Convenience-free
DEAR New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: Given that you and your office have shown recent interest in ridding the inside-dealing and systemic pricegouging that regularly — and for years — have made the purchase of concert tickets a matter of fleecing the public, check this one out. It’s going on right now as, hopefully, you read this:
You’re likely familiar with the Mets’ majority ownership family that has twice found sensational investment opportunities with Ponzi operators, and has partnered with disreputable businesses and businessmen including Amway, hedgefunder and minority team owner Steve Cohen’s SAC (in a major matter, his company paid a $1.8 billion insider trading settlement) and the minor matter of minority team owner, flowers-byphone magnate James McCann, whose company paid $325,000 to settle allegations of defrauding customers in a credit card scam.
The Wilpon Family is gifted, that way.
Anyway, the Mets, this past Monday through today, announced a come-on titled, “Mets Bring Back Popular ‘No Fees’ Promotion,” sub-headlined, “Club Picks Up Fees on all Tickets Purchased for Balance of the 2016 Regular Season.”
Thus, the Mets are either selling their tickets at a loss — fat chance — or they’re temporarily waiving their usual, highly dubious and seemingly out-of-thin-air tack-on charges, especially “convenience fees.” Why are there any added fees to begin with?
As written here, Monday, a family that recently bought six tickets to a Mets’ game — a gulping $130 each for halfdecent seats — then had $102 in “convenience fees” added to the total. Thus, the Mets’ $810 take became $912.
Funny thing about such forced “convenience fees.” They’re ostensibly charged for fans’ convenience, although they’re never broadly explained, let alone detailed. After all, when did it become an inconvenience to sell us tickets?
Now, if the Mets temporarily have waived those convenience fees, they’re selling the tickets at someone’s in
convenience, right?
And if it’s somehow at fans’ inconvenience, I write on behalf of all of them in telling the Mets that fans gladly will suffer — for the rest of their sports consumer lives — such inconvenience.
Otherwise, those “convenience” charges are pure price-gouging. So from now on, just give fans the option: Would they like to pay convenience charges or prefer to be inconvenienced by no charges?
New York’s teams, Mr. At- torney General, now even charge “printing fees” — they tack on a few bucks to allow customers to print the tickets at home or in their office. It’s their ink, their paper, their time, the teams’ convenience — and customers are charged for it!
Why weren’t those who paid $22 to park at Citi Field before Monday’s Cardinals-Mets game was postponed — just as it was scheduled to start — issued a refund, a credit or, at least, a rain check?
What is a “facility fee?” Why, after buying a ticket to an event, does one have to pay again to enter the facility?
It’s not as if MLB commissioner Rob Manfred gives a rat’s retina about any of this, or I wouldn’t be writing to you.
Why can’t a $75 ticket cost $75? Why does a $130 ticket cost an extra $17 per ticket? Exactly what is the “convenience?” Whose convenience? Why, and why so much? We’d love to know.
In the meantime, the Mets’ “popular” no-fees promotion seems as it smells: The Mets are proud to announce they temporarily are suspending their standard tickets rip-off.
Come on, Mr. Attorney General; help us out. Such squeezing has been going on for years and it’s worsening. So please look into it, and hard — at the Mets’ convenience, of course.