Monday, 27 February 2017

Things I'm pretty certain aren't mathematically possible and I wish people would stop asking for (1)

1) A report linking payment types to shows.

Which boils down to: directly linking individual payments to individual tickets.

Oh, I understand why a finance dept might ask for it. Especially a finance dept that usually deals with invoices and BACS payments. This ticket has been bought, so it must have been paid for. Which payment paid for it?

But.

It is possible to have a mixed basket with split payments.

I know that it hardly ever happens, but it's designed into the system, and I can't take it out, and I can't do anything that's fundamentally incompatible with the fact that you can have tickets for Show A and Show B in an order, and pay for them with Payment 1 and Payment 2 of different payment types.

If I have an order with 2 tickets for Sooty in Space (£10 each) and 2 tickets for The Importance of Being Ernest (£15 each) totalling £50, and it's been paid for £5 gift voucher and the balance (£45) by card, there isn't an easy answer to the question "Which ticket was paid for by the gift voucher?".

The only sensible thing to do is split the gift voucher between the shows based on face value; £2 to Sooty and £3 to Importance. So the £45 of card payments is assigned £18 sooty and £27 Importance.

Suppose now we cancel the Sooty tickets and refund £20 back to the card.

Suddenly the proportions have changed. The £2 of gift voucher that was paying for Sooty is now paying for Importance tickets: our original assignment must have been incorrect, and we now need to go back and change it to £20 card against Sooty (so that we can refund it) and £25 card + £5 gift voucher against Importance.

The means that that amount of money in the "credit card income" column for Importance has gone DOWN, as the result of an unrelated cancellation. No Importance tickets have been cancelled, and the promoter of Importance might be very strict about not allowing refunds, and is going to need a lot of explanation as to why their numbers have retrospectively changed.

The only way I can see to actually make this work is to treat every single ticket like its own account ledger. There's a £10 debit on the Sooty ticket and then a £9 card credit and a £1 gift voucher credit, and then for the refund there's a £1 gift voucher debit and a £1 card credit (matching with the Importance ticket, so the first phase of doing a refund is doing an internal transfer between one ticket and another) and THEN a £10 card debit and a £10 cancellation credit, leaving the ticket's account balanced a £0. I've seen a bunch of ticketing system databases in the course of doing data conversions, and no one does anything as mental as this.


How does everyone else handle this? Should I just stop whinging and just split every payment down to every ticket?




Thursday, 5 November 2015

Ticket Ballot

Finally got to use the system to run a ticket ballot. Everything went according to plan!

It's a nice combination of lots of small bits of already existing functionality that come together to be more than the sum of their parts.

Firstly, we create a Marketing List signup, that allows people to join a specific marketing list. This functionality was motivated by Waiting Lists - and general enquiry forms - but also works for this, for no extra development effort.

So we make the signup available, and the (lots) of people sign up to the list, creating accounts with passwords, addresses, etc, and using the existing Custom Form functionality to supply additional details.

We give them time to sign up - and then we close the ballot.

Next, we dedupe the list of signups - by name, email address, postal address, and additional id info - using existing functionality, so people with multiple email accounts don't get multiple chances.

Then, we copy the signup list, and use the existing "Random Filter" marketing tool to draw N names from the signup. We then use the existing "Add User Status" marketing tool to give these people a "Ballot Winner" membership status for the next day... and then extract the names and send them an email informing them that they've won the chance to buy a ticket. The ticket product, of course, is on sale only to people with the "Ballot Winner" status, so those people can buy tickets and no one else can.

At the end of that period, if there are any unsold tickets, we draw more names, and repeat the process - copy the signup list, remove the people who won in round 1, and then filter down again.


What I've learned from this first go is:
1. The click through rate is surprisingly low, and if you have enough tickets for N orders, and you only draw N names, you'll need to do several rounds.

2. Rather than insisting that everyone who wins the ballot gets a chance to buy a ticket, it might be more efficient - especially if time is limited - to draw 2N names, and change the communication so that it's clear that they aren't *guaranteed* a ticket - there's still competition, it's just much more civilized, with 2N people after 2N tickets, rather than 1000N people after N ticket.

3. It's much, much calmer than throwing a few tickets on sale and hoping that the servers don't melt.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

On Being Sold Out

The plan is to further improve our queue (which stood up to the load once the stored procedure was fixed) rather than cut over to a 3rd party stand-alone solution, but here's a useful and much more detailed breakdown of the difficulty of announcing a show as "Sold Out":

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ticketing-onsales-can-you-sell-out-2-minutes-learn-why-sodemann

from the CEO of https://queue-it.com/

Monday, 22 June 2015

YMMBT On Sale Postmortem

Firstly: apologies if you're reading this because you lost your place in the queue. Whilst we found and fixed the problem quickly, it wasn't quickly enough to stop a lot of sessions timing out. It was more of a scrum than a queue, and the difference between position 1 and 3000 might only have been a fraction of a second, but we appreciate it's frustrating and disheartening to see a nice low number turn into a horrible big one.

What happened to the queue?

There was a problem with the stored procedure that calculated where you were in the queue. It previously read

UPDATE UserSessions SET SessionLastActivity = GETDATE(), SessionExpires = DATEADD(mi, 5, GETDATE()) WHERE SessionId = @SessionId

SELECT 
SessionId, 
IsQueued, 
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM UserSessions AS USother WHERE IsQueued = 1 AND USother.SessionStart < USthis.SessionStart) AS AheadInQueue, 
(SELECT SettingValue FROM SettingValues WHERE SettingGroupId = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000' AND SettingName = 'QueueMessage') AS Message
FROM UserSessions  AS USthis WHERE USthis.SessionId = @SessionId

and we were unable to generate sufficient load to make this go wrong in testing, but with over 10,000 real people hammering it it started to generate deadlocks. That's when so many people are trying to read and write to the same bit of the database at the same time that it gets stuck. The fix was simple: it now reads

UPDATE UserSessions SET SessionLastActivity = GETDATE(), SessionExpires = DATEADD(mi, 5, GETDATE()) WHERE SessionId = @SessionId

SELECT 
SessionId, 
IsQueued, 
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM UserSessions  WITH (NOLOCK) AS USother WHERE IsQueued = 1 AND USother.SessionStart < USthis.SessionStart) AS AheadInQueue, 
(SELECT SettingValue FROM SettingValues WHERE SettingGroupId = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000' AND SettingName = 'QueueMessage') AS Message
FROM UserSessions  AS USthis WITH (NOLOCK) WHERE USthis.SessionId = @SessionId

which avoids locking the UserSessions table whilst counting up how many people are ahead of you in the queue.

Unfortunately, diagnosing the problem took just over 5 minutes. And the SessionExpiry, which is updated every time the queue is checked, is set to 5 minutes from now - if someone joins the queue and then decides not to wait and closes their browser, we don't want them hanging around blocking everyone else for ages.

So if the problem had been resolved within 5 minutes, everyone's queue position would have been unchanged - which is what we expected when we told people to refresh. As it was, sessions which hadn't managed to contact the server and hadn't updated their expiry time for 5 minutes expired, which means their place in the queue was lost (and refreshing or not would have made no difference). As soon as we noticed this happening we extended the SessionExpiry for all the remaining sessions whilst we worked on the problem, but by then we'd already lost a chunk of the first sessions.

Once the queue was fixed, the rest of the system bore the load reasonable well.We peaked at letting 500 simultaneous sessions onto the site - which was unnecessary. Even if the site could have supported everyone who was interested browsing tickets all at once, it would have been a terrible experience; every time you looked at a ticket someone would have snatched it out from under you, and actually getting something in the basket would be luck for a few, and frustration for everyone else. For future on sales with this type of product (lots of small distinct blocks) we think we'll limit the number of simultaneous users to 100 or so; we can handle more, but expect it would feel better if less crowded.

Sold Out?

One of the things that proved difficult on the night - and contentious afterwards - was deciding when to tell everyone the show had sold out. The problem is that some people get past the queue, get tickets in their basket, get as far as the credit card page, and then decide that perhaps they can't afford it after all, so they close their browser and walk away. We give people a bit longer before the session times out once people are on the credit card page, which means that there can be quite a long period during which not all tickets have been sold - so we aren't "sold out" - but no tickets are available, so there's very little point in people sticking around. It's hard to communicate this in 140 characters or less, though. "There are no more tickets available right now but some are stuck in baskets and might become available in an hour or two when they time out, but we can't say for sure" is an accurate but not a very punchy message.

What next?

The main problem - reading the queue position causing deadlocks - is fixed.

We'll leave the site at 100 simultaneous users, so that they can browse the performances and times without someone nabbing the tickets out from under them.

We're going to move the IsQueued status out of the main UserSessions table and into a separate table to join to at the earliest opportunity, and change how we calculate the queue position so that it's easier on the database server.

We are considering not displaying the queue position at all. Not only is it relatively expensive to calculate, it makes people feel worse when things go wrong - or even, when things go right. Just being told that you're an a queue and not knowing if an internal hiccup shuffles your position would be much less upsetting than seeing your number go from 600 to 9000. The very term "Queue" implies an orderly line, but when huge numbers of people arrive at the site at the same moment, it's not really about who got there first; getting a lower queue position is a matter of fractions of a second and pure luck.

Whether we display the queue position or not, we're going to work with YMBBT to rethink the communications, how we give people information on their chances of getting tickets, and perhaps define criteria to trigger messages ("Only N tickets left", "No more tickets are available - some are in baskets", "All tickets actually sold") so we don't have to decide on the fly.

We're also going to improve the layout of the queue page, moving the dynamic message up to the top of the page, move some of the currently hard-coded text "Hang in there" into the message so we can get rid of it when no longer appropriate, and add the facility to redirect everyone en-masse to an arbitrary URL once the tickets have sold out (or nearly sold out).

When an error occurred, the queue position was displayed as "999", which was just an error place holder, and not a real queue position. 999 is far too low for a placeholder, and it's been updated to 999999.

And finally, we will continue to suggest and encourage the use of ticket ballots for heavily over-subscribed shows, avoiding the problems and queues inherent in first-come-first-served on-sale dates.

Friday, 5 September 2014

The White Whale

So this is interesting, but not totally surprising.

One of the things (I think) that people want to do when marketing a show is get people to book in advance - not just because that gives you money and numbers early, but because if someone see a show advertised and thinks "that looks interesting, but it probably won't sell out, so I'll just get a ticket on the door" then a lot of the time when the night comes around they then say "fuck it, I'm just going to the pub instead". Making people pay money - and I think even a small amount of money would do - for a ticket means they've made a commitment to going to see the show, and are therefore less likely to not bother to turn up. If you are keeping track of the money, then money taken on the door is just as good as money taken in advance, but money not taken on the door because they didn't go is not as good as money taken in advance.

Conversely, when you're giving tickets away for free, advance booking is difficult, because anyone who things "that looks interesting" can grab a ticket just in case, and are then in no danger of "missing out" if it sells out, but are just as likely to not bother going as someone who hadn't bought a ticket at all.

If you're absolutely committed to giving your tickets away for free - and I understand why you might want to do that - and you don't want people to have to drive across town only to find the queue on the door is a mile long and they don't get in - I'm not sure what the options are.

1. Charge a deposit with the booking, and return it when they show up? Unfortunately gets you involved with all the credit card processing fees, which won't get refunded.

2. Name and shame the no shows? You'd need scanners for access control then, and it would be very embarrassing if you let someone in without scanning them and then accused them of wasting a ticket.

3. Make getting the tickets a bit more of an effort. How about a lottery? So you've got 400 seats for the White Whale, and more than 400 people who say they want to go (because it sold out). Instead of just giving the free seats away first-come first-served, you could collect names, and then when either X times as many people have registered as you have seats, or there's only Y days left before the performance (X = 2 or 3, Y = 7 or 14?) you do the draw. That way, people who registered and "Win" tickets feel more special for having won them. And I think that this might make them more likely to use the tickets than if they just got them for free.

I like 3. And the other benefit to 3 is that there's a built in cooling off period, so if you tell someone they've won a ticket, then it's the ideal time for them to say "actually, I'm not that fussed", and you can easily roll the dice again and give it to someone else.

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Using the power of the secondary market for good.

So this puts lots of things together at once. It'll be a bit long before you get to the punchline. Sorry.

I was reading http://thebryonykimmings.tumblr.com/post/67660917680/you-show-me-yours recently, and whilst there are lot of bits in it worth thinking about and responding to, the one I want to talk about here is:

"4) I don’t do box office splits. Unless the gains are commercially sized its NEVER worth it. Stop asking me Dammit! I am a self employed person, have NO regular funding. I do not have a bank account with more than about £500 (if I am lucky) buffer before all hell breaks loose… so WHY would I ever do a box office split. Why should I, a lowly human being, take as much of a risk as an RFO venue. This is bollocks. I am amidst a negotiation at present that means if my show didn’t sell (heaven forbid!) I would walk away losing £1200 in 4 days. Remember my monthly wages is £1500, so why the fudge would I ever gamble that sort of cash with a venue. We all know that venues audience development teams are RARELY any good, if they exist at all. We all play to houses of 20 every once in a while because a venue is too stretched or just SHIT at marketing. So why would I trust THAT KIND OF DEAL. Stop asking me to share your risk in such an unfair way. I will do ALL I can to get bums on seats, I hate playing to empty rooms more than you hate hosting them… but if I live 200 miles away, don’t know a soul in your area and have no budget how can I really effect anything!"

Within the context of a blog post that could be (unfairly) summarised as "I've won awards! Who do I talk to about a pay rise?", one of the apparently often made suggestions is that she take some of the financial risk of putting on the production in return for a share of the profits instead of just a fixed fee. Whilst I can totally understand not being in a position as an artist to take that risk, I doubt that venues are all that keen to take it on either; regular funding helps keep the staff on the books full time and the lights and heating on, but I'd be surprised if it were generous enough to cover the costs of repeatedly picking the wrong show and not being able to sell it but having to pay the artists in full anyway. A show with lots of actors and a complex set that was simply expensive to tour and needed to charge a commensurate fee might be off putting to some venues.

Separately, I've been having conversations about the secondary market. I'm not keen on it, but there's a lot of money to be made whenever someone starts selling tickets with a face value well below their true market value. Now, the bugbear of the secondary market is the figure of the tout, who waits for a performance to obviously be a sell-out, and buys up the cheap tickets that have been subsidised by the arts council so that the poor can come to the theatre too, and then sells them on ebay for a 500% markup, and pockets all the cash whilst doing none of the work. Well, perhaps this doesn't happen much in the theatre. Mentally translate to rock and pop as appropriate, and your favourite band at the Brixton Academy and Led Zeppelin at the O2.

We still want to do dynamic pricing, ranging from a simple "Wednesday Matinees are cheaper than Saturday Evenings" all the way to the full Easyjet, once we find someone who wants to let us try it out and research what the appropriate pricing models are for their segment.

Whilst we aren't keen on building support for secondary markets as such into our system, and one of the benefits of dynamic pricing is that it helps reduce the margin that touts have to operate in, we have to deal with the problem that when the ticket prices vary dynamically and someone wants to do a completely legitimate "I'm ill and want to return tickets to the box office" or "can I exchange these Friday tickets for Saturday?" you get interesting problems if the tickets for Friday are now more expensive than the tickets for Saturday (but weren't when they were purchased), or if the tickets the customer wants to return are now worth more than they were when the customer originally bought them.

For example, it would be perfectly normal for a venue to say "We will take the tickets back and put them on sale again, but you will only get a refund (less 15% admin fee) if these tickets are actually sold". Which sort of means the tickets sort of belong to the original purchaser until they're resold, and if they aren't resold they might use them after all or give them to a friend. But if they are resold for twice the original price, who gets the extra? Might the original purchaser have a reasonable claim to some of that money?

Of course, touts don't always get it right. Sometimes they buy tickets for shows that don't sell out, and have to resell them at a loss. Which actually makes them quite helpful when they get it wrong; they're taking risk away from the promoter, and bearing a fraction of that risk themselves.

So:

When we put these three things together - the unwillingness of some potential promoters (viz. Bryony Kimmings) to take all of the financial risk, dynamic pricing, and the interaction between normal refund policies and dynamic pricing requiring a sort of built in secondary market to function properly - we end up with something that looks a bit like Kickstarter for plays. If you were trying to put your show on in venue X, and they didn't want to meet your full fee, and you want more money than the fee but don't want to assume all the risk that a box office split implies, it's possible that someone - not a tout, per se, let's just call them a supporter - might buy up 20 seats in advance - because they like you and your show and not because they're merely out to make money, so you don't have to face the risk of not being able to sell those seats. And other supporters buy advance tickets too, whether they think they will be willing or able to attend themselves or not, and you have that revenue for sure, and you might keep some other tickets back to sell yourself. And the supporters then return those tickets they don't want to use themselves to the box office to be resold, and if you're allowing dynamic pricing and the show sells out, then those tickets might end up being sold for more than was originally paid, and those supporters might make a modest amount of money - not for nothing, but in return for sharing a part of the risk that the show flops.

We end up with something that looks a bit like a 10 way box office split, with a guarantee to the artist and a first call to the venue and then with luck extra money to be spread around for everyone.

We end up with something that looks a bit like the debenture tickets offered by the Royal Albert Hall or Wimbledon, where the depenture holder, in return for their capital investment, have the right to sell "their" seats to whoever they like for as much as they like - or just put them back into the box office pool if they prefer; but on a smaller scale, for one performance at a time.

You could just do it all in Kickstarter, like Amanda Palmer, but that would take a lot of admin overhead of sorting all the monies out - better if the ticketing system just handles it. It gives an opportunity for the Members and Friends or whatever of the theatre to actually help with putting on a show, which if all goes well will not cost them anything, might make a little money, and if all goes badly they are presumably in a better financial position to bear that small loss of the value of one or two tickets than the artist/promoter is to bear the loss of the cost of putting on the entire night.

Many organisations have pre-sales periods exclusive to members already - one of the perks of membership. What if this process went on before the show was finally booked, and the membership base's financial help was a factor in deciding which shows a venue invited? It would make membership mean something more than a small discount at the bar, a newsletter you put in the bin, and priority access to the best seats.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013