Alternatively only allow transfers within a very short period of the event. Anyone with a legitimate reason (giving to a friend etc) can work it out even on the day of the event. But scalpers have to take on a big risk buying up the good seats early, because they have a short window of time within which to secure a sale (buyers won't risk pre-paying, sellers can't risk prospective buyers backing out at the last minute).

Another tactic I've seen when there isn't assigned seating - just different tiers of seating - is to hold back some small portion of tickets to release shortly before the event, devaluing the scalpers' listings.

Online streaming tickets can also help, especially if the fans have enough of an anti-scalper stance. They'd choose one of the endless live streaming tickets over buying from scalpers just to go in-person.

I can only assume that the people flippantly proposing that the solution should be to restrict consumer freedoms don't attend these types of events themselves. Why should we immediately jump to limiting freedoms when we can increase the risk of scalping enough to be beyond the tolerance of most scalpers.

Though this would be mildly annoying for the earnest case (selling a ticket to a friend), it would be the actual solve to the problem.

The parent's suggestion still creates artificial scarcity, which is the real issue: people buying tickets they have no intention of using.

The problem is that the artists, venues, and ticketing companies benefit from this artificial scarcity. So we'll never see it change.

It’s kind of annoying in practice. For example you buy four tickets to go with your friends. But you get sick so you offer your ticket to a different friend instead. Oops that’s not allowed so now no one gets to go? Or you buy tickets as a gift for someone.

There’s a lot of legit reasons to want transfers, outside of scalping.

We can agree scalpers are net negative.

And I like your ideas but I don't see why the venues and artists don't want to capture more of what people are willing to pay enabled by what the parent comment suggested.

I wonder if in your system it actually attracts fans or just people that have the time to wait for tickets.

That's fairly common in Japan: you can't transfer tickets, as they get a name attached at purchase, and many concerts use a lottery system. You register interest in tickets, and if you're selected, you get a window to buy them. No camping out the minute presales open, and the price is the price instead of rent-extracting dynamic bullshit.

Square Enix did that for the Final Fantasy conventions in the US as well (where details of the next FFXIV expansion will be announced later this month), but they added an additional requirement. You have to have an active subscription to the game to even have a chance.

That's too consumer friendly.

doesn't work. the venue/artist/original seller would have a huge liability for refunded value that they don't want to hold

"all seats, including the best seats go to actual fans" is not something solved by your solution

The venue would make less money this way, and preferential seats would be given to whoever managed to get a request in first.

Another option is to just go see live shows at local independent venues instead of letting Live Nation jerk you around.

> Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds? You buy a ticket, you show your ID at the door.

Because everyone on the seller side - including artists - make money on this.

If parties other than fans / buyers cared, it would be a solved problem.

The tickets are all electronic now and they can already do it. Most artists don't want them to.