Shambala 2016

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, OBface said:

And the fact it's 10 minutes away from home. Will definitely be back.

if that licence application for Dorset is what happens, it won't be back 10 minutes from your home.

[Pinhead]

Yeah, one of the Event Control people I spoke to over the weekend said he'd heard of the rumor to move but put no weight in it. Oxfam seemed to think they were already looking at coming back to the same site as well next year, but who knows. The festival works well on the site it has, has expanded further this year into new areas, and the running of it should have improved now hopefully since the Green Stewards folded and the arena stewarding was taken over by Oxfam. Unless the NT has some issue with the impact on the site, can't see any reason yet why a new site would be considered.

[deebeedoobee]

It seems it will be at Kelmarsh for 2017. Just confirmed by the Event office at Kelmarsh

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

24 minutes ago, deebeedoobee said:

It seems it will be at Kelmarsh for 2017. Just confirmed by the Event office at Kelmarsh

Great news. It's a fantastic site for the festival.

[pilton digger]

interesting that there is now a license application with Christchurch and East Dorset council, with a site map and satellite photo marked up with stage layouts. That wasn't there last week as far as I can tell.

https://licensing.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/PAforLalpacLIVE/1/LicensingActPremises/Search/2267

[eFestivals]

I'd say they're hedging their bets, but their preferred choice for the main Shambala event is Dorset.

The thing from Kelmarsh above mentions an alternative event if they move, so if they get the Dorset site licence I reckon that's what'll happen.

As a site, Kelmarsh works well from a punter's point of view (I've no idea form an organisers perspective), tho it's not the most aesthetic site in the world (tho there's others that are worse). Perhaps the Dorset one might be better?

 

[tjamest]

Looking at the Dorset application the other week they were applying for up to 24,999 people on site which is alot more than they currently have at the present site.

I don't know if they are hoping to expand or it is normal to apply for more than you want and then negotiate down to a more acceptable figure?

[Pinhead]

On 01/09/2016 at 8:55 PM, eFestivals said:

I'd say they're hedging their bets, but their preferred choice for the main Shambala event is Dorset.

The thing from Kelmarsh above mentions an alternative event if they move, so if they get the Dorset site licence I reckon that's what'll happen.

As a site, Kelmarsh works well from a punter's point of view (I've no idea form an organisers perspective), tho it's not the most aesthetic site in the world (tho there's others that are worse). Perhaps the Dorset one might be better?

 

I think its a really attractive site myself and cant see that they would move it unless the landowner encoraged it.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, Pinhead said:

I think its a really attractive site myself and cant see that they would move it unless the landowner encoraged it.

Shambala sells out. Why wouldn't they wish to sell more tickets which they could with a bigger site?

[Pinhead]

If it was purely about ticket sales and this was a priority to them why have they stayed on that site so long?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Shambala sells out early and there's plenty of people looking for tickets closer to when it's on. I'd like to think that they are happy with the cash that they do get and are not greedy and wanting more. Then there's the argument that if they distort it by making it bigger then they will lose the soul of it and people will get a much watered down version - not a great model for continued success.

As an aside a lady came up to me at the festival and said that she'd like a word with me because of the efestivals t shirt I was wearing. Apparently she was the person (or possibly a part of a group of people) that pressed Shambala to make the festival free from disposable plastic (apart from the plastic that people bring to the site themselves). She asked me why I thought that Glastonbury doesn't do the same. I said that I had no idea. Then she asked if I thought that efestivals could add some weigth to her campaign for Glastonbury to also be disposable plastic free. I indicated that people on here are probably already green minded but said that she could pose questions / a petition on the Glastonbury forum. I also told her that I believed that Emily Eavis occassionally viewed the site. She then said that she knew Emily but couldn't seem to make inroads in to this area. I also indicated that if she wanted to campaign in this area on efestivals that she might want to consider contacting Neil in the first instance (Neil - I was kind of on the spot and thought that you'd be OK with this, Also I thought that you'd maybe want some input if a campaign was to be started on here. A common courtesy kind of thing).

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, Pinhead said:

If it was purely about ticket sales and this was a priority to them why have they stayed on that site so long?

I've no idea, tho trying to find another suitable site could be it. While farmers are queuing up to have a festie on their land - money for nothing - the land they have isn't necessarily suitable.

I know there's been more than size-reasons for Shambala's various moves over the years, but size has increased with those moves and might do again.

A similar question to your own might be: if they're not looking to move, why are they looking for another site for shambala?

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'd like to think that they are happy with the cash that they do get and are not greedy and wanting more.

let's be frank: we'd all like to think that about people we give our money to. The lack of greed about the operation is a huge reason for Glasto's success, i'd say.

Whether what you're thinking is true or not I've no idea, tho there's certainly some rumours I've heard that say it's not
(I repeat, I have no idea if there's truth to those rumours - so I won't be repeating them).

Edited September 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[Pinhead]

Wasn't the Shambala ethos when it was originally founded about moving to a new site every year and keeping that site 'secret' from everyone except ticket holders right up until the final few weeks before the festival, or have I remembered that wrong? Certainly its not a very practical proposition to move to a new 'secret' location every year...

[5co77ie]

the original ethos was to keep the line-up and location secret until the doors opened - both of which have fallen by the by

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Pinhead said:

Wasn't the Shambala ethos when it was originally founded about moving to a new site every year and keeping that site 'secret' from everyone except ticket holders right up until the final few weeks before the festival, or have I remembered that wrong? Certainly its not a very practical proposition to move to a new 'secret' location every year...

from where we were sat, they were a total pain in the arse. One moment they wanted us to give them publicity, the next moment they were asking us to take everything about them off the website.

If I remember rightly we eventually told them to naff off until they got some sanity. Either way, they did eventually get some sanity.

All long in the past now, of course.

 

[Pinhead]

Yeah, I sought of remember that from the past on here and there was some fallout from it like their message board getting relegated or similar. Something like this has happened regarding Bearded too I think.

Site move or no site move I know that some traders were less than happy with the no meat policy at any rate. Also the sawdust bog provider will probably change next year. If it moves to Devon / Dorset that puts it directly in conflict with Beautiful Days for me tbh and others may feel similarly.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Yeah, I sought of remember that from the past on here and there was some fallout from it like their message board getting relegated or similar. Something like this has happened regarding Bearded too I think.

Nope, there was never a shambala or BT forum here.

 

14 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Site move or no site move I know that some traders were less than happy with the no meat policy at any rate.

ahh, I'd been thinking the did-meat traders wouldn't be invited at all. It's good the fest gave the same traders the opportunity to do it meat free if they were up for that.

Any idea how it went down with the punters? I'm not thinking there'd be much strong objection to it, tho I do think it might be a small negative for a significant chunk, and from some of them it might tip a few into not returning that might have returned otherwise.

 

[Pinhead]

Yeah there were a number of regulars pointed out to me that normally did meat menus that appeared with new meat free ones. Not sure if any serious ones didn't appear again this year mind as it was my first year there.

As for the punters, well many bought their own bbq's and did it that way tbh and we were told as stewards to look out for an increased risk of fires because of that. Trade in veg menus seemed boyant nontheless however.

[Pinhead]

While I remember though, one trader was doing 'some' meat although I'm sure they weren't supposed to be...

[eFestivals]

On 12/10/2015 at 11:00 AM, eFestivals said:

I suspect tho that their intention isn't to lessen the numbers by doing so - so it'll be interesting to see if the numbers hold up.

If they're going to drop because of it I suspect that will impact more on 2017 than 2016, as i think current goers will give it a go this year but some might decide they'd prefer meat to another trip to Shambala, and the numbers raving about it and encouraging others to come might also drop.

And also, it risks becoming too much of a 'preaching to the converted' thing, where any wider social benefits from how Shambala does things might be lost.

It's a genuinely interesting and different thing for a festival to do tho, and I'll be very interested to see how it pans out. I genuinely wish them luck with it.

 

Well, first results are in, and they look good.

From shambala's website

Our food traders went down an absolute storm, and we were blown away when our post-event survey showed 77% of respondents wanted to keep Shambala meat and fish free. Even more incredible was that 33% of you reporting reducing your meat and fish intake since the festival (that’s not counting the 30% of you that were already veggie or vegan).

 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Well, first results are in, and they look good.

From shambala's website

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with too many festivals, but Shambala does, to me, seem to pave the way forward as far as sustainability goes.

[Chawk]

I hope Green Man does the same thing, but it seems unlikely with it focusing on supporting locals/Wales, a lot of which is currently dedicated to sheep/meat production.

Anyway, good job Shambala, it's made me look at going

Edited March 22, 2017 by Chawk

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm not familiar with too many festivals, but Shambala does, to me, seem to pave the way forward as far as sustainability goes.

I don't really disagree (tho there's some angles that could be used), tho that doesn't necessarily match up with what us humans will accept as limitations on our personal choices - which is why I'd wondered how veggie-only might affect the attractiveness of Shambala to punters.

The results of their survey are very positive, tho of course that's most likely to be filled-in by the people most-attached to Shambala, so it doesn't necessarily capture the 'whole' of what people might be thinking.

As I said in the post I commented back against yesterday, I suspect any impact from that change is likely to show up in the popularity of this year (or future years), if there's going to be any noticeable impact.

I do find the veggie thing and festivals quite odd, tho - not for Shambala, but for festies in general. When I first starting going to fests 30+ years ago the food was almost exclusively veggie. In theory, 'human progression' should have seen that increase or at least be maintained, rather than shrink away as it has done. I guess that's part of the result of the mainstreaming of fests. 

[pilton digger]

Looks like the premises licence for Wimborne St Giles has been granted. Wonder what happens next.

Edited March 22, 2017 by pilton digger
changed to st giles, not st george.