Live Nation has acquired a controlling stake in IOW

[JBarbour]

Live Nation has acquired a controlling stake in the Isle of Wight Festival.

Agent and promoter John Giddings, will continue his leadership role.

He comments: “After 15 hugely successful and glorious years, we have been looking at how we can elevate and take the Isle of Wight Festival to the next level. This partnership with Live Nation will give us the ability to access the company’s scale and talent pool, bringing more acts and a better experience to the UK.”

https://www.iq-mag.net/2017/03/live-nation-buys-majority-stake-isle-of-wight-festival/#.WMvcbPmLS01

 

Wonder if this has "saved" the festival...

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, craigb said:

Live Nation has acquired a controlling stake in the Isle of Wight Festival.

Agent and promoter John Giddings, will continue his leadership role.

He comments: “After 15 hugely successful and glorious years, we have been looking at how we can elevate and take the Isle of Wight Festival to the next level. This partnership with Live Nation will give us the ability to access the company’s scale and talent pool, bringing more acts and a better experience to the UK.”

https://www.iq-mag.net/2017/03/live-nation-buys-majority-stake-isle-of-wight-festival/#.WMvcbPmLS01

 

Wonder if this has "saved" the festival...

given LN's record with buying fests, there's probably nearly as much chance of the opposite.

But anyway, I guess that explains why IoW fest suddenly didn't want an argument with IoW council about costs back in the autumn.

[Hugh Jass]

They can save the festival by booking some decent acts.

[dentalplan]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

They can save the festival by booking some decent acts.

That's certainly not a characteristic of Live Nation majority-owned fests.

But yeah, not entirely surprising with how quickly they're picking up festivals but I think - Glasto and BST aside - that's practically a clean sweep of major UK fests.

I wonder how they position it in context with their other festivals and with Download the same weekend.

[JBarbour]

When are Live Nation considered to have a monopoly in Festivals and live music? 

They own most major (big) festivals or have majority shares as already mentioned. 

Barring BST (AEG), Glasto, Boomtown (maybe could be considered a major festival with 60,000+ capacity). 

Can't be good for the festival industry to have one major player and no competition. AEG aren't really offering much of an alterative with a few Hyde Park gigs. 

Global have snapped up most of the medium-sized festivals with Boardmasters, Y Not, Truck, Festival No 6 etc. How long before LN buy shares in Global. 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, craigb said:

When are Live Nation considered to have a monopoly in Festivals and live music? 

They own most major (big) festivals or have majority shares as already mentioned. 

Barring BST (AEG), Glasto, Boomtown (maybe could be considered a major festival with 60,000+ capacity). 

Can't be good for the festival industry to have one major player and no competition. AEG aren't really offering much of an alterative with a few Hyde Park gigs. 

Global have snapped up most of the medium-sized festivals with Boardmasters, Y Not, Truck, Festival No 6 etc. How long before LN buy shares in Global. 

Yup, I'm not sure it's a good situation.

I reckon it must now be just about impossible for an independent to create a festival and build it up into the big time, where it's able to book the biggest acts. 

Boomtown is a bit of a weird one because it's got that big without booking even mildly big acts in a general sense (tho massive in their niche), but other than that bestival came close ... but now seems on a bit of a slide, quite possibly because it couldn't access those biggest acts.

 

[JBarbour]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yup, I'm not sure it's a good situation.

I reckon it must now be just about impossible for an independent to create a festival and build it up into the big time, where it's able to book the biggest acts. 

Boomtown is a bit of a weird one because it's got that big without booking even mildly big acts in a general sense (tho massive in their niche), but other than that bestival came close ... but now seems on a bit of a slide, quite possibly because it couldn't access those biggest acts.

 

 

 

It's def not a good situation. I know Live Nation and Sjm also bully small/independent venues too.

A friend of mine owns a local venue (with decent capacity) and had acts taken off them at the request of SJM, after selling tickets as well. Imagine it being the same but on a much bigger scale when it comes to festivals.

Totally forgot about Bestival and Camp Bestival. But as you say seem to be on the decline. It looks as if the numbers at IOW are still declining. 

Quote

Some 42,000 festivalgoers are expected to attend Isle of Wight 2017, headlined by Rod Stewart, Arcade Fire and David Guetta and Run-DMC.

 

Isn't IOW a 90,000 capacity festival? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, craigb said:

I know Live Nation and Sjm also bully small/independent venues too.

That's a little harsh, perhaps.

They're in a dominant position within their business sector, and it's not really surprising that they use that dominance to their further advantage. Realistically, no one would expect differently from a business.

If you're on the other side of that dominant position, then yes, I guess it might feel like being bullied. But it's just business, where one side has the upper hand, so the other feels none of the options he has is a good deal.

I've heard a few things over the years that have suggested they don't use their dominance in the festivals market as hard as they might do. An example could be The Libs at Glastonbury a few years ago, where Melvin could have said 'no' to Michael's request to have them as a secret act. 

I don't think we should get into the blame thing for them (being good enough to?) getting to that dominant position and using where they find themselves as I don't think it leads anywhere useful, but I certainly think some noise should start being made about that dominant position, and how it limits innovation in the festivals market.

[eFestivals]

> It looks as if the numbers at IOW are still declining. 
> Isn't IOW a 90,000 capacity festival? 

Yeah, I think it might be, tho it hasn't sold out for a number of years now as far as I'm aware. And that probably has a lot to do with availability of acts.

I think (I might be wrong) Solo and LN used to have an arrangement till about a decade ago, that gave Solo some access to acts they wouldn't have otherwise got - i think that was related to Giddings involvement with the stones. Solo also have/had some half-decent names on their books, which have helped prop-up the line-up over the years (but there's only so many times you can have Mel C or Starsailor. )

 

[JBarbour]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's a little harsh, perhaps.

They're in a dominant position within their business sector, and it's not really surprising that they use that dominance to their further advantage. Realistically, no one would expect differently from a business.

If you're on the other side of that dominant position, then yes, I guess it might feel like being bullied. But it's just business, where one side has the upper hand, so the other feels none of the options he has is a good deal.

I've heard a few things over the years that have suggested they don't use their dominance in the festivals market as hard as they might do. An example could be The Libs at Glastonbury a few years ago, where Melvin could have said 'no' to Michael's request to have them as a secret act. 

I don't think we should get into the blame thing for them (being good enough to?) getting to that dominant position and using where they find themselves as I don't think it leads anywhere useful, but I certainly think some noise should start being made about that dominant position, and how it limits innovation in the festivals market.

 

 

 

I've witnessed it were an indie venue books a half decent act and SJM have used their dominance to stop the band playing. The venue went through the, long winded at times, process of negotiating fees, catering riders, hotel deals etc. Getting the art work done, selling tickets, marketing. Only to be told the band will now be only playing academies. Venue ends up with no act and out of pocket.  

I see where you are coming from that Live Nation and the likes have built over many years, taken the risks and spent the money. And are within their rights to flex that dominance every so often. 

Festivals and venues have to be forwarding thinking and innovative. Said indie venue is now part of a group with other venues from across the country to book acts as a collective. 

All the smaller festivals seemed to have done that with Noel and Editors last year. The Libertines this year.
 

[eFestivals]

Just now, craigb said:

I've witnessed it were an indie venue books a half decent act and SJM have used their dominance to stop the band playing. The venue went through the, long winded at times, process of negotiating fees, catering riders, hotel deals etc. Getting the art work done, selling tickets, marketing. Only to be told the band will now be only playing academies. Venue ends up with no act and out of pocket.  

1. indie venue didn't have a tight enough contract with the band.

2. big promoter made the band a better offer, and either there was no contract to hold the band to, or the venue didn't want to go that route and be the venue who fucked around the band who got a better offer (which upcoming band would want to play there?).

If I was going to point the finger of blame it would be at the band firstly for signing to conflicting obligations (tho who's gonna blame them for that, really? An upcoming band wants to go places. Places like academy tours, and not backstreet venues).

I'm not saying it's not shit for the venue, but it is what it is - just business, really. The best offer wins.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, craigb said:

All the smaller festivals seemed to have done that with Noel and Editors last year. The Libertines this year.

I could be wrong, but I think that's more a consequence of what booking agents know is open to those acts. If they're not getting the nod from the biggies any more for these acts, they go to the next best available place.

[JBarbour]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

1. indie venue didn't have a tight enough contract with the band.

2. big promoter made the band a better offer, and either there was no contract to hold the band to, or the venue didn't want to go that route and be the venue who fucked around the band who got a better offer (which upcoming band would want to play there?).

If I was going to point the finger of blame it would be at the band firstly for signing to conflicting obligations (tho who's gonna blame them for that, really? An upcoming band wants to go places. Places like academy tours, and not backstreet venues).

I'm not saying it's not shit for the venue, but it is what it is - just business, really. The best offer wins.

 

 

1. Wrong

2. Wrong

More their (band) agent not having balls. 

It's no backstreet venue. It's no pub venue either. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by craigb

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, craigb said:

1. Wrong

2. Wrong

More their (band) agent not having balls. 

So even then, not really the party where you were pointing the finger of blame.

 

11 minutes ago, craigb said:

It's no backstreet venue. It's no pub venue either. 

Ok, fair enough. The real point with my words was one offer being nearer 'the big time' than the other offer - when the offer is to people who are chasing the big time.

Chasing the big deal is always going to be a strong driver in an industry like that, and people will always be grabbing at it. I'm not sure it's anything that can be legislated for.

[JBarbour]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So even then, not really the party where you were pointing the finger of blame.

 

The said party was to blame in my opinion and the venues. The band would have still played the venue if a request wasn't put in, and arms twisted. But the agent also at fault.

They have learnt a (fairly expensive) lesson not to go for academy sized bands. 

Anyway, back on point, yes, Live Nation and the likes of SJM hold too much dominance in festivals and live music in general. Wonder how long it takes before it gets noticed like Sky, BT, touts etc. 

Although Boomtown, Y Not, Kendal, Truck, even maybe Tramlines seem to be doing alright! With either tickets sold and/or acts booked. 

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by craigb

[dentalplan]

28 minutes ago, craigb said:

Anyway, back on point, yes, Live Nation and the likes of SJM hold too much dominance in festivals and live music in general. Wonder how long it takes before it gets noticed like Sky, BT, touts etc. 

Although Boomtown, Y Not, Kendal, Truck, even maybe Tramlines seem to be doing alright! With either tickets sold and/or acts booked. 

What do you mean about Sky and BT? What would that mean?

Yeah there are medium sized festivals doing pretty well and even growing year on year but with that success you gotta worry about what the reaction from the bigger parties will be, I suppose. Suddenly they might find it harder to book such strong line ups.

[LOCHLAND5]

3 hours ago, craigb said:

 

Although Boomtown, Y Not, Kendal, Truck, even maybe Tramlines seem to be doing alright! With either tickets sold and/or acts book

I dunno on boomtown but the rest are all owned or have an interest from the same promoter ! 

[JBarbour]

14 hours ago, dentalplan said:

What do you mean about Sky and BT? What would that mean?

Yeah there are medium sized festivals doing pretty well and even growing year on year but with that success you gotta worry about what the reaction from the bigger parties will be, I suppose. Suddenly they might find it harder to book such strong line ups.

Was on the Guinness by my last post!  haha. 

Mentioned sky and bt in terms of monopolies. They get noticed by government and regulators. Live nation can't be far off that. 

Luckily as Neil mentioned earlier there will be acts that don't have that big festival pull, but still have enough appeal to sell 25,000. Noel, Libertines, Editors, Madness, Stereophonics.... 

Edited March 18, 2017 by craigb

[JBarbour]

10 hours ago, LOCHLAND5 said:

I dunno on boomtown but the rest are all owned or have an interest from the same promoter ! 

The only two festivals that I mentioned that are same promoters/owner are Truck and Y Not. Previously Count Of Ten, now Global. Count Of Ten previously played a part in Tramlines too. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by craigb

[luckysalt]

Id argue that Victorious has done a fantastic job as a completely independent festival, just 3 guys started it and continue to run it. I worry about its future now that LN have IOW, Victorious is clearly its biggest competition in terms of location and the target audience. I expect LN will try and kill it the way they killed Soni off so Download had no big competition, or they could work alongside it the way Download does with Bloodstock. Depends how they view it I guess? 

[dentalplan]

58 minutes ago, luckysalt said:

Id argue that Victorious has done a fantastic job as a completely independent festival, just 3 guys started it and continue to run it. I worry about its future now that LN have IOW, Victorious is clearly its biggest competition in terms of location and the target audience. I expect LN will try and kill it the way they killed Soni off so Download had no big competition, or they could work alongside it the way Download does with Bloodstock. Depends how they view it I guess? 

Yep but when you think about it, the competition from Victorious is a big factor of what has put IOW in the state where Live Nation could come in for it. So any reaction is just part of the competition, I suppose. 

I do think it depends how they position IOW. It seems to have been stuck between a number of directions for at least a few editions so I imagine we'll see it as a lot more concentrated next time around, but what that'll be I dunno. As you say about Victorious, and others have about Y Not, Kendal, etc. they are catering to this nondescript family audience well on the mainland really well so it could prove better to lean away from that and make it something worth travelling to the island for. All it has to distinguish from those this year is four randomly assorted exclusive headliners.

[LOCHLAND5]

12 hours ago, craigb said:

The only two festivals that I mentioned that are same promoters/owner are Truck and Y Not. Previously Count Of Ten, now Global. Count Of Ten previously played a part in Tramlines too. 

Mmmmm not factually correct unfortunately .

[JBarbour]

13 hours ago, LOCHLAND5 said:

Mmmmm not factually correct unfortunately .

Go on the enlighten me. This is as much as I know... 

https://www.iq-mag.net/2016/10/global-bulks-festival-business-new-buys/#.WM5nOMunxnE

-Global has expanded its UK festival footprint to a total of 11 events with the acquisition of South West Four, Field Day, Boardmasters, Rewind, Y Not and Truck festivals, and purchased a further stake in Snowbombing/Festival No6 promoter Broadwick Live.

http://www.countoften.com

-while Y Not and Truck were owned by Tramlines promoter Count Of Ten. 

Tramlines owned and ran by people who also own pubs and venues in Sheffield city centre. Tramlines no longer listed on CoT website but Y Not and Truck are. 

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by craigb

[LOCHLAND5]

51 minutes ago, craigb said:

Go on the enlighten me. This is as much as I know... 

https://www.iq-mag.net/2016/10/global-bulks-festival-business-new-buys/#.WM5nOMunxnE

-Global has expanded its UK festival footprint to a total of 11 events with the acquisition of South West Four, Field Day, Boardmasters, Rewind, Y Not and Truck festivals, and purchased a further stake in Snowbombing/Festival No6 promoter Broadwick Live.

http://www.countoften.com

-while Y Not and Truck were owned by Tramlines promoter Count Of Ten. 

Tramlines owned and ran by people who also own pubs and venues in Sheffield city centre. Tramlines no longer listed on CoT website but Y Not and Truck are. 

 

Al give you tramlines my bad . 

 

But every other one one is connected in some way to global that's all I'm saying.

http://broadwicklive.com/festivalsvenues/

[JBarbour]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:31 PM, luckysalt said:

Id argue that Victorious has done a fantastic job as a completely independent festival, just 3 guys started it and continue to run it. I worry about its future now that LN have IOW, Victorious is clearly its biggest competition in terms of location and the target audience. I expect LN will try and kill it the way they killed Soni off so Download had no big competition, or they could work alongside it the way Download does with Bloodstock. Depends how they view it I guess? 

 

 

 

Global has just acquired majority stake in Victorious Festival. 

Will be harder to kill it off now. Global is becoming a bit of a beast on the festival scene..