Archive for February 26, 2012

Technology will help Metropolitan Opera charge more for tickets

Different people place different values on good and services, but merchants, traditionally, have had no way to charge each customer exactly the value he places on each product. The merchant thus sets one price that discourages some customers (the ones who place relatively little value on a product) from purchasing anything but charges other customers (the ones who really value a product) way less than they’d actually be willing to pay.

Initial efforts to charge different prices to different customers based upon their willingness to pay were crude programs like senior discounts. But technology allows for much better price variation, as the airlines have demonstrated for decades, soaking business travelers who don’t care much about costs while offering good deals to cheapskate leisure travelers with flexible travel dates and destination preferences.

Broadway theaters recently got into the act with flexible ticket pricing that found ways to charge more for show enthusiasts and less to marginal customers, and the system has proven a big success. Average ticket prices climbed AND tickets sold increased. Now, the Metropolitan Opera is introducing variable pricing, so you should expect ticket prices there to rise as well.

Single ticket prices will increase on average by 7.6% and subscriptions by 4.2%, opera general manager Peter Gelb said in an interview discussing the 2012-13 season. More than a third of the Met’s 3,800 seats will be available for less than $100, he said, and prices for the least-expensive tickets will drop to $20 from $25.

I’m not sure if this move will be good or bad for the total pleasure experienced by opera goers. Higher prices for those who would have gone before should make them less happy, but if the move does attract people who would not otherwise have gone to the opera, that should tend to make life better for those people.

That said, the overall trend of these variable pricing schemes must be to reduce consumer welfare. The ultimate goal is to charge each consumer the very highest price that makes buying the product more enjoyable than keeping the cash. That means a world in which we’re almost, but not quite, indifferent to all our purchases rather than overjoyed with them.

(Note: this pricing strategy only works in markets that are not competitive. People with leaky pipes might get $1,000 of value from a wrench that can fix the problem but wrenchmakers will never charge that much because competitors can sell identical wrenches for less. If you want to see whatever show the Met is staging, you cannot see an identical show staged by a competitor.)

Related Posts:

Review: The Met’s new American Wing

Short review: Excellent renovations have really improved the American galleries but they’ve probably made things worse for visitors overall.

Long Review: How, exactly, do excellent renovations make things worse for visitors overall? Read on.

The Met has spent four years and $100 million overhauling most of its American Wing. Everything is better: the lighting, the labeling, the flow.

Everything. The old American Wing had been a bit of a maze, largely because of several expansions built around — but never fully integrated with — the original core.

Similar types of display objects, rather than being clustered together and ordered by some logical principle were spread all over the place. The paintings were on two floors and many of the best works hung in the staircase. There were small sets of stairs everyplace as you crossed between the original building and the additions.

The odd stairs remain in a few places, but everything else has been fixed. The improvement is particularly big for the paintings, which are now displayed on one floor, in a logical order, and with the best works nicely highlighted.

A trip to the new American wing is more coherent and informative, though a bit crowded.

Nonetheless, I still think museum goers are worse off for this renovation, because of that cost figure I mentioned. $100 million is a ton of money, enough, if well used, to build the current American Wing from scratch and acquire a few things to put in it. Even when you consider the cost of moving lots of walls and installing an elevator, I cannot possibly imagine how the renovations cost more than $10 million.

Did Met officials line their pockets with $90 million? Presumably not, but they certainly wasted tens of millions of dollars through some unknowable combination of incompetence and laziness. Heck, perhaps there was some corruption.

Granted, patrons could still come out ahead even if the Met really did pay ten times to much for the work — if the renovations made the experience dramatically better. But they don’t. They’re evolutionary, not revolutionary. I didn’t fly into a rage when I had to climb a flight of stairs to see the rest of the paintings.

The real question, I suppose, is whether I’d rather have these improvements or $100 million worth of new acquisitions, and the answer is easy. $10 million buys you a great work of art. $50 million buys you something so good that people will travel to see it. I’d rather have ten new great works or two new masterpieces. I think most art lovers would agree.

The other problem with the costs is that the museum does not bear them on its own, with money it magically prints up. It asks you for more money at the door and it asks the city for more money and it asks donors for more charity. This is money that could be going to research disease cures but instead it’s going to move walls. That’s hard to justify, particularly when you’re paying ten times too much to do it.

That said, you cannot undue the changes, so you might as well enjoy them.

The American Wing always merited a visit from anyone who likes art. It may be the best section of the best museum in the western hemisphere. But it’s even better now.

 

Related Posts: