Laughton wrote:The underlying systems are getting better.
Promoters and venues have given up hope of "officials" stopping the trade and many have worked out ways of making things much tougher.
I've had shows at major London venues where viagogo ticket holders have been turned away. The idea is that fans will realise the risk they are taking and stop buying other than through official channels. It's a slow process.
I'm not sure why 'officials' would stop the trade. It isn't illegal. I can see why they would pontificate about it in the press and announce some ridiculously ineffective scheme which will win them positive press coverage, but solve the problem? Surely you jest?
I'm also totally flummoxed as to why promoters would want to stop what I have no doubt is a very profitable distribution alley for a significant portion of their wares. It provides them with perfect cover, and doesn't result in them leaving an unbelievably high percentage of the value of their product on the table, whether it is realised by a tout or evaporates unrealised in to the ether as the tickets are sold below market value. It's not my business, but I'm guessing that isn't the sort of behaviour which leads to you becoming a multi billion dollar corporate entity with the scope and resources to act at the top of the game.
You said earlier that, "Promoters and venues are already trying to get rid of the touting business (promoters and artists' managers really do hate the fact that touts are making more money than they are)," but doing away with touting won't earn the promoters or the artist a single centime more, but will incur costs, and added friction for legitimate punters which is bound to lead to ill will, unfortunate outcomes and claims of the systemic exclusion of certain classes of fan. Beyond a little good publicity it's all kill no thrill.
I'm sure being able to claim that 'some' touted tickets were refused plays well with the fans, but what percentage of touted tickets do you think were actually turned away? As far as I can see there are two ways to go about it. You either tie the ticket to an individual, which is the method I have seen* in operation, or you attempt to identify individual tickets as they are touted. Both involve costs to the promoter, no extra income, and inconvenience legitimate punters.
How is it not better to realise the full value of the ticket whether out in the open, or as I have never ever seen anybody in the industry deny by diverting a significant portion of tickets in to the secondary market? Why make yourself poorer just to prevent somebody else making money, when the obvious alternative is to just take the money people are trying to throw at you already?
Come to that why continue to run on a first come first served basis. If you insist on selling non-transferable tickets at below market value, ballots are far harder to game, and you can give some reputable third party the booking fee to run it for you, leaving you with hands so clean you could eat out of them! It's a system used by organisations who are very concerned with the impression of propriety since the beginning of time, think Wimbledon, Last Night of the Proms, and now Liverpool Football Club. Of course this would make the entire sales procedure publicly auditable...
* Ironically given the number of concert, football, and theatre tickets I've had over the years which I could have sold for many multiples of what I paid for them this was to get in to a two thirds empty Serie A game, but their motivation I do buy. A big sign out front saying no knives or firearms, ticket checked against passport twice and a frisk make sense when you are trying to make people feel safe and push match attendance up. It's spending money to make money, not spending money to prevent anybody else making money.
