Ticket markets raise a large variety of pricing questions that are of substantial interest for theoretical economists. They also offer a unique laboratory experiment for empiricists because they exhibit rich sources of price variations. Prices vary because seats are different, because seats are located in different places, because performances take place on different dates, because venues offer different complementary goods, or because the promoter bundles several tickets together in a season ticket package such as New York Rangers Tickets, to name just a few examples.

Some of these pricing issues have received scant attention as applications of broader economic theories. In the last ten to twenty years, however, ticket pricing as such has started to receive more attention. This recent interest has produced a set of papers that cover both theoretical and empirical issues. What will surprise the reader who fancies these issues is that many of them have been studied in isolation. Surprisingly enough, these works rarely reference each other. In fact, there are many disjoint works on ticket pricing but no real literature per se on the topic.

In ticket markets, firms do not sell a homogeneous good since no two seats offer the same experience. One does not see or hear the same way from two different seats in the premises. These differences in visibility and hearing will depend mostly on the distance to the performance. In extreme situations, consumers are so far away that they can barely see the performance but rather experience it on nearby television screens. Firms will take these differences in product quality into account and will accordingly sell different seats at different prices. You can analyze some tickets such as Rogers Centre Tickets, Toyota Center Tickets, and Boston Opera House tickets as your own literature.

Some human resource departments have maintained an old command and control mentality, where they see their jobs as making sure managers and employees are doing what they are supposed to. Is everyone on time? Why not? What about sick leave? Are all the rules being followed? It’s not that these departments are misguided, because some rules, (e.g.. hiring practices, safety, harassment, etc.) ARE important and need to be handled centrally by a company. Or, certain programs and procedures may best be handled by a central department because of the need to coordinate some actions across the entire company. Problems arise, however, when the HR departments forgets that it’s purpose is to serve the needs of the company, the managers and the employees, to help THEM get the work done.

After all, is your company’s human resources department a PROFIT CENTER? Of course not. The HR department doesn’t produce anything or sell anything but it can help the rest of the company make things or sell things by smoothing the path on some matters.

What sets apart good HR departments from bad is that the bad ones lose their service orientation, and forget that if they don’t help others get their jobs done; they won’t get cooperation from those they should be helping. The good ones recognize that while they are obligated to do some regulation of some processes, that they can play important leadership roles in the organization. And that does NOT mean dictating but balancing off the needs of the organization with the needs of the managers and employees.

What would this look like? Let’s take an example: performance appraisal. Poor HR departments go about performance appraisal this way. They devise a set of rules and forms on their own, then go forth (if they have executive support) and TELL managers and employees what they SHALL do. They tend not to consult, or if they consult just forget to listen to the people who have to use these sometimes monstrous procedures. What happens is that since HR tends to be somewhat distant from the users of the system, the process misses. Managers and employees see the process as another hoop to jump through, and stall, or avoid doing what they are supposed to. What happens is that HR then has to move into the police or enforcer role, to try to coerce managers to do what they are supposed to. That gets everyone frustrated and drives wedges between HR and the rest of the company.

The good HR department goes about it differently. While they recognize that performance appraisal needs to be, in some respects, a central organization process, they also recognize that if the process isn’t responsive to at least some needs of managers and employees, it will never succeed. So rather than dictating the procedures, forms and minutiae, the smart HR folks create (in consultation with both managers and employees), a skeleton outline of the process. This skeleton outlines the basic components, but leave the details to the managers. So rather than telling managers they much use the twelve page form provided, they simply say that managers must document the performance discussions, and forward them to HR at least annually. See the difference? The shift here is from dictating details to providing a framework and helping people work within that general framework. It’s a SUPPORTING function, and not a lead actor.

Everyone benefits (including the HR staff) by backing off and recognizing that one can both support and lead at the same time without dictating. The bottom line is that the more HR dictates and plays enforcer, the fewer managers and staffs feel they need to take responsibility for the functions HR is dictating. The more dictation the more resistance from the rest of the company.

So, HR folks. Look to providing frameworks, rather than details. Look to serve rather than to command.