When is enough,enough?

[little_jim]

21 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I thought I read that they were freezing coach prices? 

That would of been nice, they seem to put the price up £10/£15 a year.! They tend to freeze the price after the festival, that is if you want to book early without having a ticket to the festival or not.

[incident]

7 minutes ago, little_jim said:

That would of been nice, they seem to put the price up £10/£15 a year.! They tend to freeze the price after the festival, that is if you want to book early without having a ticket to the festival or not.

Yeah, basically they run the same marketing technique every year.. Basically they say "prices frozen if you book before January".. Then put the prices up in January and use that increased price as the basis for the same claim come October. Don't think the increase was as much as £10 though, at least on the Nottingham route.

[little_jim]

3 minutes ago, incident said:

Yeah, basically they run the same marketing technique every year.. Basically they say "prices frozen if you book before January".. Then put the prices up in January and use that increased price as the basis for the same claim come October. Don't think the increase was as much as £10 though, at least on the Nottingham route.

Just had a look lucky enough i still have the emails then send in a keep safe folder, I paid £76 last year, this year its £97 so an increase of £23. Looking at the time of booking I've missed the cut off for the price freeze each time. 

[Tuna]

@robu smashed it 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 hour ago, robu said:

Russy's right about two (well, one and a half) things.

First, the festival's reputation and vibe were not built on offering as much as it does now. What's precious about Glastonbury dates back to the era before it wanted to be all things to all people and the biggest, most diverse festival on the planet. In those days, Glastonbury had the confidence to do what it wanted, how it wanted and somehow (mainly due to the taste and judgment and ingenuity of the organisers in those days), it created something unique and special without spending a huge amount of money.

Second, Russy's suggestion that those on low incomes should receive some form of financial support or assistance to help them access the festival is sound, but his mechanism (the suggestion that those earning over £50k pay extra to support those on benefits/minimum wage) is very decisive. Just imagine a festival at which there is a small majority able to say to others 'I paid for you to be here' and another constituency thinking they are at the festival only because of the largesse of those people.

I think a possible solution is to go back to what was a common practice at many events and venues in the 1980s, which is tiered pricing according to ability to pay. There would be a standard ticket price that would cover most people and then a series of reduced ticket prices for children, students, unemployed (what used to be called UB40), minimum wage/low income, pensioners (although the irony is that nowadays some of them are the ones holding a lot of the cash, so maybe only those entirely dependent on a state pension) and maybe some other groups that I have overlooked.

In that way, no one group would feel that it was subsidising those on low-incomes and vice-versa. And maybe, as someone suggested, there could be a very small number of 'gold' tickets that were super-expensive and included all sorts of extras (yurts, proper shitters, backstage access, T-shirt and other merchandise, even a complete set of those bloody canvas bags given away with the Guardian), which I know already exist but in this case the money would go entirely to GFL rather than into the pockets of the various private glamping operations in the fields at the periphery of the festival. I remember when Nigella Lawson was in court, one of the titbits that came to light was the fact that she'd spent nearly £20k on tickets for two of her children to go to Glastonbury. Very little of that £20k would have benefitted the festival and that seems fundamentally wrong, even if it is a way for the Eavises to keep their neighbours happy and co-operative.  

Rightly or wrongly it's pretty much impossible for your last paragraph to happen. Can you imagine the absolute pasting they would get if the festival themselves started offering ultra posh camping options? It wouldn't matter if the motivation behind it was completely altruistic, that would be completely lost in the monsoon of bad press they'd get from publications like the Daily Mail, suggesting that Glastonbury are cashing in and ripping people off. I can fully see the benefit of the festival trying to capture some of the cash that goes to their neighbours, but in doing so they'd get absolutely hammered for it.

[OneLittleFish]

If the festival was to reduce in size it'd be beneficial for a lot of people - few people would begrudge Elbow their headline slot for example but the festival is just too big for them and there's rarely a band who'd deserve it more. There's so much pressure to book almighty humungous fuck off leviathan headliners that it somehow will always end up being a big underwhelming (Ed Sheeran after selling fifty bazillion records to your mum alone because he looks like a handsome and polite young fellow for example).

A reduction in size might oddly lead to more variety and more risk taking in the line-up.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, OneLittleFish said:

If the festival was to reduce in size it'd be beneficial for a lot of people - few people would begrudge Elbow their headline slot for example but the festival is just too big for them and there's rarely a band who'd deserve it more. There's so much pressure to book almighty humungous fuck off leviathan headliners that it somehow will always end up being a big underwhelming (Ed Sheeran after selling fifty bazillion records to your mum alone because he looks like a handsome and polite young fellow for example).

A reduction in size might oddly lead to more variety and more risk taking in the line-up.

For what it's worth I would begrudge Elbow headlining Glastonbury even if it was half the size, and Adele completely overwhelmed me.

[briddj]

4 minutes ago, OneLittleFish said:

Few people would begrudge Elbow their headline slot for example but the festival is just too big for them and there's rarely a band who'd deserve it more.

No. I am one of the few.

[robu]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Rightly or wrongly it's pretty much impossible for your last paragraph to happen. Can you imagine the absolute pasting they would get if the festival themselves started offering ultra posh camping options? It wouldn't matter if the motivation behind it was completely altruistic, that would be completely lost in the monsoon of bad press they'd get from publications like the Daily Mail, suggesting that Glastonbury are cashing in and ripping people off. I can fully see the benefit of the festival trying to capture some of the cash that goes to their neighbours, but in doing so they'd get absolutely hammered for it.

1

Listen mate, don't ever let a decision be influenced by what the Daily Mail might say or do.

There are times -- quite a few, actually -- when it's entirely appropriate for anyone targetted by the Daily Mail to turn round and say: 'I couldn't give a flying fuck what the Daily Mail says or thinks -- I'm doing this for a very good reason'. And more often than not they can do that knowing that nearly everyone agrees with them and that the relatively small number of people who agree with the Daily Mail are tossers.

This is one of those (many) instances.

So what if the Daily Mail and any of its readers thinks Glastonbury has sold out or is exploiting wealthy ticket holders. Why does that matter? 

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, robu said:

I think a possible solution is to go back to what was a common practice at many events and venues in the 1980s, which is tiered pricing according to ability to pay. There would be a standard ticket price that would cover most people and then a series of reduced ticket prices for children, students, unemployed (what used to be called UB40), minimum wage/low income, pensioners (although the irony is that nowadays some of them are the ones holding a lot of the cash, so maybe only those entirely dependent on a state pension) and maybe some other groups that I have overlooked.

1.  I'm an effete ponce, but I believe concessions seem to have slipped out of popular usage these days for most categories?  I was speculating about them the other day and was told that apparently if you get your 57 or 73 quid for job seekers allowance you don't even get help with the 6 quid bus fare to go and sort out your benefits

2.  I think the heady mix of people there used to be came from many sources, sometime back before 2000 (but I've no idea which year) the travellers would get in for free and clearly they were many and varied. 

3.  Of course those who came over or through the fence were not exactly means tested.  Whilst there were some who couldn't have afforded a ticket, there were plenty who could, but would just rather spend it on their booze, drugs or whatever.

4.  Presumably in these days when students are forced to take on massive debts to carry for decades, there are a proportion who slap a couple of hundred on for this experience?  Other than people who post here, plenty of others try several times without success or may only get to go once - it doesn't necessarily turn into an annual event.

5.  For me it's long since been a week long holiday, rolled up with seeing so many bands that I don't feel like the old git I truly am.  I'm lucky that my house is cheap and therefore for my part the ticket hasn't been the most expensive bit for a while. 

6.  If this many people mention it here, hopefully the festival folks understand that 300 is a clear threshold and will do everything they can to keep within it?

7.  I wouldn't have  a problem with the principle of subbing someone else, not the pensioners though, they can **** off

Edited March 28, 2017 by clarkete

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

11 minutes ago, robu said:

Listen mate, don't ever let a decision be influenced by what the Daily Mail might say or do.

There are times -- quite a few, actually -- when it's entirely appropriate for anyone targetted by the Daily Mail to turn round and say: 'I couldn't give a flying fuck what the Daily Mail says or thinks -- I'm doing this for a very good reason'. And more often than not they can do that knowing that nearly everyone agrees with them and that the relatively small number of people who agree with the Daily Mail are tossers.

This is one of those (many) instances.

So what if the Daily Mail and any of its readers thinks Glastonbury has sold out or is exploiting wealthy ticket holders. Why does that matter? 

Clearly if Glastonbury started selling posh camping options and the Daily Mail reported negatively on it then I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice, because I'm not an idiot. I don't read it anyway, again because I'm not an idiot.

That doesn't change the fact that if Glastonbury started selling expensive luxury camping tickets I think they'd get universally hammered for it, regardless of the underlying intentions. 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Purple aki squat]

25 minutes ago, OneLittleFish said:

If the festival was to reduce in size it'd be beneficial for a lot of people - few people would begrudge Elbow their headline slot for example but the festival is just too big for them and there's rarely a band who'd deserve it more. There's so much pressure to book almighty humungous fuck off leviathan headliners that it somehow will always end up being a big underwhelming (Ed Sheeran after selling fifty bazillion records to your mum alone because he looks like a handsome and polite young fellow for example).

A reduction in size might oddly lead to more variety and more risk taking in the line-up.

Handsome?

[guypjfreak]

No good moaning or thinking of ways the festival could change.. It's a business and as such it will do Wot it needs to do to make enough money to continue to do what it does.. 

It's hard for lots of people including me but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty rich or poor if you want to a Glastonbury ticket you will get one 

If you can't afford it and it's getting that way well you either find the money or don't go.. We save up we sell things we go to the festival.. End of. 

If I smoked and could not afford to smoke you give up or find the money.... If you watch some people will sit there and say ohh I can't afford to go to this or that whilst smoking a fag or a joint and drinking a can of beer....... Well you can afford the smoke and drink can't ya...... 

And just so you know I was one who could always find a drink.. And I was skint...... I'm still skint but don't need the drink lol. 

[D-Low]

22 hours ago, Muppetmark said:

The price increase for gigs have been absolutely insane recently.  Live music at the top level is pricing  everyone out. 

Absolute ridiculous pricing going on at the moment for gigs. The past 4 gigs or so I've purchased to have been on average £60 a ticket with fees added. When did things get so expensive? I remember seeing Arctic Monkeys play arena size shows for £30 odd a few years ago. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

21 minutes ago, D-Low said:

Absolute ridiculous pricing going on at the moment for gigs. The past 4 gigs or so I've purchased to have been on average £60 a ticket with fees added. When did things get so expensive? I remember seeing Arctic Monkeys play arena size shows for £30 odd a few years ago. 

I guess this is down to he huge shift in how artists now make their money. They no longer make any money from traditional record sales, but make it from gigs and festivals instead. That's the price we all have to pay to be able to stream unlimited amounts of music for a tenner a month.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[glastolover19]

8 hours ago, Greenelk said:

The open air cinema used to be epic on a Wednesday and Thursday though.  Goonies still a highlight, and I dimly recall Ghostbusters one year.  Was always a big crowd

Yeah mate,awesome memory of everyone shouting"hey you guys" during Goonies,great times

[musky]

Great post from @robu. I'm out of upvotes unfortunately.

I'm sure the festival is aware of the problem of affordability, and I'm as equally sure that they know there's no easy way around this. Increased regulation, cost of bands (not helped by the plunge in the pound) and being squeezed by land owners have all played a part, and for the most part affect other other big festivals as well.

The problem they've got is that the whole thing has become something of a juggernaut - it's just not going to turn around. There is no going back. The mixed demographic, the edgy atmosphere, the freedoms enjoyed are all things of the past. Some people have long been priced out, others lost interest due to the size of the place and regulation. They go to other festivals now and can be pretty vocal in their disdain for Glastonbury, and to be fair they've got a point.

If you like what it used to be it's a busted flush.

Variety Bazaar is going to be a different animal and I've an inkling it's going to be more like they wish Glastonbury still was.

[glastolover19]

I'm glad a lot of people feel the same way as I did when I posed this question,I thought it was me being a tight ass. I agree with a lot of stuff said and definitely think their has to be a cap. I love the festival not just the music but the vibe and soppy as it sounds to me it's like being home. It's just that I feel with the trend of year on year increase I and many others will be priced out. I'm on minimum wage,work my ass off 40-50 hours a week just to provide and to me it's a big expense. I'm sure I will continue to go but at current rate of ticket increase to actual wage increase I'm not sure in 10+years it will be even possible. As far as tiered tickets or subsidized tickets , no way,I will pay exactly the same as everyone else thank you,otherwise you turn it into a class system and to me that's something that shouldn't be at Glastonbury,for those five days covered in mud and having fun we're all the same

[kalifire]

We're already over £250, aren't we?

£50 deposit + £188 balance + £5 'booking fee' + £7.75 postage = £250.75

Granted not all of that is the ticket, but all of it is money coming out of my account, so I include it.

Edited March 28, 2017 by kalifire

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

4 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

I'm glad a lot of people feel the same way as I did when I posed this question,I thought it was me being a tight ass. I agree with a lot of stuff said and definitely think their has to be a cap. I love the festival not just the music but the vibe and soppy as it sounds to me it's like being home. It's just that I feel with the trend of year on year increase I and many others will be priced out. I'm on minimum wage,work my ass off 40-50 hours a week just to provide and to me it's a big expense. I'm sure I will continue to go but at current rate of ticket increase to actual wage increase I'm not sure in 10+years it will be even possible. As far as tiered tickets or subsidized tickets , no way,I will pay exactly the same as everyone else thank you,otherwise you turn it into a class system and to me that's something that shouldn't be at Glastonbury,for those five days covered in mud and having fun we're all the same

There is no realistic way to have a cap though, how can the festival in any way cap the price of a ticket unless everybody else associated with the does the same, which of course they never will. The reality is it will continue to go up every year in price because everything else related to it will.

[glastolover19]

23 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

There is no realistic way to have a cap though, how can the festival in any way cap the price of a ticket unless everybody else associated with the does the same, which of course they never will. The reality is it will continue to go up every year in price because everything else related to it will.

Whilst it would be difficult to introduce a cap there must be a limit to how high it can go and I certainly feel that the increases should be more in line with real world increases. It's getting to a point now where I'm struggling to justify the expense considering I could get a 2week last min hol to Spain for similar money, I know it's not the same but when you have family and all the boring stuff it's hard justifying such an expense. I certainly think within the next 10 years I will be priced out 

[Madyaker]

When is enough enough? I'd like to think at £500 id be thinking fuck that, I could go to 2 Spanish festivals. But realistically by the time the price has risen that much I'll likely be earning more than I am now (fingers crossed) so id probably just pay it.

[russycarps]

8 hours ago, glastolover19 said:

. As far as tiered tickets or subsidized tickets , no way,I will pay exactly the same as everyone else thank you,otherwise you turn it into a class system and to me that's something that shouldn't be at Glastonbury,for those five days covered in mud and having fun we're all the same

So rather than accept a subsidy you'd rather not go at all? That seems rather counterproductive, if very noble. High ticket prices are on the verge of turning it into a class system already, heavily tipped in the favour of the richer echelons of society.

In the past the fact you could easily get in for free was the great leveller. What is there now? Nothing.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by russycarps

[giantkatestacks]

Someone needs to raise it in Michael's Q&A session.

[carlosj]

The only workable new solution seems to be a lower deposit and a scheme to allow regular payments to build up the total payment, which in itself would cost to set up.  I can't see how the Festival could set up a scheme to subsidise tickets for those with less income, by taking money from those with more; there's the element of data protection (how does the Festival check on a person's income status?); would richer people be able to point to low personal income to get a subsidised ticket, whilst legally avoiding mention of a trust fund?; how complex would it be to set up, test and support a new system?

Re the hospitality tickets and Nigella spending £20k etc, does that happen because it's easier and cheaper for the Festival to sell on tickets and guarantee an income rather than taking on the slog of getting that higher fee themselves?

The system already is skewed to those who have an Internet connection and is a big lottery, what sample sizes would we suggest to provide defined ticket tranches to capture a more effective socio-economic group of people, if the 'best' current solution is a free for all?