Is it time to put up prices significantly?

[Dave_c]

As much as I am royally pissed off that I missed out despite being on the payment page on 2 laptops for 20 minutes, I think the system is as fair as it can be and the price is right.

The only possible suggestion would be to block an IP address once tickets have been purchased if that is at all possible. Winds me up seeing people get in 5 Times to get tickets for their lazy hole mates who can't be bothered trying themselves!

[Rose-Colored Boy]

56 minutes ago, not worthy said:

I thought you had to have a festival ticket already to book Worthy View? or are you saying these are special privilege tickets you get just for booking Worthy View and can avoid the ticket day stress?

You do have to have a ticket.. but they can't reduce how many of 'those types' attend because they make so much money out of each and every one of them. And similarly with the business types and corporates, they make serious $$$ from that lot

[not worthy]

5 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

You do have to have a ticket.. but they can't reduce how many of 'those types' attend because they make so much money out of each and every one of them. And similarly with the business types and corporates, they make serious $$$ from that lot

Ok, got it, cheers

I had it in my mind that Worthy View was kind of the same idea as Tangerine Fields, camplight, tipis and Campervan/Caravaning. Ie you get your ticket in the same way as everyone and then work out an option for where/how to stay if you want to do it differently and pay a premium

I guess apart from Tangerine Fields the majority of the profit goes to the festival rather than an independent organiser/landowner.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

20 minutes ago, not worthy said:

Ok, got it, cheers

 

I had it in my mind that Worthy View was kind of the same idea as Tangerine Fields, camplight, tipis and Campervan/Caravaning. Ie you get your ticket in the same way as everyone and then work out an option for where/how to stay if you want to do it differently and pay a premium

 

I guess apart from Tangerine Fields the majority of the profit goes to the festival rather than an independent organiser/landowner.

 

It does, but even on top of the direct money they make out of the absurd premiums for WV you also have to remember that the richer type WV appeals to will be likely to spend more inside the festival gates, on merch and food etc. So there's an indirect financial incentive for Glastonbury to keep WV as such a high proportion of attendees, as well as the obvious fact that 1000's of people paying three/four/five hundred pounds to stay in WV automatically directly makes the festival millions. And the same with the business types. People who can go there on a 'jolly' and claim it all on expenses are going to be more willing to open their wallet than families there on a shoestring budget etc.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[not worthy]

7 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

It does, but even on top of the direct money they make out of the absurd premiums for WV you also have to remember that the richer type WV appeals to will be likely to spend more inside the festival gates, on merch and food etc. So there's an indirect financial incentive for Glastonbury to keep WV as such a high proportion of attendees, as well as the obvious fact that 1000's of people paying three/four/five hundred pounds to stay in WV automatically directly makes the festival millions. And the same with the business types. People who can go there on a 'jolly' and claim it all on expenses are going to be more willing to open their wallet than families there on a shoestring budget etc.

so its fair to say that they've probably managed to keep the ticket price down by doing more of these premium options?

and, as premium options (exc corporate stuff), they've not reduced the ticket availability to anyone

well done GFL

[Rose-Colored Boy]

9 minutes ago, not worthy said:

so its fair to say that they've probably managed to keep the ticket price down by doing more of these premium options?

and, as premium options (exc corporate stuff), they've not reduced the ticket availability to anyone

well done GFL

Well quite

Obviously it's a balancing act and there would be a tipping point somewhere along the line where there were so many corporates and rich types etc that the atmosphere etc is reduced to a level where it doesn't warrant them paying those premiums anymore, but that isn't close to happening yet by anyone's interpretation 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Memory Man]

i suppose its not unrealistic to suggest that the extra £ from worthy view keeps the ticket price down slightly for everyone else but its far from certain. It might do, it might not.

I don't mind WV as as regular punter as it means there's that bit more room in regular camping.

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Memory Man

[Rose-Colored Boy]

22 minutes ago, Memory Man said:

i suppose its not unrealistic to suggest that the extra £ from worthy view keeps the ticket price down slightly for everyone else but its far from certain. It might do, it might not.

 

It's pretty obvious that it does.. I don't know how many tents there are in WV but if it's say 5,000 at £300, 5,000 at £400 and 5,000 at £500 then that's £6m quid directly banked by the festival. Obviously there are running costs which have to be deducted but if they make £5m profit from WV directly, even before the money WV means they make indirectly, then that's £41 that they don't have to try and squeeze out of each of the 120,000 regular attendees.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[russycarps]

So why does the ticket price keep rocketing up year on year then?

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

So why does the ticket price keep rocketing up year on year then?

 

Inflation, the farmers Glastonbury rent from increasing their demands, Glastonbury doing more on site, the acts demanding more money.. but it'd jump up much more if they suddenly decided to abandon WV and the amount of money that the Worthy View-ers and business types spend inside the fence. Don't get me wrong I'd be the first person to cheer if it was possible for it to happen and for the festival to still run but it just isn't.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[JBarbour]

The people with money don't apply for tickets and press f5 for 50 mins like all us poor folks. There are plenty of options for the rich to get tickets, you only have to search fly glastonbury to see some silly prices people will pay. There are a number of these "premium" options that also gets you a ticket.

I don't see Worthy View as one of these premium options. Worthy View reduces waste and the clean up time. WV may also pay one or more of the land owners fees after expenses. 

And didn't WV come off the back of one of the pre pitch tent companies going bust one year that ended up putting the festival/organises out of pocket? 

The price increase year on year is pushing Glastonbury more to a middle/higher class festival as well as out of the reach of families. 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

I go back to that suggestion earlier in the thread (I forget who by, I apologise) about coming up with a system where the ticket price you pay is set at 1% of your annual income. How this would be enforced is beyond me, and there would probably have to be some safeguards put in place to ensure those paying a lower ticket price than they do now was equalled out by those paying a higher fee than currently, or G might find too many people paying too low a fee and go bust, but if possible then it'd be brilliant.

edit: a system about making your ticket price relative to your income would be brilliant. Not the festival going bust. Obviously

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Hugh Jass]

6 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

I go back to that suggestion earlier in the thread (I forget who by, I apologise) about coming up with a system where the ticket price you pay is set at 1% of your annual income. How this would be enforced is beyond me, and there would probably have to be some safeguards put in place to ensure those paying a lower ticket price than they do now was equalled out by those paying a higher fee than currently, or G might find too many people paying too low a fee and go bust, but if possible then it'd be brilliant.

edit: a system about making your ticket price relative to your income would be brilliant. Not the festival going bust. Obviously

I don't see how that's a fair system at all. It's not as simple as saying somebody on £30k a year should pay £300 for a ticket, or that they can afford more simply because they earn more. There are so many other factors before you can determine what's "affordable" - kids, mortgages, where you live and your personal circumstances- a single man in Carlisle on £25k is likely to be able to afford £250 whilst a man in London on £30k with kids is less likely to be able to afford £300. How do you account for that? One price for all tickets is fairer IMO.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I don't see how that's a fair system at all. It's not as simple as saying somebody on £30k a year should pay £300 for a ticket, or that they can afford more simply because they earn more. There are so many other factors before you can determine what's "affordable" - kids, mortgages, where you live and your personal circumstances- a single man in Carlisle on £25k is likely to be able to afford £250 whilst a man in London on £30k with kids is less likely to be able to afford £300. How do you account for that? One price for all tickets is fairer IMO.

Fair points. Maybe there needs to be more complexity to any kind of system like that, then. Maybe 'bands' of prices taking into account income, average house prices where you live, family support etc. Maybe something similar to how they work out student fees (and if you had to apply to register for tickets in a way which was as complicated and long and boring as applying for student fees then that would massively reduce the oversubcription issue in an instant). I just definitely don't agree that 'one price fits all' is appropriate in 2016.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Quark]

38 minutes ago, russycarps said:

So why does the ticket price keep rocketing up year on year then?

 

The best ill-educated guess I can come up with is that the cost of putting it on continues to increase and they want to maintain the high levels of donations to the main charities?

Aside from the costs of booking the acts, which must also be going up even if it is lower that your average festival, there's the cost of renting the land, the improvements and changes that they must be making each year to maintain the licence and placate the locals and council, the cost of policing the event (both police and private security), and pretty sure there's more.

If that lot all keeps increasing (we're all in it together, remember? ) then either it gets passed on to the punters or it comes out of donations.  We lose in that instance.

Like I said, ill informed guess.

[Madyaker]

My impression of my first Glastonbury last year was that it's already very much a middle class affair, much more so than any Irish festival.

[Hugh Jass]

6 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Fair points. Maybe there needs to be more complexity to any kind of system like that, then. Maybe 'bands' of prices taking into account income, average house prices where you live, family support etc. Maybe something similar to how they work out student fees (and if you had to apply to register for tickets in a way which was as complicated and long and boring as applying for student fees then that would massively reduce the oversubcription issue in an instant). I just definitely don't agree that 'one price fits all' is appropriate in 2016.

How can you justify charging different prices for the same experience though? Even with the best intentions of being more socially inclusive it would be a tough sell to most punters.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, Madyaker said:

My impression of my first Glastonbury last year was that it's already very much a middle class affair, much more so than any Irish festival.

It is. You only needed to witness how favourable a response every 'I can't believe we voted to Leave' speech got this year to know the middle classes make up a far bigger proportion of the Glastonbury attendee list than they do the general population. But it will become dominated by the upper-middle and upper classes rather than the plain old middle class if ticket prices keep going up. And that would kill the festival within about five years.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

How can you justify charging different prices for the same experience though? Even with the best intentions of being more socially inclusive it would be a tough sell to most punters.

It's not like the festival are struggling to sell tickets at the moment.  They can do what they want, within reason, and still sell out. And being more socially inclusive would generate a lot of popular press anyway, after all it is the basis of how the Glastonbury movement grew. There's more of a risk that they start not selling out again by allowing for the atmosphere to be harmed by taking the ticket prices up and up and up than there is risk they would stop selling out by bringing in a system where people pay based on what they can relatively afford.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Alvarhanso]

3 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

It is. You only needed to witness how favourable a response every 'I can't believe we voted to Leave' speech got this year to know the middle classes make up a far bigger proportion of the Glastonbury attendee list than they do the general population. But it will become dominated by the upper-middle and upper classes rather than the plain old middle class if ticket prices keep going up. And that would kill the festival within about five years.

Your reply suggest the only people who wanted to remain are middle class? I thought it was the opposite as I don't consider a newspaper such as daily mail which is a the biggest leave champion working class at all.

[russycarps]

55 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Inflation, the farmers Glastonbury rent from increasing their demands, Glastonbury doing more on site, the acts demanding more money.. but it'd jump up much more if they suddenly decided to abandon WV and the amount of money that the Worthy View-ers and business types spend inside the fence. Don't get me wrong I'd be the first person to cheer if it was possible for it to happen and for the festival to still run but it just isn't.

 

16 minutes ago, Quark said:

The best ill-educated guess I can come up with is that the cost of putting it on continues to increase and they want to maintain the high levels of donations to the main charities?

Aside from the costs of booking the acts, which must also be going up even if it is lower that your average festival, there's the cost of renting the land, the improvements and changes that they must be making each year to maintain the licence and placate the locals and council, the cost of policing the event (both police and private security), and pretty sure there's more.

If that lot all keeps increasing (we're all in it together, remember? ) then either it gets passed on to the punters or it comes out of donations.  We lose in that instance.

Like I said, ill informed guess.

Yeah it's grown to a size that is not sustainable by an inclusive ticket cost. I dont think creating more exclusive areas to try and drive down the price is the answer though, because all that will do is attract more wealthy people, who will expect a certain level of "service", not just in areas like WV, but across the whole site.

The only answer is to scale back the festival and reduce costs accordingly. But that will never happen so as zac notes, it will just become ever more middle/upper class and sanitised.

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by russycarps

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, Alvarhanso said:

Your reply suggest the only people who wanted to remain are middle class? I thought it was the opposite as I don't consider a newspaper such as daily mail which is a the biggest leave champion working class at all.

No obviously that was a massive generalisation to emphasise my point, I apologise.. tho it was the working class vote (and Labour not speaking to it) which tipped the result in favour of leave, that's pretty widely accepted. 

[Quark]

22 minutes ago, russycarps said:

 

Yeah it's grown to a size that is not sustainable by an inclusive ticket cost. I dont think creating more exclusive areas to try and drive down the price is the answer though, because all that will do is attract more wealthy people, who will expect a certain level of "service", not just in areas like WV, but across the whole site.

The only answer is to scale back the festival and reduce costs accordingly. But that will never happen so as zac notes, it will just become ever more middle/upper class and sanitised.

 

Then you get into the whole question of the benefits of having a more sanitised festival.  I don't think there's any way it would have continued otherwise; a victim of its own success.

All we can do, or at least all I'm going to do, is to keep enjoying it for as long as I can until it either get scanned or becomes V Festival.

And just because I know how much you love Bruce Dickinson Russy, checked the details of something I saw when I was at Download this year for your edification 

The RIP Metal Hotel (I shit you not) https://www.musicfestivalwizard.com/a-good-idea-the-rip-metal-hotel/
 

And some info on the luxury camping options:  RIP (Rest In Peace) is the original and best rock festival experience. From sunup to sundown, it's the most rocking campsite in the kingdom. Enjoy a greener patch of grass to pitch your tent, superior amenities including proper toilets and warm showers, car parking and 24 hour assistance from our event management station. The RIP campsite also boasts a convenience shop, refreshments area, Eco Day Spa, Dressing room and Lockers.

Not sure how that ties in with his utopian vision of "leave the middle classes to do Glastonbury - and the great unwashed will decamp to Knebworth, drink a lot of beer and have fun" 

[DeanoL]

22 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

I don't see how that's a fair system at all. It's not as simple as saying somebody on £30k a year should pay £300 for a ticket, or that they can afford more simply because they earn more. There are so many other factors before you can determine what's "affordable" - kids, mortgages, where you live and your personal circumstances- a single man in Carlisle on £25k is likely to be able to afford £250 whilst a man in London on £30k with kids is less likely to be able to afford £300. How do you account for that? One price for all tickets is fairer IMO.

That's all accounted for.

Going to Glastonbury is a luxury.

Having a nice house is a luxury.

Having kids is a luxury.

Living in London is a luxury.

You'd choose the ones you can afford and have to skip the ones you can't. 

It does wind me up when people try and treat "raising a family in a nice house" as  "personal circumstances" rather than something they wanted to do and so chose to do. 

[Charm]

16 hours ago, DeanoL said:

That's all accounted for.

Going to Glastonbury is a luxury.

Having a nice house is a luxury.

Having kids is a luxury.

Living in London is a luxury.

You'd choose the ones you can afford and have to skip the ones you can't. 

It does wind me up when people try and treat "raising a family in a nice house" as  "personal circumstances" rather than something they wanted to do and so chose to do. 

Sorry hun but that's just nonsense,  I was born in London, its where I'm from not a luxury and unfortunately for me it's really expensive. 
Charm x

Edited October 12, 2016 by Charm