Another price hike

[LondonTom]

Why exactly under 21's? Because the festival should be trying to be more accessible to the younger demographic and/or those who perhaps cannot afford the full costs of the festival (ticket price, travel, etc). I think it's fairly clear to people who have attended Glastonbury over the last 10-15 years that the demographic has moved towards a predominately 'middle class, aged 30-45' crowd. Now admittedly there's no statistical proof of that but based on my experiences (and others on here), it feels an older, more affluent crowd than previous. Eavis himself has said the festival has lost its 'edge' and wants to get more young people attending.

Not sure where you are going with 'so rich kids can go cheaper'?

Cheaper tickets for under 21s, would do nothing at all for this. All it would do is have rich kids get cheaper tickets, who are about as exciting as there middle class 30-45 year old parents.

Edited October 21, 2015 by LondonTom

[MrZigster]

A game I sometimes like to play:

How long can you go without eventually having to answering the query "So, what do you do then?" The British still seem to love to know how they measure up in terms of wealth or class. It's a question that seems to always inevitably turn up.

"I'm a disposable lighter repairman" sometimes shuts them up. "I work in an office" just usually elicits more questions.

 

[MrZigster]

I have never been to Glasto but how do people know there are too many middle class/posh people there? genuine question.

I am sure most people who go will talk to 50-100 people when they go to Glasto, do you ask them what class they are or how much they earn? how can anyone tell who is working class or middle class or upper class? 

If someone saw me at Glasto they would think I am a working class or traveller type, I have a hipster beard, tattoos, wear a bandana outside of work, when infact I got a 2:1 in computer science and am a senior manager for a FTSE 100 company. 

 

I was trying to reply to/quote this in the above post.

What an effort! NEIL?

Edited October 22, 2015 by MrZigster

[tweed1981]

I've only been to one Glastonbury but this notion that it is full of middle class middle aged is very overblown. Yes there are middle aged middle class people, but there are also lots of young people, people from overseas, people from different backgrounds. In reality its very diverse which I do not consider to be a bad thing at all. Most other UK festivals are actually full of young Kids and older people are probably very much in the minority, look at any other festival page on here and I bet you can easily find posts from people asking if they are too old for that specific festival, Why would it be better to essentially make Glastonbury like any other UK festival?

[russycarps]

I've only been to one Glastonbury but this notion that it is full of middle class middle aged is very overblown. Yes there are middle aged middle class people, but there are also lots of young people, people from overseas, people from different backgrounds. In reality its very diverse which I do not consider to be a bad thing at all. Most other UK festivals are actually full of young Kids and older people are probably very much in the minority, look at any other festival page on here and I bet you can easily find posts from people asking if they are too old for that specific festival, Why would it be better to essentially make Glastonbury like any other UK festival?

as has been pointed out many times in this thread, it's all about the trends over time.

The trend over time is for the average age of glastonbury goers to be increasing, and the social demographic is becoming saturated with upper-middle class people. This situation is not sustainable long term so needs to be addressed.

What you saw when you went is very different to how things were even 10 years ago.

One positive thing I would say is the festival is very slightly more ethnically diverse now (though they are probably all richies themselves).

You're wrong about most other festivals being full of the yoof and old people being the minority. The average of festival goers in the uk (that's all festivals) is well over 30, studies have shown.

 

 

[gerardfenton18]

 I myself am from working class personally I don't think it matters that much it's really who you are as a person.

This may ruffle a few feathers,  I do however believe the exception to this rule is between the ages of 14-15 to early twenties. (EDIT) That's when I started to wise up

My experience is of growing up in a less advantaged area is I was a bit of bollox until about 21-22. When I was 22 id been to about 3-4 "cheaper" festivals (generally great festivals but a quite few headcases/robberies etc.) 

I was never a fighter/thief or anything like that, but some that age are. Does anyone maybe agree making it more accessible to that could potentially invite the mob type scenarios we've al;l seen in campsites? 

I've only been once when I was 26, I had to not attend other things, work hard and save for that experience and it made it all the more worth it. I couldn't save 30p until I was 24-25.

Edited October 22, 2015 by gerardfenton18

[russycarps]

 I myself am from working class personally I don't think it matters that much it's really who you are as a person.

This may ruffle a few feathers,  I do however believe the exception to this rule is between the ages of 14-15 to early twenties.

My experience is of growing up in a less advantaged area is I was a bit of bollox until about 21-22. When I was 22 id been to about 3-4 "cheaper" festivals (generally great festivals but a quite few headcases/robberies etc.) 

I was never a fighter/thief or anything like that, but ALOT that age are. Does anyone maybe agree making it more accessible to that could potentially invite the mob type scenarios we've al;l seen in campsites? 

I've only been once when I was 26, I had to not attend other things, work hard and save for that experience and it made it all the more worth it. I couldn't save 30p until I was 24-25.

knobheads are knobheads. I'm not sure how much 'class' comes in to it. Cameron and his buddies in the bullingdon club used to beat up homeless people, smash up bars, fuck dead pigs heads and god knows what else and they are the poshest of the posh.

Young people are certainly more rowdy than older people so an influx of yoof would certainly make camp sites a more rowdy place.

And why not! It's a festival. I roar with laughter when I see old farts on here complain because people were up all night laughing, taking drugs and generally having a good time and interrupting their sleep. Guess what, that's the whole point of being at a festival! 

The default behaviour at a festival should be staying up all night getting smashed, NOT having an early night and getting some kip. If you are old and pathetic and need a good nights sleep, piss off to worthy view or to the extremities of the camp site.

The festival should be tailored towards the yoof - the future - not old farts (the past).

From the line up to the late night entertainment to the tolerated behaviour in campsites.

I do believe the yoof from a poor background know how to enjoy themselves more than the yoof from a posh family in surrey though. Edit: though I'm sure cameron enjoyed face fucking that pig so I guess they just enjoy themselves in different ways. The posho behaviour is not really suited to glastonbury though.

Edited October 22, 2015 by russycarps

[LeeGalvin]

In my opinion it's just as much of an ugly trait to judge those they perceive as being of a "higher status/class" as it is to look down on those they see as inferior. It's all bollocks. Who cares about class, man. Let's just all get along and party in the happiest festival on Earth. 

Or something. 

[Terence Fletcher]

In my opinion it's just as much of an ugly trait to judge those they perceive as being of a "higher status/class" as it is to look down on those they see as inferior. It's all bollocks. Who cares about class, man. Let's just all get along and party in the happiest festival on Earth. 

Or something. 

I agree with this, Twitter and Facebook are particularly bad for reverse snobbery

The other day Sajid Javid was trending on Twitter, and the bile that was directed at him was unreal "toff" "snob" and other similar terms, when the reality is his father was a bus driver, hardly upper class, but because he was a tory he was branded with the upper class and elitist stereotype by default.

I am not a tory, would describe myself as "New Labour", but I think it is appalling people are judged on their so called class.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Terence Fletcher

[Terence Fletcher]

When year on year the demographic is getting both older and more middle class it's not just pot luck. It's been maybe 4/5 years since ME raised concerns about the shift in the make up of those attending, and in the intervening years the process has continued. It's a trend, not some massive statistical anomaly that the audience is getting older.

I think it is a far too big assumption that money is the reason young people are not attending though, simply cutting the price I do not believe would open the floodgates for a load of teenagers.

Glasto is on in mid June, people are still taking exams, at school and sixth form and college, so Glasto might be too much of a distraction when they are revising.

Also the acts are by and large not geared towards young people, you don't get Justin Bieber, One Direction, Olly Murs, Little Mix and that type of artist there, the acts looking at last year do seem very geared towards an older audience.

I think the reasons why Glasto seemingly attracts an older audience is not just down to money.

[gerardfenton18]

 

I think it is a far too big assumption that money is the reason young people are not attending though, simply cutting the price I do not believe would open the floodgates for a load of teenagers.

Glasto is on in mid June, people are still taking exams, at school and sixth form and college, so Glasto might be too much of a distraction when they are revising.

Also the acts are by and large not geared towards young people, you don't get Justin Bieber, One Direction, Olly Murs, Little Mix and that type of artist there, the acts looking at last year do seem very geared towards an older audience.

I think the reasons why Glasto seemingly attracts an older audience is not just down to money.

Completeley agree, maybe a bit of david guetta or hardwell to bring the age down

[Terence Fletcher]

 

Completeley agree, maybe a bit of david guetta or hardwell to bring the age down

Looking at 2015 - The Who, Motorhead, Paul Weller, Foo Fighters (although the pulled out), Patti Smith, George Clinton, Mavis Staples, Burt Bacharach, Roy Ayers, Ryan Adams to name a few, were all on the 3 main stages, some of them were before my time let alone the current generation, so I don't think the line up is really geared towards a young (14-21) audience. 

So I don't know how Eavis can complain about too many older people at Glasto when he is filling the stages with retro acts 

[blue6field]

Copy copy the T in the Park blueprint on how bring down the average age, they've did very successfully with their line ups over the last 3 years

[ghostdancer1]

Looking at 2015 - The Who, Motorhead, Paul Weller, Foo Fighters (although the pulled out), Patti Smith, George Clinton, Mavis Staples, Burt Bacharach, Roy Ayers, Ryan Adams to name a few, were all on the 3 main stages, some of them were before my time let alone the current generation, so I don't think the line up is really geared towards a young (14-21) audience. 

So I don't know how Eavis can complain about too many older people at Glasto when he is filling the stages with retro acts 

and for all those there's many acts in their 20s who played those stages too, or at least appeal to a young audience: James Bay, Florence, Rudimental, Mark Ronson, The Vaccines, Jungle, Catfish and the Bottlemen, Run the Jewels, George Ezra, Pharrel, Kayne, Ben Howard, Deadmau5, Clean Bandit, Elle Eyre, Hozier....

bit odd putting Ryan Adams in there too, he played The Park and he's not exactly old like the others you mentioned....

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by ghostdancer1

[Terence Fletcher]

and for all those there's many acts in their 20s who played those stages too, or at least appeal to a young audience: James Bay, Florence, Rudimental, Mark Ronson, The Vaccines, Jungle, Catfish and the Bottlemen, Run the Jewels, George Ezra, Pharrel, Kayne, Ben Howard, Deadmau5, Clean Bandit, Elle Eyre, Hozier....

bit odd putting Ryan Adams in there too, he played The Park and he's not exactly old like the others you mentioned....

 

 I confused him with BRYAN Adams of Summer of 69 fame

[jonodillieono]

 

Completeley agree, maybe a bit of david guetta or hardwell to bring the age down

I wouldn't say no to a Hardwell sonic headline set

[The_Amazing_Oblong]

I really don't get how the Eavii can say the festival is too middle class or they wish for a younger demographic with a straight face. Everything I've seen added in the last 15 years has been directly geared toward the middle class/older crowd. Boutique camping ? Beauty Salons ? Posh Food Stalls ? Ticket for better toilets ? There is little doubt that by chucking money about you can have a far superior Glastonbury Festival experience than if you are skint. All this has been made possible and thus attractive to the middle classes with the approval of the organizers.
The only surefire way I can see to reduce the number of middle class and older festival goers is to make it less desirable to them. Get rid of all the crap that panders to them. No pampour parlour where you can get a facial while having your hair done - zap - 1000 middle class women (plus partners) stop applying for tickets. No boutique camping offsite with fresh flowers on your pillow each morning and faced with having to camp in the mud with the unwashed - zap - 3000 middle class couples stop applying for tickets. Book acts for the 'yoof' - zap - 20,000 stop applying for tickets the following year. It could easily be done but they don't.

It is the Eavii that have rubber stamped all this and they now have the exact demographic that they have encouraged.

Could they change the demographic ? Yes, quite easily.

I don't think they actually want that though. An extra 30,000 working class kids who take their own food and beer and spend threepence halfpenny over the entire week or 30,000 older middle class people who spend £1000 each ? As I say it's their own decisions that have led to where they are and they keep making those same decisions.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Copy copy the T in the Park blueprint on how bring down the average age, they've did very successfully with their line ups over the last 3 years

Successful in the sense that it no longer shifts tickets and now has a big questionmark hanging over its future.

[russycarps]

I really don't get how the Eavii can say the festival is too middle class or they wish for a younger demographic with a straight face. Everything I've seen added in the last 15 years has been directly geared toward the middle class/older crowd. Boutique camping ? Beauty Salons ? Posh Food Stalls ? Ticket for better toilets ? There is little doubt that by chucking money about you can have a far superior Glastonbury Festival experience than if you are skint. All this has been made possible and thus attractive to the middle classes with the approval of the organizers.
The only surefire way I can see to reduce the number of middle class and older festival goers is to make it less desirable to them. Get rid of all the crap that panders to them. No pampour parlour where you can get a facial while having your hair done - zap - 1000 middle class women (plus partners) stop applying for tickets. No boutique camping offsite with fresh flowers on your pillow each morning and faced with having to camp in the mud with the unwashed - zap - 3000 middle class couples stop applying for tickets. Book acts for the 'yoof' - zap - 20,000 stop applying for tickets the following year. It could easily be done but they don't.

It is the Eavii that have rubber stamped all this and they now have the exact demographic that they have encouraged.

Could they change the demographic ? Yes, quite easily.

I don't think they actually want that though. An extra 30,000 working class kids who take their own food and beer and spend threepence halfpenny over the entire week or 30,000 older middle class people who spend £1000 each ? As I say it's their own decisions that have led to where they are and they keep making those same decisions.

Cant argue with any of that.

I suppose we shouldnt really expect anything else from a festival organised by wealthy middle class people. Michael I'm sure is well aware of the other side of life and has lived through hard times. But emily has known nothing but the middle class dream. 

[stuartbert two hats]

I really don't get how the Eavii can say the festival is too middle class or they wish for a younger demographic with a straight face. Everything I've seen added in the last 15 years has been directly geared toward the middle class/older crowd. Boutique camping ? Beauty Salons ? Posh Food Stalls ? Ticket for better toilets ? There is little doubt that by chucking money about you can have a far superior Glastonbury Festival experience than if you are skint. All this has been made possible and thus attractive to the middle classes with the approval of the organizers.
The only surefire way I can see to reduce the number of middle class and older festival goers is to make it less desirable to them. Get rid of all the crap that panders to them. No pampour parlour where you can get a facial while having your hair done - zap - 1000 middle class women (plus partners) stop applying for tickets. No boutique camping offsite with fresh flowers on your pillow each morning and faced with having to camp in the mud with the unwashed - zap - 3000 middle class couples stop applying for tickets. Book acts for the 'yoof' - zap - 20,000 stop applying for tickets the following year. It could easily be done but they don't.

It is the Eavii that have rubber stamped all this and they now have the exact demographic that they have encouraged.

Could they change the demographic ? Yes, quite easily.

I don't think they actually want that though. An extra 30,000 working class kids who take their own food and beer and spend threepence halfpenny over the entire week or 30,000 older middle class people who spend £1000 each ? As I say it's their own decisions that have led to where they are and they keep making those same decisions.

To be fair, a lot of that isn't run by the Eavii, it's the neighbours.  Emily has said (can't find article, sorry) that she'd like less of that sort of thing.  The food stalls are the only thing from that list that the festival actually has any hand in.

[Hotchilidog]

I remember being down the front for Neil Young during his headline set in 2009, and was quite worried whether the young'uns would get it and was delighted to be surrounded by kids in their late teens, early 20's singing along to every word, it was brilliant. Just goes to show you can quite easily make incorrect assumptions about people.

There seems to be an awful lot of judgement on this thread on what sort of qualities individuals have, based solely on the criteria of perceived class and age which seems very un-Glastonbury like to me.

The whole point of Glastonbury is that attendees are there for all sorts of different reasons each as valid as another. I find the festival to be a great social leveller, people just tend to mix naturally whatever their age or background. What happens back in the "real" world doesn't matter for that week in Somerset. No one group has more of a 'right' to attend than any other which is why the frustrating computer lottery is about an equitable system as you are ever going to get especially as you only have to stump £50 to begin with.

For a weeks holiday, with entertainment laid on £225 is ok value. You can take your own provisions so the festival can be as expensive or cheap as you'd like it to be.

[bennyhana22]

The default behaviour at a festival should be staying up all night getting smashed, NOT having an early night and getting some kip. If you are old and pathetic and need a good nights sleep, piss off to worthy view or to the extremities of the camp site.

 

Whilst I agree entirely with this russy, and can confirm that it has always been my model (bands all day, dancing like a fool all night, bed at 5-6am, up at 9, repeat), it would be a bit of a 'mare if everyone displayed that default behaviour - because where would you put them all? The best times I had this year included some brilliant middle of the night stuff in small venues. The SE corner was often already rammed when I got there - many of whom seemed just to be there because they felt they 'should' be there, because that's what everybody does, isn't it? Rather than heading down there to get off your noggin and see stuff, or even going to watch a specific act on Genosys, Bez's etc. For me, the night time stuff does bring out the yoof and other people who really want to party. Arcadia on Friday night was absolutely rammed, and not with idle stand-arounders, but with full on dance monkeys, and it was brilliant.

So for me, let the majority watch pap on the Pyramid all day and then shuffle off to bed at 1am, leaving me more space to go wherever I want and meet the sort of like-minded randoms that want to be up getting smashed all night...

And without getting into the various opinions and quotations that have pervaded this thread, it's got bugger all to do with class. It's got to do with how you see the world, the festival, your fellow humans. You either care, or you don't. If you do, then Glastonbury has to be just about as good as it gets.

Ben

[Harry49]

My view, as an attendee that Rusty would probably like to rule out from getting tickets,  ie. Over 50, male, non drug taking, lager drinking, non edgy, income above the median, is

Comparing pre fence to post fence is the proverbial apples and pears. Pre fence crowd and the choice you would be left with is no Festival or no festival.

So has the demographic changed between 2002 and 2015, I can’t say as I have only been in 1983 and 2015. But the consensus on the board is yes, it has got older and more middle class. Is that a bad thing? A subjective view, as can be seen on thread. Will it spell the end of the festival in the future? No, as evidenced by the massive oversubscription for tickets, which has only risen as demographic has changed.

Has it got more expensive? Yes significantly.

2002 ticket was £97

2015 ticket was £225

If ticket had gone up by CPI rate of inflation price would have been £130 in 2015.

So yes the ticket is now expensive. And when you take into account car parking prices, coach and rail, etc plus cost of beer/food an average overall cost of £600pp would possibly not be far off.

Is it value for money? The individual decides but as a comparison a recent article stated £860 as the  average spend per person on an annual break - the equivalent of two months' pay after tax, based on the average wage of £26,500.

Has the price helped to change the demographic? Certainly, but to what extent?

Age

To entice a younger audience (15 – 25) the issue is not solely price, I think first and foremost is the line-up. Change it to match Reading/ Leeds, T, Radio One weekend and the demographic would change significantly. My daughter has been to these and dismisses Glasto not because it is full of sad old men like me, but because the line-up is aimed at me and more significantly the 25 – 35 crowd (who to my eyes made up the vast majority of crowd this year). Reading/Leeds etc are seen as a rite of passage to teens and are helpfully after GCSE/GCE results.  Ticket price of these festivals are in line with Glastonbury so price not the reason.

Social/economic

Price of ticket will be the main reason for change, the same way as sporting and other arts events have become the preserve of middle to upper middle classes. Inequality has grown at a disgraceful rate over last decade particularly as Labour was in power for much of the period.

The Eavii through line up choices and pricing have changed the demographic of the festival. So if as ME states he wants to change the trend how would they achieve this?  

Change the lineup, the SE corner and Silver Hayes areas have probably been developed to try and address some of the age issue. Our 20-24 yr old neighbours in Kidney Mead this year did not see 1 band but happily danced the nights away. But main stages particularly headliners need to be aimed at younger audience and announced before tickets go on sale. Attracting younger audience and putting off the “rents”.

The ticket price maybe more difficult, if tales of local landowners demanding their nose at the trough are correct and competition from other festivals for dwindling pool of headliners(IoW Fleetwood Mac) is kept up.  But change the line up to cheaper younger bands may help a price freeze in short term. Longer term more radical solution is to shrink festival to take landowners out of equation or move to new location and remain the same size. Or have two festivals aimed at two different markets (old and affluent)/ (young and edgy + Rusty).  Exactly what we have been told is being considered.

The Eavii would appear to be on the case and in them I shall trust!

[blue6field]

Successful in the sense that it no longer shifts tickets and now has a big questionmark hanging over its future.

didn't say the festival was a success anymore, but they have brought the average age down which was Geoff Ellis's goal.

many would argue that the older generation who were there from the start, don't see it as catering to their music tastes anymore and have moved on to other festivals. This in turn has effected the ticket sales and left the festival in its current state.

[russycarps]

My view, as an attendee that Rusty would probably like to rule out from getting tickets,  ie. Over 50, male, non drug taking, lager drinking, non edgy, income above the median, is

 

Comparing pre fence to post fence is the proverbial apples and pears. Pre fence crowd and the choice you would be left with is no Festival or no festival.

 

So has the demographic changed between 2002 and 2015, I can’t say as I have only been in 1983 and 2015. But the consensus on the board is yes, it has got older and more middle class. Is that a bad thing? A subjective view, as can be seen on thread. Will it spell the end of the festival in the future? No, as evidenced by the massive oversubscription for tickets, which has only risen as demographic has changed.

 

Has it got more expensive? Yes significantly.

 

2002 ticket was £97

 

2015 ticket was £225

 

If ticket had gone up by CPI rate of inflation price would have been £130 in 2015.

 

So yes the ticket is now expensive. And when you take into account car parking prices, coach and rail, etc plus cost of beer/food an average overall cost of £600pp would possibly not be far off.

 

Is it value for money? The individual decides but as a comparison a recent article stated £860 as the  average spend per person on an annual break - the equivalent of two months' pay after tax, based on the average wage of £26,500.

 

Has the price helped to change the demographic? Certainly, but to what extent?

 

Age

 

To entice a younger audience (15 – 25) the issue is not solely price, I think first and foremost is the line-up. Change it to match Reading/ Leeds, T, Radio One weekend and the demographic would change significantly. My daughter has been to these and dismisses Glasto not because it is full of sad old men like me, but because the line-up is aimed at me and more significantly the 25 – 35 crowd (who to my eyes made up the vast majority of crowd this year). Reading/Leeds etc are seen as a rite of passage to teens and are helpfully after GCSE/GCE results.  Ticket price of these festivals are in line with Glastonbury so price not the reason.

 

Social/economic

 

Price of ticket will be the main reason for change, the same way as sporting and other arts events have become the preserve of middle to upper middle classes. Inequality has grown at a disgraceful rate over last decade particularly as Labour was in power for much of the period.

 

The Eavii through line up choices and pricing have changed the demographic of the festival. So if as ME states he wants to change the trend how would they achieve this?  

 

Change the lineup, the SE corner and Silver Hayes areas have probably been developed to try and address some of the age issue. Our 20-24 yr old neighbours in Kidney Mead this year did not see 1 band but happily danced the nights away. But main stages particularly headliners need to be aimed at younger audience and announced before tickets go on sale. Attracting younger audience and putting off the “rents”.

 

The ticket price maybe more difficult, if tales of local landowners demanding their nose at the trough are correct and competition from other festivals for dwindling pool of headliners(IoW Fleetwood Mac) is kept up.  But change the line up to cheaper younger bands may help a price freeze in short term. Longer term more radical solution is to shrink festival to take landowners out of equation or move to new location and remain the same size. Or have two festivals aimed at two different markets (old and affluent)/ (young and edgy + Rusty).  Exactly what we have been told is being considered.

 

The Eavii would appear to be on the case and in them I shall trust!

 

I agree with almost all of what you say apart from the first paragraph. There is more than enough room for boring old farts at glastonbury! and I'd be distraught if the festival became just a place for the yoof. But us old farts cant be the big majority of attendees or there's big problems ahead.

As you say though, if the festival says they want to attract a younger crowd, then go ahead and book coldplay, AC/DC and fleetwood mac while hiking prices up to £250 then either they are massively out of touch, or just dont care.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by russycarps