Areas you would cut to save money

[Leyrulion]

52 minutes ago, dotdash79 said:

Are all brands that bring something to the festival infrastructure wise and more of a partnership.
 

 the EE tent is really jarring, and I would love to see it toned down a little. The co-op isn’t branded as a co-op at all. 

None of them, except maybe EE, provide anything that's actually essential to a festival. Who needs the guardian? 

I'd hope anything further would be in a similar style to those already existing. E.g. the co-op style branding (which I'm sure had a big co-op sign at the top). 

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

None of them, except maybe EE, provide anything that's actually essential to a festival. Who needs the guardian? 

I'd hope anything further would be in a similar style to those already existing. E.g. the co-op style branding (which I'm sure had a big co-op sign at the top). 

Can’t see one 

[dotdash79]

This was the co-op

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Interested to know what has changed in your opinion.

Wondering if we've spotted the same.

Hard to find the right words to describe it but more 'entitlement' by more people. Less caring by all too many.

We last went in 2019 and it was fabulous but there were parts that felt more like BST than GF if that makes sense.

[Leyrulion]

21 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Can’t see one 

Fair enough no big sign must have misremembered. But that's definitely branded up. Don't the posters on the side all talk about co-op history. That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind and have seen at other fests tbh. 

What would be the issue with more of that if it brought in a couple 100k? 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Hard to find the right words to describe it but more 'entitlement' by more people. Less caring by all too many.

We last went in 2019 and it was fabulous but there were parts that felt more like BST than GF if that makes sense.

Totally agree, and I can't find the words to describe it either. Definately "less caring by all too many". The vibe was somehow wrong.

Also agree that 2019 was fantastic. Never been to BST, it not my scene, but I think I know what you mean.

I'll likely go again next year, but I'm fortunate to be among green fields crew and old long term festival mates, who "get it".

Prepares to be shouted down.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

There are some clear signs that it is a Co-Op in the highlight words 'Co-op' etc and also talking about 'Co-operative isn't a shop it's a movement' etc.

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

[waltere]

5 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

Because the extent, quality, reach and "clout" of the BBC coverage are a huge selling point in getting big name acts to play the festival for way less than their usual fee would be

[CaledonianGonzo]

Yup - they also have extensive radio coverage.

[gfa]

17 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

There are some clear signs that it is a Co-Op in the highlight words 'Co-op' etc and also talking about 'Co-operative isn't a shop it's a movement' etc.

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

Just setting up their stuff there cannot be cheap - must be a multi million pound operation filming it.

[Skip997]

43 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

Really!

I'm gobsmacked and not very happy about it.

[Avalon_Fields]

1 hour ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

Too cosy a relationship with the festival? I’m surprised too. I suppose the BBC does pay for all the camera gantries and so on, but who owns the copyright and are any profits shared?

[Sawdusty surfer]

18 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

Too cosy a relationship with the festival? I’m surprised too. I suppose the BBC does pay for all the camera gantries and so on, but who owns the copyright and are any profits shared?

Last time that I worked with the BBC I heard that the coverage cost them about £7.5 million but they broke even on it from the income from the BBC Worldwide broadcasting. That was about six years ago. It was a hot topic at the time because a couple of newspapers were moaning about the TV licence fee and were bringing into the argument the number of BBC staff at Glastonbury.

[Justcalledtosay]

On 9/29/2022 at 3:27 PM, giantkatestacks said:

I was moaning on about the noise not the nos! It really has a big sound bleed at night up the hill, I think it needs to be moved to help me sleep!

Sure that wasn’t just Arcadia going off every 10 mins…

[incident]

2 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I'm surprised the BBC doesn't pay anything for being at the festival. Like nothing? Why has Glastonbury decided to partner with them and not say Channel 4 who would contribute to being there? 

I thought this was common knowledge to be honest. But the BBC not paying a cash rights fee doesn't mean they don't "contribute". We see the benefits every year when the festival is able to book artists at a significant price cut. I have to assume that GFL are at least aware of what alternative offers would look like, and have decided that all of the things the BBC do bring to the Festival are worth more overall than whatever combination of rights fee / terms / coverage level they could get from another broadcaster.

 

[dotdash79]

Sky would love the broadcast rights for Glastonbury and would chuck a fortune at it, like millions per year. 
 

channel 4 would also pay but not as much then there would be adverts. 
 

I think the BBC do pay but not much, iPlayer, four major tv channels, and radio allows for so much flexibility in showcasing the best of the festival. Taking sky’s money would mean artists would want more and ticket prices would have to go up. 

[Leyrulion]

If they don't pay that's another thing they could put pressure on to get more income and reduce costs pressure 🤣

Although it might be burning their bridges if it means losing viewership making it less of a lure for artists so its more expensive to book them. 

[sadimmock]

The BBC still needs to come to an arrangement with the acts for broadcast rights independently of the agreement with the festival 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

11 hours ago, incident said:

I thought this was common knowledge to be honest. But the BBC not paying a cash rights fee doesn't mean they don't "contribute". We see the benefits every year when the festival is able to book artists at a significant price cut. I have to assume that GFL are at least aware of what alternative offers would look like, and have decided that all of the things the BBC do bring to the Festival are worth more overall than whatever combination of rights fee / terms / coverage level they could get from another broadcaster.

 

From all the comments in here, clearly it isn't 😉

Surely, whatever contract Glastonbury signed with other broadcastors, they would be able to stipulate what kind of coverage would take place as well as how much footage and when and in what venues etc. They would be able to pre-contractually say they don't want anything distasteful happening or any fly on the wall docus etc they don't want happening.

[Hugh Jass II]

The only branding I'd be prepared to accept would be Toblerone sponsoring the Pyramid.

[Jacksamthompson]

17 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

The only branding I'd be prepared to accept would be Toblerone sponsoring the Pyramid.

Either that or the Carroll Lewis Estate sponsoring the Rabbit Hole. 

[stuie]

58 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

From all the comments in here, clearly it isn't 😉

Surely, whatever contract Glastonbury signed with other broadcastors, they would be able to stipulate what kind of coverage would take place as well as how much footage and when and in what venues etc. They would be able to pre-contractually say they don't want anything distasteful happening or any fly on the wall docus etc they don't want happening.

There isn't another broadcaster with the worldwide reach that the BBC has - it's part of the appeal to acts and the reason why Glasto can pay such low fees for headliners.

[Avalon_Fields]

22 minutes ago, stuie said:

There isn't another broadcaster with the worldwide reach that the BBC has - it's part of the appeal to acts and the reason why Glasto can pay such low fees for headliners.

That's not really the case. They're not even close to the top of worldwide media reach (And the BBC are media, not just TV), so for example Disney, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Sony, Netflix, AT&T, Alphabet, and many others are vastly bigger worldwide.

I'm not arguing that many/most would still prefer the BBC to be the preferred partner with Glastonbury, that's a separate discussion, and on balance I'd keep the BBC.

[Leyrulion]

24 minutes ago, stuie said:

There isn't another broadcaster with the worldwide reach that the BBC has - it's part of the appeal to acts and the reason why Glasto can pay such low fees for headliners.

Is that true though? Sky is the largest broadcaster in Europe apparently (and incorporates Now TV) and as part of Comcast is the 2nd biggest worldwide, Netflix and Disney also have enormous reach, arguably more than the BBC.

They're all paywalled though but as viewing habits change that might become less of an issue.  

[Tranquility of Solitude]

The Glastonbury Pier can get in the sea.