As a student of economics, I have keenly observed the progress of the London Olympics 2012 and was greatly impressed by the originality of the opening ceremony. Like every edition of the games, it has been spectacular and a showcase of the economic power of the host nation. But the reason that the games are held is to ensure that the competition begins and this has had less than spectacular results over the last three days. viewers on television were inevitably struck by the low attendance to the events yesterday. Understandably, the press called public attention to this fact since a number of people were unable to get tickets to attend events that were now being played in empty arenas. If nothing else, the empty stadiums led to the declaration that a number of tickets were issued to "accredited Olympics family members", in reference to individuals affiliated to Olympics movement who failed to attend sessions for which they had taken up tickets. A host of solutions are being floated out as covered by the Daily telegraph here.
This state of affairs reveals to me that the Olympics movement is particularly impervious to economics reason for two reasons. First, it chose a very poor mechanism for distributing tickets and thereby denied genuine spectators the opportunity to watch events that they valued. The lottery system used in assigning seats was purported to ensure that coverage would go out as widely as is possible but it instead ensured that individuals with connections "the family" got tickets that they obviously did not value at all. Secondly, the Olympics movement persists in using sub-optimal mechanisms because it is a monopoly and prices its events without competition.
To my mind, because the commercial rights to the games are aggressively marketed and defended, it is pretentious to cite the need to ensure proper spread of tickets by resorting to the ballot system. Its far better to auction tickets and use the funds to support broadcast and other ways for public to view the games and make it clear that this is the most efficient mechanism. There would be less angst if people failed to get tickets due to their unwillingness to pay auction prices because the people who win those tickets would not stay out of the events after having bought the tickets. So I award a grade "A" for the opening but a plain "D" for the game around tickets that leaves the stadiums empty.
This state of affairs reveals to me that the Olympics movement is particularly impervious to economics reason for two reasons. First, it chose a very poor mechanism for distributing tickets and thereby denied genuine spectators the opportunity to watch events that they valued. The lottery system used in assigning seats was purported to ensure that coverage would go out as widely as is possible but it instead ensured that individuals with connections "the family" got tickets that they obviously did not value at all. Secondly, the Olympics movement persists in using sub-optimal mechanisms because it is a monopoly and prices its events without competition.
To my mind, because the commercial rights to the games are aggressively marketed and defended, it is pretentious to cite the need to ensure proper spread of tickets by resorting to the ballot system. Its far better to auction tickets and use the funds to support broadcast and other ways for public to view the games and make it clear that this is the most efficient mechanism. There would be less angst if people failed to get tickets due to their unwillingness to pay auction prices because the people who win those tickets would not stay out of the events after having bought the tickets. So I award a grade "A" for the opening but a plain "D" for the game around tickets that leaves the stadiums empty.
No comments:
Post a Comment