Was hearing on the radio today that the OKC council has approved an emergency resolution to rescind all the current anti-scalping ordinances presently on the books..??

Is this true, its GREAT NEWS!

Can anyone confirm?

Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually defending a scalping case right now, so this is good stuff.

The resolution which passed will make scalping legal anywhere except for a buffer zone around the CHK Arena.

http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/vpefu1urkxvdtw55yux52c45/149945904172012034824109.PDF

That is just odd.

The way I understand it a no ticket sales zone has been placed around the arena.

I don't see an issue with scalping. Let people take the chance of buying fake tickets or pay overinflated prices.

The way I understand it a no ticket sales zone has been placed around the arena.

I don't see an issue with scalping. Let people take the chance of buying fake tickets or pay overinflated prices.

Not overinflated if you find a willing seller/buyer. I don't like paying over face more than anyone else, but if its a popular event, that's how she rolls. And I'm certainly no scalper myself, but usually have to look to secondary market when I do want tix to something...


Buffet zone is to prevent pedestrian congestion around arena, I think...

This is intended to keep ticket sales high because speculators will purchase a certain number of tickets on hopes of making a profit. It also will support maintenance of ticket demand due to limited availablity. Ticket scalping for sports and other events is routinely done here in Washington and is really not a bad concept because it allows those willing to pay a premium to see an event if tickets a not available through traditional outlets

Buffet zone is to prevent pedestrian congestion around arena, I think...

Not really. It's more that the ticket office didn't want scalpers standing right outside it. They wanted a buffer. At least that's what they said at the council meeting.

If a ticket is really worth what the scalper gets, then why was it sold for a lesser value to begin with?

This is intended to keep ticket sales high because speculators will purchase a certain number of tickets on hopes of making a profit. It also will support maintenance of ticket demand due to limited availablity. Ticket scalping for sports and other events is routinely done here in Washington and is really not a bad concept because it allows those willing to pay a premium to see an event if tickets a not available through traditional outlets

It is reaching an absurd point though, day 1 of concert openings the box office is sold out and hundreds of tickets are for sale more than double the face value.

It is reaching an absurd point though, day 1 of concert openings the box office is sold out and hundreds of tickets are for sale more than double the face value.

Understand, but I think that's a separate issue IMHO.

I have a rough recollection of a story a few years back where (i *think*) an MLB team sold out all its tickets to a playoff game reseller that ended up being shown as a shadow subsidiary of itself, meaning that all the profit rolled uphill to the same ownership group. In effect, the team sold the tickets at face value to itself, then started reselling them again on the secondary market at a huge markup....of course, that begs the question why not sell them at the higher price to begin with, which suggests to me there was (a lot) more afoot than just scalping tickets, but that goes back to not remembering the details completely.

Not really. It's more that the ticket office didn't want scalpers standing right outside it. They wanted a buffer. At least that's what they said at the council meeting.

they also said that it was to keep the scalpers away from the "family" atmosphere of thunder alley

Understand, but I think that's a separate issue IMHO.

I have a rough recollection of a story a few years back where (i *think*) an MLB team sold out all its tickets to a playoff game reseller that ended up being shown as a shadow subsidiary of itself, meaning that all the profit rolled uphill to the same ownership group. In effect, the team sold the tickets at face value to itself, then started reselling them again on the secondary market at a huge markup....of course, that begs the question why not sell them at the higher price to begin with, which suggests to me there was (a lot) more afoot than just scalping tickets, but that goes back to not remembering the details completely.

the cubs among other mlb team do this all the time for some of their high dollar seats for select games...

It is reaching an absurd point though, day 1 of concert openings the box office is sold out and hundreds of tickets are for sale more than double the face value.
How about in seconds...
http://tasteofcountry.com/garth-brooks-calgary-stampede-sold-out/

How about in seconds...
http://tasteofcountry.com/garth-brooks-calgary-stampede-sold-out/

i've always been curious as to why there was not a set limit as to how many tickets a person or group could buy. And then strictly enforce that limit. I understand that will never happen cause companies purchase hundreds if not thousands of tickets at a time to events, and to strictly enforce it, you would have to hold them to the same standard.

The scalping ban should have been kept in place and NO exceptions made for sites (even ones owned by the teams)

The scalping ban should have been kept in place and NO exceptions made for sites (even ones owned by the teams)

So no free market. And you understand that if someone lived outside Okc it would still be legal for them in person or online

Midtowner is correct about the reason given at the city council meeting. But the buffer zone is fairly small. Cross Robinson to the west and anywhere other than the footprint of the arena and also north of the arena on the south side of the convention center and sales are lawful. The ordinance change passed unanimously.

So no free market. And you understand that if someone lived outside Okc it would still be legal for them in person or online
Free market is still in place, the ticket prices are determined (face value), you are talking about a secondary free market when you get into scalping. It is not illegal for a someone in OKC to buy online, just not in the buffer zone. Interesting to know if they purchased those online tickets while standing in the buffer zone if they would be in violation???

I say Buyer beware but allow the free market. it is only fair since artists and teams themselves routinely scalp tickets. Many artists have been frustrated with scalpers making money off their event tickets so have started having companies like Stub-Hub ect scalp them for profit for the artist. So if its good for the goose it is good for the gander. I am an avid Concert Fan and got to shows constantly all over the US and I rarely buy a ticket from scalper sources. I use fanclub and event venue presales to get all mine. With the FAST TICKET options it is way to easy to get a duplicate ticket and in those cases the first ticket through the venue gates gets in and everyone else is turned away. I like how Madonna handles the ticket scalping by adding dates to sold out shows until the event no longer sells out. this reduces demand for tickets and leaves scalpers holding some high dollar tickets when they don't sell.

i've always been curious as to why there was not a set limit as to how many tickets a person or group could buy. And then strictly enforce that limit. I understand that will never happen cause companies purchase hundreds if not thousands of tickets at a time to events, and to strictly enforce it, you would have to hold them to the same standard.

there has been ticket limits for years, they used to get around it by having people stand in line and get the tickets for them. With the internet it is even easier for them to clear out the box office. The only way I have heard of that effectively blocks them is the e-tickets that are non transferable, so you may use it or get a refund but not sell it to a 3rd party.

Free market is still in place, the ticket prices are determined (face value), you are talking about a secondary free market when you get into scalping. It is not illegal for a someone in OKC to buy online, just not in the buffer zone. Interesting to know if they purchased those online tickets while standing in the buffer zone if they would be in violation???

Do you not understand that you're contradicting yourself? YOu can't say "free market" while saying "ticket prices are determined (by) face value", because the *market* drives the prices, not the ink on the face of the ticket. With that logic, I should be able to start a crusade to sell my eight year old car for what I paid for it when I bought it!

It is a *great* thing that these antiquated scalping ordinance(s) have been abolished. Mind you, I don't like scalpers per se more than anyone else, but its better to at least get more tickets for popular events to circulate, and not turn average folks who are just trying to unload an extra ticket or two into criminals.

Free market is still in place, the ticket prices are determined (face value), you are talking about a secondary free market when you get into scalping. It is not illegal for a someone in OKC to buy online, just not in the buffer zone. Interesting to know if they purchased those online tickets while standing in the buffer zone if they would be in violation???

do you think there should be a limit on used car prices??

I say Buyer beware but allow the free market. it is only fair since artists and teams themselves routinely scalp tickets. Many artists have been frustrated with scalpers making money off their event tickets so have started having companies like Stub-Hub ect scalp them for profit for the artist. So if its good for the goose it is good for the gander. I am an avid Concert Fan and got to shows constantly all over the US and I rarely buy a ticket from scalper sources. I use fanclub and event venue presales to get all mine. With the FAST TICKET options it is way to easy to get a duplicate ticket and in those cases the first ticket through the venue gates gets in and everyone else is turned away. I like how Madonna handles the ticket scalping by adding dates to sold out shows until the event no longer sells out. this reduces demand for tickets and leaves scalpers holding some high dollar tickets when they don't sell.
What would be fair is to ban the artist and teams from doing it too. (and that may be a factor here, it is considered another revenue stream for them).

do you think there should be a limit on used car prices??

tickets for a one time event and used cars that can run for years after purchase, clearly not apples to oranges comparison.

Do you not understand that you're contradicting yourself? YOu can't say "free market" while saying "ticket prices are determined (by) face value", because the *market* drives the prices, not the ink on the face of the ticket. With that logic, I should be able to start a crusade to sell my eight year old car for what I paid for it when I bought it!

It is a *great* thing that these antiquated scalping ordinance(s) have been abolished. Mind you, I don't like scalpers per se more than anyone else, but its better to at least get more tickets for popular events to circulate, and not turn average folks who are just trying to unload an extra ticket or two into criminals.
Where is the contradiction? The free market determines the face value the promoter/artist/team decides to place on the tickets.


do you think there should be a limit on used car prices??
A used car (or any piece of used personal property) is a different matter entirely. Most things depreciate in value as soon as they become used. Unless your car is a classic/antique, how likely is it you are going to be able to get more than what you paid for it? So, yes, there should be a limit on it. And if you can get the face value off of a concert ticket after the event is over, so be it. there are exceptions but for the most part a ticket is worthless once the event is over. But when it comes to the event itself, face value is face value. Again, if the scalper price is the real value, then why isn't it priced that way to begin with? Every year there is some must-have toy. Demand is huge but supply is low. Does the manufacturer increase production or raise the price to the store? Or does the store raise their price? Nope, they sell it for "face value" and then people go nuts paying multiple times more for it. Think of the multi-millions the Tickle Me Elmo folks lost out on.

Where is the contradiction? The free market determines the face value the promoter/artist/team decides to place on the tickets.

You presume the market stops at the ticket printing press. It doesn't. The legal owner of that ticket has every right to enter into a new contract to sell that ticket to anyone else willing to purchase it at whatever price they mutually negotiate. That is the free market. Not "free except when its not."


Again, if the scalper price is the real value, then why isn't it priced that way to begin with?

That's the prerogative of the issuer, to sell it at whatever face value they choose, and then again the right of the subsequent owners to resell it at a price they choose. Again, that's the free market at work.


So, yes, there should be a limit on it.

Why?


Every year there is some must-have toy. Demand is huge but supply is low. Does the manufacturer increase production or raise the price to the store? Or does the store raise their price?

Ahhh, but keep in mind that, just a few weeks after Christmas, the toys were back in stock and plentiful. The demand was for the toy to be in hand on Christmas. People paid the premium not for the toy itself, but for the timing, of the toy, which actually makes it more like a ticket sale than you realize. But I'll play along with your faulty scenario: They may do any one, none, all, or some combination of those things. That's the free market cranking along happily.


Nope, they sell it for "face value" and then people go nuts paying multiple times more for it. Think of the multi-millions the Tickle Me Elmo folks lost out on.

People "go nuts" exercising their freedom to purchase the item? Who is anyone else to come in and say they shouldn't?

People weren't held at gunpoint and forced to pay "multi-millions" for Tickle Me Elmo. It was their free market choice to spend whatever they wanted on those toys, or not to purchase them at all. You make it sound like the people who bought Tickle Me Elmo were these hapless, helpless souls who had no choice. Elmo dolls aren't a necessity of life. Event tickets aren't a necessity of life.

Beyond that, the tradeoff of antiscalping ordinances is that it makes criminals out of ordinary citizens for no public good. A guy goes downtown and tries to unload an extra ticket for a game or a concert, knows they're in demand, and asks a premium. If someone wants to pay that premium, so what? Up to now, that guy could be arrested, and that's utterly ridiculous.

Individuals make value judgments all the time about the relative cost/value of anything that is purchased. And that's all that is at hand here. Gummint, and particularly the OKC council, is smart to keep out.

What part of "face value" is confusing? What you are describing is a secondary free-market and if illegal, isn't that called the "black market"? It is wrong. Plain and simple. Just because someone else is willing to be taken advantage of, doesn't mean it should be allowed. There are restraints/restrictions on our freedoms. Few are absolute. At gunpoint, no, but there is the emotional demands of bratty kids and/or a parent that doesn't want to disappoint their little princess. When I was growing up, my parents left realistic expectations and were honest. "Sorry but they are out of it" "We can't afford it" No tantrums etc. And yes it does end (or should end) when they print the tickets, they can always reprint the tickets if they decide they priced it too low.

What part of "face value" is confusing? What you are describing is a secondary free-market and if illegal, isn't that called the "black market"? It is wrong. Plain and simple. Just because someone else is willing to be taken advantage of, doesn't mean it should be allowed. There are restraints/restrictions on our freedoms. Few are absolute. At gunpoint, no, but there is the emotional demands of bratty kids and/or a parent that doesn't want to disappoint their little princess. When I was growing up, my parents left realistic expectations and were honest. "Sorry but they are out of it" "We can't afford it" No tantrums etc. And yes it does end (or should end) when they print the tickets, they can always reprint the tickets if they decide they priced it too low.

it is and has not been illegal in Oklahoma ...

Why is this even a debate? If you don't like scalpers, don't buy from them. I know. What a novel concept.

Mid: And I don't...unless if something is a neccessity, if it is over priced or I cant afford it, I don't buy it.

Mid: And I don't...unless if something is a neccessity, if it is over priced or I cant afford it, I don't buy it.

Okay then.

You don't participate in this market, so why do you care?

What part of "face value" is confusing? What you are describing is a secondary free-market

What part of "free market" is confusing? So what if its secondary, tertiary, or n-ary? You keep manufacturing these phony reasons to justify someone else coming in an interfering with my private business, and I don't get it. If I'm the first owner or the tenth owner, on what basis do you rationalize anyone coming in and criminalizing either side?


It is wrong. Plain and simple.

No, it isn't. Even simpler.


Just because someone else is willing to be taken advantage of, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

That someone is being taken advantage of is your opinion. If someone is willing to spend and someone else is willing to buy, whether someone is begin taken advantage of isn't your call to make.



At gunpoint, no, but there is the emotional demands of bratty kids and/or a parent that doesn't want to disappoint their little princess.

Ah, so the government should come in and control a transaction because they don't have the maturity to tell their kids "no" once in a while? Yeah, that's a great precedent. Good grief. How nanny state can you get?


And yes it does end (or should end) when they print the tickets

Why?

That's the most startling thing in the world, this absurd notion that the market should end merely because some ink dried on a piece of paper. Ridiculous. Let's try this one last time.

1. The original manufacturer or seller of a product can sell that product for whatever he or she wishes. It may or may not reflect the price on the price tag.
2. The purchaser of a product can pay the price on the tag or ticket, negotiate a different price, or not purchase the product.
3. The second and any subsequent owner of that product can resell that product as they are able to negotiate.

The notion that a third party should be able to legally intrude and decide that "I know better, you're making a bad decision" isn't just nuts, its insulting. I can appreciate your advice, and your obviously sincere concern, but ultimately, there comes a time for the good intention side to butt out.

Fortunately, our city council has realized this.

Mid: Sometimes folks need to be protected from the greed of others and sometimes their own stupidity.

....Let's try this one last time.

1. The original manufacturer or seller of a product can sell that product for whatever he or she wishes. It may or may not reflect the price on the price tag.
No they can't. There are laws against false advertising and the such

2. The purchaser of a product can pay the price on the tag or ticket, negotiate a different price, or not purchase the product.
Yes. Yes (as long as it is lower). Yes.

3. The second and any subsequent owner of that product can resell that product as they are able to negotiate.
Yes, as long as it is the same price paid/face value or lower. That is essentially what the existing ordinance allowed. It isn't scalping if you sell it for less than advertised. The changes I would have made to the ordinance would be to allow any added expense (taxes/fees imposed by the issuing party of the ticket above the face value, like the credit card fee that some outlets charge above and beyond, the purchaser should be able to get back the cost of that).


The notion that a third party should be able to legally intrude and decide that "I know better, you're making a bad decision" isn't just nuts, its insulting. I can appreciate your advice, and your obviously sincere concern, but ultimately, there comes a time for the good intention side to butt out.

Fortunately, our city council has realized this.
Insulting or not, we have a myriad of consumer protection laws, are you saying that they should all be eliminated and everyone is going to have to go by the old saying "let the buyer beware"?

Why does the buffer zone exist, if they want to lift the ban, lift it completely. Why is the area immediately surrounding the arena given special treatment? Again, I will ask this question, if someone buys a ticket online from their smartphone while standing in the buffer zone and pays more than face value, are they in violation? Could they be hit with the $500/$1,200 fine???

No they can't. There are laws against false advertising and the such

When on earth did false advertising come into the equation? We're talking about the basics of free markets. I produce a product. I can sell it for whatever I think I can get for it. Period.



Yes. Yes (as long as it is lower). Yes.

NO NO NO NO NO!!! Why do you have this anathema for profit in a private transaction? Why is it alright for an antique to be resold at a great profit, but wrong for an event ticket? Its a double-standard you cannot possibly justify.

Guess what? I'm selling my theoretical product for more than I paid for its parts. That's my value-add. A ticket reseller sells it for more because he makes it available. That's HIS value-add.


Yes, as long as it is the same price paid/face value or lower. That is essentially what the existing ordinance allowed. It isn't scalping if you sell it for less than advertised. The changes I would have made to the ordinance would be to allow any added expense (taxes/fees imposed by the issuing party of the ticket above the face value, like the credit card fee that some outlets charge above and beyond, the purchaser should be able to get back the cost of that).

Why does the price have to be lower in your eyes? That's precisely what was wrong with the old ordinance. And how do you know I didn't pay LESS than face for that ticket when I resell it. Suppose I pay $50 for a $100 face ticket, then resell it for $75. You going to throw me in prison?



Insulting or not, we have a myriad of consumer protection laws, are you saying that they should all be eliminated and everyone is going to have to go by the old saying "let the buyer beware"?

When on earth did I ever say that?? I don't object to the discussion, but I do object to having (virtual) words shoved in my mouth. I'm talking about the exercise of free enterprise; if I have something (legal item presumed) someone else wants, and we negotiate a mutually agreeable price for it, no one else has any business intruding on that transaction. Doesn't matter one bit how much I paid, or didn't pay. Its just that simple.


Why does the buffer zone exist, if they want to lift the ban, lift it completely. Why is the area immediately surrounding the arena given special treatment? Again, I will ask this question, if someone buys a ticket online from their smartphone while standing in the buffer zone and pays more than face value, are they in violation? Could they be hit with the $500/$1,200 fine???

I couldn't care less, because the scenario you depict is never going to be prosecuted because it could never be proven as a practical matter. I presume the buffer zone exists, among other reasons, to prevent pedestrian congestion immediately around the arena. Pedestrian traffic around the arena before a game is VERY thick, and I can see a perfectly legitimate reason not wanting to construct an inherent obstacle with a guy trying to conduct multiple ticket sales transactions while people are trying to walk through/over/around them. Maybe that really isn't their motivation, don't know, but I'm buying it as a reasonable explanation.

Some of y'all care way too much about this issue.

SoonerDave: false advertising (or something similar) enters the picture when it says right there on the ticket how much it costs and you are charging another price...

You are NOT adding any value to the ticket at all...

Scalping, by definition is when you charge an outrageous (this is subjective) HIGHER price than the face value, if you charge face-value or below value it isn't scalping at all. Think of price gouging, by the legal definition, it isn't gouging at all unless a state of emergency has been declared and they are selling it for a certain percentage (IIRC it is 10%) above what the price was before the emergency declaration. Doesn't mean that you aren't being gouged, just that it is legal for them to do it.

I am not shoving words in your mouth (virtual or otherwise), I asked you a simple question for you to clarify the logic you are using and where it leads.

You might care if you do it and they try to slap you with a fine...but if it can't be enforced as a "practical matter" what is the point of even going to the trouble of putting it into the ordinance?

Since you aren't going to see the obvious disconnect and I am not going to convince you otherwise, we will just have to agree to disagree????

What you buy in the store is a secondary sale, Larry.

The box of cereal at Walmart, was bought by Walmart from General Mills (or it's packager/distributor) at a cheaper price. They can sell it for a higher price and make a profit on it.

Same thing. The only difference is the box office will sell the tickets to anyone whereas the wholesaler/distributor will usually only sell at bulk to retailers under contract.

There should be no limit to the number of times an item can be resold and there should be no set limit on the price of that resale. If both involved parties agree the price is acceptable, then the price is acceptable under the free market. The sale would not happen if the price was deemed unreasonable/unacceptable by both parties.

I bought tickets to a show in a few months (albeit out of town) for twice face value off the street, I was not happy, but it was the best deal I can find and I need the tickets in hand by next week as a present. I'm sure I could get a lower price if I waited until closer in, but I promised a certain individual a birthday present and it means more to me to pull through on that promise and pay a premium to keep my word. If the government was involved in the pricing of that, those tickets would already have been sold to someone else and the ticket seller would have made far less money.

It's kind of like going to an auction - you find out what it's really worth and if you want it then you pay for it at the going price.

Do you suppose that "OKCcouncil" would grant a waiver to permit scalping of that insane a-hole (aka MWP) who plays for the LALakers? Would the waiver, like, cost extra? Like, a permit fee or sumpin'?

Sweet. I haven't seen anything regarding a buffer zone around Chickasaw Casino Gambling Bricktown Ballpark.

'cuz there isn't one.