Last Update:
03/11/2010 - 12:36pm EST
E-mail
Save This
Add new comment
Print
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Twitter
More- Second bill to protect consumers and regulate ticketing industry introduced in U.S. House of Representatives
- 'Spider-Man' musical hits another speed bump with loss of lead actress
- NATB objects to National Finals Rodeo prohibiting open market ticket resale
- After a big drop last week, Broadway ticket sales show signs of life
- Chance of landing LeBron helps Knicks season ticket sales
- Black Eyed Peas tour far from 'The E.N.D.' with new summer concerts
- VisionOne, USA signs ticketing deal with Mondo Entertainment / LivePass
- Live Nation Entertainment launches operations in Germany
- Comcast-Spectacor acquires Ticketmaster's Paciolan ticketing division
- Sting tour adds more 'Evening' dates with Royal Philharmonic
Minnesota legislature looks to further strengthen state's ticketing laws
Mon, Nov 23rd 2009 4:27 pm EST
By Alfred Branch Jr.
Just over two years after repealing its anti-scalping laws, Minnesota is looking to alter its ticketing legislation for the second time.
During the spring, Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed a bill with stronger ticketing regulations, which included measures to improve transparency on or before tickets initially go on sale.
The new provision took effect on August 1, but already there have been some complaints that the rules don't have enough teeth.
"The initial seller of tickets shall make available for sale all tickets under control of the initial seller in the manner and under terms directed by the provider of the event or venue," the new law states. "The initial seller shall not, unless authorized by the provider of the event or venue, divert tickets from the initial sale to the general public to be sold in any other manner or under any other terms."
It continues, "No person or entity, with intent to defraud, may sell or offer for sale a ticket that is invalid, counterfeit, altered, or otherwise not genuine."
The new law is partly designed to deal with artist, promoter and venue holdbacks, large groups of tickets that are withheld from the general public before tickets go on sale. These tickets are often withheld for fan clubs, credit card promotions and VIP packages, and they can dramatically shrink the number of tickets that initially go on sale to the general public.
Minnesota State Rep. Joe Atkins, who co-sponsored the new bill, has reportedly received complaints from constituents that they have been shut out from various "onsales" for shows in the state, for which some are saying brokers are responsible. Atkins even told Minnesota Public Radio that he believes some brokers may be continuing to use "bot" software, which has already been outlawed in several states and which Ticketmaster has fought for years. Bot software allows users to bypass captchas and other online safeguards, which in turn gives the users the opportunity to purchase large blocks of tickets quickly.
While there may still be some brokers using the software, so many states have banned it that such usage presents a major risk to their businesses and most brokers have already abandoned using it.
Atkins's office did not return a message seeking comment, but he is seeking to ban the use of bot software in the state, and he is reportedly scheduled to meet with Ticketmaster representatives at some point soon to discuss that and various other ticket issues.
To illustrate how significant holdbacks can be, for an upcoming U2 concert at the University of Minnesota, 30,000 tickets, out of 58,000, are already being withheld for students (10,000) and season ticket holders (20,000), according to Minnesota Public Radio.
"We are not the bad guys," ticket broker Brian Obert, co-owner of Minneapolis-based Ticket King, recently told Minnesota Public Radio. Obert and other brokers vehemently deny that brokers are the cause of fans not getting tickets when they initially go on sale.
"When you are dealing with a really small pond and there are thousands and thousands of fishing lines getting thrown into the water at same time, but there is only handful of fish, a lot of people are going to get shut out, and their first reaction is to point the finger at us [ticket brokers]," Obert said.
Subscribe to this feed
Comments
Comments represent the opinions of users and do not necessarily reflect the views of TicketNews.I'm so glad that I don't even like U2. I am beginning to not even like going to concerts because purchasing tickets when they go on sale has become such an ordeal. I have to watch the clock until it is exactly 10 o'clock, then nervously type the stuff on the computer, then I have to work against time and get nosebleed seats to boot. Only to find out 20 minutes later that there are much better seats still on the computer because somebody was holding them, then released them, but I can't exchange my seats because TicketMaster says all sales are final, so I got screwed again. And I don't have an American Express credit card because I don't believe in paying $90 a year for the "benefit" of having a credit card, when I already have a Visa car and a Master card and a Discover card, that don't charge me an annual fee, plus give me money back, or mileage for a free trip. So why should I get an Amex card just to have the privilege of buying tickets early, so they can give the artist a kick-back from the money I pay them for their "annual fee". Get it? Everyone is making money and I, the ticket buyer is getting screwed. I'll just listen to the CDs I want to, and party with my friends. I think going to a concert has become a huge ripoff and fans are stupid to be falling into the trap every time. Stop enriching these folks, and let's see what gimmicks they will come up with to get you to come back to a concert.
I am so glad I hate U2.
10,000 tickets in the hands of poor college students ? Wow, I bet there will be a massive amount of reselling with these tickets. I've read other stories of college students re-selling their student provided college football tickets for a handsome profit. And, there's nothing wrong with it... it's the American way. U2 gets paid, the stadium is full, college students make a little extra money, everyone's a winner.
What about the 20,000 tickets to the donor's
Does the grocery store HAVE to tell you that they only put 20 boxes of Wheat Thins out and have another 50 out back? Does a car dealership HAVE to say how many of a certain model they have on the lot? No. Then why should a primary seller have to divulge how many tickets are being held back?
There is no need for a law regarding this. People just need to get over it and understand it is not a right to go to an event. Sometimes it's in the cards, sometimes it's not.
I don't know where the whole sense of entitlement regarding event tickets came from. It doesn't apply to anything else.
Yes - they have to not mislead customers - it's called fraud
They'd only be misleading customers if they SAID they were releasing 50,000 tickets and only released 20,000. But the primary sellers never said they didn't hold tickets back. And they should have every right to do so -- it's their property and they can sell how much they want to whom they want. I'm sorry if that doesn't include you.
The only exception I'll make is for publicly funded arenas. In those cases, since taxpayer dollars were used to build the place, perhaps there should be a law that at least 50% of all tickets must be offered in a full public onsale.
the point is artist and promoters are misleading their customers. All anyone wants is for them to say how many tickets go on sale to the public. that e4nd the issue so "just do it"
I'm still not understanding how artists and promoters are "misleading" their customers. Again -- if they lied about how many tickets were being released, that'd be one thing. But they're not. They're just not saying how many are being released or where they're being released. And why should they have to? No other original sellers of a consumable product or service have to disclose that information -- please tell me why tickets should be any different?
It's all about being reasonable if a venue seats 50,000 and the artist say they are playing that venue and say tickets go on sale to the public and don't disclose that the best tickets are not and that a disproportionat amount are not going on sale, it's fraud call the Minn AG he'll tell you
Fraud is the "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value". That's not what's going on in your example. What we have here is not fraud -- it's just a private seller exercising their right to do what they wish with what they are selling.
I think the real issue is that people just don't think it's fair that they can't get tickets and there sometimes aren't enough to go around.
I think the state government (and critics of the holdback system) is missing the big picture here, and that is that the majority of the holds DO go to the general public. John Doe in Minneapolis may have Gophers season tickets and will get his tickets through the season ticket presale, while Jane Doe may be a student at UM and will get her tickets through the student presale. I find it a little ridiculous that people are criticizing U2 for keeping tickets back for STUDENTS as well as people who are loyal to UM by way of season tickets. They are not really weakening the onsale because they are taking some of the onsale supply and demand and fulfilling it in advance, so while less tickets will be available for the regular onsale, there will also be less people participating because UM students and season ticket holders bought theirs already, as they should be allowed to.
As for credit card, fan club, and other loyalty/partner holdbacks and presales, I don't see a big issue with that either. If AMEX wants to throw Taylor Swift some sponsorship money, they should be allowed to offer their cardholders advance access to tickets. After all, sponsorship allows concert tickets to remain reasonably priced. Without AMEX, maybe those $ 75 seats would be $ 100 to help makeup for the revenue shortfall. Once again, many of the people who take advantage of the AMEX presale are people who would probably have participated in the regular onsale had they not filled their ticketing needs in the presale, so while the presale takes some of the supply out of the regular onsale, it also removes some of the demand.
When a stadium is funded by the state and this one is they have an obligation to let the public know the truth and tell the public how many tickets they are selling to the public. this will end all issue.
If you look at most of the black friday specials you will see they say 5 units per store thats what music artists need to do. The big leagues NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL do it why don't concerts. Because they want to build their image!
Also you are so wrong about the definition of the general public; that means everyone AMEX , Season Ticketholders, and Student are not the general public
I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. First, I don't think there is anything wrong with my definition of the general public. In my examples, both John Doe and Jane Doe are part of the general public. Just because they purchase their seats separately from the regular onsale because of their affiliation with the university doesn't make them any less of the general public. They are certainly not VIP's or promoters. Regardless of that apples to oranges argument, the bottom line is that they are U2's tickets to sell, and they can sell them how they want.
I completely disagree with you on the publicly funded stadium argument. Yes, the stadium is publicly funded, but it was rented out to U2, and as such, U2 has no responsibility to the state to have their methods of sale dictated to them. It would be like you renting the local community center for your parents' anniversary and then having the state government dictate how, when, where and for how much you can sell your tickets. Finally, even if we go with your publicly funded argument, do you believe that students and season ticket holders who support both the campus and the stadium above and beyond the rest of the public don't deserve to get special treatment as a benefit of that support? I do.
the only changes that need to be made is for artist to let fans know how many tickets they are selling for an event. U2 srewed the fan by not letting thme know how few they sold. Someone should sue Bono
You're an idiot.
I heard that U2 only sold about 5,000 of the 45,000 tickets to the public. 20,000 went to the students 10,000 to the season ticketholders and about 10,000 held back; could that be true? If that's even close to correct I'd be pissed at u2 for letting it happen.
IF that is correct, it is a big departure from how they've run the rest of the tour in North America. Typically, they put the best seats on hold for the fan club presales, part of which run concurrently with some loyalty presales. Those loyalty presales, which were mainly limited to season ticket holders of the football/baseball teams that reside in the stadiums, got the best of the rest. Then when the regular onsale came, nothing was held back. Everything that was held for the presales were dumped into the onsale, because the presales were over. I know other artists do it differently, and run presales concurrently with the regular onsale, but U2 is not one of them. I would be surprised if anything other than standard holds (VIP's, etc.) were held back once the onsale hit.