Talk:StubHub

StubHub: Changes to minor sections - April 2023 requests
For the StubHub page, I had some structural changes to request, some clarifications with wording to recommend, and some additional research to flesh out sections or fix loose ends. Any help screening the content for wording and good sourcing and implementing it live would be greatly appreciated! Alex.SHVGG (talk)

New "See also" and "External links" sections
1) Could a new "See also" section be added?

==See also==
 * List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni
 * List of acquisitions by eBay
 * List of NBA jersey sponsors

2) Could a new "External links" section be added?

==External links==


 * stubhub.com

Lead and infobox changes
1) In the infobox, could San Francisco, California be added to the row for headquarters?

2) In the infobox, could the "parent" row be changed to StubHub Holdings, and Ticket exchange be added to the "services" row?

3) The first sentence is outdated since it says American instead of multinational (I assume a hangover from before the Viagogo merger). Possible to source that sentence and expand to the following? StubHub is a multinational ticket marketplace and ticket resale company. Active in the  United States and Canada, it currently operates as a brand owned by StubHub Holdings, which also owns the ticketing site Viagogo.


 * ❌. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe StubHub is still an American company and operates primarily in North America, despite the merger being initiated from the European market. Is it now a brand of StubHub Holdings? (And the mention of Viagogo isn't relevant in the lead.) SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

4) Can the lead's second sentence, about services, be made more specific and perhaps changed to the following wording? StubHub provides an international ticket marketplace for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports, concerts, theater and other live entertainment events. By 2015 it was the world's largest ticket marketplace.


 * . StubHub provides an international ticket marketplace is too promotional. Current wording is good and neutral. I've done the "by 2015" bit, though. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

5) Can the lead sentence about the founders have superfluous detail like colleges trimmed, perhaps to the following? StubHub was founded in 2000 by Eric Baker and Jeff Fluhr.

6) Can the detail about COVID sales be removed from the lead, for now being no longer immediately topical or necessary? Perhaps trim that sentence to In 2020, Viagogo acquired StubHub for $4.05 billion. and add this to "History" instead: In early 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic began significantly impacting ticket sales. StubHub by that time was implementing a slower refund policy to deal with lessened cash flow as live events largely shut down.

7) Can the following sentence be added to the end of the lead? The company maintains official marketing and ticketing partnerships with sports and entertainment groups such as Major League Baseball, the UCLA Bruins, and Virginia Tech. And can this sentence simultaneously be added to "Sports", to stay in line with the WP:LEAD guideline? Among StubHub's other current partnerships are the UCLA Bruins and Virginia Tech.


 * ❌. Not really relevant to the company's business. What is the nature of a relationship? Is it just the only place to get MLB tickets? Or is it like, "the official car company of the Olympics."? SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

New "Research and market data" section
1) Could the detail in the lead about not disclosing financials (and 2015 visitor stats) be moved instead to a new ==Research and market data== section? This would help satisfy the WP:LEAD guideline, since the content hasn't been duplicated lower on the page yet, and also, I would argue the detail is too outdated to be very useful in the lead now.

2) Could the 2008 "History" detail about Masters badges be moved to the "Research and market data" section, for being a bit trivial for the "History" section?

3) In "History," could the 2012 Adele detail about being the best-selling act, as well as the 2013 Spice Girls detail, both be added to "Research and market data"? 4) Could these new details be added to the section?

StubHub periodically publishes data on ticket prices, particular artists, and the market at large.

Musician Taylor Swift overwhelmingly topped StubHub's 2015 list of top summer concerts as determined by sales and demand, although the third artist on the list, the Grateful Dead, brought in 65% more than Swift in sales per show for its 2015 reunion tour.

Boy band BTS was StubHub's biggest seller in 2019.

StubHub revealed in May 2022 that ticket sales were 25% higher for the 2022 summer concert season than before the pandemic in 2019, attributing the change to a doubling of events compared to 2019, a plethora of reunion and farewell shows.

In December 2022, Viagogo released its Year in Live Experiences (YILE) report ranking the most in-demand global touring artists of the year,  with Elton John ranked as the Top Global Touring Artist of 2022 based on cumulative ticket sales at both StubHub North America and Viagogo. John was followed by Harry Styles, Coldplay, and Bad Bunny.

For the Super Bowl in February 2023, StubHub, Ticketmaster and SeatGeek were official NFL resale partners for authenticated tickets. With ticket prices for the game fluctuating significantly on StubHub in the days prior, according to Reuters, sales spiked 15% in the 24 hours before the game.


 * ❌ entirely. I don't think there's value in mentioning the data that StubHub has provided. These are not all too useful. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Repurposing "Personnel" section
1. Could the Personnel section be deleted for being anemic and incomplete, with the content moved elsewhere? I was thinking the sentence about 2022 locations and staff numbers could be moved into "History."

2. Also, the list of executives could be rewritten to the following recommendation and then moved into "History" as well (the Eric Baker source about "The Worst Deal Ever" is just a duplicate of a Forbes source already used elsewhere, so I might recommend just deleting it).

After the 2007 acquisition by eBay, Jeff Fluhr at that point left the company with Chris Tsakalakis joining from eBay as StubHub president.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy was named president in April 2018, replacing Scott Cutler.

In early 2020, Jill Krimmel became president.


 * Hi, Alex.SHVGG. I've made these changes. See my comments under the requested changes that were not completed as requested. I would like to clean up this article because it's so messy and seemingly incomplete. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

StubHub: Changes to major sections - April 2023 requests
Some of the major sections on StubHub, for example Operations, Partnerships, and Sports are just a bit unorganized after many years of input. Could I recommend some trimming and moving? Thanks for considering! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"Operations" removals and changes
1) Since Mr. Ticket Oak has been phased out, I think that paragraph would be better placed in "History" than "Operations." Also, could this be added in as the replacement text to provide better context?

In 2012 StubHub debuted its Ticket Oak character, a 25-foot tall animatronic talking tree depicted giving away concert tickets. It was named the Greatest Brand Mascot of 2013 by Business Insider, which wrote that "despite the weirdness of the mascot, or perhaps because of it, consumer perception of StubHub soared after the spots aired." The character was phased out two years later as part of a larger rebrand.

2) Could the Run-DMC detail in "Operations" be moved into "History" too, since it's five years old now? Could it also be cut down to this??

The company launched a 2018 Christmas campaign with customized free-style rapping from Joseph Simmons of Run-DMC.

3) Could the detail about music categories and theatre and comedy, now part of the second "Operations" paragraph, instead be tacked on to the end of the first "Operations" paragraph, since it's immediately useful? Could it also be updated to the following, since the list right now is a decade old?

The StubHub.com website organized ticket sales by several categories as of 2023. The Concerts category included Country & Folk, Rap/Hip-Hop/Reggae, Rock & Pop, and Festival Tickets. Theatre included Musicals, Comedy, Family, and Broadway Shows. Sports included NFL and NCAA Football tickets, among others such as the NBA, NHL, NCAA Baseball, and MLB.

4) Could this new sentence be added to the top of the "Operations" section, to refresh the description of StubHub's current services?

The StubHub online platform facilitates ticket resale, as well as directly issuing tickets on behalf of event organizers for live entertainment, also offering features for finding and planning events.


 * ✅ SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

5) Could this detail in "Operations" (StubHub and MyStoreRewards have been described as examples of "applications that leverage the PayPal platform in creative ways".) be rewritten as follows and moved into "History"?

StubHub as early as 2007 had implemented PayPal's API into its financial process, allowing sellers to be paid instantly once a sale had been secured.


 * SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

6) I believe the following detail (It promises to refund the price of any ticket that fails to reach a buyer by FedEx. is outdated and now possibly inaccurate. Can it be rewritten as follows to have more historical breadth, and moved into the first paragraph of "History"?

Upon its 2000 founding, StubHub implemented a number of anti-fraud policies that its major competitors such as eBay did not, for example refunding fraudulent or incorrect tickets, and sending staff to physically replace invalid tickets with comparable tickets at certain events.


 * but with my wording instead. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

7) Could the detail about Goodmail be moved to "History" (in 2011) and rewritten to the following, to clarify it was just for newsletters?

StubHub was using Goodmail by 2011 to increase delivery rate of its newsletters.

8) Could the mostly unsourced sentence at the bottom of "Operations" (about competitors like SeatGeek) be sourced and split, and then the two following sentences moved into "History"?

In 2008, the company faced competition from firms such as Ticketmaster.

By late 2019, StubHub was facing increasing competition from services such as Viagogo and SeatGeek, which operated with similar business models.


 * . "By late 2019" is not necessary, and I just added the NYT ref onto the unsourced sentence. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

9) In "Operations," I'm not sure the Wall Street Journal detail about StubHub being the biggest resale company is still true, since the quote was 8 years ago. Could it be rewritten to show the date and moved into "History"? Perhaps as such:

StubHub was described by The Wall Street Journal as "far and away the biggest player in the $6 billion market for reselling live-event tickets" in 2015.


 * ❌. It is appropriate to be in the operations. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

10) In "Operations," could the subsequent auctioning sentence be rewritten from is a way for ticket sellers to gain a profit, but unlike eBay, there is no auctioning involved. to:

StubHub allows sellers to choose their own ticket price with no auctioning involved.


 * ❌. I reworded it (I think; I'm tired). SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

11) Concerning this passage backed by ABC, I feel it is really redundant and a really confusing way of stating what is already explained multiple times elsewhere. It also reads a little promotional, even though it's a quote:

While concert tickets can get expensive when the demand is high, more than half of all tickets sold on StubHub go for at or below face value. Tsakalakis has stated that he believes the ticket market is not a level playing field for the average person, in that before a ticket goes on sale, promoters have already sold the vast majority of seats to everyone from fan club members, American Express card holders and ticket brokers. He has said, "There is this whole mentality within concerts that if it doesn't sell out right away it's not a hit. It just doesn't make sense. Nothing works that way. There isn't a supplier out there that says, 'The first day I put my product out there I want all of it to sell out and I don't want to have any more supply.' What business works that way?"

Could it modified into the following, with a fresher version of the same quote (apparently StubHub execs repeat each other) used instead?

Concerning resale prices and availability, former StubHub CEO Scott Cutler has stated to the Financial Times that the ticket market is not a level playing field in that promoters often gave or sold the majority of their tickets to private individuals before any public sales, automatically excluding fans in the process. He also argued that on the StubHub platform, exorbitant prices were "isolated," and that half of tickets sold on the StubHub platform in 2017 were at less than original value, stating "it’s not that [people paying for expensive tickets] are being ripped off, there are people that are willing to pay £1,000 to see Adele."


 * ❌. It feels like an appropriate quote to include, even if self-promotional. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

12) In "Operations," could this content (StubHub does not prohibit sellers from listing tickets for any amount, regardless of how absurd the amount might be, but posts the prices at which tickets have sold. Ticket prices for the 2009 Super Bowl averaged $2,500.) be changed to a version with less loaded wording?

StubHub has no price ceiling, but does inform buyers what similar tickets have sold for. The high resale prices for certain tickets have attracted criticism for being prohibitive to average concert-goers, such as the 2009 Super Bowl tickets that averaged $2,500 when resold on StubHub.


 * ✅ SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

13) Could this sentence (StubHub charges fees to both the buyer and the seller in a transaction, and the fee structure is often opaque and changes frequently.) be modified to better reflect the source and verbiage of the journalist:

As of 2019, StubHub charged fees to both the buyer and the seller in a transaction, with fees only being shown in their entirety near the end of transactions. StubHub has defended the practice of "all-in" pricing from critics as the industry standard.


 * ✅ SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

14) Could this sentence (Many sell their extra tickets on StubHub at a profit, often tickets which are in high demand which are difficult to find.) be reworked to be more encyclopedic and broader in context? Perhaps to: Allowing sellers to list extra or unneeded tickets, StubHub and other secondary ticketing sites often supply tickets for shows that have been otherwise sold out.


 * ❌. It's not 'allowing' "unneeded tickets" to be sold. The suggested wording weasels the company out of the issue of scalping. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Splitting "Operations" into subsections
The "Operations" section is kind of over-large. Possible to chop up topically?

1. Could the details about price ceilings and "all-in pricing" be moved into a new ===Pricing=== subsection of "Operations"? Perhaps starting with the "StubHub allows sellers to choose their own ticket price with no auctioning involved" sentence?

2. Could the first paragraph of "Operations", with the quote by Grant and Meadows and ending with "no auctioning involved," be placed under a ===Ticketing=== subheading?


 * ❌ to both; the operations section, as changed so far, is not in need of a subsection. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Modifications to "Partnerships" section
1. Could this item be moved from "History" into "Partnerships"?

In 2015, StubHub sponsored a three-day lineup of bands at South by Southwest.

2. In "Partnerships," the first paragraph is eight years old and hardly fresh. Could this be added as the new first sentence?

StubHub maintains a number of official marketing and ticket sale partnerships with major organizations in sports and entertainment.


 * I agree, so I've reworded it to be more timeless and neutral. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

3. Early in "Partnerships," there is a press released-backed note about how StubHub was "first to create the secondary ticketing sponsorship category." This is actually referencing a specific event (Madonna tour), so could the press-release backed statement be replaced with this version backed by newspapers?

Notably in 2008, Madonna officially partnered with StubHub for her Sticky & Sweet tour of North America. The Financial Times wrote that the deal marked "a breakthrough" for the secondary ticket market, with StubHub describing the deal as "the first partnership with a leading performing artist and an endorsement of the secondary market."

4. This following passage in "Partnerships" references old tech deals from 8 years ago, and I'm not sure how many remain extant. Instead of researching each item, possible to just move into "History" around 2015? This is the passage:

In December 2015 StubHub had circa 120 partners; besides entertainment venues and sports teams, technology partners include Apple Inc, Spotify, BandPage, Amazon.com, and Uber, among others.


 * ❌. I don't think it would fit in the history section. It needs a whole rewrite to not be WP:PROSELINE. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

5. Could these new details be added to the "Partnerships" section to flesh things out? They are the larger licensing deals unrelated to sports.

In June 2013, StubHub partnered with The O2 Arena in London on marketing and ticketing, with full barcode integration to cut down on the chances of fake tickets being sold in the secondary market.

Consequence of Sound partnered with StubHub in 2019 to launch a live content hub and events series.

In February 2020 StubHub announced its lineup for its sixth annual StubHub Trending showcase at SXSW, among them Phantogram, only for the City of Austin to cancel the SXSW festival in March due to the coronavirus pandemic.

StubHub was the primary ticket seller for Lady Gaga's Chromatica Ball stadium tour stop at Oracle Park in September 2022.


 * ❌. Minor partnerships; not really relevant. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Modifications to "Sports" subsection
1. In "Sports," there is a paragraph about how tickets are still sold for sports teams without official StubHub agreements (starts with "Fans who wish to buy tickets"). Can that paragraph be moved somewhere into "Operations", where I think it would fit in well with the section's descriptions of ticketing methods? Also, the paragraph's final sentence doesn't explain the fan guarantee very well, can this be added in to "Operations" as well to clarify?

As of 2023, the StubHub brand had what it called a FanProtect Guarantee, stating it guaranteed every order with comparable or better tickets or a cash refund. For canceled events, as of 2023 the brand offered the option of either a full refund or 120% credit for another event.

2. Could the quote at the bottom of the "Sports" section by Tim Leiweke be removed entirely, for not providing any context from the article, being in a magazine of unknown import (Venues Today), and not even explaining what is meant by "misguided?"

3. In "Sports," there is a snippet about 2013 licensing deals that actually references all sorts of contracts, not just sports-related ones (starting just after ESPN is named as a partner). Could the sentence (again, starting after ESPN) be moved into the larger "Partnerships" section? The sentence could benefit from a "In 2013, sponsorships included" tacked on to the front, and also wikilinks for Tickets.com, Paciolan, Staples Center, and South by Southwest. It currently reads like this:

Tickets.com, Paciolan, IMG, and some 30 multi-use venues and festivals including Staples Center and South by Southwest.

4. The sentence about the April 2013 sports partnerships, could that be sourced and rewritten to the following? StubHub had 35 college sponsorship deals in 2013, including the University of Texas, Michigan, and USC. Also by 2013, among StubHub's partners were ESPN.

5. The subsequent passage about 2013 sports deals is old and overly detailed. Can it be trimmed from this:

In April 2013, StubHub signed a three-year agreement with the Lawn Tennis Association which covers the Aegon events at Queens Club, London, Birmingham and Eastbourne. The agreement means that StubHub have become a brand presence on the websites of the tournaments and other forms of their marketing and communications. Also in April 2013, StubHub UK ran a competition in which if Everton F.C. fans bought their season tickets before April 19, they offered the chance to win a VIP experience for the final home game of the 2012/3 season against West Ham United F.C., which included champagne on arrival, a three-course meal, and a tour of the dressing room by Graeme Sharp.

In May 2013, StubHub signed a three-year sponsorship deal with Jockey Club Racecourses to trade tickets on three of the racecourses in London; Sandown Park, Epsom Downs and Kempton Park.

to this?

Also by 2013, among StubHub's partners were the Lawn Tennis Association, and  Everton F.C.. Jockey Club Racecourses,

6. Could these new details be added to the "Sports" section?

The New York Yankees ended their 15-year contract with StubHub in late 2012, with ABC later partly attributing the cessation to the Yankees disliking their tickets being sold on StubHub "for below face value." The Yankees then announced in 2012 they were creating their own secondary ticket marketplace.

In 2016, the Yankees and StubHub again signed a contract to work together.

Other 2013 sports partners included Major League Soccer, Sunderland AFC, Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the rugby team Leicester Tigers.

StubHub Center was renamed in 2019.

The StubHub brand again signed a league-level deal with the MLB in 2022.


 * Hi again. Instead of moving things around, it was better to just delete a lot of them. They were pretty trivial. Comments from me in specific cases are under their bullet points. I've not done any points from your suggestions to the sports subsection of the partnerships section because I feel like things could be even better than what you're suggesting. SWinxy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

StubHub: Modifications to "History" section - April 2023 requests
The History" section on StubHub is a bit inconsistent in what years are covered, and also quite a few relevant details from already linked sources are missing. Could you kindly consider the following recommendations, and implement ones that seem helpful and sensible? Thanks! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Streamlining and modifying current content
1. Can new "History" subsections for 2016-2018 and also 2019-2023 be added? Thanks!

2. Please amend and expand the first sentence to the following: StubHub was founded in March 2000 as a class project by Eric Baker and Jeff Fluhr, both former Stanford Business School students and investment bankers.

3. Drawing more detail from the listed source, could "Baker left StubHub in 2004" be expanded into Baker left StubHub in 2005 while retaining 10% ownership, with Fluhr remaining StubHub's chief executive officer. 4. In the first paragraph of history, could the 2000 detail about the Seattle Mariners be moved to the front of the "Sports" section, since it focuses on sports licensing?

5. Could this lobbying paragraph: (StubHub, Ticketmaster, TicketNetwork, and others began to lobby state legislatures to repeal or modify the stricter anti-scalping laws. In Florida, StubHub made over $6,500 in campaign donations to members of the state legislature in support of a 2006 bill to amend Florida's 61-year-old anti-scalping laws. Many consumers, as well as lobbyists for the leisure and entertainment industries were opposed to the bill, and claimed it would drive up prices for consumers while hurting their share of the ticket market.) be streamlined to:

by 2006, StubHub, Ticketmaster, TicketNetwork, and other major ticketing companies were lobbying US state legislatures to repeal or modify stricter anti-scalping laws. In Florida, in 2006 StubHub donated $6,500 to support amending the state's anti-scalping laws. While critics argued an adjustment of the state's price cap on ticket sales would diminish both consumers' and promotors' share of the market.

6. Could this passage ("In the U.S., 38 states had laws allowing the reselling of event tickets as long as the sale did not take place at the event site. The other 12 states had varying degrees of regulation, including registration requirements and maximum markups. be trimmed to just As different states had divergent regulations,

7. Could this paragraph about eBay:

eBay has announced that from May 2013 it will retire some of its ticket categories on its UK website and will redirect users to the StubHub website to purchase them. They began the merging process in January 2013 when listings on StubHub also appeared in search results on the eBay UK's tickets category.

be shortened to:

In early 2013, Ebay stopped selling tickets on its main website and began sending buyers to StubHub, greatly boosting StubHub's internet traffic.

8. Could this detail (In April 2013, a new pricing structure was established, and the fee will be displayed upfront without going through an auction. be expanded into the following?

In 2012, StubHub was trial testing an "all-in pricing model" for the year, largely with Major League Soccer games and also with the MLB, with all fees displayed upfront to buyers instead of at the final stage of a transaction. In January 2014, the new pricing structure was established across the site, resulting in the company's ticket pricing appearing much higher than competitors' at first glance. Sales "almost immediately" began to fall, according to the company. Over 2014 and 2015, the company's market share declined "precipitously" by an estimated 10%, and in September 2015, StubHub reverted to the old system of showing inclusive ticket prices and fees only at the final stage of the transaction.

9. Could this detail (StubHub has also supported major benefit events, such as 121212, the Concert for Sandy Relief, including a $1 million donation to the Robin Hood Relief Fund for those impacted by Hurricane Sandy.) be expanded to this version that covers the associated controversy:

In 2012, StubHub and other reselling sites were criticized by concert producers of the 12-12-12 benefit concert in Madison Square Garden for allowing the resale of the tickets at above face value. In response StubHub stated it lacked the technology to require sellers donate their profits to charity, but noted it was donating all earnings on the concert's tickets to the organizing Robin Hood Foundation for Hurricane Sandy victims, ultimately donating US$1 million.

10. Could this benefits detail (The company has also announced a commitment to give $1 million of musical instruments to U.S. schools, in partnership with The Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation. be expanded to a wider mention of benefit concerts, with context on timing?

In 2013, StubHub started its own series of benefit concerts, and by 2015 had partnered with The Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation.

11. There is a large paragraph about one high-profile scalper on the page, starting with "One of StubHub's top sellers," and ending with "to scalp his tickets." The man is already mentioned sufficiently lower on the page, I would argue - so can that entire paragraph be removed for being off topic? If the references are kept so other references names aren't broken, maybe it could be trimmed and modified to this replacement:

By 2016, ticket-buying bots had become a political issue in both the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

12. Could this detail also be removed from the entire page for being off-topic and putting undue weight on an unrelated individual?

According to the Toronto Star and the CBC News, Lavallée drew the attention of U.K.’s National Trading Standards (NTS) and CMA when he succeeded in controlling 310 seats for three of Adele's shows in London in 2016 for a total transaction of over $50,000 in less than a half an hour.

13. Concerning the sentence about the IPO, could this be added to the end as a pertinent detail also in the source? Bloomberg reported the transaction could possibly value StubHub at US$13 billion.

New content
Can this new content be added to the "History" section please?

In 2002, eBay reportedly was in talks to acquire StubHub for US$20 million, although the agreement later had "fallen apart over price."

While initially StubHub intended to "build a ticket transaction system that [Fluhr] could sell to other online portals and providers," in 2003 the company instead began placing Google ads for the actual StubHub website, directly facilitating ticket sales from sellers to buyers.

In 2006, StubHub became involved in several disputes over the resale of season sports tickets in New England, involving the New England Patriots and New York Yankees.

Under eBay, in 2007 StubHub became a public company.

By 2008 StubHub had become a $5 billion a year business.

StubHub by 2009 was the largest secondary-market ticket reseller in the United States.

StubHub had 62 official partners by May 2011, including the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, the Boston Red Sox, and Ultimate Fighting Championship. While StubHub marketed its partners' tickets and facilitated connections between buyer and seller, charging a 15% commission to the seller and a 10% service fee to the buyer in the process, StubHub did not acquire or mail the tickets directly.

After StubHub opened a beta site in the UK in December 2011, it launched the full site in the UK in March 2012, also announcing plans to open stores in London and near major venues for last-minute ticket sales. At the time, StubHub said that 35% of tickets sold on its site came from professional brokers, and the rest came from part-time sellers or individuals.

In 2014, StubHub launched a concert discovery app called StubHub Music, also incorporating features to allow buyers to book parking spots and find nearby restaurants and activities.

To find and ban bot users on its platform,  StubHub began using Distil Network's bot detection software in 2015.

StubHub was active in the US, Canada, the UK, and Germany by 2016, and was the world's largest ticket resale platform. That February, StubHub announced a move into primary ticketing. Also in May 2016, StubHub expanded into Mexico with StubHub.mx, its first Spanish-language website.

In 2016 overall, StubHub had revenues of $940 million.

In June 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a compliance review of the four main secondary ticketing platform websites in the UK, including Viagogo, StubHub, GetMeIn, and Seatwave.

At the conclusion of its investigation, in 2018 the CMA demanded all four sites make "various changes" to comply with UK law. Ticketmaster responded by shuttering its sites GetMeIn and Seatwave, while StubHub made the changes voluntarily.

In the process of the 2022 Viagogo purchase, StubHub again became a private company after being public for 13 years.

As of 2023, the StubHub brand continued to work with around 130 official partners in the United States and Canada.


 * Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'll add those when I get around to looking at the new content.
 * I don't think it's necessary to reiterate Fluhr remained the CEO, but I did expand the sentence to correct the year and mention the falling-out.
 * The company makes a lot of deals with sports teams so I think it's pertinent for history to include the first. I've also added the information to the sports section, however.
 * Skipped, because I don't really understand this paragraph or the changes being made to it.
 * Why?
 * That's all I'm doing for now. Any editor may feel free to continue this review. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 8. : The section is currently sorted chronologically. If the sentence that's currently in place were to be replaced, we would be jumping from 2013 back to 2012. The following sentence regarding Spice Girls would feel out of place.
 * 9. ✅
 * 10. ✅
 * 11. Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Paragraph contextualizes information below. If the first paragraph about Lavallée were to be removed, the following paragraphs would have to be rewritten also.
 * 12. Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The individual is not "unrelated".
 * 13. ✅
 * "New content" Less significant developments in the company's history have not been added. The sentence about the CMA investigation reads less than neutral and has been rewritten. Throast  {  { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 13. ✅
 * "New content" Less significant developments in the company's history have not been added. The sentence about the CMA investigation reads less than neutral and has been rewritten. Throast  {  { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

StubHub: Moving sports items out of "History" - April 2023 requests
The sports licensing controversies on StubHub seem to get an undue amount of focus in the History section, likely because of old bouts of recentism. I was thinking that an easy way to fix that problem, instead of heavy cutting, would be to move the items into the "Partners (sports)" subsection. Would you mind reviewing my suggestions and implementing what seems sensible? Thank you! Alex.SHVGG (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

2006 Yankees/Patriots dispute
1) Can the extended "History" content about the 2006 Yankees and Patriots tickets disputes be moved to "Sports"? Here is the current live content:

In 2006, more than 100 New York Yankees season-ticket holders suspected of reselling their regular-season seats on StubHub received letters denying them the right to buy playoff tickets and barring them from buying season tickets for the 2007 season. In 2006, the New England Patriots sued StubHub to bar it from reselling the team's tickets as fans reportedly showed up at games with phony or voided tickets bought over StubHub. While some were counterfeits, others were voided tickets sold by fans after they had their season-ticket privileges revoked. On July 6, 2007, a Suffolk Superior Court judge allowed StubHub to proceed with its lawsuit against the New England Patriots. StubHub accused the Patriots of attempted monopolization, conspiracy to restrain trade, and unfair trade practices. On October 19, 2007, a court upheld an order forcing StubHub to turn over a list of all New England Patriots season ticket holders since 2002 who had used the site. The Patriots stated that they may strip the season ticket holders of their seats. On January 26, 2009, the Massachusetts Superior Court rejected StubHub's argument that it was not liable for its sellers' behavior per 47 USC 230. NPS LLC v. StubHub, Inc., 2009 WL 995483 (Massachusetts Super. Ct. January 26, 2009).

2) Concerning the aforementioned content, can the tabloid the New York Post article ("Yankees Shut Out Season-Tix Scalpers") be removed?

3) Can this sentence (In 2006, more than 100 New York Yankees season-ticket holders suspected of reselling their regular-season seats on StubHub received letters denying them the right to buy playoff tickets and barring them from buying season tickets for the 2007 season.) then be rewritten, to provide two perspectives and better reflect the remaining sources? Perhaps to:

In 2006, when the New York Yankees barred 10 StubHub users from buying seats for reselling their unused season tickets, citing a "no-reselling" clause in the original ticket contract, StubHub criticized the policy as "a witch hunt against us and eBay for giving fans more access to these games.

4) Could the sentence about being sued by the New England Patriots in 2006 (In 2006, the New England Patriots sued StubHub to bar it from reselling the team's tickets as fans reportedly showed up at games with phony or voided tickets bought over StubHub. While some were counterfeits, others were voided tickets sold by fans after they had their season-ticket privileges revoked.) be streamlined to the following?

Also in 2006, the New England Patriots sued StubHub to bar it from reselling Patriots tickets in Massachusetts, arguing StubHub was illegally facilitating the sale of phony or voided season tickets.

5) Could this detail, an unsourced case listing (On January 26, 2009, the Massachusetts Superior Court rejected StubHub's argument that it was not liable for its sellers' behavior per 47 USC 230. NPS LLC v. StubHub, Inc., 2009 WL 995483 (Massachusetts Super. Ct. January 26, 2009).), be changed to the following?

After StubHub appealed, in 2009 a judge rejected StubHub's argument that it was not liable for its sellers' behavior in the state of Massachusetts. Purchasing StubHub during the dispute, eBay later settled.

2007 Ticketmaster dispute over MLB contract
Can the detail in "History" about the 2007 MLB agreement and related Ticketmaster lawsuit be moved to "Sports"? Also, so it makes sense in the new location, could the "Eight months after the acquisition" be changed to "in 2007"? Here is the live content:

Eight months after the acquisition, StubHub reached an exclusive agreement with Major League Baseball (MLB). They get a piece of the 25% in commissions StubHub earns on either end of a season ticket buy and sell transaction. Ticketmaster filed a lawsuit against StubHub and eBay in 2007, alleging "intentional interference" with Ticketmaster's contractual rights.

2012 MLB contract details
1) Could the following detail in "History" about the 2012 MLB contract be moved to "Sports"? Here is the live content:

In December 2012, it was reported that the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Angels, and the Chicago Cubs had dropped StubHub and declined a new five-year deal, which MLB Advanced Media had signed.

2) Could the prior-mentioned Yankees material have the New York Post cut for being a tabloid? Also, I was wondering if the prose could be rewritten to have more detail (I removed the Chicago Cubs mention, as they renewed, and also cut the Yankees mention since their contract is covered elsewhere):

In 2012, StubHub renewed deals with Major League Baseball Advanced Media. By December 2012, about half of the 30 MLB teams had separate partnership agreements with StubHub as well, with several teams such as the Los Angeles Angels not renewing.

2012-2013 Yankees storefront dispute
1) Can the "History" content about the dispute with the Yankees over the stadium storefront be moved to the "Sports" section? It starts with In March 2013, the Yankees sued Stubhub, and ends with As of April 16, a settlement was still being reached in the Bronx Supreme Court.

2) Within the storefront content mentioned above, can the following tabloid content be removed?

The New York Post stated that the "Yankees are using the state's anti-scalping law to keep legal ticket reseller StubHub away from the Stadium, but when it comes to traditional illegal scalpers outside their gates, the team is giving them an intentional walk." A spokesman for the Yankees stated that there should be no double standard and that the state's anti-scalping law should be universally enforced.

3) Concerning the remaining dispute content:

In March 2013, the Yankees sued StubHub, claiming that the sale of their tickets violates New York scalping laws. The Yankees claim that StubHub had opened a ticket office within 1,500 feet of Yankee Stadium, but StubHub defended itself, arguing that it wasn't a ticket sales office, but a printing station for tickets purchased online. As of April 16, a settlement was still being reached in the Bronx Supreme Court.

It repeats a source and doesn't reference the 2013 settlement, so could this version be used instead?

In 2012, The Yankees sued StubHub for its storefront near Yankee Stadium, arguing it violated New York law prohibiting ticket resale within 1,500 feet of a venue. With StubHub arguing the location wasn't a ticket sales office but a printing station for tickets purchased online, the matter was settled in 2013.
 * Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "2006 Yankees/Patriots dispute"
 * 1) Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Has already been moved to "legal issues".
 * 2) ✅
 * 3) : The current sentence seems appropriate. I've added StubHub's response to the existing sentence.
 * 4) ✅
 * 5) : The 2009 appeal has not been added, see WP:BLOG.
 * "2007 Ticketmaster dispute over MLB contract" ✅
 * "2012 MLB contract details"
 * 1) ✅
 * 2) ✅
 * "2012-2013 Yankees storefront dispute"
 * 1) Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Has already been moved to "legal issues".
 * 2) ✅
 * 3) ✅
 * Thank you, . Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)