>disposable income.  Or an indication of lack of good judgement. :-)
    
    Loyalty might well include "lack of good judgement".

>Actually, I'd say you're part right.  A fan who can afford obnoxiously
>high ticket prices is probably more likely to pay the bucks than a non-fan
>who can afford the prices.  But a fan who can't afford the obnoxious prices
>is probably marginally if at all more likely to buy than a non-fan who
>can't afford it.
    
    As I've also said, I really think the idea that the people paying
    big bucks for these tickets are "rich casual fans" is far-fetched.
    I'd sooner accept that they are kids exercising "poor judgement". ;-0)

>I think what Sean might be trying to say is that the size of the pool of 
>people who can afford the obnoxious prices is likely to diminish with time.
    
    I've been meaning to bring this up for awhile:
    
    Sean is additionally assuming that should the "market" diminish to
    levels where they no longer sell out, that "pissed off loyal fans"
    (which strikes me as at least a potential oxy-moron) wouldn't come
    back if the prices were lowered which, of course, defies common notions of
    the same Keynesian economic theory that defines "supply and demand".
    
    In brief, he's also assuming that by raising prices they lose the
    opportunity to draw fans back to concerts by lowering prices.
    
    I don't buy that either. 
    
    	db

re: .260

>    Loyalty might well include "lack of good judgement".

True enough. :-)

>    As I've also said, I really think the idea that the people paying
>    big bucks for these tickets are "rich casual fans" is far-fetched.
>    I'd sooner accept that they are kids exercising "poor judgement". ;-0)

There was a time when I might have agreed with you on this one, but recent
events here in Baltimore have kind of changed my opinion.  Three years ago
or so we built a fancy new baseball stadium here.  It gets written up in
national publications as a wonderful place, etc.  What's interesting, though,
is that the stadium has become more than a place for baseball fans to go.
It's become a place for the status-conscious to hob-nob and be seen.  It's
become a tourist attraction.  Tour bus operators buy huge blocks of tickets 
and sell them at scalped prices to tourists.  It's become darn difficult for
ordinary baseball fans to obtain tickets.  Personally, when I see someone in 
the baseball stands wearing a suit and talking on a cellular phone, I 
consider that to be a "rich casual fan".  Hopefully in a few years the
novelty will wear off and "real" baseball fans will be able to get tickets
again.

-Hal

    Dave,
    
    I waited to see if you addressed any of the points I made in my
    previous reponse. Other than futher education regarding the application
    of the law of supply and demand, you have not.
    
    This discussion has, in my opinion, headed off into the weeds since it
    is now concentrating on who would pay these outrageous prices, with
    additional speculation as to their psychological states and disposable
    incomes. But none of this really has anything to do with your base
    assertion that the performers are worthy of applause based on their
    pragmatism and genuine interest in knocking them whipper-snapper
    scalpers upside their collective heads.
    
    It seems that your argument is that there is some artificial cap in
    place and that by the performers charging more, the scalpers thus get
    less. I see no evidence of this cap. In fact, your recent arguments
    suggest that you too see no such cap. The fans, through lack of good
    judgement or other mechanism, seem to be filling the seats almost
    regardless of cost. So your theory of "redistribution of wealth"
    seems to be rather full of holes, I'm afraid.
    
    You have also, it seems, rather systematically avoided defining exactly
    what class of scalpers the practice of inflated face value is supposed
    to hurt. Are we arguing about the relatively insignificant "street
    scalpers", or the more incidious "institutional scalpers" (as someone
    else labeled them)? Please demonstrate to me how your "solution" hurts
    companies that are buying tickets in bulk and charging %100 or more
    markup. I think the Pink Floyd shows, at which the $75 tickets marked
    up to $175 by some agencies have sold to only single-seat
    availability, proves that you're theory is flawed.
    
    What I have gotten out of all of this is that you seem to agree that
    scalping is a bad thing. And perhaps you even believe that it is an
    inevitable thing, although I'm less clear on that point. What I still
    don't understand is how you arrived at the conclusion that higher face
    value means less scalper profit and hence less scalpers.
    
    Brian

    Dave, 
    
    I just want to say that fan "loyalty" for me doesn't extend to paying
    over $30 for a concert ticket.  
    
    I would say that I am a loyal fan of Steve Winwood, for example; I've
    been buying his records since Spencer Davis days, saw Traffic live in
    1972, etc. but when he started touring again a few years ago, I passed
    because they were arena shows.  I'm bummed that the Traffic reunion
    tour will be at Great Woods instead of a smaller venue like the
    Orpheum; I won't go to Great Woods.  I will buy the new album,
    though.
    
    I would say that I am a loyal fan of Jack Bruce.  I have almost every
    recording he's ever made and have seen him perform live a few times. 
    The last time, at the Paradise in Boston, was extremely uncomfortable
    because I was forced to stand up in a packed room for two hours.  I
    would not go back there to see Jack, sorry.  I did just buy his latest
    album.
    
    I could go on and on.  I support artists by buying their recordings.  I
    support artists by going to see them perform in venues where I can be
    reasonably comfortable and it's cost-effective. Tickets over $30 are
    not very cost-effective for me when there are lots of other acts I also
    like a lot that I can see for $10 or less (sometimes free!).  If I went
    to see the Eagles, I could scratch going to another show for about nine
    months  8^)  I'm no less loyal a fan because I skip the live
    experience.
    
    								Brian
    
    P.S. The Steve Morse tix for the Meadowlands are going to be $250 this time
    around, Dave  8^)  8^)  8^)

    
>     Sean, while I appreciate the offer, I reject the offer of "victory"
>    because you grant it without acknowledging "validity".
    
    Damn, that's like something I would say!  :^)  Fair enough.
    
    Still, you're engaging in a common debate tactic.  Given 10 points,
    hone in on refuting just one (the weakest one, I'd agree).  In fact,
    you've effectively turned this discussion into the "loyal fan" topic
    (that's praise, btw).
    
>     Sean is additionally assuming that should the "market" diminish to
>    levels where they no longer sell out, that "pissed off loyal fans"
>    (which strikes me as at least a potential oxy-moron) wouldn't come
>    back if the prices were lowered which, of course, defies common notions of
>    the same Keynesian economic theory that defines "supply and demand".
    
    No, it doesn't and I've stated why.  Once the product has changed, or
    even if just the perception of it has changed, those pissed-off fans
    may not want to come back (think about Michael Jackson).
    
    As far as the loyal fan turning away, depsite the fact that people
    have entered notes in here, and I've told you I talked to these types
    of fans, you still doubt this.
    
    A lot of people who used to LOVE going think concerts just plain
    suck now.  A BIG huge part of that is the death grip corporate scalping
    has had on the event.  I believe that.  I predict it will have a 
    detrimental effect on future concerts.  You disagree.  Hope you get
    good $1000 seats for Steve Morse!  :^)
    
- Sean    

    re: Brian Rost
    
    Somewhat like yourself, I gave up on "big" shows years ago, mostly due
    to the unenjoyable experience surrounding the concert, as opposed to
    the show itelf. (Too loud, standing on seats, puking fans, etc.)
    
    To that end, when a show I *REALLY* want to see comes to town, like
    Steely Dan, I look upon the scalpers as manna. I can not only avoid the
    1-800-BAD-SEAT episode, but for a price, I can pick and choose most any
    seat I want. This "true fan" considers that to be a service well worth
    the cost...
    
    Edd

    
    > To that end, when a show I *REALLY* want to see comes to town, like
    > Steely Dan, I look upon the scalpers as manna. I can not only avoid the
    > 1-800-BAD-SEAT episode, but for a price, I can pick and choose most any
    > seat I want. This "true fan" considers that to be a service well worth
    > the cost...
    
    So you're the reason I'm in Row P, Sec. 6 after being 4th in line
    and waiting all morning for that show!
    
    :^)
    
    P.S.  You could used to pick and choose pre-ticket agencies/computers,
          too!  For less money.

    Buried in all this somewhere (it's hard to keep track of who) is the
    idea that the concert business will start hurting when people become
    fed up with being taken advantage of by the promoters.  We have first
    hand testimony in here from people who say they refuse to attend the
    big shows now because of escalating prices, hassles, etc.

    My view is for every "old" (or loyal, or pissed off) fan who drops
    out of the concert scene for these reasons, there's another newer,
    younger, perhaps more naive one to replace them.  The popular music/
    concert industry caters primarily to a youth market.  That market is
    replenished every year as another wave of kids acquire the taste for
    and finances to participate.  Hey, remember when you were 17?  No doubt
    you had stretch to afford money for shows.  Did you think, for even a
    second, about not going because you thought promoters were ripping you
    off?  Did you care about inconvenience?  Loud, puking fans?  Being treated
    like cattle?  My guess is for most of us, the answer was no.

    I personally think that the concert business will continue to thrive,
    even as it continues to charge more and more while giving you less and less.
    You can vote with your wallet, but you will be replaced.

    /rick_the_cynic

    FWIW :...while i really do appreciate the debate and marvel at the enormous
    amount of energy it requires...i have to tell you gentleman, that one
    of my visions of hell, involves being stuck in an elevator for all
    eternity with all of you, while this discussion rages on - forever...;')
                                                               .../k

>    It seems that your argument is that there is some artificial cap in
>    place and that by the performers charging more, the scalpers thus get
>    less. I see no evidence of this cap. 
    
    Huh?
    
    Is a Ticketron outlet allow to sell a $20 ticket for $100?
    
    The price is CLEARLY capped.
    
>    You have also, it seems, rather systematically avoided defining exactly
>    what class of scalpers the practice of inflated face value is supposed
>    to hurt. 
    
    ALL "classes" of scalpers will be hurt.  Perhaps that's why you think
    I've "systematically avoided" answering that question.  
    
    >Please demonstrate to me how your "solution" hurts companies that are
    >buying tickets in bulk and charging %100 or more markup. 
    
    In order to accept my demonstration, you have to accept (as all
    Keynesian economists do) that commodities like tickets have "market
    value" which means "the price that people are WILLING to pay".
    
    If the market value of a ticket is $100 and the face value is $20,
    a scalper can make $80 a ticket.
    
    If you raise the price of the ticket to $80, a scalper can only make
    $20 a ticket and THAT is how it hurts scalpers, institutional or
    otherwise.    If you raise it $100, the scalper can't make anything.
    
    > I think the Pink Floyd shows, at which the $75 tickets marked up to
    > $175 by some agencies have sold to only single-seat availability,
    > proves that you're theory is flawed.
    
    No, not at all.
    
    Here's my theory:
    
        >Scalping is the result of the difference between the face value of the
        >tickets and their actual value (what people are willing to pay for
        >them).
    
    Note that the fact that scalpers can sell tickets for $175 is clear
    proof that the "actual value" (at least $175) is more than the face
    value ($75).
    
    My theory is entirely consistent with the evidence you gave regarding
    Floyd tickets.

>    I just want to say that fan "loyalty" for me doesn't extend to paying
>    over $30 for a concert ticket.  
    
    See .256.
    
>    I'm no less loyal a fan because I skip the live experience.
    
    Are you also "no less loyal" than a fan that does not skip it?

>    P.S. The Steve Morse tix for the Meadowlands are going to be $250 this time
>    around, Dave  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    I'm there anyway.  ;-)

>    Still, you're engaging in a common debate tactic.  Given 10 points,
>    hone in on refuting just one (the weakest one, I'd agree).  In fact,
>    you've effectively turned this discussion into the "loyal fan" topic
>    (that's praise, btw).
    
    Enumerate your other points and I PROMISE you an answer to each one of
    them.  
    
    FWIW, I think you're clearly engaging in the common debating practice
    of not conceding to valid points that contradict your position (and
    I'm sure you regard that as about as much "praise" as I regard your
    comment.) 
    
    So now that we've thrown a few stones at each other personally , I'd like to ask
    that we leave "Sean" and "Dave" out of it, and just stick to their
    ideas, not there persons.  
    
>>     Sean is additionally assuming that should the "market" diminish to
>>    levels where they no longer sell out, that "pissed off loyal fans"
>>    (which strikes me as at least a potential oxy-moron) wouldn't come
>>    back if the prices were lowered which, of course, defies common notions of
>>    the same Keynesian economic theory that defines "supply and demand".
    
>    No, it doesn't and I've stated why.  Once the product has changed, or
>    even if just the perception of it has changed, those pissed-off fans
>    may not want to come back (think about Michael Jackson).
    
    Sean, I understand your point now.  I did indeed misunderstand it
    before.
    
    Now that I understand, the split between you and me does seem more
    a matter of opinion than it did before.  I still don't think the
    "effect" your talking of (pissing off fans such that they won't buy
    future products) is very significant, but you may reasonably differ.
    
    > Hope you get good $1000 seats for Steve Morse!  :^)
    
    I can't afford $1000, but I can HONESTLY tell you that I wish Morse
    concerts had something like a "Golden Circle" plan because I would
    rather see the best seats go to the most dedicated fans, of which
    I am rather clearly one, EVEN if it means having to pay more (and 
    the money goes to Morse).
    
    	db

>    FWIW :...while i really do appreciate the debate and marvel at the enormous
>    amount of energy it requires...i have to tell you gentleman, that one
>    of my visions of hell, involves being stuck in an elevator for all
>    eternity with all of you, while this discussion rages on - forever...;')
    
    Thank you for sharing that with us Karen.

    ..you are quite welcome dave................................../k

    
    > Now that I understand, the split between you and me does seem more
    > a matter of opinion than it did before.  I still don't think the
    > "effect" your talking of (pissing off fans such that they won't buy
    > future products) is very significant, but you may reasonably differ.
    
    I'll buy that.
    
    > I can't afford $1000, but I can HONESTLY tell you that I wish Morse
    > concerts had something like a "Golden Circle" plan because I would
    > rather see the best seats go to the most dedicated fans, of which
    > I am rather clearly one, EVEN if it means having to pay more (and 
    > the money goes to Morse).
    
    I guess dedicated fan can be defined in different ways, and each 
    definition can be argued against in different ways.  We've actually
    touched upon this waaaay back, so briefly:
    
      a) One definition is to define dedication by the amount of money
         one is willing to pay for a ticket.  This is what the industry
         does now.
    
      b) Another is that you could define dedication by the amount of time 
         you were willing to "pay" (by waiting out for however many hours or 
         days).  This is what the industry used to do.
    
    The similarity of a) and b) is that it's going to cost you, time or
    money, but something.  You may argue that "I have a job, I can't afford
    to sleep out," or I may argue "I don't have that much money, but I can
    take vacation time."
    
    One thing is for sure.  In a) and b), the BAND gets just as much money.
    
    Does a) approach market value economics?  In a basic sense.  It goes
    *against* market economics, though, in my opinion, because I believe the
    suppliers are trading off a long-term customer base for a short term
    profit (and I believe the resultant product gets tarnished by the 
    assoiciated corruption and that this effect may extend to the music
    itself).
    
    If bands have made a decision to price their product at $X, I'd love to 
    see them put in controls to keep the black and gray market out of it.
    Maybe they have a good reason for charging what they charge, and maybe
    that reason is based on customer satisfaction.
    
    - Sean

    
>    FWIW :...while i really do appreciate the debate and marvel at the enormous
>    amount of energy it requires...i have to tell you gentleman, that one
>    of my visions of hell, involves being stuck in an elevator for all
>    eternity with all of you, while this discussion rages on - forever...;')
    
    Have you been talking to my wife?  :^)
    
    - Sean_who_has_fed_someone_up_with_his_"debates" :^)

>      a) One definition is to define dedication by the amount of money
>         one is willing to pay for a ticket.  This is what the industry
>         does now.
>    
>      b) Another is that you could define dedication by the amount of time 
>         you were willing to "pay" (by waiting out for however many hours or 
>         days).  This is what the industry used to do.
    
>    One thing is for sure.  In a) and b), the BAND gets just as much money.
    
    That is certainly not "for sure". 
    

    re : .267

>    My view is for every "old" (or loyal, or pissed off) fan who drops
>    out of the concert scene for these reasons, there's another newer,
>    younger, perhaps more naive one to replace them.  The popular music/
>    concert industry caters primarily to a youth market.  That market is
>    replenished every year as another wave of kids acquire the taste for
>    and finances to participate.
    
    You've got a point here.  The teenage audience is not limited to the
    newer bands.  When I went to the recent Rush shows at the Centrum, it
    was clear that there were people in the audience that were cheering
    songs that were originally recorded before they were born.  I think we
    probably see this phenomenon particularly in the case of bands that
    have been producing material semi-steadily over the last 20 years.
    
    DFW

    At the risk of boring Karen further...
    
>    It seems that your argument is that there is some artificial cap in
>    place and that by the performers charging more, the scalpers thus get
>    less. I see no evidence of this cap. 
    
    >Huh?
    
    >Is a Ticketron outlet allow to sell a $20 ticket for $100?
    
    >The price is CLEARLY capped.
    
    My "cap" is your "market value" in the next quotation... namely, I am
    referring to the maximum price the average person will pay for a ticket
    (leaving the legitimate ticket sources, like Ticketron, out of the
    picture).
    
    >In order to accept my demonstration, you have to accept (as all
    >Keynesian economists do) that commodities like tickets have "market
    >value" which means "the price that people are WILLING to pay".
    
    >If the market value of a ticket is $100 and the face value is $20,
    >a scalper can make $80 a ticket.
    
    I can bet I'm one of the few people on this planet who would gladly
    stand up in a crowd and admit that I'm a "Reagan Republican", so
    please, no more economics lessons.
    
    My point all along has been that I believe that "market value" is the
    exact flaw in your argument. Specifically, I claim that market value
    rises proportionally with increases in face value. What may decrease is
    demand, but not value. However, I feel that this is a wash. Let me
    explain.

    If a scalper sells 100 $10 tickets at $20, he has made a $1000 profit.
    If a scalper sells 10 $100 tickets at $200, he has still made the same
    profit. The only difference is the decrease in the demand.
    
    I claim that there is some percentage (I have no idea what that
    percentage is, so I will not even begin to guess) of people that
    regardless of the face value of a ticket, are willing to pay high
    markup because of the quality of the seats or some other factor. What
    scalping really is is speculation on that percentage. When the seats in
    question are affordable by anyone, then the percentage in question
    represents the slightly affluent. When the seats in question are
    affordable by only the affluent, then the percentage in question
    represents the super affluent.  And so on. But at any level, there will
    be some business to be done with people who want the product and are
    not particularly concerned with the cost, and I would bet that the
    total profit is fairly consistent.
    
    And so, I conclude that the face value of the ticket is not the factor
    that will put scalpers out of business. What will do that is methods
    which limit the availability of tickets, and prevent institutional
    scalpers from getting blocks large enough to make their effort
    worthwhile. In other words, if you really want to put them out of
    business, limit the number of tickets they can get their hands on.
    
    Brian

    I've been a sort of "big brother" to my neighbor's son.
    
    His favorite groups are largely groups from the 70's and 80's, often
    bands that disbanded long before the songs he listened were anything
    other than nursery rhymes!
    
    I'll never forget one conversation:
    
    	db: "What's your favorite albums?"
    	Todd: "The Wall"
    	db: "You're kidding!  That's a very adult kinda album"
    	Todd: "It's my favorite"
    	db: "Oh, I just realized what you meant, you mean Michael Jackson's
    		'The Wall', I thought you were talking about Pink Floyd"
    	Todd: "Of COURSE, I'm talking about Pink Floyd.  Michael Jackson?
    		Give me a break!"
    
    This kid was 11 years old!   

    > Specifically, I claim that market value rises proportionally with
    > increases in face value. 
    
    What you're basically claiming here is that concert tickets have
    inelastic demand.
    
    That may be true for items like bread and mild, but not luxury
    commodities like concert tickets.  
    
    This demonstrates the signficance I pointed out about the word
    "anything" in the context of what people will pay.
    
    Let's try and engineer an "agree to disagree" truce:
    
    If you believe that there is no limit to what people will (not to
    mention "can") pay for concert tickets, you should agree with Brian.
    
    Clearly you are presuming that.
    
    	db

    I carefully worded my previous response thinking that it demonstrated
    my point adequately. I believe I have stated my point in the best
    manner that I am capable of stating it. I really don't know where to go
    from here, but...
    
    >What you're basically claiming here is that concert tickets have
    >inelastic demand.
    
    No I'm not. In fact, I actually *stated* the opposite: The demand is
    indeed a function of price. What I am claiming is that there is a
    rather consistent amount of profit to be made reselling tickets,
    regardless of price. A higher ticket price will indeed decrease
    the number of tickets a scalper can sell: but, by my theorem the loss
    of volume is made up by the proportional increase in price per unit.
    
    If everyone bought tickets from scalpers, your theory would hold. I am
    saying that there is still plenty of business left among the
    *shrinking* number of people who will do business with scalpers when
    ticket prices rise. Enough in fact, that it will not effect the overall
    profitability of scalping. The only factor is whether the supply of
    tickets matches the demand for tickets at the scalper's price.
    
    Traditionally, the demand has exceeded the supply and hence the ongoing
    problem. Attempts to put the supply directly into the hands of the
    demand (the concert-goer), without a middle man (the scalper), will
    help solve the problem. Currently, the middle-man creates an artificial
    supply problem by buying up the supply in huge blocks. This artificial
    manipulation of the supply has an equally artificial effect on the
    "market value", and one that is not a function of normal market
    principals.
    
    >Let's try and engineer an "agree to disagree" truce:
    
    >If you believe that there is no limit to what people will (not to
    >mention "can") pay for concert tickets, you should agree with Brian.
    
    No, if you believe this you should visit a psychiatrist. This has
    absolutely nothing to do with my point. While I'm all for a truce, let
    it not be based on this statement. Let it instead be based on the real
    disagreement: namely Dave thinks raising ticket prices cuts into the
    scalpers profits and I absolutely do not!
    
    >Clearly you are presuming that.
    
    Clearly, you are presuming what I presume, which is pretty damn
    presumptuous. :-)
    
    Brian

    re: .268 - /k and her vision of hell
    
    You know, that works for me, too, except I'll also be sheetrocking the
    walls to the strains of Neil Young and AC/DC.
    
    Thanks, Karen.
    
    Dave

    ....-1...with the occasional break for some root canal  work....;")..../k

>    No I'm not. In fact, I actually *stated* the opposite: The demand is
>    indeed a function of price. What I am claiming is that there is a
>    rather consistent amount of profit to be made reselling tickets,
>    regardless of price. 
    
    Brian, you may disagree, but I believe that this statement implies that
    there is no price ("regardless of price") such that people wouldn't
    pay.
    
    I also maintain that this is obvious and can be proved inductively:
    
    Do you believe that if I raised the price of a ticket to 10 trillion
    dollars that there would still be a "consistent amount of profit to be
    made reselling tickets, regardless of that price?
    
    If you do believe that, then clearly you DO believe there is no limit to
    what people will pay.
    
    If you don't believe that, then it is clear that at SOME price (perhaps
    well below 10 trillion bucks) where the scalpers profit falls to zero,
    which EXACTLY what I claim.
    
    	db

    > ...some price...where the scalper's profits fall to zero.
    
    Not only a price, but a time! Scalpers asking $200 for a $40 ticket
    are real interested in dealing come along show-time...
    
    Edd

    >Do you believe that if I raised the price of a ticket to 10 trillion
    >dollars that there would still be a "consistent amount of profit to be
    >made reselling tickets, regardless of that price?
    
    No, of course, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that any
    realistic price you charge for a ticket, that a majority of people
    would pay, has a corresponding markup that scalpers can charge another
    (albeit smaller) group. And this is exactly the nature of why
    your argument fails: namely, there *is* a face value where the
    customer demand will fall off sharply. If no one buys a ticket, yes
    there are no profits for scalpers. But that rather defeats the purpose,
    don't you think? There is no such thing as a price you can charge that
    most people will pay that *some* other people won't pay more. Lord
    knows, DEC's been relying on that basic truth for years! :-)
    
    As I said before, all of the current crop of "raise the face value to
    bone the scalpers" efforts have failed, since there's still plenty of
    scalper tickets at scalper prices being purchased. This is fact. If I
    were at all inclined, I could go to NYC and see Barbara Striesand for a
    small fortune, or Pink Floyd or the Eagles for a slightly smaller
    fortune. Therefore, the evidence is right there in blindingly obvious
    panorama technicolor for all to see. Your "solution" does not work. So,
    why are we still arguing about this?
    
    Brian

    Brian,

    There exists an admittedly "unrealistic" price at which we agree 
    where the scalpers potential take is zero.   At lower prices they
    make money.  Those are two points on the curve.

    		|   *
    Scalpers's	|
    Profit	|
    		|
    		------------------------*-----------
    		   $20			$10 Trillion
    			Ticket Price

    Clearly at a lower price the scalpers makes money, at SOME POINT
    it seems rather clear that the scalpers profit goes to zero which
    proves my theory right there because that is EXACTLY what I claim.

    > What I do believe is that any realistic price you charge for a
    > ticket,  that a majority of people would pay, has a corresponding
    > markup that scalpers can charge another (albeit smaller) group. 

    Tell you what, I'll agree that if you limit the graph to a "realistic
    price" which is defined as "what a majority of people would pay" that
    the curve stays above zero.

    However, there is no particular reason for a seller of any commodity
    with limited quantities to limit himself to such a price.  If I can
    only make 100 units of some commodity, and I can find 100 people
    willing to pay a price higher than "what a majority of people would
    pay", why shouldn't I charge that higher price?

>    As I said before, all of the current crop of "raise the face value to
>    bone the scalpers" efforts have failed, since there's still plenty of
>    scalper tickets at scalper prices being purchased. This is fact. If I
>    were at all inclined, I could go to NYC and see Barbara Striesand for a
>    small fortune, or Pink Floyd or the Eagles for a slightly smaller
>    fortune. Therefore, the evidence is right there in blindingly obvious
>    panorama technicolor for all to see. Your "solution" does not work. So,
>    why are we still arguing about this?

    I already answer that in .269.  The short answer is that even those
    higher ticket prices are rather undeniably still below the market value of
    them.   This is clear because people ARE paying more money for them.
    
    For your convenience, I've reproduced that answer from 269 here
  
    From .269:    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > I think the Pink Floyd shows, at which the $75 tickets marked up to
    > $175 by some agencies have sold to only single-seat availability,
    > proves that you're theory is flawed.
    
    No, not at all.
    
    Here's my theory:
    
        >Scalping is the result of the difference between the face value of the
        >tickets and their actual value (what people are willing to pay for
        >them).
    
    Note that the fact that scalpers can sell tickets for $175 is clear
    proof that the "actual value" (at least $175) is more than the face
    value ($75).
    
    My theory is entirely consistent with the evidence you gave regarding
    Floyd tickets.

    >Clearly at a lower price the scalpers makes money, at SOME POINT
    >it seems rather clear that the scalpers profit goes to zero which
    >proves my theory right there because that is EXACTLY what I claim.

    Theoretical proof and practical application are two different matters,
    as well you know.
    
    In order for your mechanism to work, the "market value" must be
    calculated and the face value must become the market value. Good
    luck calculating what that market value is - for every performer
    in every market - where enough people will pay that amount but
    none will pay more. By your reckoning, Barbara Striesand should
    be charging closer to $750 per ticket, since that's what the
    scalpers are getting. I would bet that if she did charge that,
    not only would she still sell out, but she would raise the
    perceived value of the tickets enough that a bunch of scalpers
    could still make a killing selling them for $950.
    
    On the other hand, tell those scalpers that they have to stand in line
    for six hours, get a wrist band, go back for another six hours and
    then they can only get four tickets, and you'll see scalping go *way
    down*.
    
    The reason why institutional scalpers exist is because they can buy
    great tickets in bulk and charge a big markup. These guys should be
    stopped. On the other hand, the "small businessman" who does go stand
    in line and sells his tickets to someone who was not willing to do the
    work themselves is, in my opinion, welcome to charge whatever he can
    get for his tickets. At least he is providing a real service,
    regardless of how expensive that service may be (of course, I'm not
    likely to use his service, but other richer people are).
    
    By your reasoning, artists should rip people off because scalpers are,
    and at least if someone's going to be greedy the performers might as
    well be the greedy ones. So, instead of fixing the problem, you just
    migrate the sleeziness to where you feel it is more justified. Kind of
    like moving Bill Clinton from Arkansas to Washington.
    
    Brian

>    In order for your mechanism to work, the "market value" must be
>    calculated and the face value must become the market value. 
    >Good  luck calculating what that market value is - for every performer
>    in every market - where enough people will pay that amount but
>    none will pay more. 
    
    It's not necessary to have the exact "market value".  You only have to 
    get prices to a point where the difference is not large enough to
    attract scalpers.   Right now scalpers are getting almost GUARANTEED ROI
    that would make even the slickest stock market player insanely jealous.
    Well over 100%!!!
    
    All I'm saying is that if you allow ticket prices to go up, scalping
    will diminish.  It doesn't have to happen all at once, and it's not
    necessary to do market research or anything like that.   Ironically
    you can look to the scalpers prices to get some info as to the market
    price.
    
>    The reason why institutional scalpers exist is because they can buy
>    great tickets in bulk and charge a big markup. These guys should be
>    stopped. 
    
    How should they be stopped Brian?
    
    
    
    	db

>    The reason why institutional scalpers exist is because they can buy
>    great tickets in bulk and charge a big markup. These guys should be
>    stopped. 
    
>    How should they be stopped Brian?
    
    I answered that question partially in my previous response:
    
    >On the other hand, tell those scalpers that they have to stand in line
    >for six hours, get a wrist band, go back for another six hours and
    >then they can only get four tickets, and you'll see scalping go *way
    >down*.
    
    However, this will not work either, and I will be glad to tell you why
    (I figure since we were talking impractical solutions, I might as well
    offer my own). There is no incentive for the people who initially hold
    the tickets (the promoters and venues) to do this. As I said in my
    first response on this subject, these people like the fact that they
    can unload tickets in bulk. It reduces their risk and the consumer is
    hardly their concern. The only way this would work is if the performers
    stipulate in their contracts the way tickets get distributed. Some have
    tried to do this. In general though, they are more likely to attempt to
    gouge their consituency and use your method. But please, don't do it in
    the name of altruism (please remember that my entrance into this
    discussion was precipitated by your offering "applause" to these
    people).
    
    In a lot of ways, this reminds me of the PMRC debates of old, and the
    anti-gun debates of today (I am fiercely pro-gun rights). People in this
    country love to solve problems by hacking away at the periphery. Most
    of the time, the solution is far worse than the problem. To me,
    scalping is little more than an inconvenience given the few shows I
    attend. There is not a show that I can't learn to live without. If
    other fans are getting ripped off (and they are), well, better them than
    me. Sorry.

    Brian

 
    I gotta be nuts to jump in here, but . . .
    
    >   In order for your mechanism to work, the "market value" must be
    >   calculated and the face value must become the market value. Good
    >   luck calculating what that market value is - for every performer
    >   in every market - where enough people will pay that amount but
    >   none will pay more.                  
    
    	If they auctioned off the tickets, wouldn't you agree they'd be
    getting fair market value?  The logistics of holding an auction for
    every show, every performer, every venue would be . . . difficult to
    say the least, but it seems it'd be one way to ensure a fair price for
    the tickets ( as db defined it ).
    
    					- Jim

    Brian,
    
    FIrst of all, feel free to cast your solutions as "impractical" but I
    maintain that mine is entirely practical.
    
    It's also interesting to note that mine IS happening, just as I
    predicted hundreds of notes ago.  It's just plain economics, there's
    money to be made.  
    
    I'm not claiming that ticket prices are being raised specifically to
    stop scalping, but I will claim that the more they go up, the less
    scalping you will see.   High ticket prices creates a lot of problems
    for scalpers: the need much more capital, the risk factor is MUCH
    higher, the market is smaller, etc. etc.
    
    Anyway, I'm awfully glad you didn't mention "introduce tougher laws" as
    the way to stop scalpers.  If you had, I would've had to confiscate
    your "Reagan Republican" card.   Reagan Republicans don't advocate
    regulation of the free market.
    
    ;-)
    
    	db

    >It's also interesting to note that mine IS happening, just as I
    >predicted hundreds of notes ago.  It's just plain economics, there's
    >money to be made.  
    
    >I'm not claiming that ticket prices are being raised specifically to
    >stop scalping, but I will claim that the more they go up, the less
    >scalping you will see.   High ticket prices creates a lot of problems
    >for scalpers: the need much more capital, the risk factor is MUCH
    >higher, the market is smaller, etc. etc.
    
    I'm glad you're not claiming that performers are trying to stop scalping
    through raising prices. There may (as you claim) or may not (as I
    claim) be an effect on scalping. I was under the impression that you
    believed that performers were doing this specifically to fight this
    perceived problem (and I do indeed mean perceived, as I'm not entirely
    convinced it is an actual problem). Now I understand that you do not
    believe this, and I rejoice at your wisdom. :-)
    
    Previously, I stated my choice to ignore the "problem" of small-time
    scalpers. I don't feel the same way about the institutional scalpers. I
    would like to see them stopped. What you propose is a mechanism that
    hurts most of the people involved, in an attempt to hurt a small
    minority. You want everyone to pay at, or near, the "market value" of a
    ticket (or at least close enough to this value to eliminate scalping).
    Will you concede that this market value is also the maximum value?
    Currently, some significant, but still small, percentage of people are
    paying this value. You want *everyone* to pay this price. You want this
    to happen to punish the profiteers. You are, in my opinion, proposing
    Draconian measures to fix littering.
    
    Now, I know that you will counter that prices are rising and that it is
    not in response to Draconian manipulation. On the other hand, the rise
    in prices can mostly be linked to price rises in general. Further,
    these prices have had demonstrably little effect on scalping. So, you
    say, raise the prices even more, get closer to the market value. And
    now we're back to manipulating the prices to prove your point. The fact
    is, the market is not interested in proving your point. Nor is the
    market, in general, interested in eliminating profiteering.
    
    >Anyway, I'm awfully glad you didn't mention "introduce tougher laws" as
    >the way to stop scalpers.  If you had, I would've had to confiscate
    >your "Reagan Republican" card.   Reagan Republicans don't advocate
    >regulation of the free market.
    
    Absolutely correct. In fact, a true Reagan Republican, which I most
    certainly am, is opposed to the regulation of just about everything,
    believing that the constition provides the only regulation that is
    needed: mainly regulation of the government itself, and how the
    government may effect our lives. But that's another soapbox...
    My point is that what you advocate is as much regulation as those that
    advocate laws to fix the problem. You want to manipulate the market to
    "squeeze" the profits. What you are really doing is squeezing a baloon.
    All the air leaves one place and bloats another. So what. How can
    anyone interpret this as solving a problem?
    
    If you really want to solve the problem, turn your creative juices
    toward ways to give incentive to promoters and venues NOT to deal with
    institutional scalpers. Don't have the government tell them they can't,
    make it in their financial interest not to.
    
    Brian

    Brian's last paragraph hits the mark....but how do you make it better
    for them (venues,promoters,bands) the only way they get more is to
    raise the price (which is alright but I don't want to see happen).
    Something needs to be done to stop the flow of tickets to the big time
    scalpers....if they want to call or stand in line with me then fine,
    but in no way are they doing this right now and getting the type and
    amount of tickets they get. (as in if the limit of tickets is say 6, I
    find it highly inpossible from them to get rows of tickets like they
    do) 
    
    Chris

    Brian,
    
    Somewhere along the line you picked up the impression that I "advocate"
    raising ticket prices.
    
    The only thing I'm "advocating" is not doing anything with legislation.
    The solution you propose is perfectly acceptable to me, however I don't
    think it will work as well as you think it does.
    
    My belief is basically the same as the quote I gave earlier from an
    economics book:  as long as the real value of the ticket is higher
    than the face value, there will be potential for scalping.
    
    I believe if we implement your solution, all that means is you'll see a
    lot more employees of ticket agencies in those lines.  The difference
    between the market value and the face value is easily big enough to
    pay such people.
    
    
>    I'm glad you're not claiming that performers are trying to stop scalping
>    through raising prices. 
    
    I do believe that's part of the motivation, I just don't believe that
    it's entirely altruistically motivated (i.e. "make more money" rather
    than "stop scalpers").
    
>    Now, I know that you will counter that prices are rising and that it is
>    not in response to Draconian manipulation. On the other hand, the rise
>    in prices can mostly be linked to price rises in general. 
    
    FWIW, I certainly don't buy that.   
    
>    Absolutely correct. In fact, a true Reagan Republican, which I most
>    certainly am, is opposed to the regulation of just about everything,
    
    I'm glad to hear that.  In fact, at least among the "active" noters
    here, that now seems to be the populist view ("don't invoke legislation
    to stop scalping"), but if you look back to the beginning of this topic
    that was a radical viewed championed by me and shared by only one or
    two others.  
    
>    If you really want to solve the problem, turn your creative juices
>    toward ways to give incentive to promoters and venues NOT to deal with
>    institutional scalpers. Don't have the government tell them they can't,
>    make it in their financial interest not to.
    
    I endorse this recommendation.

    >Hey, remember when you were 17?  No doubt you had stretch to afford
    >money for shows.  Did you think, for even a second, about not going
    >because you thought promoters were ripping you off?  Did you care about
    >inconvenience?  Loud, puking fans?  Being treated like cattle?  My
    >guess is for most of us, the answer was no.
    
    I agree with all that except the "stretch".  Record albums were about
    $4 when I was 17.  I was paying $2-5 for concert tix.  Now albums are
    $15 and concert tix are $100????  My part-time job pulled in about $40
    a week.  The same job today would probably pull in about $60 a week. 
    Anyway what used to be enough to get a few records plus go to a show
    or two now won't even get me a ticket!
    
    Maybe I'm being unfair with the $100 Eagles ticket price...just saw a
    new Sinatra show annonced with $67.50 the top seat.  Never thought I'd
    see the day where Sinatra seats were *cheaper* then the big rock bands!
    
    							Brian

    >Somewhere along the line you picked up the impression that I "advocate"
    >raising ticket prices.
    
    Yes, I did pick up that impression, based mostly on your statement that
    you "applauded" the rising prices.
    
    I now understand that you are saying, in effect, that if one considers
    scalping a problem, that rising prices will help eliminate this problem
    without other manipulation (i.e. legislation). Essentially, let the
    market be its own problem solver. The crux of your argument is that as
    tickets approach their "market value", by definition, there is less
    margin for scalpers. I would agree with this to a point. However, as I
    have pointed out many times in this topic, there is no evidence of
    rising prices currently having an effect on scalping. I believe this is
    due to other factors which you are not considering in your argument.
    
    (Yes, an object dropped in Earth's gravitational field will accelerate
    at the rate of 32 feet/second**2, *if* no other factor (such as
    friction) intervenes... but, other factors usually do intervene.)
    
    And so, let us examine what some of those factors might be. I do not
    believe that this is a complete taxonomy, just some of the more
    obvious selections...
    
    A concert is a complicated affair. As in all businesses, at each level
    some risk is assumed. The goal is to pass as much of the risk as
    possible onto the next link in the food chain. At each link there is a
    market which determines the "market price", for the service rendered.
    
    A "stadium-class" performer these days can get upwards of $100,000 for
    a show. But they must also compete in a market of other performers
    which tends to dictate what they can charge. If they are smart (and
    most of them probably are, considering *where* they are), they are
    already charging at or near their market value.
    
    The venues also compete in a market which determines what they can
    charge for their services. Having worked as a phone grunt for a concert
    promoter at one time, I was under the impression that there was a
    rather fixed "price per seat" that venues could charge. Again, one
    would assume that the venue is doing everything it can to get as much
    money for each seat as it possibly can.
    
    There are other services associated with a concert (catering, limos,
    security, hotel, etc.), each of which one would also assume knows how
    to strike the balance between getting the most money and getting the
    business.
    
    The promoter is the primary speculator in the food chain. He/She books
    the act, often paying most (if not all) of the performer's fee up
    front. Based on the potential market for a given act, the promoter
    books a venue and other services. Now, the costs, and hence the risks,
    are known. The promoter must get a certain amount of money for each seat
    in the selected venue to break even, upon which they add their
    anticipated profit. However, at this point the promoter holds almost
    %100 of the risk. If those tickets don't sell, the promoter is screwed.
    If the promoter gets greedy, and makes the ticket prices too high, they
    assume even greater risk. This is not good for them.
    
    So, they pass the risk on. Their best way of doing that now is to
    charge a price at which they make a reasonable profit but sell off their
    inventory (tickets) as quickly as possible. They might make more money
    if they charge higher prices, or they might gamble badly and lose their
    shirts. Better to let someone else assume the risk. And this is where
    the scalpers come in. As I have hopefully demonstrated, when the
    institutional scalpers buy the tickets in bulk, they are buying them at
    their market value, i.e. not necessarily the highest value, but the
    highest value at which they are willing to assume the promoter's risk.
    It is because of the assumption of a rather large amount of risk by the
    scalper that they end up charging the consumer so much. While their
    markup may seem excessive, it is proportional to the risk the take.
    Essentially, they are taking the risk for the rest of the food
    chain.
    
    So, if their profits are deemed excessive, it seems clear to me that
    best solution is to reduce the risks. Remember, the biggest profit goes
    to the one with the biggest risk. If some of the risk can be pushed
    back down in the food chain, then the need for excessive profit taking
    at any level is minimized, and the market value is more easily
    established. One way to achieve this would be to eliminate up-front
    cash payments. Another way is to get corporate sponsors for tours that
    are willing to assume some of the risk based on advertising goals (this
    is happening more and more).
    
    I stand by my assertion that price pressure alone will not solve the
    problem.
    
    Brian

    Brian,
    
    Your note makes it very clear that we have a different notion of how
    "market value" is defined.
    
>    But they must also compete in a market of other performers
>    which tends to dictate what they can charge. If they are smart (and
>    most of them probably are, considering *where* they are), they are
>    already charging at or near their market value.
    
    The fact that scalpers can get SO much more for their tickets strikes
    me as clear evidence that the tickets are not priced at or near market
    value.
    
    The fact that Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and Streisand get sell out
    multiple shows in nearly every locale at the newly incredible prices
    they are asking is clear evidence that the old prices we were used to
    paying for tickets was not anywhere near the market value.
    
    >I was under the impression that there was a rather fixed "price per
    >seat" that venues could charge. 
    
    I think that was the commonly held view and that the falsehood of it
    has only recently been realized.
    
    >As I have hopefully demonstrated, when the
>    institutional scalpers buy the tickets in bulk, they are buying them at
>    their market value, i.e. not necessarily the highest value, but the
>    highest value at which they are willing to assume the promoter's risk.
    
    Brian, the conventional definition of "market value" IS the highest
    price ("what the market will bear").  Therefore, you're above paragraph
    makes no sense using any commonly held notion of "market value".
    
    Part of why I don't buy your theory is because you seem to think that
    the promoters set the "market price" and that scalpers get something
    higher than the "market price".   
    
    I don't believe (nor would any Keynesian economist believe) that promoters
    can set the market price (without changing the supply) nor does it make
    sense for any conventional definition of "market value" to claim
    that one can get a "higher" price than the market value.
    
    Y'know Brian... I now am going to join Karen in the ranks of the bored.
    I think this is going nowhere.  If you're against legislating against
    scalping your more "on my side" than not.  As I said, my motive for
    entering this topic (years ago when it first started in an earlier
    incarnation of MUSIC) was to challenge the notion that it was somehow
    morally different than ordinary everyday free market capitalism at
    work.
    
    This may be in the category of "famous last words" but I think I'm
    going to end my participation in this vein of the topic with this note.
    
    	db

    
    > The fact that scalpers can get SO much more for their tickets strikes
    > me as clear evidence that the tickets are not priced at or near market
    > value.
    
    Dave, why doesn't Levi's charge as much for their jeans as Guess?
    Cleary Levi's are not priced at market value, since people are willing
    to pay Guess prices.
    
    There's not *one* market.  There are many.  Which one are these ticket
    prices targetting?  You think it is the same market.  I disagree - I
    think it is a much smaller market, but that the restricted size of venues 
    is hiding that particular point "at this time."  Let's see where we're
    at when the market shrinks under venue size (I know, I know, you think
    all us sheep will come back in droves when the price "fixes" itself).
    
    - Sean

>    Dave, why doesn't Levi's charge as much for their jeans as Guess?
>    Cleary Levi's are not priced at market value, since people are willing
>    to pay Guess prices.
    
    Do you actually believe that people "are willing to pay Guess prices"
    for Levi's jeans?
    
    I don't, but if you do, I'd be happy to sell Levi's jeans at price
    10% off Guess prices to anyone you can find willing to pay that. OK?
    
    These are two different products.   Guess jeans are marketed as
    "designer" jeans, Levi's are not.  
    
    So your question is like saying "Why isn't Shop-rite after-shave and
    cologne priced the same as Ralph Lauren's Polo, clearly Shop-rite 
    after-shave and cologne isn't priced at the market value".
    
    I don't believe that and I hope you don't either.

    >Y'know Brian... I now am going to join Karen in the ranks of the bored.
    >I think this is going nowhere.
    
    >This may be in the category of "famous last words" but I think I'm
    >going to end my participation in this vein of the topic with this note.
    
    Dave,
    
    Back in the good ol' days, you used to rank on people (understandably)
    for two things:
    
    1. Trying to shut people off in the middle of a conversation
    
    2. Not making any attempt to really understand what someone is
       saying, but instead *telling* them what they are saying and then
       telling them how misguided they are for saying it!
    
    I think based on your last response to me, a jury of your peers would
    find you guilty on both counts. It's one thing to say, "I don't want to
    do this anymore". It's another thing to say (in effect, of course) that
    "you're a jello-head and I don't want to do this anymore". You have
    whupped many a poor noter (myself included) upside the head for this.
    Of course, every time it happened to me I was more than deserving of
    the whupping I got. But now, the shoe seems to fit the cobbler...
    
    For those mired in boredom, Dave included, next unseen does the trick.
    For the rest of us (even if its only me at this point...)
    
    >
    >                              If you're against legislating against
    > scalping your more "on my side" than not.  As I said, my motive for
    > entering this topic (years ago when it first started in an earlier
    > incarnation of MUSIC) was to challenge the notion that it was somehow
    > morally different than ordinary everyday free market capitalism at
    > work.
    
    Have you ever seen the movie "Joe vs. The Volcano"? In one scene, Joe's
    (Tom Hank's) boss is on the phone arguing with someone, except all he
    keeps saying is "we're not arguing about that", over and over. Well,
    "we're not arguing about that!" There is nothing in the notion you
    expressed above that I would or could argue with. In fact, on this
    particular matter we are in violent agreement.
    
    However, we are not in agreement on everything. We are in rather huge
    disagreement on one particular point: you say rising prices will put the
    scalpers out of business, I say they will not. Let me return to my now
    familiar refrain: If rising prices will eliminate scalping, then why
    isn't there any evidence of this happening so far? (And please, let's
    avoid the circular argument that you're proven right by virtue of the
    fact that no one has managed to prove you wrong).
    
    Having failed to get you to really answer the question so far, I even
    tried to answer it for you in my previous reply. Unfortunately, in
    disecting my answer you managed to avoid answering the question
    yourself. So not only did we get nowhere in the real debate, but you
    leave me compelled, yet again, to demonstrate that I really do grok
    the notion of market value in all its profound immensity.
    
    >Your note makes it very clear that we have a different notion of how
    >"market value" is defined.
    
    Not really. I was trying to demonstrate in my last note that at each
    level of the food chain, there is a separate market price - i.e., what
    the next guy in line will pay. A separate market has a separate price.
    A performer's market is really the promoters, the promoters' market is
    currently the scalpers and other ticket resellers, and their market is
    everyone else (us).
    
    It is not the goal of the performer, and often not even the promoter,
    to determine what the ticket price will be. That's several steps
    removed in the food chain. Their concern is what they can get for
    *their* services, and what they can get for their services is determined
    partly by what other people in the same market can get for their
    services, but mostly its determined by "what the market will bear",
    i.e. what the "consumer" of their services will pay.
    
>    But they must also compete in a market of other performers
>    which tends to dictate what they can charge. If they are smart (and
>    most of them probably are, considering *where* they are), they are
>    already charging at or near their market value.
    
    >The fact that scalpers can get SO much more for their tickets strikes
    >me as clear evidence that the tickets are not priced at or near market
    >value.
    
    This is the crux of our disagreement... Suppose we assume that the
    promoter is interested in eliminating the scalper from the equation and
    in selling the tickets directly to the end consumer. So, the promoter
    charges us all the "market value" (what we'll pay for those tickets).
    This is what you predict will happen. Unfortunately, this will not
    happen. Because, the promoter then assumes all of the risk on those
    tickets. They don't want that risk. They will gladly give away a large
    portion of that risk, and in the process, a large portion of their
    profits. The scalper provides a service to the promoter; a service the
    promoter is willing to pay for. I think you will agree that the price
    the scalper is willing to pay the promoter not only determines the
    market value of their transaction, but that it is also less than the
    market value of the transaction between the consumer and the scalper.
    Your theory works as long as the promoter is willing to "squeeze" the
    scalper. But the promoters are *not* willing to do this, because they
    are not willing to assume the corresponding level of risk.
    
    I was going to continue with a point-by-point refutation of your
    previous reply, but I think this adequately sums up my opinions on this
    subject, and further explanation would only cloud the issue.
    
    Brian

    Brian,
    
    I have ranked on people for ducking points, and avoiding answering
    a question, but not for bailing out of a case where it's clear that
    the axioms we base our remarks on are not commonly held.
    
    Now you accuse me of ducking a question: why doesn't Brian see any
    evidence of rising prices eliminating scalping.
    
    I have answered that: because the rising prices aren't near "what
    the market will bear".  
    
    I have not ducked your question, you just don't accept the answer.
    
    I also have to point out that given a high enough price we BOTH agreed
    that scalping would be eliminated.  We both agree that at some point
    on the price curve, scalping is eliminated.  That proves my point.
    
    You just have decided that it doesn't happen at a "realistic" point,
    however we don't know what point it happens at and we may "just
    disagree" as to whether deeming it "reasonable" has any signficance.
    
    

    Dave,
    
    Previously, you stated your reason for entering this discussion. So,
    I'll state mine... I perceive an "I told you so..." sort of air about
    what you've been saying. I apologize if this was/is not your intent.
    But based on that perception, I've been "taking you to task" on this
    matter, mainly because "I told you so" implies to me that, somehow, one
    has already been proven right... and I do not think the current
    evidence suggests that.
    
    >Now you accuse me of ducking a question: why doesn't Brian see any
    >evidence of rising prices eliminating scalping.
    
    >I have answered that: because the rising prices aren't near "what
    >the market will bear".
    
    Ah yes, I agree that has been your answer, but that is a circular
    argument. You're using what hasn't happened yet as proof of your
    concept. This has been my objection, mainly because I do not think that
    face value ticket prices will *ever* approach market value, for all the
    reasons I've already given.
    
    As high as the face value of tickets may be now, there is still enough
    margin to "market value" for scalpers to enjoy. And there will be,
    because other elements in the food chain are conciously charging
    *below* market value for other reasons (including "risk management").
    
    In fact, it seems that we agree, and have been agreeing all along, on
    this point. So, I guess my question for you now is: "is raising the
    price a *practical* solution to scalping?" Obviously, I do not believe
    it is, but I am interested in hearing what you say. To date, I have
    been under the impression that you think it is. If this, either never
    was, or is now not, the case, then I am sorry for wasting your time.
    
    Brian

    
    > Have you ever seen the movie "Joe vs. The Volcano"? In one scene, Joe's
    > (Tom Hank's) boss is on the phone arguing with someone, except all he
    > keeps saying is "we're not arguing about that", over and over.
    
    Rathole:  this was my favorite scene in that movie!  I was rolling!
    
    - Sean

    
    > Do you actually believe that people "are willing to pay Guess prices"
    > for Levi's jeans?
    
    A matter of opinion, I suppose, but my observation is "yes."  It looks to 
    me like simply having people know you spend a lot of $$$ on something 
    (label) is in and of itself "of value" to a select market.  All this
    presupposes that I don't find any quality/performance/comfort differences 
    between the two brands.

    > I don't, but if you do, I'd be happy to sell Levi's jeans at price
    > 10% off Guess prices to anyone you can find willing to pay that. OK?
    
    Kind of the point: Levi's could make a minor change to their line and have 
    undetectable differences to Guess and still nobody would pay Guess prices. 
    Levi's must cater to practicality.  Guess can cater to lavishness
    because they targetted the designer lable market first and won.

    > These are two different products.   Guess jeans are marketed as
    > "designer" jeans, Levi's are not.  
    
    Yes.  And the business of concert promotion is starting to look like
    only the people who can afford "designer tickets" are going to be able
    to go.  That's fine for that market - where's the market for us Levi's
    fans?  Same product/higher price.

    You attribute the fact that prices have risen out-of-proportion to 
    other entertainment to "the market value wasn't being met."  I don't.

    I still think you are too focused on market-value, and don't realize
    that most in here don't argue the mechanics of your definitions, nor do
    we want government controls.

    ************************************************************************
    I want the conumer to understand what is happening, think about the
    consequences of giving the market the value its currently getting, and 
    take corrective action of their own volition.  Why do this?   Because the
    corruption and scamming are ruining the concert experience for many,
    and soon they may find themselves in the category of the "disgusted"
    themselves.  Heck, for extra support, I'll ask the bands to help us out, 
    what can they lose?
    ************************************************************************

    - Sean

    I agree with .307.  Raising ticket prices simply mean that the concert
    experience will be reduced to only the "big" shows like Madonna, PF,
    etc., going on the road because the audience needs to see more than a
    half-dozen guys in flannel flailing around for 90 minutes to pay $100
    for it.  I haven't been to a venue larger than a theatre for ten years
    for this very reason.  The shows aren't worth the money, period.  
    
    Even the club scene is getting overpriced, a local venue is getting
    $18+ per show for some acts; this gets you six songs from an opener and
    45 minutes to an hour with the headliner before you must make way for
    the second show crowd.  What value  8^(
    
    							Brian

>    most in here don't argue the mechanics of your definitions, nor do
>    we want government controls.
    
    That may be true now, but you do NOT have to look back too far to see
    that that not long ago the clear majority of noters in here clearly
    thought it should be illegal.
    
>    I want the conumer to understand what is happening, think about the
>    consequences of giving the market the value its currently getting, and 
>    take corrective action of their own volition.  Why do this?   Because the
>    corruption and scamming are ruining the concert experience for many,
>    and soon they may find themselves in the category of the "disgusted"
>    themselves.  Heck, for extra support, I'll ask the bands to help us out, 
>    what can they lose?
    
    Brian has provided the answer to that question. See his notes on risk, etc. 
    
    I think you'll never see any significant collective action among the
    "consumers".   They want those tickets, and they'll pay big bucks for
    them.
    
    	db

    > Live Music Heading For The Coffin
    
    Well, not ALL live music.
    
    > Even the club scene is getting overpriced, a local venue is getting
    > $18+ per show for some acts; this gets you six songs from an opener and
    > 45 minutes to an hour with the headliner before you must make way for
    > the second show crowd.  What value  8^(
    
    Come to PK II's lounge in Raymond, NH on Saturday and you'll get in for
    free and hear about 3 hours of live music.
    
    Hey, maybe the silver lining is that this may boost the "local" market
    for live music.   

    Hey, I heard a cut from the new Boston album.  A new record means a new
    tour (maybe)...hey, it would be their fourth in almost twenty years,
    wonder if they'll go for $125 a seat?  8^)  8^)
    
    Hey, Dave is the cover at PK II's what the market will bear?  8^)  8^)
    
    							Brian

    
    	If I knew I could scoop up a slew of tickets and sell them at
    	2x or 3x face value, and I had no morals, I'd go into that
    	business too.
    
    	This shouldn't be illegal [no one ever went broke overestimating
    	the stupidity of the public, there's a sucker born every minute,
    	etc.] but it'd be nice if the venues could do something to keep
    	this from happening ... or if the buying public would refuse to
    	pay these prices and force the scalpers/agencies to lose a bundle
    	on a few shows here and there to put them in their collective
    	places.
    
    							GTI

    
 Re: .314
    
  >>And people wonder why this company is in trouble.
    
  Is the company in trouble?
    
  TT

    re. raising prices to diminish scalping:

    Rolling Stone had an article this month titled "Going for the Gold," 
    ostensibly about the dichotomy of audiences that Golden Circle seats
    create.  But it delved into the effects of high ticket prices in
    general, including those that are the result of scalping.

    It starts off claiming that a big problem is that high prices put the
    best seats beyond the financial reach of *younger* fans (here's where
    you remember my comments about future fan attendance :^) ).  Why is that
    bad?

    Well, according to Gregg Perloff, president of Bill Graham Presents (San
    Francisco) "if someone can't afford a golden-circle ticke, they'll stop
    going", that they won't just settle for the worse seats and they'll carry
    that attitude to other concerts.  This is why he thinks just having the
    artist charge more to keep the scalpers out of it doesn't change the
    outcome - he thinks that "concert tickets need to be seen as a bargain in 
    order for the market to stay healthy."  Ultra high prices, he adds,
    "alienate a large segment of the audience."

- Sean

    I think keeping the younger fans out is a benefit.
    
    Edd

    
    >     I think keeping the younger fans out is a benefit.
    
    Sure - it'd be a benefit to cut federal taxes in half starting 1995,
    even if it cranked up the deficit - for "me."  :^)  

    Sean,
    
    There's an obvious problem with that argument: the high-priced shows
    are still selling out!
    
    So people who can't afford to pay stop going.  What does it matter if
    there are more people who can afford to pay than there are seats
    available?
    
    If I'm selling out concerts at high ticket prices, exactly what am
    I losing according to Mr. Perloff's argument?  
    
    	db

<from the PhishNet>

PEARL JAM COMPLAINS TICKET AGENCY PUT PRESSURE ON PROMOTERS  5/27/94

BY CHUCK PHILIPS
Special to the Los Angeles Times

In a memorandum to the U.S. Justice Department, the rock band Pearl Jam has
complained that Los Angeles-based Ticketmaster successfully pressured
promoters to boycott the band's low-cost concert tour this summer.

Lawyers for the Seattle-based band -- the biggest selling rock group in the
country -- made the complaint on May 6 in a memo to the department's
antitrust division. The memo accused Ticketmaster -- the world's largest
ticket agency -- of exercising a monopoly over ticket distribution in this
country and using that influence to keep promoters from booking the Pearl Jam
tour.

The memorandum, filed by Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent New York law firm,
said Ticketmaster has exclusive arrangements with all important concert
venues in the country and uses these arrangements to ''cement control over
the distribution of tickets to concerts.''

The Justice Department has begun an evaluation of the memo, and sent three
officials from Washington to Los Angeles on Tuesday to interview music
business figures, sources said.

Such an evaluation is in some measure a standard response to such a
complaint. It is preliminary to a decision on whether to launch an
investigation.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined comment. Representatives
for Pearl Jam also did not comment.

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, Ticketmaster vice president Ned S.
Goldstein said ''Ticketmaster operates fully and squarely within the
parameters of all applicable laws.''

Sales of Pearl Jam's last two albums together exceeded $137 million.
Ticketmaster, which is privately held, last year reportedly earned about $200
million in service and sponsorship fees on $1.3 billion in sales of tickets
to concert and sporting events.

The Pearl Jam memorandum is likely to focus new attention on a growing furor
over skyrocketing concert ticket prices and service fees, and the
arrangements among managers, promoters and service companies that underlie
pricing decisions.

Ticketmaster collects a phone service fee for tickets to rock and pop
concerts, typically $6 to $8 per ticket, although the agency's fee for $350
tickets for Barbra Streisand shows amounted to $18 in some cities.
Ticketmaster pays a portion of the fees to maintain exclusive long-term
contracts with the owners of the largest concert venues. In addition,
Ticketmaster also pays a portion to some promoters, managers, agents and
artists.

In March, Pearl Jam sent letters to promoters vowing to perform concerts this
summer only at venues that charged $18 for a ticket and no more than $1.80
for service or handling charges. A representative of the band said Pearl Jam
was seeking to keep prices in the range of their young fans.

But sources in the concert industry said the group encountered immediate
resistance from Ticketmaster and members of the North American Concert
Promoters Association, a McLean, Va.-based group that represents the nation's
largest promoters.

In two letters obtained by The Times, Ben Liss, the executive director of the
association, warned promoters that if they booked Pearl Jam under the band's
conditions, they could face possible lawsuits.

Ticketmaster ''views the Pearl Jam issue as an all or nothing proposition,''
Liss wrote in one of his letters on March 24. Ticketmaster chief executive
Fred Rosen ''has indicated that he intends to take a very strong stand on
this issue to protect Ticketmaster's existing contracts with promoters and
facilities and, further, (Ticketmaster) will use all available remedies to
protect itself from outside third parties that attempt to interfere with
those existing contracts.''

Liss did not return phone calls seeking comment.

After being turned down by virtually every major promoter in the country for
bookings, Pearl Jam postponed its summer tour.

    How much did Pearl Jam want/expect/need to make from the tour?
    
    Would there have been enough left over to make it worth anyone's
    while to get in bed with them?
    
    Edd

    
    
    
    Definitely not enough for me...
    
    

        <<< Note 412.248 by TECRUS::ROST "From the dance hall to hell" >>>
                              -< Pass The Vaseline, Don >-
    
    >I like Pearl Jam's attitude where they requested Ticketraper NOT print
    >ads on the back of PJ tix and they even wanted a statement saying "the
    >service charge on this ticket does not go the band".  But I think it's
    >a losing battle.
    
    As we can now see, it IS a losing battle.  Basically the concert biz is
    saying that even though Pearl Jam is one of the hottest acts out there
    right now, they can't make a profit on an $18 ticket.  That's it,
    somebody flush, please...
    
    							Brian  

.325 is best read to the tune of "Long Live Rock"

Maybe Pearl Jam should play for free...  Like at Altamont Speedway

Tim

    
>    So people who can't afford to pay stop going.  What does it matter if
>    there are more people who can afford to pay than there are seats
>    available?
    
    The way you answer this question and the way I do is probably the biggest
    reason for our disagreement about scalping.  And why, no offense :^), I
    would not partner with you in a capitalist venture.  What matters? 
    Future sales.  
    
    Hypothetically speaking, if I have a 100 seat venue, I might be able to
    find a 100 people who'd each pay $100 to see some shows...  for a
    little while.  But the pool of people willing to pay $20 might be 900.
    Either way, the venue sells out.  However as tastes change/fads die
    out/economy slides/etc., you might wish you hadn't pissed off that pool
    of 900.
    
    I understand your counter to this - that you didn't piss off the fans 
    and they will come back when your "market price" does.  I disagree.  I 
    believe, and this is from a *supplier*, not consumer, perspective:
    
      o consumers hold grudges - they'll proudly pass up your product if they 
        think you've scammed them in the past
    
      o alienating young fans with high prices is a bad economic move with 
        future repercussions to your business.  You can get rich off the
        yuppies of today.  I'd prefer make a more modest amount off of them
        now so the kids of today will still buy my product when the yuppies
        go away in 10 years.
    
    > If I'm selling out concerts at high ticket prices, exactly what am
    > I losing according to Mr. Perloff's argument?  
   
    Answered.  I would never run my business under a "What is the maximum price
    I can get today, right this nanosecond."  It's just not that simple.
    
    - Sean
    
    P.S.  WAY TO GO, Pearl Jam!

>    I understand your counter to this - that you didn't piss off the fans 
>    and they will come back when your "market price" does.  I disagree.  
    
    That's but one reason among many in my "counter".
    
    Another important one is that if my next album flops, perhaps I won't
    be able to sell seats at any price and therefore what I've done is
    passed on money in the bank for the vague promise of future revenue.
    
    In this business, you're hot today and gone tommorrow.  While I might
    adopt your approach in some OTHER kind of business, everything I know
    about the music business tells me that you make your money while you
    can.
    
    For every band that has managed to record a second big-selling album
    there are thousands and thousands that didn't.  There are very few
    people who actually have success with any longevity.  
    
    You seem to be betting on an incredible wild longshot.  We'd make very
    incompatable business partners.
    
    	db

    Dave,
    
    While I must admit that I've completely lost track of what it is
    everyone is arguing about, I *think* I'm in agreement with you. In all
    entertainment businesses (including sports), the smart people make as
    much money as they can *now*.
    
    I see several flaws in the arguments being made:
    
    1. There seems to be an underlying assumption that people are "pissed
       off" over ticket prices. I think sold out shows all over the map
       are evidence that the pissed off people are in the minority.
    
    2. People are congratulating Pearl Jam for either their altruism or
       their great business sense (catering to their fans), and yet
       *clearly* they have failed to make an impact. Every promoter and
       venue took a look at what they wanted to do and decided to pass
       in favor of better deals. Having a plan is meaningless; having
       a *good* plan is what counts. Pearl Jam seem to lack a clue and
       want the Justice Department (and our tax money) to help them find
       one. Sorry, Homey don't play that.
    
    3. We continue to beat at this as though it is a "problem", and
       yet I see no evidence which suggests that it actually is a
       problem. In my opinion, the markup at the largest agencies
       seems to be quite reasonable. It may be more than I'd *like*
       to pay, but frankly, Bill Clinton's doing more every day to
       hurt my wallet than Ticketmaster ever will. As far as the
       other scalpers go, I think they're a drop in the bucket and
       entirely unworthy of the energy required to create a "solution".
    
    Brian

    Here's a question.  Barbara Streisand has just cancelled some dates due
    to health issues, right?  So I assume there are people who payed $1000
    scalper prices for some of the tickets to those shows.  So I guess
    those people are out $1000 now, no?
    

    I agree with Brian's (well articulated) points.
    
    I might add that while it might appear that Pearl Jam is being
    altruistic, it may well be that when you combine the price limits they 
    have set with what they insist on getting paid, it may boil down
    nothing more than "we're allowed to make money on our concerts,
    you are not".
    
    The stated intention of saving fans money is quite noble, but it seems
    quite possible that they expect it to come out of someone ELSE'S
    pockets, not theirs.
    
    re: .333 Calcagni.
    
    > So I assume there are people who payed $1000 scalper prices for some of
    > the tickets to those shows.  So I guess those people are out $1000 now,
    > no?
    
    Actually, no.  They are out at most $650 = $1000 - $350 refund for
    the ticket.
    
    And also they may not be out anything at all if they bought their
    tickets from an agency.   The two agencies I'm familiar with offer
    refunds on cancelled shows.  This is simply good business sense
    for them to offer that protection.
    
    But without a doubt, if you bought your ticket from some guy on the
    corner you're probably out of luck.   Bottom line: buy from agencies
    with refund policies and you won't have to deal with this "downside".

    
    > 1. There seems to be an underlying assumption that people are "pissed
    >    off" over ticket prices. I think sold out shows all over the map
    >    are evidence that the pissed off people are in the minority.
    
    You don't know anybody that has gotten to this point?  I'm not making
    any sweeping generalizations, but I am extrapolating the attitude of
    many friends I know to the whole population.  Possibly this is
    incorrect.  But then you seem to likewise incorrectly "ignore" the
    increase in news stories that support the fact of disastisfied fans.
    Every day I read stuff that is anti-scalping and anti-ticket agency.
    
    > 2. People are congratulating Pearl Jam for either their altruism or
    >    their great business sense (catering to their fans), and yet
    >    *clearly* they have failed to make an impact. Every promoter and
    
    First things first, you 2 :^).  I *do not* think they do this for 
    altruistic purposes.  I'd be against it if I did.  I think they are
    doing it for the selfish personal benefit.
    
    Having said that, proclaiming "no impact" is very premature.  Geez. 
    Give us a few years :^)
    
    - Sean

    Sean,
    
>    You don't know anybody that has gotten to this point?  I'm not making
>    any sweeping generalizations, but I am extrapolating the attitude of
>    many friends I know to the whole population.  Possibly this is
>    incorrect.  But then you seem to likewise incorrectly "ignore" the
>    increase in news stories that support the fact of disastisfied fans.
>    Every day I read stuff that is anti-scalping and anti-ticket agency.
    
    Sure, I know of people who are frustrated and maybe even pissed (you,
    for example :-). But the seats are still full, so while there may even
    be a majority of people who are frustrated, there is only a minority
    who seem angry enough to boycott shows.
    
    Nor do I believe that this minority will grow to significant numbers. I
    suspect that the people who are most frustrated are the geezers like me
    who remember the "good old days" when you could see a major act for
    $10. Today's crop of concert goers lack the same reference point.
    And I doubt Pearl Jam, for instance, care if the 30/something types
    like me stay home! :-)
    
>    First things first, you 2 :^).  I *do not* think they do this for 
>    altruistic purposes.  I'd be against it if I did.  I think they are
>    doing it for the selfish personal benefit.
    
>    Having said that, proclaiming "no impact" is very premature.  Geez. 
>    Give us a few years :^)
    
    I don't need years to see that the promoters and venues are laughing in
    PJ's faces...
    
    What Dave wrote yesterday as to why the promoters and venues are not
    biting was *right on the money*. (go back and look at what he wrote: no
    sense repeating it).
    
    Brian

    
    >                  But the seats are still full, so while there may even
    > be a majority of people who are frustrated, there is only a minority
    > who seem angry enough to boycott shows.
    
    Actually that leap of logic is not supported.  It could *or* could not be
    a minority who are angry enough to boycott.  I'm not saying it is the
    latter, only a sell-out doesn't prove the former.  As stated in my 
    previous hypothetical case, for example, if the venue holds 100, and 
    there were 900 ready to go ag $20 a pop, but only 100 ready to go
    at $100 a pop, well that's a 800 person boycott, a clear (but quite
    invisible to the promoter) majority.
    
    > Nor do I believe that this minority will grow to significant numbers. I
    > suspect that the people who are most frustrated are the geezers like me
    > who remember the "good old days" when you could see a major act for
    > $10.
    
    I bet there are a large percentage of young fans (the ones who still 
    live with modest allowances or who have to work part-time) who feel
    frustrated by ticket prices.
    
    > I don't need years to see that the promoters and venues are laughing in
    > PJ's faces...
    
    Of course they are!!  Because we let them!  Capone laughed for a while,
    too.  So a few of us would like to change the scenario where they make 
    all the rules, corrupt as they are -- by educating consumers and trying 
    to change their habits.  Doesn't work often, but sometimes it does.  
    Sometimes I support causes even if the odds are against me.
    
    Hey, I can agree to disagree here, no problem.  But I still will try to
    change a system I think stinks.
    
    - Sean

    Let's see if I can save us some time.
    
    I see no need to debate whether or not this silent majority Sean tells
    us of exists because even if we grant that it does, we still don't
    believe that it's in the artist's best interest to lower prices.
    
    Sean believes that he sacrifices future income from this alleged
    silent majority.  I (and I believe Brian) think that 
    
    	a) Sean over-estimates the amount of people pissed off, 
    	b) those people would come back anyway if prices were lowered and 
    	   will still buy albums if they're good
    	c) the volatile nature of the industry is such that it is not
    	   wise to sacrifice money "in the bag" now on a bet that you'll
    	   still be hot next year. 
    
    So I'd suggest we don't debate the validity of the "silent majority"
    theory.
    
    	db
    
    p.s. Brian, if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize

    Sean,
    
    You're welcome to fight... just beats me what you're fighting about and
    who you're fighting. You claim to be trying to do something about
    ticket prices and to educate people... I hope your "doing" amounts to more
    than writing in MUSIC notes. As for education, what exactly are you
    trying to educate us on? I think most of us already realize that we're
    paying more...
    
    If your "education" resembles what you've been saying in here, it's
    more along the lines of wanting people to join your cause. If you want
    people to join your cause, I think you need to do a better job of
    convincing some of us that there's actually a problem that your cause
    can solve.
    
    I don't go to many concerts now, but price is not the issue. Yes, there
    are shows that I might not go to if the price was too high. But higher
    prices, to some extent, actually *serve* my purposes. High prices make
    a fine drunken, vomiting, wolf-whisteling, sub-moronic asshole filter,
    and I'm all for that. I stay away from most shows because I don't want
    anything to do with the audience, not the ticket price. I couldn't care
    less what everyone else is paying to be where I don't *want* to be.
    
    I'd rather pay, say, $100 for a ticket to a group I would like to see
    (Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel...) and sit among adult
    human beings than pay $20 to sit among the extras from a Planet of the
    Apes film.
    
    Finally, I think Dave's a,b,c list in his previous message hits the
    nail on the head. Well done.
    
    Brian

I paid $18.whatever + service charges to see Pearl Jam, several weeks ago,
and the audience was the most well-behaved that I've ever witnessed.

>   I paid $18.whatever + service charges to see Pearl Jam, several weeks ago,
>   and the audience was the most well-behaved that I've ever witnessed.
    
    And, to be honest, this is probably the norm. However, I've had
    terrible luck in most shows I've gone to see in the last few years. The
    list of atrocious behaviour I've witnessed is long... I'll spare you
    the details. It just seems if there is at least one major idiot in
    the audience, I end up seated near him/her. I gues I'm just an
    idiot magnet. :-)
    
    Seriously though, it really has gotten to the point where I'm so sick
    of the bad (and I must admit, small minority of) concert goers, that I
    think the hassle outweighs the pleasure... I'd rather rent the
    seemingly inevitable concert video. :-)
    
    Brian

    
    > P.S. Incidentally, I'd be real cautious about characterising the issue
    > as a "yuppies vs. 'kids'."  In the first place neither those you call
    
    I agree.  I used this term only because it was mentioned to me that 
    "yuppies" were the ones with all the money to buy tickets.  I don't
    know enough to believe or disbelieve the stereotype, I was just
    following a thread that someone had already started.
    
    In a similar vein, Brain's "moron concert filter" (tickets to the richer
    among us) should be at least as offensive (from a stereotyping
    standpoint) to Dave as my earlier comments describing what "loyal" fans 
    might be.  :^)
    
    Anyways, Uncle!  I'm in the minority, possibly of 1, and have said my
    piece.  I can muse that if things don't change, you'll see a very different 
    world of concerts in the future.  It'll change like baseball has changed 
    and like family life has changed.  Not in one big whump, but in small
    subtle steps.  Till one day, you'll have Rolling Stone retrospective
    accounts of the many years of small changes that turned into a big
    thing.  And we'll all wonder why.  But I hope not.
    
    - Sean

    >In a similar vein, Brain's "moron concert filter" (tickets to the richer
                          ^^
    
    Thank you. I applaud your typing skills for determining the truth
    of the matter, even if accomplished subconciously. :-)
    
    Brian
      ^^

>    In a similar vein, Brain's "moron concert filter" (tickets to the richer
>    among us) should be at least as offensive (from a stereotyping
>    standpoint) to Dave as my earlier comments describing what "loyal" fans 
>    might be.  :^)
    
    The only thing about me offended by that was my sensibility.  ;-)

    
    A little something from these non-existant unsatisfied fans and
    the artists who shouldn't be worried about their fan base...  :^)
 
    Pulled from RADIO_RADIO:
    
            <<< GOES11::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RADIO_RADIO.NOTE;2 >>>
                            -< The End of an Error >-
================================================================================
Note 970.2                 Pearl Jam vs Ticket Shafter                    2 of 2
AIAG::WISNER "Paul Wisner, TIMA/Stars V3.0 Developm" 66 lines  10-JUN-1994 11:17
              -< I don'tknow what the orig source of this is... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            In one of the busiest seasons ever for concerts, the hot young
    band Pearl Jam is on the sidelines because of a dispute over ticket
    prices with the nation's biggest ticket broker.
            The U.S. Justice Department began an investigation into
    possible
    anti-competitive actions in the concert industry after the band's
    lawyers filed a complaint last month.
            The battle between rockers and Ticketmaster Corp., a
    computerized ticket network that has grown to dominate how tickets
    are bought and sold nationwide, could eventually affect concert
    ticket prices across the country.
            Seattle-based Pearl Jam sought to book a concert tour this
    summer to capitalize on the success of the 8 million-selling album,
    ``Vs.'' The band wanted to keep concert tickets at $18 apiece.
            ``We know we can go into Madison Square Garden and sell it out
    at $50 a ticket, but we would alienate a lot of our fans,'' said
    Kelly Curtis, the band's manager.
            Pearl Jam also wanted to keep service charges on the tickets to
    no more than $1.80. Ticketmaster refused, Curtis said.
            Since the demise of chief competitor Ticketron three years ago,
    Los Angeles-based Ticketmaster has arranged for ticket sales at the
    overwhelming majority of the nation's concert arenas. It has
    exclusivity deals with many arenas and promoters.
            Ticketmaster charges service fees ranging from $4 to $15 on top
    of ticket prices, according to the complaint filed with the Justice
    Department.
            ``There should be some kind of fairness to it,'' Curtis said.
    ``If you have a low ticket price, you should have a low service
    charge. They're not accountable to anyone and it's frustrating.
    They have this kind of attitude of, `If you don't like it, then go
    someplace else.' And they know there is nowhere else to go.'''
            The band found it impossible to book a tour without the
    cooperation of Ticketmaster. In its complaint, Pearl Jam alleged
    that Ticketmaster organized a boycott of the band with concert
    promoters.
            Ticketmaster said Pearl Jam has no right to determine what it
    charges for its service.
            Ticketmaster spokesman Larry Solters said Pearl Jam is using
    the
    service charge issue as a smokescreen for the band's own greed. He
    said Pearl Jam tried to dictate merchandising deals with promoters
    to give the band more money than the industry standard. Pearl Jam
    also refused to compromise with the company, he said.
            Meanwhile, a group of concertgoers in Seattle filed a lawsuit
    Wednesday against Ticketmaster, charging it with antitrust
    violations.
            Samantha Hazzard, Susan Robins and Lila Hurwitz charged that
    TicketMaster has a monopoly that causes unfairly high ticket prices
    in Washington and Oregon.
            The lawsuit also names the North American Concert Promoters
    Association. The fans said large portions of the service charges
    are ``paybacks'' to arena owners and promoters.
            A spokesman for the promoters would not comment.
            Ned Goldstein, counsel for Ticketmaster, said ``the whole thing
    is a PR move to sell CDs.''
            Concert prices have skyrocketed in general this summer, led by
    tickets of more than $100 to shows by the Eagles and Barbra
    Streisand.
            Some other artists have come to Pearl Jam's support. Pamela
    Lewis, the manager for Garth Brooks, said fans blame the artist if
    ticket prices are too high. Brooks tries to keep his tickets under
    $20, she said.
            ``Wouldn't it be great for the industry if a concertgoer could
    go to several concerts -- instead of just one concert that wipes out
    their entire entertainment budget?'' Lewis said.
    

    Well, obviously there's more than a few bands who disagree.   Actually,
    I think you have to take into account the nature of each bands fans.
    
    It might well be a good move for Pearl Jam to try and cap the ceiling
    price.   Most of their fans can't seem to afford flannel in new
    condition.  ;-)
    
    On the other hand, frankly, I side largely with Ticketron on this one.
    
    Ticketron is NOT obliged to accept Pearl Jams terms and suing them
    for not doing so strikes me as  part of what is wrong with this
    country.
    
    It is worth noting however that Ticketron DOES have the kind of
    monopoly that the suit alleges, but I don't think Pearl Jam can prove
    monopolistic practice.
    

    
    RE -.1
    
    Uh, Dave?  I think you met Ticketmaster. 
    
    You're showing your age, dude :-)
    
    				- Jim

    
    Thrusday's Prime Time Live is supposedly going to touch on the recent
    ticket hoopla and why the general public can never get good seats.
    
    - Sean

    re: .346
    
    Does anyone know if there is any sort of lawsuit or class action suit
    that has or will be filed against Ticketmaster in Mass? I know there is
    one in Florida and Oregon, but don't know about any other states. I'd
    like to sign the petition or write to my congressman/senator supporting
    the antitrust suit if I can. If anyone has any information, can they
    please drop me a note at JUMP4::JOY (I don't normal follow this
    conference).
    
    Thanks
    Debbie
    

    I for one hope the big ticket outlets get hosed on this one.

    
    Well, a couple a news shows hopped on the bandwagon and did their
    little pieces on scalping, since Pearl Jam was making all this noise.
    
    Same old stuff we've all rehashed in here.
    
    But I do have one question.  In most reports, the news media tries to
    get the "Agencies" to reveal their sources for tickets.  Never do they
    get an answer.
    
    I'd like to know from the pro-TicketMaster/pro-scalping foreces why,
    if what they are doing is so darn capitalistic and ethical, they won't
    tell us how they get their tickets.  They're not doing anything illegal
    or unethical, right?  So why can't they be upfront about it?  What are
    they worried about?
    
    Basically the fact that idiots like us wear wristbands and can't get
    seats the agencies already have is why, *eventually*, TicketMaster will
    lose this battle (I hope).  Either that, or they'll have to come clean
    with the practices, which at least will enlighten the rest of the
    people we're trying to to get to boycott the agencies.
    
    - Sean

    
    
    Of course they won't tell you that they're getting the tickets from the
    promoter.  First off, that's the only place to get these big blocks of
    primie seats, and secondly, a good capitalist never reveals his
    supplier when he has an apparent monopoly.
    
    

    re: .352 Reilley 
    
    >They're not doing anything illegal or unethical, right?  So why can't
    >they be upfront about it?  What are they worried about?
    
    Well, Bob gave a couple of reasons in .-1 and I gave a few more
    a year and a half ago in .132.

    
>    Of course they won't tell you that they're getting the tickets from the
>    promoter.....
>                                     .....good capitalist never reveals his
>    supplier when he has an apparent monopoly.
    
    If you know and I know where they come from, what secret would they be 
    revealing?  And since we aren't *allowed* access to the same channels,
    its not like we could use the secret, anyway.
    
    >            -<   how many months has this debate been going on?   >-
    
    It'll go on till us unsatisfied consumers get a change for the better.
    Those of you who like the current setup will tell us to go pound tar.
    It's been going on that long and will continue for that much longer.
    
    I don't like my choice as a consumer.  I'll fight to change it. 
    Suppliers who adhere to the status quo even in the face of consumers'
    perceptions of insincereness or incompetence is why so many Americans 
    started buying Japanese cars (funny how domestic cars all of a sudden 
    improved after that).
    
    TicketMaster is now counter-suing the various parties claiming
    multi-million dollar defamation?  What do they care?  They're a
    monopoly - how could defamation hurt their sales?  Methinks they
    protest too much.
    
    - Sean

    >>            -<   how many months has this debate been going on?   >-
    
    >It'll go on till us unsatisfied consumers get a change for the better.
    
    Scalping will go on as long as there are enough satisfied customers
    to buy up the limited supply of tickets available, which is a fraction
    of the demand.
    
    	db

    
    	Anyone see the article in The Globe yesterday?
    
    	Over a 6-month period, I think, they had "investigators" sell
    	and buy the same tickets to several brokers in the area, and
    	they reported anywhere from 100-400% mark-up on the prices?
    
    	These brokers could face 68 counts of "gouging" at $5K/ticket.
    
    
    							GTI
    

    I think it's funny, because everyone knows this goes on all	
    the time, and has for years.  Probably has nothing to do
    with the upcoming elections, huh.

    I'd love to be on the jury.
    
    While serving jury duty I learned that jurists are allowed to vote
    "innocent" if they think the law is unjust.   Part of the reason for
    the jury system is to prevent "tyranny of the government".
    
    When I asked the judge if I could vote innocent for someone charged
    with possession of narcotics (not "sale") even if I thought he was
    "guilty as charged", the judge rather emphatically said "yes" and
    explained gave the reason above - which makes perfect sense.

    db,
    
    You are obviously aware of a little known aspect of the law... you
    are quite correct. Unfortunately, it appears that trial procedure
    does not allow for judges to include this bit of information in
    their jury instruction. So, you gotta know to ask. Otherwise,
    the jury would normally not find out... good for you!!!
    
    -b

>    While serving jury duty I learned that jurists are allowed to vote
>    "innocent" if they think the law is unjust.   

    Then why all those questionaires designed to detect bias?  I
    thought the whole idea was to eliminate people who might harbor
    their own opinions.  "Just the facts, ma'am."

    And why would it be against procedure to inform juries of this
    most pertinent fact?

  Aside to the aside:
  
  A news report on jury selection for the O.J. Simpson case reported that
  one juror professed eagerness to serve on the jury "to make sure justice
  is done."  The reporter's tone seemed to imply this was a *good* thing to
  hear from a juror.

re:                 <<< Note 412.361 by AWATS::WESTERVELT "Tom" >>>

>    And why would it be against procedure to inform juries of this
>    most pertinent fact?

   Our "justice" system is _constantly_ being attacked by both prosecutors
   and defense lawyers on the "informed jury" thing.  That's where all the
   supression of evidence stuff comes from.  You'd be amazed to learn of all
   the powers of a jury, if only someone could tell them what they can do.

   -- Sam

>  one juror professed eagerness to serve on the jury "to make sure justice
>  is done."  The reporter's tone seemed to imply this was a *good* thing to
>  hear from a juror.

    It's good if you're Robert Shapiro.

    On the other hand, would you want to take away the responsibility
    of a juror to obey the dictates of their conscience?  It seems to
    me this is at the heart of the system of jurisprudence, although
    it can also be abused.

>    It's good if you're Robert Shapiro.

  Unless the candidate juror's meaning in "making sure justice is done"
  implies an agenda...  The way it was said, you had to wonder.
    <apologies for the detour>

>>    While serving jury duty I learned that jurists are allowed to vote
>>    "innocent" if they think the law is unjust.   

>    Then why all those questionaires designed to detect bias?  I
>    thought the whole idea was to eliminate people who might harbor
>    their own opinions. 
    
    That's not my understanding of it.
    
    The purpose is not to eliminate bias, but to detect it.   It's up
    to the lawyers as to whether or not the bias should be eliminated.
    
    Jurists are drawn from a pool, each side has a certain number of 
    candidates they can eliminate without having to give reason (although
    a recent Supreme court decision throws this into question). These
    are called "peremptory challenges".
    
    Each side can also request that jurists be dismissed an unlimited
    number of times, but they have to provide reason - the judge rules
    on the validity of the objection.  This is called a challenge
    "for cause".
    
    	db

    Well, that certainly puts a different light on it.  I thought
    the judge could automatically disqualify you if, for instance,
    you had been charged in the past with the same crime the defendant
    is charged with.

    Informed, free thinking juries are not in the best interest of the
    court system... or justice as we know it in the US. Remember this:
    the legal system is a business; a huge business. It's not good
    for business if everyone feels free to raise their middle finger
    and waggle it unimpeded at the foul scum who occupy our courts
    and places of government.
    
    -b

    
    Oh, well, now that you put it that way...	    :-)

    
    Heard an interesting comment from a friend who attended an REM concert
    at Great Woods (so this is second-hand).
    
    She mentioned that Michael Stipe felt to compelled to keep ragging on 
    the front row seats for "not getting into the show," and why didn't
    they trade them with some people in the back who wanted to be there.
    
    I've seen similar behavior - the last few shows I went to, the front
    seats remained empty until 3 or 4 songs into the show and were vacated
    early.
    
    These seats are part of the "other part" of ticket scalping, the
    pre-sold blocks.  The people who end up getting these are disintersted
    casual observers whose company or whatever got them a seat for a night
    out.  Again, the best fans aren't getting a shot at these seats.  This 
    is discouraging to the real fan, and I still say, in the end, hurtful to 
    the concert experience.  Capitalistic, yes, but short-sighted from 
    a financial standpoint.
    
    - Sean

  Heard the same acount of the (Sunday) REM concert from my girlfriend's
  baby sitter...  Stipe ragging on 2 people in the front row who refused to
  stand up with everyone else.

  This ear-witness was at first sympathetic, but said after a while, when
  Stipe wouldn't let it go (dedicating a song to everyone except *these
  2*...) it began to seem like a spoiled-rock-star schtick.
  
  I'll mention your comment (Sean) .  - Jay

    Here's an excerpt from the Ticketmaster web page
    
    What was the basis of Ticketmaster's dispute with Pearl Jam? 
    
      Less than the cost of a pack of gum. Last year Pearl Jam wanted to cap
      its ticket prices at $20, with Ticketmaster receiving a maximum $1.80
      per ticket service charge. At that rate, we would have taken a
      financial loss on the tour. We offered to compromise at $2.25 to $2.50.
      Pearl Jam rejected the offer, even though they would have still made an
      enormous profit. We also offered to ticket their tour for free if Pearl
      Jam played for free. They did not respond. Now the band has contracted
      with ETM to handle ticketing on its tour. Ironically, ETM's service
      fees of $2.22 to $2.45 are virtually the same as those Ticketmaster
      offered at its outlets last year. 
    
    Pearl Jam has charged that Ticketmaster's exclusive contracts with
    arenas are unfair. How do you respond?
    
      Ticketmaster installs hundred of thousands of dollars worth of
      state-of-the-art computer equipment in venues that contract with us. It
      would be unfair to ask us to make that commitment without a guarantee
      of receiving the arenas' business. The arenas also prefer the
      contracts, since they receive an honest and efficient manner of
      inventory control. The International Association of Auditorium Managers
      has urged its members to speak out on behalf of their constitutional
      right to exclusive contracts. 
    
    Is Ticketmaster's size an issue?
    
      No. We have never denied that we are successful. But, like any
      business, we operate in a competitive environment. Roughly 20% of our
      contracts come up for renewal every year and there are some 100
      companies currently challenging us in the market. They include such
      corporate giants as IBM (which is ticketing the 1996 Olympics, the
      biggest live event of next year, with a partner), Sony Corp., and ETM
      Entertainment Network, which is handling Pearl Jam's national tour. 
    
    Does Ticketmaster do business with brokers or scalpers?
    
      Absolutely not. Ticketmaster opposes laws that allow sellers in certain
      states to charge four to five times face value for tickets. Our system
      also limits block purchases to discourage sales to such agencies. As a
      matter of policy. people working at Ticketmaster outlets are expressly
      forbidden from selling tickets to brokers and scalpers. The company
      recently closed four New York-area outlets where workers were found to
      be in violation of the policy. 

    RE: -.1
    
     ETM service charges are virtually the same... if the comparison eliminates
     any additional TICKETMASTER fees.

    
     Boston Globe June 29,1995 (used without permission)
    
     Garth Brooks won't be Ticketmastered
     ------------------------------------
    
     Country singer Garth Brooks, who next March will embark on a
    three-year-world tour, has checked in with his support of Pearl Jam's
    Ticketmaster battle, noting that "competion needs to be out there on
    ticketing." The country star said he'll use the so-called "artist's
    space" on his tickets - usually sold to an advertiser - to spell out
    his charges and those of a ticketing agency. He said he intends to hold
    ticket prices to $18.95, a dollar more than on his last tour.
    
    
                                         - Susan Bickelhaupt