The sustainable approach to online ticket selling – Dave Newton, COO and Founder of WeGotTickets
This week’s guest blog post is by COO and Founder of WeGotTickets, Dave Newton. In it, he explains how and why paperless ticketing systems are more environmentally friendly than more ‘traditional’ methods, based on a report commissioned by WeGotTickets, linked to below.
Online ticket agency WeGotTickets has been working since its inception back in 2000 to use as little paper as possible, and to ensure that its ticket system is environmentally friendly. To this end, the company commissioned a study by Edinburgh-based sustainability consultancy En-Count, completed in late 2012, which demonstrates the advantages of its system over a paper ticket sent in the post, and to a print-at-home ticket or printed confirmation email.
According to the report, a paper ticket sent in the post emits 1070 times more carbon than a paperless ticketing system, when the email is not printed. When a confirmation email is printed it produces 411 times more carbon than if it wasn’t. As a result, WeGotTickets asks its customers not to print its confirmation emails.
The ‘traditional’ model, using old-fashioned paper tickets, involves the production of the paper and the envelope, the production of the ticket itself, and then the mailing of the ticket and its subsequent disposal and/or recycling. The second approach, the ‘email and print approach’ is where the customer orders their ticket online, then prints the email, then recycles or disposes of the ticket. The paperless ticketing system, on the other hand, entails only an email from the customer as it is the promoter who prints off the list of names and ticks them off upon arrival. The latter involves the least amount of ‘life cycles’ and hence carbon emission, even when electricity usage is taken into account.
Just think, we could sell out Glastonbury (177,000 tickets) and emit less carbon than a “print-at-home” ticket event selling just 431 tickets at your local venue would.
NB Some elements of the life cycle of a ticket will always remain variable in a study such as this. These may include customer travel to events, employees at ticketing agencies, differing printer characteristics of customers, computer use etc. It is important to note that assumptions have been made in order to conduct this comparative study. It is also important to note that the carbon study did not examine the relative carbon emissions of a ticket system which uses smartphone technology to deliver the ticket to the consumer.
BLOG CATEGORIES
BLOG POSTS BY MONTH
- June 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- July 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
Pingback: Events ticketing. – piasanna