> The root cause of the problem isn't scalpers; it's the original concert seller either setting too low a price or too low a quantity.
Imagine viewing a pricing scheme that allows more socioeconomic groups access to the arts as the core problem.
We're experiencing a great decline and fall as social services are failing, wages stagnating, and common cultural experiences are being squeezed for profit, only enabling the richest among us to experience any kind of common social event.
And of course, the response is "keep increasing prices until its unbearable", just like we're doing with rent and housing prices, and calling this efficient.
Inflating prices until few can afford it isn't efficient, its just short sighted greed.
Finding a way to suppress prices and remove scalpers is a net benefit for the artists, venues, and patrons.
I'm flummoxed by this view but at least empathetic when it comes to food and shelter. When it comes to Olivia Rodrigo tickets I'm legitimately confused.
If Rodrigo decided to abandon her career and only do private shows for Bill Gate's who's business would that be but hers? I think there's room for either disdain or pity for the person who cares about nothing other then money but who's going to make that judgement about another person's motivations? And who would jump in take action on that judgement?
Few people think it's good that this is how things work. It would be great if artists could set affordable prices for their concerts and anyone who wanted could come! The contention is simply that that's not how it works, that supply and demand is a law not a guideline we can opt out of if we think it's inconvenient. It would be great if we could all just flap our hands and fly wherever we wanted, but gravity has something to say about that just as economics has something to say about "irrationally" priced tickets. Inventing the aeroplane is a laudable goal but go into it with clear eyes, not wishful thinking, and don't think you can keep gravity at bay by shaming it.
The core problem is reality. Scarcity is reality. Free market economics, supply and demand is reality.
You can try to ignore the equilibrium price point, just as you might ignore gravity, but reality will assert itself. Scalpers will always exist to rebalance the supply and demand equality.
If you want to make something available to more socioeconomic groups, increase the supply. Simple as.
Access to arts and culture is broader now than it has been ever before in human history. If I want to listen to any Olivia Rodrigo song, I can go to YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Music, search for “Olivia Rodrigo”, and be set. Other than the price of internet access and a device that can connect to the internet, it costs literally nothing, unless maybe I want to pay extra to get rid of advertisements.
Imagine viewing a pricing scheme that allows more socioeconomic groups access to the arts as the core problem.
We're experiencing a great decline and fall as social services are failing, wages stagnating, and common cultural experiences are being squeezed for profit, only enabling the richest among us to experience any kind of common social event.
And of course, the response is "keep increasing prices until its unbearable", just like we're doing with rent and housing prices, and calling this efficient.
Inflating prices until few can afford it isn't efficient, its just short sighted greed.
Finding a way to suppress prices and remove scalpers is a net benefit for the artists, venues, and patrons.