TicketBastard

[AWB]

My family, one of my daughter's friends, and I want to go see a San Antonio Rampage hockey game this Sunday. They offer a neat, money-saving package: a ticket with a hot dog and a drink for $12. Such a deal.

My wife went to TicketMaster... err... Bastard to order. Instead of the $48 (plus any understandable sales tax), the total came to over $70. WTF!? A "convenience charge" and an "order processing fee" were going to be added. To Hell with that! I decided to stop by the AT&T Center's box office this morning to get the tickets instead. (I was going to be in the area, but I wouldn't tell them that because then they'd think it was "convenient".)

Gee, lo and behold, the ticket center isn't open on weekends, except if there's an event. Normal hours are 8AM - 6PM, which is keeping with the inconvenient theme: the venues in a probable high-crime, industrial area that wouldn't be worth the time or effort in taking time off from work to go to.

So, back at home, I decide to go to the AT&T Center's website to order the tickets. It still comes up with a $4 convenience fee, but the total stayed at $65.32 ($48 tickets, $16 convenience, $1.32 additional taxes). Until...

The last of several "confirmation" screens: What's your name/email? What's your credit card number? Is that really your credit card number? Are you sure? Really really sure? Each of these was saying my "Subtotal" was $65.32, until the last one, which suddenly tacked on the $6.11 order processing fee. By then, I'd gotten in such a rhythm that I clicked "SUBMIT" automatically. On the confirmation screen, I then saw the new total: $72.43, because [fanfare]: the sale was processed through TicketBastard!

Then to top it off: the tickets I had to print off were a full page each, with lots of black background so that it'd run out my black ink cartridge first.

Bite me, TicketBastard!

[AWB]

And to tack on some irony: This post, a flaming of TicketBastard, had the key work "ticket" in it. So at the top is an advertising link to:

Ticketmaster® Gift Cards Get your Ticketmaster® Gift Cards! The perfect gift - Official site. Ticketmaster.com/Giftcards

[Southern Yankee]

They are one of my Top 5 most despised companies.

[romansperson]

They are one of my Top 5 most despised companies.

Yes. Mine too. If I can't get to the venue to buy tickets directly then I just don't go to the event. That's how much I hate them.

[Hal Briston]

I hate their web presence simply because they destroyed one of my favorite activities from my teen years:

"Dude, Iron Maiden at the Spectrum! Tickets go on sale in two days".
"Cool, let's get on line now -- ticket campout!"

[A Monkey With a Gun]

It's occurred to me that pitting TicketMaster is a bit like pitting cancer. I can't think of how anybody could possibly defend either, but everybody knows somebody who has had the displeasure of dealing with it.

[ataraxy22]

TicketMaster is the main reason I don't go to many sporting events or concerts or shows. I would really, desperately have to want to attend something before I'd give a cent to that company for its inconvenience fees.

[Sinsaint]

I'm sorry but I started laughing half way through. I feel for you, I really do.

[AWB]

I miss the good ol' days of camping out for tickets. In DC, I camped out for Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and Paul McCartney.

Nowadays, tickets are gone in a matter of minutes, due to on-line buying. It just makes it easier for resellers (another particular type of bastard business) to scarf up the entire arena's worth of tickets. But along the lines of what MwG said, how're you gonna prevent resellers from doing it?

[Jackmannii]

Yes. Mine too. If I can't get to the venue to buy tickets directly then I just don't go to the event. That's how much I hate them.Lots more people like you, who also make their feelings known to the venues and acts that employ TicketMaster, would make a difference. Failing that, it's business as usual.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

And to tack on some irony: This post, a flaming of TicketBastard, had the key work "ticket" in it. So at the top is an advertising link to:

I don't understand posts like these. It's not ironic at all. It's expected. That's exactly how internet ads work. Why is this a surprise?

[Hal Briston]

It's occurred to me that pitting TicketMaster is a bit like pitting cancer. I can't think of how anybody could possibly defend either, but everybody knows somebody who has had the displeasure of dealing with it.That's a horrible comparison to make!

Without cancer, humanity would have long-since overpopulated the world into uninhabitability. It's a completely necessary evil. Now you go an apologize to cancer right now!

[Budget Player Cadet]

I miss the good ol' days of camping out for tickets. In DC, I camped out for Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and Paul McCartney.

Nowadays, tickets are gone in a matter of minutes, due to on-line buying. It just makes it easier for resellers (another particular type of bastard business) to scarf up the entire arena's worth of tickets. But along the lines of what MwG said, how're you gonna prevent resellers from doing it?

Back in the day they called these people "Scalpers", and they were generally considered to be morally reprehensible assholes.

[kaylasdad99]

My family, one of my daughter's friends, and I want to go see a San Antonio Rampage hockey game this Sunday. They offer a neat, money-saving package: a ticket with a hot dog and a drink for $12. Such a deal.

My wife went to TicketMaster... err... Bastard to order. Instead of the $48 (plus any understandable sales tax), the total came to over $70. WTF!? A "convenience charge" and an "order processing fee" were going to be added. To Hell with that! I decided to stop by the AT&T Center's box office this morning to get the tickets instead. (I was going to be in the area, but I wouldn't tell them that because then they'd think it was "convenient".)

Gee, lo and behold, the ticket center isn't open on weekends, except if there's an event. Normal hours are 8AM - 6PM, which is keeping with the inconvenient theme: the venues in a probable high-crime, industrial area that wouldn't be worth the time or effort in taking time off from work to go to.
Not getting it. Is Sunday not considered part of the weekend in San Antonio? Or is a hockey game not considered an event?

Also, $65.32 + $6.11 = $71.43, not $72.43. Did they snag an extra dollar from you?

[kaylasdad99]

I miss the good ol' days of camping out for tickets. In DC, I camped out for Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and Paul McCartney.

Nowadays, tickets are gone in a matter of minutes, due to on-line buying. It just makes it easier for resellers (another particular type of bastard business) to scarf up the entire arena's worth of tickets. But along the lines of what MwG said, how're you gonna prevent resellers from doing it?Let everyone in, and charge them to get out at the end...

[Simplicio]

But along the lines of what MwG said, how're you gonna prevent resellers from doing it?

Charge more to buy tickets?

I always wondered about this. The wide spread existence of resellers rather obviously suggests that venues undercharge for tickets. And upping the price would presumably help the venue and the acts bottom line. So why don't they just up the price until scalping becomes unprofitable?

[Farmer Jane]

Oh, totally. My favorite is when you have a processing fee...even when the only option is to print them at home. WTF.

[Enderw24]

Charge more to buy tickets?

I always wondered about this. The wide spread existence of resellers rather obviously suggests that venues undercharge for tickets. And upping the price would presumably help the venue and the acts bottom line. So why don't they just up the price until scalping becomes unprofitable?

Because stadiums run on a business model like everyone else: determine where supply meets demand and sell at that price. Scalpers run on a slightly different model: what's the absolute most I can get any individual buyer to pay for my ticket? Both are obviously trying to sell all the tickets they have in their possession but the scalpers aren't trying to fill up the stadium, whereas the event is. Sure, you could have the stadium sell every concert ticket for $250 rather than $100 and you'd get rid of scalpers completely. You'd also be left with a ton of tickets left over because demand just plummeted.

[ataraxy22]

Because stadiums run on a business model like everyone else: determine where supply meets demand and sell at that price. Scalpers run on a slightly different model: what's the absolute most I can get any individual buyer to pay for my ticket? Both are obviously trying to sell all the tickets they have in their possession but the scalpers aren't trying to fill up the stadium, whereas the event is. Sure, you could have the stadium sell every concert ticket for $250 rather than $100 and you'd get rid of scalpers completely. You'd also be left with a ton of tickets left over because demand just plummeted.

Just sell them with a Dutch Auction system....price them high when they first go on sale and drop the price regularly until they all sell out.

[billfish678]

I don't understand posts like these. It's not ironic at all. It's expected. That's exactly how internet ads work. Why is this a surprise?

The irony isn't just because the ad showed up. Its because it showed up due to this thread. The stupid ad programs just look for key words. We understand that.

You don't see the "irony" of me ranting about, lets say, how much Ford trucks suck and this automatically generating buy Ford truck ads? If someone is "sitting here" telling me how much something sucks, getting automatic ads about it ain't exactly going make me wanna run out and buy me some of that shit.

[Shakes]

I miss the good ol' days of camping out for tickets. In DC, I camped out for Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and Paul McCartney.

Nowadays, tickets are gone in a matter of minutes, due to on-line buying. It just makes it easier for resellers (another particular type of bastard business) to scarf up the entire arena's worth of tickets. But along the lines of what MwG said, how're you gonna prevent resellers from doing it?

We live in a free market dude. Get over it.

As far as TM goes: You know, I understand they need to make a profit. They don't make a percentage of of whatever band, hockey team, etc is playing. So sure, add a reasonable service charge.

What I DON'T appreciate is now TM, offering up their tickets to other ticket brokers (or to the layman, scalpers) behind the scenes before the public even has a chance to buy them!!

That's BS TM, you're being payed to broker the tickets yourself. Don't take the money and then leave the job to someone else who is going to mark up the price even further.

Also, advertisers: Don't claim to have tickets for sale at X amount when you know there is going to be a 50% mark up at the POS. It's borderline false advertising.

Shakes.
Former ticket scalper.

[johnpost]

Burns: [chuckles] And to think, Smithers: you laughed when I bought
TicketMaster. "Nobody's going to pay a 100% service charge."
Smithers: Well, it's a policy that ensures a healthy mix of the rich
and the ignorant, sir.

[3F21] Homerpalooza

[elbows]

We need some kind of consumer protection law, with bite. To discourage capitalists from turning 'fees' into revenue streams. Like, maybe, they only get to charge you the actual costs involved. So if it costs the bank 5 cents for the ATM, they don't get to charge you $1. Or, perhaps, add a high tax on any 'fees' above stated prices. Both a carrot and a stick to discourage this form of predatory capitalism, minimalizing it.

It'd be an impossible sell, in reality. PayDay loan places already skirt laws prohibiting 300% interest rates, by slapping 'fees' on. We served up the most vulnerable, in our society, (because, hey, it's not us!), to the sharks, and looked the other way.

Now, it seems, they have taken what they've learned and are coming for us next. Hidden service, convenience, fees, (hidden revenue streams!), would seem a likely target for the likes of OWS. Y'know if they ever identify a goal, or choose a cause or leader. Think about how many people complain about such things, daily, and with raging passion, and rightly so, they are being exploited. Feels like it would be easy pickings for OWS.

[Vinyl Turnip]

We live in a free market dude. Get over it..

Excellent news! Please point me toward the major competitors with TicketMaster, so that I (as an informed consumer) can take advantage of the lower prices offered by free market competition and buy my ticket at the lowest possible price.

[mhendo]

We live in a free market dude. Get over it.True.As far as TM goes: You know, I understand they need to make a profit. They don't make a percentage of of whatever band, hockey team, etc is playing. So sure, add a reasonable service charge.

What I DON'T appreciate is now TM, offering up their tickets to other ticket brokers (or to the layman, scalpers) behind the scenes before the public even has a chance to buy them!!

That's BS TM, you're being payed to broker the tickets yourself. Don't take the money and then leave the job to someone else who is going to mark up the price even further.We live in a free market dude. Get over it.

[Simplicio]

Excellent news! Please point me toward the major competitors with TicketMaster, so that I (as an informed consumer) can take advantage of the lower prices offered by free market competition and buy my ticket at the lowest possible price.

Well, the scalpers are competition. And you can get your ticket directly from the venue, as the OP notes.

But I don't think people buying tickets are really the customers of Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster is a service that the venue uses to sell tickets online. They're the ones that hold chose the service that gets to sell their tickets. The reason that Ticketmaster is able to put such a high mark-up is because the venues undercharge (probably for the reasons Enderw notes, venues want to fill the stadium, even if it costs them money), so that Ticketmaster can charge more and still sell all the tickets

[mhendo]

Excellent news! Please point me toward the major competitors with TicketMaster, so that I (as an informed consumer) can take advantage of the lower prices offered by free market competition and buy my ticket at the lowest possible price.The problem is that, despite economists' claims about the way competition works, the fact is that free market principles often lead to a complete absence of competition. If you allow a bunch of companies to compete, there sometimes comes a point where one company wins that competition to such an extent that it gains an effective monopoly, like TicketMaster has now.

This poses something of a problem for supporters of the free market, because one of the cherished myths about the free market is that it will basically always offer consumers better information and better choices than a regulated market. According to the free market argument, if one company gains market dominance, it won't be too long until other companies find and exploit inefficiencies in order to restore competition. Thing is, though, that doesn't always happen, because in some areas of the economy the barriers to entry are high enough that other companies don't step in to compete.

One thing i wonder, though, is what ticket prices would look like in a world without TicketMaster. If every venue had to sell its own tickets, then every venue would also need to pay for the infrastructure required to sell those tickets. In this day and age, that means a system for online selling. For a 2,000-person music venue with no assigned seating, that might not be too difficult, but for a 2,000-seat theater or a 10,000-seat concert venue or a 70,000-seat football stadium, you need a fairly sophisticated web interface, one that keeps track of which seats are sold and which are available, that allows buyers to make choices about where to sit, and that is sophisticated enough to do things like offer the best available seats to someone viewing the site.

All of this stuff is currently taken care of by TicketMaster, and if each venue had to do it separately, you can be sure that the cost of implementing their own internet sales system would be passed on to the consumer through rising ticket costs. Web programmers don't come cheap. At the moment, we see those costs in the form of "convenience" fees and such at TicketMaster, but if the fees were hidden in the cost of the ticket itself they wouldn't be any less real.

I'm making a sort of devil's advocate argument here, because i hate TicketBastard as much as anyone, but if we accept that the infrastructure required to sell tickets costs money, then does it matter whether we customers pay for that in the cost of the ticket, or in visible fees and charges? It's a bit like airlines charging for checked baggage. It used to be hidden in the ticket cost; now it's been disaggregated and constitutes a separate charge.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

The problem is that, despite economists' claims about the way competition works, the fact is that free market principles often lead to a complete absence of competition.

None of the economists I know are as dumb as you are implying here.

[fumster]

One thing i wonder, though, is what ticket prices would look like in a world without TicketMaster. If every venue had to sell its own tickets, then every venue would also need to pay for the infrastructure required to sell those tickets. In this day and age, that means a system for online selling. For a 2,000-person music venue with no assigned seating, that might not be too difficult, but for a 2,000-seat theater or a 10,000-seat concert venue or a 70,000-seat football stadium, you need a fairly sophisticated web interface, one that keeps track of which seats are sold and which are available, that allows buyers to make choices about where to sit, and that is sophisticated enough to do things like offer the best available seats to someone viewing the site.In a world without a Ticketmaster monopoly, venues could sell their tickets through the on-line vendor that offers them the best deal. Ideally venues would offer tickets through multiple vendors so that consumers could choose the one with the lowest cost. Or venues could use a ticket-selling web service like many small brick and mortar stores do to set up on-line stores with little work.

[mhendo]

None of the economists I know are as dumb as you are implying here.Probably not. Maybe i should have said "free market ideologues" rather than economists.

But even among the economists, the model generally assumes (and often explicitly states) that a monopoly can't and won't last because it will, by its very nature, create inefficiencies in the market that will, in turn, be jumped on by new entrants into the field.

[villa]

Because stadiums run on a business model like everyone else: determine where supply meets demand and sell at that price. Scalpers run on a slightly different model: what's the absolute most I can get any individual buyer to pay for my ticket? Both are obviously trying to sell all the tickets they have in their possession but the scalpers aren't trying to fill up the stadium, whereas the event is. Sure, you could have the stadium sell every concert ticket for $250 rather than $100 and you'd get rid of scalpers completely. You'd also be left with a ton of tickets left over because demand just plummeted.

And to be all economic and everything, scalpers can price discriminate. The venue cannot, either legally or practically. Part of the job of the scalper (as opposed to an online reseller) is to judge the price sensitivity as applies to an individual purchaser.

[fumster]

Presumably scalpers drive up the cost of all tickets because it creates a scarcity. The scalpers also take an additional risk that they may not sell all their tickets, so in return for that risk they earn a premium. In that sense they provide a service: to the venue by driving up prices and assuming some of the risk of hosting an event, and to the consumer by not making them stand in-line and by enabling consumers to make a decision closer to the performance date as to whether they want to (and are able) to attend.

I think I will now take a shower.

[Huerta88]

the sale was processed through TicketBastard!

This happened to me just yesterday on StubHub. Is this a new or widespread practice by StubHub (and if it is, I may go back to eBay for tickets)? I ended up paying three fees, one to StubHub and two (as everyone knows they are notorious for stacking fees) to TM, including $4.95 for "electronic delivery." WTF. As I think about it, I'm gonna go write a strongly-worded complaint to SH.

[Shakes]

As far as TM goes: You know, I understand they need to make a profit. They don't make a percentage of of whatever band, hockey team, etc is playing. So sure, add a reasonable service charge.

What I DON'T appreciate is now TM, offering up their tickets to other ticket brokers (or to the layman, scalpers) behind the scenes before the public even has a chance to buy them!!

That's BS TM, you're being payed to broker the tickets yourself. Don't take the money and then leave the job to someone else who is going to mark up the price even further.

Also, advertisers: Don't claim to have tickets for sale at X amount when you know there is going to be a 50% mark up at the POS. It's borderline false advertising.

Shakes.
Former ticket scalper.

True.We live in a free market dude. Get over it.

I'd agree, but since TM doesn't offer to selll tickects to ALL interested buyers, it isn't exactly a free market.

[RickJay]

We live in a free market dude. Get over it.

As far as TM goes: You know, I understand they need to make a profit. They don't make a percentage of of whatever band, hockey team, etc is playing. So sure, add a reasonable service charge.
I don't understand why they need to exist at all, or if they do, why their model is what it is.

Look, I'm a hard cope free markey capitalist guy, but Ticketmaster is pure, unadulterated anticompetitive monopolizing. It's profiteering, straight up. That they remain legal can only be accounted for by bribery.

Presumably scalpers drive up the cost of all tickets because it creates a scarcity.
Not necessarily; it depends on the venue and event. In a lot of cases scalpers are reselling unused season and block sale tickets, and if demand is low enough you can buy from them at prices LOWER than face value, thereby getting tickets that would otherwise be unavailable for less than you'd pay even if they were (they're getting them from season ticket holders for even less.)

This sort of thing is pretty routine in Toronto, where ticket scalping is de facto legal. For weekday Blue Jay games against shitty opponents, you get great deals from scalpers; I can pick up $75 seats for $40-$50. Raptors tickets can also be had now for below face value. For weekend games or premium opponents, though, demand drives the price past face value.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Probably not. Maybe i should have said "free market ideologues" rather than economists.
That would be accurate, yes.
But even among the economists, the model generally assumes (and often explicitly states) that a monopoly can't and won't last because it will, by its very nature, create inefficiencies in the market that will, in turn, be jumped on by new entrants into the field.
Which model? Which economists? Seriously, none of the ones I know are this dumb.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Also, $65.32 + $6.11 = $71.43, not $72.43. Did they snag an extra dollar from you?

That was the "ink charge" for using your own printer.

[JessMagic]

Hate Ticketmaster UK. When they fuck up, they just apologise, and apologise, and apologise. They never provide a decent solution. Nor do they listen to your constructive suggestions about how they can change their policy for the better. The only way to make a complaint is via snail mail (seriously?). I don't want an apology, I just want the tickets that I bought from you!

Paid for four Take That tickets (not for me, for a friend - honest). Three were delivered, about a week before the event. The fourth had erroneously been sent to the people in the seats next to mine. Their solution? Not "we'll print another copy of the ticket, and cancel the one that's been sent out to the wrong person". It was "we're sorry. We're trying to contact the other party. Hopefully(!), if we can get in touch with them, they'll post the ticket back to us, then we can post it out to you." It got sorted, thanks to the honesty of the other person, in the nick of time, but jeez.

They're tied to this policy of posting tickets out about a week before the event. It just gets people worried. Plus, they'll only post to your credit card address, which, if like me you live alone but move around a lot for work, is an added hassle.

They've really put me off going to concerts.

[Ponch8]

I wouldn't mind Ticketmaster so much if they actually told you the price you'll be paying for the tickets. Telling you a ticket costs $50 when it really costs you $75 is false advertising, and I don't know how they get away with it.

[joebuck20]

Won't argue with the OP about the dickishness of Ticketmaster. I look forward to the day someone manages to bury it and piss on its grave.

But why not just buy the tickets the day of the event? Or is minor league hockey in San Antonio regularly a soldout attraction?

[SkipMagic]

Well, the scalpers are competition. And you can get your ticket directly from the venue, as the OP notes.
The last time I attempted that, the venue charged me the TicketMaster prices and fees; according to the staffer with whom I dealt, it was part of the venue's contract with TicketMaster to sell all of the tickets through them. I didn't do any research beyond that one purchase, but I assumed that was TicketMaster's newest anti-competitive weapon in their arsenal.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

The irony isn't just because the ad showed up. Its because it showed up due to this thread. The stupid ad programs just look for key words. We understand that.

You don't see the "irony" of me ranting about, lets say, how much Ford trucks suck and this automatically generating buy Ford truck ads? If someone is "sitting here" telling me how much something sucks, getting automatic ads about it ain't exactly going make me wanna run out and buy me some of that shit.

Well, I suppose after reading the 100th pit thread (or equivalent elsewhere on the internet) where the product being pitted is also advertized, it's hard for me not to come to the conclusion that those who are surprised by this just aren't paying attention.

[D_Odds]

The last time I attempted that, the venue charged me the TicketMaster prices and fees; according to the staffer with whom I dealt, it was part of the venue's contract with TicketMaster to sell all of the tickets through them. I didn't do any research beyond that one purchase, but I assumed that was TicketMaster's newest anti-competitive weapon in their arsenal.I've also encountered Ticketmaster charges when purchasing at the venue. I was reading an article this week about the CEO of TicketMaster trying to change the company's negative image. Nowhere did he mention having less of a shitstain business plan.

[Shade]

We need some kind of consumer protection law, with bite. To discourage capitalists from turning 'fees' into revenue streams. Like, maybe, they only get to charge you the actual costs involved. So if it costs the bank 5 cents for the ATM, they don't get to charge you $1.

Here (UK), I'm not sure of the exact laws (whether UK or EU), but I think there is some legislation that when you quote a price you have to list all "extras" along with it. Companies obviously skirt and circumvent that as much as they can, but it does seem to be holding the dam back a bit: even exploitative companies like Ryanair show a "price" and "total price" when you search, even if the size of text and search terms do their best to suggest that you only care about the "price" and obviously you don't care about how much money you blow on random "extra" fees. I seem to recall (?) they were hit with some sort of judgement when EVERY form of payment had an extra fee, on the grounds that what they were claiming wasn't actually the price -- so they got away with that for some time, but not forever...

So it is possible to improve.

I'm not sure about ticketmaster. Everything I've heard says they're awful, although having a semi-competant website reseller is a useful convenience for many venues.

I'm not sure why ticket pricing is so eccentric. I think venues fear bad publicity if they actually charge market rates (or price-segment too much)? And they used to deal with this by setting an average-ish price and letting eager people who camped out for tickets get them, in return for making the event seem more desirable. And now they let the tickets be hoovered up be resellers, so there's a reasonable list price for the ticket, but no-one can get it, you can only get tickets by second-guessing the ticketmaster system.

And, yes, monopolies are something that tends to happen in capitalism. I view them as a <i>failure</i> of capitalism, and actually useful capitalism as what happens when companies are actually trying to provide better services, rather than simply destroy their competition with the right manouvering, but obviously some people don't see it like that.

[Cheshire Human]

Well, I suppose after reading the 100th pit thread (or equivalent elsewhere on the internet) where the product being pitted is also advertized, it's hard for me not to come to the conclusion that those who are surprised by this just aren't paying attention.

There is an irony there, but it's not with any individual product or service showing up in a "rant against it" thread. The irony is in the entire keyword placement model.

It leads to the product or service placing ads in forums where they are going to get click-thrus that they have to pay for but won't lead to a sale. Done by people doing their small part to get back at the company in question.

Like I just did to TicketBastard. Everyone click on their ad. Support the SDMB at TicketBastard's expense!

[fumster]

The last time I attempted that, the venue charged me the TicketMaster prices and fees; according to the staffer with whom I dealt, it was part of the venue's contract with TicketMaster to sell all of the tickets through them. I didn't do any research beyond that one purchase, but I assumed that was TicketMaster's newest anti-competitive weapon in their arsenal.Same experience for me as well. Went to the box office and still paid extra fees.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Here (UK), I'm not sure of the exact laws (whether UK or EU), but I think there is some legislation that when you quote a price you have to list all "extras" along with it. Companies obviously skirt and circumvent that as much as they can, but it does seem to be holding the dam back a bit: even exploitative companies like Ryanair show a "price" and "total price" when you search, even if the size of text and search terms do their best to suggest that you only care about the "price" and obviously you don't care about how much money you blow on random "extra" fees. I seem to recall (?) they were hit with some sort of judgement when EVERY form of payment had an extra fee, on the grounds that what they were claiming wasn't actually the price -- so they got away with that for some time, but not forever... I'd love to see some law that requires airlines to show the TOTAL price, including all fees, when their fares are listed. That's a related but separate rant.

[villa]

I'd love to see some law that requires airlines to show the TOTAL price, including all fees, when their fares are listed. That's a related but separate rant.

I kind of like the taxes being shown separately. I like the government not being able to try to hide their revenue raising from the purchaser. Now where it is revenue going actually to the provider, I can get on board.

[RTFirefly]

I'm making a sort of devil's advocate argument here, because i hate TicketBastard as much as anyone, but if we accept that the infrastructure required to sell tickets costs money, then does it matter whether we customers pay for that in the cost of the ticket, or in visible fees and charges?First of all, it stands to reason that buying tickets electronically costs less than buying them from a human being, just like buying a book from Amazon is cheaper than buying it from a bookstore. At least in theory, buying a ticket through TicketBastard should cost less than buying it at the venue's box office.

Second, it basically amounts to a bait-and-switch. If I know upfront that those four tickets are going to cost $72 instead of $48, I'm a lot less likely to click over to TicketBastard to attempt to buy them. There may be some excuse for fees that apply to the transaction as a whole, regardless of the number of tickets, because there's no way to say upfront how much it amounts to per ticket. But the bulk of the fees, it seems, are per-ticket fees.

Third, ISTM that there are workable alternatives to this monopoly state of affairs. A venue could divide its seating up into three or four large chunks, and sell one chunk to TicketBastard, a second chunk to TicketSatan, a third to TicketReamer, and the fourth to TicketTorture. It wouldn't have to develop its own infrastructure.
It's a bit like airlines charging for checked baggage. It used to be hidden in the ticket cost; now it's been disaggregated and constitutes a separate charge.This isn't disaggregation, it's ripping customers off. Space in the hold of an airplane isn't a particularly scarce asset, so once you've built the plane to not seat passengers down there, that space is free.

You could argue that the added weight of the luggage costs the airlines money in increased fuel costs, but they're not charging by weight.

The airlines that charge like this are doing it because they can.

[RTFirefly]

Same experience for me as well. Went to the box office and still paid extra fees.I'd love to see a law requiring that there be somewhere (a reasonable somewhere, either within 5 miles of the box office, or online) where one can buy tickets at the list price (plus any applicable taxes, of course).

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

Ticketmaster? Amateurs. They need to study the new masters of evil ticket selling policy: Churchill Downs.
Starting with requests for the 2012 Derby, you will be charged a $50 administrative fee whether you get tickets or not (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/story/2011-09-02/Kentucky-Derby-ticket-requests-now-come-with-50-fee/50240406/1)!

[Lynn Bodoni]

I kind of like the taxes being shown separately. I like the government not being able to try to hide their revenue raising from the purchaser. Now where it is revenue going actually to the provider, I can get on board. I'm not talking taxes. I'm talking about fees like the baggage fees (for airlines) or the various fees that TM charges, like the processing fee (even when the customer prints his/her own ticket), which are not taxes but fees that the company adds on top of the regular price.

[villa]

Well the airline can't really include the baggage charge in the price up front, because they don't knower if you have a bag or indeed how many.

A very significant part out an air ticket is add ons, but they tend to be taxes.

[Rocketeer]

Well the airline can't really include the baggage charge in the price up front, because they don't knower if you have a bag or indeed how many.


Well, that's not true, is it? Until maybe five years ago, the luggage "fee" was part of your ticket price, and it was the same for everyone.

[villa]

Well obviously. But that wasn't the context being discussed.

If we were taking about a law banning airlines charging per bag prices, I have to say is oppose that too.

[DiosaBellissima]

I'd love to see some law that requires airlines to show the TOTAL price, including all fees, when their fares are listed. That's a related but separate rant.

I suggest using a website like Kayak for your plane tickets. Not only can you compare all the airlines/websites in one handy dandy place, but it also gives you a *total* price, not just the ticket price. For example, a few hours ago I was looking to book a ticket to New Orleans--- I saw it said $178 on Kayak (via Orbitz) and was certain that meant the base price and fees would show up at a final screen. But that wasn't the case at all . . in fact, my total was $177!

So, my point is: that's an easy way to see what fees are without having to guess.

[Dogzilla]

Excellent news! Please point me toward the major competitors with TicketMaster, so that I (as an informed consumer) can take advantage of the lower prices offered by free market competition and buy my ticket at the lowest possible price.

You can try LiveNation (http://www.livenation.com/), but they're not that much better/different. If TicketBastard has the promo contract, you won't be able to get tickets from LiveNation and vice versa. The last couple shows I went to, I attended because I could get tickets from LiveNation rather than TicketBastard.

[RickJay]

You could argue that the added weight of the luggage costs the airlines money in increased fuel costs, but they're not charging by weight.

The airlines that charge like this are doing it because they can.
While that's true, in the case of luggage you can at least make the argument that the airline is providing a service by transporting something for you, and it does indeed cost money to carry your bags - not in space, but in fuel. Yes, they're charging you the same for your 21-pound bag they charged me for my 24-pound bag, but there's a practical limit to how fine they can slice the issue (and in fact they do charge more for unusually heavy bags, so there is, technically, a weight charge.)

Furthermore, the simple fact is that the price of air travel is lower than it used to be. It bounces up and down but, over time, the trend line has been inexporably downward. When you adjust for inflation, you are not, in fact, paying more to fly. You're paying less. The airlines aren't gouging you; they're restructuring their fares.

And of course, there's the rather critical point that no airline is a monopoly. If you don't like Delta charging you for bags, fly United. I know it's easier to fly one airline or another depending on where you are and where you're going but there are always options. If charging for bags was that onerous a thing, airlines would compete by offering deals on it. So while its true "They charge you because they can," they "can" charge anything. They could charge you $1000 for water. They don't, because while it's theoretically possible, the competitive nature of air travel keeps their prices down.

I cannot imagine what complaint people could possibly have with airline prices, to be honest. They're sensationally affordable. I fly to Florida every year, direct, and have never paid a cent more than $250 a seat for a return ticket. That's the high end price; one year it was $160 a head, with all taxes and fees included. This is from Buffalo-Niagara, not Atlanta. My flight from Toronto to California and back again next week cost me, return, everything in, about five hundred dollars. That's damn cheap to be transported across the continent and back again. If they hit me up for $6 for a sandwich I frankly don't really care.

Ticketmaster

1. Provides you with nothing you couldn't have bought when venues sold tickets themselves,

2. Inserts themselves into transactions in which they aren't needed, through openly anticompetitive deals, and

3. Charges prices exorbitantly higher than any concievable free market rationalization could justify.

They are simply a flat-out monopoly. How they get away with it I quite honestly don't understand, and I really have tried to understand it.

[RTFirefly]

While that's true, in the case of luggage you can at least make the argument that the airline is providing a service by transporting something for you, and it does indeed cost money to carry your bags - not in space, but in fuel. Yes, they're charging you the same for your 21-pound bag they charged me for my 24-pound bag, but there's a practical limit to how fine they can slice the issue (and in fact they do charge more for unusually heavy bags, so there is, technically, a weight charge.) The weight charge usually doesn't kick in until 50 pounds, which is a pretty damned heavy bag, though I certainly push the limit on those rare occasions when I must fly an airline that charges per bag. It would be easier on me if I could break that single 48-pound load into two 25-pound loads (allowing for the second suitcase itself weighing a couple of pounds) but it would cost me an extra $25 each way even though it's essentially the same load, so I don't. The Firebug doesn't get his own suitcase when we must fly such an airline, because I'm just not going to pay $50 so he can have the grownup feeling of pulling his little wheeled suitcase that weighs maybe 8 pounds, fully packed, into the airport. And AFAIAC, any airline that forces me into such a ridiculous choice is run by a bunch of rat bastards.

Now here's the deal: they could damn well charge by weight if they wanted to, if that was their real motivation.

What do you do, every time you check your bags in? You get to the counter, and you put your suitcases on a scale.

If they wanted to charge for weight, they could ring up your total, right there at the counter, every bit as easily as charging $25 per bag.

Nah, this is just another way of ripping you off because they're in a position to do so. Fuck 'em.

[Cubsfan]

Yes, they're charging you the same for your 21-pound bag they charged me for my 24-pound bag, but there's a practical limit to how fine they can slice the issue (and in fact they do charge more for unusually heavy bags, so there is, technically, a weight charge.)


?

You have seen the electronic scales that have been at the check in counter for 30 years or so haven't you? They can sell me grapes/lb why not charge for baggage/lb?

FUCK THE PACKERS!!!!

[kaylasdad99]

Seems like you're more of a Bears fan...

[RickJay]

?

You have seen the electronic scales that have been at the check in counter for 30 years or so haven't you? They can sell me grapes/lb why not charge for baggage/lb?
1. It'd add complication to the ticketing system, which in the airline industry is generally fourteen years behind general computing technology and takes eons to fix. The scale ain't attached to anything; it just displays a weight. It's not hooked to the computer, and the computer has no system in it except "overweight" or "not overweight."

2. Because it would make an airport even more of a living hell than it currently is. Have you ever been in line behind a person with a 53-pound bag? I have, and it's a ridiculous scramble to rearrange everything.

If you started charging for every pound I bet dollars to donuts you'd have ten times as many scrambles at every baggage counter as people yanked shit out of their bags and jammed them into pockets or wore them. You'd have people dragging larger and larger carry-ons onto the plane with them - something that's already a huge headache, inasmuch as some people appear to think any bag with wheels is valid as carry-on.

If the over/under 50 thing perfect? No, but it's better than "a bag." In fact, technically you really have four price levels now:

1. Carryon, which is free.
2. A bag under 50, which is X.
3. A bag over 50, which is >X.
4. Special/overdimensional luggage, which can have its own price.

Plus you have airlines/deals where bags Y aren't charged at all if they're under 50, and so on.

Want to add more? I guess you could.

[suranyi]

While that's true, in the case of luggage you can at least make the argument that the airline is providing a service by transporting something for you, and it does indeed cost money to carry your bags - not in space, but in fuel. Yes, they're charging you the same for your 21-pound bag they charged me for my 24-pound bag, but there's a practical limit to how fine they can slice the issue (and in fact they do charge more for unusually heavy bags, so there is, technically, a weight charge.)

Furthermore, the simple fact is that the price of air travel is lower than it used to be. It bounces up and down but, over time, the trend line has been inexporably downward. When you adjust for inflation, you are not, in fact, paying more to fly. You're paying less. The airlines aren't gouging you; they're restructuring their fares.

And of course, there's the rather critical point that no airline is a monopoly. If you don't like Delta charging you for bags, fly United. I know it's easier to fly one airline or another depending on where you are and where you're going but there are always options. If charging for bags was that onerous a thing, airlines would compete by offering deals on it. So while its true "They charge you because they can," they "can" charge anything. They could charge you $1000 for water. They don't, because while it's theoretically possible, the competitive nature of air travel keeps their prices down.

I cannot imagine what complaint people could possibly have with airline prices, to be honest. They're sensationally affordable. I fly to Florida every year, direct, and have never paid a cent more than $250 a seat for a return ticket. That's the high end price; one year it was $160 a head, with all taxes and fees included. This is from Buffalo-Niagara, not Atlanta. My flight from Toronto to California and back again next week cost me, return, everything in, about five hundred dollars. That's damn cheap to be transported across the continent and back again. If they hit me up for $6 for a sandwich I frankly don't really care.

Ticketmaster

1. Provides you with nothing you couldn't have bought when venues sold tickets themselves,

2. Inserts themselves into transactions in which they aren't needed, through openly anticompetitive deals, and

3. Charges prices exorbitantly higher than any concievable free market rationalization could justify.

They are simply a flat-out monopoly. How they get away with it I quite honestly don't understand, and I really have tried to understand it.

Well, item 1 isn't strictly true.

Before Ticketmaster or any of its predecessor companies, the only way to buy tickets was to go to the venue box office.

Even way before the onset of the Internet, if you bought a ticket elsewhere, such as at a record store, it was Ticketmaster or Ticketron that set up the off-site purchasing system.

So if the convenience of not having to go to the venue means anything, then TM did provide a service even back when nobody had computers yet.

(This is not to disagree with the main point which is that their fees are exhorbitant.)

[Lynn Bodoni]

Before Ticketmaster or any of its predecessor companies, the only way to buy tickets was to go to the venue box office. Even back in the pre-internet days, it was possible to call the venue and purchase the tickets with a credit card. Even in another city. Now, you'd have to keep trying to get through the phone lines, but it was possible to do this. You had to show ID to pick up the tickets, but you could buy the tickets without going to the box office.

I'm amazed that someone doesn't write a program and sell it to venues, where they could sell tickets online without going through TM.

[Shade]

I kind of like the taxes being shown separately. I like the government not being able to try to hide their revenue raising from the purchaser. Now where it is revenue going actually to the provider, I can get on board.

I think it should be allowed (and as far as I know, everywhere in the world where there are any restrictions on how prices are advertised, it is allowed, and no-one has ever in any way ever suggested restricting it for any reason) for anyone to show a breakdown of the price in any way they think is useful (so long as it's not deliberately false).

What I'm saying is that the total you actually pay should be clearly shown as soon as it's practicable, and normally shown larger than all the other "prices" on an item, and not have fees which are sometimes ten thousand times[1] more than the price but are only revealed when you've gone through several steps of the purchase process.

Obviously there's some judgement call on what fees the company is obliged to handle. For instance, anything where there's a tax specific to the customer's location, and the company has nothing to do with it, but the customer's responsibility is to pay it off their own bat, then no, they needn't include it. But if it's fees or taxes that apply to every item, and they know perfectly well how much they are, but deliberately quote an artificially low price to try to trick people into getting committed to buying something without being able to actually compare the prices.

Yes, they should be able to charge what they like, but if a saleman constantly says "come here, great deal, only $x" and then "oh, sorry, my mistake, actually its $xxxx" every time, then all it does is (1) mean that everyone has to waste hours of their lives trying to figure out whether the product is worth the actual cost. People would presumably just refuse if they were told up-front "ok, you can buy it, but you'll have to wait around arguing for an hour before I tell you the price." And (2) it's anti-capitalism, because it makes it effectively impossible for companies to compete on price, only on how much they lie.

[1] Not an exaggeration!

[doreen]

I'm amazed that someone doesn't write a program and sell it to venues, where they could sell tickets online without going through TM. Some places do ( or did). The last time I bought Met tickets on line, the sale did not go through Ticketmaster. It's been a few years, so it might have changed, but I doubt it since I can definitely still get Met tickets over the phone, through the mail or in person (at multiple locations) without going through Ticketmaster.

[Yookeroo]

2. Because it would make an airport even more of a living hell than it currently is. Have you ever been in line behind a person with a 53-pound bag? I have, and it's a ridiculous scramble to rearrange everything.

If you started charging for every pound I bet dollars to donuts you'd have ten times as many scrambles at every baggage counter as people yanked shit out of their bags and jammed them into pockets or wore them. You'd have people dragging larger and larger carry-ons onto the plane with them - something that's already a huge headache, inasmuch as some people appear to think any bag with wheels is valid as carry-on.

I suppose it would depend on what the price/mass rate actually was, but I'd think we'd get fewer re-arrangers in a price/mass system. The person who is a few pounds over probably won't be rearranging things to avoid a 6% increase in bag fees. I've done the re-arrange scramble to move a few pounds out of the bag. I wouldn't have done that just to save 6%.

Actually, if this was the norm & the technology made it easy (your first point is definitely valid), I think this would speed up the process.

Oh, and to get out of the highjack, Ticketmaster does suck.

[Naxos]

Instead of the $48 (plus any understandable sales tax), the total came to over $70. WTF!?

Two $125 tickets for a concert in a venue with an about 40,000 capacity ended up being $305 with "facility" and "mailing" fees. They would be $320 if I wanted to print the tickets at home.

They are criminals and have the political back up to keep on fleecing everyone.

[RTFirefly]

1. It'd add complication to the ticketing system,What does this have to do with the ticketing system? You bought and paid for your ticket before you were asked to provide any info about your luggage.

They hit you up with the per-bag charge at the airport, and you're charged separately. They could do the same with a weight charge.

The scale ain't attached to anything; it just displays a weight. It's not hooked to the computer, and the computer has no system in it except "overweight" or "not overweight."You can hook it up to the computer (they do this in every grocery store, how complicated is it?) or you could just have the check-in person read the scale and enter the number into the computer. Either way, have the computer sum up the weights, multiply total weight by $X.XX, add any applicable taxes, and produce a total.

2. Because it would make an airport even more of a living hell than it currently is. Have you ever been in line behind a person with a 53-pound bag? I have, and it's a ridiculous scramble to rearrange everything.This problem is caused by the discontinuity in pricing at 50 pounds.

In more everyday English, it is because that 51 pound bag is a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than a 49-pound bag, typically at least another $25. Nobody wants to pay $25 for that 2 lousy pounds.

But if you're charging, say, a buck a pound, they're paying $2 for those 2 pounds, same as any other 2 pounds. People who wanted to minimize weight charges would learn to put small but heavy items in their carry-ons when packing at home; others would just pay.

If you started charging for every pound I bet dollars to donuts you'd have ten times as many scrambles at every baggage counter as people yanked shit out of their bags and jammed them into pockets or wore them.And I bet not, for the reasons given above. You'd have people dragging larger and larger carry-ons onto the plane with them - something that's already a huge headache, inasmuch as some people appear to think any bag with wheels is valid as carry-on. And maybe the airlines would get a clue, forget about charging for checked luggage, and instead charge for their genuinely scarce resource (other than seats) - space in the overhead bins. People will all but come to blows over space in the overhead bins; it makes more sense to just price it at a level where the overhead bins are usually mostly full.

If the over/under 50 thing perfect? No, but it's better than "a bag." In fact, technically you really have four price levels now:

1. Carryon, which is free.
2. A bag under 50, which is X.
3. A bag over 50, which is >X.
4. Special/overdimensional luggage, which can have its own price.
Or you could just replace 2 and 3 with "A bag weighing X pounds, which costs $KX" for whatever per-pound rate K that the airline chooses to charge.

[Lynn Bodoni]

And maybe the airlines would get a clue, forget about charging for checked luggage, and instead charge for their genuinely scarce resource (other than seats) - space in the overhead bins. People will all but come to blows over space in the overhead bins; it makes more sense to just price it at a level where the overhead bins are usually mostly full. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I'm someone who is always taking the max amount of carry-on. Carry-on luggage space is ALWAYS at a premium. What's more, stowing and removing carry-on luggage takes more time, it seems, than loading and unloading the regular luggage. I always put all my medicine and my CPAP in my carry-on luggage, which takes up quite a bit of room. I would also enjoy being able to take more stuff on the plane with me, but I feel that I'm taking up enough carry on luggage space. Theoretically, any bag with my medicine and medical supplies is supposed to not count against my carry-on limits...but practically, I know that the space will be cramped.

[Mr. Zheng]

I am a firm believer in paying the price that is advertised. If the tickets are $12, then this is what I am willing to pay. Don't say $12 plus "fees". That's bullshit. Instead of $12 plus $7 in fees just say $19. This is the true price of the ticket. Ticketbastard's fees are incredible in scope, venue fee, processing fee, convenience fee. There is (probably) a fee if one wants to pick up the tickets at the door and another one if Ticketbastard mails them/sends them online.

Back the good old days, pre-internet 1980's when I was a teen, I wanted to see some shows, but getting tickets were so agonizing. For one thing, the huge lines in getting the tickets themselves. Sorry, but even as a teen, I did not see the value and thought it was unsafe/illegal to just sleep in front of a ticket office all night. The venue never seems to have enough people to actually sell the tickets themselves, which caused huge lines to form. I rather resent to have to stand in a long, slow line to buy something. The venue should provide enough people to sell the tickets. Getting tickets is such a bother to me that I have not seen a concert in probably 25 years. I dont really miss the experience. The last show I went to was in Vegas in 1991 (sone crappy hair band that was famous for a season), and the crowd was actually patted down before getting in. Fuck that.

I dont see anything wrong with baggage fees as long as the airline states this upfront when the ticket is bought. A dollar a pound or whatever after 20 pounds. Someone who brings everything but the kitchen sink should pay the extra fee.

Lastly, in the country where I am living in currently, the four and five star restaurants sell fancy meals/buffets, with this kind of pricing....100 Yen plus 15% service charge. They all do this. No one tips here and I severely dobt that the help keeps this 15%, and to me, again is unnecessay. State the price of the product or service you are selling! If its $115, its $115, not $100 plus 15% percent. Annoying.

[Morgenstern]

If I were to stand outside the arena, and offer to sell my tickets to the particular event, with a "service fee" and a "convenience fee" added, I'll bet I'd be arrested for scalping. And my service would be way more convenient than theirs.

[jtgain]

I think it should be allowed (and as far as I know, everywhere in the world where there are any restrictions on how prices are advertised, it is allowed, and no-one has ever in any way ever suggested restricting it for any reason) for anyone to show a breakdown of the price in any way they think is useful (so long as it's not deliberately false).

What I'm saying is that the total you actually pay should be clearly shown as soon as it's practicable, and normally shown larger than all the other "prices" on an item, and not have fees which are sometimes ten thousand times[1] more than the price but are only revealed when you've gone through several steps of the purchase process.

Obviously there's some judgement call on what fees the company is obliged to handle. For instance, anything where there's a tax specific to the customer's location, and the company has nothing to do with it, but the customer's responsibility is to pay it off their own bat, then no, they needn't include it. But if it's fees or taxes that apply to every item, and they know perfectly well how much they are, but deliberately quote an artificially low price to try to trick people into getting committed to buying something without being able to actually compare the prices.

Yes, they should be able to charge what they like, but if a saleman constantly says "come here, great deal, only $x" and then "oh, sorry, my mistake, actually its $xxxx" every time, then all it does is (1) mean that everyone has to waste hours of their lives trying to figure out whether the product is worth the actual cost. People would presumably just refuse if they were told up-front "ok, you can buy it, but you'll have to wait around arguing for an hour before I tell you the price." And (2) it's anti-capitalism, because it makes it effectively impossible for companies to compete on price, only on how much they lie.

[1] Not an exaggeration!

Agreed. A perfect example from this weekend. A hotel room service item was prominently priced at $45. In small type at the bottom it stated that every order was subject to a 15%GST, plus 17% gratuity, plus a 3 dollar service charge.

That comes to $63.55, when the lying bastards put $45 in prominent numbering. Those taxes and fees were known before the menu was printed. The only possible reason for structuring it that way was to snare a customer who wasn't paying attention to buy the $63.55 meal when he thought it was $45. It is false and misleading and I can't think of a single reason why truth in advertising laws shouldn't apply to this type of thing.

[johnpost]

time to get some value back due to class action suit in the works.

if you bought tickets from Ticketmaster website between October 21, 1999 and October 19, 2011, you get $1.50 back per ticket (up to 17). expedited tickets can get additional $5 per ticket.

value is in the form of a voucher for future ticket purchases. limit of two vouchers used per purchase.

they can continue charging the same fees though they need to state the terms more clearly.

[Gedd]

Justice! Even if it is a tiny amount.

Now who still has the receipt for a ticket they bought 12 years ago?

[DoctorJ]

Yesterday I bought two tickets to see Ryan Adams at the Taft Theatre in Cincinnati. They had a one-day-early presale for the fan club.

I was online the minute the tickets went on sale. For ten minutes it repeatedly told me that there were no tickets available anywhere at any price. Apparently you could only buy single tickets, and that was only if you were lucky. Finally it let me through to get my two tickets in the back corner of the lower level. Lots of people who bought tickets today got much better seats.

For this competence I paid nearly $30 in service fees for $80 worth of tickets.

The days when Eddie Vedder was railing against Ticketmaster were a golden age.

[mhendo]

One thing that really gets me about these class action lawsuits is that, in many cases, they don't really punish the company because they actually drive more business back to the company through a system of vouchers rather than cash payouts. That's what this particular settlement, as described by johnpost, seems to do.

A few years ago, when Netflix settled a class action lawsuit for throttling disc mailing to high-volume customers, the "payout" was in the form of an extra DVD for a month, on top of your usual plan. So, if you had a 3-disc-at-a-time plan, then for one month you would get four at a time, at no extra cost.

The catch was that, at the end of the month, this "upgrade" would become permanent, and you would be charged for the extra disc going forward. So the "penalty" of settling a class-action lawsuit for shady business practices was that Netflix were compelled to engage in a stealth opt-out marketing campaign against their own customers.

Brilliant! If you're Netflix, anyway. Not so good for the customers.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

One thing that really gets me about these class action lawsuits is that, in many cases, they don't really punish the company because they actually drive more business back to the company through a system of vouchers rather than cash payouts. That's what this particular settlement, as described by johnpost, seems to do.

Yes, this one is just offering a tiny bit of lube for the next time you bend over for Ticketbastard.

[Commander Fortune]

Justice! Even if it is a tiny amount.

Now who still has the receipt for a ticket they bought 12 years ago?

I have every ticket stub for every concert I've ever attended. Isn't that a receipt?

[Spiderman]

I have every ticket stub for every concert I've ever attended. Isn't that a receipt?

Probably not, because it doesn't show that you went, that you paid for it, or that it was bought thru TB.



While I think they're overcharging bastards, the thing that really gets me is the charge to print at home, for using my ink & my paper, when they charge you less for them to mail them to you, when they are using their resources, postage, & labor.

The whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week concert venue in Camden charges a fee to buy them there. WTF, you advertise tickets for $x, yet there is nowhere I can get them for that price; how is that not false advertising?