2022 Headliners

[Matt42]

The point I was making though is that agents know Glastonbury and a run of EU festivals is a big way to capitalise on the EU market. Especially for American acts that may not want to do a venue run. They are the ones who deal and care with the fee, not the act themselves.

I think with legacy acts they may have more swing on what shows they do. But for early career / mid career artists looking to maximise their exposure it would be a different situation.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Matt42

[jannybruck]

If the BBC's coverage and reach of festivals continues to get slashed then it's going to be a lot harder to wrangle a lot of these buzzy pop and legacy artists over the coming decade. Regardless of the standing of the festival, in the current climate schlepping to Somerset and back for a small percentage of what you'd get at a mainland EU festival is absolutely not worth it without the promise of decent media reach and live footage.

[dentalplan]

5 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

The point I was making though is that agents know Glastonbury and a run of EU festivals is a big way to capitalise on the EU market. Especially for American acts that may not want to do a venue run. They are the ones who deal and care with the fee, not the act themselves.

I think with legacy acts they may have more swing on what shows they do. But for early career / mid career artists looking to maximise their exposure it would be a different situation.

As said, agents get paid a percentage of the fee - which is low - so the appeal to the artist can be a significant factor because the agents want them to do the highest-paying shows possible.

If a headline artist is currently breaking the internet with every release, the agent is not wondering how to get more exposure but how to capitalise on it. If they no longer are, or it seems they’re heading that way, then they might see Glastonbury as a guaranteed image boost.

[Hugh Jass]

Just now, jannybruck said:

If the BBC's coverage and reach of festivals continues to get slashed then it's going to be a lot harder to wrangle a lot of these buzzy pop and legacy artists over the coming decade. Regardless of the standing of the festival, in the current climate schlepping to Somerset and back for a small percentage of what you'd get at a mainland EU festival is absolutely not worth it without the promise of decent media reach and live footage.

Can’t see the BBC stopping broadcasting the biggest sets any time soon.

[jannybruck]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

Can’t see the BBC stopping broadcasting the biggest sets any time soon.

Mainly referring to mid-level acts or legacy, there comes a point where their teams might be like "we're losing money on this gig and it's going to gather dust on the BBC website, or we could do x in Europe for our actual requested fee".

The Beeb festival coverage pre-pandemic really started dipping in quality and volume, across all the events they do, so I doubt that's going to reverse any time soon.

[Matt42]

3 minutes ago, jannybruck said:

If the BBC's coverage and reach of festivals continues to get slashed then it's going to be a lot harder to wrangle a lot of these buzzy pop and legacy artists over the coming decade. Regardless of the standing of the festival, in the current climate schlepping to Somerset and back for a small percentage of what you'd get at a mainland EU festival is absolutely not worth it without the promise of decent media reach and live footage.

Where is this? If anything the BBC reach seems larger than ever before. YouTube videos of sets are reaching record high viewing figures. They also use Glasto content to fill empty hours in the scheduling programme for years to come.

 

4 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

As said, agents get paid a percentage of the fee - which is low - so the appeal to the artist can be a significant factor because the agents want them to do the highest-paying shows possible.

If a headline artist is currently breaking the internet with every release, the agent is not wondering how to get more exposure but how to capitalise on it. If they no longer are, or it seems they’re heading that way, then they might see Glastonbury as a guaranteed image boost.

Yes but they make the loss back up by doing other shows in Europe. I know the internet is a big thing for breaking out stars but people still want to see them live and there’s no better PR than a huge televised performance of people screaming every lyric to their song. That exposure can be used to demand a higher fee at other shows going forward.

[dentalplan]

9 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Yes but they make the loss back up by doing other shows in Europe. I know the internet is a big thing for breaking out stars but people still want to see them live and there’s no better PR than a huge televised performance of people screaming every lyric to their song. That exposure can be used to demand a higher fee at other shows going forward.

So they come to Europe to get a video of them playing live and fund it by making millions playing other festivals?

[dentalplan]

12 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Where is this? If anything the BBC reach seems larger than ever before. YouTube videos of sets are reaching record high viewing figures. They also use Glasto content to fill empty hours in the scheduling programme for years to come.

Probably because people are watching YouTube instead of paying for a license to watch BBC nowadays.

[JoeyT]

15 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Probably because people are watching YouTube instead of paying for a license to watch BBC nowadays.

I wonder if we'll ever see the day where the likes of youtube/amazon prime make a play for the broadcasting rights of the festival?

[kingbadger]

Not sure artists are necessarily losing money to play Glastonbury. Granted the payday might not be 100% of their usual fee, but they'll still be making money. 

[Gnomicide]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I wonder if we'll ever see the day where the likes of youtube/amazon prime make a play for the broadcasting rights of the festival?

That's an interesting question and I wonder if the festival would consider it. Would there be a risk that interest in future festivals lessens if it's not shown on the BBC? It's not just the sets that they show, there's the radio coverage, news items, The One Show etc.

From what I understand, a number of sports that have gone to subscription only have seen a big drop off in interest in them (I think cricket may have been impacted?).

I could definitely see Amazon going for it.

[gfa]

17 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I wonder if we'll ever see the day where the likes of youtube/amazon prime make a play for the broadcasting rights of the festival?

This is a really interesting point. Probably not Youtube but in the Amazon subscription i could see. I'd bet we would end up getting some netflix/amazon etc documentary too along with it. A netflix documentary would do absolute wonders for US exposure.

[jannybruck]

10 minutes ago, kingbadger said:

Not sure artists are necessarily losing money to play Glastonbury. Granted the payday might not be 100% of their usual fee, but they'll still be making money. 

They aren't. A huge amount of non-headline acts are losing money, particularly ones that are taking crew around a bunch of larger festivals and then have a Glastonbury show scheduled. Most see it as a loss leader, or for UK bands they often just want to play to be on the bill, or simply get in and have a bit of a jolly for a weekend.

There's absolutely no transparency around Glastonbury fees because no artist wants to be seen as 'outing' them for underpaying but I've personally known a couple of lower/mid tier acts get £300 vs £3k average in Europe, and £1k vs £10k. They often sweeten the deal by throwing in weekend tickets and very flexible guestlist. They aren't competitive fees whatsoever and – for better or worse – they can get away with it because it's Glastonbury.

[Hugh Jass]

8 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

That's an interesting question and I wonder if the festival would consider it. Would there be a risk that interest in future festivals lessens if it's not shown on the BBC? It's not just the sets that they show, there's the radio coverage, news items, The One Show etc.

From what I understand, a number of sports that have gone to subscription only have seen a big drop off in interest in them (I think cricket may have been impacted?).

I could definitely see Amazon going for it.

You'd imagine Amazon would want a hell of a lot of branding and advertising to go with their buck too though. Can't imagine the socially and morally conscious Eavii wanting to see "Amazon Presents...." all over their festival.

[Hugh Jass]

Pretty sure I've read interviews with Michael before where he has mentioned big offers from Sky in the past but has always wanted to keep it free to air on the Beeb.

[kingbadger]

1 minute ago, jannybruck said:

They aren't. A huge amount of non-headline acts are losing money, particularly ones that are taking crew around a bunch of larger festivals and then have a Glastonbury show scheduled. Most see it as a loss leader, or for UK bands they often just want to play to be on the bill, or simply get in and have a bit of a jolly for a weekend.

There's absolutely no transparency around Glastonbury fees because no artist wants to be seen as 'outing' them for underpaying but I've personally known a couple of lower/mid tier acts get £300 vs £3k average in Europe, and £1k vs £10k. They often sweeten the deal by throwing in weekend tickets and very flexible guestlist. They aren't competitive fees whatsoever and – for better or worse – they can get away with it because it's Glastonbury.

Wow, I mean I estimated Glastonbury would be paying 50% of the usual fee, not the 10% you've quoted. Unreal figures if true.

[Gnomicide]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

You'd imagine Amazon would want a hell of a lot of branding and advertising to go with their buck too though. Can't imagine the socially and morally conscious Eavii wanting to see "Amazon Presents...." all over their festival.

Indeed, the people who like to have a dig at Glastonbury at every opportunity would also have a field day. It would take a fair bit of negotiating if the Eavii didn't want the branding anywhere. Maybe they could bring in someone like... Oh, I don't know, Melvin Benn to help sort it.

But nah. I couldn't see it happening.  

[Matt42]

51 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

So they come to Europe to get a video of them playing live and fund it by making millions playing other festivals?

I don’t know why you always read my posts in a way that is not at all what I said.

Doing Glastonbury is a massive exposure opportunity which has a legacy. They come to Europe for the exposure of playing Glastonbury and other events in conjunction. It’s a short snap way of increasing your visibility in Europe! It’s not just YouTube clicks but the record sales/streams that doing it generates.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Matt42

[Suprefan]

41 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I wonder if we'll ever see the day where the likes of youtube/amazon prime make a play for the broadcasting rights of the festival?

Why should they. Is there a fight to get them? Even in their current financial state they arent out there scrambling to make that kind of a deal. So they get some extra money and it will be available to anyone worldwide finally? I mean if you had to pay to watch it do you cross your fingers there isnt a disaster like the Live at Worthy Farm broadcast? Amazon already has been making a dent in the market with their livestreams via twitch and you got banner ads all over that so you can watch for free. Hulu livestreamed Lollapalooza last year and thats Disney money.

 

and I dont think if Netflix made a Glasto doc its gonna be this gigantic hit over here when it got released. Wouldnt stay in the top 10 that long. That other documentary from the canadian film company was buried. And its not on the buzz of the Woodstock disaster. And the lastest Coachella film is free on youtube.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Suprefan

[Superscally]

24 minutes ago, gfa said:

This is a really interesting point. Probably not Youtube but in the Amazon subscription i could see. I'd bet we would end up getting some netflix/amazon etc documentary too along with it. A netflix documentary would do absolute wonders for US exposure.

I want to the documentary of @Woffy's stag do. 

[majormajormajor]

12 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

I don’t know why you always read my posts in a way that is not at all what I said.

Doing Glastonbury is a massive exposure opportunity which has a legacy. They come to Europe for the exposure of playing Glastonbury and other events in conjunction. It’s a short snap way of increasing your visibility in Europe!

Speaking as a foreigner. I think it's huge exposure for the UK - not really for anywhere else in Europe. Yes, it's completely legendary. Yes, IMO it's the best fucking thing since the wheel was invented, but I think people overblow that it's some globally significant thing.

[Hugh Jass]

In this country Glastonbury is more than just a festival, it's the cultural highlight of the summer. The coverage in the build up is everywhere and one of the main reasons for that is because it is freely available to watch and listen to on the BBC. Lock it away behind a paywall and people will forget it pretty quickly.

The 2019 coverage broke viewing figure records for the festival, apparently over 3 million people watched Kylie's set, which in the era of streaming and a million other options is pretty impressive. Stick it on Sky or Amazon or Channel 5 and they won't get anywhere near those numbers, which in turn makes it less appealing to acts who aren't getting paid much in the first place.

I think the Eavii get this.

[dentalplan]

1 minute ago, Matt42 said:

I don’t know why you always read my posts in a way that is not at all what I said.

Doing Glastonbury is a massive exposure opportunity which has a legacy. They come to Europe for the exposure of playing Glastonbury and other events in conjunction. It’s a short snap way of increasing your visibility in Europe! It’s not just YouTube clicks but the record sales/streams that doing it generates.

Nope I believe I read your posts exactly as you’ve said them. You said yesterday that acts come to Europe to play Glastonbury and announce other European shows around it because they’re coming over, and just now that a video of them playing Glastonbury is an important thing to have. i see you’ve now widened it to ‘they play European festivals for exposure’ but they don’t play other festivals for exposure, they play them for money.

For most artists, new music is a way of promoting a tour now so it’s less and less likely to be the other way around. It might send the Legend act to number one in this country for a week or two but think about the money those sales are worth nowadays, and then think about the hit they take on their fee.

I’m not sure this is really worth continuing because it must be boring everyone else as it is me, but yeah you can simplify it to that the exposure element isn’t so important for artists who don’t need exposure, and particularly not to agents who need money.

[dentalplan]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

In this country Glastonbury is more than just a festival, it's the cultural highlight of the summer. The coverage in the build up is everywhere and one of the main reasons for that is because it is freely available to watch and listen to on the BBC. Lock it away behind a paywall and people will forget it pretty quickly.

The 2019 coverage broke viewing figure records for the festival, apparently over 3 million people watched Kylie's set, which in the era of streaming and a million other options is pretty impressive. Stick it on Sky or Amazon or Channel 5 and they won't get anywhere near those numbers, which in turn makes it less appealing to acts who aren't getting paid much in the first place.

I think the Eavii get this.

Why wouldn’t they get those numbers? For starters, they’re only available in this country whereas Amazon Prime Video or Netflix could broadcast it to the world.

BBC is a paywall. They are losing license holders fast. Netflix and Amazon Prime are building (or maybe plateauing). It’s just reaching a bigger audience in a time where media is no longer localised.

[jannybruck]

14 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Why should they. Is there a fight to get them? Even in their current financial state they arent out there scrambling to make that kind of a deal. So they get some extra money and it will be available to anyone worldwide finally? I mean if you had to pay to watch it do you cross your fingers there isnt a disaster like the Live at Worthy Farm broadcast? Amazon already has been making a dent in the market with their livestreams via twitch and you got banner ads all over that so you can watch for free. Hulu livestreamed Lollapalooza last year and thats Disney money.

and I dont think if Netflix made a Glasto doc its gonna be this gigantic hit over here when it got released. Wouldnt stay in the top 10 that long. That other documentary from the canadian film company was buried. And its not on the buzz of the Woodstock disaster. And the lastest Coachella film is free on youtube.

Amazon are pumping a tonne of money into UK-made content over the next few years to gain traction here (source: my partner works in TV). Having something like Glastonbury, which already has a broadcast infrastructure every year on site anyway and a fanbase who watch all the Beeb coverage, is a no brainer and chump change for what they're spending on other programming. It would also open it up to a global audience vs the BBC content.

I can't see the Eavis' ever moving from the BBC unless their relationship with them breaks down for whatever reason but somewhere like Amazon would be glad to have it. Would be zero effort, barely any money, and they'd own that content for a long time and be able to license it out accordingly.

Edited January 10, 2022 by jannybruck