Very sad day for touts
Discussion
Government announces ban on reselling tickets for profit. Oh dear, how sad; never mind. Maybe they'll have a go at online bookies next, they've much more parasitic, but I doubt this lot have the spine for it and the chancellor will whine about the tax.
abzmike said:
Given that it s seemingly that easy, why has it taken so long?
Well, whilst it's technically correct to refer to the companies doing this as touts, we're not talking about Spivs buying and selling tickets outside the venue or even individuals trying to unload tickets on Facebook.The practice and process has become sophisticated and, until now, a viable business enterprise.
Governments of any colour don't like to directly restrict or ban business activity and prefer to foster self-regulation and self-control with the threat of regulatory control if they don't. Imposing regulation comes at a significant cost to the government because they have to ensure sufficient resource exists to implement, monitor and enforce those regulations so they don't just knee-jerk on these sorts of things. They need to consider if such a measure provides best value to the tax payer and that debate takes time.
Prior to the Oasis gigs this year, the debate has ebbed and flowed with the balance tipped slightly towards the thinking that it's up to customers whether or not they buy a ticket at the price shown and is not the job of the government to intervene to make tickets affordable to all - let market forces dictate the process.
So the answer is that they need to allow time to see if the industry would change itself, then the time needed to prepare the necessary policy and legally stress-test it, then the time needed to assemble the resources necessary to enforce.
StevieBee said:
Well, whilst it's technically correct to refer to the companies doing this as touts, we're not talking about Spivs buying and selling tickets outside the venue or even individuals trying to unload tickets on Facebook.
The practice and process has become sophisticated and, until now, a viable business enterprise.
Governments of any colour don't like to directly restrict or ban business activity and prefer to foster self-regulation and self-control with the threat of regulatory control if they don't. Imposing regulation comes at a significant cost to the government because they have to ensure sufficient resource exists to implement, monitor and enforce those regulations so they don't just knee-jerk on these sorts of things. They need to consider if such a measure provides best value to the tax payer and that debate takes time.
Prior to the Oasis gigs this year, the debate has ebbed and flowed with the balance tipped slightly towards the thinking that it's up to customers whether or not they buy a ticket at the price shown and is not the job of the government to intervene to make tickets affordable to all - let market forces dictate the process.
So the answer is that they need to allow time to see if the industry would change itself, then the time needed to prepare the necessary policy and legally stress-test it, then the time needed to assemble the resources necessary to enforce.
This is the correct answer. The practice and process has become sophisticated and, until now, a viable business enterprise.
Governments of any colour don't like to directly restrict or ban business activity and prefer to foster self-regulation and self-control with the threat of regulatory control if they don't. Imposing regulation comes at a significant cost to the government because they have to ensure sufficient resource exists to implement, monitor and enforce those regulations so they don't just knee-jerk on these sorts of things. They need to consider if such a measure provides best value to the tax payer and that debate takes time.
Prior to the Oasis gigs this year, the debate has ebbed and flowed with the balance tipped slightly towards the thinking that it's up to customers whether or not they buy a ticket at the price shown and is not the job of the government to intervene to make tickets affordable to all - let market forces dictate the process.
So the answer is that they need to allow time to see if the industry would change itself, then the time needed to prepare the necessary policy and legally stress-test it, then the time needed to assemble the resources necessary to enforce.
The Mad Monk said:
Supposing, just supposing, everybody refused to buy tickets at more than the face value and only from official authorised sellers, would that work?
You know, sort of, take responsibility for the consequences of our actions?
I agree, up to a point. Whilst I’m happy to let market forces decide when person A chooses to buy a resold ticket from person B, I do think it’s unfair when bots hoover up swathes of tickets when they first go up for sale and then sell them at a vastly inflated price.You know, sort of, take responsibility for the consequences of our actions?
chemistry said:
I agree, up to a point. Whilst I m happy to let market forces decide when person A chooses to buy a resold ticket from person B, I do think it s unfair when bots hoover up swathes of tickets when they first go up for sale and then sell them at a vastly inflated price.
Agree it’s a nice idea thinking we can get the whole country to just not buy tickets but it’s never going to happen. If the secondary market was allowed to continue then live events would just become something for the rich and Joe Public would never get the chance to go. A lot of artists are coming out in support of this too.
In regards to stopping the spivs selling tickets outside venues I think this is far harder these days as tickets are rarely physical these days and mostly in digital form.
I know this change doesn’t apply to football but the days of ‘tickets who wants tickets’ outside my teams stadium have gone as the tickets are digital and it’s a bit of a faff to transfer from one person to the next.
nordboy said:
Only going to tighten up the reselling companies.
And as the biggest ones are owned by ticket master, I suspect they will be putting pressure on artists to increase ticket prices.I can only see ticket prices increasing, ticket master will want to make up for losing this additional revenue stream.
chemistry said:
I agree, up to a point. Whilst I m happy to let market forces decide when person A chooses to buy a resold ticket from person B, I do think it s unfair when bots hoover up swathes of tickets when they first go up for sale and then sell them at a vastly inflated price.
Which is precisely my point.If we didn't buy them at a vastly inflated price then the bots, or the people controlling them, would go out of business.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
nordboy said:
Only going to tighten up the reselling companies.
And as the biggest ones are owned by ticket master, I suspect they will be putting pressure on artists to increase ticket prices.I can only see ticket prices increasing, ticket master will want to make up for losing this additional revenue stream.
What was causing a lot of negative narrative in the summer was dynamic pricing where the price of the tickets changed depending on demand. No legislation has been introduced to tackle this and I suspect that Ticketmaster agreed to legislation on resale but on the proviso dynamic pricing remained.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff