Ashes price gouging
It’s become fairly well known that security for the first test is very tight. Most people would argue that this is fair enough, but I’m wondering if tight security is covering for a multitude of other sins. People were not allowed to take any bags into the Gabba – and anything left outside in what amounted to ‘lockers’ cost you $5.00 before you could retrieve it. Fans were also shelling out $5.50 for mid-strength beers and paying a fortune for pretty ordinary food from vendors in the ground.
I’m not as sanguine about the War on Terror as John Humphreys, but after this little exercise I’m starting to think that some people – the suppliers of food and beverages at cricket matches, for example - have a vested interest in making things look worse than they are. They can then rip the punters off with impunity.
And if people weren’t told about the $5 locker room/leave your bags at the door charge before hand, I suspect the Trade Practices Act may come into play.
What gives?
20 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012More government spending will not bring back the days when supposedly triple-A-rated mortgage securities could be fashioned out of dodgy loans to unqualified borrowers. Arnold KlingSinclair Davidson
- Farewell Chris Huhne February 4, 2012Chris Huhne, the UK climate change and energy minister who did more than any other minister to bankrupt his country by pursuing the folly of wind power, has resigned. Huhne is a wealthy member of the elite who did not practice what he preached. In other words, Huhne is a hypocrite.Samuel J
- Julia Gillard’s policy to prop up inefficient firms will be counterproductive February 3, 2012In The Australian today (subscription required): “According to Julia Gillard, things are difficult for Australian manufacturing as the resource boom threatens “to hollow out other sections of the economy”.Henry Ergas
- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012
- inCISe
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012For the last three years, I have been arguing that Australia’s failing child protection system is being run in the interests of social service providers and not ‘at risk’ children. In the name of ‘family preservation,’ state community service departments are leaving children for far too long with highly dysfunctional families and only remove them as a last r […]Jeremy Sammut
- RIP democracy says Brendan O’Neill February 3, 2012They say Athens was the birthplace of modern democracy. Well now it is the graveyard of democracy. In the name of saving the euro, Brussels bigwigs have proposed a system of external interference into Greece’s economic affairs and national sovereignty that is so far-reaching it would make Victorian colonialists beam with pride. The EU dream that libera […]Brendan ONeil
- Constitution folly February 2, 2012Australia is once again revisiting the core problems of the failed Indigenous policies championed by the Labor Party. The expert panel for constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution gave their recommendations to the federal government on 19 January. The Gillard government has pledged to hold a constit […]Editor
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012
- IPA news
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012While most Australians were tanning themselves at the beach during their summer breaks, the federal opposition and the...
- Renewable energy rules lose traction January 31, 2012Energy policy in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is spurred by concerns that gas...
- Danger of new thickets of gas regulation January 30, 2012Peter Roberts' "Globalised gas pricing has local costs" (Talking Point, January 30) applauds the commonwealth's National...
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012
Regarding over-priced food & drinks, there is an argument that such an approach is economically efficient.
It would be possible to get the same money from a punter by having cheaper food/drinks and higher ticket prices. The reason to prefer a cheaper ticket & expensive food/drink option is that it allows customers to self-select as to who is willing to pay more.
A cheap bastard can go without beer and have a light lunch while those with more money will pay the extra. That way there is effectively two prices for the cricket: higher price for richer people and lower price for poorer people. It’s called price discrimination and while annoying for customers it isn’t inefficient.
The same logic applies to high popcorn prices at the movies.
Though of course the seller cannot explain things this way as it would be unpopular, so they come up with some bullshit excuse about security.
The unadvertised locker price is a different matter. Btw, currently 4/427 with Ponting on 177. http://www.baggygreen.com.au
Problem is the tickets are pretty dear too. My preferred approach would be to have several different vendors in the ground, so they can compete with each other. You’ve still got a captive market, but the monopoly element would be lessened.
And yes, apparently people weren’t told there would be a cost attached to storing their property. I wonder if the punters will just wear it?
I expect the vendors are required to pay the Gabba a fee for being there or, more likely, a percentage of their take. That’s the usual deal these days. Shops in many shopping centres pay a percentage of their take to the landlord too. It probably wouldn’t help much to have multiple vendors and might lead to no vendors being interested in the business.
Not being an economist I won’t try to analyse it in those terms. However, I reckon you have choices – take some food with you (in your pockets), go without, buy the bare minimum or cop it. Or as I will do, stay away. If enough people did that, the organisers would quickly change their approach.
I agree that the TPA might apply to the locker situation though.
Skepticlawyer, the goal of the Gabba is to make money. The best way to do that is to maintain a monopoly on food/drink sales and price the product at a profit-maximising level. What do they have to gain from allowing competition?
And the tickets might be expensive, but they could always be $10 more.
I bet the government could fix it.
No, the government is too busy being the fun police – confiscating beach balls, stopping Mexican waves and yelling at Pommies for playing ‘Jerusalem’ or – now – ‘the Last Post’ on pocket-sized trumpets.
Can’t get excited about demand being fulfilled at a price people are willing to pay, even if it is begrudgingly.
Boys have done us proud, even bigger smirk on my dial this morning, not many happy faces on the train coming to work this morning.
“Fans were also shelling out $5.50 for mid-strength beers and paying a fortune for pretty ordinary food from vendors in the ground.”
I really doubt this is because of the war on terror. Sport stadiums have done this since forever.
Ah, but the government is never too busy to do more.
Bah, that is the free market at its finest. If you don’t want to pay exorbitant prices for food, eat beforehand or don’t go to the cricket. You don’t have a right to go to the cricket so why whinge about it?
You left out half of the story. If there is a problem then what is the solution? I think Terje has alluded to this also. What is your solution? Legislate so that the Gabba must allow independent food providers? My spidey sense is tingling.
Just a general cricket whinge, Jake. Frankly I think what John says about price discrimination is right. I’d have just preferred people to be honest and say so, rather than use some bullshit excuse derived from the war on terror ™.
The worst thing about cricket is not the pricing, but the pseudo-fascism creeping in to the security protocols.
Barmy Army trumpeter escorted from the ground and had his instrument confiscated.
Barmy Army forcibly made to sit apart from each other so they can’t sing in chorus.
Fans wearing watermelon hats made to dump them because they can be “used as a weapon”.
Just ridiculous.
And this is nothing to do with the free market. Don’t cricket stadiums have to uphold their ends of the contract too? If you hold a valid ticket they can’t kick you out without giving you a refund. Why are they allowed to get away with it time after time?
The fun police really screwed up big time. The Barmy Army trumpeter (the one with the full-size trumpet) had an official permit, and he still got ejected. This along with no Mexican wave, costumes being confiscated etc – the river of bullshit is just getting deeper and deeper.
And I think you’ll find some very widely drafted ‘conditions of entry’ in tiny print on the back of the ticket. And if you buy the ticket, you’ve agreed to the conditions.
Watching cricket is best done from the comfort of the tv room, with a book and an ear tuned to the box. When the crowd goes wild look up, and watch the action replays in slow motion. Then back to the book. With cold beer from the fridge, or a cold sparkling shiraz.
The conditions of entry can’t be “We can eject you for any reason at all”, because that wouldn’t stand up as a valid contract. There has to be consideration on both sides, and consideration subject to the whims of one party is not real consideration.
Now that I think about it they probably ARE allowed to eject anyone at all, but because of what’s printed on the contract, but because they are a licensed venue.
Licensed venues don’t need a reason to eject you. And when they are charging an entry fee, they really should. This is a fault of our legal system because this clause trumps contract law.
Sinclair,
Personally I think cricket is best watched with the TV turned off.
Regards,
Terje.
What rubbish the trumpeter did not have an official permit as was stated above.
I think you may be up that river buddy.
It’s cricket for gods sake. You payed to see it so why whinge becasue you want to do something like play with a beachy ball. Go tot the cricket to watch the cricket. Go to the beach to play with a beachball.
Simple.
Wow John, you must really hate all of those subcontinentals and their rowdy, non-paid for behaviour.
Better lock them up, eh?