Nix the Children's/Family Aspect of the Festival

[TyteFystedFolkie]

It's NOT my intent to gain 'friends', here. Thus, I have the freedom to speak my mind.

If, indeed, FRFF is suffering from an excess of red ink, I think consideration should be given to eliminating the family stage and the performers specific to children. Perhaps the children's activities tent should be sacrificed, as well. While they may engage a VERY limited few, I think they constitute an absolute DRAIN on the finances of the festival. Consider, if you will: the tent(s), the performers, the sound systems....ALL those thing cost sheckels. And, if you think differently because of volunteer effort, well, you need a five minute course in bidness....ie, VOLUNTEERS DON'T COME FREE.

Please don't think of me as anti-children...or, anti-family. Instead, view me as PRO-FESTIVAL. Presently, FRFF gets NO return on monies spent on children....and THAT should be addressed.

[john r]

<<Presently, FRFF gets NO return on monies spent on children....and THAT should be addressed.>>

that is not quite true. first of all, many families take an FR vacation and would not come without their small children. i have no doubt that children's activities increase Fr camping attendance, and it is smart business to do what FR does. in addition, "NO" return does not acknowledge the slight return that FR receives from merchandising and vendor sales. so "NO" is an exaggeration.

[TyteFystedFolkie]

[quote="john r"]<<Presently, FRFF gets NO return on monies spent on children....and THAT should be addressed.>>

that is not quite true. first of all, many families take an FR vacation and would not come without their small children. i have no doubt that children's activities increase Fr camping attendance, and it is smart business to do what FR does. in addition, "NO" return does not acknowledge the slight return that FR receives from merchandising and vendor sales. so "NO" is an exaggeration.[/quote]

I'll bet those families would be MORE THAN HAPPY to pay a premium to have their children attend....and be entertained. Besides, they'd get the good feeling of knowing that they are 'paying their freight'.

[john r]

charging for children is another point. you did not say that in your first post but went straight to eliminating the chidren's activities. this is a totally different argument.

[sharongp524]

I think, as mentioned in other post, that you, Mr. TyteFystedFolkie, need to go start your own Folk Festival and Forum. You are everything that FRFF is not, and btw, I do not have any small children, but I love the families that bring their children and only wish I had known about FRFF when my daughter was growing up.

[Lew]

A child's value should not be judged by how much revenue they generate.

[Rakenjake]

Wow....this thread is frightening...I've never considered children to be a commodity....

[Starmiter]

Ok, this makes no sense on its face, and is contradictory - first, you make the argument that there aren't enough children to justify having a separate kids/family tent (and related equipment), and then state that children should pay a 'premium' price to make their parents feel happy? Let me explain how this works...pay attention, as I'm not going to repeat it...

As it stands, there's trouble coordinating all the acts with the stages available, so the kids/family tent wouldn't be eliminated at all, but most likely converted into a 'Workshop Stage II' or something, so they'd still be spending money for the tent & equipment, so no savings there.

Next, as for the kids not adding more $ to the Festival's bottom-line, you seem to overlook the fact that a) kids get hungry and thirsty and b) want to have everything in sight. That means kids-size T-shirts from the Merch tent, and more food tickets bought for them to use, all of which generate $ for the festival, and more family-oriented CDs for them to purchase from kids/family-oriented performers selling their wares, of which the Festival gets a cut, so no loss of revenue to the Festival there.

Lastly, as for paying a 'premium,' if parents had to do that, then there'd not only be *fewer* kids, but fewer items purchased at the Festival, and THEN you'd have the drain on the Festival that you're complaining about - in other words, it ain't broke, so don't try to fix it as you'd only turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, and kids who go to the Festival tend to turn into full-price-paying-adults who go to the Festival later, and ultimately bring their kids with them, thus creating subsequent generations of Festival-goers and merchandise-buyers, so try and get your logic straight before going off on kids/family entertainment - tends to make you come across as anti-kids.

[TyteFystedFolkie]

[quote="Lew"]A child's value should not be judged by how much revenue they generate.[/quote]

TRUST ME.....children are NOT generating ANY revenue aT FRFF. I do believe, as stated previously, their parents should PAY THE FREIGHT.

[TyteFystedFolkie]

[quote="Starmiter"]Ok, this makes no sense on its face, and is contradictory - first, you make the argument that there aren't enough children to justify having a separate kids/family tent (and related equipment), and then state that children should pay a 'premium' price to make their parents feel happy? Let me explain how this works...pay attention, as I'm not going to repeat it...

As it stands, there's trouble coordinating all the acts with the stages available, so the kids/family tent wouldn't be eliminated at all, but most likely converted into a 'Workshop Stage II' or something, so they'd still be spending money for the tent & equipment, so no savings there.

Next, as for the kids not adding more $ to the Festival's bottom-line, you seem to overlook the fact that a) kids get hungry and thirsty and b) want to have everything in sight. That means kids-size T-shirts from the Merch tent, and more food tickets bought for them to use, all of which generate $ for the festival, and more family-oriented CDs for them to purchase from kids/family-oriented performers selling their wares, of which the Festival gets a cut, so no loss of revenue to the Festival there.

Lastly, as for paying a 'premium,' if parents had to do that, then there'd not only be *fewer* kids, but fewer items purchased at the Festival, and THEN you'd have the drain on the Festival that you're complaining about - in other words, it ain't broke, so don't try to fix it as you'd only turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, and kids who go to the Festival tend to turn into full-price-paying-adults who go to the Festival later, and ultimately bring their kids with them, thus creating subsequent generations of Festival-goers and merchandise-buyers, so try and get your logic straight before going off on kids/family entertainment - tends to make you come across as anti-kids. [/quote]

You have mo marketing research to document that childhood attendees necessarily become paying adults in the future.

Most of those extra bidness workshops are really quite bogus, and needn't have an expensive venue.....hell, some of them could take place in the food tent at a single table.

It's really Anne and Bub's 'call'.....do they wanna keep pissing away precious resources.

Remember folks, this festival is in danger of fading into oblivion.

[Fantine729]

I would have absolutely no problem paying admission for my 15-month-olds (26-month-olds next year), but I have to take exception about the "relative few" occupying the children's tent. It seemed like we could never get a seat under the tent and it wasn't flocks of children that were hindering us (and yes, I understand that, relative to the festival as a whole or relative to the main stage or even relative to the workshop stage, it is indeed a "few" under the family stage tent; I have a complete understanding of the meanings of "relative" and "few").

If we paid for our children, I'd want to make sure that said children could enjoy the acts under that tent, including having sight lines. At least the immediate section in front of the stage could be limited to the under-12s or something (maybe under-3's with parents). Not that I'm suggesting someone carding everyone at the tent flap, which would be ludicrous, but there were often rows of adults with no children in tow right in front of the stage. I realize that they paid their full way and, as such, I can agree with the argument that they should have prime seating. It's just difficult, when you're 2-1/2 feet tall, to even see above someone's seated back. And at least for our girls, if they can't see the musicians, it just doesn't do it for them, at least for right now; as they get older, it will be less important.

And as for not contributing enough in merchandise/food sales, our girls needed to eat every 2 or 3 hours. In years past, my husband and I could go just fine with a couple of meals a day. I believe we close to doubled the amount we spent on food and beverages on the midway this year, even with feeding the girls breakfast up at the tent (not buying it there). And while we almost never purchase any of the wares on the midway, we made a few baby-related purchases (purchases we would not have even considered without the children) and would have made more had the storm not broken out.

But, again, I would absolutely be willing to buy tickets for the children. We buy them airline seats when we fly -- at full adult prices -- why not festival tickets?

[Rakenjake]

TRUST ME.....children are NOT generating ANY revenue aT FRFF. I do believe, as stated previously, their parents should PAY THE FREIGHT.


You have the research to back that up?

[PaulC]

TRUST ME.....children are NOT generating ANY revenue aT FRFF. I do believe, as stated previously, their parents should PAY THE FREIGHT.


You have the research to back that up?

[horvendile]

I have no kids but often find myself at the Children's Stage. This year I watched The Snacks and Red Molly. Children's shows are often as much fun for the adults.

I also just having the kids and people with families around. It is a big part of the folk festival spirit; they are family friendly in a way that isn't just a code for the religious right's values.

[betsys]

Are there seriously more than one or two cranks who think that eliminating children from a folk festival is going to help the bottom line? I'd vote for making the children's tent BIGGER and adding more help so that younger kids can be left alone, and you'd attract even *move* families. I don't think there's any counter argument that reducing kid's activities will *increase* revenue.

Now if you want to charge for kids, that's a reasonable possibility. Since 8-and-ups can be left alone at the kid's tent, charging something for 8-and-ups has a certain logic to it. It's hard to charge for littler ones unless there's some corresponding services. But little ones do EAT! and wear T-shirts! And parents buy them things! I think many of the *vendors* figured this out as a great many had tables of inexpensive items set at kid-height at the front of their booths...