A low cost, and a “first come, first serve” system seems to reasonably favor those who have a genuine interest in attending. I’m sure there’s probably better systems for that, but neither of your suggestions seems to accomplish the goal of distributing a limited resource (tickets) to those who would get the most benefit from them.
A minimal barrier to entry (say, a $10 ticket) weeds out those who have lots of time, but no real interest in attending—otherwise the tickets would probably routinely get wasted by those who snagged them for free, but had low odds of actually attending the event.
A high barrier to entry (say, $200 per ticket) weeds out those who have low income, regardless of their interest in attending.
A random lottery doesn’t favor anyone, and thus those who are going for a whim have equal chances to those who have been dying to see The Really Good Band Reunion Tour ever since they heard about it in 2005.
Off the top of my head: $200 per ticket, free tickets if you have low income and fill appropriately annoying paperwork as a barrier to entry. (Or the latter only regardless of income.) Or a random lottery plus scalping (those who don’t want to attend all that much selling to hardcore fans).
Scalpers want to avoid finding themselves with unsold tickets. (Though maybe they don’t, if it makes sold tickets much more expensive.) If it frequently happens then scalping benefits neither scalper nor customer, so there’s a paternalistic reason to ban it.
Edit: Actually, scratch that—sell tickets and the right to resell them separately.
(those who don’t want to attend all that much selling to hardcore fans).
You’re still assuming that “fan of the band” correlates with “rich”. Hardcore fans can still be poor.
$200 per ticket, free tickets if you have low income and fill appropriately annoying paperwork as a barrier to entry.
This require more bureaucratic overhead and administration. Then there’s the hassle of figuring out what percentage of tickets get reserved for the low-income, and the social outrage on both sides regardless of what ratio you decide on. Then there’s the outrage from low income people being asked to do pointless paperwork just to prove they really love the band.
Potentially solvable, but what benefit does this give you that makes it worth those transitional costs?
You’re still assuming that “fan of the band” correlates with “rich”.
No, just that fans are willing to spend more (so I’m assuming the lack of a strong negative correlation). I don’t mean to be crass, but being able to afford more things is sort of the point of being rich. (I keep getting those ideas for schemes where you pay a fixed percentage of your income.)
Yeah, okay, my suggested solutions suck. My outrage actually came from banning (and disapproving of) scalping. But I was wrong, it isn’t a “selling is legal, that’s protecting a monopoly” situation. The right to sell the right to attend isn’t the right to attend. But it shouldn’t be a banned commodity, it should be sold as well by the organization that sells the tickets (at prohibitively high prices if they hate scalping).
Given the existence of ticket resellers, I’d assume it’s possible for a retailer to mark tickets as “approved for resale”, although I’d expect the nuances vary by jurisdiction. Certainly, plenty of concerts charge sufficiently to exclude a large portion of people due to income, so the goals outlined above are moot for at least some concerts. Certainly, I’d support the ability of retailers to sell “scalping rights” or not at their own discretion.
I don’t mean to be crass, but being able to afford more things is sort of the point of being rich.
I’m quite aware of the privileges of wealth. I’d assume the point of this sort of social policy is to offset exactly that...
A low cost, and a “first come, first serve” system seems to reasonably favor those who have a genuine interest in attending. I’m sure there’s probably better systems for that, but neither of your suggestions seems to accomplish the goal of distributing a limited resource (tickets) to those who would get the most benefit from them.
A minimal barrier to entry (say, a $10 ticket) weeds out those who have lots of time, but no real interest in attending—otherwise the tickets would probably routinely get wasted by those who snagged them for free, but had low odds of actually attending the event.
A high barrier to entry (say, $200 per ticket) weeds out those who have low income, regardless of their interest in attending.
A random lottery doesn’t favor anyone, and thus those who are going for a whim have equal chances to those who have been dying to see The Really Good Band Reunion Tour ever since they heard about it in 2005.
Off the top of my head: $200 per ticket, free tickets if you have low income and fill appropriately annoying paperwork as a barrier to entry. (Or the latter only regardless of income.) Or a random lottery plus scalping (those who don’t want to attend all that much selling to hardcore fans).
Scalpers want to avoid finding themselves with unsold tickets. (Though maybe they don’t, if it makes sold tickets much more expensive.) If it frequently happens then scalping benefits neither scalper nor customer, so there’s a paternalistic reason to ban it.
Edit: Actually, scratch that—sell tickets and the right to resell them separately.
You’re still assuming that “fan of the band” correlates with “rich”. Hardcore fans can still be poor.
This require more bureaucratic overhead and administration. Then there’s the hassle of figuring out what percentage of tickets get reserved for the low-income, and the social outrage on both sides regardless of what ratio you decide on. Then there’s the outrage from low income people being asked to do pointless paperwork just to prove they really love the band.
Potentially solvable, but what benefit does this give you that makes it worth those transitional costs?
No, just that fans are willing to spend more (so I’m assuming the lack of a strong negative correlation). I don’t mean to be crass, but being able to afford more things is sort of the point of being rich. (I keep getting those ideas for schemes where you pay a fixed percentage of your income.)
Yeah, okay, my suggested solutions suck. My outrage actually came from banning (and disapproving of) scalping. But I was wrong, it isn’t a “selling is legal, that’s protecting a monopoly” situation. The right to sell the right to attend isn’t the right to attend. But it shouldn’t be a banned commodity, it should be sold as well by the organization that sells the tickets (at prohibitively high prices if they hate scalping).
Given the existence of ticket resellers, I’d assume it’s possible for a retailer to mark tickets as “approved for resale”, although I’d expect the nuances vary by jurisdiction. Certainly, plenty of concerts charge sufficiently to exclude a large portion of people due to income, so the goals outlined above are moot for at least some concerts. Certainly, I’d support the ability of retailers to sell “scalping rights” or not at their own discretion.
I’m quite aware of the privileges of wealth. I’d assume the point of this sort of social policy is to offset exactly that...