Delux weekend pass question

[Donkey]

Personally I've seen the prices charged in the US, and that's without the extravagant overseas flights etc, so taking everything into consideration I think prices across the board here are pretty fair.

 

On this point I don't think you're being honest David.

 

I will try to be as vague as I can be, so not to cross any rules.

 

But given the size of the difference (almost 50%). One could assume that within only few hours of trade, they could easily expect to recoup the airfare difference (the other show still has some travel costs). Remember the other price already also includes a profit margin for the other show.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Donkey

[DavidB]

Oh I'm being honest. A lot of the comparisons I've seen have made things here seem very reasonable, but obviously difficult to go into.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have no doubt SOME things can be cheaper over there, but I'm often shocked at how much some photos/autos can cost in the US.

[TommyT]

it wouldnt, had we not bought the exact same ticket last year where it was a MINIMUM of 10.

...

also how can you say assume last year it was a typo? see my link which quite clearly says all photoshoots with all doing a shoot, from dave, I have a similar email, I know, as I asked alot lol, to make sure I knew what I was buying, it was my first autographica.

By the time you got your reply they had already advertised and sold it as covering all photoshoots - they couldn't go back on it then. My point remains

* what was the point in saying it was a ten photoshoot minimum?

* how was a minimum ever possibly relevant or enforceable or even meaningful?

If you can explain to me how having a MINIMUM number of photoshoots was ever relevant, meaningful or enforceable to a ticket, then I'll concede that it was meant to say "minimum". Until then, I have to assume it was a typo. Does your local chinese all-you-can-eat buffet insist that you have to eat at least 3 plates full? Does Pizza Hut's free salad offer only apply if you eat at least a kilo of lettuce and seven tomatoes? It's nonsensical to put a minimum figure on these things, which can only mean it didn't mean "minimum".

sorry for shouting, its just I was upset about a sly change to a ticket which was a great ticket, and now you are trying to make out like Im a greedy, cheap ungreatful punter making a fuss over nothing.

No, if I thought you were being a "greedy, cheap ungreatful(sic) punter", I would have flat-out called you one. I actually said it "looked like" you were complaining about not getting a bigger bargain this year, whereas in fact I believe you were intending to complain about poor communication. I know you're a decent bloke who appreciates the value of stuff and also appreciates what SM serve up, and you're not a chiselling skinflint looking for loopholes and soft rides. (Actually I don't actually know that, but that's very definitely my impression of you, and until I gain an impression otherwise, I would assume you to be an upright and honest punter, and I apologise if you thought I was suggesting otherwise.)

As I suggested, it's as much a communication issue for SM; to mangle an old aphorism, an ounce of pre-emptive explanation is worth a pound of reactive clarification.

[TommyT]

I assume that you are familiar with the concept of inflation. This means that prices have a tendency to rise. We're currently having the highest inflation we've seen for around two decades. The retail price index has gone up about 5% over the last year, around 10% over the last two, and about 20% over the past five and a quarter years. That's an upward pressure on prices which has been building for some years. At the same time, the pound@dollar exchange rate has moved adversely - it's about 15% lower than it was three years ago, and about 20% lower than what it was three and ahalf and four years ago. That means that if Mr Astronaut wants paying X doillars for his weekend here (and he will want paying in dollars, it's the money that he spends at home), then it takes more pounds than it used to a few years back to make that dollar amount. That's another significant upward pressure on prices in the long-term. Airfares are all effectively priced in dollars, so the coasts of bringing American guests have gone up with the currency shift. Also oil prices, which govern avaition fuel prices, a major component of airfare costs have gone up, and whilst airlines can usually "hedge against" such rises by advance purchasing, pretty much all those deals have run out and the full effects of aviation fuel increases are now being felt.

All this means that there have bbeen several factors pushing the orgainsiers costs up over the past few years. In somewhere like a supermarket, these things are filtered in as they happen - things go up a few pence here and there, weekly or monthly as necessary. However, at these events, there isn't quite the scope for that, due to the desire to hold price points at figures ending in a 5 or a 0. This means that somethiung which has been sold at £10 for a number of years has proibably been gettuing less and less profitable, and since they can't or won't (and I understand why - the need to provide thosuands of pounds of pound copins as float for change for a start) increase prices by a pound here or there, then you get the situatioon where sooner or later a guest will go from £10 to £15. Yes, it's a big change, but it's probably a reflection that thaey've been a bit of a bargain for the last few years.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, and achknowledge that these presures do exist.

 

But what I do question is the size of the increases.

 

50% on 'normal guests',

by 50% I assume that you primarily mean £10 to £15? That's the whole pricepoint ending in 0 or 5 thing. Plus for US guests, 20% inflation plus a 15% currency slide equals a 38% cost hike. 20% inflation plus a 20% currency slide means 44% cost hike. Add in the greater increase in airfares, and you're probably not far off 50%. Sure, it might have gone up 50% since the last show, but if that guest (or one of their ilk) was £10 four years ago, then the increase to £15 now is entirely reflective of the general increase in costs over those four years. In a world where their prices were more immediately reflective of costs, they would have been creeping up from £10 four years ago in bits and pieces to £15 now, not in one fell swoop. In effect, they've been underpriced for the last few years. Might I suggest the "glass half full" view that such guests have in fact been a bit cheaper than they should have been for the last few years?

and in some cases I believe 50% higher US to UK space prices.

Internal flights in the US are relatively cheap, and for all I know guests will be happy to fly standard class for a couple of hours, or even be driven (using nice cheap American petrol) for a few hours within the US. (Even business class on US internal flights is relatively cheap)Flying transatlantic is a different ball of chalk; it's quite a haul, and I have no doubt many guests insist on something more than standard cattle class. If you want to fly somebody first class return from LA to London, you're talking in excess of thirteen thousand pounds. Even Club/Business comes in at the thick end of eight grand. That's a heck of an expense that US signings won't have. Even if you sell 400 autographs/photoshoots, that's £20 an auto/photo just to pay for a club flight and over £30 per auto/photo just to pay for a first class flight. Those figures go up to about £32 and £53 if you "only" sell 250 autos/photos. And obviously that cost will be increased if they bring anybody with them. That's a huge cost, and American shows will only have a fraction of that to bear.

[Donkey]

50% on 'normal guests',by 50% I assume that you primarily mean £10 to £15? That's the whole pricepoint ending in 0 or 5 thing. Plus for US guests, 20% inflation plus a 15% currency slide equals a 38% cost hike. 20% inflation plus a 20% currency slide means 44% cost hike. Add in the greater increase in airfares, and you're probably not far off 50%. Sure, it might have gone up 50% since the last show, but if that guest (or one of their ilk) was £10 four years ago, then the increase to £15 now is entirely reflective of the general increase in costs over those four years. In a world where their prices were more immediately reflective of costs, they would have been creeping up from £10 four years ago in bits and pieces to £15 now, not in one fell swoop. In effect, they've been underpriced for the last few years. Might I suggest the "glass half full" view that such guests have in fact been a bit cheaper than they should have been for the last few years?

and in some cases I believe 50% higher US to UK space prices.

Internal flights in the US are relatively cheap, and for all I know guests will be happy to fly standard class for a couple of hours, or even be driven (using nice cheap American petrol) for a few hours within the US. (Even business class on US internal flights is relatively cheap)Flying transatlantic is a different ball of chalk; it's quite a haul, and I have no doubt many guests insist on something more than standard cattle class. If you want to fly somebody first class return from LA to London, you're talking in excess of thirteen thousand pounds. Even Club/Business comes in at the thick end of eight grand. That's a heck of an expense that US signings won't have. Even if you sell 400 autographs/photoshoots, that's £20 an auto/photo just to pay for a club flight and over £30 per auto/photo just to pay for a first class flight. Those figures go up to about £32 and £53 if you "only" sell 250 autos/photos. And obviously that cost will be increased if they bring anybody with them. That's a huge cost, and American shows will only have a fraction of that to bear.

 

Whilst I do generally enjoy your posts, I think this one is in fear of misleading in order to get to an answer.

 

I believe these increases you speak of are spread over a period of time longer than which the quoted figures relate to. So if we were to use this data, the numbers would still be incorrect, because the prices in this period have increased further still.

 

Again if you travel with a airline other than BA then the price is also significantly reduced.

 

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an increase. But just not this high, maybe as you say, the answer is simply to start having prices ending with something other than an '0' or '5'.

 

This doesn't really still explain the price rises for English based guests either.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Donkey

[timelord81r]

I have seen many a buffet state all you can eat with a minimum of 5 items to choose from daily, I Have never seen all you can eat buffet with (you can choose a maximum of 5 items from the avaliable)

 

I know what Has happened, or shall I say I assume happened.

 

it seemed to me the ticket said minimum before because autographica are not renouned for 50+ photo shoots, the minimum was there to try and prove/make the ticket worth it, it would be a crap ticket if there were only 3 photo shoots occuring over a weekend, hence minimim of 10. and it was deff minimum as I have emails and a SM thread confirming this ;-) it wasnt my imagination or a typo, lol

 

now this event has what 20 odd now making it even more of a bargain to us and less financially to SM so was changed, I assume on the sly as I put it as not many ppl have been buying these tickets so they thought it would go unoticed or wouldnt matter. as yes its still a good deal.

 

but Im pretty sure when tickets went on sale for this one, it still said minimum, I cant prove this though, now if Id bought a ticket then and later its changed to maximum, then what lol

Edited September 4, 2011 by timelord81r

[adriangill]

I know what Has happened, or shall I say I assume happened.

 

it seemed to me the ticket said minimum before because autographica are not renouned for 50+ photo shoots, the minimum was there to try and prove/make the ticket worth it, it would be a crap ticket if there were only 3 photo shoots occuring over a weekend, hence minimim of 10. and it was deff minimum as I have emails and a SM thread confirming this ;-) it wasnt my imagination or a typo, lol

The thread that you linked to from the previous event does not confirm that it said minimum. There is no mention of minimum, or maximum, either in the website quote provided by Too Tall or indeed any part of the thread. If anything your subsequent reply in that thread seems to imply that you are querying the inclusion of the word 'all'.

 

I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and I would be very surprised if the word minimum was ever there. At the point the tickets are made available for sale there is no way that SM could guarantee that a minimum of 10 guests would be available and willing to do photo shoots. Even if they had 10 already signed up, some could cancel. So to state it would leave them open to all sorts of potential problems. I tend to discount the possiblity of it being a typo because normally that happens when they keys are close to each other. That is not the case in this instance, the letetrs required to makes such an error, 'i' and 'n', are on the opposite side of the keyboard from 'a' and 'x'.

 

 

but Im pretty sure when tickets went on sale for this one, it still said minimum, I cant prove this though, now if Id bought a ticket then and later its changed to maximum, then what lol

Again I don't think it said minimum. It is possible that it didn't say anything, and maximum has been added. Personally I doubt it though for the very reason that you have stated - making a change after people have purchased a ticket.

 

I genuinely think that your memory is playing tricks on you in this case with regards to the inclusion of the word 'minimum'.

[timelord81r]

dudes, Im not making it up, last year it deffinitly, no shadow of a doubt said minimum of 10, I know I bought one! and I used it for all the shoots save 1 or 2 which amounted to over 10!

I wish one of those other few guys who got one also were on here to back me up.

 

also from my link Im specifically refering to this in regard to what the ticket gets you photo ops wise

 

 

me

 

"Hi

 

I was thinking of getting this pass for my first autographica, just want to make sure before I purchase, this ticket gets me a photoshoot with every guest who is doing a photo shoot right? regardless of how many there are or who they are?

 

thanks

 

Rob"

 

dave

 

"Hi There

Yes that is correct.

One for each guest.

Dave Phillips"

 

 

regard this years show, yes I might be mistaken if it still said minimum, but we will never know.

 

 

 

 

 

lol and after all that I actually said

 

"thanks guys, just wanted to make sure it wasnt a typo :-)"

 

 

boom, put that in your pipe and smoke it ;-)

Edited September 4, 2011 by timelord81r

[adriangill]

dudes, Im not making it up, last year it deffinitly, no shadow of a doubt said minimum of 10, I know I bought one! and I used it for all the shoots save 1 or 2 which amounted to over 10!

I wish one of those other few guys who got one also were on here to back me up.

 

also from my link Im specifically refering to this in regard to what the ticket gets you photo ops wise

 

 

me

 

"Hi

 

I was thinking of getting this pass for my first autographica, just want to make sure before I purchase, this ticket gets me a photoshoot with every guest who is doing a photo shoot right? regardless of how many there are or who they are?

 

thanks

 

Rob"

 

dave

 

"Hi There

Yes that is correct.

One for each guest.

Dave Phillips"

 

 

regard this years show, yes I might be mistaken if it still said minimum, but we will never know.

 

 

 

 

 

lol and after all that I actually said

 

"thanks guys, just wanted to make sure it wasnt a typo :-)"

 

 

boom, put that in your pipe and smoke it ;-)

Again, what you are quoting to prove your point does not mention 'minimum'. I am baffled as to why you keep referring to it

[timelord81r]

but it does clearly state all photo shoots included, no maximum! so this whole minimum didnt happen, was always maximum or minimum was a typo is bull, regardless, the ticket last year had it all included, and this year has restrictions on amounts, this was done by putting maximum in the small print on the site without the normal SM announcement of ticket changes. and I mentioned last year it said minimum, which it did, my proof is what the ticket got you granted. but still proves maximum has been added.

 

1of2, i mentioned proof by emnails and links, I should of been more clear of my point of the tice=cket rather than specifically the word minimum, but the outcome is the same, no limits!

Edited September 4, 2011 by timelord81r

[adriangill]

You are quite correct in that last year it was for all guests, whereas this year is for a maximum of 10 guests.

 

However, you appear to be convinced that your link proves that it said minumum, when that is clearly not the case.

 

There is a difference between your proof stating 'all' (which it does), and you thinking it stated 'minimum' (which it does not - you have chosen to interpret that as being what it implies).

 

That aside - have you booked you seat in the photo shoot area yet?

[timelord81r]

ok this isnt proof that would stand up in a court lol, well I dont know, but take a gander

 

post from another source

 

 

 

DELUX WEEKEND PASS:

 

Entry to the show from 9.15am on Saturday & 10.15am entry Sunday. This includes Photo Shoots with all the guests doing Photo Shoots. Minimum of 10 guests! £125

 

 

I can now rest easy, see, I wasnt making it up lol, it did even say minimum!

 

 

Edit: Sorry, I have removed the link/post that you found. The forum that is located on also discusses non SM events.

Edited September 4, 2011 by timelord81r

[MinkyKnights]

I was hoping that Archive.org might have a copy of the original page but, alas, it doesn't have anything from 2010. What Timelord81r has discovered appears to be a cut and paste from the Autographica site in June 2010. And 'minimum' is there.

 

Its meaning in this context seems pretty clear: if you bought the ticket you'd be guaranteed a minimum of 10 shoots - ie, the least number of shoots happening would be 10, so you could gauge the ticket's value based on that - not that you'd invalidate it if you chose to have fewer.

 

 

Edit: Sorry, I have removed the link/post that you found. The forum that is located on also discusses non SM events.

Edited September 4, 2011 by 1of2

[adriangill]

I can now rest easy, see, I wasnt making it up lol, it did even say minimum!

Thank you, that is proof I can accept. Based on that you are correct and it did say minimum

 

I was hoping that Archive.org might have a copy of the original page but, alas, it doesn't have anything from 2010.

I checked that website earlier as well and was frustrated/amused to discover that 2010 is missing

[timelord81r]

any official word on this? please?

[showmasters]

any official word on this? please?

 

There was different ticket structure in 2010, which based on what did and didn't work at the show, we have changed for this year. It is hardly news as these changes were made months ago.

 

They were done in conjunction with the postponement of the April show and before any tickets were sold so nobody would be at a disadvantage.

 

As for this being done in a "sly way" - tickets and what restrictions and privileges that go with them are on the part of the website marked "TICKETS" because we all like an easy life

 

Trust that clarifies

 

Thanks

 

Paul

Autographica

[timelord81r]

im sure ive seen posts on this forum before saying see the forum first for changes, updates and announcements ;-)

 

taken the shine of an amazing ticket, still value for some autographicas of course but shame.

 

 

so how will it work paul? just 10 marks on the back to signify you have had 10 shoots? I trust its still down to us which 10? for example buzz isnt exempt from this ticket right? just want to be clear before I purchase.

[TommyT]

I trust its still down to us which 10?

See post #2 in this thread.

[timelord81r]

I trust its still down to us which 10?

See post #2 in this thread.

 

I'd like to be absolutely sure there are no more restrictions

[Queen_Sindel]

If there were restrictions Dave wouldn't have phrased it that way.

 

But if you want to be 110 percent sure you best e-mail him in case your posts gets overlooked: dave.moviestar@btinternet.com

[showmasters]

Hi There

We never miss a post we have eyes and ears everywhere.

So to be absolutely clear.

Here are the restrictions.

No trainers or t shirts to be worn in the photoshoot area

No dogs, cats, hamsters or other animals to be brought in

No weird haircuts

No cameras or phones

No blinking as this upsets the photographer

no touching the guests unless you are exceptionally good looking

 

 

Or shall we just say for the benefit of everybody

There are no other restrictions and lets put this topic to bed once and for all.

Dave Phillips

[Count Fooku]

Here are the restrictions.

No trainers or t shirts to be worn in the photoshoot area

No dogs, cats, hamsters or other animals to be brought in

No weird haircuts

No cameras or phones

No blinking as this upsets the photographer

no touching the guests unless you are exceptionally good looking

 

I do hope this doesn't mean the rule about unmarried women being allowed into the photoshoot area without a chaperone is being relaxed. Next thing you know it'll be considered acceptable for gentlemen to be in the signing area without their hat and gloves.