Spending £75 for a piece of 3D card?

…or £75 for a limited edition souvenir that may rise in value in the future – which of these is rational?

This debate is raging on many blogs following an offer from AEG, the promoters of the Michael Jackson ‘This is it’ tour that would have commenced later this month in London. Approximately 800,000 people have already paid from £50 to £75 for the tickets, and will now be given the option of having their money back or of receiving the ‘souvenir tickets’ – and no refund.

AEG say that the tickets feature graphics ‘inspired and designed’ by Jackson, and will become collectors pieces. A quick scan through the comments following this piece on the BBC website gives a roughly even split between those who want their money back and see the offer as AEG trying to keep the cash, and those who welcome it as a way of having something to keep as a ‘personal memento’ of the singer. Very much a matter of personal opinion and so open to irrational, non-economic thought, and could be an example of behavioural economics, not least the tendency of people once they have ownership of something to value it more highly.

Tim Harford applies some game theory concepts to this issue in his undercover economist blow piece here