Reduction of attendees vs cost of ticket

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

I was musing this just now about the amount of people on site and reading people's comments of near accidents or crushes. Especially, the case of Bicep shocked me a little that they actually had to lower the volume mid-set and ask people to take steps backwards.

 

Others have said the SEC is at saturation point and becomes gridlocked. Day time sets of Barry Can't Swim and Sugababes have resulted in areas being closed off - something that used to only happen once a festival, now happens twice on the same day. Also read that Avalon has lost its sparkle a little due to sending people elsewhere...

 

Would you be happy to pay a bit more per person if it meant reducing the people on site by 15k people?

 

My working was based on the ticket price being 355 quid x 138k tickets sold = £49m generated.

 

You could get the same amount of money generated by charging £400 a ticket, which would lead to only 122.5k people on site. At least from paying tickets, nevermind the crew, volunteers, performers etc which I think stands at around 72k people on site.

 

Just a curiosity more than anything. I know Michael Eavis and Emily Eavis want to have as many people on site as possible to spread the love of the festival to the max, but what do you think?

[Superscally]

I would...but would it stop the jumpers and does it skew the festival further towards the more money than sense brigade who are filling the likes of Festibell, Camp Kerala and the likes? 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

7 minutes ago, Superscally said:

I would...but would it stop the jumpers and does it skew the festival further towards the more money than sense brigade who are filling the likes of Festibell, Camp Kerala and the likes? 

 

I know, that's the problem. At what point does it price people out or become extortionate? 

 

I mean, it's amazing value for money. I didn't go this year, but I saw Elton and GnR and their ticket prices would've been minimum £100-150 just for their private shows and even then I'd of been sitting way back in the stadium/arena. Then you add all the rest of the acts on top, the beautiful areas like the Park/GoS/SEC etc and then it just seems like a crazy bargain. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:11 PM by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[Another eforum account]

More attendees also means more revenue for traders ~ so a reduction in ticket numbers would also have to compensate for that (ie traders might want a reduction in pitch fees) as well as parking fees etc

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

9 minutes ago, Another eforum account said:

More attendees also means more revenue for traders ~ so a reduction in ticket numbers would also have to compensate for that (ie traders might want a reduction in pitch fees) as well as parking fees etc

 

Feel like your avatar is judging me pretty hard right now, lol.

 

But yeah, it would have to be met with potentially less for a pitch fee, but if they had less people coming, would they even need as many food stalls? I don't know the number of food stalls they have on site, but they could just calculate it at the same ratio and so on, also for the amount of volunteers and crew etc, do you know what I mean?

 

That way, no loss would be made in total.

Edited Wednesday at 08:21 PM by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON

[Another eforum account]

2 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

Feel like your avatar is judging me pretty hard right now, lol.

 

But yeah, it would have to be met with potentially less for a pitch fee, but if they had less people coming, would they even need as many food stalls? I don't know the number of food stalls they have on site, but they could just calculate it at the same ratio and so on, also for the amount of volunteers and crew etc, do you know what I mean?

 

That way, no loss would be made in total.

Sorry about the trolling ~ created the account some years ago after I’d forgotten/mislaid a couple of old account names and couldn’t come up with a new name! 
 

I mean that the revenue for the festival would be lower ie food traders pay a pretty hefty pitch fee for the festival. If you’re reducing the number of punters (paid & vols) then that might mean they couldn’t leverage as much of a fee per trader. Less traders would also mean less income for the festival therefore the ticket price might have to go up more than has been suggested! Probably a bit of an academic discussion.

 

I always marvel at how much stuff (I know lots comes out year after year) is created for the festival, stages, fripperies, decoration, seating, infrastructure etc etc compared to any other UK festival. The financial juggle must be mind blowing! 

[Pinhead]

Rising ticket price may not be necessary though (see other threads on this). It just needs them to stop using tickets for payment for services and consider an improved competitive tender bidding process for services in the future.

[august1]

its not about reducing absolute numbers you need more people who will spend all their time in T+C, Green futures, healing fields, avalon, chilling at stone circle and less people chasing nostalgia and dance acts around the site 

Edited Wednesday at 08:40 PM by august1

[incident]

Tbh we'll be paying £400 for a ticket pretty soon regardless. Probably not 2025, but likely in 2027 or 2028.

[Pinhead]

Tax the external glamping operators by raising the price of their allocated tickets.

[Northtim]

I’d pay more but don’t think this is the answer. A bit better planning could have dealt with the worst of it - putting Avril on Pyramid for a start.

 

I didn’t really experience any crowd issues so am not best to judge. I was wandering through an empty Pyramid Field from Alvvays to Lottery Winners and missed all the Avril crowds.

 

My only minor hassle was walking half way to the Park for Jarvis to find it was full of Barry’s gang, so we went for a wander elsewhere instead.

 

Cutting attendees and pricing out some seems the wrong way to fix the few things they got wrong.  Better they learn by better stage allocation and blocking off areas earlier.

 

[Johnnyseven]

7 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Tax the external glamping operators by raising the price of their allocated tickets.

 

Then watch as the local landowners refuse to hire their fields out to the festival.

Edited Wednesday at 08:51 PM by Johnnyseven

[Ayrshire Chris]

Just now, Northtim said:

I’d pay more but don’t think this is the answer. A bit better planning could have dealt with the worst of it - putting Avril on Pyramid for a start.

 

I didn’t really experience any crowd issues so am not best to judge. I was wandering through an empty Pyramid Field from Alvvays to Lottery Winners and missed all the Avril crowds.

 

My only minor hassle was walking half way to the Park for Jarvis to find it was full of Barry’s gang, so we went for a wander elsewhere instead.

 

Cutting attendees and pricing out some seems the wrong way to fix the few things they got wrong.  Better they learn by better stage allocation and blocking off areas earlier.

 

I’d agree with that. Maybe assessing how big a crowd certain acts will attract, taking into account the demographic of the festival attendees could prevent some problems. As for cost, it will hit 400 in the next few years as others have said. 

[Pinhead]

5 minutes ago, Johnnyseven said:

 

Then watch as the local landowners refuse to hire their fields out to the festival.

They won't. They've got far too much stake invested in their operations now - it's not like it was over ten years ago when they all played hardball over their land rents. Some have glamping and don't actually even contribute land to parking now. They're all hooked and they can't stop. They'd still get their money anyway - the sort who can pay those prices for a yurt etc can easily absorb another 100 for the ticket part without blinking.

Edited Wednesday at 08:57 PM by Pinhead

[AdrianH]

People will pay whatever I think is the problem with Glastonbury - it's such a unique experience that it'd have to get to something ridiculous to reduce attendees. 

 

I definitely do think they've got a problem though now - the SE corner is like queuing for a ride at Alton Towers without the payoff as by the time you get in, you just want to get out of it as quickly as possible. Not to mention the obvious risk of a serious crush incident occurring. 

 

Other smaller stages were too busy for my liking too this year though I put that down to the weak Pyramid line up which simply didn't hold onto the usual set of people who are happy to camp their all day

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

4 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

I’d agree with that. Maybe assessing how big a crowd certain acts will attract, taking into account the demographic of the festival attendees could prevent some problems. As for cost, it will hit 400 in the next few years as others have said. 

 

Sure, like someone else said, I'm sure in a couple of years it will reach that amount anyway due to inflation and costs, but based off of this year's fest and cost, would you have bought a ticket at that amount for 2024? Then just keep adding the extra money on top to maintain that price. 2026 is a fallow year I think, but then for 2027, would you then pay 450?

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

It's more complex than just jacking the price to compensate for reduced numbers, although it would help, even if would be an unfair and unpopular measure for some. A lot of the issues have been covered across multiple threads on here for a few years now. Scheduling was particularly poor at some key stages this year. Blaggers and fence jumpers are still a big problem and a lack of activity to cover the numbers in attendance on a Wednesday and Thursday also contributes to the situation. It's been bubbling away for some time now (probably since COVID) and it genuinely is time for the organisers to consider measures to prevent something really serious from happening in the future. For me, it hasn't detracted from my enjoyment. If I know something is going to be crazy busy, I either get there early or, like I did for Avril Lavigne this year, bin it off. My enjoyment far outweighs any FOMO.

[Ayrshire Chris]

1 minute ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

Sure, like someone else said, I'm sure in a couple of years it will reach that amount anyway due to inflation and costs, but based off of this year's fest and cost, would you have bought a ticket at that amount for 2024? Then just keep adding the extra money on top to maintain that price. 2026 is a fallow year I think, but then for 2027, would you then pay 450?

Thats the dilemma.  There will easily be enough people willing to pay that to sell out as quick as usual. But that will be too expensive for many others. It depends  on personal circumstances and I would say that goes against the ethos of the festival 

[Mr. B]

35 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Rising ticket price may not be necessary though (see other threads on this). It just needs them to stop using tickets for payment for services and consider an improved competitive tender bidding process for services in the future.

But this would then likely cost more than currnently lost ticket revenue, and net increase in overall cost 

[Pinhead]

No, not if it's more competitively tendered. Trouble is with Glasto is they have suppliers that are now too cosy and used to this arrangement. New suppliers would happily bid competitively to get a foot in the door of the event I would imagine, even if it helps drive prices down for existing suppliers.

[cidermonkey]

You could cut the capacity by 20k and have fewer venues/acts to save on costs. Would it ruin the festival if say Arcadia, Avalon, Acoustic, Leftfield and half of the SE corner disappeared? Use the extra space saved to increase the capacity of some of the remaining venues. (Nothing against any of the areas selected, just used as an example).

 

My favourite area is the Park, would I get a ticket if it was removed? I might moan for 2 minutes but “Hell Yeah”….

[Suprefan]

I mean its gonna get to £400 anyway without an attendance reduction. ( sorry to be the manifester on that a while back )

 

I pay £430 right now for Coachella so why wouldnt I for Glasto lol. 
 

just add another weekend and get on with it already 😘

Edited Wednesday at 11:44 PM by Suprefan

[incident]

2 hours ago, Pinhead said:

No, not if it's more competitively tendered. Trouble is with Glasto is they have suppliers that are now too cosy and used to this arrangement. New suppliers would happily bid competitively to get a foot in the door of the event I would imagine, even if it helps drive prices down for existing suppliers.

 

That's a very dangerous road to go down. Mainly because Glastonbury needs - and for the most part, uses - the absolute leaders in the respective fields - both for the quality and for the scale. Experience does matter here if the festival is going to keep running smoothly.

 

I'm not convinced how well it would work if, for example:

- The Oxfam stewarding operation was replaced by Wicked (I've worked for both, and Oxfam are infinitely more professional when it comes to delivering a service)

- Martin Audio were replaced by Funktion One (who had a shot at the Pyramid in the past, to negative reviews)

- Sunbelt Rentals (who via various name changes, takeovers, and mergers can be traced back to Eve Trakway) were replaced by some combination of companies (because I can't find an alternative company that even offers everything they provide)

- Serious Stages were replaced by various companies (likewise)

- Aggreko were replaced by HSS Hire

 

I think it's likely that GFL will already do an element of tendering to keep the current suppliers "honest", but going for cheapest quote would be an exceptionally bad idea if the company couldn't deliver as needed. There's a good reason that most core suppliers including all of the above except MA haven't changed in 20+ years. Many of the "alternatives" in the categories above and any others wouldn't even be able to scale to cover Glastonbury.

Edited Wednesday at 11:58 PM by incident

[clarkete]

3 hours ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Thats the dilemma.  There will easily be enough people willing to pay that to sell out as quick as usual. But that will be too expensive for many others. It depends  on personal circumstances and I would say that goes against the ethos of the festival 

 

Yes there is already sensitivity about ticket prices, as has been  mentioned here any time they've gone up and adding 50 quid may be fine with one of the posters here, whilst simultaneously pricing out another 

[Ayrshire Chris]

5 hours ago, clarkete said:

 

Yes there is already sensitivity about ticket prices, as has been  mentioned here any time they've gone up and adding 50 quid may be fine with one of the posters here, whilst simultaneously pricing out another 

Especially when you factor in the cost of transport, food etc though  some do treat Glastonbury as their annual summer holiday.