tickets and how it could be done better

[robalotalob]

This is my sixth Glastonbury! Good job I know luckier people cos I get shit   Actually I think one year I saw the reg details page but by the time I'd entered the details it had sold out

That is pretty bad luck!

[Room to sway]

Blacks.

We've only got room for Joe Bananas and Millets providing camping equipment y'see

 

Doesn't look like a great camping equipment salesman...

 

 

Though I do like the idea of OrgazmiXound

Edited October 7, 2015 by Room to sway

[DeanoL]

Why shouldn't it?

 

Never said it shouldn't. I just object to people shouting about how the system is totally fair and everyone has an equal chance, when they're quite aware it's actually designed to benefit them.

 

I'm a big fan of the system being biased towards me, I'm just not comfortable with pretending it's not. It's like the Tories claiming how their benefits cuts are going to help the poor - I'd have more respect for them if they just admitted they don't give a crap about the poor and embraced it.

 

[fatyeti24]

Ok maybe not tech-savvy but being aware of strategies like regularly refreshing pages and having multiple browsers open. You've never got through? How many years have you been trying?

the holding page this year specifically mentioned not to have multiple browsers or tabs open in case it affected the tab you got through on, and stated that you could refresh your browser if you didn't want to wait 20 seconds.

[carlosj]

It's not as pluralistic and open as it could be though. It's biased towards tech-savvy people with fast internet.

 

There are plenty of stories on threads here showing that 'fast internet' isn't the only way to get a ticket, but a variety of bandwidths worked on a variety of devices, from Gigabit downwards. And tech savvy? Well, it is on a website, so we do need technology for that. And before you say I'm sarcastic, I'm thinking the same complaint of advantage for an alternative of physical tickets from shops will produce queues and complaints from those who can't take 4 days off to join a queue before Tday (or pay someone to queue, again, advantageous to someone). Where do we stop?  Should we introduce socio-economic groups to the process and fill up quotas?

 

The festival needs to sell out to cover costs and donate to charity (whole other thread), so it does need to generate publicity and sales. Comments about people who are 'doing' Glastonbury or are 'gap-yah' students seem bitter and promote further distancing between everyone there.  They're still eligible to try for and buy tickets.  (No, I'm not Teddington, and yes, the majority of men pissing away from toilets didn't look or sound like spoiled brats, so it's not always the filthy rich who are filthy).  The festival pushes on with the overarching social themes to counter the shit that happens outside the festival, it's down to us to keep on with that or ignore it beyond June. I don't live Glastonbury, but I mirror a bit of what Glastonbury tries to promote.

Edited October 7, 2015 by carlosj

[wilson123]

It's not though. You've listed three things there. That it's the best system is arguably true. That it's the easiest for the festival to use is nonsense - if they wanted that they wouldn't bother with pre-registration and so on. Just let the tickets go on the open market.

 

It's not the fairest either. It contains designed biased towards rewarding effort and some preparation (and group sizes of exactly six) - it's specifically designed not to give everybody an equal chance. If you actually want to give everyone an equal chance, a ballot system does that.

 

I'm not proposing they adopt one. I'm just sick of the attitude on here that "this is fairest system" from people that get tickets every bloody year. And I'm one of those people that get tickets every year, but I realise that's because I prepare, have overlapping groups, multiple people trying, and am willing to do the resale if needs be. With the amount of people trying for tickets, it's completely and totally unfair that I get to go 12 times in a row. The chances of that in truly fair, random system are tiny.

 

I'm still very happy that I get to go - I'm just aware that I'm benefiting from the inherent biases in the system, and not pretending that it's fair and that everyone has an equal shot. And I'm willing to contemplate and discuss what a fairer system would look like because I don't think I have some special right to always have a system that's biased towards me.

 

How is it unfair that you have prepared, that you have a group of people trying or that you're willing to try and get tickets in the resale? 

 

If you're prepared - there's no guarantee that you 16 laptops and 14 phones will get through any better than one person whacking F5

 

If you're in a group - they have to enter six registration numbers and postcodes, if you're on your own it's just one. 

 

If you're willing to try in the resale - well if you're not, then obviously you have a disadvantage...

[robalotalob]

the holding page this year specifically mentioned not to have multiple browsers or tabs open in case it affected the tab you got through on, and stated that you could refresh your browser if you didn't want to wait 20 seconds.

Maybe that's where I went wrong then, although I didn't get past the holding page.

[robalotalob]

There are plenty of stories on threads here showing that 'fast internet' isn't the only way to get a ticket, but a variety of bandwidths worked on a variety of devices, from Gigabit downwards. And tech savvy? Well, it is on a website, so we do need technology for that. And before you say I'm sarcastic, I'm thinking the same complaint of advantage for an alternative of physical tickets from shops will produce queues and complaints from those who can't take 4 days off to join a queue before Tday (or pay someone to queue, again, advantageous to someone). Where do we stop?  Should we introduce socio-economic groups to the process and fill up quotas?

 

The festival needs to sell out to cover costs and donate to charity (whole other thread), so it does need to generate publicity and sales. Comments about people who are 'doing' Glastonbury or are 'gap-yah' students seem bitter and promote further distancing between everyone there.  They're still eligible to try for and buy tickets.  (No, I'm not Teddington, and yes, the majority of men pissing away from toilets didn't look or sound like spoiled brats, so it's not always the filthy rich who are filthy).  The festival pushes on with the overarching social themes to counter the shit that happens outside the festival, it's down to us to keep on with that or ignore it beyond June. I don't live Glastonbury, but I mirror a bit of what Glastonbury tries to promote.

I disagree that Glastonbury 'needs' to sell out. Just stop booking such big name acts. I shudder to think how much Kanye West cost. All I'm saying is that Glastonbury was better when there were more people from a broader range of  social backgrounds. The current ticket system perpetuates a mainly exclusive demographic.

[tweed1981]

I disagree that Glastonbury 'needs' to sell out. Just stop booking such big name acts. I shudder to think how much Kanye West cost. All I'm saying is that Glastonbury was better when there were more people from a broader range of  social backgrounds. The current ticket system perpetuates a mainly exclusive demographic.

Isn't it widely regarded that Glastonbury pay about a tenth of what other festivals pay due to the knock on effect that artists get from record sales?

 

I'm sure Kanye wasn't cheap, but I doubt he cost as much as you think and in reality Glastonbury will have a certain amount they will be willing to pay and can afford to pay for headliners.

 

like it or not they need to book these big polarising acts to maintain an interest in the festival. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by tweed1981

[stuartbert two hats]

I disagree that Glastonbury 'needs' to sell out. Just stop booking such big name acts. I shudder to think how much Kanye West cost. All I'm saying is that Glastonbury was better when there were more people from a broader range of  social backgrounds. The current ticket system perpetuates a mainly exclusive demographic.

Fundamentally I agree, but with the way it's being run at the moment it does need to sell out to remain financially viable.  Or at least, that was the case in 2008.

[stuartbert two hats]

Isn't it widely regarded that Glastonbury pay about a tenth of what other festivals pay due to the knock on effect that artists get from record sales?

 

I'm sure Kanye wasn't cheap but I doubt he cost as much as you think and in reality Glastonbury will have a certain amount they will be willing to pay and can afford to pay for headliners and if an artist too expensive then they are too expensive.

Have you seen how many acts play?  The festival's not cheap to put on, no matter how little they pay.

[eFestivals]

Isn't it widely regarded that Glastonbury pay about a tenth of what other festivals pay due to the knock on effect that artists get from record sales?

 

It's nothing to do with knock on effects of record sales and everything to do with the artist taking less to the benefit of good causes.

 

How much less varies. I'd suggest that headliners are getting nearly half of their normal fee nowadays, from the bots and pieces that have been said in various bits of press. It's perhaps not as low as 10% for most others, but they're definitely getting reduced fees.

[stuartbert two hats]

It's nothing to do with knock on effects of record sales and everything to do with the artist taking less to the benefit of good causes.

 

How much less varies. I'd suggest that headliners are getting nearly half of their normal fee nowadays, from the bots and pieces that have been said in various bits of press. It's perhaps not as low as 10% for most others, but they're definitely getting reduced fees.

You think the major artists are playing Glastonbury for a reduced fee because they really like charity and not to benefit their own bottom line?

[eFestivals]

You think the major artists are playing Glastonbury for a reduced fee because they really like charity and not to benefit their own bottom line?

 

Glastonbury pay the reduced fee because money that would otherwise go to that band is going to good causes.

 

Why the act might agree to take the reduced fee can be motivated by different things.

[balti-pie]

I saw an interview with that terrible missus of Shane MacGowan, and she said that Glastonbury pays a 'paltry' amount compared to what the Pogues rake in at their Christmas gigs. I don't doubt she's right, but I'd still like to see em play!

[jackarmy]

I saw an interview with that terrible missus of Shane MacGowan, and she said that Glastonbury pays a 'paltry' amount compared to what the Pogues rake in at their Christmas gigs. I don't doubt she's right, but I'd still like to see em play!

She's probably right when it comes to the slot that The Pogues would get if they played...

[balti-pie]

They'd be a hard band to place. Afternoon at the pyramid would be a waste - afternoon west holts would be better. Headlining Avalon or the acoustic would be mega! (OK, I'm biased, I'm a big fan!)

[tweed1981]

My point was regardless of why, that Glastombury do not pay the fees that other festivals do. they don't splash millions of pounds on exclusive deals to shift tickets because they do not have to. Regardless of the reason why, Kanye wouldn't have cost as much as the person who originally raised the point thinks and regardless of your taste in music he shouldn't necessarily be regarded as a waste of money. For what it's worth I'm not a fan.

[CTO]

He SHOULD be regarded as a waste of money,and for what it's worth, I'm not a fan either

[Untz]

My mum expressed shock that I didn't get tickets while people she knew who hadn't been before got tickets. She said regulars should get first dibs. Mums know best!

(I don't agree with her really.)

[LondonTom]

If you can afford that, you can just pay £1000 for a premium glamping package with ticket included. Glastonbury has already given up on the idea of that sort of monetary fairness - the rich can get in regardless already, so a potential system doesn't need to combat that sort of behaviour.

But in that case they are taking one of the normal tickets out of play with an unfair advantage, so the system is still flawed and biased.

 

What would people make of a random lottery? 

I think people might have mentioned it once or twice in this thread...

 

It's not as pluralistic and open as it could be though. It's biased towards tech-savvy people with fast internet.

No its not, we go through this every year. Read some of the threads discussing what people were people successful and you will soon find its down to luck.

 

How would you work it so all so these supposed people handicapped by using a website in 2015 could get tickets?

[gooner1990]

Paying the full price in one go in October, would put the cats amongst the pidgeons as it were.

[stuartbert two hats]

Paying the full price in one go in October, would put the cats amongst the pidgeons as it were.

Would you want that? Make it easier for older and richer people to get tickets?

[gooner1990]

Would you want that? Make it easier for older and richer people to get tickets?

 

Save up during the year means about £20 a month into a seperate account and then you have the full price. Simple.

[Untz]

Would you want that? Make it easier for older and richer people to get tickets?

 

With prior warning, would it necessarily do that? Plenty of other fests that young people attend require the amount in full.

 

I would have always paid the amount in full, and did the year it was an option, and I've always been a poor student/doleite/NHS worker and on the younger side of things.