Time to change the deposit scheme?

[incident]

Just now, Smeble said:

The difference is you set up a direct debit and it just comes out of your account, no need to remember to save, no massive lump sum to find in one go, not a hard concept to grasp surely? 

Given the amount of people I've seen posting on the Bearded Theory chat group about issues "the direct debit didn't come out", "my details have changed", etc, it's adding way more complication than it's worth for the festival and adds risk for the ticket holder.

They already do offer a payment plan - 50 quid in October, then ~250 in April. People running that close to the wind but that can afford it should still be able to manage setting aside 50 quid a month - either remembering to hold the extra balance, or setting it aside in a pot in their account that doesn't show on their balance (which all digital and some traditional banks now support).

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, brettredmayne said:

I wouldn’t be shocked to see the deposit rise to £60 soon 

If it’s going to rise I should think it’ll be at least £75. Raising it by just a tenner would be basically pointless. 

[gfa]

2 minutes ago, brettredmayne said:

I wouldn’t be shocked to see the deposit rise to £60 soon 

It won't rise by so little i think, i thought it was more to lock people in rather than actually fund much.

1 minute ago, incident said:

Given the amount of people I've seen posting on the Bearded Theory chat group about issues "the direct debit didn't come out", "my details have changed", etc, it's adding way more complication than it's worth for the festival and adds risk for the ticket holder.

They already do offer a payment plan - 50 quid in October, then ~250 in April. People running that close to the wind but that can afford it should still be able to manage setting aside 50 quid a month - either remembering to hold the extra balance, or setting it aside in a pot in their account that doesn't show on their balance (which all digital and some traditional banks now support).

Maybe the festival should add a page on how to setup pots etc for people. to be honest i think people should just do the putting aside themself its a pretty basic life skill

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

3 minutes ago, Mr. B said:

Surely more transactions = more fees, more internet traffic, more support = more cost. With demand continuing to far outstrip supply, I don't see the incentive for the festival to implement a payment scheme.

I do agree that the original deposit could at some point be upped.

The BOE base rate is now 1.25% though, so it is possible to earn interest again now.

[ProperTea]

6 minutes ago, incident said:

Given the amount of people I've seen posting on the Bearded Theory chat group about issues "the direct debit didn't come out", "my details have changed", etc, it's adding way more complication than it's worth for the festival and adds risk for the ticket holder.

They already do offer a payment plan - 50 quid in October, then ~250 in April. People running that close to the wind but that can afford it should still be able to manage setting aside 50 quid a month - either remembering to hold the extra balance, or setting it aside in a pot in their account that doesn't show on their balance (which all digital and some traditional banks now support).

Is this not the same argument people would have made when they introduced the £50 deposit scheme.?

[K2SO]

Just now, The Nal said:

Why not just save the money yourself and pay it all in April?

Honestly mate you're lucky that you don't understand that saving isn't as easy as it sounds. As somebody who works in an industry where you can earn a nice amount to live on for a while, then all of a sudden you can be told you've got to go and find a minimum wage job for a few months until it picks up again, saving is hard.

If it was split up into 5 monthly payments of £50, it's so much easier to deal with than putting that £50 aside each month and letting it sit there. If I'm able to pay off those £50s here and there, I don't miss it... But if all of a sudden work dries up in February and there's £250 sat there that could go towards rent or food, that's my Glastonbury balance gone.

It's much easier to find that £50 to pay the last chunk off than it is to let the £250 sit there when you need it for general living costs.

I actually had to deal with this exact shitty situation this year. I lost my job in February and had to pick up a zero-hour job on minimum wage. My deposit that I had saved over the last 2 years all of a sudden disappeared after I had car problems. I was lucky enough to get the balance together last minute, but it's really not as straight-forward as it seems.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, ProperTea said:

So next year will be the 14th year that Glastonbury charge £50 in October and then the full balance nearer the festival.

In 2009 when the scheme was introduced, that meant paying £50 in October and then a balance of £125.

14 years later and with rising ticket costs the scheme now is likely to see you paying £50 in October and then a balance of £245.

Is it time they split this up in to three of even four payments, to help with cashflow, and to enable those on lower incomes to attend the festival?

That would actually make it harder for people on lower incomes. The only people it makes it easier for are those who struggle with money management. And I can understand that, and I'm happy to hear arguments as to why the festival should do that, but let's be clear what we're suggesting here.

Because £50 in October followed by £245 in April is strictly easier on finances than £50 in October, £120 in January, £125 in April. In the instalments system, I'm having to find £120 three months earlier than I otherwise would have to. If I'm on a low income, and have had an expensive Christmas, I might not be able to do that, and I lose my ticket. With the current system, I have a few more months to claw it back.The Glastonbury system, where they don't take anything from you beyond the deposit, until the full amount at the end, is the most generous way you can do it. (Having a system where you can pay any amount any time and just have to have paid the full amount at the end is equally good, though more complex for the festival).

[incident]

1 minute ago, ProperTea said:

Is this not the same argument people would have made when they introduced the £50 deposit scheme.?

Yes - one hit will definitely still have admin overhead - but much less so than several different chances for things to go wrong.

[ProperTea]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That would actually make it harder for people on lower incomes. The only people it makes it easier for are those who struggle with money management. And I can understand that, and I'm happy to hear arguments as to why the festival should do that, but let's be clear what we're suggesting here.

Because £50 in October followed by £245 in April is strictly easier on finances than £50 in October, £120 in January, £125 in April. In the instalments system, I'm having to find £120 three months earlier than I otherwise would have to. If I'm on a low income, and have had an expensive Christmas, I might not be able to do that, and I lose my ticket. With the current system, I have a few more months to claw it back.The Glastonbury system, where they don't take anything from you beyond the deposit, until the full amount at the end, is the most generous way you can do it. (Having a system where you can pay any amount any time and just have to have paid the full amount at the end is equally good, though more complex for the festival).

Do you think mortgages are just for people who struggle with money management?

Or do they exist because splitting a large sum in to smaller payments over a longer period of time makes it more accessible for those on lower incomes?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by ProperTea

[DeanoL]

10 minutes ago, ProperTea said:

To be fair that's a good point.

It makes me wonder why banks still offer mortgages? Can't people just put the money aside for a house and then buy it all in one lump sum in cash?

Okay - if you're suggesting after we pay our first instalment we're allowed to go live on the farm then you've got my attention! 😄

But that's the point, all these payment plans you see elsewhere are where you get the thing right away, then pay it off. This could also be a good way to let more people go - allow them to spread the cost over two years, with part of it being paid back after you'd attended. Problematic for any number of reasons, but if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of opening it up more to those on lower incomes...

8 minutes ago, Smeble said:

The difference is you set up a direct debit and it just comes out of your account, no need to remember to save, no massive lump sum to find in one go, not a hard concept to grasp surely? 

Not that much harder to set up a direct debit to a savings account or a Monzo card and then use that to pay off the balance. It's shifting the administrative burden onto the festival, and while it's not a bad suggestion, it costs money, and it doesn't really seem worthwhile when it's easier for just the individuals who want to do that to set up their own way of doing it.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, ProperTea said:

Do you think mortgages are just for people who struggle with money management?

Or do they exist because splitting a large sum in to smaller payments over a longer period of time makes it more accessible for those on lower incomes?

Mortgages are so you can live in the house before you've paid for it. Do you really not get that as you seem to be doubling down on it?

Believe me, I have a mortgage. If I didn't get to live in the house until I'd paid if off (like I don't get to go to the festival until I've paid off the ticket) I would not have a mortgage, I would just save up instead of paying £100s in interest every month for no reason.

Edited July 5, 2022 by DeanoL

[incident]

Just now, ProperTea said:

Do you think mortgages are just for people who struggle with money management?

Or do they exist because splitting a large sum in to smaller payments over a longer period of time makes it more accessible for those on lower incomes?

That fact you're even bringing mortgages into this suggests to me that you're playing devils advocate here rather than treating this as a serious suggestion.

Mortgages are typically multiples of an annual wage.

Glastonbury tickets are typically fractions of a monthly wage.

[ProperTea]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

That fact you're even bringing mortgages into this suggests to me that you're playing devils advocate here rather than treating this as a serious suggestion.

Mortgages are typically multiples of an annual wage.

Glastonbury tickets are typically fractions of a monthly wage.

You're right, I'm playing devils advocate but my point is that it's all relative, isn't it. The festival ticket might just be a small fraction of one person's monthly wage, but it might be half someone else's, so installments would make it easier for those on lower incomes. In the same way mortgage payments being spread over multiple years make payment easier.

When it's £300 a ticket there's something that doesn't sit well with me when we're saying people could afford it if they just managed their money better. 

[gfa]

Mortgages are completely different to a glastonbury ticket - i ignored it the first time you said it but its ridiculous to even compare.

I think the vast majority of people that would benefit from it are just bad at money management although @K2SO makes a great point

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, ProperTea said:

so installments would make it easier for those on lower incomes

Which takes us back to the savings pots. It’s the same as instalments except that you can set the amount you save. You could even start saving for next year’s festival now. In the event that you miss out on a ticket you’ve then got a nice pot to dip into for an alternative event. 

[eddie_corrigan]

What if the initial deposit went up to £100? Still reasonably attainable to the vast majority of festival goers and also makes the final pay off that little bit more digestible. 

[ProperTea]

5 minutes ago, gfa said:

Mortgages are completely different to a glastonbury ticket - i ignored it the first time you said it but its ridiculous to even compare.

I think the vast majority of people that would benefit from it are just bad at money management although @K2SO makes a great point

Fair enough, I guess it doesn't matter if some people are priced out by being poor at money management, they can go to Reading/Leeds/Boomtown or another festival with installment plans, and we can keep Glastonbury for anyone that can afford to drop £250 in one go.

[incident]

Just now, squirrelarmy said:

Which takes us back to the savings pots. It’s the same as instalments except that you can set the amount you save. You could even start saving for next year’s festival now. In the event that you miss out on a ticket you’ve then got a nice pot to dip into for an alternative event. 

And if you create the Savings Pot with some banks, you get Interest on it - albeit the amounts are tiny (currently 1.5% on mine) so that tends to be more of a draw if you're saving for something bigger.

[gfa]

Just now, eddie_corrigan said:

What if the initial deposit went up to £100? Still reasonably attainable to the vast majority of festival goers and also makes the final pay off that little bit more digestible. 

This is a good idea, making the deposit and final balance more split would be a good way to do it. Same amount of installments as now (2), but more evenly split and pretty much opposite sides of the year

Just now, ProperTea said:

Fair enough, I guess it doesn't matter if some people are priced out by being poor at money management, they can go to Reading/Leeds/Boomtown or another festival with installment plans, and we can keep Glastonbury for anyone that can afford to drop £250 in one go.

By April you'll have dropped a fairly similar amount of money for all 3 of those festivals as Glastonbury if you did their instalment plans (maybe a bit less as they are all about 2 months later). So if you'd saved the money up that would have been going monthly to them in a locked pot or something then you'll be in the same boat - hence money management.

I have no issue with them doing instalments but i definitely wouldn't consider using it (unless its a different ticket pool like coach sale is or something). A lot of people don't like the idea full stop, Klarna and all those companies are scummy i think and prey on people with shopping addictions etc.

[The Nal]

37 minutes ago, Smeble said:

The difference is you set up a direct debit and it just comes out of your account, no need to remember to save, no massive lump sum to find in one go, not a hard concept to grasp surely? 

 

34 minutes ago, Smeble said:

Have you heard of a thing called a direct debit? People spread the cost of all sorts of things, why would a festival be any different. 

 

24 minutes ago, K2SO said:

Honestly mate you're lucky that you don't understand that saving isn't as easy as it sounds. As somebody who works in an industry where you can earn a nice amount to live on for a while, then all of a sudden you can be told you've got to go and find a minimum wage job for a few months until it picks up again, saving is hard.

If it was split up into 5 monthly payments of £50, it's so much easier to deal with than putting that £50 aside each month and letting it sit there. If I'm able to pay off those £50s here and there, I don't miss it... But if all of a sudden work dries up in February and there's £250 sat there that could go towards rent or food, that's my Glastonbury balance gone.

It's much easier to find that £50 to pay the last chunk off than it is to let the £250 sit there when you need it for general living costs.

I actually had to deal with this exact shitty situation this year. I lost my job in February and had to pick up a zero-hour job on minimum wage. My deposit that I had saved over the last 2 years all of a sudden disappeared after I had car problems. I was lucky enough to get the balance together last minute, but it's really not as straight-forward as it seems.

So what happens if the DD bounces due to lack of funds? Apart from paying the bank a fee for that, do you lose your ticket? "Oh shit forgot" like?

[squirrelarmy]

6 minutes ago, eddie_corrigan said:

What if the initial deposit went up to £100? Still reasonably attainable to the vast majority of festival goers and also makes the final pay off that little bit more digestible. 

That would price out a lot of people. Relies on the person getting through to have £600 sat in the bank waiting to go. Fine for most people but would reduce the chances for those with low incomes buying for a large group. 

[Crazyfool01]

What happens if you don’t make a payment for one of these schemes that operates already for festivals ? We seem to always have tales of woe from people that forget to pay the balance … would this happen in multiplication as you have several payments to make ? Edit … so a direct debit is set up !! 

Edited July 5, 2022 by crazyfool1

[incident]

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

What happens if you don’t make a payment for one of these schemes that operates already for festivals ? We seem to always have tales of woe from people that forget to pay the balance … would this happen in multiplication as you have several payments to make ? 

Varies, but I'm aware of at least one festival (Boomtown) that has a policy of "ticket gone - no refunds".

[gfa]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

 

So what happens if the DD bounces due to lack of funds? Apart from paying the bank a fee for that, do you lose your ticket? "Oh shit forgot" like?

 

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

What happens if you don’t make a payment for one of these schemes that operates already for festivals ? We seem to always have tales of woe from people that forget to pay the balance … would this happen in multiplication as you have several payments to make ? 

I see it on Reading's twitter all the time, seems they just restore the tickets. Lots of errors seem to happen with these systems every year, they are an absolute pain it seems

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

That would price out a lot of people. Relies on the person getting through to have £600 sat in the bank waiting to go. Fine for most people but would reduce the chances for those with low incomes buying for a large group. 

Great point actually, didn't consider this at all. £300 already to get a group of 6 is a lot, i bet some groups already have to shuttle money about once someone get's through as it is. Alternatively can use a shared card but that should hardly be standard practice really.

[DeanoL]

10 minutes ago, ProperTea said:

You're right, I'm playing devils advocate but my point is that it's all relative, isn't it. The festival ticket might just be a small fraction of one person's monthly wage, but it might be half someone else's, so installments would make it easier for those on lower incomes.

No, it wouldn't.

The absolute best way to make things easier for people on lower or more unpredictable incomes is to take the least amount of money you can until the latest point possible.

If it was three instalments of £100 in October, January and April, and I'm a seasonal worker in an industry where I get very little work Nov-Feb. I might struggle to pay that £100 in January, so I lose my ticket. Even though I'd be able to afford £200 in April with no issues.

I have a feeling you are not or have never been on a low income. Because you're talking like instalments would be good, because I'd have to pay £100 in January and then wouldn't be able to "accidentally" spend it on something else. No mate. It's better to have that money in *my* account, not the festival's, because if something goes wrong, I want to be able say "okay, I'm not going to Glastonbury but at least I have this £100 so I can make rent." *That* is what helps people on low incomes.

Not this "we have to save them from themselves" infantilising bullshit.