Who gets to go? The real costs of Australia’s multi-day music festivals

The ‘total cost’ of a festival: Where affordability is won or lost

1) Ticketing: Flexibility can matter as much as price

Most festivals we reviewed offered some form of discounted pricing, typically for youth, students, or children. But concessions for people on the tightest budgets were rare. Pensioner or senior discounts appeared at just two of the 18 festivals we reviewed: Tamworth Country Music Festival and Wingham Music Festival, both of which reflect strong community and regional roots. Unemployed concessions were offered by exactly one festival, Strawberry Fields, which was also the only festival to extend discounts to CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) and First Nations communities, and one of the few that offered local resident pricing.

Payment plans and other forms of financial flexibility were also inconsistently communicated. For many would-be attendees, the barrier isn’t only the total amount, but whether they can pay tickets upfront and lock in a lower price early enough. For around a third of festivals in our review, it simply wasn't possible to tell whether a payment plan existed at all.

2) Getting there: Transport and parking can be dealbreakers

Multi-day festivals are frequently held in regional areas, and transport access shapes who can realistically attend. In our review, transport support was inconsistent: some events offered off-site parking and shuttle services, while many assumed attendees would arrive by private vehicle. When public transport isn’t viable and shuttles are limited or not free, affordability becomes inseparable from access to a car and the skill and confidence to drive – an often overlooked factor in who can participate.

3) Where you sleep: Camping models and accommodation scarcity

Accommodation is where costs can rise quickly. Some festivals include camping in the ticket price, while others require separate camping passes or site fees that add substantially to the overall bill.  For festivals without on-site camping, the burden shifts to the surrounding accommodation market, which in smaller regional towns is often scarce and expensive. Either way, for multi-day festivals these costs accumulate. The longer the festival, the wider the gap between what the ticket price suggests and what attending actually costs.

4) Once inside: BYO policies

Finally, BYO policies which significantly affect how much people spend on food and drink over multiple days, can turn a manageable trip into an expensive one.  Most festivals in our sample permitted BYO food at both festival and campsite areas, making a genuine difference to costs over multiple days. Drink policies were more restrictive: while most prohibited BYO alcohol at festival sites, several also limited non-alcoholic drinks, effectively pushing attendees toward on-site vendors at higher prices. Although rarely framed as accessibility measures, these policies shape the real cost of attendance, just as much as the ticket itself.

Affordability isn’t fixed: Small design choices can widen participation

Rising costs are undeniable, but affordability is shaped by the decisions organisers make about pricing, flexibility, transport, and what people can bring through the gate. Some festivals are making these choices deliberately. Strawberry Fields, for instance, is the only festival in our review to offer concessions specifically for unemployed attendees.

Other approaches that can make a real difference include transparent all-in pricing so essential add-ons aren’t surprises; clearly communicated payment plans that allow people to spread costs rather than commit a lump sum upfront; concessional ticket allocations for people experiencing financial hardship, with numbers capped to remain manageable for organisers; low-cost camping options; transport support where possible; and on-site rules, including BYO policies, that give attendees more control over what they spend once they arrive. Volunteering programs can also reduce costs, but they are not a sufficient solution on their own: they typically cover only the ticket, leaving participants to fund transport, accommodation, and food independently. For those facing the greatest financial hardship, this may still put attendance out of reach.

Public money, public interest

Many of the music festivals in our review have received public funding through arts grants, regional development programs, tourism bodies, or council support. Bluesfest itself received public funding over many years. When the cancellation came, the questions from the community and their representatives were immediate: where did the money go, what did it achieve, and who benefited?

They are fair questions. And they point to a principle that, surprisingly, is rarely applied or monitored: when festivals receive public support on the basis of the cultural and community value they deliver, there is a legitimate public interest in who actually gets to experience that value.

That does not mean festivals can or should solve structural inequality on their own. Organisers are navigating genuine financial constraints, and no single intervention will make festivals universally affordable. But minimum economic accessibility expectations – transparency about the real total cost of attendance, concessions for people on the tightest budgets, clearly communicated volunteering pathways that meaningfully reduce costs beyond the tickets, and some acknowledgement of the transport barrier – are not incompatible with financial viability. These are decisions organisers can make, and where public money is involved, it is entirely reasonable to ask that they do. Otherwise, multi-day festivals may survive on public funding whilst simultaneously narrowing their audience to those with the resources to absorb uncertainty – quietly reshaping who gets to belong in Australia's shared cultural life.