Silent Auctions Leave Some Bargains
I attended a dinner last night in Chicago. It was for a good cause and everyone had a good night. It had a silent auction and I scooped up a bargain.
How?
Nearly every charity event has a silent auction. It has become very popular way to raise money by offering your guests different ways to give to your cause. It has also become a good way for you to make some money on the side. Silent auctions usually offer sporting event tickets, memorabilia, and vacation trips. These auctions can provide a great opportunity to get a reasonable deal.
Example
Last night the marquee item was a chance to throw out the first pitch at a Cubs game along with a few other perks. It received most of a the attention. It also left some bargains to be had elsewhere. One item was 4 tickets to the Chicago Bears vs New Orleans Saints game in sec 110 row 8. Those seats are on the 45 yard line. With 10 minutes left there was only one bidder for $1000. I know those tickets are a hot commodity. Take a look at these screenshots from a ticket broker and StubHub.
The market value is $560 per ticket. Total market price is $2240. I bid $1100 at the last minute and walked away with them. The charity makes $1100 and I get a tax writeoff and a tidy $1140 profit.
Tips for Silent Auctions
- Get a list of offered items before the auction
- Do your homework to get the face value and market value of the items.
- Go to one for a woman’s dominated charity event or couples. Why? Women don’t know the market value and men are reluctant to bid in front of their wives.
- Stay away from the marquee ticket. It will be fairly valued.
- Look for items with few bidders.
- Work with a partner to scoop up the winners at the last minute.
There is something slimmy about bragging about making money at a charity event, though if I get one of the 4 Bears tickets, it’s a good kind of slimmy.
I’m not bragging. It was a very good cause that I have supported for a couple of years. It fell into my lap so everyone wins. I’m just pointing out an opportunity for everyone to watch in the future.
Maybe slimmy is the wrong word. If the event is to raise money for a worthy cause, pay market price for the item. If you pay less than market value for the money, who loses out? The charity. Most likely, the charity didn’t pay anything for the tickets, vacation package, etc, but somebody did. Those people donated the tickets/items to the charity in hopes of the charity at LEAST getting the money that was paid. Your gain is the charity’s loss.
This Healy character is dead-a*s wrong. He must be unaware of the mechanics of a fundraiser. The fundraiser rallied sporting event tickets, vacation packages, golf outings, etc. from it’s staunch supporters and allies. Then, they silent auction them for as much money as possible. That revenue goes entirely and all to the said charity. This blogger, mpgent, ACTUALLY gave top dollar for the tickets that night because nobody outbid him/her. In fact, the charity should thank him/her for that final bid becasue that’s the most anyone was willing to pay for said tickets. Now, the fact that mpgent may turn around and sell them for a profit is IRRELEVANT!!!! He’s simply taking advantage of a market inefficiency; the fact that multiple willing bidders weren’t at this auction. In the end, the charity got as much as it could, the donator of the tickets got a writeoff for the face value(not necessarily market value) of the seats, and this mpgent chap/dame got choice seats to a game or a nifty profit. Healy’s out of line…Reminds me of a Don’t Pass bettor at a craps table…..
T.V.O.R.
T.V.O.R has obviously spent too much time in the pits. When you use the terms “market inefficiency” and “market value” to try to persuade the readers of this blog (4?) that making a profit at charitable events/auctions, etc, is not only OK, but somehow beneficial to the charity, it leads me to believe that TVOR has taken too many elbows to the head in the frozen concentrated OJ pit.
I am very familiar with fundraising and silent auctions. The intent is to raise as much money as possible for the charity, not provide markets for ticket hawks. If a person, in this case mpgent is TRUELY there as someone in support of the charity, he/she would pay at LEAST full boat for the tickets, thus maximizing the revenue opportunity for the charity. If mpgent is there as a potential ticket hawk, that’s fine, but in my opinion it’s slimmy. At most of the fundraisers I’ve been to, it’s the 87 year old woman running around bidding $15 for a $100 gift card to Lettuce.
God forbid any of us are ever in the position of needing to hold a fundraiser for a sick friend/relative, etc, but if we were, and at the end of the night you were reviewing the results of the silent auction, the majority of the items were sold under face value, what do you think your reaction would be? I’m thankful for the money raised? Or, jeez, we should have raised more with those items?
If you are looking for potential value in under-priced items, go to a flea market or garage sale. If you want to maximize what a charity earns at an event, pay full boat. The fact that most items at a silent auction are undervalued is irrelevant. What is your intent?
TVOR reminds me of a guy who owns trotters that come in 8th.
The Bears tickets final price was over the face value of the tickets. The price will fluctuate in the open market from now until the gametime in December. The Bears might be 5-10 and the temperature could be 10 below and the tickets could be below face value at gametime.The charity is laying off the risk of carrying the tickets.
The charity received the tickets as a donation. They decide in what format to maximize their return on the donation. They have the chance to sell the tickets on Ebay as soon as they receive the ticket. The charity believes a silent auction will maximize its value to the charity and be a benefit to those attending the event. During that same auction, Oprah tickets, which are not available for sale and are free, netted the charity $2000. A package of Cubs tickets sold for $4000. Both netted the charity well over the probable market price. That is why the charity chose that format. It could have easily chosen a fixed price based on a predetermined price.
My maximum price was $1100 and represented what I was willing to pay. Allowing the market to determine the price maximizes the price to the charity. It’s basic Econ 101. Floors and ceilings on prices are inefficient. The correct definition of Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services. The most important word is free. Why? If it isn’t, then someone’s freedom has been restricted. Restricting one persons freedom restricts everyone’s freedom.
Uh, If like, I have my freedom restricted for kicking your ass, then, like, has your freedom been compromised as well even though, really, your face is bloodied and yet you still can move around freely in attempt to kick my ass-but cannot as I have been incarcerated???
T.V.O.R.
Mpgent…you just can’t do it, can you? I know this is very difficult for you, but not everything in life is related to markets, capitalism, laying off of risk, etc.
Taking a play out of Karl Rove’s playbook? Restriction of freedom? What’s next, accusing me of having weapons of mass destruction? Take a breath, relax….the argument is philosophical. Are you at the charity event to make money or are you there to give money to charity? Can’t be both.
Healy-Are you betting democrat ?
Voting? No.
Betting? Wouldn’t you?