'Exclusivity'

[kalifire]

A lot of recent talk seems to have shifted to whether acts which have been confirmed are exclusive to the festival(s) who've already announced them, or whether they have already confirmed where all their appearances will be for the entire year.

How much stock do you think we should put in this? Personally I find it baffling that any artist would categorically rule out any prospect of any further gigs or appearances in an entire country for an entire year, in January. The whole thing strikes of festival organisers wanting to claim exclusivity simply to shift tickets.

Right now, several acts I'd love to see at Glasto have seemingly been picked off by other festivals who then claim they won't be appearing anywhere else. Is it likely that's the case? Or is it more likely they've asked the artist to hold off from announcing anything any further gigs so that they can legally get to say that the artist won't be playing anywhere else (context: that we know of right now) and sell all their tickets before more gigs are revealed?

Either festival organisers are playing fast and loose with their marketing, or acts are making extraordinary 12-month long commitments in advance. Either way it seems a bit odd.

Edited January 28, 2014 by kalifire

[Matt42]

Exclusivity is Exclusivity, if they book on exclusive they won't be at other festivals...

I understand why festivals do it, it's clever... but personally I hate it.

For selfish reasons, and the reasons why they do it.

[Guest]

if you organised a festival, and paid loads of money for any given act hoping it would help sell tickets, and then that act decided to play every other festival, and/or loads of gigs, thereby diluting the demand, you'd feel a bit miffed, wouldn't you?

half the time, the exclusivity is next to meaningless... as in the case of Damon Albarn. It's an exclusive headline... he can play anywhere else so long as he doesn't headline

I think....

[Guest]

Exclusivity is Exclusivity, if they book on exclusive they won't be at other festivals...

I understand why festivals do it, it's clever... but personally I hate it.

For selfish reasons, and the reasons why they do it.

[FloorFiller]

i just love the ways the festivals twist their words to make an act sound more exclusive than it actually is. soon it'll be date-specific exclusives: 'the ONLY time you can see them perform this year on the 31/7/2015'

but yeah, as tonyblair said, from a marketing point of view you can definitely tell why they're doing it and i'm surprised that it's only come into real force in recent years (but i guess that's a lot to do with new festivals popping up everywhere)

[Guest]

I don't think it's a new 'thing'. When I was touring over 30 years ago there were clauses in the contracts that we couldn't play within a certain radius of the gig with a given period of time. With the increase in competition, it's probably just become more apparent, festivals want to make a bigger deal of their line-up.

[FloorFiller]

I don't think it's a new 'thing'. When I was touring over 30 years ago there were clauses in the contracts that we couldn't play within a certain radius of the gig with a given period of time. With the increase in competition, it's probably just become more apparent, festivals want to make a bigger deal of their line-up.

Edited January 28, 2014 by FloorFiller

[guypjfreak]

its mad but understandable but at least you KNOW wot bands are playing at other festis its only glasto that you buy your ticket in OCTOBER lol and you have NO idea whos gonna be playing lololol

i personally like it cos its all about the build up ect BUT it is mad if you think about it lol

[Bisque]

I can honestly say I have never bought a ticket to a festival due to a band/act bein exclusive.

I couldn't give a shit. It sounds desperate.

[buffystar]

I gig at a local level and we get contracts to say we can not play any gigs in the county 5 days before and after unless they have already been booked before the contract comes into force.

[Spindles]

Glastonbury have got round this in the past by putting bands on as secret guests when they are listed as exclusive at other festivals (I'm thinking of Pulp, 2011 as an example).

[Bluearsedfly]

Exclusive as headliners.

Wouldn't prevent Metallica popping up on The Other Stage at 11am

[incident]

Glastonbury have got round this in the past by putting bands on as secret guests when they are listed as exclusive at other festivals (I'm thinking of Pulp, 2011 as an example).

[eFestivals]

Glastonbury have got round this in the past by putting bands on as secret guests when they are listed as exclusive at other festivals (I'm thinking of Pulp, 2011 as an example).

The idea of exclusives is to drive sales - and so if an act isn't advertised as playing at another event, the ability to drive sales via a supposedly exclusive performance isn't really undermined.

If too many acts on exclusive contracts started to play unadvertised shows elsewhere then I guess the promoters who work via exclusives would start to change the terms of those contracts to stop those unadvertised performances.

But as things stand the number of 'secret' sets that happen are too minimal to much care about. It's not like there's a strong possibility of even one 'exclusive' act doing a secret set at another festival in any year.

[mrtourette]

Either festival organisers are playing fast and loose with their marketing, or acts are making extraordinary 12-month long commitments in advance. Either way it seems a bit odd.

[Dan R]

I can honestly say I have never bought a ticket to a festival due to a band/act bein exclusive.

I couldn't give a shit. It sounds desperate.

[5co77ie]

I dont think many people have bought ticket because the act is exclusive. The exclusive tag is so if people want to see them perform then they know (or think) that its their only opportunity.

Im not a fan of band being booked on exclusives, but its to be expected in the current market.

[mrtourette]

I can honestly say I have never bought a ticket to a festival due to a band/act bein exclusive.

I couldn't give a shit. It sounds desperate.

[Guest]

I can honestly say I have never bought a ticket to a festival due to a band/act bein exclusive.

I couldn't give a shit. It sounds desperate.

[5co77ie]

..I don't get how with nearly a thousand festivals happening in a period that's only 6 months long (hat's 26 weekends) it's possible for an act to appear at all of them anyway.

Surely a band should be able to pick and choose a path through the summer. Is any band so in demand that festival goers would turn up at that event?

The problem is that some festivals see themselves more important than others, and the media play along, only giving coverage to around 20 festivals, further exacerbated by award ceremonies, and so bands want to play these over all the other options.

I think it depends who is in charge, if it's the band, then they pick festivals where they will have an enjoyable summer, maybe bring the kids and family along, and these are your staple festival acts that provide the staple backbeat to your summer.

If it's the management in charge then it's all about the money, and they'll play for as much as possible. The trouble is this policy is now spreading down through the ranks with more and more bands demanding higher wages to play.

However once the whole system is screwed, and all the money grabbing bands are shunned by the regular festival circuit, because they have priced themselves out of the market, or signed deals where hardly anyone hears them at festivals and those acts make sod all on their music sales then perhaps things will get to normal.

[5co77ie]

does the line-up affect your decision making at all?

[Dan R]

When big festivals are pushing bands up to headline status I can see why theyd want to reduce the risk by making it the only opportunity to see them.

It just seems so unjustifed when they put exclusives on smaller acts on the undercard though, the acts that could play loads of smaller festival but dont bring that many tickets to the big ones.

[Guest]

not much I suppose if it's all teen star fodder I'm not likely to go to a festival. But festivals are about much more than the line-up on stage, these days and most festivals who operate in the tough current climate have realised this - particularly the smaller ones, who are 'breeding' a new kind of successful festival.

I just hope that some of the politics and doing it, and going to them, for the right reasons maaaaan make a comeback too.

Edited January 29, 2014 by tonyblair

[mrtourette]

When big festivals are pushing bands up to headline status I can see why theyd want to reduce the risk by making it the only opportunity to see them.

It just seems so unjustifed when they put exclusives on smaller acts on the undercard though, the acts that could play loads of smaller festival but dont bring that many tickets to the big ones.