Glastonbury pays bands 'less than 10%' of what they'd earn elsewhere

[Tommy101]

Interesting article from BBC including a few comment from Emily: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40273111

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

While this doesn't suprise me, I think it's something worth considering for those who don't see the popularity of the festival falling anytime soon. It may well not, and I sincerely hope it doesn't, but acts readiness to accept fees that are a fraction of other festivals could change at anytime. Hence why the festival dont and shouldn't ever rest on their laurels when it comes to keeping the festival as popular as possible, and don't ever take it's popularity for granted.

[Hugh Jass]

That lower fee is offset though by having your set broadcasted live to millions via the BBC.

[Tommy101]

On further investigation I think this article is built around quotes from the 6 Music interview discussed here: 

 

[HoTWire]

39 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

That lower fee is offset though by having your set broadcasted live to millions via the BBC.

Which means the BBCs volume of coverage of the festival is affecting the ability of other UK festivals to compete on even terms with Glastonbury, which hardly seems like a good thing.
 

[Hugh Jass]

Just now, HoTWire said:

Which means the BBCs volume of coverage of the festival is affecting the ability of other UK festivals to compete on even terms with Glastonbury, which hardly seems like a good thing.
 

I would argue that it actually levels the playing field for Glastonbury against the likes of Reading who can drop a million pounds per set. There are still plenty of artists out there who will always take the coin over GF (Stone Roses, GnR, Fleetwood Mac...)

[Keithy]

It works both ways; all acts can add 'have played Glastonbury' to their PR bumf when booking gigs and extracting fee's. Bands accept the lower fee due to the exposure but also the association of the Glastonbury name.

The TV exposure is not relevant to 95% of acts; it's being able to book future gigs off the back of 'having been booked for Glastonbury'

[Gozzynoko-Flow]

I guess it's a bit like with footballers - why turn out to play for England when you get 1 - massively slated and 2 - not paid very much.

Glastonbury is like the England football team of music festivals, except it's actually good 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

That lower fee is offset though by having your set broadcasted live to millions via the BBC.

Would be interested to know to what extent this is true. For a start anyone not on the main stages aren't shown at all. Then, most of the acts on the main stages are only shown over streams which are watched by a few thousand people at the most, which is no more exposure than a band gets for playing one of the main stages at Reading. And even the (very small, relatively) number of acts shown on TV hardly pull in London 2012-esque ratings. The headliners probably just about offset the smaller fee with the press around their announcements and people hunting down their back catalogue on iTunes after the performance, but I'd be mighty surprised if the likes of Katy Perry don't make a loss on what they'd usually make from a show.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, Zac Quinn said:

Would be interested to know to what extent this is true. For a start anyone not on the main stages aren't shown at all. Then, most of the acts on the main stages are only shown over streams which are watched by a few thousand people at the most, which is no more exposure than a band gets for playing one of the main stages at Reading. And even the (very small, relatively) number of acts shown on TV hardly pull in London 2012-esque ratings. The headliners probably just about offset the smaller fee with the press around their announcements and people hunting down their back catalogue on iTunes after the performance, but I'd be mighty surprised if the likes of Katy Perry don't make a loss on what they'd usually make from a show.

I was thinking mainly of the headliners, the legend and any other high profile act who has their set televised who receive massive bumps in their sales. I'm sure most acts see a little upturn the week after from people who were either there or saw one of their songs on the wider coverage too.

[HoTWire]

15 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

I would argue that it actually levels the playing field for Glastonbury against the likes of Reading who can drop a million pounds per set. There are still plenty of artists out there who will always take the coin over GF (Stone Roses, GnR, Fleetwood Mac...)

133,000 capacity * £235 tickets = £31million ... + traders + EE sponsorship + TV rights (assuming they are paid for) + parking + merch ... - £2mil for charity.  I suspect Glastonbury brings in relatively as much for its size as Reading etc.

[dingbat2]

Perhaps bands actually like playing Glasto, and it's not all about the money, now there's a thought! 

Headliners/subs accept lower fees for the TV exposure, bands lower down accept the fees because it's "Glasto" and what better place is there to play live

Glasto's advantage is that it's simply the best at almost everything it does compared with other more commercial festivals. The original ethos of the festival remains thanks to the Eaviss, and I think that is key. Just look at the webcam, all that build effort going on everywhere, all for us, so we can have a big party. Few festivals put that much focus on punters enjoyment over maximising profit, helped by nearly 50 years of experience

 

[musky]

19 minutes ago, HoTWire said:

133,000 capacity * £235 tickets = £31million ... + traders + EE sponsorship + TV rights (assuming they are paid for) + parking + merch ... - £2mil for charity.  I suspect Glastonbury brings in relatively as much for its size as Reading etc.

It probably brings in as much (although it has much less sponsorship than the other major festivals - sacking off the 'Orange' from the Chill and Charge tent reportedly cost £400,000), but that £2 million for charity has a major effect on the budget available to them.

[jackarmy]

16 hours ago, Zac Quinn said:

Would be interested to know to what extent this is true. For a start anyone not on the main stages aren't shown at all. Then, most of the acts on the main stages are only shown over streams which are watched by a few thousand people at the most, which is no more exposure than a band gets for playing one of the main stages at Reading. And even the (very small, relatively) number of acts shown on TV hardly pull in London 2012-esque ratings. The headliners probably just about offset the smaller fee with the press around their announcements and people hunting down their back catalogue on iTunes after the performance, but I'd be mighty surprised if the likes of Katy Perry don't make a loss on what they'd usually make from a show.

This is true. Take for example Dub Pistols, who are Glade regulars. They're not playing this year.

I spoke to Barry the lead singer, and he said they wanted to play but there was no space for them on the Glade. By the time an offer had come in for them to play they'd accepted offers to play 3 European festivals all paying 3 x as much as their normal Glastonbury fee.

[Swine_Glasto2014]

21 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

Perhaps bands actually like playing Glasto, and it's not all about the money, now there's a thought! 

Headliners/subs accept lower fees for the TV exposure, bands lower down accept the fees because it's "Glasto" and what better place is there to play live

Glasto's advantage is that it's simply the best at almost everything it does compared with other more commercial festivals. The original ethos of the festival remains thanks to the Eaviss, and I think that is key. Just look at the webcam, all that build effort going on everywhere, all for us, so we can have a big party. Few festivals put that much focus on punters enjoyment over maximising profit, helped by nearly 50 years of experience

 

This

[rpfranks]

This has been common knowledge for years. Glastonbury might bring in millions in ticket sales but when you take in to account what they have to pay for the land (a lot of it isn't theirs), plus crew, ticket printing, programmes, materials on site, charity etc the list goes on. The fact that there are 100+ stages means Glastonbury cannot pay the fees that the likes of Reading & Leeds pay. R&L only pay that much because they have to, not because they're in a position like Glastonbury where people would jump at the chance to play.

Also worth noting that these bands don't have to play; a lot of them see the value in playing the biggest festival in the world away from the fee. Most big televised acts will see a rise in music and ticket sales as a result of BBC coverage, while the smaller ones are just happy to be there.

If you look at the likes of Wolf Alice, Ed Sheeran et al they've all gone from the smallest stages to the pyramid stage in relatively small amounts of time, so acts like that will always have some form of loyalty to the festival.  I'd say the majority of acts playing the festival have some kind of loyalty which means their fee expectations are lower at the first instance.

 

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, HoTWire said:

133,000 capacity * £235 tickets = £31million ... + traders + EE sponsorship + TV rights (assuming they are paid for) + parking + merch ... - £2mil for charity.  I suspect Glastonbury brings in relatively as much for its size as Reading etc.

It costs a hell of a lot more to put on Glastonbury than Reading/Leeds though. Hundreds more acts to book, much bigger site to maintain and police, the whole of the south east corner, all the various weird and wonderful bits around, payments to the local farmers...

[cidy]

Read somewhere the festival costs something like 28- 30 million to put on , I imagine that rises in the wet years due to extra cost of chippings hay etc .

As for the 10% less I can't imagine to established bands who are already comfortable it would make that much difference , however with live performances and merchandise being the main source of income nowadays  that does concern the number crunchers who manage the bands who are trying to make it in the digital age .

A good set at the festival nowadays means more streams and not album sales as in the old days.

Does piss me off with the likes of the stone roses who only seem to be concerned with the coin. 

The rolling stones should fall into that category as well , yes they played but how long did it take them to do it .

 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, cidy said:

Read somewhere the festival costs something like 28- 30 million to put on , I imagine that rises in the wet years due to extra cost of chippings hay etc .

As for the 10% less I can't imagine to established bands who are already comfortable it would make that much difference , however with live performances and merchandise being the main source of income nowadays  that does concern the number crunchers who manage the bands who are trying to make it in the digital age .

A good set at the festival nowadays means more streams and not album sales as in the old days.

Does piss me off with the likes of the stone roses who only seem to be concerned with the coin. 

The rolling stones should fall into that category as well , yes they played but how long did it take them to do it .

 

I thought she said less than 10%, not 10% less.  E.g. for a band that would normally get paid £10k, they'd get <£1k, not £9k.

If so, then that's extraordinary!  Figures like 2-3x less as mentioned above are much more in line with what I thought they were paying, not 10x less.

Edited June 15, 2017 by stuartbert two hats
1x -> 10x (after being quoted twice!_)

[ghostdancer1]

1 hour ago, dingbat2 said:

Perhaps bands actually like playing Glasto, and it's not all about the money, now there's a thought! 

Headliners/subs accept lower fees for the TV exposure, bands lower down accept the fees because it's "Glasto" and what better place is there to play live

Glasto's advantage is that it's simply the best at almost everything it does compared with other more commercial festivals. The original ethos of the festival remains thanks to the Eaviss, and I think that is key. Just look at the webcam, all that build effort going on everywhere, all for us, so we can have a big party. Few festivals put that much focus on punters enjoyment over maximising profit, helped by nearly 50 years of experience

 

that may be true for us punters, but for most acts, Glastonbury is just another festival in a field in Europe, and they're only here for a day, before getting on a plane to go play some other festival in Germany or Denmark or wherever the next day. you get picked up at the airport, minibus-ed to the site, maybe have a couple hours before your set, play, get the minibus back to the London to get on your next flight.

when you're a professional touring band from Ohio playing mid-afternoon on the John Peel or Park, you probably don't care that it's "Glasto" after the first time.

[cidy]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I thought she said less than 10%, not 10% less.  E.g. for a band that would normally get paid £10k, they'd get <£1k, not £9k.

If so, then that's extraordinary!  Figures like 2-3x less as mentioned above are much more in line with what I thought they were paying, not 1x less.

Stand corrected she did say less than 10% 

[DeanoL]

Very big acts do it cheaper for the TV exposure (not just the live broadcast, but the round-the-year highlights packages). Very small acts (as in under The Park) do it for the tickets and to have been able to say they "played Glastonbury".

I'd imagine in the middle - your non-TV broadcast middle of day on John Peel acts they pay close to the going rate. Which is easy because saving £500,000 on a headliner fee pays for 100 mid-tier bands.

[HoTWire]

I wonder how Roskilde compares, capacity wise they are close, but less stages as far as I can see

[HoTWire]

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'd imagine in the middle - your non-TV broadcast middle of day on John Peel acts they pay close to the going rate. Which is easy because saving £500,000 on a headliner fee pays for 100 mid-tier bands.

Definitely be interested to know this, the grime guys seemed to be grumbling about this stuff, but maybe the dance area is a bit overstretched (it seems to have so many acts on).

[DeanoL]

Yup - things like Dance, Theatre/Circus fields, Shangri-la, etc. may be a bit different as those areas will essentially have a budget, it's sort of up to them if they spread it around or dump most of it on headliners and underpay elsewhere.