Read the gap analysis. Here's how I'd run it. One assumption up front, because it changes everything: I don't know whether your InterTicket arrangement contains a written exclusivity clause — that's step 0 below, and the answer determines whether this is a permission conversation or a courtesy one.
The process Step 0 — before the meeting: read your own contract. Find the exact language: is exclusivity written, what's its scope (all inventory? theatre category? territory?), term, notice period, and what you receive for it (API access, giftcard pool, settlement, data feed). Then:
If there's no clause → you are free. Do not ask InterTicket for permission; you'd be handing them a veto they don't have. You inform them, at a time you choose. If there is a clause → nothing funcode-sourced goes live before it's amended or waived. Talking to funcode still breaches nothing. Step 1 — funcode meeting is discovery, not a deal. Nothing is signed, no exclusivity is offered or accepted, no economics of yours are disclosed. Two concrete outputs: sandbox credentials + a snapshot of their live Hungarian catalog.
Step 2 — quantify before you negotiate. With that catalog: how many HU events/day, how many venues, theatre vs. festival/attraction mix, and crucially what share is unseated (the seat-map gap makes seated events a separate, expensive project). If their theatre inventory is thin, the whole discussion is smaller than it looks and you negotiate accordingly.
Step 3 — one-page term sheet from you (you draft it, so you anchor), funcode responds.
Step 4 — the InterTicket conversation, before any signature and before any funcode ticket is sellable. Frame it as supply expansion into inventory jegy.hu doesn't ticket — not as a switch, and never as a threat. Their real objection won't be cannibalization (there is none), it's that you'd legitimize funcode as a viable alternative for venues. Have concessions pre-loaded:
Right of first refusal: any venue you want to add, InterTicket gets N days to sign them onto jegy.hu instead. This converts you from a threat into their lead-gen channel — it's the strongest card you have. jegy.hu inventory keeps default placement; giftcards stay jegy.hu-only (they already can't cross). A cap on funcode share during the pilot, and/or a longer term commitment from you. Step 5 — 8–12 week pilot, then a build/kill decision on economics, not enthusiasm.
Questions for funcode Fit (ask first — this can end the discussion cheaply):
How many Hungarian venues, and what's the mix — theatre vs. festival/attraction/experience? Name the theatres. Which of them actually have an unsold-inventory problem, and do any distribute last-minute today? Do you run your own consumer marketplace, and where is that going? (i.e. do you become our competitor in two years?) What share of your HU events is unseated/arrival-order? Commercial: 5. You already built a reseller channel (resellerFee, salesPointType=API, sales-channel pricing) — who uses it and what's the standard deal? 6. Who pays us: is the per-ticket fee out of your booking fee, or a venue distribution fee you pass through? Who approves a ~50% same-day price — you or the venue? 7. Merchant of record, settlement cycle, and who eats refunds/chargebacks? 8. Will you co-sell — introduce us to venues, or put a "push unsold inventory to Ma Este Színház" opt-in in your admin? Or do we sign every venue one by one? (this single answer determines whether the deal is worth doing) 9. Do we get the buyer's email and marketing consent? Non-negotiable for us. 10. Any exclusivity expectation on your side?
Technical (second-tier in meeting 1, but these three are commercial): which of your four mechanisms for a standing ~50% reseller price do you recommend, and how does settlement report it; PSP/NAV invoicing on API orders; seat/space enumeration via API or roadmap. Then the housekeeping: sandbox + test company, rate-limit raise, breaking-change/versioning policy.
What to propose Pilot: 8–12 weeks, 3–5 venues, unseated events only — that's exactly the surface your gap analysis says is fully covered, so it's the cheapest build and the lowest commercial risk. Seated is a separate conversation contingent on them exposing spaces. Non-exclusive in both directions, stated by you first. You're a neutral demand channel; that's the position, and it's also what makes you credible to their venues. Buyer stays on your checkout — insist on the Stripe/API path (A), not the hosted-shop handoff (B). B isn't a UX preference, it's channel control: their checkout takes your customer, your data and your consent. If B is unavoidable, demand whitelabel + buyer data returned. You own the customer and the list; funcode/venue owns fulfilment, ticket delivery, invoice and refunds. 30-day termination, kill switch, review at pilot end. Red lines: no exclusivity, no buyer data = no deal, no minimum guarantees or prepayment from you, and per-ticket economics that clear your current InterTicket contribution plus the extra support and dev cost.
Don't disclose in meeting 1: your InterTicket commission, per-venue economics, CPA, or that the InterTicket relationship might constrain your timeline. If asked whether you can do this: "our commercial arrangements are our side of the table; we'll confirm timing at term sheet."
One flag worth naming internally: the strongest argument for going non-exclusive isn't the incremental supply, it's that today the entire business sits on one supplier's API and goodwill. That's the real case — and it's the one argument you never make out loud to either party.
Want me to turn this into a one-page meeting brief (agenda + question sheet + draft term sheet) as a private artifact you can open on your phone in the meeting?