c4countdown

Hey don't include me. I'm just a messenger of evidence. It makes total sense from Ticketmaster's view, but they're still utter cunts, be they clever well-informed capitalist cunts or not.

But yeah 62% added on to the ticket price in fees I thought was worth bringing up.

Matt Morrison wrote:Hey don't include me. I'm just a messenger of evidence.

Apart from the bit where you said it was "just horrible".

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Hey don't include me. I'm just a messenger of evidence.

Apart from the bit where you said it was "just horrible".

What, so we can't understand why something happens yet still think it's horrible?
I'm happy to have an opinion on the subject - Ticketmaster are horrible - but that doesn't mean I can't understand why on earth they would do it.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Hey don't include me. I'm just a messenger of evidence.

Apart from the bit where you said it was "just horrible".

What, so we can't understand why something happens yet still think it's horrible?

You can't claim to be a "just a messenger of evidence" while passing comment at the same time. If you think it's horrible then you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about at the beginning, which is IMO weirdly innocent. If you want to disagree with that bit then go ahead.

Cool. Remove "just a messenger of evidence" then. I just typed it without expecting the words to be analysed, but what I meant by that was exactly what I said subsequently - that you can still understand something and hate it. Just the wrong wording.

Matt Morrison wrote:Cool. Remove "just a messenger of evidence" then. I just typed it without expecting the words to be analysed, but what I meant by that was exactly what I said subsequently - that you can still understand something and hate it. Just the wrong wording.

You're meant to flounce off you dickhead.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Cool. Remove "just a messenger of evidence" then. I just typed it without expecting the words to be analysed, but what I meant by that was exactly what I said subsequently - that you can still understand something and hate it. Just the wrong wording.

You're meant to flounce off you dickhead.

Yeah fuck that. If I do, you'll probably charge me $4.55 CAD for the pleasure and then tell me I'm a cunt if I complain about it but understand why you did it.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm a cunt if I complain about it but understand why you did it.

I didn't say you were a cunt (although you are a master victim). It's just, here's the deal: they offer you a thing, the thing costs $29.95, you want it? Cool. That's too much? Cool. What are you complaining about? That you wish it cost $4.55 less? Everyone wants everything for $4.55 less! It doesn't mean you have any legitimate grounds for complaint. Yes they make a big mark-up on the delivery fee, that's their business model and there's nothing dishonest about it. Why the sense of entitlement to what is obviously a luxury item charged at a luxury price?

Charlie Reams wrote:Everyone wants everything for $4.55 less! It doesn't mean you have any legitimate grounds for complaint. Yes they make a big mark-up on the delivery fee, that's their business model and there's nothing dishonest about it.

There is an element of trickery about it though when you only get those charges added on right at the end, and you were advertised a price earlier that now seems irrelevant as there is a further (unavoidable) charge. I can't actually see whatever it is Matt posted, so that might not apply here, but in general it is annoying.

Contrary to David William's (wife's) experience of price comparison websites when shopping for motor insurance, I got frustrated when I went to buy the cheapest policies from my results list, only to find that there were then further unavoidable additions to be made (ie - which of these would you like? The bronze package adds £30 to your premium, silver is £50 but you get [x], and gold is £70 but you get [y] - AND YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF THESE). It just pissed me off and wasted my time.

Clearly Charlie is just trying to soften everyone up before he introduces a charge per game to cover the cost of a new stack of letters.

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Everyone wants everything for $4.55 less! It doesn't mean you have any legitimate grounds for complaint. Yes they make a big mark-up on the delivery fee, that's their business model and there's nothing dishonest about it.

There is an element of trickery about it though when you only get those charges added on right at the end, and you were advertised a price earlier that now seems irrelevant as there is a further (unavoidable) charge. I can't actually see whatever it is Matt posted, so that might not apply here, but in general it is annoying.

Contrary to David William's (wife's) experience of price comparison websites when shopping for motor insurance, I got frustrated when I went to buy the cheapest policies from my results list, only to find that there were then further unavoidable additions to be made (ie - which of these would you like? The bronze package adds £30 to your premium, silver is £50 but you get [x], and gold is £70 but you get [y] - AND YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF THESE). It just pissed me off and wasted my time.

I agree that that's annoying, although it sounds more like a flaw in the comparison site. Anyway my point is, if a company does something you don't like, weigh up how much you care alongside the financial cost, and then buy or don't buy accordingly. If a dog behaves badly you don't give it a treat and then complain about it later -- you understand that treat-eating is the only language the dog speaks. Same with companies and money. I'm not even arguing that the free market or whatever is a good thing, but it is the thing that you have to deal with here and now, so act rationally within it and don't buy things if you don't like the terms. If you want to change the system, outlaw big delivery fees or overthrow the whole of modern capitalism then that's cool, campaign for that and good luck. Am I being unreasonable here?

Michael Wallace wrote:Clearly Charlie is just trying to soften everyone up before he introduces a charge per game to cover the cost of a new stack of letters.

I know you agree with me you dick, so I might impose such a system just on you.

Charlie Reams wrote:I agree that that's annoying, although it sounds more like a flaw in the comparison site. Anyway my point is, if a company does something you don't like, weigh up how much you care alongside the financial cost, and then buy or don't buy accordingly. If a dog behaves badly you don't give it a treat and then complain about it later -- you understand that treat-eating is the only language the dog speaks. Same with companies and money. I'm not even arguing that the free market or whatever is a good thing, but it is the thing that you have to deal with here and now, so act rationally within it and don't buy things if you don't like the terms. If you want to change the system, outlaw big delivery fees or overthrow the whole of modern capitalism then that's cool, campaign for that and good luck. Am I being unreasonable here?

I agree that you still have the choice before you commit to the sale, it's not like the charges are hidden or anything, but in my mind the issue is advertising a fake price. Isn't there some kind of Advertising Standards Agency or something that should care?

Haha I know you didn't call me a cunt Charlie, sorry, I was exaggerating again. Clearly it's been a misunderstanding since I posted that picture as I've waded into something that, and here's another paradox for you, I think absolutely sucks yet I still don't care about much, and you've mistaken that for arguing with you when I'm not.

I agree you only buy something in the end if you are happy to pay the price, but that's not all that is at stake here. There's also an element of Corby's trickery, plus an element of what other people had discussed way before I got involved concerning the way Ticketmaster rape and pillage as a middleman, not rape and pillage as the supplier you are actually buying from.

Ticketmaster have a monopoly on particular gigs so I completely disagree with you that if something is too much then 'Cool', don't buy it. It's uncool, and sometimes you still have to buy it. I don't think it's unreasonable to be pissed off about that.

More precisely, I think booking fees are at a cunty level and fine. I think charging to receive an e-mail is at a cunty level and not fine at all.

Let's summarise this - it's not the overall price that's the problem. If a fee is unavoidable (in some cases it might not be though), then they should just include it in the ticket price. Otherwise the ticket price is basically a lie.

In Canada and I think in the States too they add the tax on when you get to the counter so the price it says on the thing isn't the price you end up paying. It's really annoying. I'm fine by the way. Just had my teeth cleaned by the dentist so now they're all lovely and not as brown as they had been.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how Ticketmaster get away with it in this capitalist society. I find it hard to see how the service they provide costs anything like what they charge, so why doesn't someone undercut them? Why don't the venues do it themselves? I've never thought of Liverpool Football Club as having any other financial motive than to take as much of my money as possible, but they sell me a ticket for cash at the ticket office with no booking fee, or charge me 90p if I buy it with my credit card over the phone and they have to post it to me.

Incidentally

Matt Morrison wrote:sometimes you still have to buy it

Insulin, maybe. Tickets, no.

David Williams wrote:Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how Ticketmaster get away with it in this capitalist society. I find it hard to see how the service they provide costs anything like what they charge, so why doesn't someone undercut them?

Can't give a great answer to that but it'll probably happen, given that it doesn't seem that hard to make a small website selling tickets for some particular geographical/topical niche and then grow it from there. Market forces tend to be fairly slow but the situation is better in the Internet world.

Yeah there must be some dark forces at work behind the scenes with cross-promotion and sponsorship and that, considering there are so many BIG artists and BIG venues that don't need Ticketmaster's help at all to sell tickets but still go through them.

Matt Morrison wrote:Yeah there must be some dark forces at work behind the scenes with cross-promotion and sponsorship and that, considering there are so many BIG artists and BIG venues that don't need Ticketmaster's help at all to sell tickets but still go through them.

The reason that nobody (or very few) undercut Ticketmaster is because Ticketmaster's contracts are with venues and promoters, not with individual punters buying the tickets. They receive nothing from the face value of the ticket and make their money purely through their various charges. And the reason they can do this is that they incentivise venues and promoters to use Ticketmaster as their exclusive agent by giving the venues and promoters a cut of the service charges (typically in a lump sum payment at the start of the contract and a royalty thereafter).

These sorts of contracts will run a number of years and as long as it's mutually beneficial for both Ticketmaster and the promoters (it maximises revenues for both parties) it isn't going to change. Big venues and promoters aren't going to sign with an agent charging smaller fees, as they won't receive as much money in the long run.

JimBentley wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Yeah there must be some dark forces at work behind the scenes with cross-promotion and sponsorship and that, considering there are so many BIG artists and BIG venues that don't need Ticketmaster's help at all to sell tickets but still go through them.

The reason that nobody (or very few) undercut Ticketmaster is because Ticketmaster's contracts are with venues and promoters, not with individual punters buying the tickets. They receive nothing from the face value of the ticket and make their money purely through their various charges. And the reason they can do this is that they incentivise venues and promoters to use Ticketmaster as their exclusive agent by giving the venues and promoters a cut of the service charges (typically in a lump sum payment at the start of the contract and a royalty thereafter).

These sorts of contracts will run a number of years and as long as it's mutually beneficial for both Ticketmaster and the promoters (it maximises revenues for both parties) it isn't going to change. Big venues and promoters aren't going to sign with an agent charging smaller fees, as they won't receive as much money in the long run.

All of those are things you can undercut. For example, you could give the promoters a bigger percentage of a smaller profit, or entice them with a longer-term contract. Seems like normal free market economics to me.