FOR SALE: 2 Tickets to GROUNDHOG DAY First Preview (3/16)- Page 3

[KitKatBoy24]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 10:34pm

If anyone in this thread is at the first preview, will you PLEASE take a picture of the two empty seats in Orch row C. I NEED to know if this is real or not Hahahaha 

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 10:44pm

Andy51 said: "I'm not seeing the moral failing on Actor 2's part.  If I win a prize and that prize has a fair market value, what is morally problematic about my seeking to get that value from it?  I might, for example, enter a lottery to win a new car.  Would it be legitimate to complain if I decided to sell the car for its fair market value just because I got it for free?  I don''t think anyone would have a problem with my selling it.  But what distinguishes the case of selling the free ticket from selling the free car?  (I recognize that the theatre has a rule against selling it, and that's sufficient to undermine A2's right to sell the ticket.  But rules and morality don't always converge, and, in any case, the violation of theatre policy doesn't seem to be what is giving rise to all of the indignation here)."

 

The problem is that Groundhog Day gave out those tickets for free in quite a show of generosity. Jujamcyn didn't have to do that. In an age on Broadway where you're going to pay, bare minimum, $70 for a seat at a major house (minus lotteries and the like), getting to see an opening preview for free is a big deal. For a lot of people, this is likely the only way they will be able to see the show. Think about it this way: if someone won the Ham4Ham, and turned around and tried to sell the ticket for a thousand dollars, would that be ok? No, because they would be capitalizing on their sheer dumb luck and someone else's desperation to see a highly in demand performance.

If you won a raffle for a car, the other people who didn't win the raffle would still have the opportunity to purchase another car, because there's plenty of supply to meet demand. In this situation, with the preview tickets, the demand is significantly higher than the supply. If you lost out on the raffle, that's it. You're not going.

And, on top of that, cars are not ephemeral artistic experiences. To compare the two is apples and oranges.

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 10:47pm

[duplicate post]

Updated On: 3/13/17 at 10:47 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 10:55pm

I mean, it would be funny if that post were true, but I sincerely doubt any Jujamcyn official would comment from anything other than an official account- especially because I'm 90% sure they have done so in the past. 

[djoko84]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 11:12pm

I'm not sure it's real either,  but it was a great idea for someone to post that either way.

As for if he should be allowed to do it, if the fine print says you can't then you can't. Plain and simple. 

[¿Macavity?]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 11:14pm

Hahaha! Whooaaaa! I've never seen something like that happen here!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 11:17pm

nrocke731 said: "If anyone in this thread is at the first preview, will you PLEASE take a picture of the two empty seats in Orch row C. I NEED to know if this is real or not Hahahaha "

This will be gold. Yes, please.

Minnie, I can't tell from your previous posts whether you're actually a Jujamcyn insider or not, but thank you for making my day.

[Andy51]

Posted: 3/13/17 at 11:51pm

elephantseye, I appreciate your thoughts, but don't find your arguments especially compelling:

 

"The problem is that Groundhog Day gave out those tickets for free in quite a show of generosity. Jujamcyn didn't have to do that. In an age on Broadway where you're going to pay, bare minimum, $70 for a seat at a major house (minus lotteries and the like), getting to see an opening preview for free is a big deal. For a lot of people, this is likely the only way they will be able to see the show. "

True, but when Oprah gave away free cars to everyone in her audience, that was "quite a show of generosity" and no doubt a big deal for some of the lucky people in the audience.  And winning a car may be the only way some people can get a car.  None of this strikes me as entailing that it is wrong for any given person in that audience to sell the car they won.

"If you won a raffle for a car, the other people who didn't win the raffle would still have the opportunity to purchase another car, because there's plenty of supply to meet demand. In this situation, with the preview tickets, the demand is significantly higher than the supply. If you lost out on the raffle, that's it. You're not going."

There are plenty of tickets available to see this show.  Some people might especially like to see first previews, but being denied that opportunity isn't tantamount to be deprived the opportunity to see virtually the same thing on another day.  Moreover, if I really wanted to see the first preview and can afford A2''s ticket, that's creates an opportunity for me to see the show that I likely would not have otherwise had even if I entered the lottery (since chances are I still would have lost).

"And, on top of that, cars are not ephemeral artistic experiences. To compare the two is apples and oranges."

This seems to me to be a distinction without any significance with respect to the issue at hand.  If I win a vacation in Hawaii, that's a completely different thing than winning a car (with the former being "ephemeral", among other differences).  But that doesn't seem to bear on whether I should be able to sell one winning but not the other.  So why does the fact that one is a car and the other is an artistic experience matter?

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 11:51 PM

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 12:16am

Andy51 said: "There are plenty of tickets available to see this show.  Some people might especially like to see first previews, but being denied that opportunity isn't tantamount to be deprived the opportunity to see virtually the same thing on another day.  Moreover, if I really wanted to see the first preview and can afford A2''s ticket, that's creates an opportunity for me to see the show that I likely would not have otherwise had even if I entered the lottery (since chances are I still would have lost)."

If you genuinely don't see the difference between seeing a new show on its opening preview and seeing a show somewhere else down the line, then I don't really know what to tell you. It's not being deprived of seeing the show, it's being deprived of seeing this show. Theatre, in its nature, is a transitory art form. Every performance is unique. To some, seeing particular performances is important, because that performance is going to be distinct from any other. It's not "virtually the same thing." And, I'm not saying A2 shouldn't have given their ticket to someone else: I'm saying they shouldn't have tried to sell it for over $300. If those seats end up not being filled, I will be just as frustrated that they weren't re-issued.

I consider someone who re-sells a ticket like this in the same camp as scalpers who buy tickets and then re-sell at exorbitant rates. Both parties obtain tickets, through whatever means, and then try and make a quick buck by profiting off of people's desperation to get tickets to sold out performance. A2 was trying to sell their tickets at a 318% profit; how is that different from a scalper? Perhaps they did really intend to go to the performance, but the fact still stands that they were trying to profit off of others' inability to obtain tickets to a big-ticket performance.

I really don't know how to articulate my previous post more eloquently. All I can say is, go back to my Hamilton example. If you'd be OK with someone winning the Ham4Ham and then selling that ticket at market value, which is upwards of $3,000, then clearly we're just on a different page.

[Andy51]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 12:37am

"I really don't know how to articulate my previous post more eloquently. All I can say is, go back to my Hamilton example. If you'd be OK with someone winning the Ham4Ham and then selling that ticket at market value, which is upwards of $3,000, then clearly we're just on a different page."

A2 was seeking to offer the tickets at a price based on what the standard face value would be for the seat at other performances (and, I think it might actually be for less, as I paid $199 each for somewhat less desirable seats next week).  To go back to your Hamilton example, I would not have a problem with persons who won the lottery selling their tickets for the equivalent face value.  And that's all that I see A2 doing here.  It doesn't seem particularly relevant to me that some persons "desperate" for this luxury item lose out.  And, as I said, the sale of the tickets in fact creates an opportunity for some who wouldn't have otherwise been able to go to this performance.

I won't say dogmatically that there is no validity to your position, though I still don't find it compelling for the reasons I've articulated.  But, in any case, I think the reaction on the board to A2s actions is disproportionate to any offense A2 may have committed.

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 12:37 AM

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 12:59am

Andy51 said: "A2 was seeking to offer the tickets at a price based on what the standard face value would be for the seat at other performances (and, I think it might actually be for less, as I paid $199 each for somewhat less desirable seats next week).  To go back to your Hamilton example, I would not have a problem with persons who won the lottery selling their tickets for the equivalent face value.  And that's all that I see A2 doing here.  It doesn't seem particularly relevant to me that some persons "desperate" for this luxury item lose out.  And, as I said, the sale of the tickets in fact creates an opportunity for some who wouldn't have otherwise been able to go to this performance.

I won't say dogmatically that there is no validity to your position, though I still don't find it compelling for the reasons I've articulated.  But, in any case, I think the reaction on the board to A2s actions is disproportionate to any offense A2 may have committed."

 

To reiterate, I would have absolutely zero problem with A2 giving their tickets away to someone for free, thus allowing someone else to see the show. You keep saying that selling tickets creates an "opportunity" for someone who didn't win the lottery. Giving the tickets away would as well, and would maintain the spirit of the original method used to obtain the tickets.

I can see your side of things as well, I suppose, although I disagree with your stance. I don't think response has been disproportionate-- most people have been cheering on the (admittedly unverified) response from Jujamcyn, and anyone who has expressed anger towards A2 has pretty much only done so after it became clear that A2 had been misleading in the original post/claimed that this was due to 'being in a rush', which is clearly untrue.

 

On an only slightly tangental note, what do you think about scalpers? I don't see a huge difference (although I can admit there is at least a slight one) between individual ticket re-sellers and 'professional' scalpers, but given your opposite stance on this matter, I'm curious your thoughts.

[Andy51]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 1:22am

"On an only slightly tangental note, what do you think about scalpers? I don't see a huge difference (although I can admit there is at least a slight one) between individual ticket re-sellers and 'professional' scalpers, but given your opposite stance on this matter, I'm curious your thoughts."

I'll just respond briefly - because i need to go to bed and get rested for snow shoveling tomorrow - that I think there's a significant distinction between persons who buy up tickets and reduce the supply with the intention of profiting from their purchases and persons who buy tickets with the intention of going to a show and then accepting what the market will bear if they can't make the show.  In fact, if the individual asks for less than market value, there is a good chance professional scalpers will grab the tickets and flip them (as I saw happen a number of times with Hamilton tickets on StubHub in the past).  And I'd much rather the individual who bought the tickets with intentions to see the show profit rather than the professional scalper.  Moreover, if I have to sell tickets to a show I really want to see, I may need to profit in order to cover the inflated cost of tickets at a later date and break even.  

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 1:30am

^ Okay, but the fact of the matter was the individual did not PURCHASE the tickets. He was given the tickets through a contest which explicitly stated that the tickets had no value and reselling them was prohibited. The rules were violated therefore the tickets were voided. The case is closed here. 

[Actor2]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:08am

@Andy51: Thank you very much for your comments.

GreasedLightning is correct. The bottom line is that I broke the rules. It was my responsibility to verify what I was and was not allowed to do with these tickets, and I did not. It was and is a stupid, embarrassing, human error. If the tickets being voided is the response of the producing organization, that is, of course, justifiable.

"Being in a rush" is not untrue. As the circumstances prohibiting me from going to the show had just come on my radar, I was moving quickly and did not think to re-read the rules of the contest. I had no intention of pulling something over on anyone (as if that would even be possible on a website where the contest was so highly publicized and so many participated). I quickly glanced at face value for Friday's performance and assigned that value to my tickets as I would in a normal resale situation (giving someone the opportunity to purchase these seats for less than they would at any other performance). 

To respond to someone's query from earlier: Yes. While it was my responsibility to know the terms of the contest on my own, had I been informed by the board that this was against the rules, I would have immediately updated the post and given these tickets away for free.

@elephantseye: That said, I also understand your point on the spirit of the contest and why, even if not explicitly against the rules, this would still leave a bad taste in your mouth (and clearly many others). I applaud the producers of GROUNDHOG DAY for running this contest. It's an incredible thing that they're doing, and I remain extremely disappointed that I cannot be part of it. I in no way meant to do anything that contradicts that sentiment.

At this point, I would just like to know whether or not the tickets have actually been voided (as they are still accessible to me on Ticketmaster). If they have been, I'd like to officially transfer them back to the seller. If this is a hoax and they are still valid, I would like to be able to transfer them to someone for free (knowing that he/she will not be bothered at the performance) so that these two seats do not go empty on what is supposed to be a really exciting night for all.

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 02:08 AM

[Michael19]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 8:27am

I think the permutations made in trying to judge this situation are fascinating but I feel the matter is essentially very simple when you consider "intent".   Theaters have distributed complimentary tickets since the Greeks and the intention has always been to invite the recipient to see the show as a guest.  It was certainly never intended to provide a financial windfall for the recipient by selling the tickets which could very likely have a negative financial affect on the show.  

I don't see this situation as comparable to winning a raffle to a car; assuming that someone purchased a ticket for a car lottery (as opposed to the simple gift of a comp ticket) and won, I feel certain that General Motors would not object and that there would not be any implicit or explicit rule forbidding it.  

Similarly the intent of $10 a Hamilton tickets would not allow for resale; the intention was to provide the heavily discounted ticket to the lottery winner and not to provide the opportunity to profit by it.  

Canceling and reissuing tickets is an extremely simple transaction and I assume that is what would be done by Jujamcyn.  Clearly there would be no problem in finding another person to use the tickets (a lottery loser would be the most reasonable choice) so there is no need for the original recipient to be distraught over the tickets "going to waste".   I think Actor2 should be seriously distraught over having lost his moral compass somewhere along the way and not because the tickets might not be used. 

This really is a clear issue; what was attempted here was really sleazy and shameful and I am glad he was appropriately shamed for it. 

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 08:27 AM

[tsondie21]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 12:22pm

Actor2 said:  I in no way meant to do anything that contradicts that sentiment.

"

Except you know, trying to make $300 off of an extremely generous giveaway. You know the solution if you couldn't go would be to contact the box office and say you can't go, or give away the tickets here or elsewhere. You directly contradicted the sentiment of giving away the first preview for free. I don't think there is anything that could have contradicted the sentiment any more. This isn't about whether you read the terms and conditions, it's your lack of morality in this situation. 

I wanted to go to this show super bad. My girlfriend and I are both huge Tim Minchin fans and loved Matilda. We both entered and lost, and that was the end of that. You won and instead of passing on the generosity, you tried to make a quick buck. Cool! 

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 12:22 PM

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 4:07pm

wonderfulwizard11 said: "I mean, it would be funny if that post were true, but I sincerely doubt any Jujamcyn official would comment from anything other than an official account- especially because I'm 90% sure they have done so in the past. "

 

It would be relatively easy for them to invalidate the tickets in the scanners for those known to be selling them (here, stubhub) and allow the ticketholders to enter, but only after producing ID that matches the names on the contest entry. Some lotteries do something similar, but obviously they can't check id for the entire house that night.

As for me, lost the lottery, but seeing it Friday night.

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 04:07 PM

[sondmon]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 9:00pm

This made the news-http://observer.com/2017/03/broadway-groundhog-day-musical-ticket-scam/

[Whateverjsays]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 9:27pm

This is the best thread ive ever read. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 10:13pm

sondmon said: "This made the news-http://observer.com/2017/03/broadway-groundhog-day-musical-ticket-scam/"

 

Disappointing that it doesn't appear Bonazzo confirmed whether MinnieFay was part of Jujamcyn or not.

[Willie4316]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 10:17pm

The greatest thread to exist for quite some time. This got bumped up to nearly the top of my must sees for this season. 

[djoko84]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 10:44pm

I would've liked it if the author of the article tried getting a comment from Jujamcyn to see if the tickets were really voided.

[BIG BALONEY]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 9:24am

Actor 2 will be taken outside the city gates on the Idea of March and stoned to death by God fearing  theatre adicts. For they are without sin.

[Trish2]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 10:33am

Poor Andy Karl. It looks like he won't be the only star of the first preview. He'll be sharing the spotlight with Seats 109 & 110 in row B of the Orchestra.

Anyway you spin it, the producers as well as BWW are getting gobs of attention on social media. Thanks to a foolish actor or, even better, a "possible" publicity trick, it's the kind of PR gimmick only the great David Merrick would be proud. #ShareTheWealth

[zzdawgg]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 12:15pm

There is simply no excuse for trying to make money off of these tickets. I really hope these tickets were actually voided.