Talk:StubHub


History update

[edit]

Hi editors, I'm Stephanie and I work for Beutler Ink. I have several ideas to overhaul the article (I made a diff here if anyone is curious!) that will expand context, make sure the content reflects the sourcing, and improve citations and organization.

My first request is in two parts. First, I propose changing the subhead 2000–2007 to Founding and early years as this is more descriptive.

Second, I propose changing the first paragraph of the section to add additional context about the founding of StubHub, as supported by reliable sources. That would look like this:

This does several things:

  • Adds additional context and detail to the founding of StubHub, making the article more thorough
  • Updates several citations to be more complete
  • Clarifies details on the nature of founding, founding location
  • Improves accuracy/clarity of statement on what Fluhr and Baker were doing when they founded the company (active students rather than mere alumni at the time)
  • Removes extraneous details about routine business details that aren't relevant anymore because they didn't happen or are not especially significant (e.g. In 2002, eBay was in talks to acquire StubHub for US$20 million, although the agreement had later "fallen apart over price." and While StubHub initially intended to "build a ticket transaction system that [Fluhr] could sell to other online portals and providers", in 2003, the company began placing Google ads for the actual StubHub website instead, directly facilitating ticket sales from sellers to buyers.)

Please let me know what you think! Happy to discuss further. Stephanie BINK (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Retained one mention of eBay. Encoded  Talk 💬 16:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Encoded: thanks for reviewing! Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History update 2

[edit]

Hi editors, my next request is in two parts.

First, I propose changing the heading 2000–2007 to Founding and early years as this is more descriptive.

For the second, I propose changing up the remainder of the 2000–2007 subsection in the following way:

This does several things:

  • Condenses content and removes potentially biased language (e.g. 2007 was a very successful year for the company)
  • Removes sentences about investment from Pequot (poor sourcing) and Inc. 500 listing (comes off a bit promotional, though I understand if editors prefer to keep this because the source is solid)
  • Explains the context of the falling out between Fluhr and Baker more
  • Removes mention of the eBay acquisition (preserves chronology of the section, acquisition to be added back in the next edit request, my draft/diff shows where I intend to suggest it goes)
  • Removes Fluhr/Tsakalakis transition to preserve chronology (will be added to the next subsection in the next edit request)
  • Adds content related to lobbying efforts to fit better into chronology
  • Updates sources and makes Manual of Style fixes where needed

Please let me know what you think! Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]