TOTW: TicketSwap vs. SeatGeek

This week’s topic is focused on the technology behind ‘Electronic Markets and Auction’. Through the advancements of information technologies, the time and cost of communication have been greatly reduced, allowing the possibility of electronic brokerage in computer-based markets. The two companies that we have put in the spotlights are TicketSwap and SeatGeek, both operating in the secondary market of the e-ticket business and provide an online ticket brokerage platform for its customers. Although the two companies are still considered to be newcomers in the e-ticket brokerage market, they both have transformed the way of conducting business in this field by making use modern information technologies and mobile applications. First we will explain how their business model works and then provide a SWOT analysis comparison between the companies.

Ticketswap is an online and moblie platform where consumers can quickly buy and sell event tickets in thTicketSwape secondary (C2C) marketplace. To maintain fair prices, sellers are only allowed to ask a price up to 20% above the original face value of the ticket.The goal of TicketSwap is to offer consumers a protected environment to increase the safety for their private transactions. In order to reduce fraud as much as possible, users are required to link their Facebook account for accessing the online platform, making it easier to trace back the identity of the seller. So how does TicketSwap earn money? From every transaction, TicketSwap receives 10% as commission, equally charged among the seller and buyer.

In comparison to TicketSwap, SeatGeek is a B2C online search engine platform that aggregates all the available tickets from the online secondary market. It is essentially a meta-search engine making use of multiple other search engines to produce its own results (Kauffman, Li & van Heck, 2010). Additionally, SeatGeek proseatgeekvides an advanced algorithm called DealScore to assign a metric (1-100) rating to the tickets based the price and seat location (Fatbit, 2015), hence the consumers are able to see which deals are best suited for their needs. The tickets on the online platform are not sold or owned by SeatGeek itself, they solely provide the aggregating search service. Revenue comes from the 8-10% commission paid by the ticket sellers/owners for each ticket sold through the SeatGeek online platform.

Through the SWOT analysis we have found that the both companies have a strong online and social media presence where they promote their offering and brand. Each also has their own mobile application that has proven to boost their sales by a significant amount. SeekGeek’s mobile application has actually generated almost 45% of the total revenue in 2014 (Forbes, 2015). Currently, the assortment of tickets available on TicketSwap are limited to music events and festivals, while SeatGeek also offers sports, theater and other entertainment events. Therefore we think TicketSwap has a great opportunity to grow by expanding their ticket catalogue into other areas. A big ongoing threat is of course competition, both existing and new entrants. Soon after the succes stories of TicketSwap and SeatGeek, many competitors followed their footsteps by developing their own online marketplaces. However, with strong integrated mobile applications and superior customer service, TicketSwap and SeatGeek can stay competitive in the future.


Buhr, S. (2015). SeatGeek Raises $62 Million In A Series C Led By Technology Crossover Ventures. TechCrunch. Retrieved 19 September 2015, from

Huismans, S. (2015). TicketSwap nog veiliger: je krijgt voortaan een gloednieuw kaartje. 3voor12. Retrieved 19 September 2015, from

Li, T., Kauffman, R. J., van Heck, E., Vervest, P., & Dellaert, B. G. (2014). Consumer informedness and firm information strategy. Information Systems Research, 25(2), 345-363.

Solomon, B. (2015). The hottest ticket in mobile: SeatGeek helps you scalp the scalpers. Retrieved 17 September 2015, from, (2012). Top Secondary Ticket Sellers | TicketNews. Retrieved 17 September 2015, from

Team 24

F. A. Amier 442000
L. Argiroúlis 437685
V. O. Galaktionov 438190
J. Jing 440693
F. H. van de Zande 347379


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: