
Split payments and second jobs: how music festival fans afford soaring costs
From Monday to Friday, Jessica Heath works as a civil servant in central London – but when the weekend comes, it's not time to relax. For the past two years, the 28-year-old has also worked evening shifts most Saturdays and Sundays at a nearby wine bar, with one clear aim – to save up for her summers.
Heath has been a huge music festival fan since she first went to Leeds as a teenager and each year, including day events, she takes in at least seven, some as a volunteer. Without that and her second job, she'd never be able to afford it, she says.
It's not just the cost of tickets, 'it's so many other things', says Heath. 'The coach, the food, the drink, all the other elements.' Her most recent trip to Glastonbury cost £900 in total – 'an insane amount of money for less than a week'.
'It sounds like I'm saying, 'Woe is me.' I mean, I had an amazing time. But for me and a lot of my friends, you either do that or you go on holiday – you don't do both.'
It has been a turbulent few years in Britain's festival industry, with huge commercial giants and smaller indies buffeted by a post-pandemic, post-Brexit surge in costs that led a record 72 events to postpone, cancel, or fold in 2024. Event organisers, often despite their best efforts, have been forced to raise ticket prices, and are having to innovate to sell them. While festivalgoers caught in an ongoing cost-of-living squeeze are, in many cases, having to innovate to afford to buy tickets.
As a result, industry analysis shows, the way festival tickets are bought and sold is changing. Pre-pandemic, some opted to pay in instalments; since then, however, the numbers opting to buy this way has soared, with ticket service Skiddle reporting a 48% increase in 2023/24, a figure expected to rise further this year.
'My view would be, if you don't offer split payments, then you really shouldn't be running a festival in 2025,' says John Rostron, the CEO of the Association of Independent Festivals. Almost all festivals – even day events – now offer them, he says, often spread over a full 12 months.
Early bird tickets, too, have boomed – up five-fold in 2023/24 at Skiddle. In part, says Rostron, that's driven by live events being forced to lock in their acts ever earlier, but it also means some festivals are selling out in record time – even in early autumn, almost a year before their event.
Many Guardian readers have said festival financing was a year-long pursuit. Charlotte Westwell, 23, a coffee shop supervisor from Wigan, said she and her partner had got the bug at Download Pilot in 2021, and have gone to two or three a year since then.
Sign up to The Guide
Get our weekly pop culture email, free in your inbox every Friday
after newsletter promotion
To do so, they snap up early bird tickets on payment plans. 'Then, after each festival, I set up a savings pot, and set up a standing order for a set amount every month, as well as a cash jar for any spare bits of cash. But we inevitably need to dip into savings for various reasons, wind up with very little by festival season, and whack it all on the credit card in an endless cycle of festival debt.'
But it's worth it, she says. 'I mean, we're massively, massively into live music.'
Many readers said they were able to get tickets only by volunteering – 'a wonderful community' in itself, according to Charlotte Lovie, 55, a college lecturer from Southsea in Hampshire, who has worked in exchange for a ticket at several festivals for each of the past four years.
But even coming by a volunteer place can be tough, and some have concerns that rising costs could make festivals increasingly inaccessible to those on low incomes.
It's something event organisers are acutely aware of, with some, such as the alternative music and arts festival Supersonic, inviting better-off attenders to buy 'solidarity' tickets to subsidise a free or cheaper one for those from marginal groups.
'The ethos of the festival is about this sense of community and people coming together,' says the Supersonic artistic director, Lisa Meyer. 'And if that becomes elitist because it's so expensive, then it's not really for everyone.'
Stuart Walker, 52, from Nottingham, says he and his partner had initially decided they couldn't afford their usual couple of festivals this year: 'It feels like a much bigger luxury than it used to be, and I'd have to cut back on a lot more things.' In the end, though, they decided to dip into their savings, and will go to Beautiful Days and Latitude later in the summer.
Why? 'We just decided, what's the point of life if you don't experience joy? That's why.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'


Scotsman
42 minutes ago
- Scotsman
The costs of this little-known credit card mistake
Many Brits don't realise that this simple credit card mistake can lead to hidden fees and hurt their credit scoresc 💳 Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Millions of Brits risk damaging their credit scores by using credit cards like debit cards Withdrawing cash on credit cards can incur hefty fees of up to 5% per transaction Frequent cash withdrawals may lead to loss of perks, such as payment plan options from providers like Amex Lenders see cash withdrawals as a warning sign of financial trouble, harming loan or mortgage chances Experts advise using credit cards only for large purchases, not everyday spending or cash withdrawals Millions of Brits could be unknowingly damaging their credit scores and racking up steep fees simply by using their credit cards like debit cards, a top payments expert has warned. Richard Carter, founder of Lopay – the UK's highest-rated, lowest-cost payment app – says withdrawing cash on a credit card is one of the most damaging mistakes people make with their finances. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Every cash withdrawal makes the next payment that little bit harder,' he said. 'There's a time and place to use a credit card – and a cash machine is not one of them.' His 'rule for life'? Simple: 'Never use a credit card for cash. End of.' With more than 58 million credit cards in circulation across the UK, that's more than one for every adult – and Carter believes too many people are putting their financial future at risk by using them carelessly. (Photo: DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images) | AFP via Getty Images Here's why swiping for cash is such a costly mistake Hefty fees: Withdrawing cash on a credit card often comes with charges of up to 5%, meaning a quick £200 ATM withdrawal could cost you an extra £10. Withdrawing cash on a credit card often comes with charges of up to 5%, meaning a quick £200 ATM withdrawal could cost you an extra £10. Damaged credit scores: Lenders view cash withdrawals as a red flag, suggesting you may be struggling financially – and this can harm your chances of getting a mortgage or loan. Lenders view cash withdrawals as a red flag, suggesting you may be struggling financially – and this can harm your chances of getting a mortgage or loan. Loss of perks: Some providers, like American Express, may cut off benefits such as their 'PlanIt' payment plans if they detect frequent cash withdrawals. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Instead, Carter recommends using credit cards only for large purchases on goods or services, and avoiding day-to-day spending where possible. 'A credit card can be a brilliant tool – there are perks, rewards, and protections,' he said. 'But treat it with care. Used wrong, it can bring chaos to your finances.'


BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
Family visa income threshold should be lower, review says
The minimum income threshold for family visas should be relaxed, a government-commissioned review has recommended.A report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has suggested a reduction from the current level of £29, warned against previous proposals to raise the threshold to the same level as for skilled workers - £38,700 a year - saying it could breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The Conservatives said that the UK should leave the ECHR if it "stops us from setting our own visa rules". Article 8 of the ECHR enshrines the right to family threshold is the minimum income a British citizen or settled resident must earn to bring their partner to join them in the UK. If the partner is already in the UK on a valid visa, their income also counts towards the minimum applications are made by people not already living in the UK. The MAC suggested a range of possible new thresholds. It said a level between £23,000 to £25,000 would enable families to support themselves.A threshold of between £24,000 to £28,000 meanwhile would put more emphasis on economic wellbeing - both of the families themselves and for said it did "not understand the rationale" for setting the family visa threshold at the £38,700 level for skilled workers, as the two visas have "completely different objective[s]".A £38,700 level would be the "most likely to conflict with international law and obligations".It is the government's decision whether to accept any of the MAC's recommendations. Prof Brian Bell, chairman of the MAC, said that balancing family life and economic wellbeing was a "real trade-off"."There is a cost to the UK economy and UK taxpayers of having this route, and we should just be honest about that and say there is a trade-off," he said."But similarly, on the other side, people who say 'we should set it at very high numbers to make sure that we don't lose any money' ignore the massive impact that has on families and the destruction of some relationships and the harm it causes to children." A higher threshold would also have a "negative impact on the family life of a larger number of people", the MAC said. It noted many families with lower incomes still earn enough to support themselves even if they do not make a net positive fiscal impact on the said an adult would need to earn £27,800 to have a neutral impact on the public finances - and £40,400 for a couple to have no impact in the first year a spouse arrived in the MAC did not recommend a higher threshold for families with children, saying the impacts on family life for them would be "particularly significant". In 2023 the previous Conservative government announced plans to raise the salary threshold to £38,700, as part of plans to cut the level of they backed down following criticism that this would keep families apart, settling on a £29,000 threshold with plans to gradually increase it did not implement those further rises when the party came into government and asked the MAC to review the committee said the threshold of £29,000 was already high compared to other high-income countries it had looked at. The MAC said it "was not possible to predict with any confidence" the impact different thresholds would have on the level of net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving the did suggest lowering the threshold from £29,000 to roughly £24,000 may increase net migration by up to 8,000 migration in 2024 was an estimated 431,000 people, down almost 50% on the previous followed record high levels in recent years, with the government under political pressure to get numbers down further. The MAC also criticised the Home Office for its data collection, saying insufficient data "greatly hindered" their review.A Home Office spokesperson said the government was considering the review's findings and would respond in due course. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said migration figures remain too high and that the government "must urgently re-instate the Conservative plan to further increase the salary threshold"."If the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR," he ECHR, which was established in 1950, sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries and is a central part of UK human rights month, the government said it would bring forward legislation to clarify how aspects of the ECHR should apply in immigration cases.