返回档案库

案例库 · 广告与公关 · 市场决策 · 2023

这条还没译成中文,下面是英文原文。

TicketNetwork's fees hit 53% and its discounts no one could reach — fined $825K

Nov 2023: TicketNetwork paid Canada $825,000 — mandatory fees added up to 53%, its 'discounts' were unobtainable, and its URLs posed as box offices.

TicketNetwork Inc. · 2023-11

怎么回事

TicketNetwork resells tickets to concerts, sport, theatre and entertainment events. A Competition Bureau investigation concluded it advertised prices no buyer could pay: mandatory fees added more than 38% on average — and over 53% in some cases — to the listed price. It also promoted 'discounted' tickets consumers could never actually purchase, because the same mandatory fees landed on top of the advertised discount, making the discount itself unobtainable.

The deception reached beyond the price. Tickets to Canadian events were advertised in American dollars without clearly identifying the currency, and the company's search-engine ads and website URLs gave the false impression that buyers were dealing with the venue, the artist or the team — not a reseller. On 21 November 2023 TicketNetwork signed a consent agreement: an $825,000 penalty, a commitment to stop drip pricing and unobtainable discounts, to identify currency clearly, to stop misrepresenting resale sites as primary vendors, and to run a compliance program.

TicketNetwork was the third ticketing consent agreement — after Ticketmaster's $4.5 million in 2019 and StubHub's $1.3 million in 2020 — and ticketing penalties had by then passed $6 million. Commissioner Matthew Boswell's standard: resellers must stop misrepresenting that they are primary vendors when they are not.

为什么会这样

  • Fees averaged 38% and ran past 53%: the listed price was a fraction of the price paid.
  • A discount that mandatory fees erase is not a discount — the Bureau named it unobtainable.
  • URLs and search ads posed as venues and artists: the deception reached the address bar.
代价$825K penalty; pricing and URLs corrected代价高昂

教训

Every surface of a funnel can mislead — fees, unobtainable discounts, unmarked currency, URLs posing as a box office. The Bureau fined them as one claim: to the buyer they were one claim.

后来呢

The consent agreement was registered with the Competition Tribunal with the force of a court order. Drip pricing had become an express provision of the Competition Act the year before; ticketing was the provision's proving ground.

资料来源

发现哪里写错了?告诉我们。

Comments · 0

    登录 后就能评论。

    类似的案例

    这家公司栽倒的地方,别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →