The Future of Glastonbury

[Hags]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

I've heard on the "grapevine" that there's talk of increasing off-site glamping and reducing on-site camping in order to enable more venues and entertainment.

This may just be rumour.

Given I assume that glamping demand outstrips supply at the minute, this makes a tonne of sense (if it’s possible!). 

win win for everyone involved! 

[Hags]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

I've heard on the "grapevine" that there's talk of increasing off-site glamping and reducing on-site camping in order to enable more venues and entertainment.

This may just be rumour.

This makes a tonne of sense, if glamping demand currently outstrips supply and - maybe bigger if - the space is available off site. Win win for everyone! 

[mungo57]

the glamping thing is silly, take away general admission camping and give it to posh c**ts that can afford to sleep in a pre-pitched yurt. Bollocks to that.

[Skip997]

8 minutes ago, Hags said:

This makes a tonne of sense, if glamping demand currently outstrips supply and - maybe bigger if - the space is available off site. Win win for everyone! 

Not in my opinion.

It'll result in an increase of wealthier, more "middle class", older folk. Whereas what the festival needs is more lower income types and younger people.

Plus it paves the way to turning it into an arena event with all the nonsense that brings.

[Amy Lawn]

Yh I hate the idea of more posh camping. Could maybe get behind the idea of some affordable pre-pitched because it makes things easier for public transport travellers, but prices would have to come down a massive amount.

[Hags]

Yeah but we're talking about the options available after people have bought tickets, the tickets presumably would't come with the obligation to 'glamp'. The same number of wealthy people would still have tickets, they'd just be camping off site! 

[stuie]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Not in my opinion.

It'll result in an increase of wealthier, more "middle class", older folk. Whereas what the festival needs is more lower income types and younger people.

Plus it paves the way to turning it into an arena event with all the nonsense that brings.

^^ this. 

[steviewevie]

3 hours ago, Skip997 said:

I've heard on the "grapevine" that there's talk of increasing off-site glamping and reducing on-site camping in order to enable more venues and entertainment.

This may just be rumour.

sh*t idea.

[sime]

I don't like the idea of glamping taking away "free" camping space. I honestly don't have any need to glamp. I'm beginning to think, after going to every Glastonbury since 1993, that once the ticket price goes over £400, I will stop going. It's a great festival and you do get value for money in a lot of ways but at £400 I do start thinking about what else I could do with that money. My guess is it will reach that price from the 2025 festival onwards. 

[Isaact]

1 minute ago, sime said:

I don't like the idea of glamping taking away "free" camping space. I honestly don't have any need to glamp. I'm beginning to think, after going to every Glastonbury since 1993, that once the ticket price goes over £400, I will stop going. It's a great festival and you do get value for money in a lot of ways but at £400 I do start thinking about what else I could do with that money. My guess is it will reach that price from the 2025 festival onwards. 

With the way gig prices are going, you could see two stadium gigs for that price.

Glastonbury is only following the trend of all gig prices really.

[sime]

7 minutes ago, Isaact said:

With the way gig prices are going, you could see two stadium gigs for that price.

Glastonbury is only following the trend of all gig prices really.

As I said, it is good value for money in a number of ways. But I don't go to many gigs and have never been to a stadium concert. So for me, given that Glastonbury are obviously going to follow market trends (something I am neither for or against), then for me, I have to question whether or not I personally would want to pay £400 plus for a ticket. 

[Clouds]

13 minutes ago, sime said:

As I said, it is good value for money in a number of ways. But I don't go to many gigs and have never been to a stadium concert. So for me, given that Glastonbury are obviously going to follow market trends (something I am neither for or against), then for me, I have to question whether or not I personally would want to pay £400 plus for a ticket. 

Setting a limit like £400 makes no sense though. The cost of everything goes up with inflation and you are better just evaluating each year whether you feel like the cost is worth it to you as an individual compared to what else you could do with the money.

[sime]

2 minutes ago, Clouds said:

Setting a limit like £400 makes no sense though. The cost of everything goes up with inflation and you are better just evaluating each year whether you feel like the cost is worth it to you as an individual compared to what else you could do with the money.

Makes perfect sense to me. I might change my mind, might not. Of course everything goes up. For me I am beginning to think more about how I want to spend my money. Which has been my point from the first post. Not sure why people are against this as it will mean one more ticket will be available! 

[castlecaryquery]

3 hours ago, Hags said:

Yeah but we're talking about the options available after people have bought tickets, the tickets presumably would't come with the obligation to 'glamp'. The same number of wealthy people would still have tickets, they'd just be camping off site! 

Think this is a very good point. In theory glamping would be expanded to meet the demand of those who are already going to be there. I suppose it might make more "posh" people try if they know there's more glamping options, but I don't think that was the only thing stopping those types to begin with. 

[Suprefan]

4 hours ago, mungo57 said:

the glamping thing is silly, take away general admission camping and give it to posh c**ts that can afford to sleep in a pre-pitched yurt. Bollocks to that.

Hey, some of us travelling to the fest from another continent like to walk in there without needed to carry more sh*t than needed. Sorry if we are willing to pay for it. Doesnt mean we're rich. Thank you for assuming we're elitists.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Suprefan

[Suprefan]

1 hour ago, sime said:

I don't like the idea of glamping taking away "free" camping space. I honestly don't have any need to glamp. I'm beginning to think, after going to every Glastonbury since 1993, that once the ticket price goes over £400, I will stop going. It's a great festival and you do get value for money in a lot of ways but at £400 I do start thinking about what else I could do with that money. My guess is it will reach that price from the 2025 festival onwards. 

I said that a couple years ago and got laughed at. Nobody is laughing now. And you dont pay £500 yet like we do over here. Emily admitting that the price shouldve gone up £100 and they kept it lower to not give us sticker shock is telling. Theyre trying to keep the lights on at this point. The money isnt going toward paying talent either, just for everything else. I think thatll be the argument in the future when the price gets over £400. Actually a better argument is, if they released a lineup before one ticket went on sale, would it be worth the price its being offered at whatever it may be in a respective year?

[stuie]

5 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Hey, some of us travelling to the fest from another continent like to walk in there without needed to carry more sh*t than needed. Sorry if we are willing to pay for it. Doesnt mean we're rich. Thank you for assuming we're elitists.

Very much the exception rather than the norm, so no need for that tone. It’s not like worthy view is noticeably full of people from other continents is it?

[sime]

1 minute ago, Suprefan said:

I said that a couple years ago and got laughed at. Nobody is laughing now. And you dont pay £500 yet like we do over here. Emily admitting that the price shouldve gone up £100 and they kept it lower to not give us sticker shock is telling. Theyre trying to keep the lights on at this point. The money isnt going toward paying talent either, just for everything else. I think thatll be the argument in the future when the price gets over £400. Actually a better argument is, if they released a lineup before one ticket went on sale, would it be worth the price its being offered at whatever it may be in a respective year?

It will probably always sell out and I hope it does. I just might not be part of it at that price point. Might go and see more of the world instead. 

[robith]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Very much the exception rather than the norm, so no need for that tone. It’s not like worthy view is noticeably full of people from other continents is it?

in fairness, being able to afford transcontiental flights, a Glastonbury ticket and glamping at the fest is out of reach of what, like 95, 96% of the world's population?

[chris_nre]

Not sure quite where the festival goes from now on. 
 

There were changes in the early 2000’s to try and encourage a slightly younger demographic. So we had general sales moved from Monday to Sunday so as to not disadvantage students. Then the deposit scheme to encourage other than middle classes.

It seems that the demographic that the above was designed to accommodate are going to be priced out with year on year ticket price increases.

I think the festival has to look at who it wants to attract. If students and lower income punters then will probably have to look at a Download style monthly direct debit scheme otherwise it becomes a boutique festival for those that want glamping and pamper parlours.

[moogster]

Coming from another country and by public transport I do have issues being called a posh c*nt for going to pricey-ish WV. Are you all camping in a 2 person tent in general?  How about campervans then? I do find some of those prices crazy but as long as there is space for everyone and tickets don't get reserved for glampers (there are some I know) then what's the deal?

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, chris_nre said:

I think the festival has to look at who it wants to attract. If students and lower income punters then will probably have to look at a Download style monthly direct debit scheme otherwise it becomes a boutique festival for those that want glamping and pamper parlours.

Or stop putting on outdated, has been mega acts tailored to the "rock dads" and "radio 2 mums". Instead target younger punters with more knowledge of and interest in younger up and coming acts, who will probably be cheaper.

Then announce the line-up before the ticket sales.

[goldfishboy]

in general i have no issue with people who want to glamp, but if it's taking space away from regular festivalgoers, then i am dead against it

[FuzzyDunlop]

7 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Or stop putting on outdated, has been mega acts tailored to the "rock dads" and "radio 2 mums". Instead target younger punters with more knowledge of and interest in younger up and coming acts, who will probably be cheaper.

Then announce the line-up before the ticket sales.

Whilst I like the variety & I think "rock dad / radio 2 mum acts" definitely have their place - a "bump up" headliner would be a good thing.

 

[Suprefan]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Or stop putting on outdated, has been mega acts tailored to the "rock dads" and "radio 2 mums". Instead target younger punters with more knowledge of and interest in younger up and coming acts, who will probably be cheaper.

Then announce the line-up before the ticket sales.

You mean like Coachella? Be in the now with sprinkles of the past? If only. Michael's influence will always be there. As we've said so many times theyre running out of the mum and dad lawn chair artist headliners so thatll take care of itself. Its just a matter of how the Eavii go forward with having to book all 3 headliners being under the age of 35 year in and year out. You can only do Coldplay or Foo Fighters so many other times too. The thing is at this time with the system in place its always going to lean older with the crowd anyway.its a legacy festival in terms of passing down the tradition of being taken as a kid for years with your parents til youre old enough and then you go on your own. 2 generations of that have passed now.  Dont know how you remove that aspect of it even with the music side being waaaay younger if the old folk will just hang out in other places of the fest cause they can enjoy themselves one way or a other

 

The one thing they could do if they wanted was to let you put your £50 deposit in on T day and then theres a payment plan for 6 months that follows. They payments would be made before the tax year ends and such so they keep their exception or whatever it is with financials. I think having to make people in the future fork over £300 in one shot could be a challenge. Some people arent good at saving up. So if youre making everyone pay £50 a month then you have that in mind more. 
 

Would like it if they did try the tradtitional way just to see if they can analyze the shift in demographics When it came to the lineup. Most people will just pay their full fee in March cause they cant make other plans by then.

 

And there still needs to be something for last minute cancellations. Fair exchange and sucH. A waitlist.