There has to be a better way to allocate tickets

[Suprefan]

10 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

How would it work for families with children aged between 12 & 18?

If you could only get 2 tickets in one session, a family of 5 has a pretty low chance of going. What would happen if say you got 4? 

Hire a babysitter. 

[robillustrates]

Also a family of 5/6 with children aged between 12-18 isn't a large proportion of the festival crowd either out of the full 2.5 million or so.

[EasyUserName]

12 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Hire a babysitter. 

Well, technically that would work. Obviously though that's a demographic change - children would be less likely to be able to attend unless they had contacts or money.  

 

[jyoung]

It's gutting if you miss out and I understand that the emotion evokes a sense of confirmation bias but some of the suggestions here are crazy. "If it was like this I might get a ticket and then it would be better"... What about the people who would still miss out under your suggestion? As long as demand outweighs supply, we will always have this problem but everybody is in the same boat and everybody has an equal chance on ticket day. I've genuinely never heard a single suggestion of a better and or fairer way to sell tickets. There simply isn't one. Good luck to everybody in the resale.

[EasyUserName]

2 minutes ago, robillustrates said:

Also a family of 5/6 with children aged between 12-18 isn't a large proportion of the festival crowd either out of the full 2.5 million or so.

True, but a family of three (two adults / one child) would have to get through twice, or face having someone not going.  Whilst families are not going to be the main demographic, limiting tickets to 2 per sale makes families less likely to attend. 

You could argue that this could be painted as not very family friendly. 

[Smeble]

48 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

People also have to appreciate the Festival is a business and PR is a very real thing that they have to consider.

Can you imagine the absolute hammering they’d get in the press if they asked people to pay the full balance up front without knowing an act?

Anyone how goes knows that’s not an issue, but they’d get crucified in the mainstream media.

Why on earth would they put themselves in that position?

Many festivals sell early bird tickets without announcing a single act.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Children under 12 don't need tickets do they? So you're talking about families with teenagers primarily. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to a festival with my parents when I was a teenager. I'm wondering how many people that is realistically.

That said the system is probably the fairest it can be. The only change I'd make is, as others have said, to make the website a bit more stable so payments don't fail at the last minute which I know from experience is gutting. 

[zero000]

This thread has been done to death about a billion times now. The current system is the fairest. It has an element of luck, but it rewards people who are the most determined and organised. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, Smeble said:

Many festivals sell early bird tickets without announcing a single act.

Nobody has to buy them though and for those that do the incentive is it’s cheaper or they can spread the payment. Completely different circumstances.

[robillustrates]

6 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

True, but a family of three (two adults / one child) would have to get through twice, or face having someone not going.  Whilst families are not going to be the main demographic, limiting tickets to 2 per sale makes families less likely to attend. 

You could argue that this could be painted as not very family friendly. 

Could still reduce to the max to 4 like the resale. That's not going to get such accusations.

Or you do a pair of tickets but allow a teenager ticket on top of that up to 2 max (4 total) for those between 12-16 only.

 

[EasyUserName]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Children under 12 don't need tickets do they? So you're talking about families with teenagers primarily. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to a festival with my parents when I was a teenager. I'm wondering how many people that is realistically.

That said the system is probably the fairest it can be. The only change I'd make is, as others have said, to make the website a bit more stable so payments don't fail at the last minute which I know from experience is gutting. 

You are correct, 12 and under don't need a ticket.  I appreciate that families are a small proportion of the whole, but I would argue part of the diversity. 

I could see a scenario with the eldest child turning 13 facing the choice of not going (5 day babysitter / relative?), with younger siblings going.

 

Logistically, a challenge. 

 

I agree, the current system seems the best compromise possible currently.

[Harry49]

2.4 m registrations. Many old of course. Why not clear all registrations every June and get people to reregister every year.still be big numbers but might weed out a few and can’t see what would be unfair about that.

 

[EasyUserName]

3 minutes ago, robillustrates said:

Could still reduce to the max to 4 like the resale. That's not going to get such accusations.

Or you do a pair of tickets but allow a teenager ticket on top of that up to 2 max (4 total) for those between 12-16 only.

 

Hi Rob, I didn't mean my reply to be an accusation. It's an interesting discussion, and one where changes in one place impact on others elsewhere.  I know the festival doesn't owe me a ticket, but I'd be sad to see changes to make it "fair", make it less so for others.

[dotdash79]

Just now, Harry49 said:

2.4 m registrations. Many old of course. Why not clear all registrations every June and get people to reregister every year.still be big numbers but might weed out a few and can’t see what would be unfair about that.

 

the number of registrations doesn't make a difference if people aren't using them.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

2.4 m registrations. Many old of course. Why not clear all registrations every June and get people to reregister every year.still be big numbers but might weed out a few and can’t see what would be unfair about that.

 

The questions always lead back to the same answer. How would it benefit the festival in anyway to do that and therefore why would they?

Edited October 6, 2019 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Andy0808 v5]

I reckon every year on October 1st; regardless of the day of the week as that’ll cull some people trying. All people interested must make their way to Cheddar Gorge; again this’ll cut numbers willing as it may be a long way to travel.

 

We then each get ONE dart, which we throw as hard or as high as we like into the gorge, at the bottom of the gorge are printed off confirmation emails... if your dart lands on one, you are going Glastonbury! Well done! If you miss, well it’s back for the re-throw in April. 

 

In all seriousness, there isn’t a better way of doing it. I missed out last year, and had to stomach working it for Oxfam. The London Marathon ballot system has mugged me off year after year and I would hate for Glastonbury to follow suit.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, Andy0808 v5 said:

I reckon every year on October 1st; regardless of the day of the week as that’ll cull some people trying. All people interested must make their way to Cheddar Gorge; again this’ll cut numbers willing as it may be a long way to travel.

 

We then each get ONE dart, which we throw as hard or as high as we like into the gorge, at the bottom of the gorge are printed off confirmation emails... if your dart lands on one, you are going Glastonbury! Well done! If you miss, well it’s back for the re-throw in April. 

 

In all seriousness, there isn’t a better way of doing it. I missed out last year, and had to stomach working it for Oxfam. The London Marathon ballot system has mugged me off year after year and I would hate for Glastonbury to follow suit.

Yes and about 400k people try for the London marathon for 40k slots.

The odds for a Glastonbury ballot would be significantly worse, yet people actually think that’s the answer for them.

[Harry49]

3 minutes ago, dotdash79 said:

the number of registrations doesn't make a difference if people aren't using them.

True of course. But many people on here claim that there are a lot of punters who just try on the odd chance of going and aren’t committed. If you leave them registered then they are more likely to give it a go. Not going to be a game changer but may reduce odds a tad.

[JoBalls]

For me the only issue with the system is that it should work once you actually get through - in our group we got through three times during the time tickets were on sale, but twice the payment page crashed when we pressed “Buy Tickets” and we lost our slot. If the site had worked properly we would have had our whole group going, but instead now only 6 of us have tickets and the rest are trying in the resale. Obviously I still count myself as being incredibly lucky to have tickets but at the same time I am gutted for my family and friends who didn’t get theirs when they were so so tantalisingly close. I’ve seen a lot of others commenting on here, twitter and Facebook that they had the same problem too, so it’s not an isolated issue. 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Suprefan said:

and if  we were talking extreme circumstances on flipping this sale process upside down? How about you actually make people show up in person To buy a ticket. Before internet sales, what did people do to buy a glasto ticket? Theres a portion of people on here that had that experience 20 years ago and beyond right? What would you say if they made that the process? Im sure plenty of rules would go into place about not letting anyone hold a spot for you in the queue but if theyre using the reg numbers and you had to provide proper id and documents to match the info they have, surely thats something of a safeguard.
 

And the lead booker had to be going also, so there couldnt be people who got paid to queue up and buy for others without paying a deposit themselves. Even though you could make some serious money considering you just dont pay your balance portion and made whatever money from other people who paid you to do it. That means more tickets return to a resale and then sell those leftovers in person also. Just a thought. If see is selling tickets “the old way” still, lets truly make it the onld way via human interaction.

 

Nine Inch Nails did it on their last tour. I queued up 4 hours before the onsale, watched harry and meghan get married on my phone and got my tickets a while later. People stood in queues for 8 hours to buy them in my city and they pretty much sold out in that time. It worked, i was more than happy and willing to do it.

It's just not practical. Sort of worked for NiN because you could have people queue in the place where the gig was. We couldn't all go to Somerset to queue for Glastonbury tickets. So they'd have to be sold in various towns and cities throughout the country. But where? How many? Why does York qualify to sell tickets but Hull doesn't? Why did Manchester only have 20,000 tickets allocated while Liverpool had 30,000?

Plus, all you're doing fundamentally is wasting people's time. All you're doing is saying "demonstrate how much you want to come to the festival by standing in a queue". If we want to move to a system where those who want tickets the most get to go (which, I don't think we do, but whatever) surely there's a better way? 

(Also: demand for NiN tickets is really nowhere near as high as Glastonbury)

[Mash011]

Swear not getting tickets warps people's brains for a few days. Yeah, sure, let's all just go and queue up in Somerset for a few days. Get a grip.

[Suprefan]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's just not practical. Sort of worked for NiN because you could have people queue in the place where the gig was. We couldn't all go to Somerset to queue for Glastonbury tickets. So they'd have to be sold in various towns and cities throughout the country. But where? How many? Why does York qualify to sell tickets but Hull doesn't? Why did Manchester only have 20,000 tickets allocated while Liverpool had 30,000?

Plus, all you're doing fundamentally is wasting people's time. All you're doing is saying "demonstrate how much you want to come to the festival by standing in a queue". If we want to move to a system where those who want tickets the most get to go (which, I don't think we do, but whatever) surely there's a better way? 

(Also: demand for NiN tickets is really nowhere near as high as Glastonbury)

Im just using a current example of somebody of note making the effort to fight tours and to not make it as easy as waking up 5 minutes before a sale and opening an app. It shocked lots of peoole because if you didnt leave near a city then you had to do something about it.

 

i think centralizing the sale would be an idea. Use wembley stadium and have a few hundred people processing sales and It couldnt be that ridiculous. Again, this is about flipping the sale upside down, it would certainly change how things went. Sometimes the oldest ways are the better ways. Human interaction, real physical tickets, all analog. Technology has always been abused when the chance is given.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Im just using a current example of somebody of note making the effort to fight tours and to not make it as easy as waking up 5 minutes before a sale and opening an app. It shocked lots of peoole because if you didnt leave near a city then you had to do something about it.

 

i think centralizing the sale would be an idea. Use wembley stadium and have a few hundred people processing sales and It couldnt be that ridiculous. Again, this is about flipping the sale upside down, it would certainly change how things went. Sometimes the oldest ways are the better ways. Human interaction, real physical tickets, all analog. Technology has always been abused when the chance is given.

How is technology being abused with the current method?

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Suprefan said:

lowering the ticket limit to 4 or 2 would feel like the only thing they could do to let tickets last longer on the sale. 

Not true. The ticket sale takes half an hour because they choose for it to process about 60 tickets a second. They could double the length by letting fewer people in quite easily. They could also make it much smaller. See has the technology and often sell tickets far more quickly than they sell Glasto tickets. There's no need for mucking around with group sizes to change the sale time. If they wanted it to take 6 hours to sell through they could just limit it to 5 slots a second instead.

[brettredmayne]

The main issue and probably has been covered in many threads is the booking page doesn't hold your tickets and it can still sell out. 

We had 2 groups including mine get onto the screen and press to get into payment and it sold out.  With Ticketmaster this wouldn't have happened as once your in tha booking screen your tickets are reserved.

I'm unsure if seetickets would change this though as to them the tickets sold out in 33 minutes so that's their job done.