Debate in the House of Commons on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report into Ticket Touting – 24th April 2008

As we have heard today one question the report poses is “What is ticket touting”. I think most people would be fairly clear that a tout buys tickets and exploits demand in order to sell them at a profit.

In my view, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport was absolutely right when he said that this “doesn’t add anything to the cultural life of the country, but instead leaches off it and denies access to those who are least able to afford tickets.”

As chair of the All Party Groups on music and communications I was disappointed that neither the Select Committee’s Report nor the Government’s response reflect this.

Whilst I welcome the attention given to ticket touting and much of the discussion in the report, I feel that its recommendations give the green light to touts and will ultimately prove counterproductive, leading the industry down a dubious road.

As I did just over a year ago in an adjournment debate on this, I once again want to make the case for a ban on ticket touting.

There are two main classes of victim from touting: firstly the fans and consumers; and secondly the primary sellers and the entertainment industry itself.

I have little doubt everyone here will know someone who has attempted to buy tickets, only to miss out and see them on sale on auction websites at vast multiples of the face value.

With every ticket that is sold in this way those who originally missed out and those who bid insufficient amounts are victims. Equally the person who eventually manages to buy the ticket at a vastly inflated price is a victim of exploitation.

The Committee’s final recommendations failed to bear this in mind.

One reason for this is perhaps the lack of evidence from individual consumers. But it should hardly be surprising for anyone in Parliament that few individuals submitted evidence to a Select Committee inquiry and I wonder whether in future a more proactive approach is required.

We can all reflect on this sentence from the conclusion: “it is not realistic to expect to find solutions in a forum where that market is virtually unrepresented.”

The majority of constituents and music fans I speak to are overwhelmingly against ticket touting. On the consumer side the Committee mentioned conflicting opinions on from a number of polls. These could have been summed up with Pink Floyd’s lyric “Money it’s a crime, share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.”

But it is interesting to note that both of those cited in favour came from eBay and Viagogo, internet auction sites. Against this, the poll in NME – a magazine for music fans – showed 7 in 10 against touting, which was backed up by the poll from Yougov.

An interesting phenomenon a few years ago that the Committee didn’t mention, was when people put in unenforceable bids of hundreds of millions of pounds for Glastonbury tickets on eBay in order to scupper the auctions.

The industry is the other key victim of touting.

As the report usefully highlights there is a practice of selling below the clearing price, partially on the basis of their long term commercial interests of the whole industry.

This is why touts are able to prosper, exploiting the fact that they have been sold at a cut price.

A music fan spending hundreds of pounds on one ticket is unlikely to be able to afford to attend many other events and the smaller events in the industry, which are so important to its future and its richness, suffer as a result.

The industry also looks to cultivate long term loyal fans. It is why the first response of primary sellers has not simply been to increase prices or initiate their own auctions and why we see photo ID and other security measures already being introduced to tackle touting.

The Committee’s final recommendation for the profits of touting to be shared with the primary market does not recognise this, and indeed, with the added legitimacy of the industry’s involvement would be likely increase the secondary market.

Moreover I also think that it is unrealistic in light of current trends.

Geoff Ellis, the director of T in the Park, has told me that artists are now beginning to ask for tickets for their events to be auctioned on their behalf, so the profits go to them rather than the touts.

He also informed me that the Concert Promoters’ Association is looking to set up its own auction site and allocating a certain percentage of tickets to this from the primary market.

Another recent development we have seen is Ticketmaster, which itself formerly called for regulation, purchasing the ticket auction site Get Me In. So the primary market itself is now looking to take a greater share of the profits by providing the secondary market.

Of course, as the report points out there is a moral right for the industry to receive what the consumer pays. Where I think it fell into error was failing to question the moral right of a tout to a share of any profits.

Whilst the report does recognise that it would be wrong for a person to profit from the sale of a free ticket, I have difficulty seeing how, when the industry deliberately sells below the clearing price, this same principle does not apply to all tickets.

This is a question I would also put to the Government.

If someone is exploiting the demand for an event deliberately made more open to the public, what difference does it make if the ticket cost them £20, or nothing?

In terms of the middle way solution that the committee recommended while there are undoubtedly a number of benefits for the consumer in the secondary market I find it difficult to understand why these should be seen as exclusive to touting where profits are involved.

There is an imperative for a better system of refunding and or reselling that should involve the primary sellers. A ban on the resale of tickets for vast profit – as the industry urges – would make a sensible trade off for a number of measures.

These could include more guarantees on refunds; an industry endorsed internet market place for resale; and a percentage of tickets being sold in batches over time.

If we were looking for one individual measure the ban on ticket sales for more than 110% of the face value in Queensland would be a more equitable path for the UK to follow.

Essentially, the point I am trying to make is that the benefits of the secondary market are not persuasive reasons for preserving it in its current state, when they can be provided on a fairer and more secure basis.

The Government has tried to grasp the nettle to some extent, by proposing for agreement on ‘crown jewel’ events but there is very little detail on this at present.

One of the key arguments I hear against a ban on ticket touting – and that I am sure will be made against the case I have put – is that it would simply force it ‘underground’.

I wonder if this would not be more of a problem when it’s a voluntary agreement on a limited number of events.

Moreover I cannot see how it is wrong to exploit demand for say, a big sporting event, which is likely to have a far greater number of tickets available, but not a small scale match or concert.

Anyone who questions the effectiveness of a ban should try to search for premier league football tickets on the internet and I think this will make the point. The market place simply isn’t there for them.

This is a key point and the Chief Executive of Get Me In, Andrew Blachman, told me that they won’t facilitate the sale of tickets for the Olympics which have been made illegal. Whilst banning touting may well force it underground the scale of this market will be far smaller without the massive advantages of the high profile internet sites.

It would also remove the veneer of respectability and legitimacy that the internet provides to this exploitation. If it means the emphasis for touting shifts to the streets outside events, this seems to be something that is far easier to police, than the broad, diverse and anonymous market place online.

Ticket touting is daylight robbery and innocent fans should not lose out to those looking to make obscene profits. We shouldn’t think just because we make Dick Turpin take off his mask and move out of the shadows, that what he’s doing is any more acceptable.

This House has agreed to a ban on the resale of tickets for the Olympics and the Government has agreed to implement a similar prohibition for Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

I cannot understand the inconsistency in our approach. It is surely no more just for someone to profit unduly from these events than for T in the Park, and if the best way to tackle touting was a voluntary industry agreement why did we not tell the organisers of the games that this was the case?

We cannot simply expect the industry to put more money into the fight and more restraints on consumers buying tickets, if we are unprepared to even express the view that touting is immoral.

Fundamentally I think at the heart of this is the question what sort of country we want to be living in. I cannot subscribe to a solution that allows exploitation and brings everything back to a bidding war.

Having spoken to people involved with these events, the real worry I have is that by allowing touting we spurn the industry’s consumer friendly pricing policy and its will to work towards a ban on the auctioning off of our culture.

This will only lead us towards the big gigs having full houses and the neglect of the smaller events, which make our culture so rich and have the stars of the future.

We already seem to be going down this path and I can’t see it producing any winners.

We took the step of making museums free with great results; we should remember that we are at our best, when at our boldest.

While: “Get a good job with more pay and you’re O.K.” made a good lyric, it’s not the mantra I want our cultural events to live by.

Filed under: speeches by admin