BCA is a business, and its private decisions regarding fairness are its own business. Once the tickets are sold, they are in a free market.
In nearly all of the heated discussions ensuing after the last tickets to Spring Weekend were sold, I noticed that most people’s opinions were largely devoid of one underlying consideration: capitalism. For those of you that somehow missed this harrowing ordeal, let me fill in a couple gaps before I proceed. “Spring Weekend” is a chance for the University to put academics aside for a few days each year and provide its students with some well deserved relaxation. It has been a tradition to feature a concert lineup of performers and artists. This year, we hosted M.I.A., Lupe Fiasco, Girl Talk, and Vampire Weekend – a selection chosen by availability and the democratic vote of the undergraduates. Tickets sales were announced several days in advance for Brown and RISD students, and a limited number to the public per request of the artists. They were to be offered for sale for three days; by the end of the first day, however, it was obvious that they would not last that long. The Brown Daily Herald reported that after the first day, nearly two-thirds of the tickets had been sold, creating a mad rush to purchase whatever was left. Barely an hour into the next round, tickets were sold out to both nights of concerts, leaving many stranded and desperate.
It is no myth that our collective frustration at having waited until the second day to buy tickets turned us into overnight communists, and that we channeled that anger towards the Brown Concert Agency (BCA), where in many instances we ourselves were the ones to blame. As ticket scalping became rampant shortly thereafter, however, angry sentiments continue in response to such sideline business. Much has been said and published about the unfairness of the entire process. For perspective, consider the following:
Most of the controversy arose from the fact that students were allowed to buy more than one pack of tickets. BCA administrative chair Cash McCracken ’08 reported in a letter to the editor of the Herald (“Common Myths about Spring Weekend Tickets,” Mar. 12) that “the vast majority of transactions . . . conducted were for one or two packages,” although individuals were able to purchase a significantly greater number before the two-ticket cap was imposed on the second day. While some of those extra packages were destined for the hands of friends, a large majority soon found their way to the Brown Daily Jolt with price tags double or even triple of the original, some students even offering to fight hand-to-hand for a pair and others offering sexual favors.
Should the BCA have allowed this to happen? The priorities of the BCA as a non-profit organization were simply to cover the cost of the concert and to distribute tickets to the events in a “fair” manner, accomplished through a stated intention to subsidize costs for the benefit of all students, regardless of economic class. Prices were therefore accordingly lowered. Although they did allow everyone the chance to get a ticket, the demand exceeded what was offered. If carrying capacity of the venue allowed it, enough tickets probably would have been sold for everybody. Such was not the case, but tickets were available; it was simple supply and demand. The policies for purchasing tickets were well advertised and the limited quantity well known. Regardless of the desire of the BCA to sell the tickets “fairly,” once the tickets are sold, they become the private property of the individuals purchasing them.
It is important to realize that no one is forcing you to buy a ticket from one of these “scalpers”; instead, one is left to search for the best price at the discretion of desire. While some of the costs may have been ridiculous (sexual favors?), it is not unreasonable to ask for steep markups as long as the demand is still present. In many cases, the original purchaser can, in effect, get his own ticket for “free” by obtaining profit from resale. Sounds like an appealing offer, doesn’t it? In fact, this might be the best financial aid package ever.
Each of you had a fair chance of benefiting from this scheme, if it can even be called that. The argument was made that scalping is discriminatory towards students of lower income, and that the price offered by the BCA in their “legitimate” ticket sales in Faunce were fair to those lower-income students. In an editorial in the Herald, Zack Beauchamp ’10 questions, “Why is the right to absolute free exchange of goods somehow more important than preventing a class-based social hierarchy from emerging at Brown?” (“Spring Weekend Scalping: The Devil’s Work,” March 17). Putting aside snide comments about the dramatics of such a statement, allow me to reiterate: you all had a fair chance of getting in that line on the first day (I’ll concede to the exceptions of those out on business, etc.). Allowing scalping might be the best way to combat class differences, as one of limited means who might have otherwise been unable to purchase a concert ticket could have been first in line to buy two, one to use and one to scalp to support their own ticket. Perhaps I am being too callous, but the free exchange of goods through secondary markets allows the limited number of tickets to shift hands according to individual demand for them: those who truly want to attend the concert the most (those willing to pay the most) end up with the tickets.
There must be one question burning on your mind: did the author of this article have tickets to Spring Weekend? To answer that question, I did not! I was one of the people waiting in line on the second day when the BCA staff had to announce that we would not be getting tickets. I shrugged my shoulders, because I knew that it was my fault for waiting and that tickets were out there if I really wanted them (a pursuit I am in no real rush for). Sure, tickets could have been “rationed” to a certain number sold each day, as the Queer Alliance did for SexPowerGod, but besides that, what was done was done in a fair and wholly American way. The BCA subsidized their performance; tickets were offered to the public as requested; we were given fair and adequate warning of their sale; and we all had the freedom to wait in that line.
I’m curious to know if you feel that it is always fair to equate “want” with “willingness to pay”, as you do in the last line of your next-to-last paragraph. I think your argument is valid in this situation because you’re referring to what is essentially a luxury good; I can’t imagine anyone describing this concert as a literal matter of life or death. I have disagreements over the way BCA sold the tickets, but I agree that it’s legitimate for people scalp the tickets they are able to purchase.
But what about more basic elements of survival? I know this is far-fetched given the high prevalence of goods, but consider this example. Suppose a chronic drought occurred, putting a limit on the supply of bread and bottled water (let’s also assume that there’s no other way to get water than by purchasing bottles of it). Someone goes to the only store in a small town, which is now selling a limited amount of bread and water. That person buys the entire supply of both and starts scalping it to individuals on the street at greatly inflated prices, hoping to profit. Do you still think this is fair?
Reply
Hello–
As unfortunate a situation as that may be, It would be a tough call to make. It brings to mind the idea of Social Darwinism (whose principles I am yet to make my own opinion on). While it would be hypothetically legal to do something such as this, is it humane? Probably not. It is difficult to put a price on survival. However, if the supermarket allowed the food to be sold in such a way (ex. the BCA selling the tickets), once it is sold, it is private property (as it is for the supermarket before sale, but in a different sense). I would only hope that some sort of rationing or relief could be provided in such a situation!
I agree with you with your differentiating between “want” and “willingness to pay.” I do not think it is far-fetched to think that most people have wants but lack the will to pay (I would love a BMW!). Matters of life or death, however, warrant reconsideration. Thank you for your comment, and thank you for reading!
Reply