[xzion]

Any tips/examples on trying to sell a product that provides ethical/moral benefits but very little/nothing financially?

Some friends and I were throwing around ideas on how to eliminate scalping, a practice we get bitten by. We came up with some solutions that might work, but they don't provide any financial gain for event organisers so I couldn't see them going for it.

[sama]

That's really a tough one. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this without a good answer.

Sorry :(

[ikeboy]

You eliminate scalping by charging market prices, so there's no opportunity. Charging less is just a gift to the middlemen. (If you want to give that gift to the people who actually come, charge more and give a rebate inside the event, so scalpers can't collect it.)

Not sure how you're conceptualizing this that makes scalpers harmful, could you elaborate?

[xzion]

I understand that this is an economics problem; the ($5b?) market exists because there is significantly more demand than supply and ticket prices are not adjusted to accommodate this imbalance. Why that's the case I'm not sure. Perhaps that's another avenue to investigate for solving the problem but not what I had in mind (partly because I like affordable tickets).

Seeing scalpers as harmful is definitely an emotional response. Popular events go on sale at a set time and set price, with "equal" opportunity for any fan to get a ticket. Scalpers claim significant amounts of the tickets and resell them at 200-1000% of the face value. My friends and I often miss out on tickets only to see hundreds available on third party resale sites. It also enables ticket scammers which are a huge problem as well. Many music artists and sports teams are very outspoken about their disappointment with the industry, die hard fans waiting at the gate miss out while the person with the most cash gets in. While I can appreciate the scalpers are taking advantage of an economic opportunity, I can't help but view them as the scum of the earth and would have no issue with eliminating their practice.

[ikeboy]

The scheme I described above leads to affordable tickets, it's basically a way of enforcing nontransferability.

But at its core, disgust with scalpers implies preference for a non Kaldor Hicks optimal world.

If someone is willing to pay $X for a ticket, and you're only willing to pay $Y<$X, it is non optimal for you to get a ticket if you'd sell your ticket for less than $X.

There's no way around that fundamental fact. At some point, if there are more people who want tickets than tickets, some process needs to determine who gets them, and wishful thinking doesn't help anyone.

[xzion]

I don't understand how your suggestion enforces non-transferability. If the scalper pay $100 for a ticket and the ticket holder receives a $50 rebate at the event, the scalper just adds $50 to the price they resell at.

Like I said, I understand the problem exists because of the economics. But there's nothing to stop us from building a system that enforces non-transferability (through identification), and preventing resale of tickets at increased prices by third parties. It just doesn't add any value for event organisers to use this new system.

[ikeboy]

You need to show id to redeem the rebate, but not to get in. Effectively enforcing a fee for transferring that's equal to the subsidy.

[jogjayr]

Couldn't you also eliminate scalping by imposing per-transaction limits (probably already done) and checking ID at entry, like airlines?

[electrum]

Planet Money had a good episode about this: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/25/195641030/episo...