Corporate Sponsorship at Glasto

[johnl]

Hot on the heels of the announcement about the Prix-r-us field, as well as Camp Kerala got me thinking.

Now I'm far from a seasoned veteran but I've been drinking lager with Carlsberg written on the cup, relaxed in the Guardian Lounge and visited the Orange chill and charge tent - Does it really matter?

Why not the "Pyramid Stage sponsored by Toblerone"

"John Peel stage sponsored by Tropicana"

"Park Stage sponsored by The National Trust"

If this sort of branding meant that ticket prices could be held at affordable levels, should it be allowed or is it just a (nother) step towards V?

Discuss........

[Alcatraz]

The campsite's not really a corporate name.

Whilst I protest its presence, there is of course nothing stopping them from doing it. Quite what the festival gains from advertising that particular campsite I'm not to sure. I suppose it could be receiving a bit of dosh from it, which at the end of the day may keep the price down for us who are prepared to "slum it", as will the presence of brands like Carlsberg and the Guardian.

As long as the Greenpeace, Oxfam and Water Aid banners aren't replaced, unless it's with another charity, and the festival is not advertising through the broadcasts, it's fair game

Edited April 10, 2009 by Alcatraz

[BlackHole2006]

It doesn't really matter that much.

As said by other people before, it's alot less "In your face" than festivals like V or Reading and Leeds. People who are anti glasto fools always use the excuse that all the food stalls are commercial companies etc. but they have to feed the punters somehow. Admitedly, the line up has had very commercial bands in the past, for example last year we had KOL and Jay-Z headlining, who are very commercial artists, and also Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys, Killers etc. have played in recent years too, who are extremely sucsesfull commerially. But this year it seems, the bands that are playing are hardly being played on the radio so it seems. We have Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, and Blur headlining, who all sell albums by the bucket but never get played on the radio (well sometimes with blur Song 2 gets occasionally played and I think it is a good thing. I think Eavis has finally realised that the punters want real bands who are exeptionally talented at the music they make, or live in the case of Springsteen and others.

If this sort of branding meant that ticket prices could be held at affordable levels, should it be allowed or is it just a (nother) step towards V?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

The campsite's not really a corporate name.

Whilst I protest its presence, there is of course nothing stopping them from doing it. Quite what the festival gains from advertising that particular campsite I'm not to sure. I suppose it could be receiving a bit of dosh from it, which at the end of the day may keep the price down for us who are prepared to "slum it", as will the presence of brands like Carlsberg and the Guardian.

As long as the Greenpeace, Oxfam and Water Aid banners aren't replaced, unless it's with another charity, and the festival is not advertising through the broadcasts, it's fair game

[scaryclaireyfairy]

i'm trying to get special k sponsorship for my tent this year...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

i'm trying to get special k sponsorship for my tent this year...

[grandadcollective]

^^^WHS.

Without the big sponsors you wouldn't get the diversity of acts, and the fields, and the big names, as well as the amount of cash that goes to the charities. I have seen the books of a couple of small festivals that are community/charity affairs and they don't want/can't attract sponsorship and it is a close run thing every year. For Glastonbury multiplying that 10 or 20 fold, and it must be horrendous.

The benefits to the charities and the punters far outweigh the negative aspects in my view