I've been an avid user of SeatGeek ticket search since the beta, snd I despise selling my unused tickets on StubHub. Knowing how well the rest of their offering is put together, I'm pretty excited to try out the selling side. Curious how the fees compare, which didn't seem to be mentioned.
re:fees, we're charging no fees for user-to-user sales. For tickets listed publicly, we're charging 12% + 3% for credit card (market rate in our industry is 20-30%). That's preliminary – we may move it up or down.
I think this is really good use case. Is it limited to the sports ticket only? How its going to figure out if the tickets are non transferrable? Does it work with the venue/vendor to confirm the transaction?
Well, if they follow St*bhub's model, they would probably just refund any claim of problem by the buyer and take that out of the seller... even if the seller did nothing wrong and the buyer is trying to defraud.
e.g. claimed denial-at-door (even if because of misuse by the buyer) , claimed somebody else in the seats, etc. They refund without requiring proof of problem partially because they know you can dispute with your credit card issuer anyway, and that's a difficult case for them to prevail on.
This is really smart. I feel like it further establishes SeatGeek as the inarguably best destination to buy tickets: peer-to-peer at lowest fees in the industry, combined with the best prices on the web.
If you consider a marketplace to be (demand side) : (supply side), they already have a backstop in the supply side through price-comparison, and can now differentiate their service from other companies with a solid user-uploaded set of tickets.
These sites are really at odds with teams who have chosen the leasing vs. ownership of tickets, where leasees can only transfer and sell their tickets on the officially-sponsored marketplace.
I'm a season ticket holder for such a team, but can't go to all the games, so I list quite a few each year, and I really hate that demand for tickets gets unequally spread through the official market and these other markets.
Is there a legal reason why a seat aggregator like SeatGeek doesn't list these official site tickets? Is it just because they don't get a kickback from them? Some other reason?
As much as I want to love this, I'm wary — how's SeatGeek protecting against fraudulent tickets? How is my purchase protected? Does (can?) SeatGeek validate the ticket themselves?
TicketMaster, the monopoly that they are, can do this with their resale marketplace (of course, the ticket needs to come from them in the first place), but since SeatGeek aggregates, I don't think they have this superpower.
Only the official marketplace can validate the barcodes. For example, Ticketexchange for most pro sports other than baseball and StubHub for most major league baseball teams.
An individual can do an ad hoc validation of a given ticket by trying to create a listing on the official marketplace. You will be able to create a listing only if the ticket is valid and unencumbered (by an existing resale listing).
"The SeatGeek app now allows you to send tickets to anyone else, right from your phone. Your friend will be able to get into the game with the app – no printing, no meeting..."
Um, maybe.
The venue has no obligation to accept phone scans, and a growing number of venues is refusing to allow people to just scan a PDF off their phones rather than have a printed instrument because it is a growing vector for fraud.
We're working with venues and have venue access control policies within our data model for every event. A substantial majority of venues support mobile entry. For a minority of events, you do indeed need to print tickets – in these cases we clearly indicate to the user that printing is necessary.
13 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadre:fees, we're charging no fees for user-to-user sales. For tickets listed publicly, we're charging 12% + 3% for credit card (market rate in our industry is 20-30%). That's preliminary – we may move it up or down.
If you consider a marketplace to be (demand side) : (supply side), they already have a backstop in the supply side through price-comparison, and can now differentiate their service from other companies with a solid user-uploaded set of tickets.
I'm a season ticket holder for such a team, but can't go to all the games, so I list quite a few each year, and I really hate that demand for tickets gets unequally spread through the official market and these other markets.
Is there a legal reason why a seat aggregator like SeatGeek doesn't list these official site tickets? Is it just because they don't get a kickback from them? Some other reason?
TicketMaster, the monopoly that they are, can do this with their resale marketplace (of course, the ticket needs to come from them in the first place), but since SeatGeek aggregates, I don't think they have this superpower.
An individual can do an ad hoc validation of a given ticket by trying to create a listing on the official marketplace. You will be able to create a listing only if the ticket is valid and unencumbered (by an existing resale listing).
Um, maybe.
The venue has no obligation to accept phone scans, and a growing number of venues is refusing to allow people to just scan a PDF off their phones rather than have a printed instrument because it is a growing vector for fraud.
Care to name a few with which you have any agreement?