What if Glastonbury switched to Ticketmaster and Dynamic ticket pricing????

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

 

I am not sure, the rep is far bigger now I think than it was in say 2005. Yes it was on the beeb (or was it C4) then but it wasnt massive in terms of the public psyche I dont think (albeit the floods on site Thursday night, especially Pennards really helped as it was on all the news channels on Friday) You also didnt have the Park, Arcadia, and most of the SE corner stuff back then though you did have Lost Vagueness from memory). And it was easier to bag a ticket back then. It all changed in 2007 and 2008 when the Park, Arcadia and Shangri La massively raised the bar and the festivals public profile. I cant remember the age of the crowd being massively different to what it is now but I might be wrong, maybe more teenagers perhaps?

I suppose it depends who you are talking about when you talk about rep. I feel many of those in the media who drive the mainstream appeal of the festival don’t go much beyond the two main stages.

 

I first went in 1998 and the audiences was definitely younger. I read an article that basically said average age had gone from mid 20s to 40s, don’t know if that’s based on sound evidence.

[dingbat2]

3 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 

Oh no, it absolutely costs something - every extra stage, camera, sound feed, hour of engineer time, GB of data. 

 

And given some people already heavily criticise the coverage as "a big holiday" or whatever, it's certainly tricky.

 

Maybe a partnership with another organisation? 

But relatively speaking its not massive though is it compared the main stags with multiple cameras and dedicated camera people and sound engineers

[pink_triangle]

11 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

But relatively speaking its not massive though is it compared the main stags with multiple cameras and dedicated camera people and sound engineers

Also as technology continues to improve it will get cheaper.

[dingbat2]

There are so many bands I would loved to have been caught on TV at Williams Green, they were awesome. Williams Green was always my favourite stage. Ulrich Schnauss, Snapped (sweaty) Ankles and WH Lung. All of these need to have a bigger audience, truly amazing performances, I wish more people could have seen them. Would have looked great on TV

[Skip997]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think it’s lost some of the edge it had 20 years and the audience has become older and more middle class. While those changes in my view don’t make it a better festival, I think they make it more sustainable in the long term.

Yea it’s massively lost it’s edge, but you’re right, it couldn’t have gone on the way it was 

[dotdash79]

The fence changed things, made it safer for people but lost some of the edge that made it exciting. Then the glamping and the off site options meant that people that would have stopped in the late 20s have now carried on. With tickets being so hard to get and you have to be organised that's changed it again.

 

It will keep on changing because if it doesn't then it will die.

[incident]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I first went in 1998 and the audiences was definitely younger. I read an article that basically said average age had gone from mid 20s to 40s, don’t know if that’s based on sound evidence.

 

Anyone who tries to estimate an average age for the festival - including the GFL themselves - would have to rely on a large amount of guesswork because that information is not measured at any point.

 

As for the average age being in the 40s? Even if you totally discounted all U18s from the count, an average that high doesn't seem like it could be right just by looking around. There's still *loads* of twenty-somethings around the place, and for the average to be in the 40s, that'd (very approximately) mean every 20 year old needed to be offset by a 60+ year old and I don't think that's close to being the case.

 

I reckon that the demographics are fairly evenly spread across the 20s, 30s, 40s, maybe into very early 50s, but that once you get beyond that the numbers nosedive sharply as people can't be arsed with the discomfort.

 

Hell I'm mid 40s and suspect that next year might be my last.

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, incident said:

 

Anyone who tries to estimate an average age for the festival - including the GFL themselves - would have to rely on a large amount of guesswork because that information is not measured at any point.

 

As for the average age being in the 40s? Even if you totally discounted all U18s from the count, an average that high doesn't seem like it could be right just by looking around. There's still *loads* of twenty-somethings around the place, and for the average to be in the 40s, that'd (very approximately) mean every 20 year old needed to be offset by a 60+ year old and I don't think that's close to being the case.

 

I reckon that the demographics are fairly evenly spread across the 20s, 30s, 40s, maybe into very early 50s, but that once you get beyond that the numbers nosedive sharply as people can't be arsed with the discomfort.

 

Hell I'm mid 40s and suspect that next year might be my last.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jun/24/cream-teas-rocknroll-older-revellers-glastonbury

 

This was the link to the article I read. It’s a bit confusing as they have some very specific averages (down to the month) but don’t say where they got the data from and later on says the festival doesn’t collect demographic data. 
 

 

[uscore]

I always thought the justification for "dynamic pricing" on planes and trains was demand management. Get people travelling at different times or days to balance the traffic.   It doesn't really work for gigs apart from an excuse to rip people off and get them to panic buy at twice the price after queuing for 4 hours.

 

I think festivals/concerts/ticket sellers should be allowed to sell at whatever price they want, but they should be up-front about it.  You should know what prices you'd have to pay, at the start of the queuing.

 

A system already exists with the tiered ticket price approach,  so as the queue goes down you could say "tier 1 sold out, tier 2 now active".

 

The current practice of dynamic pricing - where people are surprised with a huge bill when they get through the queue - should be banned.

[Suprefan]

2 minutes ago, uscore said:

I always thought the justification for "dynamic pricing" on planes and trains was demand management. Get people travelling at different times or days to balance the traffic.   It doesn't really work for gigs apart from an excuse to rip people off and get them to panic buy at twice the price after queuing for 4 hours.

 

I think festivals/concerts/ticket sellers should be allowed to sell at whatever price they want, but they should be up-front about it.  You should know what prices you'd have to pay, at the start of the queuing.

 

A system already exists with the tiered ticket price approach,  so as the queue goes down you could say "tier 1 sold out, tier 2 now active".

 

The current practice of dynamic pricing - where people are surprised with a huge bill when they get through the queue - should be banned.

 

the irony is in America it is clearly stated that youre gonna get robbed at a certain point when buying a ticket if youre too far back in the queue. Nobody really complains. We only complain about wanting to know how much everything costs beforehand. Thats what we are fighting over. Tm blindsides everyone in the u.s with unknown ticket costs and forces them to pay that or else they cant go.

[Suprefan]

9 hours ago, stuie said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/oasis-ticketmaster-f-uk-probe-dynamic-pricing/
 

 

 

have the laws changed yet..... tell me when the laws changed. Im telling you theyre going to come to some middle ground where its just about transparency. It literally just happened here.

 

we had legislation pass about "no hidden junk fees" and Ticketmaster was a prime target. Everyone thought the fees would be removed. All that happened was we are now given the total cost of tickets before we go to the pay screen. Live Nation has more lawyers than the other guys. And they have something nobody else does. Time. Is there gonna be an injunction that stops the practice? No. Cause you can appeal and continue on with your business. Just saying.

 

fyi, if you wanna know what the fees are about its for security. Onsales like Oasis dont come along that often and it would be a target of identity theft. You pay that extra money to know nobody is stealing your credit card info. ( yes, we just had a data breach, but so did See a couple years ago and we all got a nice check )

Edited September 2 by Suprefan

[charlierc]

19 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

 

the irony is in America it is clearly stated that youre gonna get robbed at a certain point when buying a ticket if youre too far back in the queue. Nobody really complains. We only complain about wanting to know how much everything costs beforehand. Thats what we are fighting over. Tm blindsides everyone in the u.s with unknown ticket costs and forces them to pay that or else they cant go.

Got a taste of that when considering going to New York last year and the fees for everything at the Garden on top of a ticket price that without fees exceeding UK prices made me think "... nah". Or at least if I am to ever finally visit there as I've thought about for a few years, skip going to a concert as part of it

 

The expense of other stuff can be wild anyway. Saw someone who was at the Las Vegas Killers residency saying a frozen margarita cocktail in the venue there was $40, which... bruh. I know it's an area where you're likely to have to pay a premium, but still...

[Spindles]

35 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jun/24/cream-teas-rocknroll-older-revellers-glastonbury

 

This was the link to the article I read. It’s a bit confusing as they have some very specific averages (down to the month) but don’t say where they got the data from and later on says the festival doesn’t collect demographic data. 
 

 

I think you may have misread, the averages are the average age of the headliners.

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I think you may have misread, the averages are the average age of the headliners.

That explains both the lack of demographics and why nobody asks me to proof read anything at work!

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

According to Oracle Analytics, the average age of an attendee is 39 years of age, the favourite tipple is lager, and pizza is more popular than wraps and burgers. f**k knows how they got their date and it kind of sounds realistic, but my biggest scepticism is how they would even calculate any of this.

 

https://blogs.oracle.com/analytics/post/seeing-through-the-crowds#:~:text=Surprisingly%2C the overall average age,later at this later age.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

11 hours ago, Suprefan said:

 

the irony is in America it is clearly stated that youre gonna get robbed at a certain point when buying a ticket if youre too far back in the queue. Nobody really complains. We only complain about wanting to know how much everything costs beforehand. Thats what we are fighting over. Tm blindsides everyone in the u.s with unknown ticket costs and forces them to pay that or else they cant go.

 

Do they do that annoying thing in the US as well where they add tax after the listed price? Like you pay 300 dollars and then they stick you with 60 dollars of sales tax afterwards?

[incident]

Just now, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

According to Oracle Analytics, the average age of an attendee is 39 years of age, the favourite tipple is lager, and pizza is more popular than wraps and burgers. f**k knows how they got their date and it kind of sounds realistic, but my biggest scepticism is how they would even calculate any of this.

 

https://blogs.oracle.com/analytics/post/seeing-through-the-crowds#:~:text=Surprisingly%2C the overall average age,later at this later age.

 

There's a crazy amount of inaccuracy and guesswork in that article.

 

Firstly, they claim that 2005 was the highest attendance. That's one of the few things in there that can easily be factually determined, and they're miles off. Attendance went up massively from 2005 to 2007 . I believe that's because for 2002-2005 they're using the total attendance figure including staff, whereas subsequent years they've used the "tickets sold" number. Not a good start if you're trying to sell people on how good your analytics are.

 

As for the rest of it - it says the demographic/preference data comes from a survey, which can't be considered even halfway reliable as your data is only as good as whoever you can get to participate, and there's an inherent bias in that - if the survey was promoted here for example then it's naturally going to skew older. If it was via the TikTok, then it'll skew younger.

[DeanoL]

13 hours ago, Suprefan said:

 

have the laws changed yet..... tell me when the laws changed. Im telling you theyre going to come to some middle ground where its just about transparency. It literally just happened here.

 

we had legislation pass about "no hidden junk fees" and Ticketmaster was a prime target. Everyone thought the fees would be removed. All that happened was we are now given the total cost of tickets before we go to the pay screen. Live Nation has more lawyers than the other guys. And they have something nobody else does. Time. Is there gonna be an injunction that stops the practice? No. Cause you can appeal and continue on with your business. Just saying.

 

fyi, if you wanna know what the fees are about its for security. Onsales like Oasis dont come along that often and it would be a target of identity theft. You pay that extra money to know nobody is stealing your credit card info. ( yes, we just had a data breach, but so did See a couple years ago and we all got a nice check )

Consumer protection legislation has always been much stronger in Europe than the US. And there's precedent for legislation to make ticketing fairer (eg. prevention of resale of football tickets in the UK)

[stuie]

13 hours ago, Suprefan said:

 

have the laws changed yet..... tell me when the laws changed. Im telling you theyre going to come to some middle ground where its just about transparency. It literally just happened here.

I literally posted a link that says the laws haven’t changed yet, so why would you ask that, in your passive aggessive way? 
 

Just because it hasn’t happened in America doesn’t mean it won’t happen here - we have a precedent for making ticketing fairer and clamping down on touting. 

[charlierc]

7 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Consumer protection legislation has always been much stronger in Europe than the US. And there's precedent for legislation to make ticketing fairer (eg. prevention of resale of football tickets in the UK)

I wasn't aware tbf that the Irish government banned inflated resale.

 

Guess we'll see if the European Commission potentially sees this as something to make more widespread, given they're also now taking a look.

 

How much it changes here is another matter. As a few are saying, this argument might well just lead to transparency of it being a thing rather than the ban that would be the more populist option, though equally, one suspects any attempt to ban dynamic pricing might well just see the face value pumped up some more. But maybe there's a lot of us in denial given I think we're all aware the days of getting sub-£50 GA standing at stadiums or at this rate even sub-£70 are probably now over.

[goldfishboy]

On 9/2/2024 at 9:06 PM, Suprefan said:

fyi, if you wanna know what the fees are about its for security. Onsales like Oasis dont come along that often and it would be a target of identity theft. You pay that extra money to know nobody is stealing your credit card info. ( yes, we just had a data breach, but so did See a couple years ago and we all got a nice check )

but any transaction could be a target of ID theft and I fail to see how adding an extra charge makes it any safer.

 

they add fees because they can.

[philipsteak]

On 9/2/2024 at 9:06 PM, Suprefan said:

 

have the laws changed yet..... tell me when the laws changed. Im telling you theyre going to come to some middle ground where its just about transparency. It literally just happened here.

 

we had legislation pass about "no hidden junk fees" and Ticketmaster was a prime target. Everyone thought the fees would be removed. All that happened was we are now given the total cost of tickets before we go to the pay screen. Live Nation has more lawyers than the other guys. And they have something nobody else does. Time. Is there gonna be an injunction that stops the practice? No. Cause you can appeal and continue on with your business. Just saying.

 

fyi, if you wanna know what the fees are about its for security. Onsales like Oasis dont come along that often and it would be a target of identity theft. You pay that extra money to know nobody is stealing your credit card info. ( yes, we just had a data breach, but so did See a couple years ago and we all got a nice check )

 

Ticketmaster aren't going to marry you fella. They'll f**k you. Repeatedly. Every time you buy a ticket. But they won't marry you

[CharlotteB]

Just saw the article on the BBC where Oasis are washing their hands of the dynamic pricing debacle 🤣

 

No, nothing to do with you, lads, is it?

[DeanoL]

12 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

Just saw the article on the BBC where Oasis are washing their hands of the dynamic pricing debacle 🤣

 

No, nothing to do with you, lads, is it?

I really doubt either of them has the first clue what a dynamic price is.

[MilkyJoe]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I really doubt either of them has the first clue what a dynamic price is.

They probably do now!😁