Ticket scalping is frequently related to the economic puzzle of underpricing by promoters. It is also disputed whether event promoters benefit from scalper participation or not. Our article explores two questions: can promoters benefit from scalpers’ activities and what are the resulting consumer welfare effects? We address these questions by developing a three period game where the secondary market is supported by an auction mechanism, interacting with primary market decisions. We find that participation by scalpers can lead to underpricing in the primary market and that this may benefit small or credit-constrained promoters. This requires the scalper’s discount factor to be higher than the promoter’s discount factor. The necessary premium on the discount factor increases with the fraction of early buyers and decreases with market size. Finally, the effect of scalper participation on aggregate consumer welfare is shown to be positive for a large enough market size or discount rate for the scalper.
Proof of Proposition 1
In the absence of the scalper, and . This implies that there will be units in the market after the first period. If the scalper participates in the market, he must buy this residual quantity. We want to show that the scalper has no incentive to participate in the market under these conditions.
If he participates, his profits can be computed using the objective function . This yields
Given that , for all . The scalper will then not participate in the market with and .
Proof of Proposition 2
Take a quantity and assume that is the profit maximizing price for the promoter. The equilibrium definition implies that the scalper chooses such that his profits are non-negative. For a contradiction, suppose that the scalper’s expected profits are strictly positive. This implies
where denotes the unconditional expectation of the scalper. By definition and the promoter can increase his profits by choosing and keep the scalper still buying. Hence, a pair cannot maximize the profits of the promoter when the scalper participates in the market unless constraint  is binding.
Proof of Proposition 3
Eq.  may be rearranged as
Finally, the ambiguous sign of may be confirmed by simple numerical simulation. This holds over a wide range of values for N, and .
As long as , . Since , it follows that . Direct inspection of eq.  gives .
Using eq. , the equilibrium number of early buyers is
This can be rearranged as
Direct inspection of this expression makes it clear that .
Proof for scalper participation condition
Suppose that eq.  is met for a set of values . Taking by reference , it is straightforward to show that
It follows that whenever condition  is met, so must be the non-negativity constraint .
Proof of Proposition 4
The right-hand side in eq.  is always positive. The left-hand side must also be positive for this condition to hold given an appropriate value for N. Next, notice that when , the left-hand side in eq.  equals . This is always negative for any . Furthermore, the left-hand side in eq.  decreases with a lower . It follows that when , it becomes increasingly negative. In conclusion, eq.  can only hold with .
Next, eq.  may be rearranged as
It is straightforward to show that the right-hand side in eq.  is decreasing in N. Also, because both terms are increasing in , so does the right-hand side.
Proof of Proposition 5
Expression  shows that . The sufficient condition is derived by assigning a value of to the first term and a value of 0 to the second term.
We are grateful to Geoffrey Jehle and Robert Rebelein for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Jiayi Bao for her excellent research assistance. Any errors remain our own.
Budnik, D., and J.Baron. 2011. Ticket Masters: The Rise of the Concert Industry and How the Public Got Scalped, 1st edn. Toronto, ON: ECW Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, J.2011. “Is This the End of Unforeseen Circumstances?”The Irish Times, August 23. http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/ontherecord/2011/08/23/is-this-the-end-of-unforeseen-circumstances/.Search in Google Scholar
Ciliberto, F., and C.Schenone. 2012. “Bankruptcy and Product-Market Competition: Evidence from the Airline Industry.” International Journal of Industrial Organization30(6):564–77.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2012.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Courty, P. 2000. “An Economic Guide to Ticket Pricing in the Entertainment Industry.” Louvain Economic Review66:167–92.Search in Google Scholar
Depken, C.2006. “Another Look at Anti-Scalping Laws: Theory and Evidence.” Public Choice130(1):55–77.Search in Google Scholar
Diamond, T.1982. “Ticket Scalping: A New Look at an Old Problem.” University of Miami Law Review37:71–92.Search in Google Scholar
eBay.2010. “Ticket Scalping: Ticket Onselling and Consumers Submission to the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council,” Australian Government, The Treasury. http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1879/PDF/ebay_101007.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Elfenbein, D. 2006. “Do Anti-Ticket Scalping Laws Make a Difference Online? Evidence From Internet Sales on NFL Tickets”, Washington University Working Paper.10.2139/ssrn.595682Search in Google Scholar
Happel, S., and M.Jennings. 1995. “The Folly of Anti-Scalping Laws.” Cato Journal15(1):65–99.Search in Google Scholar
Happel, S., and M.Jennings. 2002. “Creating a Futures Market for Major Event Tickets: Problems and Prospects.” Cato Journal21(2):443–61.Search in Google Scholar
Krishna, V. 2009. Auction Theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mulpuru, S. 2008. “The Future of US Online Secondary Ticket Sales, 2007 to 2012,” Discussion paper, Forrester Research.Search in Google Scholar
Pukier, B. 1992. “Exiled on Main Street: A Ticket Scalper’s Dilemma.” University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review50(2):280–300.Search in Google Scholar
Rabe, S. 1991. “Ticket Scalping: Free Market Mirage.” American Journal of Criminal Law19(1):57–69.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, S. 2004. “If You Can’t Beat ‘em, Join ‘em: Implications for New York’s Scalping Law on Light of Recent Developments in the Ticket Business.” Fordham Law Review72(4):1171–218.Search in Google Scholar
Taraborrelli, J. R. 2009. Michael Jackson: The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958–2009. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Weber, R. 1983. “Multiple-Object Auctions.” In Auctions, Bidding and Contracting: Uses and Theory, edited by M. S. R. Engelbrecht-Wiggans and R. M. Stark. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar
The distinction between a broker and a scalper is straightforward. The former is an officially licensed business, whereas the latter acts informally, frequently on an individual basis. Nonetheless, their conduct is fundamentally identical in that both seek a profit through secondary market exchanges. For the remainder of the article, we shall treat both agents in the same way.
New York State laws illustrate this point well. Prior to 1984, resale for more than two dollars above face value was illegal in New York. This limit was gradually increased until the state introduced a 3-year experiment in 2007 completely deregulating ticket resale.
In a study of 103 rock concerts held in the summer of 2004, Leslie and Sorensen (2009) show that most events offered tickets at only two price levels. Ideally, the promoter would like to employ price discrimination to its fullest possible extent, precluding the scalper from exploring any arbitrage opportunities. Transaction costs in operating secondary markets are one possible reason why this does not always happen. Negative reputation effects might also discourage the promoter from engaging in excessive discrimination.
For an analysis of how a monopolist can explore individual demand uncertainty in ticket markets, see for instance Courty (2003b).
Krishna (2009) shows that first-price and second-price sequential auctions yield the same results for sellers. Besides, they both entail the same level of analytical complexity. Weber (1983) also shows that simultaneous and sequential auctions with risk-neutral bidders holding independent private values yield the same expected payoff as long as there is no time discounting within the auction period (the third period in our model).
Heterogeneous discount rates for buyers might enable their endogenous allocation to primary and secondary markets. However, it would not be possible to uniquely associate each group to one particular type of discount rate, much less with uniformly distributed sub-populations, thus compromising the analytical tractability of this model.
It should nonetheless be noted that resale dynamics are likely to vary depending on whether a single event (our example) or a season ticket are involved. The ability to resell is frequently more valued in the second case since the ticket holder may not be able or willing to attend every individual game.
This vital principle may be found in Gold v. DiCarlo, 235 F. Supp. 817 at 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). There, resale prices regulation is deemed constitutionally acceptable because it affects the price the public is forced to pay, thus making it a proper venue for the exercise of state police power.
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston