Would a ballot be a fairer system?

[DeanoL]

26 minutes ago, Gregcharlie said:

Problem I see with a ballot compared to how it currently is, would it be only solo entries into the ballot?
Or would you have group entries? Would it be more beneficial to enter on your own or as a group? Which has the higher chance?

You'd have groups and the chances would be almost exactly the same

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

28 minutes ago, Gregcharlie said:

Problem I see with a ballot compared to how it currently is, would it be only solo entries into the ballot?
Or would you have group entries? Would it be more beneficial to enter on your own or as a group? Which has the higher chance?
If it was only individual entries what if there is a group of eight of you wanting to go but only seven get tickets? That would be utterly devastating for the one without a ticket and the seven who got tickets wouldn't feel particularly great about it either.

What if only two people out of a large group got a ticket and they were two of the least known to each other?
What if no two people from any group got tickets together and everyone at Glastonbury was going and camping on their own?
(Actually I think this last one would make for a really interesting festival - do it..)

Only way I could see it working is if one ballot entry gave you the chance to buy 6 tickets, all your friends could enter but some or none would be successful, I would imagine it would create pretty big rows in larger groups deciding who was going unless that was agreed beforehand. Obviously doing it like that would create an immediate need for a resale because not everybody would need 6 tickets so they would go back into the pot, what it might create is a situation whereby you could sell slots to the highest bidder, so to counter that you'd need to have to pre-confirm who you want to buy tickets for when you enter the ballot.

[uscore]

It's a stupid idea. End. 

[DeanoL]

41 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Only way I could see it working is if one ballot entry gave you the chance to buy 6 tickets, all your friends could enter but some or none would be successful, I would imagine it would create pretty big rows in larger groups deciding who was going unless that was agreed beforehand. Obviously doing it like that would create an immediate need for a resale because not everybody would need 6 tickets so they would go back into the pot, what it might create is a situation whereby you could sell slots to the highest bidder, so to counter that you'd need to have to pre-confirm who you want to buy tickets for when you enter the ballot.

Or just let people register as a group of whatever size they want and each group gets one entry into the ballot.

Edited April 25, 2017 by DeanoL

[mcshed]

49 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

You'd have groups and the chances would be almost exactly the same

But every year there would be a tonne of posts on here claiming one side or the other has an unfair advantage.

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, mcshed said:

But every year there would be a tonne of posts on here claiming one side or the other has an unfair advantage.

Well it's currently biased towards groups of six and not too many complain about that. Also if you're in a group and think smaller groups have an advantage and ignore the maths explaining otherwise you can just all register individually.

[mcshed]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Well it's currently biased towards groups of six and not too many complain about that. Also if you're in a group and think smaller groups have an advantage and ignore the maths explaining otherwise you can just all register individually.

Given I've seen people complain that it currently favours Urban/Rural/North/South/Phones/Desktops/Virgin Media I don't think any rational reason would stop them.

 

I wasn't really saying people complaining is a reason it's a bad idea just that you might be banging your head against a brick wall trying to assure people it's fair.

 

The real reason why this will never happen is the current system is fine as far as Glastonbury and See are concerned and implementing a complex new one would cost time and money. Do you want to pay a bigger booking fee to fund a ballot?

[Ommadawn]

22 hours ago, russycarps said:

Down south I suspect

Also known as Toryland

[billum]

1 minute ago, Ommadawn said:

Also known as Toryland

Uh-uh, we're mostly Lab in the capital. You can smear the home counties if you want

[Breeze]

Been on this site since 2002 and I think this has been suggested every year since.

As the current system is fair (doesn't favour people by speed of connection or location) and a ballot would present a bunch of new issues (how do groups get tickets together, how do you stop people entering the ballot hundreds of times, what happens when a bunch of people got tickets on a whim rather than making an effort etc. etc.) there has never been any real support for it.

[OneLittleFish]

On 4/23/2017 at 10:16 AM, thesaint78 said:

I guess everyone who says no are sorted for tickets.

Please explain why you don't think it would work

Because no matter what system you use, more people will be without tickets than those who do have them. There's no perfect system at all, if you move to a ballot system you'll see posts on here saying "Why don't we use a first come first served system?".

 

The current system is more likely to be rewarding to those who are prepared and ready to go at 9am on ticket day (though it's not guaranteed to give a result). A ballot system wouldn't and would see more tickets go to people who aren't that bothered but they might go for a ticket just because it's there.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

You'd have to assume you'd get a lot more people casually registering for a ballot then forgetting about it, than actually bother getting up on the Sunday to try for tickets, so surely a ballot would further reduce everyone's chances of actually going?

[Woffy]

1 hour ago, billum said:

Uh-uh, we're mostly Lab in the capital. You can smear the home counties if you want

No he fucking can't!

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, Breeze said:

what happens when a bunch of people got tickets on a whim rather than making an effort 

Why is this a bad thing?

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

You'd have to assume you'd get a lot more people casually registering for a ballot then forgetting about it, than actually bother getting up on the Sunday to try for tickets, so surely a ballot would further reduce everyone's chances of actually going?

Well it would increase the chances of people who casually register then forget about it going. Which is what a fair system is.

As I've said, nobody here, including me, who will be going to my 13th Glastonbury in a row this year, wants a fair system. But it would be possible, and no so convoluted to implement to be completely out of the question either.

[fur_q]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But it would be possible, and no so convoluted to implement to be completely out of the question either.

Really? How would you easily stop a person entering multiple times?

Edited April 25, 2017 by fur_q

[Ommadawn]

How about putting the tickets up for sale at say 3.00am.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, fur_q said:

Really? How would you easily stop a person entering multiple times?

As I said earlier, you charge up front for the ticket when entering the ballot, refund as soon as it's drawn if you don't win in the ballot.

Sure, rich people could enter multiple times, but that'd be risking paying £500-£1000 for a ticket and if you're willing to pay that much there are already options available to you.

[somecoolusername]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

As I said earlier, you charge up front for the ticket when entering the ballot, refund as soon as it's drawn if you don't win in the ballot.

Sure, rich people could enter multiple times, but that'd be risking paying £500-£1000 for a ticket and if you're willing to pay that much there are already options available to you.

Why would the festival want to take on that ridiculous amount of admin? It costs them as it is to refund the relatively small number of tickets for those that don't pay off the balance - hence why they keep an admin fee. 

And there are all sorts of legal implications about making people pay for something that they're not necessarily getting. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, somecoolusername said:

Why would the festival want to take on that ridiculous amount of admin?

If they wanted a fairer system that gave more people the chance to get tickets. If the argument is that it doesn't need to, well it doesn't need to offer a deposit system in the first place. It doesn't need to offer refunds in the first place. And it doesn't need to have ID on tickets. 

All that stuff is in place because the festival wanted to make ticketing fairer.

Quote

It costs them as it is to refund the relatively small number of tickets for those that don't pay off the balance - hence why they keep an admin fee. 

And there are all sorts of legal implications about making people pay for something that they're not necessarily getting. 

Obviously there is a cost involved but it'd be a few quid on a ticket at most. If the festival wanted to do it they could quite easily. It's far from impossible.

Luckily they won't. I'm just not so daft as to delude myself into thinking a system that gets me into the festival every year is as fair as it's possible to be.

[somecoolusername]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

If they wanted a fairer system that gave more people the chance to get tickets. If the argument is that it doesn't need to, well it doesn't need to offer a deposit system in the first place. It doesn't need to offer refunds in the first place. And it doesn't need to have ID on tickets. 

All that stuff is in place because the festival wanted to make ticketing fairer.

Obviously there is a cost involved but it'd be a few quid on a ticket at most. If the festival wanted to do it they could quite easily. It's far from impossible.

Luckily they won't. I'm just not so daft as to delude myself into thinking a system that gets me into the festival every year is as fair as it's possible to be.

All of those factors were introduced to prevent touting and people paying over the odds for a ticket. Which it has done very successfully. Probably more successfully than any other music industry initiatives to combat touting. So, on that basis, it is 'fair'.

And on what legal basis would they keep the money people paid to enter the ballot until it is refunded/they get a ticket? 

I haven't succeeded in getting tickets every year I've tried btw. So I've experienced the system from both sides. I still think it's about as fair as it can reasonably be, without introducing ridiculous admin for the festival 

[JacquelineS]

5 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

How about putting the tickets up for sale at say 3.00am.

I was up and ready at 2:00 a.m. to get my ticket. 

[MetaKate]

7 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

How about putting the tickets up for sale at say 3.00am.

 

1 hour ago, JacquelineS said:

I was up and ready at 2:00 a.m. to get my ticket. 

5am for me. I had a wedding on Saturday night and didn't get drunk because i knew i wouldnt wake up for tickets. I was the only one out of my group who even had a chance to try, so i had to suck it up. Was pretty torturous but it's worth it for the golden ticket. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

As I said earlier, you charge up front for the ticket when entering the ballot, refund as soon as it's drawn if you don't win in the ballot.

Sure, rich people could enter multiple times, but that'd be risking paying £500-£1000 for a ticket and if you're willing to pay that much there are already options available to you.

But that way you'd handing an advantage to the more wealthy, so it immediately becomes an unfair system again, it's just that it would favour the wealthy rather than large groups, which surely creates a bigger problem than it solves?

Glamping options with tickets are a lot more expensive than £1000, you're looking at the £3-£4K bracket at least, so there would still be an advantage to those who could afford to spend £1000 on gettting a ticket.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

8 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

How about putting the tickets up for sale at say 3.00am.

That wouldn't really solve the issue that the OP is suggesting exists in the first place, and what a ballot would address - an overall fairer system. Putting tickets on sale at 3am would further reward the more organised and the hardcore regulars and make it harder for the first timer and less organised, which is totally the opposite to what Glastonbury themselves would want to do.