Ed Sheeran Is on Track for the No. 1 Concert Tour of All Time. Here’s How(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Ed Sheeran Is on Track for the No. 1 Concert Tour of All Time. Here’s How
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ed-sheeran-is-on-track-for-the-no-1-concert-tour-of-all-time-heres-how-11560936602?mod=rsswn
3 comments
Charging below market price and keeping the market from clearing by blocking secondary sales is a weird strategy. If you don't want to provide enough tickets to clear the market at your chosen price, and you don't want to raise your price, fine. But why is "luck" any better of determinant of which person gets the ticket than "had a higher willingness-to-pay"?
One possibility is that he wants to make sure that large numbers of not-as-wealthy fans think of him as their dude, and playing to audiences of rich people could tarnish his brand image. Or, he just thinks not rich people should be able to see his shows. Or, he doesn't like playing for an audience that feels entitled because they payed a lot, and he gets a better vibe in the audience if it's full of people who aren't wealthy-entitled-types. Or something else, but that's several possibilities.
Edit: I never heard of this guy before now, so I don't know if any of these guesses are the reality.
Edit: I never heard of this guy before now, so I don't know if any of these guesses are the reality.
Rich people, i.e. people who can afford $200 for a ticket instead of $100?
I don't think the market clearing price is anywhere close to double the cost. The article implies they could easily get 10% more. That's not the difference between rich and not-rich.
I don't think the market clearing price is anywhere close to double the cost. The article implies they could easily get 10% more. That's not the difference between rich and not-rich.
You may have a strategic preference over your customer base which is something other than "I want the customers who can pay me the most". The guy's either got a strategy or an axe to grind and it's his prerogative either way.
A strategic preference for "I don't want guys who will pay more, but I also don't want guys who will pay less, I will spend money to monitor my customers to make sure I can charge less" is a quite strange preference.
Axe to grind sounds about right. Or PR, I'm sure his team understands the economics but the fans may not.
Axe to grind sounds about right. Or PR, I'm sure his team understands the economics but the fans may not.
Luck is often a better determinant than willingness to pay because it biases towards more “superfans” who will have the time of their lives at your show. Jeff Bezos might be willing to pay $100K for a ticket even if he had only the slightest interest in Ed Sheeran, while a 14-year-old who knows every word to every song might be willing to spend every penny she has, which is $12.57. By requiring something like endless clicking on a website, or standing in like for 5 hours, to get a ticket, you make people pay in time rather than money, which although not fully equally distributed is still more equally distributed than money.
Time can be exchanged for money.
And requiring people to burn money-equivalents for tickets produces a large loss - the potential gains from supposedly better distribution hardly seem worth it.
And requiring people to burn money-equivalents for tickets produces a large loss - the potential gains from supposedly better distribution hardly seem worth it.
because luck is random
having money to pay is not
having money to pay is not
Why is random better?
Because everybody is equal.
But they’re not equal, they’re bifurcated into winners and losers, just like in the market.
Not too far off and reminiscent of Louis CK cheap and straightforward business practices regarding tickets.
That's the bulk of it.