What if Glastonbury switched to Ticketmaster and Dynamic ticket pricing????

[pink_triangle]

20 hours ago, tarw said:

This. Just a couple of years of only those able to afford £750+ tickets would change the demographic that much it would no longer be as popular 

Price rises have already changed the demographic. Look how the average age has changed over the years. 

[Franky]

33 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 

And emptied your wallet as I recall from other posts 😉

Not mine. Didn’t even get a sniff. Ruined a few mates though. 

[efcfanwirral]

16 hours ago, Skip997 said:

Tiered pricing is absolutely fine. It allows smaller festivals to ensure they can operate by getting some cash in early. There are several UK festivals already selling tier 1 tickets for next summer 

Kendal Calling is a great example of doing this, obviously not small small but definitely smaller. They have such a loyal following who go every year that they managed to sell a lot of tickets in their first tier just after this year's festival, with no lineup. The prices were good too, so everyone wins, they get the money to put on the same level of quality they always do and get the security of knowing around half the tickets (plus popular extras) are definitely sold, and we get a lower price for something we'd be going to anyway. 

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Price rises have already changed the demographic. Look how the average age has changed over the years. 

There were certainly a few artists I saw that were drawing a crowd much younger than me, such as 

 

 

2 hours ago, Franky said:

Not mine. Didn’t even get a sniff. Ruined a few mates though. 

Ah. sorry you didn't, but then not sorry they didn't rip you off 🙂 

Edited September 1 by clarkete

[dotdash79]

1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

Kendal Calling is a great example of doing this, obviously not small small but definitely smaller. They have such a loyal following who go every year that they managed to sell a lot of tickets in their first tier just after this year's festival, with no lineup. The prices were good too, so everyone wins, they get the money to put on the same level of quality they always do and get the security of knowing around half the tickets (plus popular extras) are definitely sold, and we get a lower price for something we'd be going to anyway. 

Tired pricing also allow the festivals to create scarcity by saying there is a limited left at this price, or to change the price when the lineup comes out. 

[Franky]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

There were certainly a few artists I saw that were drawing a crowd much younger than me, such as 

 

 

Ah. sorry you didn't, but then not sorry they didn't rip you off 🙂 

Tbh I was only hunting for mates really. I can happily leave the brothers Twat, just like I did in 2004 when he came out and slagged off the crowd. I was off dancing to Chems I think 🕺🕺🕺

[clarkete]

16 minutes ago, Franky said:

Tbh I was only hunting for mates really. I can happily leave the brothers Twat, just like I did in 2004 when he came out and slagged off the crowd. I was off dancing to Chems I think 🕺🕺🕺

 

I don't even remember them slagging the crowd 😂

[Suprefan]

22 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

How quickly does dynamic pricing start rising? Like, in the case of Oasis and there's 60k tickets for the gig, does it go up fifty quid after 10k or a few quid after the first tickets and then incrementally the longer it goes on?

 

Prob a n00b comment, but I haven't bought tickets for a gig in the UK for over 15 years.

 

youre the perfect demographic that they knew they would encounter in this sale. People who hardly ever go to gigs or maybe a couple times a year. But you dont go unless its something of interest and even then its not an insane demand event. So you do not notice these changes. And then when the big gig comes alone you are thrown into the deep end and thats that.

 

The system in the Uk looks to be based on inventory and not timing. When it hits a certain mark it starts to go up. There was also a cap on the cost cause nobody was saying anything other than the £350 figure. And some seats went to just under £500.

 

in America its like how you think. They see the demand and will go from there. But the thing is, we know its going to happen already. Its in the ticket listing. But also, they do some other dirty stuff when a sale begins. There are already certain tickets set to Platinum pricing because theyre in ideal locations and such. So front rows to certain sections or just ideal seats because of the production and such. Dynamic prices go in increments too. Itll be $10 at a time. And they can also be capped. Drake's tour for example last year, nothing was over $600. 
 

in the end, they can set the algorithm to do whatever they want and get as much money as they want. Its on the customer to pay or not.

[stuie]

5 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Price rises have already changed the demographic. Look how the average age has changed over the years. 

I’m not sure it’s all about price - Boomtown is £330 next year, R&L was £300 with fees this year. Both those attract a younger crowd. 
 

Age of attendee aside, there’s so many reasons for change of demographic I don’t think you can pin it down to one thing. 

[stuie]

It got the attention of a government

minister, cos she was trying to get tickets and ended up buying inflated price ones.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/sep/01/bands-urged-to-oppose-dynamic-pricing-of-concert-tickets-after-oasis-fiasco

 

Same as on sky news yesterday, the studio floor manager and a presenter were trying to get tickets so they gave it some attention on air! 
 

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/oasis-tickets-officially-sold-out-as-fans-complain-about-surge-in-prices-13206905

 

 

[Suprefan]

38 minutes ago, stuie said:

It got the attention of a government

minister, cos she was trying to get tickets and ended up buying inflated price ones.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/sep/01/bands-urged-to-oppose-dynamic-pricing-of-concert-tickets-after-oasis-fiasco

 

Same as on sky news yesterday, the studio floor manager and a presenter were trying to get tickets so they gave it some attention on air! 
 

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/oasis-tickets-officially-sold-out-as-fans-complain-about-surge-in-prices-13206905

 

 

 

see you in a few years when nothing changed. There is an appeals system in the courts correct? What will happen is transparency. Imagine if they had told you guys it was gonna happen? What do you do.
 

Swifties tried a class action against TM for the Eras onsale. It got dropped and settled. 
 

https://www.billboard.com/business/legal/taylor-swift-fan-class-action-live-nation-eras-tour-dropped-1235554526/amp/

[Avalon_Fields]

But according to TM it’s the bands who are selecting whether to have dynamic pricing I read? 
 

I’m abandoning all interest in going to any gig no matter who it is if they’re charging well over £100 for a regular ticket. Greedy bastards.

[Suprefan]

1 hour ago, Avalon_Fields said:

But according to TM it’s the bands who are selecting whether to have dynamic pricing I read? 
 

I’m abandoning all interest in going to any gig no matter who it is if they’re charging well over £100 for a regular ticket. Greedy bastards.

 

Its part of negotiations when it comes to financials. literally an option You can opt in or out of. Any artist that pleads ignorance isnt being that honest with you. They determine their level of involvement. Ticketmaster can plead some level of "its not in our hands" type thing because they in fact, only sell tickets. They provide different services and methods on which to sell them. They are not the promoter. Which in this case is Live Nation who so happen to own Ticketmaster. So Live Nation provides an artist with their choices as to how money is made and how tickets are sold. 

[DeanoL]

On 8/31/2024 at 5:44 PM, Suprefan said:

Single concerts can be subjected to the same system and give you different results. As its clear in the uk, the prices only shift at the end of the inventory, not the beginning. You are playing into the psychology of a ticket buyer. Theyve been stuck in the queue for hours, hoping for a ticket. They finally get in, they see some seats, the click on them. They either hesitate at the sticker shock or they hit the purchase button. Those are your only choices. It works every time. Its working at this very moment despite the complaints.

 

Ticketmaster hired psychologists years ago to analyse this sh*t. Its up to you to beat them at their own game. 

That's just looking at the one side of the model though. The psychological trick to try and get you to part with the cash as you have to make a decision fast. (Not much different from not announcing the non-dynamic price until the tickets go on sale).

There's also the element of it that aims to sell tickets for the highest price possible that someone would be willing to pay, even if they did get to think about it. Ideally to maximise money you want a sort of reverse auction, where tickets start a very high price and then it drops if demand starts to fall off. We're not quite at that yet (and that the systems can't handle everyone transacting at once is an issue) but it's going in that direction.

 

On 8/31/2024 at 7:33 PM, stuie said:

If they introduced dynamic pricing (profiteering) then people wouldn’t volunteer their time to the cause and artists wouldn’t play for reduced fees or for free anymore. The whole business model would collapse. 

 

I mean, would they need all those volunteers and to pay reduced fees if they had double the ticket income though? It'd be a massive change to a previously successful business model, and so a huge risk to take, so one I don't think they *would* take. But that new model could well work.

 

12 hours ago, Suprefan said:

Its part of negotiations when it comes to financials. literally an option You can opt in or out of. Any artist that pleads ignorance isnt being that honest with you. They determine their level of involvement. Ticketmaster can plead some level of "its not in our hands" type thing because they in fact, only sell tickets. They provide different services and methods on which to sell them. They are not the promoter. Which in this case is Live Nation who so happen to own Ticketmaster. So Live Nation provides an artist with their choices as to how money is made and how tickets are sold. 

That can depend on how involved the band want to be on the details of the tour. Some will just leave it up to Live Nation or SJM and play for a fixed fee at the dates they're given.

[stuie]

17 hours ago, Suprefan said:

see you in a few years when nothing changed.

https://www.politico.eu/article/oasis-ticketmaster-f-uk-probe-dynamic-pricing/
 

 

[clarkete]

3 hours ago, DeanoL said:

I mean, would they need all those volunteers and to pay reduced fees if they had double the ticket income though? It'd be a massive change to a previously successful business model, and so a huge risk to take, so one I don't think they *would* take. But that new model could well work.

 

But on what basis? 

 

The family provide the use of the farm, the volunteers their labour, the artists the reduced fees...all so that firstly lots of folks enjoy a nice thing, secondly lots of ethical things of different flavours are promoted, thirdly they give millions to charity every year. 

 

I think if it's like a house of cards then which of those would change?  I genuinely think it's too fragile, which is for the best. 

[gfa]

22 hours ago, Suprefan said:

 

youre the perfect demographic that they knew they would encounter in this sale. People who hardly ever go to gigs or maybe a couple times a year. But you dont go unless its something of interest and even then its not an insane demand event. So you do not notice these changes. And then when the big gig comes alone you are thrown into the deep end and thats that.

 

The system in the Uk looks to be based on inventory and not timing. When it hits a certain mark it starts to go up. There was also a cap on the cost cause nobody was saying anything other than the £350 figure. And some seats went to just under £500.

 

in America its like how you think. They see the demand and will go from there. But the thing is, we know its going to happen already. Its in the ticket listing. But also, they do some other dirty stuff when a sale begins. There are already certain tickets set to Platinum pricing because theyre in ideal locations and such. So front rows to certain sections or just ideal seats because of the production and such. Dynamic prices go in increments too. Itll be $10 at a time. And they can also be capped. Drake's tour for example last year, nothing was over $600. 
 

in the end, they can set the algorithm to do whatever they want and get as much money as they want. Its on the customer to pay or not.

They do what i bolded here, chucked into 'vip' bundles (a tote bag or some sh*t) or sold as platinum seats

Edited September 2 by gfa

[glast0gal]

Think others have mentioned this based on what Glastonbury is worth vs what we pay. Whatever way you look at it, your bog standard general admission ticket offers real value if you're packing in every bit of entertainment you can from Weds/Thurs right through to Sunday/early hours of Monday morning. Don't know if I would really pay much over £500 - that in itself would be a stretch. I just about cobble together the money each year for Glasto to be honest. If it ever did have that much of an uplift in ticket pricing, I'd be looking to work it regularly as I couldn't take an annual expenditure of inflated ticket cost + travel cost + food and drink costs while on site. Not saying it's not worth over £500 as, dare I say it/ring the cliché alarm, Glasto is priceless but I'd not to have some kind of extra payoff if I were to be going over the 500 mark.

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

 

But on what basis? 

 

The family provide the use of the farm, the volunteers their labour, the artists the reduced fees...all so that firstly lots of folks enjoy a nice thing, secondly lots of ethical things of different flavours are promoted, thirdly they give millions to charity every year. 

 

I think if it's like a house of cards then which of those would change?  I genuinely think it's too fragile, which is for the best. 

On the basis of other festivals that manage it.

You're right I wouldn't risk it but it's also deeply problematic in many ways and I actually don't think sustainable past the next ten years (they'll increasingly struggle to get the big acts they used to as Glastonbury just doesn't have the cultural cachet it used to, especially beyond the UK).

[dingbat2]

20 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

On the basis of other festivals that manage it.

You're right I wouldn't risk it but it's also deeply problematic in many ways and I actually don't think sustainable past the next ten years (they'll increasingly struggle to get the big acts they used to as Glastonbury just doesn't have the cultural cachet it used to, especially beyond the UK).

 

Eavis is different though, his primary objective is for everyone to have a great party for several days whilst making a (relatively small) profit for himself and giving £2-3 million to charity each year. And he has lots of followers supporting that with the greenfields, SE corner, etc, thats what sets the festival apart from others, there are a lot of volunteers with the same philosophy as Michael. He's different to other festivals whose objectives tend to be firstly to survive and then make as much money as they can. In terms of cachet, I dont think Glasto ever had any overseas really, but I think the rep it has in the UK is as high as it was 10-20 years ago, helped massively by the massive PR it gets from the BBC still. It is a delicate balance them paying less than market value to bands performing there when there isn't TV coverage of their set and I thinks some bands struggles with this this year maybe. Glasto is still an absolute bargain, a 5 day party with 2000 acts, and dont forget your allowed to take your own booze wherever you go on site, 5 pints a day for fiver days at any other festival would cost you £175 which you dont have to pay at Glasto

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

 but I think the rep it has in the UK is as high as it was 10-20 years ago, helped massively by the massive PR it gets from the BBC still. 

I think it’s lost some of the edge it had 20 years and the audience has become older and more middle class. While those changes in my view don’t make it a better festival, I think they make it more sustainable in the long term.

[dingbat2]

13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think it’s lost some of the edge it had 20 years and the audience has become older and more middle class. While those changes in my view don’t make it a better festival, I think they make it more sustainable in the long term.

 

I am not sure, the rep is far bigger now I think than it was in say 2005. Yes it was on the beeb (or was it C4) then but it wasnt massive in terms of the public psyche I dont think (albeit the floods on site Thursday night, especially Pennards really helped as it was on all the news channels on Friday) You also didnt have the Park, Arcadia, and most of the SE corner stuff back then though you did have Lost Vagueness from memory). And it was easier to bag a ticket back then. It all changed in 2007 and 2008 when the Park, Arcadia and Shangri La massively raised the bar and the festivals public profile. I cant remember the age of the crowd being massively different to what it is now but I might be wrong, maybe more teenagers perhaps?

[clarkete]

42 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

 

Eavis is different though, his primary objective is for everyone to have a great party for several days whilst making a (relatively small) profit for himself and giving £2-3 million to charity each year. And he has lots of followers supporting that with the greenfields, SE corner, etc, thats what sets the festival apart from others, there are a lot of volunteers with the same philosophy as Michael. He's different to other festivals whose objectives tend to be firstly to survive and then make as much money as they can. In terms of cachet, I dont think Glasto ever had any overseas really, but I think the rep it has in the UK is as high as it was 10-20 years ago, helped massively by the massive PR it gets from the BBC still. It is a delicate balance them paying less than market value to bands performing there when there isn't TV coverage of their set and I thinks some bands struggles with this this year maybe. Glasto is still an absolute bargain, a 5 day party with 2000 acts, and dont forget your allowed to take your own booze wherever you go on site, 5 pints a day for fiver days at any other festival would cost you £175 which you dont have to pay at Glasto

 

I would absolutely love to see some of the lower sets and stages get some/more coverage - great for those acts and for the audience too, whether at home, at another stage or actually in that audience. 

 

I was lucky to catch a pretty broad range of sets and stages this year and it would be brilliant if those at home could get a wee glimpse.  I know these are dreadful times at the beeb finance wise, but even one or two static cameras at some stages and a stereo feed onto iplayer would be fantastic. 

[dingbat2]

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 

I would absolutely love to see some of the lower sets and stages get some/more coverage - great for those acts and for the audience too, whether at home, at another stage or actually in that audience. 

 

I was lucky to catch a pretty broad range of sets and stages this year and it would be brilliant if those at home could get a wee glimpse.  I know these are dreadful times at the beeb finance wise, but even one or two static cameras at some stages and a stereo feed onto iplayer would be fantastic. 

I have always wondered by they have dont do that, I saw some incredible acts in Williams Green for example. Just put a fixed camera at the back and put it on the iplayer, costs absolutely nothing. If its good then you can show it on the highlights programme. I have no idea why they never do it. Same with the Glade, the Acoustic stage, even Arcadia or IICON late night, it would look ace on TV, and might help the profile of some of the smaller acts. The Beeb are missing a trick I think, unless there is a reason they cant do it?

[clarkete]

5 minutes ago, dingbat2 said:

I have always wondered by they have dont do that, I saw some incredible acts in Williams Green for example. Just put a fixed camera at the back and put it on the iplayer, costs absolutely nothing. If its good then you can show it on the highlights programme. I have no idea why they never do it. Same with the Glade, the Acoustic stage, even Arcadia or IICON late night, it would look ace on TV, and might help the profile of some of the smaller acts. The Beeb are missing a trick I think, unless there is a reason they cant do it?

 

Oh no, it absolutely costs something - every extra stage, camera, sound feed, hour of engineer time, GB of data. 

 

And given some people already heavily criticise the coverage as "a big holiday" or whatever, it's certainly tricky.

 

Maybe a partnership with another organisation?