Content uploaded by Chris Anderton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chris Anderton on Jul 16, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Branding, Sponsorship, and the Music Festival
Chris Anderton
Pre-publication draft
Final chapter appeared as: Anderton, Chris (2015) ‘Branding, sponsorship and the music festival.’ In
George McKay (ed.), The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture, pp. 199-212. New York and
London: Bloomsbury.
This chapter draws on a wide range of academic perspectives and sources to examine the
relationship between music festivals and sponsorship/branding. This is an important area to examine
because the remarkable growth of the music festival sector over the past twenty years has been
paralleled, and partially driven, by an expansion in commercial sponsorship initiatives. This includes
enhanced media coverage on radio, television, and the internet, and the emergence of specially-
created on-site brand activities and brand-centric events. This chapter will define festival-related
sponsorships, examine how sponsors and brands work with festivals, and then conclude by
questioning how broad changes in society may have supported a shift in perceptions and attitudes
towards commercial sponsorship.
A report prepared by the copyright collection agency PRSforMusic in conjunction with the brand
agency Frukt found that music-related sponsorship activities were worth a total of £104.8 million in
the UK in 2012. Of this, live music sponsorship was worth just over £33 million, which was split
between festivals, tours, and venue naming (PRSforMusic/Frukt 2013). However, this latter figure
excluded brand spending on associated advertising, digital campaigns, and TV support, as well as the
costs associated with custom-built brand-centric events such as the iTunes Festival. The importance
of this sponsorship support was underlined in 2013 by James Drury (General Manager of UK Festival
Awards Ltd) who stated that “For many festivals, sponsorship of some shape or form is a vital
income stream” (Drury 2013, 25). Amongst other things (discussed further below), sponsorship can
provide financial security in a risky and volatile market and enable promoters to secure the headline
acts needed to help sell tickets to their events. Indeed, the loss of sponsorship support is one of
several reasons why festivals may fail to succeed (Getz 2002).
The expansion of commercial companies into the promotion, branding, and sponsorship of music
festivals has not been welcomed by all festivalgoers and commentators. For instance, when Mean
Fiddler (now Festival Republic) took a stake in the Glastonbury Festival in 2002, the relationship was
criticised by, amongst others, the anti-corporate activist organisation Corporate Watch, which
claimed that Mean Fiddler was taking a share of the net profits, and that radical groups previously
welcomed at the festival had seen their ticket allocations cut or withdrawn (Michaels 2002; see also
Osler 2005). More recently, Lena Corner’s article for the Independent (UK) newspaper provided a
useful summary of the position held by those who fear the influence of commercial sponsorships
and branding upon music festivals:
“For a while, there has been an increasing feeling that festivals have shifted too far from
their original hippie-spirited ethos. The point was to offer an alternative reality. Now, it’s a
slick industry. The television rights have been sold, and with that have come price rises, mass
audiences and corporate domination – the antithesis of everything they stood for” (Corner
2012)
This quote (and the article as a whole) is suffused with what has been referred to as an ideology of
the ‘countercultural carnivalesque’ (Anderton 2009, 2011, forthcoming) through which outdoor
music festivals have come to represent much more than cyclically-held events with (or without)
camping. Instead, they have become central to an alternative or imaginative history of Britain that
traces countercultural and youth culture ideals from the modern jazz fans of Beaulieu Jazz Festival
through to the peace and love politics of the hippies and the ‘Woodstock Nation’ (see Bennett 2004
for a number of articles on this topic), and onwards to the post-hippie neo-tribes of the New Age
Travellers and the later ‘Free Party’ ravers (see Sandford and Reid 1974; Clarke 1982; Collin and
Godfrey 1997; McKay 2000, 2004; Worthington 2004; St John 2009). In the process, outdoor rock
and pop music festivals in particular have been theorised as contemporary flowerings of what the
literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin termed the ‘carnivalesque’: a temporary period of ‘letting loose’ in
which societal norms are inverted, removed or mocked, authority critiqued, and consumptive or
transgressive behaviours taken to extremes (Bakhtin 1984; Stallybrass and White 1986). A range of
countercultural interests has been added to this, such as pro-environmentalism, anti-materialism,
anti-corporatism, social justice, New Age beliefs, and a nostalgic desire for a pre-Capitalist,
mythological or enchanted society (Hetherington 2001; Worthington 2004; Partridge 2006). Above
all, perhaps, is the belief that outdoor music festivals offer utopian possibilities, that they are (or
should be) times and places that provide ‘freedom from’ social norms and expectations, and
‘freedom to’ play with, transform, or create new norms (Turner 1982, 36). Hence, contemporary
trends in festivals towards commercialisation and sponsorship are negatively linked to other trends
such as the increasing regulation, standardisation and domestication that these bring (St John 2009,
9-13).
Outdoor music festivals have, as shown later, adopted a variety of strategies for dealing with
sponsorships, and while there are some promoters and festivalgoers who regard sponsorships with
suspicion, the majority of festivals make use of sponsorship opportunities in order to provide
financial support, additional attractions, and assistance in marketing, promotion, and media
coverage. Several studies (such as Havas 2012 and Drury 2013) have also shown that there is
increasing acceptance or support for live music sponsorship and branding activities at festivals,
though such studies tend to rely on audience surveys at large-scale music festivals where
sponsorship is prevalent, rather than a broader sample of all event types.
Definitions and forms of sponsorship
Two regularly quoted definitions of sponsorship in broad terms are those produced by the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and by the International Events Group (IEG):
“any commercial agreement by which a sponsor, for the mutual benefit of the sponsor and
sponsored party, contractually provides financing or other support in order to establish an
association between the sponsor's image, brands or products and a sponsorship property
[such as a festival] in return for rights to promote this association and/or for the granting of
certain agreed direct or indirect benefits” (ICC 2003, 2).
“a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property [such as a festival] in return for access to the
exploitable commercial potential associated with that property” (IEG 2000, 1).
In each case the sponsor enters into a commercial transaction whereby it provides money or
services in return for the direct or indirect benefits of exploiting (also known as ‘leveraging’ or
‘activating’) the association between the festival and the sponsor (discussed further below). This
separates sponsorship from philanthropy, which may be defined as the donation of funds or services
without the expectation of receiving a commercial return. However, there is a grey area between
these two positions, as many festivals operate with non-commercial sponsors, while smaller events
in particular often benefit from various kinds of informal arrangement. Furthermore, the ICC
definition suggests that sponsors are seeking to benefit from the semiotic associations of their
involvement with music festivals (whether festivals in general or the image of specific events). In
effect they are aiming for alignment between their own brands and the brand of the sponsored
event. This is as true of non-commercial sponsors and corporate philanthropy as it is of the kinds of
commercial sponsorship agreements that will be focused on in this chapter. For instance, non-
commercial sponsors have imperatives to satisfy regarding the continuance of their own income
streams; hence their festival sponsorship decisions may have important implications for their own
future funding. As the above definitions refer to events in general, the following typology is
suggested with regard to music festivals.
Firstly, there are ‘non-commercial’ sponsorships in the form of grants or donations provided by
regional and local governments, private organisations, or individuals and, in the UK, the Arts Councils
and the National Lottery. For instance, the Green Man Festival in Wales receives support from the
Welsh Assembly, the National Lottery, and the Bevan Foundation, in addition to both the Arts
Council of Wales and the Arts Council of England. Here the ‘return on investment’ for the sponsor
may relate to a set of cultural, social, economic, or touristic goals that the festival organiser must
address in return for their support. There is a politics of such sponsorships which is beyond the
terms of this present chapter, yet in need of further research. For instance, how and why are
decisions made regarding which music festivals to support, and by implication which organisations,
locations, social groups, and genres of music will or will not benefit from that support?
Secondly, there are informal arrangements of reciprocity which have similar effects to formal
sponsorships in terms of in-kind benefits received by festival organisers, but which are not fully
philanthropic in nature. For instance, many small festivals rely on favours from companies and
individuals who provide services or equipment for free or at a discount. This support helps to build
goodwill within the local music community, and this in turn may translate into future business
opportunities, or the return of in-kind favours to the sponsor by those involved in the festival
organisation. Unlike formal commercial sponsorships, these arrangements are typically organised
without a written contract and while such supporters are sometimes acknowledged on event
posters or literature, there may be no clear indication of the existence of the relationship to
festivalgoers. The benefits to the sponsor instead lie in forging or bolstering business-to-business
relationships.
Finally, there are formally contracted commercial sponsorships with local, national and international
businesses where the aim is to achieve a commercial return of some form on the investment made.
Various motivations can be proposed: to build brand awareness and visibility, to increase sales
and/or market share, to introduce new products or services, and to either differentiate the brand
from its competitors or to reposition it within the marketplace. Central to all of these aims is the
assumption that by aligning a brand with a festival, the sponsor will gain access to a specific target
market (or aspirational market) that is receptive to sponsor messages because they are experiencing
the ‘good times’ that festivals offer, and so will come to associate those good times with the
sponsor. This is, effectively, a form of corporate image management aimed at forging a credible link
between a specific brand and a particular event, audience, lifestyle, genre, and/or activity.
Additional motivations include internal communications and business-to-business relationships,
especially through the use of VIP ticket allocations for selected suppliers, clients, and staff.
Typical business sectors at the national and international level include telecommunications, financial
services, alcoholic beverages and soft drinks, clothing and footwear, and various forms of media.
Since the turn of the millennium, the range of sponsorship deals has increased, particularly towards
lifestyle-related products and services such as car manufacturers, restaurants, supermarkets,
confectionery, fragrances, hair and make-up products, and so on. However, two particularly
important sub-categories deserve further discussion: ‘pouring rights’ and ‘media rights’.
Pouring rights give a specific company control of a festival’s bars and the choice of drinks on offer
(though this may be split between alcoholic and soft drinks). A major example is Carlsberg UK, which
signed a deal with Live Nation in 2008 (renewed for a further five years in 2013) that gives the
company pouring rights at all the main festivals related to Live Nation. This includes Download,
Wireless, and Creamfields, as well as the Reading and Leeds Festivals (since Live Nation is the
majority shareholder of the holding company which owns Festival Republic). As a result, all of these
festivals offer Tuborg lager and Somersby cider (both brands of Carlsberg) for sale in the arena bars,
to the exclusion of other brands: an effective on-site monopoly that is supported by the interdiction
against festivalgoers bringing their own alcohol into the performance arena (though they can take
their own alcohol into the campsites). One effect of such deals and arrangements is that it reinforces
the perception that major festivals are becoming too ‘alike’, too ‘corporate’, or only interested in
making profits from the captive festival audience within the arena.
Media rights are agreements made with radio stations, television channels, magazines (both online
and print), and various providers of online media services. The companies involved may provide cash
sums to the festival, but are more likely to provide benefits in kind in the form of free advertising in
return for access to exclusive content from the festival, such as previews, photography, exclusive
artist interviews, film clips, VIP access, or permission to produce on-site news sheets or festival-
specific Apps for smartphones. Mainstream media coverage of outdoor music festivals has grown
considerably since the early 1990s, with the now-defunct Melody Maker producing its first pull-out
festival guide in 1993, and Glastonbury Festival gaining televised coverage for the first time in 1994.
The increased visibility and championing of festivals in the traditional media, together with a
broadening of interest online and in fashion, lifestyle, and celebrity gossip titles, has helped to drive
changes in public perceptions of the sector, making festivals more accessible and desirable for a
wider part of the population, and contributing both to the sector’s growth and to the broadening of
corporate sponsorship interest (see also Anderton forthcoming).
Leveraging and activation
Leveraging (or badging) is a relatively passive form of sponsorship in which the sponsor’s logo is
placed on festival posters, tickets, and wristbands, and on the official website and souvenir
programme. The most visible examples are ‘title’ or ‘presenting’ sponsorships, where the brand
name is incorporated into the name of the festival, and naming rights for individual stages, tents, or
areas within the festival arena. The festival’s logo is often used on the sponsor’s products or
promotions (such as in-store displays and on-product competitions), while online leveraging is
conducted through the brand’s own website and social media channels. The aim of the latter is to
forge ongoing relationships with festivalgoers by encouraging Facebook ‘likes’, Twitter ‘followers’,
and the collection of personal data useful for marketing initiatives. Leveraging also refers to onsite
advertising and free product sampling, as well as backstage hospitality and product-gifting provided
to journalists and selected suppliers and staff of the sponsor. Press and social media are particularly
important to both sponsors and festival organisers as they provide promotion/awareness for the
event and sponsors, and because the impact of sponsorship is often measured as column inches in
magazines (traditional) or social media hits (known as ‘impressions’ – including website visits,
Twitter ‘followers’, and Facebook ‘likes’). If these figures are good, sponsors will believe that they
have achieved a return on their investment and so be attracted to renew their support. Moreover,
positive social media impressions can potentially attract both new sponsors and new attendees.
Leveraging has been seen in music festivals for many years, with alcohol sponsorships particularly
prevalent. For instance, in 1986 the Guinness Brewery launched the Harp Beat campaign to promote
its Harp Lager brand. It sponsored over a hundred live concerts in that year, including an event at the
Milton Keynes Bowl. In 1987 the annual Monsters of Rock festival at Donington Park added ‘Harp
Beat 87 presents’ to its posters and advertisements. However, there was no on-stage branding at the
festival, and sponsorship of rock music in the UK was still in its infancy during the 1980s. This began
to change when the Mean Fiddler organisation became involved with the long-running Reading
Festival. The 1989 event was ‘supported by Melody Maker’ (which became a stage sponsor in 1991),
and during the 1990s the event gained additional sponsorships from the likes of Doc Martens,
Carlsberg, Virgin Megastores, MTV, Red Bull, Converse, and Loaded. A title sponsorship was then
negotiated with Carling lager, which saw the festival renamed The Carling Weekend from 1998 to
2007, and the introduction of a sister event of the same name in Leeds from 1999.
The term ‘sponsor activation’ appears in the early- to mid-2000s (Wakefield 2012, 146) and marks a
shift towards experiential marketing. The leveraging or ‘badging’ of events with a logo was seen as
an ineffective way to engage consumers; instead, sponsors focus on delivering ‘added value’
activities, services, and settings relevant to a festival context in order to foster active and interactive
engagements with their brands. The aim is to create playful, imaginative, and memorable multi-
sensory experiences that not only become associated with the sponsor but are regarded as
enhancing the festival experience as a whole (Pine and Gilmore 1998; Carù and Cova 2007a).
Drengner et al. (2008, 138-9) refer to such activations as ‘event marketing’: the creation of an
event/activity which propagates marketing messages. At larger events, there may be many such
activities within the boundaries of the festival arena, situated within both the public and the
backstage VIP areas depending on the particular aims of the sponsor involved.
Backstage activations target key opinion formers and media who will hopefully disseminate stories
about those activations, and so publicise the sponsor relationship. In contrast, arena activations are
aimed at festivalgoers in general and are intended not only to ‘add value’ to their experience, but to
stimulate positive word-of-mouth coverage across social media platforms. Carù and Cova (2007a,
41) note that sponsor activations are experiential spaces which need to be ‘enclavized’ (separated
off), ‘secured’ (under the control of the brand) and ‘thematized’ (through the use of relevant designs
and narratives). The first two elements are important because the festival setting as a whole is one
in which there is a high degree of distraction from other people, brands, and entertainments, while
the final element is crucial for the brand to construct a compelling, distinctive, and memorable
setting and experience (Pine and Gilmore 1998).
A good example of sponsor activation is the Southern Comfort Juke Joint, which won the 2012 Best
Brand Activation Award at the UK Festival Awards. It was a specially-created venue (enclavized and
secured), designed (thematized) to look like an authentic run-down New Orleans ‘juke joint’ (a semi-
legal drinking den of the past), with neon signs and a rough-looking corrugated iron and wood
façade. Inside this hyperreal exterior there was a house-party atmosphere generated by DJs, a New
Orleans-style jazz band, and a number of people employed to create characters such as ‘Reggie Two-
Step’, who would engage directly with the public. The bar served a variety of cocktails based on
Southern Comfort, and the overall aim was to help position the alcohol brand as a fun, creative, and
youthful drink that could be enjoyed in clubs throughout the year, while generating positive press
and social media awareness.
Strategies for engaging (or not) with sponsors
For the purposes of this chapter, three key sponsorship engagement strategies are identified and
discussed for festival organisers: affirmation, acceptance, and avoidance.
Affirmation refers to festival promoters who actively embrace sponsorship propositions or work with
brands to create ‘sponsor-owned’ events: ones which are created specifically for a brand. The larger
commercial events managed by national and international concert promoters are perhaps the most
obvious example of the affirmation strategy, as they accept numerous sponsorships and can
negotiate with those sponsors across more than one event. It is interesting to note that Live Nation
now refers to its festival sponsors as ‘partners’ (as does Glastonbury Festival), thus attempting to
lessen the negative connotations that some festival attendees see in the term ‘sponsorship’.
Acceptance refers to festival promoters who want and/or need the benefits of sponsor support but
who make ideological and/or ethical decisions about which sponsors to work with. For instance, the
Sunrise Celebration website states the following:
“Our partners are carefully selected based on their values and suitability to our core aims as
a festival and nation. We believe that innovative partnerships add value to Sunrise and help
us in our quest for sustainability on all levels.”
Festivals which adopt the acceptance strategy typically seek local business sponsors, those with
similar ethical or environmental ideals, or those who promise to donate some of their income to
charitable causes. A variant of this strategy is that adopted by the Glastonbury Festival, which
accepts corporate sponsors but does not promote them on its website and marketing materials. This
‘covert’ form of sponsorship includes long-term relationships with mobile network operator EE
(formerly Orange), which provides on-site recharging facilities and free Wi-Fi, and the BBC, Guardian,
and Q, who provide key media services. Glastonbury Festival has received criticism about its
sponsorships, with some arguing that the media side of the event now predominates or
overshadows its countercultural heritage (Street 2005).
A common element to the strategies of affirmation and acceptance is the need for ‘congruence’ or
‘fit’ between the values and attributes of the sponsor, and those of the festival and its audience
(Drengner et al. 2011). A poor ‘fit’, or a poorly imagined and delivered activation, can lead to
criticisms of both the brand and the festival. One such example is the ‘Show Me Your Sloggi’s’ stage
at V Festival in 2007 and 2008 which aimed to promote a unisex range of underwear. In addition to a
stage with DJs, dancers, skateboarders, and a fashion show, free samples were thrown to the crowd
and a special photo booth was set up for festivalgoers to enter the brand’s search for ‘the world’s
most beautiful bottom’ (with a modelling contract and other prizes for the eventual winner). Several
hundred festivalgoers reportedly entered the competition in 2007, yet a reviewer at
Virtualfestivals.com described the stage as “leery, cringey and unnecessary”, while the general
opinion of the activation was that it was inappropriate for a festival context (Roberts 2009).
The final strategy is avoidance, where festival promoters choose to manage their event without
sponsorship support. A high profile example was Vince Power’s Hop Farm Festival (2008-12) which
proclaimed a ‘back to basics’ ideology and sought to survive by booking high profile artists to drive
sell-out attendances. After initial success, the difficulty of this position was finally demonstrated in
2013 when the event was cancelled due to poor pre-event sales, and Power’s company went into
administration. An alternative justification for sponsor avoidance lies in the continued influence of
the countercultural carnivalesque (Anderton 2009). Shambala Festival, for example, lists a number of
‘guiding principles’ on its website that illustrate this, including:
“Festivals should be an alternative vision of society. They should be utopias, places where
interacting with fellow humans isn’t a hassle but a pleasure.” [The festival is] “100%
independent and will always be so. This means being free of any external agendas or
demands, excessive advertising and branding and mindless consumerism.”
Nevertheless, large corporately-run events with a heavy brand presence in the form of sponsor
activations have grown in number and popularity over the past twenty years while, as noted earlier,
surveys of festivalgoers suggest that sponsorship is either accepted as a necessary part of controlling
costs and securing headliners, or as an attractive part of a festival’s entertainment offering.
Audience acceptance of sponsorship and branding
Rojek (2013, 14-16) argues that events such as music festivals respond to “the urge to go beyond
narrow, private concerns and the rigmarole of habitual, regimented existence” and that they are
capable of establishing or reinforcing both individual and group identities, especially since the media
typically portrays them as “catalysts of life-affirming exhibitionism, festivity and transcendence”
(103). He places events firmly within the “hospitality, leisure and tourism industries” (1), hence
rather than being heirs to a countercultural heritage, contemporary music festivals may be
examined as consumer commodities and spectacles much like the shopping malls, casinos and
theme parks discussed by Bryman (2004) and Ritzer (1999). These use simulated settings to create
hyperreal experiential products, where hyperreality is defined as an “inclination or willingness
among members of the culture to realize, construct, and live the simulation” (Firat and Venkatesh
1995). In this view, contemporary music festivals are simulations or pastiches, which merely play
with the imagery and ideas associated with the countercultural carnivalesque. They may not be ‘real’
but are treated as if they are, hence their experience is legitimised. For instance, the Southern
Comfort Juke Joint created an imaginary version of a New Orleans bar that never existed, while
many festivals trade upon a loose ‘Woodstock Nation’ or Glastonbury Fayre-style narrative of peace,
love, and freedom, or the perceived image of the late 1980s/early 1990s rave culture (Anderton
2009, 2011, forthcoming).
The growth of music festival sponsorship is indicative of changes in the development of the wider
consumer society. The 1990s saw the introduction of commercial satellite and cable television, the
sponsorship of individual television programmes (for instance, the soap opera Coronation Street
gained its first sponsor in 1996), and the growth of the internet with its now-almost-ubiquitous
advertising banners and links. Popular internet sites, music streaming services, email providers,
computer games, and social media channels all make considerable use of sponsorship and
advertising, and contemporary festivalgoers in the 16-24 age range in particular have grown up with
this world. Furthermore, Miles argues that consumerism has “become part and parcel of the very
fabric of everyday life” (1998, 1), such that people work with commodities to help frame their sense
of self, and to communicate to others through the consumption choices they make: that music
festivals should be used to further this work, or that contemporary consumers should be willing to
accept sponsorship and branding at outdoor events, should come as no surprise.
Nevertheless, Carù and Cova (2007b) warn that festival-based sponsor activations offer shallow and
manipulative forms of experience that leave little room for truly participatory activity. Instead,
festivalgoers are urged to take part in activities and settings that are staged for the benefit of
sponsors, and are closely controlled by them. In this sense, festivalgoers may actually be more
passive than active in such situations, while truly creative, self-directed, and participatory experience
may be restricted to the campsites where the control of sponsors and organisers is generally weaker.
To conclude, this chapter has suggested that the countercultural carnivalesque underpins objections
to the rise of sponsorship and branding at festivals, while changes in consumer society and the
commercialisation and growth of the music festival sector as a whole mean that these objections are
not shared by all. There are significant financial pressures involved in promoting festivals, hence
sponsorship of one form or another has become a useful and sometimes necessary way for festival
organisers to mitigate the risks involved. Nevertheless, the growth and diversification of the festival
sector over the past twenty years means that space exists for events to follow each of the strategies
of brand affirmation, acceptance, and avoidance identified above. In the contemporary festival
market there may well be something for everyone, though whether these events offer truly
participatory experience or hyperreal simulations remains a matter for future debate.
Bibliography
Anderton, Chris. 2009. “Commercializing the Carnivalesque: The V Festival and Image/Risk
Management.” Event Management 12(1):39-51.
Anderton, Chris. 2011. “Music Festival Sponsorship: Between Commerce and Carnival.” Arts
Marketing 1(2):145-158.
Anderton, Chris. Forthcoming. Music Festivals in the UK. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Bennett, Andy. 2004. Remembering Woodstock. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bryman, Alan. 2004. The Disneyization of Society. London: Sage.
Carù, Antonella, and Bernard Cova. 2007a. “Consumer Immersion in an Experiential Context.” In
Consuming Experience, edited by Antonella Carù and Bernard Cova, 34-47. London and New York:
Routledge.
Carù, Antonella, and Bernard Cova. 2007b. “Consuming Experiences: An Introduction.” In Consuming
Experience, edited by Antonella Carù and Bernard Cova, 3-16. London and New York: Routledge.
Clarke, Michael. 1982. The Politics of Pop Festivals. London: Junction Books.
Collin, Matthew, and John Godfrey. 1997. Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House,
2nd edition. London: Serpent’s Tail.
Corner, Lena. 2012. “Music Festivals: Are Our Field Days Over?” Independent (UK), January 25.
Accessed July 26 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/music-festivals-are-
our-field-days-over-6293950.html.
Drengner, Jan, Hansjoerg Gaus, and Steffen Jahn. 2008. “Does Flow Influence the Brand Image in
Event Marketing?” Journal of Advertising Research March 2008:138-147.
Drengner, Jan, Steffen Jahn, and Cornelia Zanger. 2011. “Measuring Event-Brand Congruence.” Event
Management 15(1):25-36.
Drury, James. 2013. The Festival Awards Market Report 2013. The UK Festival Awards/CGA Strategy.
Firat, A. Fuat, and Alladi Venkatesh. 1995 “Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of
Consumption.” The Journal of Consumer Research 22(3):239-67.
Getz, Donald. 2002. “Why Festivals Fail.” Event Management 7(4):209-219.
Havas. 2012. Digging the Dirt on European Music Festival Sponsorship. Report by Havas Sports and
Entertainment, ignition, and Cake.
Hetherington, Kevin. 2001. New Age Travellers: Vanloads of Uproarious Humanity. London: Cassell.
ICC. 2003. ICC International Code on Sponsorship. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.sponsorship.org/freePapers/fp01.pdf.
IEG. 2000. “Year One of IRL Title Builds Traffic, Awareness for Northern Light.” IEG Sponsorship
Report 19(23):1,3.
McKay, George. 2000. Glastonbury: A Very English Fair. London: Victor Gollancz.
McKay, George. 2004. “‘Unsafe Things Like Youth and Jazz’: Beaulieu Jazz Festivals (1956-61), and
the Origins of Pop Festival Culture in Britain.” In Remembering Woodstock, edited by Andy Bennett,
90-110. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Michaels, Lucy. 2002. “Has Glastonbury Sold Out?” Corporate Watch, June 5. Accessed July 28 2014.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070805222543/http://archive.corporatewatch.org/news/glastonbur
y.htm.
Miles, Steven. 1998. Consumerism – as a Way of Life. London: Sage.
Osler, Fiona. 2005. “Know Your Enemy: The End of Glastonbury?” Red Pepper, July. Accessed August
8 2014. http://web.archive.org/web/20051024234526/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/KYE/x-kye-
July2005.htm.
Partridge, Christopher. 2006. “The Spiritual and the Revolutionary: Alternative Spirituality, British
Free Festivals, and the Emergence of Rave Culture.” Culture and Religion 7(1):41-60.
Pine, B. Joseph II, and James H. Gilmore. 1998. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every
Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
PRSforMusic/Frukt. 2013. UK Brand Spend in Music. Report by PRSforMusic/Frukt.
Ritzer, George. 1999. Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Roberts, Jo. 2009. “Music Festival Sponsorship.” Marketing Week, Jul 9. Accessed July 31 2014.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/music-festival-sponsorship/3002146.article
Rojek, Chris. 2013. Event Power. How Global Events Manage and Manipulate. London: Sage.
Sandford, Jeremy, and Ron Reid. 1974. Tomorrow’s People. London: Jerome Publishing Company.
Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. 1986. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
St. John, Graham. 2009. Technomad. Global Raving Countercultures. London: Equinox.
Street, John. 2005. “Wellies, Check. Bolly, Check.” Times Higher Education Supplement, July 8.
Turner, Victor. 1982. From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ
Publications.
Wakefield, Kirk L. 2012. “How Sponsorships Work: The Sponsorship Engagement Model.” Event
Management 16(2):143-155.
Worthington, Andy. 2004. Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion. Loughborough: Alternative
Albion.
