How I would fix the ticket system

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Good score so far 

I didn't want to get cocky 😉

 

[glast0gal]

I do just think we’re at a point where we’re f**ked no matter what system is in place. Demand is too high - and I mean stupidly so. I think one of the few concerts I remember there being this much demand for (and this is going back a few years) was Led Zep doing Celebration Day at the O2. Even then, you didn’t get people doing groups, syndicates, workarounds. It’s not necessarily that the systems are the worst aspect of it - I do think it’s the demand and the desperation within people that is the worst bit or at least the element that exacerbates a system that isn’t entirely infallible.

[gfa]

43 minutes ago, HomicidalGoat said:

feel a lot of the unfairness can be sorted if there were more distinct streams for obtaining tickets.  For example, some % of tickets should be set aside for first-timers/people who haven't been for say 5 years, and these should be allocated via random ballot.

 

I'm also of the belief that one of these streams should allow syndicates and well-organised people to retain an advantage.  Those big groups of 20+ people add a net positive vibe to the feel of the festival, no one wants a festival mostly made up of small groups.

People would just make new registrations

[t0paz]

Maybe for 2027 they should remove the need to register at all and then we can all see how we like buying them off Viagogo for 4 grand a piece after the bots really clean up.

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, glast0gal said:

Demand is too high - and I mean stupidly so. 

Correct, it needs reduced massively, but how? 
 

It’s almost certainly way too late. I’ve said before and it’s a massively unpopular opinion, but GFL have created an “out of control monster”.

 

Obviously wouldn’t help with the demand but there are also far too many people on-site. 
 

How do we put people off without endangering the continuation of the event?

[stuie]

Devils advocate here, but is a system that shifts all of the tickets to genuine registered customers in 37 minutes even broken? 

 

Subjective opinion from someone who doesn't need a ticket but has group of friends that do.  3 groups of 6 this year to be precise and no one got a look at a booking page on both Thurs and Sunday. Now, those people have all been at the recent Glastonbury's I remember, through F5 determination. 

 

I honestly feel that once the glaring loopholes are closed, this is the fairest system available.

It can still be gamed by adding more people, helpers and devices, but the 9am in the waiting room business is the way forward. 

 

They must make sure every bastard is in the queue though, not sneaking around the back of the queue, like a bunch of ticket robbing ninjas.

 

 

[gfa]

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

Devils advocate here, but is a system that shifts all of the tickets to genuine registered customers in 37 minutes even broken? 

 

Subjective opinion from someone who doesn't need a ticket but has group of friends that do.  3 groups of 6 this year to be precise and no one got a look at a booking page on both Thurs and Sunday. Now, those people have all been at the recent Glastonbury's I remember, through F5 determination. 

 

I honestly feel that once the glaring loopholes are closed, this is the fairest system available.

It can still be gamed by adding more people, helpers and devices, but the 9am in the waiting room business is the way forward. 

 

They must make sure every bastard is in the queue though, not sneaking around the back of the queue, like a bunch of ticket robbing ninjas.

 

 

Exactly

 

Fix the easy loopholes / try to prevent hacks etc but there's not much else that needs doing I think. It was the first year of the new system and there's some glaring issues at present.

 

It was arguably worse fairness wise than the old system (since you could literally just join the queue 50+ times on the same wifi with no issue). Fix that though and it would stand up well.

 

Making people sign in would be easy - i don't think they want to do this, its still a balance for EE about letting regulars in and giving everyone a decent chance.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

5 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Logging in with reg number obviously helps but creating multiple registrations using different addresses is really easy I am afraid. Fake ID's are all too easy to get hold of.

If people are really determined enough to get a fake ID just for a slightly improved chance of getting a ticket to a festival then fair enough but those people are probably going to be one in 10 at most. Even if some people do get around it, it would still help hugely. 
 

5 hours ago, hoopy67 said:

 

Regardless, it's another feature that they (the festival) would have to pay more money for so I can't see it happening.

 

.

Don’t see why they would. I may be wrong but surely it’d just be a case of moving the first page of the sale process to the waiting room. As long as the servers could handle it, there’s no reason that would need to cost any more. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Rose-Colored Boy

[glast0gal]

22 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Correct, it needs reduced massively, but how? 
 

It’s almost certainly way too late. I’ve said before and it’s a massively unpopular opinion, but GFL have created an “out of control monster”.

 

Obviously wouldn’t help with the demand but there are also far too many people on-site. 
 

How do we put people off without endangering the continuation of the event?

I think it’s the fact that Glastonbury is seen as this experience that nothing else can top. I’ve just come back from a holiday to New York which, to be honest, I would say was on par with if not better than my first time at Glastonbury. I think part of the demand, which you’re right to say is out of control at this point, is the continuation of the kind of theory that nothing else will scratch the itch. There are other things that will! I remember in my first year when I saw a group who were slightly older trudging through the 2016 mud and they were saying how they hated it and wished they never came - what a waste and what a shame for them! It is a unique experience but you have to actually enjoy and like going to festivals and being outdoors. It’s like going to Disneyland if you hate theme parks - no amount of it being unique and one of a kind will save you there.

[UncleJunior]

21 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

If people are really determined enough to get a fake ID just for a slightly improved chance of getting a ticket to a festival then fair enough but those people are probably going to be one in 10 at most. Even if some people do get around it, it would still help hugely. 
 

Don’t see why they would. I may be wrong but surely it’d just be a case of moving the first page of the sale process to the waiting room. As long as the servers could handle it, there’s no reason that would need to cost any more. 

Signs suggest they skinted out on the bot protection for the sale just gone anyway as is..further changes would take manpower/dev hour and likely more cost.

[UncleJunior]

People want the deposit scheme removed because they think it'd make it easier for them to get tickets, failing to answer why Glastonbury would actively want to reduce demand for their business.

It's a stupid idea that makes it more difficult for those on low incomes.

Edited 2 hours ago by UncleJunior

[Leyrulion]

36 minutes ago, stuie said:

Devils advocate here, but is a system that shifts all of the tickets to genuine registered customers in 37 minutes even broken? 

 

Subjective opinion from someone who doesn't need a ticket but has group of friends that do.  3 groups of 6 this year to be precise and no one got a look at a booking page on both Thurs and Sunday. Now, those people have all been at the recent Glastonbury's I remember, through F5 determination. 

 

I honestly feel that once the glaring loopholes are closed, this is the fairest system available.

It can still be gamed by adding more people, helpers and devices, but the 9am in the waiting room business is the way forward. 

 

They must make sure every bastard is in the queue though, not sneaking around the back of the queue, like a bunch of ticket robbing ninjas.

 

 

Feel similar tbh. The only worry is the rise of the secondary market on WhatsApp etc for people selling queue spots. 

 

My worry is that continues to grow and getting tickets becomes like broken like the driving test system, where you now basically are forced to book a test through a third party "slot finder" app. 

[gooner1990]

8 minutes ago, UncleJunior said:

People want the deposit scheme removed because they think it'd make it easier for them to get tickets, failing to answer why Glastonbury would actively want to reduce demand for their business.

It's a stupid idea that makes it more difficult for those on low incomes.

 

Complete tosh.

 

Save £40 a month and pay for it all in one hit makes no difference you still have to pay the same amount.

[Alvoram]

Is there a shout for two weekends?

The demand is certainly there, but what would it do to the vibe? What would happen if the first weekend was a wet one? Could they persuade people to still play for peanuts exposure over two weekends? Should this question have had it's own thread?

 

[gooner1990]

1 minute ago, Alvoram said:

Is there a shout for two weekends?

The demand is certainly there, but what would it do to the vibe? What would happen if the first weekend was a wet one? Could they persuade people to still play for peanuts exposure over two weekends? Should this question have had it's own thread?

 

 

EE stated in that podcast with Annie Mac they couldn't do two weekends in a row.

[gfa]

6 minutes ago, gooner1990 said:

 

Complete tosh.

 

Save £40 a month and pay for it all in one hit makes no difference you still have to pay the same amount.

What benefit is there for them to do it though - you didn't answer the key question. What is the actual benefit to making the sale fairer for making everyone pay upfront?

 

Having to pay upfront vs in 5 months is more difficult - even with warning. Sure its possible to save £40 a month but its still more difficult than being given 6 months after.

 

Not to mention medical emergency, car breaks down etc et

 

4 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Is there a shout for two weekends?

The demand is certainly there, but what would it do to the vibe? What would happen if the first weekend was a wet one? Could they persuade people to still play for peanuts exposure over two weekends? Should this question have had it's own thread?

 

No - the ground.

Edited 2 hours ago by gfa

[eddie_corrigan]

just my 2p's worth with regards to the argument about getting rid of the deposit scheme why not offer punters the choice to either pay it all upfront in November  or the deposit and the balance in April like normal. 

[glast0gal]

2 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Is there a shout for two weekends?

The demand is certainly there, but what would it do to the vibe? What would happen if the first weekend was a wet one? Could they persuade people to still play for peanuts exposure over two weekends? Should this question have had it's own thread?

 

It’s the same as when people were

saying the World Cup should be every year - my answer is no. What happens when the demand exceeds two weekends? I think the logistics for having one weekend are

complex enough just don’t think a second weekend is the right resolution. I tell you how you put people off - make a candle of how the long drops smell by Sunday. That will separate the strong from the weak.

[gfa]

1 minute ago, eddie_corrigan said:

just my 2p's worth with regards to the argument about getting rid of the deposit scheme why not offer punters the choice to either pay it all upfront in November  or the deposit and the balance in April like normal. 

I'm sure some people would appreciate the choice (i'd rather just have the money accrue interest to be honest)

[gooner1990]

1 minute ago, gfa said:

What benefit is there for them to do it though - you didn't answer the key question. What is the actual benefit to making the sale fairer for making everyone pay upfront?

 

Having to pay upfront vs in 5 months is more difficult - even with warning. Sure its possible to save £40 a month but its still more difficult than being given 6 months after.

 

Not to mention medical emergency, car breaks down etc et

 

No - the ground.

 

(Think I did but i'll answer again)

 

The question was around reducing demand, and I think if you get rid of it then you'd probably see a reduction of people trying for tickets....when I was younger and on a lower salary I put money aside each month to pay for things like festivals and holidays etc.  (in fact my partner still does this even though she's mid-30s and on ok money!)

 

How are people paying £325 ish in April 2025 if they can't manage to save up for the ticket to start with?

[gfa]

1 minute ago, gooner1990 said:

 

(Think I did but i'll answer again)

 

The question was around reducing demand, and I think if you get rid of it then you'd probably see a reduction of people trying for tickets....when I was younger and on a lower salary I put money aside each month to pay for things like festivals and holidays etc.  (in fact my partner still does this even though she's mid-30s and on ok money!)

 

How are people paying £325 ish in April 2025 if they can't manage to save up for the ticket to start with?

I misunderstood you then.

 

The thread is about making it fair (which i was on about) - not reducing demand (which your on about)

 

I don't see any issue with tickets being in demand - i doubt the festival does either, they just want it to be fair (or at least seem relatively fair).

 

Everyone's finances are different - I agree that people could just save £40 a month but there seems to be no gain fairness wise for making that harder. Re paying in April - this gives 3 months after christmas / also expensive energy bills coming to an end so is a time when people may have a bit more money to put aside.

[Skip997]

8 minutes ago, glast0gal said:

It is a unique experience but you have to actually enjoy and like going to festivals and being outdoors. It’s like going to Disneyland if you hate theme parks - no amount of it being unique and one of a kind will save you there.

Good point. I wonder how many go each year and regret it. The festival has been overhyped ( don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here folks) to hell by the media, newspapers, music press, influencers and even Michael and Emily (every year “this was the best ever” which is obviously not always true). Television coverage, while helpful financially, is the biggest culprit. Obviously it looks amazing on television especially the Pyramid (quote for an old friend of mine who has been nearly every year since the 80’s, but was sadly omitted this year “we watched LCD Sound System on TV, it was like being on stage with them”). And it can be like that, but that doesn’t show the whole story. 
 

It’s become the UK’s biggest “bucket list” event, on some levels another Wimbledon, Last Night of the Proms etc.

 

While I absolutely hate wet ones (2016 wasn’t actually that bad), maybe we could do with a 1985/1997/1998. Or can we find another Jay Z and another Noel G to moan.

 

Either way something needs to give, because regardless of the oversubscription, there is IMO a real chance of a bad crowd crush incident 

[gfa]

I think glasto when its torrential everythings f**ked, mud everywhere etc VS disneyland not liking themeparks are two quite different levels I must say!

[gooner1990]

2 minutes ago, gfa said:

I misunderstood you then.

 

The thread is about making it fair (which i was on about) - not reducing demand (which your on about)

 

I don't see any issue with tickets being in demand - i doubt the festival does either, they just want it to be fair (or at least seem relatively fair).

 

Everyone's finances are different - I agree that people could just save £40 a month but there seems to be no gain fairness wise for making that harder. Re paying in April - this gives 3 months after christmas / also expensive energy bills coming to an end so is a time when people may have a bit more money to put aside.

 

no worries, i think several people are on about several different angles in this thread. 🙂

 

 

[gfa]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Good point. I wonder how many go each year and regret it. The festival has been overhyped ( don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here folks) to hell by the media, newspapers, music press, influencers and even Michael and Emily (every year “this was the best ever” which is obviously not always true). Television coverage, while helpful financially, is the biggest culprit. Obviously it looks amazing on television especially the Pyramid (quote for an old friend of mine who has been nearly every year since the 80’s, but was sadly omitted this year “we watched LCD Sound System on TV, it was like being on stage with them”). And it can be like that, but that doesn’t show the whole story. 
 

It’s become the UK’s biggest “bucket list” event, on some levels another Wimbledon, Last Night of the Proms etc.

 

While I absolutely hate wet ones (2016 wasn’t actually that bad), maybe we could do with a 1985/1997/1998. Or can we find another Jay Z and another Noel G to moan.

 

Either way something needs to give, because regardless of the oversubscription, there is IMO a real chance of a bad crowd crush incident 

This isn't a demand thing - this is solely on organisation and capping numbers.

 

Even if 10,000 snuck in (which would be quite a lot higher than it is i reckon), this amount shouldn't tip the festival over the edge.

 

They need to either expand the site / widen footways / program better or cut the amount of people on site in all areas - less stage staff, less artist guests, less hospitality, less punters, less volunteers, less food staff etc.