top of page

Detailed financial management is a fundamental part of a successfully delivered event (Event Scotland, 2016), entailing both financial planning and control (Shone and Parry, 2013). Radiation Events determined the budget for G & Tea in order to evaluate whether or not the event would be a success financially or not, by listing all of the predicted expenditures and revenue streams before deciding on the ticket price (Dawson, 2015; Shone and Parry, 2013). By selecting The Riverside venue for free before constructing the budget, this allowed for it to be more accurate in terms of capacity and therefore ticket sales (Eventbrite, 2017).

​

However with budget preparation being one of the hardest aspects of financial management due to the amount of assumptions it encompasses (Goldblatt, 2014), the team took academic advice and based the budget on the following factors:

  1. Marketing projections and estimates

  2. The general history of previous identical or similar events

  3. The general economy and the forecast for the future

  4. Net profit or excess believed to expect with the resources (ROI)

  5. The type of financing that you choose to use to finance the event

​

The subsequent SWOT and PESTLE analysis that was conducted, along with competitor research revealed that 30th March should be chosen for the date of the event, as with Getz (2016) noting the importance of choosing the correct date for sales purposes, potential attendees got paid that week or the week before, as well as the event not clashing with Varsity.

​

Whilst fundraising events are known to open-up additional income streams that other fundraising methods cannot (Webber, 2003), events such as G & T are not the most productive methods for charities like Roundabout to generate income, meaning that if ticket sales were the only source of income the event would have struggled (Webber, 2003; Shone and Parry, 2013). Therefore Radiation Events attempted to gain sponsorship and donations from local companies in order to boost income, although were relatively unsuccessful and only managed to gain raffle prizes instead of any cash donations. Shone and Parry (2013), highlighted that it is commonly misconceived that events will easily attract sponsorship, suggesting that a more detailed and professional sponsorship proposal be created for future events to attract companies (Skinner and Rukavina, 2002).

​

However, where the team missed out on income from sponsorship, no cost was spent on staff which typically adds 36% to the cost of an event (Centre for Interfirm Comparison, 2002). Although the use of volunteers can sometimes pose risks regarding incompetence or unreliability (Getz, 2016), Radiation illustrated sensible management by drawing up contract for all volunteer staff, performers and caterers. This legal responsibility extended further by ensuring that the venue had an alcohol license and other legal documentation (Bowdin, 2011), allowing for a safe and secure event to take place.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

With event mangers predominantly relying on the right side of the brain according to Goldblatt (2014), this means that logical thinking abilities needed for success are often ignored. Radiation Events were evidence of this to an extent as the team did not construct sufficient scenario plans that could have saved a lot of money when the original event concept fell through (Goldblatt, 2014). This meant that when G & Tea was constructed, funds already allocated to the previous event were lost and could not be regained, resulting in a tighter budget as no contingency budget was set aside (Event Juice, 2013). With the quality of the eventscape being reliant on the theme and quality of budget (Sharples et al, 2014), a reduced budget resulted in less décor and theming as money had to be allocated to more essential aspects such as Gin.

​

These factors were worked into the budget and a break-even point was established before the ticket price was decided, as it is a common mistake to set this before all costs have been identified (Shone and Parry, 2013). Radiation Events wanted to maximise the gross income from G & Tea, and so therefore utilised the target market research to extract the maximum amount of  money that each attendee was willing to spend – not only for the ticket but at the event as well (Webber, 2003).  

​

£15 was set as the minimum price as this meant Radiation Events would still make a profit, and was also the price that the target market said they would be willing to pay for a ticket when verbally and electronically asking them. With a raffle being held at the event in addition to donation buckets, the team were conscious to not bombard attendees with too many forms of fundraising during the evening as commonly done by charitable event organisers (Webber, 2003).

​

Although this ticket price meant that profits were low, it did result in a sold-out event whereby attendees donated £125 in cash donations and raffle tickets, taking the total money raised to £272. The only initial funds were those raised from the ‘Sleepout’ that the Radiation team participated in, reiterating the view that for charity events, fundraising is commonly the main source of funds for the initial event budget (Learning to Give, 2017).

​

Regarding the evaluation of Radiation Events’ financial management, use of resources, profits made and success against the initial objectives were analysed (Brown et al, 2015). Whilst the team failed to make the 4:1 ratio, a successful fundraiser was delivered due to nearly £300 still being raised for charity. All tickets were sold which met the objective regarding sales, however the reduction in price meant that the revenue generated from ticket sales did not match that raised from the ‘Sleepout’, therefore failing to meet that objective. Sensible financial management was evidenced throughout the whole of G & Tea’s inception and delivery through the sourcing of 3 quotes for each item of expenditure, whilst acquiring all staff, performers and caterers for free. However it was the lack of contingency plan and insufficient financial management that lead to reduced profits for the team, which is definitely a learning that can be carried forward.

bottom of page