It was a great one to start off with, and it helped both parties, but now, as is usually the case with anything that is working well . . . a third party has come along and screwed it up for everyone.
Let me explain.
Often, media companies, from television stations to certain newspapers, etc. will accept "trade" for advertising . . . sometimes in addition to cash, sometimes in lieu of cash. That's right, if your product is valuable enough, people will give you "free" advertising in exchange for your stuff (in our case, tickets). If you've got the inventory, and the media company has the inventory, it can be a great deal for both sides.
What happens next is that the media companies either use the tickets for themselves (gifts to employees, clients) or they place the tickets in barter networks like this one, where they can trade them again for other products/services.
All good, right? You get advertising, they get tickets . . . everyone's happy.
Well, not so fast, my friends.
There are two ways to deliver these "tickets" to the media companies:
1) Hard tickets (which are actual tickets for specific performances with seat locations and everything)
2) Ticket vouchers (which are usually valid for weeks of performances, but need to be reserved in advance with your company directly, and therefore validated, before they can be used.
Without a doubt, #2 is the best scenario for both parties. It provides the most flexibility for the "tradee", because it allows the user to see the show on multiple performance dates and times. And it allows for the "trader" to have flexibility as well, in case the President of the United States decides to show up to a performance, and you need to control the inventory.
Additionally, when someone is given hard tickets for a specific performance . . . and can't use them . . . you end up with a block of empty seats in your house. It's an eyesore, and an inventory-sore, because those are seats that went dead, that someone knew were going to go dead and you had no chance to resell those seats.
But for some reason . . . some companies refuse to take vouchers instead of hard tickets. Well, I think I stumbled upon the reason why.
On at least four occasions in the last twelve months, I have found "trade" tickets in the hands of secondary market sellers (i.e. brokers) that have been selling them to consumers. A customer ends up with a ticket that says "COMP" and yet has paid sometimes more than face value for that seat. One associate of mine found himself in this situation at a very high profile final performance that was sold out . . . but his seat money went to a secondary seller and not the show. The worst part? That show had in no way near recouped.
Somehow the trade ticket had fallen into the wrong hands.
If someone insists on "hard tickets" for a trade you're involved in, ask them why, and ask them where they are trying to distribute them. Then explain the benefits of a voucher system to both parties.
I have often offered companies 125% of the trade value if they take vouchers instead of hard tickets (and if they refuse, that's when I know something is really up).
Vouchers won't solve the problem entirely, but they will make it a lot more manageable, and offer road blocks to those people out there trying to profit where they shouldn't be.
The trade system is a great one, but the time has to come to regulate it so that it does what it was originally intended to do before it puts more money in the wrong hands.
It's time for Producers, Marketing Directors and Advertising Agencies to tell their partners . . . hard tickets are no longer an option. Vouchers only. If we take this stand as an industry, they'll have no choice.
They should get used to it anyway. Because in a few years, we'll all be using e-tickets, and they'll have no choice.
(Got a comment? I love 'em, so comment below! Email subscribers, click here, then scroll down, to say what's on your mind!)
——
FUN STUFF:
- Come to Situation Interactive's Casino Cares with me and my staff on 1/9: Click here!
- Get Your Show Off the Ground Seminar: 2/18. Sign up today!
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
7 Responses to The problem with hard “trade” tickets.
Leave a Reply
MOST POPULAR BLOG POSTS
Email Me
Subscribe in a Reader
Ken’s Top 5 Reads
Purple Cow: Transform Your Business...
Seth Godin
buy now
The Writers Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers
Seth Godin
buy now
The Commercial Theater Institute ...
Frederic B. Vogel & Ben Hodges
buy now
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Robert B. Cialdini
buy now
Producing Theatre : A Business Guide
Donald C. Farber
buy now
“…but his seat money went to a secondary seller and not the show.”
I’m confused. Did the media company somehow take back the advertising they traded for? If the show got the advertising, how is it out anything? Telling the media company how to use what they traded for seems as bad as them telling the show what to advertise. And are media companies just giving away free tickets to secondary sellers? I think not. Seems like there’s a big chunk of financial logic missing here.
Rlewis, your quote should have gone on for two more sentences, then you would have answered your own question. If it doesn’t then you aren’t in theatre.
I found this post very informative. Thanks! My prediction in this new year is that technological change will tend to make markets more free rather than more restrictive. If the value of tickets over time has increased in value to those who receive them, why not just offer fewer tickets in exchange for the services?
Another interesting issue is that of dynamic pricing and trade value…how do you assign a value to a ticket given to a media partner if it is just a snapshot in time? If that ticket may later be exchanged for a dynamically priced performance, aren’t you out that additional value as well?
The Producers aren’t stupid, Ken. They know fully well that those tickets are being re-sold. They’re dealing with a ticket broker, for God’s sake. What did they think they were doing with the hard tickets, using them for bookmarks?
While I see where you’re coming from, the second party should be able to do whatever they want with them, since the Producers have already received what they wanted (ads, etc.).
If a Producer like yourself is so disgusted by this situation, just don’t make the “trade”. Once those tickets leave your hand, they’re no longer yours and you have nothing to say about it. Unless, of course, you have a blog.
Ken, first thing I have ever read by you and I am sure you are a fine man but this post is just plain silly.
Anyone that barters for tickets, unless on a personal level such as a barter for 1 or 2 tickets for something specific they want to see, does this because they want something they can turn in to cash.
They are not doing it because they think their employees or clients want to see some show.
If you can not provide something in barter that they can monetize, then they probably do not do the barter deal.
Basically you are saying you want to give someone something that has zero cost to you, unless the show sells out every single performance, and in return not allow them to turn it in to something that has any real value for them, ie cash or maybe a credit for tickets they actually do truly want.
Just plain silly.
You want to make money by getting something you do not pay for but are upset that someone else makes money in the process?
Sounds like more of an issue for your therapist than a real problem.
I agree- vouchers are totally the way to go. However, I’ve never heard of tickets given for trade deals being resold in SoCal (at least in the theatre world), so perhaps this is more of a Broadway problem? Where I’ve worked, vouchers were always preferred for the obvious reason you stated: no one loses money on the deal. If it’s redeemed, that’s great. However, you haven’t committed someone to a seat that could have been sold to a paying customer if there’s a no-show.