Sustainability of popular music festivals

1
Sustainability of popular music festivals

• Example of the Sziget Festival (HU)
• Alice Zoghaib, Univ Paris 8
• European Festival Research Project
• Le Mans research workshop, 18 Nov 2006

2
Popular music festivals in Europe Challenges

• Growing number of pop. music festivals supply
  exceeds demand (Latarjet report)
• Increasingly competitive environment to
  increase audience, festivals compete for famous
  groups (fees take off)
• Public subsidies stagnate
• Stronger need for private sponsors
• Pressure on programming quality

3
Context of Hungarian music market

• Music diversity threatened - 5 American companies
  own 65 of music recording industry
• Smaller independent labels support alternative
  artists or those forbidden during communism
  (BAHIA, partner of Sziget)
• Public support (NKÖM) for music creating
  national identity not for alternative music
  groups and festivals
• Same problem for all alternative festivals in the
  EU
• How to combine sustainability and quality in a
  competitive environment ?

4
Example of Sziget Festival

• Objectives
• Created in 1992, this festival aims at gathering
  European artists
• foster Balkan traditional and present music
  groups

• Festival description
• One week
• Theatre, dance, plastic arts, alternative music,
  international groups
• 400 000 visitors
• Sustainable festival with strong artistic
  objectives

Relevant example for many festivals in Central
Europe (Serbia...)
5
Sustainability progressively achieved

• Established in 1992
• 40 000 persons without advertising
• Budapest lends the location for free
• 1995 Bankruptcy. Pepsi owns the festival until
  2002 (sustainability achieved in 1997)
• 2003 Sziget Kfts created
• Financial and programming autonomy (trusted to 5
  Hungarian cultural actors such as Bahia)
• Grocery (sponsoring contracts with suppliers,
  total control of all the prices of goods offered
  on the festival site)
• Diversification of partnerships and first public
  subsidies

6
Balance between public and private funding

• Budget 6.6, profit 0.2
• Revenue 6.8, of which
• 60 ticket sales
• 35 sponsors (advertising or trade fees)
• 5 public subsidies for not-profit-making
  activities 0.4 (average amount per year) not
  inclusive free location (2) exceptional
  contribution in 2003 (3)
• Economic impact
• 1 HUF invested 1,8 economic growth.
• Visitors spending 36
• Taxes for the state 2.5

2005, in million Euro
7
An organisation model for other festivals ?

• Budapest business journal
• Sziget model sets profitable example
  (sustainability, external growth, unchanging of
  Balkan artists 40)
• Progressive public support needed
• At the creation (at least location) and
  throughout festival expansion to avoid big
  sponsors cf. Latarjet report
• Sustainability and autonomy
• Balance of private / public partnerships
• Multi-sponsorship rather than few big sponsors
• Partnership delegation for international
  festivals
• Ex. Sziget France created partnerships with
  AFAA, SACEM, FCM, music press, transports