This is about me, not you

Curmudgeon has written a post about beer festivals, including the question of whether a festival should hold beers back for the later sessions, or put them all at once and let the later sessions have fewer. He points out that increasingly festivals incline to the latter, but read the post for his full reasoning. One thing he said caught my attention: "... it has to be recognised that a beer festival is run in the interest of the customers, not for the convenience of the staff." As a principle, I agree, but how far does this translate to practice?

As a former civil servant, I could claim to have been a professional bureaucrat, but I've noticed that amateur and volunteer organisations often love to create red tape - it seems there are loads of wannabe civil servants out there, and CAMRA is no exception. Compare the traditional festival experience to a pub.

Pub:

1. Walk into pub.
2. Order drink at bar.
3. Hand over cash and begin to drink.

Festival:

1. Enter festival hall.
2. Queue at admissions desk to pay entry.
3. Sign in, giving name and home town (CAMRA members only).
4. Queue for beer tokens.
5. Queue for glass.
6. Order drink at bar.
7. Pay by token and begin to drink.

Whenever I asked why we got members to sign in, I was told it was interesting to see where people had come from: in other words, we had an additional queue to satisfy people's curiosity. Most festivals have in more recent years tried to make the admissions process more user friendly, but other strange practices remain:

• Although CAMRA succeeded in its campaign for all day opening in pubs 27 years ago, some of its festivals still close in the afternoon.
• Festivals have separate counters for glass and beer token refunds.
• Festivals are increasingly moving to having half pint glasses only. 

I have asked about opening hours, and was told that the staff needed a break to clear up for the evening session. Perhaps, but CAMRA didn't accept this argument when the pub industry used it. In reality, it is to justify having two separate admissions charges in a single day. Either way, it's for the convenience of the festival.

The separate refund counters are more convenient for the festival, but not for the public.

Half pints: a couple of reasons for this. Some staff are over-generous when serving half pints in pint glasses or giving tasters. I have to say that, although I've worked at festivals since the mid-1980s, I've never known any kind of instruction about the financial importance of serving a correct half measure in a pint glass, nor about not giving too much away in tasters. I have wondered whether some volunteers think the beer is free. The solution is to instruct them and keep an eye on them, correcting any mistakes, not to eliminate pint glasses.

The other is that customers are more likely to keep half pint glasses rather than pints, so that the festival isn't left with unsold stock. At a festival, most drinkers probably have half pints anyway, but there are some who prefer pints. Unsold stock is not the concern of the drinker, so it seems unreasonable that punters should be dictated to in terms of the quantities they can buy their drinks for this reason. Try that in a pub!

Non-CAMRA festivals are even worse: as well as dictating the size of the glass, they insist you buy and keep it. They also don't refund unsold beer tokens. 

Often there is a good reason for a practice: festivals have to have admission charges, deposits on glasses and beer tokens, although a few festival organisers disagree and operate cash bars; inevitably all these can cause certain delays, which are acceptable as long as they're unavoidable. It isn't right when a festival determines its processes for its own benefit and convenience. Festivals and pubs aren't the same thing, but organisers should try to replicate the pub experience as far as is practicable.

I have deliberately not named any festivals as all the points I have made refer to more than one.