1 major change

[goonerben]

On the numbers and overcrowding. 

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

There must be massive scope to change the maths around this, to do something like:

• Pay the people who are working.
• Have them work more hours across the festival.
• Have fewer people working (and therefore on site).

So would it be possible to have (say) only 30,000 workers, on longer shifts (working around twice as many hours as they do now), paid and funded by an additional 20,000 public tickets sold, and therefore with 20,000 fewer people on site in total?

Or possibly not exactly that - but this feels like a HUGE chunk of people where some creative thinking could be in play. 

[LR10416]

I would make the coach sale multi step. Have the stress of ticket day to get your ticket then a calmer 24hr window to request a departure day/location of choice. Still gives the festival plenty of time to organise getting the right coaches to the right places but reduces the amount of people travelling further away from the festival to then get a coach back in. I know someone who has flown up to Scotland to get the coach back in when they live in Bristol! Completely goes against the whole point of the coaches laid on by festival.

For site changes I would go with SE corner being a little more spacious or even spread out around site more. If say block 9 moved out then it would reduce the massive queues getting into the corner post headliner and spread the crowds out a bit more. 

Plus more female urinals! Revelation last year.

[frostypaw]

6 minutes ago, goonerben said:

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

The volunteer wages go to the charities

[stuie]

4 minutes ago, goonerben said:

On the numbers and overcrowding. 

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

There must be massive scope to change the maths around this, to do something like:

• Pay the people who are working.
• Have them work more hours across the festival.
• Have fewer people working (and therefore on site).

So would it be possible to have (say) only 30,000 workers, on longer shifts (working around twice as many hours as they do now), paid and funded by an additional 20,000 public tickets sold, and therefore with 20,000 fewer people on site in total?

Or possibly not exactly that - but this feels like a HUGE chunk of people where some creative thinking could be in play. 

If you totally ignore the festivals charitable objectives then yes, you could do something like that. 

You might find that a lot of the acts then want to be paid their standard rate instead of the super discounted rates that they charge for Glasto.

'Crew' includes performers, walkabout acts, bin painters, decorators, stewards, small venue DJ's, pretty much everyone in the green fields, lots in the circus, dancers and drag artists in Block9, burger flippers, stall holders etc etc etc 

Suddenly there not much festival left. 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, goonerben said:

On the numbers and overcrowding. 

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

There must be massive scope to change the maths around this, to do something like:

• Pay the people who are working.
• Have them work more hours across the festival.
• Have fewer people working (and therefore on site).

So would it be possible to have (say) only 30,000 workers, on longer shifts (working around twice as many hours as they do now), paid and funded by an additional 20,000 public tickets sold, and therefore with 20,000 fewer people on site in total?

Or possibly not exactly that - but this feels like a HUGE chunk of people where some creative thinking could be in play. 

And have them effectively miss the festival?

I doubt there's a high percentage of volunteers who do it solely (or even at all) for the charity. I would think that the vast majority are only interested in the ticket and actually want to see some of the acts.

Properly paid workers are different, but even then I'm not sure you could increase their hours safely. Of course you could theoretically replace a load of people who do the build with contractors who aren't interested in the event other than purely as a job. These wouldn't need to be onsite during the event, thereby reducing the numbers, but this would change the vibe.

Like it or not, a significant number of those who run and build areas like the SE corner are proper old school festival types whose hard work and dedication has kept the event going. Getting rid of them would massively change things for the worse (IMO).

[goonerben]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

If you totally ignore the festivals charitable objectives then yes, you could do something like that. 

You might find that a lot of the acts then want to be paid their standard rate instead of the super discounted rates that they charge for Glasto.

'Crew' includes performers, walkabout acts, bin painters, decorators, stewards, small venue DJ's, pretty much everyone in the green fields, lots in the circus, dancers and drag artists in Block9, burger flippers, stall holders etc etc etc 

Suddenly there not much festival left. 

 

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

And have them effectively miss the festival?

I doubt there's a high percentage of volunteers who do it solely (or even at all) for the charity. I would think that the vast majority are only interested in the ticket and actually want to see some of the acts.

Properly paid workers are different, but even then I'm not sure you could increase their hours safely. Of course you could theoretically replace a load of people who do the build with contractors who aren't interested in the event other than purely as a job. These wouldn't need to be onsite during the event, thereby reducing the numbers, but this would change the vibe.

Like it or not, a significant number of those who run and build areas like the SE corner are proper old school festival types whose hard work and dedication has kept the event going. Getting rid of them would massively change things for the worse (IMO).

This is all completely true - and I think the big risk is making changes that risk chipping away at the whole vibe of the place.

But still, given most people think that overcrowding is the #1 problem, this seems like a massive group of people to say "there is nothing at all we could do here".

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

On 6/12/2023 at 1:19 PM, Isaact said:

Yes I think unanimously people think the Pyramid lineup is the weakest in a long time.

Even the people I've spoken to who aren't going have said pretty much straight off the bat that "the line up isn't very good this year, is it?"

And for these people, the Pyramid line up = the line up.

I do wonder how the BBC will fill the schedules as there's nothing exciting on there.

I have done the side by side and circled the artist who would get a bigger crowd for their timeslot compared to each day. Scientifically based on my own "gut feeling".

It seems pretty comparative. 2023 might even edge it, altho, for some I have no idea about mind you and left them blank.

Edited June 13, 2023 by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[amfy]

7 minutes ago, goonerben said:

On the numbers and overcrowding. 

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

There must be massive scope to change the maths around this, to do something like:

• Pay the people who are working.
• Have them work more hours across the festival.
• Have fewer people working (and therefore on site).

So would it be possible to have (say) only 30,000 workers, on longer shifts (working around twice as many hours as they do now), paid and funded by an additional 20,000 public tickets sold, and therefore with 20,000 fewer people on site in total?

Or possibly not exactly that - but this feels like a HUGE chunk of people where some creative thinking could be in play. 

The staffing is a massive way the festival gives to charity.

The festival pays £300 to the charity for each volunteer who completes 3 shifts. The charity takes a £300 deposit to cover themselves in case that person doesn’t complete their shifts.

Thats a lot of money for the charities and that’s a big deal for Michael Eavis. It combines staffing the festival with supporting charity which maximises the way the festival ‘gives back’.

There are a lot of security doing ridiculously long shifts (supposed to be 12 hours but we often meet people who’ve been on for 24+ hours or have only had a 6 hour break in 2 days) but I’d imagine they’re expensive and from what I’ve seen they vary wildly in how conscientious they are, whereas most festival volunteers are generally invested in the festival and try and do a good job.

[frostypaw]

1 minute ago, amfy said:

There are a lot of security doing ridiculously long shifts (supposed to be 12 hours but we often meet people who’ve been on for 24+ hours or have only had a 6 hour break in 2 days) but I’d imagine they’re expensive and from what I’ve seen they vary wildly in how conscientious they are, whereas most festival volunteers are generally invested in the festival and try and do a good job.

There's a real change that should be made - no way security can be at their best like that, and little wonder we see some trouble and drama if they're that messed up.

[BambooShanks]

8 minutes ago, goonerben said:

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?

Around that though does include performers as well.

Pre 2013, the staff / artist allocation was around 30k, so probably goes some way to explain why it feels a lot busier when the public tickets have only increased by 7k in that time.

It's difficult though, a lot of those volunteers are so important for the smooth running of the festival and deserve to have some time off to enjoy themselves when they have taken time out of their lives to help make Glastonbury happen but it is clear that the increase has had an impact so I wouldn't be surprised if this gets refined somewhat.

Outside of increasing the capacity of the site, I'm not sure if there is a way that pleases everyone while maintaining the same level of staffing / safety.

 

[gfa]

The idea of 70,000 down to 30,000 is completely ridiculous, but cutting down a much smaller amount like 5-10k would be perfectly achievable

[Nice hymer]

So many volunteers doing far more than 24hrs (3x8hr shifts), just because they love and want to support the festival (and their co-volunteers). Can you do this for me, can you run an errand here, can you just cover this for... and so on...

There's so much goodwill, I think the festival would struggle if it switched from volunteers to paid staff.

[DeanoL]

I personally don't think that in this economic climate giving people proper, waged work is somehow worse than relying on free labour and donating to Oxfam.

It might even open up the festival to even more people who can't otherwise afford if folk were allowed to work it and actually get paid. 

[DeanoL]

58 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Like it or not, a significant number of those who run and build areas like the SE corner are proper old school festival types whose hard work and dedication has kept the event going. Getting rid of them would massively change things for the worse (IMO).

Getting older, getting less mobile, needing live in vehicles rather than camping, which there isn't enough space for, so they get pushed out to Bath and West, getting fed up and pissed off...

It's not sustainable long-term, needs new blood. I know we're in agreement the festival needs more younger people but it *really* needs the next generation of these folk, and if they don't exist it needs to create them itself.

[Skip997]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Getting older, getting less mobile, needing live in vehicles rather than camping, which there isn't enough space for, so they get pushed out to Bath and West, getting fed up and pissed off...

It's not sustainable long-term, needs new blood. I know we're in agreement the festival needs more younger people but it *really* needs the next generation of these folk, and if they don't exist it needs to create them itself.

Don't worry the next generation are already in place and are currently being trained in not only how to work the event, but also how to behave.

Plenty of old school festi families about.

But don't expect these "youngsters" to use tents instead of live in vehicles. They'll be vehicles and caravans just like their folks, it is the way.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Skip997

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Don't worry the next generation are already in place and are currently being trained in not only how to work the event, but also how to behave.

Plenty of old school festi families about.

But don't expect these "youngsters" to use tents instead of live in vehicles. They'll be vehicles and caravans just like their folks, it is the way.

Vehicles and caravans in Bath and West!

But yeah, you've hit the nail on the head there with the talk of family and folks. Needs outside blood. Talent over nepotism. Especially, as we've discussed, the way much of the current crew behave is isolating themselves from the festival and moaning about it!

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Vehicles and caravans in Bath and West!

But yeah, you've hit the nail on the head there with the talk of family and folks. Needs outside blood. Talent over nepotism. Especially, as we've discussed, the way much of the current crew behave is isolating themselves from the festival and moaning about it!

There are plenty of talented folks among the old school festi folk. Do you think Shangri La, NYC Downlow, Arcadia etc just magically appeared.

You also better believe that we get out and see bands. Do you think if we actually hated it that much we'd still come every year.

[gfa]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

There are plenty of talented folks among the old school festi folk. Do you think Shangri La, NYC Downlow, Arcadia etc just magically appeared.

You also better believe that we get out and see bands. Do you think if we actually hated it that much we'd still come every year.

Didn't you say you avoid the main stages like the plague few weeks ago?

I know you don't hate it BTW, thats obvious - your one of the most passionate people on here about the fest.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, gfa said:

Didn't you say you avoid the main stages like the plague few weeks ago?

I know you don't hate it BTW, thats obvious - your one of the most passionate people on here about the fest.

No strictly true I'll go to the Pyramid or The Other Stage if there's a band on I really want to see. WH is my fav stage on site.

But on the other hand I don't like going into "Babylon" if I can avoid it and do struggle with the Pyramid crowd.

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

There are plenty of talented folks among the old school festi folk. Do you think Shangri La, NYC Downlow, Arcadia etc just magically appeared.

You also better believe that we get out and see bands. Do you think if we actually hated it that much we'd still come every year.

All three of those were well ahead of their time when they first appeared. 

I'd say they're all well behind the times as of 2023.

As is a lot of Green Futures.

For a long time the festival was able to expand the space it had and the capacity to make room for new stuff. It's basically capped out on size for now. There's no space for the next Arcadia, the next Shangri La or the next NYC Downlow.

Not without taking a chance to cycle old things out and new things in.

There's nothing on site as exciting as Arcadia or Shangri-La were back when they first appeared. And that's not because those things don't exist.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Not without taking a chance to cycle old things out and new things in.

I agree that certain areas need a revamp. It's also possible that a complete overhaul of personnel would help, but I doubt it. Understandably it's difficult to appreciate just how woven into the fabric of the festival many of the current crew are and how important they are to ho wit's developed and survived.

Anyway these folks will all eventually naturally disappear and I just hope that their offspring and/or other like minded folks take over or else we're headed slowly down the wrong path.

 

[DeanoL]

I don't hold out that much hope to be honest. Last new addition was Rimski's Yard and ... well, I like it, but bloody hell, could we not have given that space to some younger people to make something really new and exciting rather than just somewhere that has most the same acts as the rest of T&C

[stuie]

22 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't hold out that much hope to be honest. Last new addition was Rimski's Yard and ... well, I like it, but bloody hell, could we not have given that space to some younger people to make something really new and exciting rather than just somewhere that has most the same acts as the rest of T&C

If you want to count Rimski’s yard fair enough. In my opinion, the last new additions were IICON and Glastonbury on sea. Not forgetting the new Arcadia crane which didn’t work out of course but innovation and new ideas are still a thing at Glastonbury. 

Let’s see what The Levels brings to the party this year!

Edited June 13, 2023 by stuie

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Let’s see what The Levels brings to the party this year!

Really looking forward to this, hopefully along with being spectacular, it will split the night time crowd.

Also I could do with freshening up my post midnight fun.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Skip997

[Dejalves]

3 hours ago, goonerben said:

On the numbers and overcrowding. 

Aren't there something like 70,000 people working in some capacity - many in return for a ticket?  And a typical volunteer/worker might do 3x 8hr shifts across the 5 days. 

There must be massive scope to change the maths around this, to do something like:

• Pay the people who are working.
• Have them work more hours across the festival.
• Have fewer people working (and therefore on site).

So would it be possible to have (say) only 30,000 workers, on longer shifts (working around twice as many hours as they do now), paid and funded by an additional 20,000 public tickets sold, and therefore with 20,000 fewer people on site in total?

Or possibly not exactly that - but this feels like a HUGE chunk of people where some creative thinking could be in play. 

 

3 hours ago, amfy said:

The staffing is a massive way the festival gives to charity.

The festival pays £300 to the charity for each volunteer who completes 3 shifts. The charity takes a £300 deposit to cover themselves in case that person doesn’t complete their shifts.

The £300ish/24hr shift that goes to oxfam is barely minimum wage after holiday pay. It's a tricky one, question is how much would you have to raise the wage to not only lure people to rural Somerset but also encourage them to take it seriously. And does that balance out with the current amount being paid, help reduce overcrowding and maintain the vibe.

I'd assume any current volunteers are keenos but I doubt they'd bother with long shifts. I've worked other festivals where people get handed their schedule, see multiple 12 paid hour shifts and vanish into the sunset because they cba.