SeatGeek, the popular ticket resale marketplace, does not utilize a virtual waiting room system like Ticketmaster during periods of high demand. Instead, SeatGeek employs a first-come, first-served model where the website and app attempt to accommodate all users without throttling traffic or implementing queues.
The Ticketmaster Waiting Room
Ticketmaster’s waiting room, officially known as the Ticketmaster Verified Fan system, is used for high profile events where ticket demand dramatically outpaces supply. This includes concerts for top artists like Taylor Swift, Harry Styles, and Bruce Springsteen, as well as playoff and championship games for leagues like the NFL and NBA.
The waiting room essentially functions as a virtual queue. Users are granted access to the ticket on-sale at staggered times, rather than all at once. This helps control traffic surges that can overload servers and cause website crashes.
Ticket holders are required to register ahead of time for a Verified Fan code. This code will grant them access to the waiting room at the specified on-sale time. Once in the waiting room, users are assigned a randomized place in line. They must wait for the queue to move before getting the opportunity to select tickets.
The waiting room can involve substantial delays, sometimes over an hour long, with no guarantee users will get tickets. It helps limit the “first-come, first served” advantage of bots and scalpers trying to scoop up tickets.
SeatGeek’s Open On-Sale Model
SeatGeek does not implement waiting rooms or staggered access times for any events. Their platform is designed to handle major traffic spikes and provide users equal opportunity, as opposed to favoring those earliest in line.
During high demand on-sales, SeatGeek users may experience delays loading pages or making transactions. However, there are no virtual lines limiting access. The site and app remain open and available on a first-come basis.
SeatGeek’s rationale is that open access provides the fairest model and best user experience. Customers are not bound by prescribed sale times or locked out if they don’t obtain advance codes. Theoretically, anyone can log on and purchase tickets at any time while supplies last.
Additionally, SeatGeek argues their anti-bot measures effectively control scalpers and automated ticket buying. With those deterrents in place, their servers can handle simultaneous organic user traffic. Queues and waiting rooms punish average fans for the sins of scalpers.
SeatGeek’s Scaling Capabilities
SeatGeek has invested heavily in scaling their platform to accommodate demand spikes. When the NFL released a limited amount of Super Bowl tickets in 2019, SeatGeek reported handling over 3 million simultaneous users without crashes or delays.
Their system architecture is designed to scale up as needed to meet demand. Additional server capacity can be spun up through cloud hosting services to prevent overload. Caching systems store data in memory for faster access under heavy loads.
SeatGeek also employs load balancing algorithms to distribute network traffic across servers efficiently. And their app and website code is optimized to process functions asynchronously wherever possible.
Furthermore, SeatGeek does not have to contend with user registrations or randomized queues – factors that complicate Ticketmaster’s load management. So while SeatGeek faces challenges handling demand, their underlying technology likely gives them structural advantages over Ticketmaster’s waiting room model.
The Tradeoffs Between the Two Models
There are merits and drawbacks inherent to both Ticketmaster’s waiting room approach and SeatGeek’s open on-sale model. There is no objectively superior system, just different philosophies and user experiences.
Waiting rooms arguably promote fairness by limiting scalpers and bots. They also prevent site crashes and keep infrastructure costs down. But they do frustrate customers with long queues and locked on-sale times.
Open on-sales allow a more seamless user experience. But they may favor technically savvy power users with bots and scripts. Server failures and sluggish performance are also more likely during peak demand.
The following table summarizes the key differences:
Ticketmaster Waiting Room | SeatGeek Open On-Sale |
---|---|
Virtual queues to control access | No waiting, first-come first-served |
Limits scalpers and bots | Attempts to limit bots via other means |
Lower server infrastructure costs | Requires robust scaling capabilities |
Site crashes less likely | Higher risk of crashes during spikes |
Can frustrate users with long waits | More seamless purchasing experience |
Hybrid Approaches
Some other ticket marketplaces use hybrid models that blend aspects of both Ticketmaster and SeatGeek’s philosophies.
AXS utilizes waiting rooms but without set queue times – users can join anytime while tickets remain. This mitigates the downsides of locked on-sale windows. StubHub will sometimes restrict ticket sales from high-demand events to stagger order volume.
No system perfectly accommodates demand spikes for hot events and inventory sellouts in seconds. Tradeoffs exist between fairness, system resilience, and user experience. Marketplaces must strike the right balance for their brand values and target audience.
Conclusion
In summary, SeatGeek does not use waiting rooms for any events or ticket on-sales. Their platform remains fully open and accessible on a first-come, first-served basis even during high demand. SeatGeek believes this approach, along with anti-bot technology, provides the most fair and streamlined user experience.
However, the waiting room model employed by Ticketmaster offers some protections against scalpers and reduces system strain. There are merits to both philosophies depending on priorities. But SeatGeek asserts their technical capabilities can handle major traffic spikes without limiting customer access via queues or staggered sales.
So prospective buyers can purchase seats freely on SeatGeek during any event on-sale. There is no advantage to early access times or randomized waiting compared to Ticketmaster. The open model provides more convenience but does risk sluggish performance or crashes at peak demand volume.
In the end, there is an inherent tradeoff between fairness, system resilience, and ease of use. SeatGeek believes their platform can strike the right balance with open on-sales and robust scaling, but waiting rooms are not part of their strategy.
What do you think about SeatGeek’s open on-sale approach compared to Ticketmaster’s waiting rooms? Do you prefer having the ability to purchase tickets anytime or accept queues and access times for a more controlled experience? There are reasonable arguments on each side of this debate.
Ticket marketplaces must weigh factors like infrastructure costs, customer experience, and bot mitigation when designing their sales processes. SeatGeek has clearly chosen the open model, for better or worse. But fans are often split regarding which system they find more fair and frustration-free. There likely is no single best practice, with each philosophy involving distinct tradeoffs and challenges.