Scalping tickets refers to buying tickets to events like concerts or sports games with the intention of reselling them at a higher price. Scalpers typically buy up large quantities of tickets as soon as they go on sale and then sell them on secondary markets like Craigslist or StubHub. This allows them to profit from the difference between the original ticket price and what buyers are willing to pay to get seats.
Scalping is controversial because it often makes tickets unavailable or unaffordable to regular fans. Supporters argue it provides a valuable secondary market, while critics say it exploits both artists and consumers. So is scalping tickets actually a good idea? There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
The case for scalping tickets
There are a few reasons why scalping tickets can be defended:
It increases availability
By buying up large quantities of tickets, scalpers essentially increase the supply available to the public. After the initial rush, more tickets are available on secondary markets than would have been if scalpers didn’t exist. This provides more opportunities for fans to purchase tickets, even if it is at a premium.
It allows price discovery based on demand
Ticket prices for big concerts and games are usually set by the artist or event far in advance. Scalpers let supply and demand determine the true market value of tickets. If fans are willing to pay more, scalpers facilitate that. This is economically more efficient than static pricing.
It allows flexibility for consumers
Not everyone can plan their schedule months or years in advance. By providing a secondary market, scalpers allow consumers more flexibility in when they purchase tickets. Fans can buy closer to the event once they know their schedule.
It helps avoid underpricing
Teams and artists sometimes intentionally underprice tickets to avoid backlash. But this means they miss out on revenue the market would bear. Scalpers capture some of that lost value.
The case against scalping tickets
However, there are also strong arguments that scalping tickets is unethical and harmful:
It prices regular fans out of the market
While scalpers provide more overall supply, they also drain the primary market by buying up the initial rush of tickets. This forces many fans to pay far above face value or go without tickets altogether. It exploits their enthusiasm.
It costs artists and teams money
By scalping tickets, resellers divert revenue from the artists, teams, and venues that actually created the event. The scalpers provide no real value or service to justify sharing in the profits.
It incentivizes unfair practices
Scalpers have been known to use bots and other technical tricks to buy tickets faster than normal fans can. They take advantage of insider access as well. This rigs the system against individuals in favor of resellers.
It preys on desperate fans
Fans who absolutely want to see their favorite team or artist can become desperate for tickets. Scalpers exploit this enthusiasm and separate fans from their money. Even if some see it as a needed service, there is an argument it is unethical.
Data on scalping
Looking at some statistics and data can help provide more perspective on the prevalence and impact of ticket scalping:
Metric | Finding |
---|---|
Estimated size of scalping market | $8 billion per year |
Average markup on scalped tickets | 49% above face value |
Share of tickets immediately resold | Roughly 20% of tickets for major concerts |
Artist revenue diverted by scalping | Up to 25% for top performers |
As the data shows, scalping is a large and lucrative market. While good for resellers, it clearly diverts substantial revenue from the source and makes attendance more expensive. This evidence supports arguments against the practice.
Regulations on scalping
Given the mixed benefits and drawbacks, regulations try to balance allowing reselling with prohibiting exploitation:
Price caps –
Many states limit markups on secondhand tickets to prevent extreme overcharging. Caps range from 25-50% above face value.
Disclosure laws –
Resellers may be required to disclose the face value and/or exact seat location to prevent misrepresentation.
Lottery systems –
Some major events distribute a portion of tickets by lottery to give everyone an equal shot. This counters resellers buying up all initial tickets.
Anti-bot laws –
It is illegal to use software to buy tickets faster than human users can, but policing bot use remains a challenge.
License requirements –
Resellers may be required to register for a license to enable monitoring and enforcement of regulations.
Ethical arguments around scalping
Philosophical principles of ethics can also lend some insight into the scalping debate:
Utilitarianism –
This view judges actions based on maximizing overall benefit. Scalping may exploit some, but facilitates mutually beneficial trades for scalpers and buyers. More people get to attend events.
Deontology –
This perspective focuses on moral duty and principles. Scalping could be wrong if it goes against a sense of fairness, honesty, or respect for fans. The practice deceives and manipulates.
Distributive justice –
This concerns the fair distribution of resources in society. Scalping arguably concentrates tickets among the wealthy and privileged, denying ordinary fans access.
There are good-faith arguments from each viewpoint. Different individuals will weigh principles differently based on their own values.
Alternatives to scalping
Rather than an outright ban, some compromise policies could reduce the negative impacts of scalping:
Dynamic pricing –
Sellers adjust prices actively based on demand rather than setting static prices long in advance. This allows them to capture more value directly. Fans get transparency.
Tiered pricing –
Sell a portion of tickets at each of various price levels to balance affordability and profit. This segments the market more efficiently.
Buying restrictions –
Limit how many tickets one person can buy or require identification for checkout. This prevents bulk buying by resellers.
Reimbursing scalpers –
Allow fans to return scalped tickets for a refund of the markup if unused. This removes the incentive for extreme overpricing.
Conclusion
Overall, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the scalping debate. Critics are rightly concerned with excessive markups and ordinary fans being priced out or deceived. But others contend a secondary market is economically efficient and meets real demand. The ideal policy likely minimizes the most exploitative elements of scalping without unduly restricting resales. Certain practices clearly cross ethical lines, while other cases are more nuanced. With balanced regulations and some alternative sales models, artists and organizations can limit harm while still enabling an active resale market to serve fans.