ARE secondary ticket sellers evil leeches, as Hamilton producer believes? — Page 5

EvanK said: "I think her point is that those tickets are harder and harder to attain. Which is true. Most people end up paying a much more absorbent fee to see Hamilton then most shows of its scale. Yes some people paid 140 for AP, but the majority three weeks ago paid less than 90 dollars, which I think is a very reasonable ticket price. The majority of people however paid 164 for Hamilton three weeks ago, 172 last week, and 178 two weeks ago.

I think the point is.. whether shows have done it before... no show should be charging so much."

Again though, it's all down to demand. I think anything under $200 is a perfectly reasonable ticket price for a show that is as good as Hamilton. I wouldn't say the same for AP. Most people agree with me and that's why the prices are the way they are.

I love Alice, but that post is dripping with entitlement. Theatre isn't healthcare. And it's silly to spit in the face of the people who put up millions of dollars to mount the productions that make it to Broadway despite knowing the odds aren't in their favor. This is just ONE show. This pricing structure doesn't spell the end of theatre as we know it.

Hellob said: "Wouldn't Alice be able to get house seats?

"

House seats aren't comps; she would still have to pay for them.

The issue I have have had is with their definition of "premium seating." Many of the seats they are defining as "the best in the house" are really not worthy of the title of premium.

Anakela said: "Hellob said: "Wouldn't Alice be able to get house seats?

"

House seats aren't comps; she would still have to pay for them.



"

I know but she's writing like she'll have to spend $850 when she doesn't.

SweetLips said: "It is no longer about the artistic merit of this show but the price of its ticket.
It's like an orgasm--once it's over-was it worth all that effort?



$199 for an orgasm doesn't seem that bad.

macnyc said: "This is such a great topic for an investigative article. Do producers opt in for the Ticketmaster resale? Can they opt out? Are they paid for opting in? Are they paid a portion of the fees (which are huge, by the way)? Has the fan-to-fan sale platform increased ticket prices overall? I would love to know all the ins and outs of this. I don't understand why an article hasn't been done yet.



"YES they can opt in, I believe, and they do get a share of the large bite Ticketmaster takes in service fees, at least that seems to be the case as per this Letter published in the NYTimes:

To the Editor:

Lin-Manuel Miranda rightly criticizes ticket brokers who use computer “bots” to sweep up tickets for “Hamilton” and other shows, then resell them at exorbitant prices that many theatergoers can’t afford (“Stop the Bots Killing Broadway,” Op-Ed, June 7). But his criticism rings a bit hollow when two facts are considered.

First, the producers of “Hamilton” sell seats at extremely high prices in special “pre-sales” for wealthy buyers — for example, $849 seats now exclusively available to American Express Centurion/Platinum Card holders (Centurion cards require a $7,500 “initiation fee” and $2,500 annual fee).

Second, the show’s producers participate with Ticketmaster in a resale market that extracts enormous premiums. When the producers release a new batch of seats, they sell out almost instantly. Then, with a few more mouse clicks, buyers can re-list them on the very same website at unlimited markups. Many are listed for more than $2,000 a seat — and the website takes a hefty percentage of every resale.

My wife and I have seen “Hamilton” and enjoyed it immensely. Mr. Miranda is a prodigious talent and deserves to be richly rewarded. But he and his producers are flawed messengers when it comes to criticizing practices that put Broadway out of many theatergoers’ reach.

STUART ALTSCHULER

New York

"-was it worth all that effort?"

Effort is an apt word here, because sitting through this was as much of an effort --- and as painful --- as trying to push a boulder up a Rocky Mountain.

"but I'd rather read a book]."

So would I. Pride and Prejudice offers a most genteel antidote.

"PS...Be interesting if a survey was done after the show and asked patrons if they thought it was worth what they paid."

I don't think it would be interesting at all, as it would be all too predictable. In light of the immense pressure of mouthing the party line imposed on us by the powers that be, and knowing the vilification that would ensue if one flat out said one hated it, one would simply just go along and say it was wonderful. Now, add to that the vexation/humiliation of having just been taken for $850 or more for something one hated! One would either try to convince oneself that one actually liked it, or try to make others think that one hadn't been played for the sucker one was. The result: "It was the greatest show I've ever seen, and worth every penny, and more!" I think you would find that to be the unanimous result of such a survey.