I haven't read the full paper yet, just the abstract, but the abstract talks about ticket window prices. Do they analyse the prices actually paid by the average attendee, which includes prices paid to scalpers? Or am I misunderstanding the term "ticket window"?
As a lay person, my gut asks: if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?
Unclear--the source describes the price variable as the "weighted average of seats normally available to the public" [1]. (It's also from 1992.)
> if scalpers don't cause attenders to pay more overall, then why do they exist?
Same reason underwriters do: they reduce risk for the seller and increase convenience for the buyer. You can absolutely have a situation where a minority of buyers pay more, thereby allowing the remaining 90% to pay less.
The point is they can get their pay-out while the venue/artist and consumers win. Scalper gets paid. Venue and artist get stability. Consumer who buys from the scalper gets availability. And the other 90% of consumers get cheaper prices.
Not true.
About "10% of [performing arts] tickets sold in the primary market are later re-sold by ticket scalpers," increasing to "20-30% of top-tiered seats" [1]. Banning scalping increases attendance but results in "fewer distinct productions...shown in metropolitan areas or states that require ticket resellers to be licensed or that prohibit resale above face value."
Empirically, markets with scalpers have lower ticket prices [2], though this has been studied more in sports than the performing arts. Which makes sense. Scalpers de facto underwrite the seller's risk.
[1] https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Economics/Chi...
[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/27698042