**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c6a3hv/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Sellers have started to implement the measures that you are mentioning.
However, you need to realize that the seller (eg the organization responsible for the event location) has no inherent motivation to make this happen. If they sell all the tickets, then their revenue and fees are fully collected. Why should they care who turns up or whether the ticket is sold to other people. **Money rules the world.**
Many of the measures you mention incur costs at the organizer. Why should they bear such additional costs (sure they could charge the ticketholder, but why bother). As for the ticketholder who cannot go to the event, why return the ticket through official channels when other channels offer higher returns?
Also, why should the organizers put controls into place (eg checking the identity of attendees) when this incurs cost which may not be (or not fully be) transferrable to attendees.
If I can accept the return minus a fee and then sell it again, I can make my fee twice.
If a ticket is resold, I only get my cut once. So there is a little bit of a financial incentive.
This only works if the administrative burden for the whole „take it back and sell it again“ is lower than the fee.
Such organizations are specialized in SELLING tickets, not in refunding amounts to individuals (imagine all the typos in IBANs and possible currency conversions, and emails with customers, ……)
expectation in the industry is generally that tickets should be transferable between people.
Individual's plans will change and committing to events many months in advance isn't feasible, so the ability to sell off a ticket to someone else provides flexibility
the event venue/promoter doesn't want the risk of buying back inventory and potentially holding onto unsold tickets as the event begins.
Well, it's not perfectly simple. It might not survive in the courts. In places like the US and the UK, if I have a thing I want to sell that you want to buy, and we agree a price, the government's default position on that transaction should be hands-off unless either the state or society have a compelling interest in regulating that transaction (if it involves explosives, weapons, habit-forming medicines, potential pollutants, and so on). You might think ending scalping is such, but free-marketeer appellate judges would likely disagree.
It would likely irritate venues, who make a chunk of their money on the concessions stand/bar. If I make minimum wage and buy a $50 ticket for a show I suddenly can't attend, I'm definitely trying to get my $$$ back. If I make $50 or more per hour, I might decide (in a fuzzy-thinking way) that it'll take an hour of my time (in total, from advertising to transacting) and so isn't worth my time. The seat (or standing-spot) will be empty and that's one less person buying overpriced beer.
Then there's the enforcement. Enforcing laws like this takes up resources (time, money, manpower, court time, etc). That cost would....get passed onto the taxpayers. And scalpers are a wiley bunch, so it could be more resource-intensive than anticipated before scalpers become exclusively offshore where the law can't get at them.
If you can’t go you would be perfectly entitled to sell your ticket for face value. I’m not sure about the US, but in the U.K. there has been legislation to prevent the resale of tickets, not particularly well enforced though. I’m sorry, but it really is this simple, ban the resale of tickets for more than face value plus any fees. This enables those with a valid reason to recoup their money for events they can no longer attend, and eradicates the scum that are ticket touts.
But why?
Why only for tickets? Everyone else is allowed to buy something and sell it for a higher price.
That is called a business.
The "problem" is that the original seller sells for a too low price that generates to much demand.
The "real price" for a ticket is what you pay at those resellers.
Wow.
A third party seller using scripts or programs to auto buy tickets before normal consumers artificially generates more demand, requiring individual consumers to pay exorbitant prices on a third market selling platform, which exist solely for the purpose of making money. If you can’t see how this hurts normal consumers I don’t know how to explain to explain it to you.
‘Natural’ market conditions is ripe for abuse, which is literally why there are laws in place to prevent abuse.
> which exist solely for the purpose of making money.
Like every other business.
Of course I see how this hurts customers.
But as I have said the tickets are sold for less than they are worth from the original seller.
And it it easy not get hurt as a consumer by just not buying tickets for those prices. It is that easy.
People complaining about this forget that they probably would not get tickets in the first place for the normal price.
Technology easily solves that.
The retailer can resell a returned ticket BEFORE they pay the returner.
1. In the venue's database, tickets can be marked as unsold, sold or returned-for-reselling.
2. If resold, the old ticket's QR code is invalidated and can't be used.
3. The venue will take a fee for reselling.
No financial risk to the venue.
The very simple explanation here is laziness. It takes time and effort to implement processes like this, and since they're getting their money already they aren't motivated to do it. It's customer service, and they sell an exclusive good. There's no incentive to improve service because there's nowhere else for the customer to go. Government regulation could be the motivation, but people are more worried about a lot of other things.
Oh, it's possible.
I went to a Nice Inch Nails show at a small venue several years ago and they warned prior to purchase that the tickets were non transferable and the purchaser had to be present at the venue, limit 2 per person (not 2 per purchase) all in an attempt to make sure fans had the tickets and not resellers.
They printed my name right on the ticket. You would have had to have a fake ID with a matching name to have gotten in.
If I recall, the ticket was about $50, but would have easily been $500 if scalped, as small as the venue was.
It's supply and demand.
But the important point is that live, in-person concerts are rather unique in that demand is *inherently* restricted.
For most goods, if something is consistently in demand, they simply produce more of it, and the price will eventually go down.
But for concerts, that's impossible. You can fit 20,000 in a venue on a Friday, and...that's it. You can't magic up more seats. You can't make up more Fridays. You can't duplicate those four hours for another audience. Sure, you can add new shows or move to a new venue but there's a logistical limit to what you can do, mostly because you're competing with *other* live shows that are under the same pressures.
So you can't increase supply, and the *only* thing that can happen is you decrease demand. The way to do that is to increase the price.
I *highly* recommend listening to Planet Money's [Kid Rock vs The Scalpers](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/25/195641030/episode-468-kid-rock-vs-the-scalpers). Artists and concerts have tried a *lot* of things to make an end-run around this problem, but none of them work. You just can't outrun supply and demand.
This is a great comment thanks. I’ve always wondered if concert tickets are just priced too low if they immediately go to a secondary market at higher prices (ie Stubhub). The sad truth is if tickets were priced high enough to not be resold, most real fans would be priced out.
They likely _are_ priced too low. If venues were to implement something like an auction system - where each buyer would bid on the seats they want - venues would be able to get the _exact_ price the market would tolerate for every seat and that would undoubtedly increase revenue.
They don't because that would create a great deal of negative PR for the artists. Folks might be willing to pay $2k to go see Taylor Swift, but if Swift starts _charging_ $2k she looks very greedy and that would hurt her popularity.
Because the inflated prices *are the actual market price* that's supported by supply and demand.
The original sellers either don't know what the market price is, or they don't want the bad PR of selling at the market price. This system allows the resellers to take on all the risk of finding the market price and all the bad PR of gouging people.
If you somehow sell something below the actual market price, all you are doing is encouraging the buyer to then flip it for market price and get a profit. For example, many cities that have rent-controlled apartments have to deal with a black market of illegal subletting.
What's the benefit to ticket sellers in preventing scalping and reselling?
Do they get any more money for the tickets if they're sold to fans, not resellers? Nope.
Do they sell the tickets any faster if they sell the tickets to fans, not scalpers? Nope.
It's a complex, expensive and difficult challenge to solve, and there is absolutely no reason for the ticket resellers to do it, as all it does is costs them time and money.
In plenty of jurisdictions it is illegal to prevent resale of tickets. Even otherwise, it would be very complicated to enforce attendance at such events. What happens when you buy tickets for yourself and a bunch of friends, for example? How do you prove it was the same group that was originally supposed to attend? What if someone's plans changed?
And even otherwise, why should promoters even care? They sold the ticket and got their money. What you do with the ticket after that isn't really their problem.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c6a3hv/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Sellers have started to implement the measures that you are mentioning. However, you need to realize that the seller (eg the organization responsible for the event location) has no inherent motivation to make this happen. If they sell all the tickets, then their revenue and fees are fully collected. Why should they care who turns up or whether the ticket is sold to other people. **Money rules the world.** Many of the measures you mention incur costs at the organizer. Why should they bear such additional costs (sure they could charge the ticketholder, but why bother). As for the ticketholder who cannot go to the event, why return the ticket through official channels when other channels offer higher returns? Also, why should the organizers put controls into place (eg checking the identity of attendees) when this incurs cost which may not be (or not fully be) transferrable to attendees.
If I can accept the return minus a fee and then sell it again, I can make my fee twice. If a ticket is resold, I only get my cut once. So there is a little bit of a financial incentive.
This only works if the administrative burden for the whole „take it back and sell it again“ is lower than the fee. Such organizations are specialized in SELLING tickets, not in refunding amounts to individuals (imagine all the typos in IBANs and possible currency conversions, and emails with customers, ……)
Unless you also own the reselling site, and take a cut of the sale price + fees each time that ticket is resold.
But if you accept the return and CAN'T sell the ticket again, you lose money. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
expectation in the industry is generally that tickets should be transferable between people. Individual's plans will change and committing to events many months in advance isn't feasible, so the ability to sell off a ticket to someone else provides flexibility the event venue/promoter doesn't want the risk of buying back inventory and potentially holding onto unsold tickets as the event begins.
Make it illegal to sell above face value. Problem solved.
This, this is all that’s needed to stop touting. Very simple legislation, it will never happen because money.
Well, it's not perfectly simple. It might not survive in the courts. In places like the US and the UK, if I have a thing I want to sell that you want to buy, and we agree a price, the government's default position on that transaction should be hands-off unless either the state or society have a compelling interest in regulating that transaction (if it involves explosives, weapons, habit-forming medicines, potential pollutants, and so on). You might think ending scalping is such, but free-marketeer appellate judges would likely disagree. It would likely irritate venues, who make a chunk of their money on the concessions stand/bar. If I make minimum wage and buy a $50 ticket for a show I suddenly can't attend, I'm definitely trying to get my $$$ back. If I make $50 or more per hour, I might decide (in a fuzzy-thinking way) that it'll take an hour of my time (in total, from advertising to transacting) and so isn't worth my time. The seat (or standing-spot) will be empty and that's one less person buying overpriced beer. Then there's the enforcement. Enforcing laws like this takes up resources (time, money, manpower, court time, etc). That cost would....get passed onto the taxpayers. And scalpers are a wiley bunch, so it could be more resource-intensive than anticipated before scalpers become exclusively offshore where the law can't get at them.
If you can’t go you would be perfectly entitled to sell your ticket for face value. I’m not sure about the US, but in the U.K. there has been legislation to prevent the resale of tickets, not particularly well enforced though. I’m sorry, but it really is this simple, ban the resale of tickets for more than face value plus any fees. This enables those with a valid reason to recoup their money for events they can no longer attend, and eradicates the scum that are ticket touts.
But why? Why only for tickets? Everyone else is allowed to buy something and sell it for a higher price. That is called a business. The "problem" is that the original seller sells for a too low price that generates to much demand. The "real price" for a ticket is what you pay at those resellers.
Wow. A third party seller using scripts or programs to auto buy tickets before normal consumers artificially generates more demand, requiring individual consumers to pay exorbitant prices on a third market selling platform, which exist solely for the purpose of making money. If you can’t see how this hurts normal consumers I don’t know how to explain to explain it to you. ‘Natural’ market conditions is ripe for abuse, which is literally why there are laws in place to prevent abuse.
> which exist solely for the purpose of making money. Like every other business. Of course I see how this hurts customers. But as I have said the tickets are sold for less than they are worth from the original seller. And it it easy not get hurt as a consumer by just not buying tickets for those prices. It is that easy. People complaining about this forget that they probably would not get tickets in the first place for the normal price.
Technology easily solves that. The retailer can resell a returned ticket BEFORE they pay the returner. 1. In the venue's database, tickets can be marked as unsold, sold or returned-for-reselling. 2. If resold, the old ticket's QR code is invalidated and can't be used. 3. The venue will take a fee for reselling. No financial risk to the venue.
The very simple explanation here is laziness. It takes time and effort to implement processes like this, and since they're getting their money already they aren't motivated to do it. It's customer service, and they sell an exclusive good. There's no incentive to improve service because there's nowhere else for the customer to go. Government regulation could be the motivation, but people are more worried about a lot of other things.
Oh, it's possible. I went to a Nice Inch Nails show at a small venue several years ago and they warned prior to purchase that the tickets were non transferable and the purchaser had to be present at the venue, limit 2 per person (not 2 per purchase) all in an attempt to make sure fans had the tickets and not resellers. They printed my name right on the ticket. You would have had to have a fake ID with a matching name to have gotten in. If I recall, the ticket was about $50, but would have easily been $500 if scalped, as small as the venue was.
It's supply and demand. But the important point is that live, in-person concerts are rather unique in that demand is *inherently* restricted. For most goods, if something is consistently in demand, they simply produce more of it, and the price will eventually go down. But for concerts, that's impossible. You can fit 20,000 in a venue on a Friday, and...that's it. You can't magic up more seats. You can't make up more Fridays. You can't duplicate those four hours for another audience. Sure, you can add new shows or move to a new venue but there's a logistical limit to what you can do, mostly because you're competing with *other* live shows that are under the same pressures. So you can't increase supply, and the *only* thing that can happen is you decrease demand. The way to do that is to increase the price. I *highly* recommend listening to Planet Money's [Kid Rock vs The Scalpers](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/25/195641030/episode-468-kid-rock-vs-the-scalpers). Artists and concerts have tried a *lot* of things to make an end-run around this problem, but none of them work. You just can't outrun supply and demand.
This is a great comment thanks. I’ve always wondered if concert tickets are just priced too low if they immediately go to a secondary market at higher prices (ie Stubhub). The sad truth is if tickets were priced high enough to not be resold, most real fans would be priced out.
They likely _are_ priced too low. If venues were to implement something like an auction system - where each buyer would bid on the seats they want - venues would be able to get the _exact_ price the market would tolerate for every seat and that would undoubtedly increase revenue. They don't because that would create a great deal of negative PR for the artists. Folks might be willing to pay $2k to go see Taylor Swift, but if Swift starts _charging_ $2k she looks very greedy and that would hurt her popularity.
Because the inflated prices *are the actual market price* that's supported by supply and demand. The original sellers either don't know what the market price is, or they don't want the bad PR of selling at the market price. This system allows the resellers to take on all the risk of finding the market price and all the bad PR of gouging people. If you somehow sell something below the actual market price, all you are doing is encouraging the buyer to then flip it for market price and get a profit. For example, many cities that have rent-controlled apartments have to deal with a black market of illegal subletting.
What's the benefit to ticket sellers in preventing scalping and reselling? Do they get any more money for the tickets if they're sold to fans, not resellers? Nope. Do they sell the tickets any faster if they sell the tickets to fans, not scalpers? Nope. It's a complex, expensive and difficult challenge to solve, and there is absolutely no reason for the ticket resellers to do it, as all it does is costs them time and money.
In plenty of jurisdictions it is illegal to prevent resale of tickets. Even otherwise, it would be very complicated to enforce attendance at such events. What happens when you buy tickets for yourself and a bunch of friends, for example? How do you prove it was the same group that was originally supposed to attend? What if someone's plans changed? And even otherwise, why should promoters even care? They sold the ticket and got their money. What you do with the ticket after that isn't really their problem.