PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Ticket Auction?


johnny bench
08-14-2005, 09:14 PM
Is this an example of new White Sox ticket policy, a fundraiser for White Sox Charities, or what? Is this the first time for an auction?

http://whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/auctions/yankees.jsp

ChiWhiteSox1337
08-14-2005, 09:21 PM
They had the same type of auctions for the series against the Cubs and again against the Red Sox as well. I'm not too sure where the money goes, but my guess would be ticketma$ter. :(:

HotelWhiteSox
08-14-2005, 11:54 PM
I was just about to post this, good thing I searched. Price discrimination at its best, and I think it blows. It seems more and more tickets for events are going this route, it's bad enough with TM fees. I wouldn't mind if money went to charities as they usually do with auctions, but I see no mention of this. Someone please correct me as I hope to be wrong. It just seems to be scalpers and ticket brokers going into bidding wars.

chisoxfanatic
08-15-2005, 12:38 AM
Relax. The money does go to White Sox charities, as did it for the Red Sox and Cubs series.

johnny bench
08-15-2005, 08:32 AM
Relax. The money does go to White Sox charities, as did it for the Red Sox and Cubs series.

Big oversight that that isn't clearly stated on the WS web page.

itsnotrequired
08-15-2005, 09:25 AM
Big oversight that that isn't clearly stated on the WS web page.

Exactly. They could do a better job advertising that the proceeds go to charity.

UofCSoxFan
08-15-2005, 09:53 AM
Jeez...Even if it didn't go to charities, this is capitalism people. It is good business. It was what this country was founded on. The White Sox should be able to charge as much as possible for tickets to premium events. And on the flip side, if I am willing to pay more than you for a particular seat, I should be able to do it. I don't see how it's "unfair" if I value a seat more than you do. (and yes I'm a broke college student, so I'm not saying this because I would actually win the auction).

The only reason teams don't do this more is that it is bad PR because people do perceive this as "unfair" for some reason. Consequently some fans may be so upset that they stop buying tickets altogether.

To me this is similar to people complaining that Bulls/Bears tickets are too pricey, that is unfair that the teams charge so much, when they STILL SELL OUT EVERY GAME.

The fact that the proceeds go to charity make it even more ridiculous that people are upset by this in my opinion.

itsnotrequired
08-15-2005, 10:14 AM
Jeez...Even if it didn't go to charities, this is capitalism people. It is good business. It was what this country was founded on. The White Sox should be able to charge as much as possible for tickets to premium events. And on the flip side, if I am willing to pay more than you for a particular seat, I should be able to do it. I don't see how it's "unfair" if I value a seat more than you do. (and yes I'm a broke college student, so I'm not saying this because I would actually win the auction).

The only reason teams don't do this more is that it is bad PR because people do perceive this as "unfair" for some reason. Consequently some fans may be so upset that they stop buying tickets altogether.

To me this is similar to people complaining that Bulls/Bears tickets are too pricey, that is unfair that the teams charge so much, when they STILL SELL OUT EVERY GAME.

The fact that the proceeds go to charity make it even more ridiculous that people are upset by this in my opinion.

But that's what ticket brokers are for. When the team itself inflates ticket prices beyond the face value, then it isn't a good thing. Does the Cubs' "Premium Ticket Service" ring a bell? I'm sure the Red Sox could charge $100 a ticket if they wanted to and still sell the place out but how could the "average" fan afford that?

I don't think anyone is miffed that the extra money goes to charity. It isn't clear from the website that this is what happens so people are understandingly skeptical. Without the money going to charity, the Sox are simply scalping their own tickets.

UofCSoxFan
08-15-2005, 10:44 AM
I guess that's where you and I differ. I had no problem with the Cubs "scalping" their own tickets. I understand it would be bad business practice to do this for every ticket as it would allienate your fan base. However, if I'm willing to pay 100 for a seat in the bleachers and you are only willing to pay 50 for it, how is it fair to me that you get the seat, simply because you got to ticketmaster 5 minutes before me? Not only does the team lose out on 50 bucks it would have otherwise obtained from the sale, but more importantly in my opinion, I lose out on a seat that I was willing to pay more for.

This is basic capitalism. The White Sox are not a non-for-profit organization that exists simply to provide entertainment for people. They exist to ultimately make money for their ownership and investors.

This really is not much different than when an airline charges you more for a last minute flight than if you booked far in advance...or if they charge you less if you say over the weekend. It is a way of price discriminating and caputuring consumer surplus...people that book flights late are more willing to pay more for a seat b/c sudden circumstances cause the last minute booking. Business travelers tend to be more willing to pay more for a flight and also usually don't want to stay over the weekend, whereas people on vacation usually will be less willing to pay more for a flight and are more willing to stay over a weekend.

Again, the increased profits from creating an auction must be balanced by the public backlash. This is why the Cubs scalping was scraped. Also, I believe Coca-Cola had plans to index the price of a can from a vending machine to the temperature outside...as the temperature rose, the price would increase. This was a great idea in capitalist theory, but the public outcry was so loud that it was abandoned.

itsnotrequired
08-15-2005, 11:03 AM
I have no problem with the idea of selling tickets at above face value but just as long as the team isn't doing it. A system is already in place for getting tickets to sold-out events (brokers) and I see no need to change it at this point. People are willing to pay more through a broker but would probably have more beef when a team does it. Like you mentioned, public opinion probably wouldn't tolerate the practice.

How is it unfair to you that you get denied a ticket because someone bought it before you? That's what first come, first serve is all about. The team is interested in selling tickets and isn't about to "deny" sales in the hope that someone will come by later willing to pay more money. It isn't like the guy who bought before you is bartering with the team over the price. The team sets the prices and is more than happy to sell them at that price.

For the auction, they have set aside 24 tickets per game to help raise money for charity. Great idea.

UofCSoxFan
08-15-2005, 11:18 AM
It's unfair because often when you are trying to get through to ticketmaster it is completely random...when tickets go on sale online thousand enter simultaneously. You wouldn't agree that an auction would be the most efficient way in capturing the true market value of a particular ticket? I should clarify, this is my personal definition of fair...the person who is willing to pay the most gets the good. Others have different definitions of fair...first come first serve, alotting goods to people of each economic level, etc...All definitions have merit and greatly shape how you view this situation.

To me personally, again this is my opinion, I almost have more of a problem with ticket brokers than a team scalping their own tickets...although I don't really have a problem with either. I mean the team is at least providing a product, the team on the field, while a broker is just an intemediary that takes advantage of what the team provides. Without the team, the broker would be out of business. Accordingly, I would argue that the team has more of a right to scalp than a ticket broker.

FielderJones
08-15-2005, 12:08 PM
This is basic capitalism. The White Sox are not a non-for-profit organization that exists simply to provide entertainment for people. They exist to ultimately make money for their ownership and investors.

University of Chicago; pretty much says it all. Why am I not surprised you're a fan of unregulated robber baron capitalism?

HotelWhiteSox
08-15-2005, 12:34 PM
Is there a link that shows this goes to charity? Just wondering, because I've clicked all the links and found no mention, and thought that if it was, they'd want people to know and write it on the main page. Right now it just looks like price discrimination, good business, but I don't have to like it

ewokpelts
08-15-2005, 12:41 PM
btw, the sox are test running a season ticket resale site....UNLIKE wrigley field premium(where the cubs rip off thier "fans"), tghe sox are letting ME, as a season ticket holder, to use thier site to sell my tickets. Mind you, the catch is that the money from the sale goes into my season ticket account, and not in my checkbook. But it's still a good system. Quite a few teams use this, adn it actually helps out teh st holder as well as the common fan...my buddy bought some SF giants tix this way, and he actually got a better deal than from some brokers he contacted

Gene

UofCSoxFan
08-15-2005, 01:17 PM
University of Chicago; pretty much says it all. Why am I not surprised you're a fan of unregulated robber baron capitalism?

Wow...when you put it that way...I see your point.

As much as I'd like to have a conversation with you on the merits of free market capitalism (yes it does have its flaws, but then again the US economy is more vibrant than say that of Russia, Cuba, and well practically every other country in the world) I don't want this thread to be hijacked and put in the roadhouse.

As a consumer, I do not like this policy, simply because I do not have the money to win such an auction. I would much rather the Sox sell these seats at face value, which I could possibly afford if I was lucky enough to have a chance to buy them. Yet, my point is it shouldn't have to do with luck. I am considering the fairness to the person that is willing/able to pay more than me for a ticket (yes if was willing to sell my car or something, I'm sure I could win the auction, but I'm not willing to do that) as well as the fairness to the seller, who should be able to get as much money for his good as the market dictates.

Look at it this way...you as a seller of your labor are given a wage. Would you like the government to put a cap on the price you are able to sell your labor for, especially when companies are willing to pay you more than this limit for your labor? Of course not, but this is exactly what you are advocating in limiting the auctioning of tickets. The fact that Jerry Reinsdorf has more money than both of us (I assume) does not change the fact that both cases are not fair.

FielderJones
08-15-2005, 05:11 PM
Wow...when you put it that way...I see your point.

As much as I'd like to have a conversation with you on the merits of free market capitalism (yes it does have its flaws, but then again the US economy is more vibrant than say that of Russia, Cuba, and well practically every other country in the world) I don't want this thread to be hijacked and put in the roadhouse.

As a consumer, I do not like this policy, simply because I do not have the money to win such an auction. I would much rather the Sox sell these seats at face value, which I could possibly afford if I was lucky enough to have a chance to buy them. Yet, my point is it shouldn't have to do with luck. I am considering the fairness to the person that is willing/able to pay more than me for a ticket (yes if was willing to sell my car or something, I'm sure I could win the auction, but I'm not willing to do that) as well as the fairness to the seller, who should be able to get as much money for his good as the market dictates.

Look at it this way...you as a seller of your labor are given a wage. Would you like the government to put a cap on the price you are able to sell your labor for, especially when companies are willing to pay you more than this limit for your labor? Of course not, but this is exactly what you are advocating in limiting the auctioning of tickets. The fact that Jerry Reinsdorf has more money than both of us (I assume) does not change the fact that both cases are not fair.

The theoretical worlds of Profs Strauss and Friedman aside, there is no free market capitalism in the US. And as much as I'd like to discuss the devolution of capitalism into monopoly in such a theoretical world, I don't want to head to the Roadhouse either.

Your argument about labor and capital being on equal footing in a market economy is BS and you know it. But then, Prof Strauss defends lying to the common people for some "greater good".

HotelWhiteSox
08-18-2005, 07:35 PM
Ticket guy from the Sox was on with Murph (forgot his name, but he was the head guy in the department).

FYI, this auction has nothing to do with charity, so everyone who told people to 'chillax' over this should look over their sources again. This exact situation was brought up by a season ticket hold who emailed the show and Murph asked about it.

The guy on with Murph said it was more a part of the fantasy type experiences where they throw something extra like a jersey, but I don't think all of them come with one. Anyways, I think it looks bad for the Sox (as shown with the emailer who was mad, other people are noticing this), but I guess this is what comes with winning and a packed house.