Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
EARLIER THIS WEEK Taylor Swift and Ticketmaster announced that she would be using Ticketmaster’s ‘Verified Fan’ programme that supposedly keeps tickets from the hands of resellers.
The Verified Fan programme, which is currently only operating in the United States, requires fans to register in advance of ticket releases. After this, they receive a code that allows them to buy tickets, but not everyone is eligible to register.
Ticketmaster uses “proprietary data science technology” to try determine whether potential buyers are likely to be scalpers or fans – which presumably means no Swift tickets for Phish heads unless an algorithm determines they’re probably parents – and only approves the latter.
A couple of hours before tickets go on sale, Ticketmaster sends a text message with a code to some consumers – not everyone who qualifies gets one – who enter it to buy tickets much as they otherwise would.
Aside from concerns about data collection, this is problematic in another couple of ways.
Firstly, fans have been told that they can ‘maximise their chances’ of being selected for tickets by registering on TaylorSwift.com, buying her merchandise and picking a city in which they want to the singer to perform.
This means that fans are being backed into a corner, where they are feeling as if they have to buy merchandise and share personal data such as their location with the singer’s website (which is obviously beneficial to her and her label) in order to get concert tickets.
As if trying to get concert tickets for a child with huge expectations isn’t one of the most stressful things a parent can do already.
The programme has yet to roll out in Ireland, but it’s probably only a matter of time, considering the extra steps that Ed Sheeran is taking to stop touting for his Irish concerts.
Secondly, fans can’t even be certain that this will guarantee them tickets. Billboard’s Robert Levine who explains the Verified Fan programme shared his personal experience purchasing tickets for the Broadway show Hamilton.
Levine spent 30 minutes being told that excellent seats for the show were available but was met with an error message every time he attempted to purchase them.
He finally came back to the computer two hours later to try again and had to opt for below-average group of seats three months after the original date he attempted to buy tickets for and *finally* got the tickets.
As we all know, unlike Broadway shows that run for months, there’s very little flexibility for concert tickets.
Consequence of Sound pointed out that express delivery on the CD, which some people will ultimately opt for, brings the cost of a single CD up to $63.
They sum it up with “Basically, give Swift a lot of extra money or join her publicity team to ensure you have not a ticket – but simply a place in line for the opportunity to purchase a ticket.”
Finally, they point out that fans are able to purchase Swift’s album ‘up to 13 times’ to receive boosts on their position in line.
Written by Kelly Earley and posted on DailyEdge.ie
[image alt="" src="http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2017/08/img2-thejournal-644.png" width="600" height="115" credit-url="" credit-source="" credit-via="" credit-via-url="" wp-id="wp-image-3573427" class="alignnone" /end]
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe I’m getting old but I have no idea what that article was about
It’s essentially about two guys who made a company based on their popularity online and tried to trademark the word ‘reacts’ among other things. They wanted the ability to remove content which looked anything like theirs (or not, they had a go at Ellen DeGeneres for a scene which only vaguely alluded to their work) and ultimately the right to sue anyone who wouldn’t abide by their wishes.
Essentially, it’s about what happens when trademark laws are taken to a ridiculous extreme.
But wtf is a ‘react video’? Jaysus I’m only 27 and I haven’t a clue…
It’s basically people filming their reactions to things. Usually YouTube videos. How anyone thinks they could trademark that is beyond me
That’s what I thought, but then I thought, Na no one would watch something so utterly mundane…
I actually heard from somebody I watch on YouTube sometimes, a ranter that the Fine Bros went around copyright claiming videos that even had the word “react” or “reaction” in them and some of these videos were from as long ago as 2007! Its absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
Two arrogant p***ks react to being taken down a peg or two.
Sorry, you can’t take back being douchebags. I hope your subscriber exodus continues.
I can’t blame someone for wanting to protect their work, although the Fine Brothers were not looking to do that. They were looking for the freedom to monetise an entire style of video.
It would be like Disney trying to protect the Star Wars trademark (fully understandable) but also looking for the freedom to sue any other film company that produced something even remotely like it.
One of the problems is their videos are all based off of other people’s content. They make money using other people’s videos and try to trademark something incredibly vague. They certainly were not the first to come up with the concept of a reaction video either.
Prohibited ave become too greedy. They already make a lot from their videos so why attempt to milk more…money makes the world go round I guess…
People have *
I’m not sure if she was successful or not but Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the words, “that’s hot”. Ridiculous!
The great thing about YouTube is that it’s not like television, in the sense that you don’t need a massive team of people to create something. Anyone with a webcam and a computer can make a YouTube video and trying to licence what essentially is a whole genre of videos on the website will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.
They are nothing without the content other people created.
Exactly Seth.
Exactly! I’m so relieved that they decided not to go ahead. this kind of legalisation of YouTube video formats would have had a drastic effect on how video sharing works and would destroy the notion of the freedom of the Internet. there’s space for anyone to express themselves on YouTube, and this move would have damaged that
Alice I’m surprised they didn’t expect this kind of backlash after what happened to Sam Pepper. And anyway, if you get caught stealing someones idea/video on youtube you get dragged in the comments lmao
very true! there’s a level of courtesy that you follow and if you don’t- you get called out! I’m so relieved it’s been reversed that could have been catastrophic
“YouTube Stars” – what is wrong with this statement? :-)
TV Stars, Movie Stars, no difference really
Well said @Seth.
Hey ho
Two knobs who make videos featuring lots of pretentious people playing up for the camera.
They wanted to trademark their series, as in the kids react and elders reacts!
have your say