The original title: "Want to see Jay Chou rejected for my late sister" Why is the ticketing platform dogmatic?
Recently, Mr. Wang (a pseudonym) complained that his sister bought tickets for Jay Chou's Changsha concert on June 1, but she died unexpectedly this month. Seeing that Jay Chou has always been my sister's wish, he hoped to complete it for her, so he applied to the ticketing platform, barley. com, to change the audience. After presenting the death certificate and account cancellation certificate as required, Mr. Wang was still rejected by barley and asked his sister to go in person. After the news was exposed, the relevant terms ranked first on the hot search list.
On the evening of May 21, @ barley official blog issued a notice of apology: barley customer service did not correctly understand his brother's meaning, and there were many omissions in the process. According to the requirements of the project's strong real name system rules, it rejected the user's request to change the audience, instead of refunding tickets for free. The whole process was dogmatic and rigid. At present, the barley platform has assisted users in handling free ticket refunds, and is still trying to help communicate, hoping to help brother achieve his wish.
When receiving the consultation, the customer service of barley said that for Jay Chou's Changsha concert on June 1, it was a real name admission requirement, and it was impossible to change the audience. For whether the ticket can be refunded, the customer service said that the real name system cannot be refunded, and the details shall be subject to the page announcement. Perhaps the customer service has formed a set of fixed "standard answers" when dealing with similar matters. This "assembly line" storybook proves that the origin of the so-called "dogmatic and rigid process" of barley is not in the customer service. The customer service is just doing things according to the rules. What should be reviewed is the platform itself.
There are rules for sorting out the whole event, but there is no temperature. Although barley has shown a modest attitude at present, this process is still a mental torture for the applicant. After all, the "success" of ticket refund is not the intention of the applicant. As a platform party, it is not enough to just show the outsider awareness of "trying to help communicate". The tickets of consumers are bought from the platform. Of course, only the platform is recognized for relevant matters. The platform needs to design solutions for various problems. What is the reason that the platform does not take the main responsibility and only assume the obligation of "trying to help communicate"?
The platform attributed the reason for the "trouble" to the strong real name system, which seems reasonable, but in fact it has not been refuted.
The implementation of the strong real name system is to combat "scalpers" and other chaos, but the fundamental purpose of the real name system is to provide better performance experience and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Obviously, the implementation of the strong real name system still needs to comply with legal requirements such as the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, and achieve "no unfair and unreasonable trading conditions shall be set, and no forced trading shall be allowed". If the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by ticket buyers, including ticket refunds and replacement of performers, are not protected, it would be against logic and the spirit of law. Obviously, the back of "showing the death certificate of relatives is still refused to change the audience" is an unfair and unreasonable trading condition.
It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time that the ticketing platform has been questioned and criticized on issues such as ticket refund and replacement of performers. In March this year, the media reported that a woman in Guangdong sent a post for help and bought a concert ticket on March 17. Because her father died suddenly, she could not come to the scene, but she encountered many difficulties in applying for a refund. Customer service said before that the ticket cannot be refunded.
This inhumane "rule" shows a very ugly appearance and also shows the reality of bone. In the final analysis, it is the management awareness of "losing hands as soon as the ticket is released" that plays a decisive role. On some online platforms, there are many complaints from consumers about the phenomenon of "the request for changing the performer by clicking the wrong information is rejected" and "the wrong performer is checked but refused to modify".
It is not reliable to rely solely on the consciousness of the ticketing platform, nor can we completely rely on the "empathy" occasionally shown by the platform. In the face of problems such as difficult ticket refunds and difficult replacement of performers for some reason, the regulatory department can intervene in a timely manner to guide the ticketing platform to establish and improve ticketing regulations and support consumers' reasonable demands. （ Wu Lichuan ）
