Talk:Stubhub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Source? Cite? Name? Anything? 2 Disputed edit 3 "Ax-grinding" 4 Bill Analysis 5 Fast rewrite 6 Better rewrite 7 POV-check

[edit] Source? Cite? Name? Anything?

Please:

• Avoid ad homimem attacks.
• Avoid multiple reverts without discussion.
• Don't vandalise other user's pages.
• Don't blank other people's comments/discussion.
• Avoid original research. What you're saying is your own coinage, with no source or reference or support for it. If what you say is true and encyclopedic, please back it up.

Ben-w 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not my own coinage. That is why you are trying to suppress it!

You stop vandalising!!!

(above unsigned comments by User:Brian02139

If it is not your own coinage, please provide a source or citation. Otherwise, it looks like original research. Ben-w 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence: http://www.adotas.com/2006/04/adtech-conversations-dre-madden-marketing-manager-strategy-new-development-stubhubcom/

Brian02139 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to be evidence of? That some woman works in their marketing department? What? Ben-w 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed edit

Brian, the edit you keep making is potentially damaging/defamatory. You must find a reliable source who says exactly what you are saying, or else leave it out. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't post the allegations on this talk page or anywhere else on this website until you have a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a source;

[1] Brian02139

Where does that source say what you've been adding to the page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ax-grinding"

The disputed edit is at least partially true but it is not well written and not NPOV. It does not provide a fair description of what the bill is, for one thing. Adding a controversy section is just lazy. You can write a good article about their business model (providing centralized ticket reselling services without the uncertainty of the guy on the corner), note that it runs afoul of scalping laws in many states (that limit reselling premiums) and note that they are involved in lobbying Florida to change the law; while keeping it NPOV. Thatcher131 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the least, the cited source is an editorial... it should at least be cited to the Sun-Sentinel article which the editorial cites [2]. In addition, I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic; does every act of the Florida legislature (or any other state or locality) bear mention on the page of whoever is affected by it or benefits from it? Maybe this should wait to see if Jeb signs off on it or not? KWH 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Analysis

(I know this is WP:OR but maybe it lends some insight)

I read the bill in question; the language is rather difficult, but the operative provisions of the bill appear to be:

• Nobody can buy more tickets with intent to resell than the 'maximum limit' set by the original ticket seller.
• Resale price is still limited to original price + $1 for:
  • Train/plane/bus tickets
  • Multi-day or multi-event tickets to amusement parks, etc.
  • All other tickets offered through a website
• The reseller is exempt from the +$1 rule IF:
  • The reseller is a travel agency selling train/plane/bus tickets (etc)
  • The reseller is a website, and the website is authorized by the original ticket seller
  • The reseller is a website, and they must:
    • Offer refunds if the event is cancelled, the ticket is not delivered to the purchaser, or the purchaser is denied admission to the event (unless it is their fault)
    • Make clear that they are not the original seller
• Nobody can buy or sell tickets on the venue property without consent of the property owner
• Everyone must pay their sales taxes.

So actually, my take on it is that it places the bulk of control in the hand of the original ticket seller - if they don't want their tickets massively scalped, they can set a limit of 3-4 tickets per person. If they don't set a limit, then the advantage actually belongs to offline ticket agencies - they're not restricted on one-day event tickets (concerts and sports) whatsoever, and don't need to even offer a refund. Websites are now able to 'scalp', or charge more than the +$1, but only if they take on the responsibility of offering a refund, so they might be at a comparative disadvantage. KWH 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the two advantages for the State of Florida appear to be:

• The state pushes off enforcement of the provision to the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, so it becomes something which people file a civil case over, rather than criminal enforcement.
• The state now gets sales tax on the website (and other) transactions. KWH 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the details of the proposed Florida law are encyclopedic for this article, but it should certainly say that Stubhub's business model is to legitimize scalping and that they have been lobbying state legislatures to change or repeal scalping laws. It seems like one editor wants it to say nothing and the other wants a highly POV version (that still doesn't clerly explain what is going on). Thatcher131 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast rewrite

I did a fast rewrite. Hopefully it will stick for a while. I can get a better source for the Sun Sentinel article maybe; its on a pay archive now. And other assertions in the article need specific footnote to the references. Maybe tomorrow if no one does it first. Thatcher131 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better rewrite

I took KWH's version and added more business info from reading the sources. Added proper footnotes to the sources. Thatcher131 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check

Since the article keeps getting reverted to a stub, I posted this POV-check with two questions.

• Should the article include additional information added by Flmarinas (talk) such as the fact that in Boston, some scalpers were sued, which might hurt stubhub's business (Flmarinas seems to want to add excess negative information about scalping).

• Should the article be stubbed back, as Ben-w (talk • contribs) and 74.0.120.234 (talk • contribs) want, so that it doesn't even describe the company's business.? Thanks. Thatcher131 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, The article shouldn't be stubbed back!!

I think you did a very good job with the article. It is very fair and balanced.

The Boston article shows how this website is furiously lobbying for law changes because it's business model is at risk. The Florida article shows that the leisure and entertainment industries are opposed to the bill.

It is important to keep the article the way you wrote it. Thanks, Flmarinas 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Boston article doesn't say anything about Stubhub. KWH 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I took it back out. By the way, the article on ticket scalping is pretty dreadful. If Flmarinas is interested in the topic there's a lot of work needed there. Obviously I don't think the article should be stubbed either, but I want to get some demonstration of that in case "somone" stubs it again. Thatcher131 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)