Service fees be like…

Another Doug said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Another Doug said:

---

Quote:

---

Because it's the singles and the groups of 3 who are causing this problem.

---

No, its not. It leaving singles thats the problem. It doesn't matter if its 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 or 23 people buying, if you allow leaving singles, you limit how many people can get in the venue.

---

So sell seats in 2s/pairs that are linked. Meaning. If you buy seat 2 in a row, you have to buy seat 1, and not seat 3 (because that would leave seat 1 as a single). It's not hard to do if they can prevent me from buying four tickets because there is a fifth empty seat on the other side.

Buying an odd number of seats will cause more problems than not, too (especially if you buy only 1 ticket), and this eliminates that as well.

---

You're wrong and your suggestion is much worse and if you don't understand that by now, you probably never will.

---

It's not a worse suggestion. This show was going to sell out regardless of how they managed the ticket sales. So your point that there would be "too many" single seats is not relevant to this situation.

The ticket seller 100% has the ability to control ticket sales in a way that prevents this problem of "orphan" tickets. They are just unwilling to do so because they know demand vastly exceeds supply. They don't care if I don't get my four tickets because they know other buyers who want two and three seats will come along. Or a single will buy one seat and open up the other four.

Regardless, at the end of the day, my money wasn't "good" enough simply because of the timing of my purchase, which in an online environment, I cannot control. The ticket buyer can't control what specific seats are available, and the buyer has no control over the order in which online orders are processed. So, TM can either sell the tickets they have available, or they can pick and choose buyers that are "better". They are clearly doing the latter, and it sucks and is completely unnecessary.

I get that life isn't fair. That describes this situation to a t. But when you consider this along with all of the other problems with TM sales, it's clear that the resellers are winning and the average fans are getting shut out.

Ticketmaster is already a middle man that charges upwards of 30% in fees for basically nothing. Now TM is enabling the introduction of yet another middle man that is just snatching up tickets to resale at ridiculous, consumer-gouging prices. It's a racket.

And a ton of other folks are doing exactly what he is trying to do- at the same time he is. Imagine that!

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

And a ton of other folks are doing exactly what he is trying to do- at the same time he is. Imagine that!

---

A board16er too, aren't they supposed to be experts on logic and the free market.

TXTransplant said:

---

Who can I blame the stupid "No orphan seats" rule on?

I'd have four tickets and wouldn't be b/tching here if it wasn't for that. If it's so important to not have single unsold seats in a row, then people should only be allowed to buy even numbers of tickets.

---

First of all, rows don't always have even numbers.

Second of all, it's so easy to circumvent leaving a single seat, I do it all the time, and don't care that I'm leaving a single seat, because someone will get it.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Interactive map has a delay. If you are in super early, or are buying something without a ton of demand (ie not 10,000 people all trying to buy at once), then you can have success there. On in demand stuff, I tend to actually go 3-4 rows back over what is best available to try and avoid what everyone else is clicking (cause as you said, once you miss once, you're up **** creek).

Right side - it is the most updated. You'll see tickets on the right side before you see them on the map. However due to design and "sort by best available", it also kind of feeds everyone into the same 10 or so listings that populate at the top without scrolling.

---

This is the best ticketmaster advice, use the side and scroll down a bunch and hit buy.

The only thing that worked for paul mccartney tickets for my parents.

I think more concerts/artists should go to either a dynamic ticket pricing model or just a declining one. If 40% or more of the tickets are being purchased by scalpers and resold, they are way underpricing their product and are not protecting their fans. The inefficiency opens up a huge opportunity for scalpers (and the ticket resale sites).


If $150 tickets are being purchased and resold for $400 on stubhub, for example, the promoter/artist is leaving a ton of money on the table that someone else took advantage of.

I'm curious how the customer would view the concept of starting out various ticket prices at a significantly higher price and allowing the customer to jump in on the price when they choose, knowing that it could go down later but also knowing that it might be sold out if they wait too long. It would dramatically reduce the amount of ticket scalping and potentially increase artist revenue. The problem, I suppose, is perception of the starting ticket price being so high and the final price to get it sold out, so low.

Ticketmaster did you a favor, skinny Adele stinks.