Is it time to put up prices significantly?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Going to Glastonbury is a luxury.

 

 

 

Maybe for most but for some less-able folk that one week of happiness in June is the only thing which gets them through the difficulties they face through the rest of the year. 

[russycarps]

glastonbury never used to be a luxury that you had to make huge sacrifices to attend. I and my mates went there when we were virtually penniless.

Why should it be any different these days?

 

[Quark]

17 minutes ago, russycarps said:

glastonbury never used to be a luxury that you had to make huge sacrifices to attend. I and my mates went there when we were virtually penniless.

Why should it be any different these days?

 

Lots of things used to be things and aren't any more unfortunately.  If it was still something that everyone could go to without spending a penny it would be shut down.  That's the truth of it.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

Lots of things used to be things and aren't any more unfortunately.  If it was still something that everyone could go to without spending a penny it would be shut down.  That's the truth of it.

That's true, it's just a shame that glastonbury seems to be one of the things that has embraced it's shift to unaffordability, rather than fought against it

 

[Quark]

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

That's true, it's just a shame that glastonbury seems to be one of the things that has embraced it's shift to unaffordability, rather than fought against it

 

It is a shame.  For my tuppence worth, and I've only been going since '09 so make of it what you will, is that it seems to be doing what it can to continue to make the experience affordable and inclusive once you're there.  Ignoring the reserved or restricted camping options (WV, tipis etc) you've still got:

• free for all camping across the site
• the food for a fiver, actively encouraging stalls to provide reasonably priced options
• freedom to bring in your own booze and food so punters aren't beholden to the bars and food stalls
• freedom to wander the whole site 24 hrs a day from Wed to Sun rather than kicking everyone out of the "arena" at midnight
• free drinking water
• lack of corporate sponsors and chain eateries

I think when these things start to fall, then it's in real trouble.  When you can't take your own food and booze on and have no option other than a £6 pint or a £3 bottle of water followed up by a cheeky Nandos, I'l join you in looking for another festival!

[FuzzyDunlop]

£5K tickets please.

 

Not enough of the Bullingdon club running around the Leftfield for me.

 

I agree with the OP.

 

Off with your heads.

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Coming all the way from Scotland (and buying a ticket, because of not wanting to travel all that way and then not get in) it's never really been something that's been available for next to nothing, at least from my point of view.

What's probably changed for students and younger attendees is the doing away with things like student grants and the rise in zero hours contracts.

[russycarps]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

It is a shame.  For my tuppence worth, and I've only been going since '09 so make of it what you will, is that it seems to be doing what it can to continue to make the experience affordable and inclusive once you're there.  Ignoring the reserved or restricted camping options (WV, tipis etc) you've still got:

• free for all camping across the site
• the food for a fiver, actively encouraging stalls to provide reasonably priced options
• freedom to bring in your own booze and food so punters aren't beholden to the bars and food stalls
• freedom to wander the whole site 24 hrs a day from Wed to Sun rather than kicking everyone out of the "arena" at midnight
• free drinking water
• lack of corporate sponsors and chain eateries

I think when these things start to fall, then it's in real trouble.  When you can't take your own food and booze on and have no option other than a £6 pint or a £3 bottle of water followed up by a cheeky Nandos, I'l join you in looking for another festival!

Yep, I cant deny that. 

Corporate sponsorship is a difficult one though. I sometimes wonder if having the other stage sponsored by john lewis, a nandos chicken burger stall and a marks and spencer shop (or whatever) would be a price worth paying, if it meant the ticket price was under £200.

 

 

[stuartbert two hats]

21 minutes ago, russycarps said:

That's true, it's just a shame that glastonbury seems to be one of the things that has embraced it's shift to unaffordability, rather than fought against it

 

I actually agree with you to a point.  Everyone said Glastonbury couldn't afford to do without the Virgin tent and Smirnoff Ice bar, but they did, ultimately because they chose to.  They could choose to slow down (or even reverse!) the price increases every year, but it would be at the expense at not adding new venues or cutting back on what is put on.  Maybe cheaper sound systems, fewer and smaller screens, less well known artists. Maybe no programme or guide? Maybe they do bring back the high profile sponsorship?  

Anyone who say they cannot, simply cannot help these price rises are wrong, even if the increases are primarily based on external factors.  What the festival cannot do is maintain the current level of service + yearly improvements without price increases.

I'm not saying it's not good value for money.  I'm not saying they haven't made the right trade offs - I'm not getting into that right now - I'm simply saying that a Glastonbury festival without these large year on year price increases is perfectly possible.  If the organisers thought it was worth the sacrifices.

Edited October 11, 2016 by stuartbert two hats
added last sentence.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, russycarps said:

Yep, I cant deny that. 

Corporate sponsorship is a difficult one though. I sometimes wonder if having the other stage sponsored by john lewis, a nandos chicken burger stall and a marks and spencer shop (or whatever) would be a price worth paying, if it meant the ticket price was under £200.

 

 

It wouldn't make it that cheap.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I actually agree with you to a point.  Everyone said Glastonbury couldn't afford to do without the Virgin tent and Smirnoff Ice bar, but they did, ultimately because they chose to.  They could choose to slow down (or even reverse!) the price increases every year, but it would be at the expense at not adding new venues or cutting back on what is put on.  Maybe cheaper sound systems, fewer and smaller screens, less well known artists. Maybe no programme or guide? Maybe they do bring back the high profile sponsorship?  

Anyone who say they cannot, simply cannot help these price rises are wrong, even if the increases are primarily based on external factors.  What the festival cannot do is maintain the current level of service + yearly improvements without price increases.

I'm not saying it's not good value for money.  I'm not saying they haven't made the right trade offs - I'm not getting into that right now - I'm simply saying that a Glastonbury festival without these large year on year price increases is perfectly possible.

Yep, spot on.

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It wouldn't make it that cheap.

well add the virgin tent and smirnoff ice bar from your post too then. 

It's lovely having no sponsorship, but what purpose does it serve really? Apart from higher ticket prices/less charitable donation. How would our experience be altered by having a few logos dotted about?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Sponsors tend to demand other concessions.  I seem to recall back in the day there was sponsorship by Virgin Cola and so you couldn't get any non-Branson owned soft drinks anywhere.

[Quark]

Ah, the old cost vs integrity argument.

For "the festival" to maintain its position on things like waste, pollution, human rights etc they would have to be incredibly picky about sponsors.  If they want to maintain that integrity.  It'll be interesting to see whether that position changes when ME fully steps back and leaves it to Emily.  But undoubtedly it could be done, as could reining in the improvements and changes that are generating the cost increase.

However, given how enraged you get by the presence of things like WV Russy I can only imagine the level of apoplexy when an M&S appears on site!

It would be interesting to know the cost breakdown between "necessities" and "nice to haves", but I suspect a question that we'd never get an answer to.

[stuartbert two hats]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep, spot on.

well add the virgin tent and smirnoff ice bar from your post too then. 

It's lovely having no sponsorship, but what purpose does it serve really? Apart from higher ticket prices/less charitable donation. How would our experience be altered by having a few logos dotted about?

It makes a great deal of difference to my experience, in an intangible way that's hard to express. I want to feel like I'm on another planet, not (insert medium size town here) high street.  The atmosphere in the Smirnoff tent + the Playstation tent was decidedly not 'Glastonbury'.  

I really don't think the sponsorship could bring in that much money that the price would go below £200 though, no matter how shit and sold out it gets.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

 It'll be interesting to see whether that position changes when ME fully steps back and leaves it to Emily.

I think the assumption is that Emily is more puritan about it than her old man, and she's been responsible for dialling back even the small amount that there is.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Ah, the old cost vs integrity argument.

For "the festival" to maintain its position on things like waste, pollution, human rights etc they would have to be incredibly picky about sponsors.  If they want to maintain that integrity.  It'll be interesting to see whether that position changes when ME fully steps back and leaves it to Emily.  But undoubtedly it could be done, as could reining in the improvements and changes that are generating the cost increase.

However, given how enraged you get by the presence of things like WV Russy I can only imagine the level of apoplexy when an M&S appears on site!

It would be interesting to know the cost breakdown between "necessities" and "nice to haves", but I suspect a question that we'd never get an answer to.

It was Emily that pulled the festival back from its worst corporate excesses when she started to become involved around 2004-2007.

[Quark]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It was Emily that pulled the festival back from its worst corporate excesses when she started to become involved around 2004-2007.

 

1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I think the assumption is that Emily is more puritan about it than her old man, and she's been responsible for dialling back even the small amount that there is.

Fair enough, answers that question!

I'm with Stuartbert on the sponsorship bit though.  It's nice to be somewhere that is about as individual as it can be for those 5 days.  Otherwise the market just ends up as a muddy high street

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, Quark said:

 

Fair enough, answers that question!

I'm with Stuartbert on the sponsorship bit though.  It's nice to be somewhere that is about as individual as it can be for those 5 days.  Otherwise the market just ends up as a muddy high street

I don't know whether it's worth it, objectively speaking.  It's worth it to me, since I can afford the current ticket price.  But it certainly puts the festival out of reach to some members of society, at least without making huge sacrifices.

[russycarps]

11 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It makes a great deal of difference to my experience, in an intangible way that's hard to express. I want to feel like I'm on another planet, not (insert medium size town here) high street.  The atmosphere in the Smirnoff tent + the Playstation tent was decidedly not 'Glastonbury'.  

I really don't think the sponsorship could bring in that much money that the price would go below £200 though, no matter how shit and sold out it gets.

I feel exactly the same as you of course, but it's daft really considering we are still drinking bottles of coke and cans of strongbow, eating bags of walkers crisps, seeing people wearing nike trainers and top man tshirts, reading the guardian newspaper etc. We are hardly shut off from the outside world. There would be no real problem with sponsorship and branding. Why not let the stages be sponsored? OK, leave the iconic pyramid alone, but the other stage, acoustic, the park....they arent the most inspiring of names anyway.

But yeh, I have no idea how much money could be brought in, but I bet it's loads considering the size of the operation now. It feels quite selfish to deny that income stream just for a warm, fuzzy intangible feeling.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by russycarps

[fur_q]

20 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep, spot on.

well add the virgin tent and smirnoff ice bar from your post too then. 

It's lovely having no sponsorship, but what purpose does it serve really? Apart from higher ticket prices/less charitable donation. How would our experience be altered by having a few logos dotted about?

 

Sponsorship is rarely about simply Simone just paying money to put a up a few logos there would be many other terms and conditions attached that would effect the festival. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Last festival I was at with a sponsored stage it played Barclaycard commercials on a loop between bands.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, fur_q said:

 

Sponsorship is rarely about simply Simone just paying money to put a up a few logos there would be many other terms and conditions attached that would effect the festival. 

Bloke from BP:  "Sure, Mike, we'll sponsor your Circus Fields.  But, I think we'll need to look at the festival's relationship with Greenpeace and whether that really synergises with what we want for our brand."

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I feel exactly the same as you of course, but it's daft really considering we are still drinking bottles of coke and cans of strongbow, eating bags of walkers crisps, seeing people wearing nike trainers and top man tshirts, reading the guardian newspaper etc. We are hardly shut off from the outside world. There would be no real problem with sponsorship and branding. Why not let the stages be sponsored? OK, leave the iconic pyramid alone, but the other stage, acoustic, the park....they arent the most inspiring of names anyway.

But yeh, I have no idea how much money could be brought in, but I bet it's loads considering the size of the operation now. It feels quite selfish to deny that income stream just for a warm, fuzzy intangible feeling.

It still feels important, even if I'm not eloquent to describe why.  But I know where you're coming from.  It might make it better for me, but is it worth denying the experience to others just for that?

Actually I would rather see the festival downscale a bit before it sells out.  I'd rather it kept its soul than its spectacle.

[Woffy]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Bloke from BP:  "Sure, Mike, we'll sponsor your Circus Fields.  But, I think we'll need to look at the festival's relationship with Greenpeace and whether that really synergises with what we want for our brand."

"So, Steve, are you saying no videos between sets showing dead whales and motorboats harassing oil tankers? What about Marcus Brigstock? You gotta give us Marcus. You can see his head from the back of the Pyramid unaided"

[CaledonianGonzo]

What the basis of the view that large groups of people who used to be able to afford to go are now being priced out?