Why It Works: How Oasis definitely (maybe) applied behavioural science to ticket sales

The circus surrounding buying Oasis tickets can’t fail to have caught your attention. The Gallagher brothers have drummed up so much demand for their reunion tour it’s estimated to have grossed £400m. But their canny ability to generate profit stretches back much further.

Perhaps the most creative demonstration of this comes from the infamous Heaton Park gig in 2009, which was blighted by sound and power outages. So bad was it that — having picked up a new generator from Argos — Liam declared the gig “free”, promising a full refund of the approximately £40 tickets. The show went on and the crowd left happy.

In the following weeks, around 20,000 attendees duly received their refunds. But here’s the twist — Oasis sent refunds in the form of a cheque stamped with the logo of the Bank of Burnage (a fictitious bank in the Manchester suburb they grew up in). And it was signed by both Liam and Noel.

You can imagine how many people actually cashed those collector’s item cheques, which were essentially pieces of carefully crafted memorabilia.

It was, of course, a deliberate ploy to keep fans happy whilst allowing the band to hang on to most of the takings from the night. Very smart.

You can have it all, but how much do you want it?

When tickets went on sale for the 2025 reunion gigs, then, some of those same fans, plus their children, clamoured for them. With only a small proportion of people having been assigned a pre-sale option, millions rushed online at the same time on a Saturday morning. Only to get stuck in a queue to join a queue — a process that would take many, many hours to get through, assuming the site didn’t crash or you get mistakenly identified as a bot.

And when buyers finally reached the front? The prices had shot up. An extra £200 on top of the already high £150 price tag that was advertised. That’s because Ticketmaster was using “dynamic pricing” – whereby prices vary according to demand.

Many ended up agreeing to the higher price and were later struck with buyer’s remorse. But why did they pay so much over the odds?

Why It Works: How two meerkats made insurance memorableWell, people were swayed by the fact they’d already invested so much time in queuing. They had fallen foul of a powerful behavioural bias called the sunk cost fallacy.

The sunk cost fallacy describes the phenomenon whereby our behaviour is shaped to an illogical degree by past efforts. Evidence comes from a 1985 study by Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer at Ohio University. They asked participants to imagine they’d bought tickets for a weekend ski trip to Michigan for $100 which will be quite good. Afterwards they pay out for another skiing vacation in Wisconsin for $50 which they’re told will be great. Later on, they realise they’ve double booked — and can’t get a refund.

Participants were then asked: which trip will you go on?

The logical choice would be the break that will bring more joy. The money’s already been spent, after all.

But that’s not what happened. Most people (54%) opted for the less fun trip (Michigan at $100); only 46% went for the more fun weekend in Wisconsin, at $50.

The Bear is more than a good TV show – it hides some behavioural science truths tooWhy? Because we can’t help but consider what’s already been invested, and feel we must somehow get our money’s worth.

Now, this is just a thought experiment. But there’s evidence that the same twisted thinking applies in the real world. In another study, the same researchers tested the phenomenon among fans of the Ohio University Theatre. They offered theatre buffs one of the following season passes, some with surprise discounts:

1. A normal price ticket – $15
2. A discounted ticket costing $13
3. A discounted ticket costing by $6

Then they monitored how often the participants visited over a period of 6 months.

Price paid for season ticket	Number of theatre visits
$15	4.11
$13	3.32
$6	3.29

So, the more they’d paid, the more they visited. There is no logical reason for this – these are all genuine theatre fans, with open access to the theatre.

The researchers argued that the full-price ticket holders had the highest sunk cost, which motivated them to see more plays in order to get their money’s worth.

A similar sense applied to people queuing for Oasis. They had chosen to invest so much of their time, they felt pressure to back up this choice with a purchase, otherwise the preceding hours appear pointless. And this meant agreeing to ticket prices that they may not otherwise have dreamt of paying.

What can we learn?

This kind of tactic, whilst it certainly has helped the band net maximum cash from their fans, is pretty unethical. Buyers hadn’t been warned beforehand that prices would skyrocket far beyond the figures advertised.

So, what can we learn? The key point is to disentangle the powerful bias and its dubious application. It’s possible to apply sunk cost effects without being manipulative.

There are plenty of ways that can be done. For example, Amazon Prime and ASOS Premier Subscription, offer free speedy delivery in return for an annual fee. Club Pret does it slightly differently, it provides discounts in return for a monthly fee.

By creating an upfront payment, the brands are applying the sunk cost effect and that means those customers will keep on buying even in situations where they could get a better deal elsewhere.

The key with these offerings is to make sure you stay on the right side of the ethical line. If you do, behavioural science will serve you well in both the long and the short term.