Jump to content

2022 Headliners


Chrisp1986
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Matt42 said:

I don’t know why you always read my posts in a way that is not at all what I said.

Doing Glastonbury is a massive exposure opportunity which has a legacy. They come to Europe for the exposure of playing Glastonbury and other events in conjunction. It’s a short snap way of increasing your visibility in Europe! It’s not just YouTube clicks but the record sales/streams that doing it generates.

Nope I believe I read your posts exactly as you’ve said them. You said yesterday that acts come to Europe to play Glastonbury and announce other European shows around it because they’re coming over, and just now that a video of them playing Glastonbury is an important thing to have. i see you’ve now widened it to ‘they play European festivals for exposure’ but they don’t play other festivals for exposure, they play them for money.

For most artists, new music is a way of promoting a tour now so it’s less and less likely to be the other way around. It might send the Legend act to number one in this country for a week or two but think about the money those sales are worth nowadays, and then think about the hit they take on their fee.

I’m not sure this is really worth continuing because it must be boring everyone else as it is me, but yeah you can simplify it to that the exposure element isn’t so important for artists who don’t need exposure, and particularly not to agents who need money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

In this country Glastonbury is more than just a festival, it's the cultural highlight of the summer. The coverage in the build up is everywhere and one of the main reasons for that is because it is freely available to watch and listen to on the BBC. Lock it away behind a paywall and people will forget it pretty quickly.

The 2019 coverage broke viewing figure records for the festival, apparently over 3 million people watched Kylie's set, which in the era of streaming and a million other options is pretty impressive. Stick it on Sky or Amazon or Channel 5 and they won't get anywhere near those numbers, which in turn makes it less appealing to acts who aren't getting paid much in the first place.

I think the Eavii get this.

Why wouldn’t they get those numbers? For starters, they’re only available in this country whereas Amazon Prime Video or Netflix could broadcast it to the world.

BBC is a paywall. They are losing license holders fast. Netflix and Amazon Prime are building (or maybe plateauing). It’s just reaching a bigger audience in a time where media is no longer localised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Why should they. Is there a fight to get them? Even in their current financial state they arent out there scrambling to make that kind of a deal. So they get some extra money and it will be available to anyone worldwide finally? I mean if you had to pay to watch it do you cross your fingers there isnt a disaster like the Live at Worthy Farm broadcast? Amazon already has been making a dent in the market with their livestreams via twitch and you got banner ads all over that so you can watch for free. Hulu livestreamed Lollapalooza last year and thats Disney money.

and I dont think if Netflix made a Glasto doc its gonna be this gigantic hit over here when it got released. Wouldnt stay in the top 10 that long. That other documentary from the canadian film company was buried. And its not on the buzz of the Woodstock disaster. And the lastest Coachella film is free on youtube.

Amazon are pumping a tonne of money into UK-made content over the next few years to gain traction here (source: my partner works in TV). Having something like Glastonbury, which already has a broadcast infrastructure every year on site anyway and a fanbase who watch all the Beeb coverage, is a no brainer and chump change for what they're spending on other programming. It would also open it up to a global audience vs the BBC content.

I can't see the Eavis' ever moving from the BBC unless their relationship with them breaks down for whatever reason but somewhere like Amazon would be glad to have it. Would be zero effort, barely any money, and they'd own that content for a long time and be able to license it out accordingly.

Edited by jannybruck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

How many people paid for Live At Worthy Farm?  

£20 was it? For three hours of content? Not comparable.

People already have Netflix and Amazon Prime. They’re not paying for it to see Glastonbury. Just like people don’t pay their license fee to specifically watch Glastonbury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dentalplan said:

£20 was it? For three hours of content? Not comparable.

People already have Netflix and Amazon Prime. They’re not paying for it to see Glastonbury. Just like people don’t pay their license fee to specifically watch Glastonbury.

I don't think a single person pays a license fee just to watch Glastonbury, that has never been suggested nor ever would be, so let's pop that strawman back in the box for now...

The fact is that there are far more people in this country (and for the purposes of this discussion we are talking about this country) who have access to the BBC right now than Amazon/Sky/Netflix/etc, but pretty much everyone who does subscribe to one of those services also has access to the Beeb, yes you need a license to watch the BBC but that is a legal requirement of owning a television and not really pertinent to this discussion.

Obviously I can't prove this but I'm willing to bet that shifting it away to the likes of Amazon would alienate and lose massive chunks of the "casual" audience who probably don't really care about music or watch a lot of it but will happily sit and watch some of the Glastonbury coverage, especially the headliners and legend. Then you have the people who would inevitably accuse the festival of selling out and not bother watching anyway.

3.2m viewers for a tea time set, do you genuinely think Amazon would pull that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I don't think a single person pays a license fee just to watch Glastonbury, that has never been suggested nor ever would be, so let's pop that strawman back in the box for now...

It wasn't a strawman. You were suggesting - with your comparison to Live at Worthy Farm - that people wouldn't pay to watch Glastonbury on Amazon Prime Video or Netflix, things people already own, much like a TV license.

17 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

The fact is that there are far more people in this country (and for the purposes of this discussion we are talking about this country) who have access to the BBC right now than Amazon/Sky/Netflix/etc, but pretty much everyone who does subscribe to one of those services also has access to the Beeb, yes you need a license to watch the BBC but that is a legal requirement of owning a television and not really pertinent to this discussion.

Right now, yes that should be true. But it won't be in five to ten years because, as mentioned earlier in the thread not even by me, BBC is losing money because it's losing TV licenseholders. They even took away the free one they give to OAP's because of it.

10m with Amazon Prime who can access Amazon Prime Video in the UK
15m Netflix subscribers in the UK
25m with a TV license and legally able to access iPlayer in the UK.

Except the first two are increasing by hundreds of thousands every year, and the latter is decreasing at a similar rate, which will probably pick up speed to millions.

And no it's not a legal requirement of owning a television. Who told you that? It is a legal requirement to watch live television OR iPlayer, but people don't watch live TV anymore. Hence why the on-demand stuff has exploded the Glastonbury viewing figures.

17 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Obviously I can't prove this but I'm willing to bet that shifting it away to the likes of Amazon would alienate and lose massive chunks of the "casual" audience who probably don't really care about music or watch a lot of it but will happily sit and watch some of the Glastonbury coverage, especially the headliners and legend. Then you have the people who would inevitably accuse the festival of selling out and not bother watching anyway.

3.2m viewers for a tea time set, do you genuinely think Amazon would pull that?

Yes. It would gain more of a casual audience worldwide, for the sheer fact of it being available in more households. Bear in mind the figures I just quoted about Prime and Netflix being behind BBC were UK only.

3.2m wasn't concurrent viewers, by the way. So the time of day hasn't much relevance. People will watch it any time they like.

 

 

As you can probably guess, I'd be in full favour of them moving with the times and attaching themselves to a major streaming outlet. The money they bring in would hopefully mean an end to the runaway ticket pricing that the current model accepts.

Edited by dentalplan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

It wasn't a strawman. You were suggesting - with your comparison to Live at Worthy Farm - that people wouldn't pay to watch Glastonbury on Amazon Prime Video or Netflix, things people already own, much like a TV license.

Right now, yes that should be true. But it won't be in five to ten years because, as mentioned earlier in the thread not even by me, BBC is losing money because it's losing TV licenseholders. They even took away the free one they give to OAP's because of it.

10m with Amazon Prime who can access Amazon Prime Video in the UK
15m Netflix subscribers in the UK
25m with a TV license and legally able to access iPlayer in the UK.

Except the first two are increasing by hundreds of thousands every year, and the latter is decreasing at a similar rate, which will probably pick up speed to millions.

And no it's not a legal requirement of owning a television. Who told you that? It is a legal requirement to watch live television OR iPlayer, but people don't watch live TV anymore. Hence why the on-demand stuff has exploded the Glastonbury viewing figures.

Yes. It would gain more of a casual audience worldwide, for the sheer fact of it being available in more households. Bear in mind the figures I just quoted about Prime and Netflix being behind BBC were UK only.

3.2m wasn't concurrent viewers, by the way. So the time of day hasn't much relevance. People will watch it any time they like.

 

 

As you can probably guess, I'd be in full favour of them moving with the times and attaching themselves to a major streaming outlet. The money they bring in would hopefully mean an end to the runaway ticket pricing that the current model accepts.

I’ll answer the rest of the points later, but yes. You do need a TV license legally.

734B227B-1945-4F98-BC3E-C90031172B34.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

I’ll answer the rest of the points later, but yes. You do need a TV license legally.

734B227B-1945-4F98-BC3E-C90031172B34.png

"to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown" then a load of stuff about using iPlayer.

So exactly what I said then.

Nice one, thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Carabao have him as an exclusive for next year anyway.

Yeah but the FA Cup is on the BBC so it's a bigger draw. Agents know this and would try and get him in regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazon Entertainment Ventures Acquisition Corp holdings to acquire Glastonbury Festivals Limited and all subsequent media rights for £500m GBP.

Amazon Prime users will get pre-sale access to tickets. You will need to pay extra for camping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

"to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown" then a load of stuff about using iPlayer.

So exactly what I said then.

Nice one, thanks for that.

Pretty sure the streamers would would fall under “online TV services” in court… but anyway dude I’m all for pedantry and being right, but I also have little appetite to turn the Glastonbury Headliner thread into a debate on TV Licensing law. So maybe leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Amazon Entertainment Ventures Acquisition Corp holdings to acquire Glastonbury Festivals Limited and all subsequent media rights for £500m GBP.

Amazon Prime users will get pre-sale access to tickets. You will need to pay extra for camping!

Jeff Bezos reading out the lineup on board one of his blue origin spacecraft. Scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Can't think of any potential downsides to getting someone like Jeff Bezos involved.

Why not? Glasto will finally be able to afford Fleetwood Mac’s $22m performance fee and the $70m needed to reform Led Zeppelin? I think it should be considered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, K2SO said:

Yeah but the FA Cup is on the BBC so it's a bigger draw. Agents know this and would try and get him in regardless.

How about we decide the headliners by putting their names in a cloth bag and having Rod draw them out?

(Obviously Rod’s name would not be in the bag)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superscally said:

I want to the documentary of @Woffy's stag do. 

The best i've got is my profile photo here.

 

One of me back at work on the Tuesday would be more entertaining. 

In fact i'd like to see it as i have absolutely no recollection of it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Pretty sure the streamers would would fall under “online TV services” in court… but anyway dude I’m all for pedantry and being right, but I also have little appetite to turn the Glastonbury Headliner thread into a debate on TV Licensing law. So maybe leave it there.

Okay well if it is not a live stream (it wouldn’t have to be) then it doesn’t require a TV license and it says so on the website. Check this if you would like to find out more: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...