When is enough,enough?

[eastynh]

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep the demand is there for sure, for now.

But when the fanatics are priced out and replaced by tourists who only go once or twice, what happens when the festival inevitably falls out of fashion among the chattering classes and the once loyal supporters are long gone?

It's feels like the festival is stronger than it's ever been but closer to complete capitulation all at the same time. 

I always thought the non-renewal of the licence would be the thing to kill the festival. I should have realised it would end up being money and greed that did for it.

 

 

 

 

 

All empires crumble at some point.

It is only a matter of time before someone puts on a festival the same weekend as Glasto. It will have fair less going on but if they can happen to put big bands on with a lower ticket price then it will draw people away from Glastonbury. Glastonbury gets by on the good will of artists playing for less. Yet they have bills to pay like the rest of us. I think a smaller more affordable festival with big names on would be bad news for Glastonbury.

Edited March 28, 2017 by eastynh

[OBface]

4 minutes ago, Quark said:

And also how much of it is driven by things like the drive in cinema, or even the growth in scale of Shangri-La and the SE Corner. I wouldn't call them vanity projects, but certainly "additions".

This goes back to Untz's point that we are all likely to be happy to see some elements of the festival stripped back if it means a reduction in ticket price just that we would never agree which ones. 

Little of interest for me on the Pyramid but Block 9 and the Common are integral to 'my' Glastonbury. Tricky.

[Smeble]

Arent they trying to strip back the festival with variety bazaar, that wasn't exactly met with positive vibes on here.

 

unless VB is the big new flashy festival and Glastonbury will return to its roots

Edited March 28, 2017 by Smeble

[russycarps]

5 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Who do you think is being greedy? 

They seem pretty clear that the neighbours can be quite demanding for the additional space these days, other than that I'm not sure who is making more wedge. 

I dont mean greed in terms of making fat profits.

It's the obsession with being the biggest and the "best" festival that is fucking everything up. Every year we have new stages, more new areas, the biggest stars in the world headlining, huge subheadliner acts...and every year the ticket price has to go up accordingly. 

They dont seem to realise the reason it was always the best was not because of all the frippery. Now it's all consuming.

 

 

[dentalplan]

Just now, Smeble said:

Arent they trying to strip back the festival with variety bazaar, that wasn't exactly met with positive vibes on here.

I'm for it - I think it's the only way. They can't change Glastonbury itself without upsetting a lot of people and risking demand dropping off, so it's necessary to keep paying more and adding more onto the price which will inevitably end up with demand dropping off too and everything collapsing.

[jfaragher]

12 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

Is it time to cut back on the cost of running the festival to hold ticket prices? Maybe by taking out a stage or two, so less bookings, or not having relatively expensive headliners? Would we accept cutbacks to improve the cost??

Cut the arts, and you may as well go to V or Reading.  Cut the big acts, and you could do Shambala or Boomtown instead.  

[RichardWaller]

1 hour ago, Muppetmark said:

The stones were 105 including fees for general admission. 

Cheapest were, yeah. Went up to £300.

[oneeye]

22 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

The demand indicates that the price is ok.

That said, particularly comparing 2016 with 2004 as an example, I just don't see the value in the increased price. General drainage/Park/Spike/Sth East Corner all good elements but worth a doubling in ticket price? Hmmm. As I think @russycarps said, the inexorable increase in ticketprice can't continue in the absence of real wage increases.

I think one of the differences between 2004 and 2016 is free music; artists generally don't get as much revenue now from singles/ album sales, hence all ticketing prices have gone up, including their festival fees.

I do agree that the price is now close (if not over) the max for most people earning UK average wage or below, which can't be good for it's future.

A solution maybe is to reign in artists fees (festivals and gigs) and for adjacent land owners to stop pushing the envelope. 

[JoBalls]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

I dont mean greed in terms of making fat profits.

It's the obsession with being the biggest and the "best" festival that is fucking everything up. Every year we have new stages, more new areas, the biggest stars in the world headlining, huge subheadliner acts...and every year the ticket price has to go up accordingly. 

They dont seem to realise the reason it was always the best was not because of all the frippery. Now it's all consuming.

 

 

This is kind of what I was trying to get at last night. On the Glastonbury app, they have 28 stages listed in the "Main Stages" section and 50 in the "Smaller Stages" section. 

Is it amazing that the festival is able to showcase so much talent? Yes of course.

Do we need 78 options of who to see at any one time? Not really. They could cut the number of stages in half and it would still be the biggest and best festival in the world in terms of choice and diversity. 

[Quark]

7 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I dont mean greed in terms of making fat profits.

It's the obsession with being the biggest and the "best" festival that is fucking everything up. Every year we have new stages, more new areas, the biggest stars in the world headlining, huge subheadliner acts...and every year the ticket price has to go up accordingly. 

They dont seem to realise the reason it was always the best was not because of all the frippery. Now it's all consuming.

 

 

Strong point, well made.

[Splonk]

I think the price is fair at the moment, but I can't really afford it all the same.

This year is a real struggle money wise and I'm hoping things improve for next year otherwise it could be my last.

I can see where all the money goes, so I have no issue with 'greed' as Russy calls it (*edit: just read your post and get where you are coming from). The festival is just so large now that a lot of the money goes on stuff it isn't even possible to see, due to the distances and sheer number of stages.

I get that this is half the attraction, but for me the festival could easily cut down on attractions and I'd still be happy as a pig in muck.

What bothers me more than the price is the depressing sight of all the mess that people create. Walking across the Pyramid field in the early hours of the morning is a pretty depressing sight and makes me question the whole thing. Back in the day there would be an announcement from the stage for people to spend two minutes picking up the shit people have dropped - and it worked. 

Why not do this again?

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Splonk

[Odessa]

I also wish they'd stop adding so much unnecessary shite that most people won't even think about all weekend if it means ticket prices can freeze. Do many people actually care about that drive in cinema thing for example? I don't understand people who fork out hundreds to go somewhere like Glastonbury to then spend their time there watching old films they could watch at home. Obviously I doubt this on its own is a huge cost but if you add up everything similar to it then it will be. 

 

[dj matt james]

12 hours ago, briddj said:

Also need to remember the added value of taking your own booze and not being forced to pay premium prices or nothing. 

That would be the turning point - if the public wasn't allowed to do that I think the festival would struggle.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, JoBalls said:

This is kind of what I was trying to get at last night. On the Glastonbury app, they have 28 stages listed in the "Main Stages" section and 50 in the "Smaller Stages" section. 

Is it amazing that the festival is able to showcase so much talent? Yes of course.

Do we need 78 options of who to see at any one time? Not really. They could cut the number of stages in half and it would still be the biggest and best festival in the world in terms of choice and diversity. 

It's madness. But I suppose they are terrified if they cut back they might lose their Biggest and Best reputation, meaning people might start looking at other festivals as a viable alternative. 

I imagine all their finances hinge on it selling out. Probably if it doesnt sell out the financial implications are catastrophic (I'm guessing here mind)

 

[The Nal]

The festival can't afford to be any cheaper. After all the costs and donations to charities - and they support a shit load - Glasto Fest made £86,000 in pre tax profits, using 2014 as an example. So turned a net profit of 50k. They could reduce the tickets by £3 and they'd break even. 

Could be a lot cheaper but they'd have to ditch all the charities. Let those lazy c**ts go get their own water eh?! 

[dj matt james]

4 minutes ago, russycarps said:

It's madness. But I suppose they are terrified if they cut back they might lose their Biggest and Best reputation, meaning people might start looking at other festivals as a viable alternative. 

I imagine all their finances hinge on it selling out. Probably if it doesnt sell out the financial implications are catastrophic (I'm guessing here mind)

 

I would imagine that Emily is far more worried about Biggest and Best. I bet that Michael would be happy with a scaled down version.

[Alvarhanso]

I think the key is the price in the context of the wider uk festival market. I know you can go to smaller cheaper festivals but if you look at say reading and Leeds Glastonbury seems a bargain. Their festival prices are 213 for weekend,20 for early entry and then 16 for a locker ticket.

 

All this included brings it up to the same price of Glastonbury and, when you consider the variety of acts,fact you can bring your own booze anywhere and, the lack of wallet raping commercialism Glastonbury is good value

[clarkete]

12 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Every year we have new stages, more new areas, the biggest stars in the world headlining, huge subheadliner acts...and every year the ticket price has to go up accordingly. 

 

Yes, I do see what you mean, although I do enjoy the breadth and that you can bimble across so many things, indeed last few years I've seen great things in "stages" that were just bars that people in here mentioned.  Also so many folks in here seem to talk about SE needing changing or an alternative to share the crowds. 

Some potential reductions others have suggested would need the total crowd to be reduced presumably? 

BTW I heartily agree with @Splonk about the old school messages to clear up your patch. 

[russycarps]

5 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Yes, I do see what you mean, although I do enjoy the breadth and that you can bimble across so many things, indeed last few years I've seen great things in "stages" that were just bars that people in here mentioned.  Also so many folks in here seem to talk about SE needing changing or an alternative to share the crowds. 

Some potential reductions others have suggested would need the total crowd to be reduced presumably? 

BTW I heartily agree with @Splonk about the old school messages to clear up your patch. 

Yep, it would be difficult to scale down the festival now as thousands of people would be inevitably disappointed no matter what area(s) they decided to cull.

The most surprising thing is that they are actually adding new areas still. If they wanted to keep the illusion of change without adding extra costs, surely just rejigging existing areas would be sufficient. Which is what makes me wonder how concerned they actually are about rising costs.

Maybe because they realise how good value it is compared to other gigs, they think pricing is fine? Maybe they dont realise how many people are close to packing it in because they cant afford it? Let's be frank, emily is a very wealthy individual. Perhaps she simply is not aware that £250 is a tipping point for many people? You cant really blame her for that.

 

[FrancisH]

The rising costs do bug me for a reason which I'm hesitant to raise for fear of descending into the chaos of ticket subsidising discussions. So I'll just simply stick with - even as somebody who probably falls into a middleclass category with a decent job I find it a bit of a push to afford the full weekend and ticket costs - So it would seem the festival is increasingly catering for an affluent demographic, through no fault of it's own as I believe it's as cheap as it probably can be - but I just think it's a bit shit really, that I don't think the future of Glastonbury is particularly sustainable.

[popcornmaster]

I'm torn on so many levels. 

I understand and agree that the ticket is probably good value for money for what you get but I find the attitude that fuels this a bit overzealous. It feels as though people are trying to convince themselves rather than others...
"But but you can bring your own alcohol into the arena so it's value..."
"But but if you watch 15 bands a day and catch a circus act it only works out at 50p a piece of entertainment."
"6 days camping! 6 WHOLE days are included!"

Sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade, it's fucking expensive. Even if the ticket price isn't gigantic most people aren't getting change from half a grand and they're the guys doing it relatively conservatively. Thankfully, I'm in a position where the economics don't factor all that much into it. I don't have any real responsibilities or dependents, but for those that do, I can only sympathise at the extraordinary increase in price since I've been going (10 years). 

A couple of people have touched on it, I also I think that we're starting to see crowds beginning to dilute. I'm not one of those proclaiming that "it's all BBC luvvies, wannabe IT girls and middle-class kids" now but with the current trend in prices I can only see it being detrimental to the vibe of the place (and I'm hardly an old-hand). 

I've said the past couple of times I've been that it would likely be my last and this year is heavily fuelled by my dream of wanting to see Radiohead headline. I find it tiring/draining earlier and earlier into the festival now which makes me sad because I rabidly loved the place for my first 5/6. With that new venture I hope they do something interesting and readdress some of the issues we're seeing. I am also thankful that this could potentially be the last festival on this site and I'll be there to see it off. (someone will likely correct me here but the last I'd read the site's future was in question?)... but I am not sure if I'll go again.

... or I'll smash this year and want to return straightaway. 

[shuttlep]

35 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I dont mean greed in terms of making fat profits.

It's the obsession with being the biggest and the "best" festival that is fucking everything up. Every year we have new stages, more new areas, the biggest stars in the world headlining, huge subheadliner acts...and every year the ticket price has to go up accordingly. 

They dont seem to realise the reason it was always the best was not because of all the frippery. Now it's all consuming.

 

 

what you said

 

it's nail on the head

 

[dentalplan]

20 minutes ago, Odessa said:

I also wish they'd stop adding so much unnecessary shite that most people won't even think about all weekend if it means ticket prices can freeze. Do many people actually care about that drive in cinema thing for example? I don't understand people who fork out hundreds to go somewhere like Glastonbury to then spend their time there watching old films they could watch at home. Obviously I doubt this on its own is a huge cost but if you add up everything similar to it then it will be. 

I think it's more of an art installation though, and those are a pretty good thing about the festival.

[**claire**]

We're not going this year as we're getting married, so we've got some extraordinary expenses going on this year anyway, but it's amazing how far the cash we'd normally spend on Glastonbury each year has stretched to enable us to do other things this year.

Generally though we've actively decided to say no to a lot of live music opportunities this year as the price increases are just insane - the live music we have seen this year has all been very small gigs around the £15 mark, & then it becomes harder to swallow the costs of the things we'd ordinarily be tempted by!

We'll probably try for tickets again next year, but anything over £250 will probably feel like a lot of money once you factor in spends etc & getting there & back (not questioning whether it's worth the money, for us personally we definitely get our money's worth, but still).

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

31 minutes ago, Odessa said:

I also wish they'd stop adding so much unnecessary shite that most people won't even think about all weekend if it means ticket prices can freeze. Do many people actually care about that drive in cinema thing for example? I don't understand people who fork out hundreds to go somewhere like Glastonbury to then spend their time there watching old films they could watch at home. Obviously I doubt this on its own is a huge cost but if you add up everything similar to it then it will be. 

 

Isn't that what makes Glastonbury so good though? You may not value the drive in cinema but somebody else might, I've never watched anything in the circus fields or the acoustic tent but it doesn't mean those areas don't have value to other people. We could all individually strip back the parts we don't value and keep the stuff we like but it's different for everybody. It's also called Glastonbury festival of performing arts, not Glastonbury music festival.