She, like many artists, doesn’t want to raise the price of her concert tickets even though there is excess demand. By keeping the price low she allows fans who could not afford the market clearing price to see her concerts. She is effectively paying to allow them to enjoy her shows. Does this make her an altruist?
A textbook argument against, but one that is wrong, is the following. At the low price there is a market for ticket scalpers. Ticket scalpers will raise the price to the market-clearing level. Those fans who would sell their tickets to scalpers reveal that they prefer the money to the tickets. And they get the money in exchange for the tickets. Likewise those that buy tickets from scalpers reveal that they value the tickets more than the money. So the secondary market makes everyone better off. So if Miley Cyrus were truly an altruist she would allow this to happen rather than paying a price to prevent it.
The problem with the argument is that it works only because the ticket scalper was unanticipated. If all parties knew that tickets would sell at the market clearing price then the “true fans” that Miley is targeting would never actually get a ticket in the first place and this would make them worse off. They would never get a ticket either because they couldn’t afford it, or if they were originally allocated by lottery, the additional rents would attract more entrants to that lottery.
So we can’t argue that Miley is not an altruist. But we can argue that Miley’s refusal to raise prices is perfectly consistent with profit maximization. Here is a model. A fan’s willingness to pay to see Miley Cyrus in concert is a function of who else is there. It’s more fun if she is singing to screaming pre-teen girls because they add to the experience. It’s no fun if she is singing to a bunch of rich parents and their kids who don’t know how to cut loose.
With this model, no matter how much Miley would like to raise the price to take advantage of excess demand, she cannot. Because the price acts as a screening instrument. Higher prices select a less-desirable composition of the audience, lowering willingness to pay. The profit maximizing price is the maximum she can charge before this selection effect starts to reduce demand. At that price and everywhere below there is excess demand.
This is related to a paper by Simon Board on monopolistic pricing with peer effects.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 21, 2010 at 7:59 am
Alan Gunn
I think this works for baseball, too. I once watched a game from a luxury box, populated by people wearing suits, watching TV between or even during innings, and eating fancy food. Downright weird.
April 21, 2010 at 9:12 am
Robbie Clarken
If there is excess demand, what difference does it make if the fall in demand is caused by price sensitivity or people being dissuaded by the type of audience that will be attending? Miley will still increase revenue up until (and possibly beyond) the price where demand equals the number of seats in the theatre. However charging the price which maximises profit from a single concert may reduce the loyalty of her fans which could decrease long-run profits.
April 21, 2010 at 9:32 am
jeff
good question. with this model there can be a discontinuity in demand. raising the price above some level, say p, prices out the pre-teens. and this means that everybody’s willingness to pay goes down. if it drops below p then there is a discrete drop in demand.
So there is excess demand below p and then too little demand above p.
April 22, 2010 at 7:46 am
Sean
I think a lot of tickets in the primary market are sold to scalpers who have set up an operation to get tickets immediately as they go on sale. Part of the allure of these shows is that virtually no one can get a ticket without paying an extremely high price through a scalper. Going to such a concert is a signaling game between affluent families, and artists stay above the fray and maintain a “noble” image by outsourcing the high prices to scalpers. Mega-stars make more money in contracts than ticket sales. No altruism here.
April 22, 2010 at 11:42 am
Alicia
Miley cyrus’s goal is not max ticket profits but max profits. If she sell tickets at a price that tweens can afford to go as opposed to parents she drives up sale of tee shirts, merchandise, ect . Grandma of tween night here that tween is going to concert and buy tween a tee shirt or another CD. Even long after tween has outgrown the phase.
Additionaly tweens are not perfectly rational consumers. A ticket may be able to be sold for a price that is much higher then they might be willing or able to pay and the tween might not still sell at that price.
Additionally, the coolest kids in any middle school are rarely the richest. Most likely the coolest kid is middle wealth maybe even poor compaired to classmates. By making it affordable to the cool kids there is increased demand for both tickets and mechandize amoung all tween and in particular the rich kids that try and buy popularity