The use of “dynamic pricing” to sell tickets for the first Oasis concerts in 16 years has mired the British band’s heralded reunion in controversy before it has even begun. Fans waited for hours on Live Nation Entertainment Inc’s Ticketmaster Web site during the weekend, only to see prices jump by multiples by the time they came to pay, prompting hundreds of complaints to advertising regulators, outrage from members of parliament and even the promise of a government probe. Some of the ire is misdirected.
We have heard this tune before. Singers Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen are among artists who have run into similar furors in the US, where flexible ticket pricing has a longer history. In the UK, the sale of singer Harry Styles’ tickets using the method attracted criticism in 2022. The Oasis affair brings the issue to a different level of public attention, though.
The British pop band’s reunion tour would be one of the cultural events of next year, at least among those who pine for the 1990s — a distant era when the UK was a more optimistic country and the economy was in great shape.
Illustration: Tania Chou
An estimated 14 million people were expected to seek tickets, British press reports said. Mess with that demographic at your peril. It clearly includes a number of the current parliamentary intake.
“Scandalous,” “depressing” and “definitely cause for an investigation” were among members’ comments published on Monday.
British House of Commons Leader Lucy Powell said she paid more than double the initial quoted cost for an Oasis ticket. Powell told BBC radio she did not “particularly like” surge pricing, before adding: “It is the market and how it operates.”
Precisely. Anyone who waited hours on the Ticketmaster Web site for a ￡148.50 (US$195.59) ticket, only to be presented with a checkout price of more than ￡350, has good reason to be irritated. However, the advantage of a flexible pricing system is that it equalizes supply and demand. Tickets end up in the hands of those who value them most, in money terms. In economic terms, it is a more efficient allocation of resources.
This can get obscured. Dynamic pricing has been around for a long time and is widely used for everything from ride-hailing and flights to hotel rooms. It has even spread to restaurants and beer. That has not made it any more popular. An image of price-gouging attaches to the practice, perhaps because the most memorable examples tend to be negative — such as Uber prices jumping by multiple times as people tried to escape the London Bridge area after a 2017 terrorist attack in the UK capital. Examples of companies lowering prices at times of low demand are more easily forgotten. After all, humans are more averse to losses than they are pleased by gains.
Consider the position of a concert promoter. Pitch the cost of a ticket too high, and you might end up with half-empty arenas. Go too low and touts, or scalpers, would rush in and resell at a profit in the secondary market. They capture the excess value that would otherwise have gone to the artist and promoter. Dynamic pricing enables musicians to retain more of that surplus, which is the argument advanced by Ticketmaster and others for using the mechanism (ticketing platforms that earn a percentage also benefit from higher prices, of course).
The UK reaction betrays some muddled thinking. The government would examine dynamic pricing as part of an upcoming consultation into the ticketing market that is aimed primarily at tackling scalpers.
The government plans to end the “scourge” of touts and ensure tickets “at fair prices,” British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy said.
Who decides what a “fair” price is? The implication is that the prices set by the Ticketmaster algorithm were too high, but the evidence for that is dubious. The cheapest ticket for Oasis’s July 25 date at Wembley Stadium in London was ￡740 on secondary sales Web site Viagogo as of Monday morning, or more than double the ￡350-odd Ticketmaster cost that caused outrage. That is a clear sign that some money was left on the table. Forcing sellers to set a lower price by fiat would only hand more profit to scalpers (which few governments or consumers like, but no one has found an effective way to eradicate).
That is not to say that any ticketing system is perfect or beyond scrutiny. If you are going to spend 11 hours waiting for your dream gig ticket, you would at least want to know that the price might have doubled by the time you get to the front of the line. This seems to have come as a surprise to many.
Companies that use dynamic pricing must be transparent about it, although “people can always choose not to buy,” London Business School marketing professor Oded Koenigsberg said.
There is also a social equity argument here. What if the market clearing price is more than some of the band’s core fan base can afford? That is a special irony for Oasis, whose image leans heavily on the band’s working-class Manchester roots (guitarist Noel Gallagher in 2022 said that rock music had become too middle class).
Charging what the market is to bear is not always the wisest strategy, at least for companies that want to retain consumer loyalty. Uber Technologies Inc cancelled surge pricing on the night of the 2017 attack and refunded customers who had paid the higher prices.
Such considerations might count for less with rock icons, who can usually count on the devotion of followers. Oasis could surely do something for its priced-out fans if it chose, though. It is an appeal that makes more sense than railing against a pricing mechanism.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure. Formerly, he was an editor for Bloomberg News and the South China Morning Post.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS