Last Update:
03/16/2010 - 6:28pm EST
E-mail
Save This
Add new comment
Print
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Twitter
More- Kings of Leon tour fills summer months with U.S. concert plans
- Michael Buble, WWE tickets help Madison Square Garden to remain number one venue
- Even with a peddler's license, scalping NCAA Final Four tickets is a no-no
- Justin Bieber tour takes North America by storm this summer
- Tiger Woods will return to the PGA Tour at The Masters next month
- Pearl Jam tour launches new leg of 'Backspacer' dates for U.S.
- NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament ticket sales will test the secondary market
- Diana Ross tour charts U.S. concert dates for spring
- Lady Gaga tour returns to North America for 'Monster' arena concerts
- Tallulah Bankhead's 'Looped' life brings laughs to Broadway
Ticketing execs talk paperless ticketing at Billboard Touring Conference
Wed, Nov 4th 2009 9:06 pm EST
By Alfred Branch Jr.
Executives from Ticketmaster Entertainment, StubHub, Live Nation and TicketNews's parent company TicketNetwork battled it out over the issue of paperless ticketing during a panel at the Billboard Touring Conference & Awards Wednesday in Manhattan, and while few minds were changed the charged debate made for an entertaining exchange.
For Ticketmaster President David Butler, a proponent of paperless ticketing, the issue came down to who owns the ticket, which he firmly believes is the artist and their representatives.
"We provide a service for the artist to decide how they want to handle the relationship with their fans," Butler told the audience of a few hundred promoters, venue operators and artist managers. The panel was moderated by attorney Carla Varriale, a partner in the New York law firm Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale. "The artists are the rights holders."
Butler said that while paperless tickets offer some conveniences for fans, an assertion that the secondary ticketing executives on the panel vocally questioned, he stressed that Ticketmaster doesn't care whether an artist chooses paperless tickets or traditional tickets for their shows. The company simply tries to accommodate the artist's decision.
While paperless ticketing currently only accounts for a very small percentage of all the event tickets sold, the technology is rapidly being ramped up in venues across the country, and critics have angrily accused the primary ticket market of using the technology to kill off the secondary ticket market.
In what has been one of the biggest uses of paperless ticketing technology to date, the current Miley Cyrus tour has implemented it for all of the singer's concerts, but some fans have complained that the process of scanning credit cards and checking identification at the gate has slowed entry into the shows.
Not so at concerts in Arkansas at the Verizon Arena, formerly known as the Alltel Arena, according to general manager Michael Marion. The arena has been a test site for Ticketmaster's paperless ticketing initiative, and Marion told the audience it has been a huge success.
"The only people complaining have been the scalpers. We haven't experienced any logistical problems," Marion said.
While they both said they didn't have a problem with the technology of paperless ticketing per se, StubHub CEO Chris Tsakalakis and TicketNetwork CEO Don Vaccaro took Ticketmaster and rapidly growing paperless ticketing company Veritix to task for trying to force out the secondary ticket market by essentially closing the loop between primary and secondary ticketing by requiring fans to only resell tickets on Ticketmaster's or Veritix's systems.
"It takes away fans' rights and eliminates competition," Tsakalakis said. "What we want to see is true transferability. The perspective of the fan is that they own the ticket."
Vaccaro agreed, taking it a step further by predicting fans will buy less tickets because of the restrictions placed on resale by the paperless process. "Will fans be able to resell tickets at below face value?" he said, adding that there could be legal challenges because primary ticket providers implement "price floors" that prohibit the sale of tickets below face value, which some people want to do to recoup some of the money they're out if they're unable to attend a show.
"With ticket prices escalating, once you're paying $200 for a ticket, you should have the right to sell it if you can't go to the show," said Dan Finkel of Gold Coast Tickets.
Nathan Hubbard, president of Live Nation's ticketing operation, said that while he is not against the secondary ticket market, he doesn't believe that fans are too worked up over the issue of resale.
"Where's the outrage [over not being able to resell tickets]? Being able to resell a ticket is about the 105th most important issue to fans," he said, adding that what he hears more often are complaints about ticket fees and access.
Subscribe to this feed
Comments
Comments represent the opinions of users and do not necessarily reflect the views of TicketNews.i think that this is a very clever idea.
putting a show such as bon jovi onsale
8 mos in advance. the money has to be saved
until after the show, just in case of a
cancellation, in order to refund the public.
but a way to win without losing, is to put
all of that money into a separate interest
bearing account. therefore if the show does
cancel, the promoters still have some pocket
change in the kitty.
The art of trying to collect revenues as early as possible, and delay paying expenses for as long as possible, is an ancient one, even in the ticketing sector itself.
BTW, there's no need to "save" the monies collected; all that's needed is an ongoing revenue stream, or easily liquidated assets, sufficient to cover any future liabilities.
The art of trying to collect revenues as early as possible, and delay paying expenses for as long as possible, is an ancient one, even in the ticketing sector itself.
BTW, there's no need to "save" the monies collected; all that's needed is an ongoing revenue stream, or easily liquidated assets, sufficient to cover any future liabilities.
is it TM'S goal to make everything fair?? for the consumer,or is this just some sick crazed POWERBROKER trying to put an end to terrorism(the secondary market)at the expense of the consumer??
This is DISCRIMINATION on a whole new level.
What if i CAN'T get a credit card in my name in this lifetime?
What if i don't have a checking account?
ARE WE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFE?
Those that are MORE well-off get to have fun....
and those NOT SO well-off get to stay home.
If this(paperless ticketing)is actually to "protect the consumer",
then shouldn't the consumer be the one to choose their particular
degree of protection?
The whole issue reminds me of when they made smoking illegal in bars and restaurants (in various places). Many bar owners insisted that the law would drive them out of business, because smokers would no longer come to their establishments. Well, that may be true, somewhat, but the smokers who stayed home were replaced by people who had STOPPED coming to bars because they couldn't stand the smoke. Lots of people seemed to forget about them when they were arguing in favor of someone's right to smoke in a bar.
Many people have stopped even trying to go to concerts because they can't get good seats, but somehow tons of them end up for sale on Stubhub. I think there are millions of these people out there who will, ultimately, dwarf the handful of U2 "fans" who decide to pass because they can't be sure of what they'll be doing some Friday night six months from now. And if there ARE a significant number of people who feel that way, the acts/promoters/venues will adapt and just put tickets on sale closer to the show date. Just my opinion.
Ultimately I believe this will get decided by 1) the artists/promoters/venues who decide to move in this direction, whether for philosophical and/or financial reasons, and 2) the ticket buyers who will vote with their wallets.
It is certainly possible that the government may try to halt all of this as part of the Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger proceedings, fearing a monopoly on secondary market sales. But then again, there's no issue of monopoly if there simply is no secondary market to begin with. And unfortunately, while I believe most people (including politicians) view Ticketmaster unfavorably, their opinion of ticket brokers is even worse.
If acts like U2 (who are currently selling tickets for shows in July of 2010) wait until closer to the show to sell tickets, their sales will decrease. Right now, they are doing a massive stadium tour, and while they're a lock to sell out in the major markets like New York, L.A., Chicago, not so much in the smaller markets like Phoenix, Edmonton, etc. So they need to have their tickets on sale far in advance to give them more time to sell tickets. As it is, the majority of concerts that go on in North America are NOT sellouts, even some of the big acts (U2, Bon Jovi, etc.) don't sell out every concert. The less time they have to sell tickets, the less tickets they'll sell. This is why you see a lot of concerts for this upcoming spring and summer already on sale now.
As for your comment on the secondary market and people's views of it, you're right. Thanks to useless organizations like the NATB, who have done nothing to help further the image of the secondary market, the public has a negative and often incorrect perception of ticket brokers. Oddly enough, I don't think any of my customers have an issue with the secondary market. However, at the end of the day, the secondary market is a multi-BILLION dollar industry fueled by thousands of people nationwide who are either full-fledged small businesses or average Joe's who rely on reselling tickets on the side to help them get by. Does the government really want to eliminate that industry out of our economy?
Its actually very easy to resell paperless tickets and give local brokers an advantage of being the only brokers in the country listing the seats so they can charge a lot more then normal. Many brokers have been taking advantage of this and more should, you pretty much have no competition so its not out of the question to get $1k on a seat that would normally only go for $100-200 a ticket.
The comment above is 100% true. There is nothing the venue, promoter, or management can do about local brokers selling paperless ticketed events. This cure to end reselling has amplified what would normally be an OK resale profit into something you haven't seen since the good old days. If the event is hot and is forced paperless, consider buying a lot of em and don't rule out travel. If the money is there it will be worth it. Just make sure you have your act together and don't blow any limits. Markets work efficiently on their own. Interject artificial regulation and you end up with distortions. Funny, the official miley cyrus shirts are $35 at the venues. $35 for a t-shirt that a 10-yr old is going to wear, yet we are called the crooks.
I'll never understand why anti-resale advocates don't grasp the fact that this country has 230 years of capitalist economic history and theory to support the argument for resale markets.
Resale markets are not created by brokers, they are created by a product's popularity. Even if ticket brokers did not exist, there would still be fans willing to pay market value for tickets and there would be other fans willing to sell. Simple concept. Brokers simply bring them together, no different than real estate brokers and financial brokers bring together those types of buyers and sellers.
The primary market's argument that a ticket is the property of the artist/team/event producer is incredulous. As another contributor mentioned, they are 100% the primary market's property until they are sold, and yes, the artist should have 100% control over how to dissemniate them, and TicketMaster should provide that technology. But once that's done, it's anti-American to suggest that the ticket is anything less than the consumer's personal property. Makes no sense. Show me one other commodity - anything, I'm all ears - that is restricted from being resold. Azoff's comment that 'the government wouldn't allow me to resell gasoline' is just ridiculous. True, I can't just open a fuel service station without proper licensing, but if my neighbor is out of gas and I've got a portable gas can and my neighbor's willing to pay 2x my cost, Exxon doesn't jump in and say "NO! You can't sell it to him!" See, MY NEIGHBOR CAN'T GET TO THE EXXON, so he's willing to pay a little more. If my neighbor is out of gas AND has a headache AND is out of aspirin, he's probably also willing to pay me 50 cents for two Advil. Fine. There's no law against it. The guy at CVS which sells Advil doesn't all of a suddent appear at my door to take away the rest of my bottle of Advil.
Primary market advocates who claim they are 'protecting' fans from paying market value for tickets are ignoring the fact that there's nothing anti-American about paying market prices for goods. Laws against price gouging and profiteering are designed to apply only to civil emergencies and essential goods (look up 'price gouging' on Wikipedia), and clearly, tickets qualify as neither.
Primary market advocates could claim that brokers are profiteering by gobbling up as many good seats as they can which would otherwise go to 'real fans', but to claim they 'want to keep tickets in the hands of real fans' is to make a subjective argument that the person who was able to be online at 10:00am is more of a fan than the consumer willing to pay 5x the original price for a ticket. Who can say that? It's a ridiculous argument. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite, but that's my subjective opinion. To take that one step further, the secondary market should be arguing that it 'protects' fans who were unable to be online during the initial onsale.
I could go on and on. What's best for FANS is the only thing that matters, and any artificial, legislative or technological barrier to resale is bad for fans. It shouldn't take a history or economics major to understand that.
paperless stinks!
As has been mentioned before, if I can't or decide not to go to the show, I lose. Doesn't happen too often, but it only takes one time. One illness, job situation, car issue, family emergency, etc. Over enough time, it will happen to us all. Especially with the lead time between ticket on-sale and event date growing longer and longer.
If part of my group is running behind, we lose. There is no longer a "meet me at the seats when you can" option. Everyone has to wait for the complete group to arrive before anyone can go in.
If part of my group wants to see an opening act and part does not, we lose. Everyone goes in at the same time.
If I want to buy tickets as an outright gift, I lose. I'd have to buy an extra for myself and at least enter the venue with my group. Sure, I can turn around and go home once they are inside, but I've now wasted the ticket and parking fees for nothing.
Who wins? Ticketmaster, the venue and the artists. They have their cut and they could not care less about my situation once the transaction clears and the funds are available.
I will never purchase paperless tickets under any circumstances. If others disagree and snatch up what I would have bought, that's fine. For me, it's not acceptable to shoulder this much risk with no additional benefit. I've always heard that great seats can open up on the day of the show and maybe I will begin to test that out.
Another broker...
Whether or not he is a broker does not make his points any less accurate. I realize the hostility towards the secondary market by some fans who still view them as some sort of evil, but let's play a quick game of "would you rather." Would you rather have to pay an extra 20 or 30% for concert tickets, or have to buy tickets months in advance and risk not being able to use them, and have to take a total loss on them?
wrong...completely, totally and absolutely wrong.
try "reading for comprehension 101" and perhaps your idiocy will be hidden, at least for a bit.
i love paperless tickets and the convenience it brings as for one no one will ever corner the market with the belief they have found the holygrail of control over a ticket (licence).The public knows that TICKETMASTER wants this merger with LIVENATION so they can charge the public more money period.They would also put a strangle hold on the artists at the same time.This they think will give them control of primary and secondary markets.The solution to this should be the artist coming together with the secondary market and having the brokers and TICKETMASTER underwrite their tours and have all tickets moved in whatever fashion the fan wishes.Its only a matter of time before brokers start promoting there own shows as they have already started doing deals with primarary market teams who relize they dont need TICKETMASTER in thier venuse.Brokers will soon see the writing on the wall that this SECONDARYMARKET should be consolidated under one NASDAQ of tickets with all brokers stock which is what really creates the critical mass.This would keep healthy competition for fan and generates fair market price for tickets that the artist would benefit from.Its only a matter of time.
Yes, TM is adding to its evil empire. But that doesn't matter, nor does ANYTHING else discussed at the conference, because -
- "Secondary Market" is a euphemism propagated by TM when it was trying to sell its Ticketexchange system to its clients. An overwhelming percentage of the "secondary market" is what it has always been - SCALPERS.
- Many scalpers are pros who use every means available to buy up good seats for high-demand events. Others are simply people who take the opportunity to buy the max number of tix (if they get through) knowing that they can sell the extras on ebay or SH or wherever and pocket some extra money.
- The number of people who re-sell tickets because they cannot attend an event is a tiny percentage of the overall # of tickets being re-sold. TEENY TINY.
- Yes, there may be some fans who do not buy tickets if a paperless system is used. But those people will quickly be replaced by MORE people who WILL decide to buy tickets during the primary market, knowing that there will not be any subsequent secondary market! Figure it out, people. This is not brain surgery.
- Many acts that do not sell out (either up-and-comers or has-beens) don't care if people buy and scalp their tickets because they're just happy to have them sold in the first place.
- Most top tier acts have ALWAYS despised scalping, because scalpers who intentionally buy up tickets for the purpose of jacking up prices are screwing over some fans, because those tickets were sucked out of the primary onsale.
- Acts don't care about the argument that "brokers" are providing a service to fans who are willing to pay extra, because they know that if scalping didn't exist those tickets would have originally been sold to other fans (or maybe the same ones) at face value. And the artist isn't seeing any of that upside anyway.
- TM and SH have only persuaded acts to participate in the "secondary market" by paying them tons of money. PERIOD. Brokers/scalpers/whatever don't give the acts any money so they don't care about you, and wish you'd be eradicated from the planet.
- As a result, most top-tier acts WILL opt for a paperless ticket distribution system at venues, if available. And since there are no laws prohibiting this (nor will there ever be) the acts, who ultimately either want to 1) sell all tickets at face price to their fans, and/or 2) participate financially (in some fashion) in any resale market (which a closed system can provide), so-called paperless ticketing WILL gain popularity with top tier acts in the coming years.
- And there ain't nothin' no scalpers can do about it. And all of the back-and-forth at that conference is just a bunch of noise blowing in the wind, because the venues WILL offer the acts what they want, and if paperless is available many (not all, but many) of them will choose that option.
And that's the way it is.
which is, at Law, one who violates the Law re. resale.
Therefore, anyone, broker or otherwise, who so violates, is a "scalper;" and, no broker who obeys the Law is one!
BTW, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then, in order to have food, you would need to buy directly from the producer. Just think of all the gas you'd need, just to get to the refinery to get gas before proceeding to the farm or fishing docks.
Good luck on your trips.
Can you back up any of these "facts"? For one, what percentage of the resale market are fans who can't make the show? You say it's "teeny tiny" so I'm guessing you have facts to support that, or are just talking out of your ass.
Also, there is a difference between the secondary market and scalpers. You should probably look up the definition of a scalper, although I'm sure, based on your negative opinion of the secondary market, anyone who resells a ticket is a scalper to you.
When you say "Brokers/scalpers/whatever don't give the acts any money" you're wrong. We buy the tickets. The money we pay goes to the artists. Kind of common sense.
Finally, when you say "if scalping didn't exist those tickets would have originally been sold to other fans (or maybe the same ones) at face value" you're making another naive assumption. Ticketmaster assumes that if they got rid of the secondary market, shows will still sell out. So, let's say there's no secondary market and I wanted a ticket to see my favorite band, and couldn't get through on Ticketmaster before they sold out. Scalping or not, I'm going to still want that ticket, and if someone out there agreed to sell it to me at a price I found fair, then yes, that person would be doing me a service.
For the guy who runs the Little Rock arena. He is lying if he says no buyers have complained about paperless. We learned the hard way about these tickets. Basically, when the tickets for the show went on sale 5 months before the date of the concert, we had to buy then if we wanted the "good seats." I would have preferred to have waited until closer to the time and just bought the tickets I wanted on stubhub or ebay or whatever for a price I deemed to be reasonable.
But under this stupid paperless crap, we had to buy 5 months in advance. Then when we had something else come up and could not attend the show, we had no option to sell the tickets or even give them to a friend. And there is also no option to cancel the order. So basically you are just out your $275. It is BS. I will not attend any show again where they are forcing paperless tickets.
I'm sure there are a lot of other people who also have had bad experiences with it. Some of them probably just haven't complained yet. If they start this on a massive scale it is going to become a major problem.
I do not like the idea of paperless tickets at all. I work hard all week long and on Saturday's I do not want to be in front of a computer to try and get the tickets for some show I want to go to. It doesn't really matter to me if someone buys tickets to resell them later. So be it. That person is actually helping me out. I get to purchase tickets much closer to the event, once I really know that I want to and can go to it. And I get to buy the tickets when I want to buy them. If they start doing this paperless tickets more often, a person like me is going to be screwed out of ever getting a good ticket because I can not and will not be on there on a Saturday morning to buy the tickets. Maybe standing in line all night or being on a computer at 10 am works for some people. But it doesn't work for me.
The whining doesn't matter, people. And you're probably brokers masquerading as customers anyway.
People WILL adapt to the concept of paperless ticketing and committing in advance to plans because they already have - just look at AIRLINE TICKETING. These are non-refundable and non-transferable.
Will there be a few people who have last-minute issues? YES. Will the venues ultimately accommodate these people in some fashion? YES. Will 99% of concert-goers embrace paperless ticketing? YES.
As you've not even attempted to offer any premises to support your conclusion, we can definitely say that you are NOT a logician!
You are dead wrong with your comparison to the airline industry. For one thing, air travel is about 50% based on necessity (i.e.-business trips, family emergencies, etc.) and 50% based on leisure. The ticket industry is 100% based on leisure, no one HAS to go to a Bruce Springsteen concert or a Yankees game, they go because they WANT to. If all of a sudden someone told them they needed to buy their tickets eight months in advance, and would take a total loss if they couldn't attend the show in eight months, that will start discouraging people from buying tickets they way they do now, when they can resell or transfer a ticket they can't use.
Secondly, you are wrong when you say airline tickets are non-refundable and non-transferable. The majority of airline tickets are refundable, minus a cancellation fee imposed by the airlines. And in many cases, the airline would give the customer an airline credit they can use to book travel for themselves or others. So will Ticketmaster start offering refundable tickets? Until they do, any comparison to the airline industry is moot.
Another comparison...right now, acts like U2 and Bon Jovi are selling tickets to shows 6-10 months away because, in this economy and with the prices they charge, they often need several months to sell out many of their shows (especially outside of the major markets like NY, LA, etc.). The majority of air travel is purchased within 60 days before travel, often as little as 14-21 days in advance. Artists would not be at all satisfied with a system that left the majority of their tickets unsold 30-60 days before the show.
You are making a very uneducated comment when you state that people coming out against paperless tickets are "probably brokers masquerading as customers anyway". Well then, who is to say that all of the comments in favor of paperless tickets are probably just comments from people that are just mindless shills for Irving Azoff and Ticketmaster. Azoff says he is against the reselling of tickets, yet his company, Frontline Management has provided tickets to ticket resellers to sell seats in the first 10 rows for exorbitant prices. It seems that Azoff wants his cake and wants to eat it too.
"only ticket brokers complaining about paperless tickets..." ROTFLMAO Complaining? Try greatful. Ticket brokers have never seen the unreal sky high prices that are now possible BECAUSE of paperless tickets. They have no problem flying to where ever to meet a customer and go through the paperless ticket process if it puts $1000s of dollars in their pocket. And when those same tickets would have only made them $100s why would they complain?
As an occasional ticket buyer who wants premium seats and doesn't want to take the morning off from work or blow a Saturday morning trying to buy tickets online I have no problem paying ticket brokers extra money to get the tickets I want and not have to deal with the hassles of Ticketmaster. Paperless tickets are destroying this. Now I have to pay an arm and a leg for the same seats or take the morning off, risk getting fired and blow vacation time, just for a chance at reasonable tickets!
Response to the first post, you are too funny... " As and occasional ticket buyer" yeah you buy the occasional ticket from fans because you are clearly a broker! LMAO
Are you the resident sophist?
Really, I am a broker? That's news to me. But with the $ that can be made with paperless tickets it might be time for a career change! LMAO
I usually do buy tickets from brokers (Stubhub, eBay, etc) and occasionally from Ticketmaster if they happen to have the ticket sale at a convenient time, which is next to never.
Saying the artist "owns" the ticket is an insult to consumers. It's like saying if I go and buy a new car, that GM still 'owns' the car after I've paid for it. Having worked with Dave Butler, it's laughable that he's in the position he is in, and only even made it that high because Ticketmaster bought out Paciolan. Now he's just their lapdog going around spreading this nonsense of how good paperless is for the consumer. It's not. Right now, if you can't make a game or concert, you have the ability to sell or give away your ticket to someone who can.
Look at U2...they're selling tickets for concerts that are 9-10 months away. I hope I'm able to go see them in July, but how do I know what I'll be doing that far into the future?!? I absolutely deserve the right to transfer or re-sell my tickets if I can't make the show. These large organizations who make millions off the secondary market need to stand up to the consumer and organize large petitions to the FTC and DOJ protesting this absurd notion that tickets are 'owned' by the artist even after they sell them to the fan.
If I can't resell my tickets that means I don't own them. So since I don't own them Ticketmaster has no right to charge my credit card UNTIL I redeem the ticket at a show. Since I don't own them if I decide for any reason to not go to the event then I am of course not charged since I never owned the tickets right? How can I be charged for something I never owned?
That's a distinction with an importance, as the grantor of a license can attach any conditions that he so wishes.
Next time you handle a hard ticket, grab a magnifying glass and read the fine print. You'll find, at the least, a clause similar to "This ticket is a revocable license, and may be revoked, and admission denied, upon refund of the price appearing hereon."
Perhaps that's something consumers should be protesting then...because a ticket is absolutely a tangible good, even if the ticket vendors don't want it to be. Perhaps one of the reasons they are fighting so hard to go to paperless ticketing is so that they can reinforce the intangible good/license theory. At the end of the day, why should any ticket company or artist or venue have the ability to arbitrarily revoke a ticket purchase? There needs to be set reasons for them to do so in place to protect consumers, and I'm sorry, but consumers reselling those tickets - which is LEGAL in the majority of states - is not a valid reason to revoke a license. New York state actually made it a crime for its sports teams to penalize season ticket holders who resold tickets because, after all, those season ticket holders are not breaking the law. Any federal law needs to follow suit. At the end of the day, reselling tickets - whether by a broker or individual consumer - is 100% LEGAL in the overwhelming majority of states. What Ticketmaster and Live Nation are trying to do is restrict the consumer's ability to LEGALLY resell a good that they purchased, in order to stifle any form of competition to their ticket monopoly.
To be tangible requires the existence of a corporeal entity. A Contract is an Agreement; the written contract is NOT THE AGREEMENT itself, but merely an EXPRESSION of such. The Agreement itself has no physical existence; i.e., it is not corporeal, and is therefore not a tangible object.
The underlying problem lies, not in its being intangible, but in its being an Aleatory Contract of Adhesion.
That its provisions are controlled by a single party to the contract makes it one of Adhesion; the other party is presented with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. If it accepts it, he is bound to adhering to its provisions.
The presence of a provision allowing for the contract being unilaterally voidable by the controlling party introduces the element of chance, thus making it an Aleatory Contract.
What is particularly odd in regards to tickets is that, despite their NOT generally having a contractual provision prohibiting the adhering party from transferring their rights to another party of their choosing, the controlling parties act as if such provision were actually present. And, it is an old and well established principle of Contract Law that, as the controlling party alone has every opportunity to ensure that a Contract of Adhesion fully and clearly states all that it wishes to control, that any contest between the Controlling and Adhering Parties which involve the lack of such completeness and clarity of purpose shall be decided in favor of the Adhering party.
Why, then, is such principle so frequently and readily set aside with regards to event tickets?
I hate to tell you, but you're missing the very point that Butler is making. He's not asserting that the artist "owns" the ticket after it's been purchased. He's saying that BEFORE the ticket is sold, the artist owns the right. And because of that ownership, the artist then has the sole discretion over how, and to whom those tickets are sold and transferred. You might as well have equal frustration over the artist's decisions to sell 10% of the house to his/her fan club. Or to hold a % for a given charity (since you're using U2 as an example). Those are decisions that the artists make because they own the rights to those tickets before they're ever sold. So Butler's argument is simply this: if the artist pushes to have tickets delivered paperlessly, or in the traditional fashion, or by carrier pigeon, it's Ticketmaster's job as the service provider to the artist/agent/management/promoter/venue to provide the tools necessary to make that possible. Period.
As for your U2 example, I don't disagree with your logic over the pitfalls of losing control over the ticket. But again, your anger towards Butler and Ticketmaster is misguided. The blame in your hypothetical scenario rests solely on U2's shoulders. Not the ticketing company's.
Finally, what about Vertix's paperless solution (Flash Seats?)? It's my understanding that you can still transfer and sell their paperless tickets, but it simply has to be done via the team's website. So there you go...fan convenience all around. What's wrong with that?
You may want to understand the nature of the business before launching another attack on what is nothing more than one of the many puppets in the artists'/teams' musical blame acts.
It's funny how neither Ticketmaster nor the artists want to take 'credit' for paperless ticketing. When Miley Cyrus launched her recent tour, I saw a blurb on her website that said she had no control over the decision to go to paperless ticketing, and then I saw Butler on cable news (I believe it was MSNBC) saying the decision to go paperless was purely Miley's. The truth is, as the ticketing provider, Ticketmaster does a lot more than just enable the purchase of tickets. They also advise artists and promoters as to the most effective way to sell tickets, and if you think Ticketmaster doesn't push - and heavily at that - for artists they have had issues with in the past like Cyrus to go to paperless, then you're kidding yourself.
Yes, Butler's official line is what you repeated, that it's ultimately up to the artists. The truth of the matter is that Ticketmaster has the ability to heavily influence the artist in going to paperless. After all, for some artists, they control the complete ticketing rights. In other cases, they have ticketing rights to the majority of the venues they may be playing. So if Ticketmaster goes to Springsteen or Cyrus or any artist and says "we want you to go to paperless", is the artist going to be able to say no? Probably not.
As for your point on ownership, nothing quoted in the article would indicate that either of us is right or wrong. Butler may have, as you claim, been implying that the artist owns the ticket up until the time of sale. However, I have also heard Butler say in the past that Ticketmaster's position is that the artist owns the rights to the ticket at all times - before and after sale. This is why they feel they should have the right to control and limit resale and transfer.
As for Veritix, my theory on them is that they have not helped the Cavaliers. When you look at that team's success, the lack of any real competition in that sports market (the Browns & Indians are both horrible), and the reasonable prices of their season tickets, there is no reason that team should not be selling out every game. Yet, you could get season tickets at any time. I even got a promo email from them before the playoffs last season offering to sell the general public full strips of playoff tickets with no commitment to season tickets, etc. That is unreal for a team with their success to have to throw out those kinds of offers to sell playoff tickets. Additionally, I also see that Miley Cyrus hasn't sold out her show at Quicken Arena (or whatever the Cavs arena is called).
Overall, here's what is wrong with Veritix and the other paperless methods I have heard other teams consider employing - they ensure that the team gets a cut of every ticket sold or transferred. Maybe you can argue for the team getting the right to get a cut off every resale, but not every transfer. Most season ticket holders don't go to every game, and many have partners who will take part of their season tickets. With paperless ticketing systems like Veritix, if you wanted to go in on 1/4 of my Cavaliers tickets, we would have to pay through Veritix for me to transfer you those 10 games, at a tune of about $ 5-10 a game, or potentially an extra $ 100 that neither of us would have to pay if I just gave you the hard copy tickets.
There are many examples you could draw that show the absurdity of the teams wanting their hands in the pie of all resale and transfers, but here is one that I think is most relevant as it deals with rights holders and entertainment. If I go to Best Buy and buy a DVD set of my favorite tv show and then decide to give it to you when I'm done with it, should we have to pay Best Buy and/or the studio a fee for doing so? When you're done with it, you sell it on eBay and make a few bucks...should Best Buy and/or the studio be able to demand we only resell it through them at the prices they say, and then demand a cut of the sale? Absolutely not, and the ticket industry is no different, despite all the arguments made by Ticketmaster and other parties with vested interest in controlling, manipulating, and restricting the free market within the ticket industry. This has little to do with customer service and everything to do with the primary market wanting to monopolize the ticket industry by eliminating the competition they have in the secondary market.
Actually, you are wrong. Ticketmaster owns Front Line Management and under Irving Azoff they are attempting to get artists to do paperless to hurt companies like Stubhub. They are NOT simply in the business of providing a service to artists. Anybody that believes this lie is simply clueless as to how this business operates.
Their plan is to eventually control the primary and secondary markets. The plan is to make as many events "paperless" as possible and then only allow the resale of paperless through their system. Their business plan is simple. If you have a competitor buy them. If you can't buy them then you manipulate things until they go away. If all else fails, merge with Live Nation and control every aspect of live entertainment from artist management to arenas to t-shirts and soda sales.
As for Vertix and Flash Seats. You do not have many options when it comes to those either. I think that the point that Chris T. and others was making was that the owner of the tickets are forced to sell only through vertix, if they are needing to resale. It cuts everybody else out. And that is wrong. It is monopolistic in nature.
At the end of the day, none of this even matters. People can pretend all they want about "scalpers" but the fact is that many shows are having a very difficult time selling and the reason these artists put their shows on sale so many months in advance is because they need to generate the revenue to support the tour.
There is no such thing as "scalping." It's a term they use to pretend that someone else is the bad guy. There is nobody that can tell you what a ticket is worth. EVER. It has different values to each individual. And over the course of time a ticket can be sold several times. It might go up in value from its original point, or it could go down. It's just like a stock. And I can assure you, as a ticket broker, often times they go down in value.
term for breaking the Law re. resale of tickets.
If you're not breaking the Law, you're not a "scalper!"
"The plan is to make as many events "paperless" as possible and then only allow the resale of paperless through their system."
No, they want to make events paperless and give the artist THE OPTION to allow resale, under parameters determined by the artist. Maybe an artist will allow resale, but only at face plus 10%.
The bottom line is that Azoff and Rapino are all about "the artist" and NOT about "the ticketing company." TM was pushing resale adoption as a standalone business because they were trying to grow their bottom line using it. With the resale market flourishing, Azoff was trying to figure out a way for his artists to get a piece.
BUT, if paperless exists, Azoff and Rapino will be all about offering their artists (and others) this option. They will be making decisions in that light - NOT as a standalone publicly-traded ticketing company that is trying to increase profits every quarter.
My guess is that the majority of major artists WILL embrace paperless, but NOT allow resale even within the closed system. I get Tsakalakis's point, but ultimately it won't matter. Most artists want to squash the secondary market, not monopolize it.
I think you both make good points here, but there are clearly two issues with the latest response...
1. Neither Tom Waits nor AC/DC are managed by Front Line. Those two artists started this entire exercise - not Irving. So how can you say that TM is not in the business to service artists? They were offering this service well before Irving's business was acquired.
2. If a team or artist decides that tickets can be re-sold or transferred, but they must be done within that team/artist's environment, how is that "monopolistic in nature"? Brokers can still buy and sell tickets, thus competition is not effected - it can still flourish. And since competition is always the central concern of any monopolistic discussion, there's no issue here. So is it illegal? No. Is it monopolistic? No. But could it perhaps force brokers to make less money? Yes. And when you really get down to it, that's why you're upset. Call it what it is....you're not standing on the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial, waiving your American flag, and passionately claiming monopolistic injustices. You're simply pissed because technology might take a cut out of your piece.
It is definetly is an "absurd notion that tickets are 'owned' by the artist even after they sell them to the fan." Those greedy b***ards want both sides... The money up front(from brokers) and the fair market value(from brokers)... Ticketmaster is building an even stronger evil empire!
The very notion of "owning" a ticket makes little sense.
A ticket is nothing more than the right to attend an event. Who gets that "right" and how that "right" is acquired and/or transferred is controlled by the event promoter.
I can rent out the Staples Center, hire Bruce Springsteen, and only invite my friends to attend (assuming the venue and the act would be willing). Assuming I am a Saudi oil mogul and was willing to pay both Staples and Bruce a couple of million dollars each, I imagine they'd be happy to help me with my party.
And I could do that if I wanted, because the show would be mine. And I would not have to sell any tickets to anybody or allow any tickets to be re-sold.
That's the way it works. Promoters own the show, but in the case of major artists the acts have the ability to call many of the shots. They can hire whoever they want to promote their shows. Some artists don't even need promoters.
If someone doesn't like how tickets are handled for events, well then they can become a promoter. Go buy shows and rent buildings and sell tickets however you want to.
i hope they restrict it like crazy so we can sell tickets at inflated supply and demand numbers
"I can rent out the Staples Center, hire Bruce Springsteen, and only invite my friends to attend (assuming the venue and the act would be willing). Assuming I am a Saudi oil mogul and was willing to pay both Staples and Bruce a couple of million dollars each, I imagine they'd be happy to help me with my party."
yeah but then you would be having a private party at the staples center...not a public concert..theres a big difference
The fact remains that a ticket is not a tangible good, but a revocable license, subject to whatever conditions the grantor of such wishes to attach to it.
...finally someone who knows what he's talking about. private event is just that: PRIVATE: Ticket brokers here in Los angeles went to court 25 years ago with the Academy Awards people over selling AW tickets. The lawyers for the Academy used the "private event" argument stating the Academy members only are invited and that the tickets were for ONLY Academy members. As soon as the Attorneys made that statement the judge shot back with, "if it's a private event, why are there 500 million people watching on TV ?" In fact, the judge ruled it was a "public event" and if the brokers paid for tickets from Academy members, brokers had the right to sell the tickets or give them to their moms or dads.
..the Paperless ticket argument is pointless. Let the artist sell tickets that way, and see what happens the next time they come around. Still in this day & age there are the "rightous" Wharton do-gooders that think they "know the ticket market" and are able to convince mindless managers and even some promoters that their ideas are what's best.
The Very Best answer has always been for the artist to sell as many tickets necessary to sayisfy the ticket demand. Why ?
Because the next CD could suck....! and selling tickets would not be an issue.
It very may well be as you say, that a judge ruled that people who were in possession of AW tickets had the right to resell them. And yes, the AW is a public event.
That is not the same as a judge saying that the promoter has to provide a process to ensure that any ticket holder has the ability to resell a ticket.
Point being, if the Staples Center and the promoter want to do paperless for whatever reasons, what law exists to say that they must use a ticketing mechanism whereby tickets can easily be re-sold?
That's what is meant when saying that the artist/promoter/venue can do whatever they want. Public event, private event - it doesn't matter. They control the ticketing and if they want to do paperless they can do paperless.
"The Very Best answer has always been for the artist to sell as many tickets necessary to sayisfy the ticket demand. Why ?"
Actually the answer is much more simple than the next CD sucking. It's because the artist, promoter, ticket vendor, venue and everyone else involved in the process is out to make as much money as they can, and the more tickets they sell, the more they achieve that ends. The more revenue the artist and promoters get from ticket sales, the more money the ticket vendor gets from ticket fees, and the more money the venue gets from parking, beer, etc.
Paperless ticketing is not something everyone is comfortable with, and it has affected the bottom line of two big North American tours this year - Miley Cyrus & Bruce Springsteen. Both decided to go paperless after successful previous tours, both played to far fewer sellouts than they did before. Obviously there is more at play in the lack of ticket success they had previously, but I think both the artists and Ticketmaster/Live Nation are being dangerously arrogant if they think paperless ticketing has nothing to do with it and there is going to be a seamless transition. As more and more shows go paperless, you will see more and more discussion about it. If the resistance from fans of teams contemplating going paperless is any indication, it will continue to produce lower ticket sales as a result of the inconvenience it mandates.
I have been in the industry for years and what I find funny is that when I first started in ticketing at an arena we had a consortium of brokers that bought blocks of tickets from the building to sell on the secondary market. They also got their tickets days in advance of anything going on-sale or even pre-sale. The building used this relationship to charge a fee per ticket that the secondary seller would pay.
That was over 15 years ago and now we are back with the same situation but now both parties are on opposite sides. Technology caused this rift. TM decided to change that by going to auctions and now paperless to tap into that market.
Wow - How times have changed.
This ticket is a revocable license, and may be revoked, and admission denied, upon refund of the price appearing hereon."
the reason you need a magnifying glass to read this is because they are hiding the BS..it's total BS once you sell a product you don't have any say how it's handled or use unless you're talking about copyright but copyright intellectual property doesn't apply to events....i.e. i can write Not for resale on anything but that doesn't make it law
And, unless such Provision explicitly contravenes applicable Law, it is ENFORCEABLE.
An event ticket is a Contract of Adhesion, as was earlier explained.
Simply put, a Contract of Adhesion is a case of take-it-or-leave-it. The potential ticket buyer has but 2 choices:
1) Buy the ticket, and be subject to its stated Terms; or,
2) Don't buy it.