British Theatre Guide Blog

At a time of global financial meltdown, it is good to see the Royal Shakespeare Company taking a stand against the sort of unbridled greed which is the root cause of our financial woes.  The company has been contacting people who have advertised tickets for the sold-out Hamlet on Internet sites, warning them that selling on these tickets will render them void and that the buyer will be refused admission.

That may seem, at first sight, to be harsh, but when we consider that tickets are being offered for as much as £300, it makes perfect sense.  If the original purchaser has a genuine reason for not being able to attend the performance for which (s)he has booked, the tickets can be returned to the box-office for resale and so no one loses and someone else gets the opportunity to see the show.  And if, as I suspect, some of those who are advertising bought tickets for the express prupose of selling them on at a huge profit, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Needless to say the secondary sales market professionals are up in arms.  According to a report in The Stage, Joe Cohen of secondary ticket agent Seatwave has accused the RSC of being out of touch with reality. “Clearly,” he said, “they have got a situation where there is a very high demand for tickets to these events and a limited capacity. In every circumstance, that will create a secondary market. Whether you like it or not, that is going to happen.”

Of course it is: there always have been and there will always be people who will seek to profit from others, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be made easy for them.  Mr Cohen boasts that Seatwave does not mention seat numbers, so there is no way for the RSC to track down tickets sold through the site, and therefore his customers can continue to demand high prices and his company to take, in addition, fees as high as £50 per transaction.

The RSC’s action cannot but be minimally effective, but at least they are trying.

While what Seatwave does is not illegal, for Mr Cohen to justfy what they are doing as using “the forces of a free market” smacks to me of the same philosophy which has brought us to the pretty financial pass in which we find ourselves.

He says that  theatres have “an antiquated view of reality” because of their opposition to the profit-seeking secondary ticket market: I would love to think that recent events have shown that it is his view that is antiquated. Exploitation is always wrong, in no matter what field,  and it would be good to see the law reflecting that by making re-selling tickets except at face value, plus any agent’s charges and the cost of posting the sold-on tickets to the purchaser, illegal.  It is the consumer who would be protected, not the theatres, and well done the RSC for standing up for theatregoers against the touts and profit-seekers.