A Difference in Perspective: A Dichotomy in how Media Portrays Scalping.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/65172294@N00/268829443

    The topic of scalping is a complex one. Popular public sentiment about the topic is all but decided with pretty much every community it affects bemoaning the act, and many stores and legislators taking direct action to prevent it. What I find very interesting is that there is a large dichotomy between how scalping is portrayed to and by the public, and how it is portrayed by academic sources particular economic ones. Scalping is a natural result of the economic environment it takes place in. Some economists even argue that the secondary market and scalping serves to increase the efficiency of the market overall. I hope to highlight how different media portrays the issue differently, and how that affects the public perception of the issue and the solutions that are eventually employed by legislators. 
    We need to understand some economic concepts that relate to the argument. First, we need to understand that the things that are commonly scalped have "inelastic supply". That is to say that it is very hard or even practically impossible to increase the supply of the good(Dhruvi). For the example of concert tickets, once all the seats have been filled, you have to host an entire additional concert to sell more tickets. This means that excess demand can only be eliminated by raising prices. Second, we need to understand that the market equilibrium price, or the most efficient allocation of supply to fill demand, is not always easy to determine for an event host, and that event hosts are incentivized to try and sell out the venue as much as possible.(Matthew J 348-349)(Dhruvi) This creates an incentive for them to be very conservative when estimating which prices people are willing to pay. This combination of economic circumstances is what creates the phenomenon of scalping. Lastly, it is important to understand that the secondary market exists only because of these circumstances, the scalpers themselves have no role in creating them.(Matthew J 350)
    Now that we have a foundational understanding of the economics at play we can begin to explain and understand the economic argument. While each economist is different, and has different goals and beliefs. The underlying economics at least at a surface level would actually view scalping and secondary markets on the whole as a good thing. The entire point of a market is to distribute scarce goods to those most willing and able to pay for those goods. The idea is that the initial market creates an environment of shortage where demand outstrips supply, and that the secondary market serves the purpose of resolving that shortage by allocating those tickets to the customers willing to pay the most for them, increasing the allocative efficiency of the market. We can see this argument both from the Michigan Journal of Economics with the statement “However, with organizers pricing tickets artificially low, there is excess demand in the primary market and thus a welfare loss.”(Dedhi), as well as the The Review of Economic Studies with “The conventional view in economics is that resale is welfare-enhancing, because voluntary trading leads to more efficient allocations.”(Leslie and Sorensen 266) It is important to note that both of these publications mention that there are often negative externalities that can offset this supposed gain in welfare. We see this when The Review of Economic Studies later states “Indeed, we show that resale markets may generate rent-seeking costs that more than offset the welfare gains from reallocation.”, and when the Michigan Journal of Economics later states “welfare does seem to increase, but the distribution of this welfare is still uncertain” These I think really highlight the crux of the economic point of view and the more academic media when talking about ticket scalping. It's not that economists don’t recognize the harm that can be created by such an influential secondary market, and the potential for rent-seeking, scams, or consumer hardship it creates. It's not even that they don’t generally think anything should be done about ticket scalping. It’s that they recognize that the environment is a result of natural market forces, and that there isn’t necessarily a moral angle.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/35034348378@N01/190526045

    I think this contrasts sharply with how most more public facing media addresses the issue. It tends to be far more concerned by the social and personal affects that the phenomena has. There is significant focus put on individuals and how they are effected. We can see this in how the Pulitzer Center article opens with a personal account by a fan missing out because a venue sold out in seconds. We also see significant focus put on the use of automated scripts to buy up tickets quickly, and how this is viewed as unfair. We can see this with statements like “Automated bots allow resellers to acquire the tickets the moment they go on sale, outpacing real fans in a matter of seconds.” from the Pulitzer Center article(Rivera), and statements like “The most common weapon involves using automated programs – known as ‘bots’...” from the article by the Santa Clara Business Law Chronicle(Cummings). There is also a massive amount of attention given to the legality of ticket scalping. It seems that there is significant legal pressure to regulate the industry, and the view that current regulations are ineffective. We can see this in the statements “Despite the public outcry, the lack of effective bot regulation has left artists and fans to fend for themselves.”(Cummings), and “No current legislation addresses the resale practices or speculative ticketing, leaving venues like August Hall to navigate the fallout alone”(Rivera) from these articles as well.
    As you can see the focus is very different. Public facing articles are often very outwardly critical of the actual practice of scalping. Approaching the topic from the perspective that scalping is immoral from the outset, and often using loaded language like “scammer” or “real fan”. Whereas the economic publications usually take a more neutral approach, and even when they are arguing the position of scalping as harmful, tend to be more sympathetic to the scalpers themselves. I think this is for many reasons, but primarily I think it is because of differences in target audience. The economic point of view is often from academic sources, or summaries of academic sources. This naturally means that a higher level of professionalism is expected, but it also means that they are less subject to public scrutiny directly. Whereas if a more public facing article were to overtly defend the practice of scalping, it would likely face significant backlash from its readers. Another reason that public perception feels so strongly about the issue, and something that many articles, both academic and public facing, touch on is the concept of fairness. You could argue that the artificially low prices in the initial market create a shortage, which would deny the tickets to people that wanted to go more and would have been willing to pay a greater amount for them. On the other hand, the higher prices naturally exclude lower income individuals, the speed at which the markets operate often exclude working individuals, and the additional cost isn’t even going to the band or venue that is creating the product in the first place. There are also significant issues with rent-seeking, a far greater danger of scams, and a detriment in consumer satisfaction. Many academic sources even conclude or suggest that this offsets any gains in allocative efficiency(Leslie and Sorensen).
    Overall I believe that this dichotomy is an excellent illustration of a few very important elements in media. Namely how important the audience and perspective can be when discussing a topic and creating media about that topic, how media can influence public opinion, but public opinion can also influence media, and how something that might be theoretically or hypothetically true on paper might differ significantly from the commonly desired outcome. I believe that in the case of scalping, most media is primarily serving public interest, rather than working to inform their audience. It is working to make a complaint and issue know, with the intent of spreading public awareness and influencing policy decisions. I don't see this as inherently bad, but it is important to keep in mind when discussing the topic, and very illustrative of the conflict that can arise between academia and the public opinion.

Works Cited 

 Cummings, Rachel, et al. “Artists and Fans Are Tick(et)Ed off: How Present Federal Action Fails to Address Ticket Scalping Bots .” Santa Clara Business Law Chronicle, 23 Apr. 2025, www.scbc-law.org/post/artists-and-fans-are-tick-et-ed-off-how-present-federal-action-fails-to-address-ticket-scalping-bot. 
 

Dedhia, Dhruvi. “Scalping the System: The Ticket Resale Market.” Michigan Journal of Economics, 8 Jan. 2025, sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/01/08/scalping-the-system-the-ticket-resale-market/. 
 

Leslie, Phillip, and Alan Sorensen. “Resale and Rent-Seeking: An Application to Ticket Markets.” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 81, no. 1 (286), Jan. 2014, pp. 266–300. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=a310523f-272e-38cf-b2d7-bbd53a1e17ae. 
 

Parlow, Matthew J., The Law and Economics of Ticket Scalping (January 15, 2023). Wayne Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4324594 
 

Rivera, Grace. “Digital Age Ticket Scalping Leaves Fans out in the Cold.” Pulitzer Center, 28 May 2025, pulitzercenter.org/stories/digital-age-ticket-scalping-leaves-fans-out-cold.