|
24 Mar 07 - 03:15 PM (#2006006) Subject: performance pay - split bill From: Stewart I'm booking concerts for a non-profit organization. There's a question of how to split payments when you have two different groups on the same night. The formula is such that the organization takes 15% of the door receipts, and the remainder goes to the performers. It's simple when there is only one group performing - it is then up to the group as to how to split it up between all its members. But if you have two different groups, each doing a 45 min set for example, is it customary to give each group half of the proceeds, regardless of the number of performers in each group. Or do you split the proceeds proportional to the number of performers in each group (for example group A has 4 performers, and group B has 2 performers - so group A gets 2/3 of the proceeds and group B gets 1/3). One could argue that splitting the proceeds proportional to the number of performers in each group is fair since each performer gets the same amount. On the other hand, if one group is very large, and the other is a solo performer, the solo performer gets a poor break even though he/she provided half of the evening's music. Is there a customary way of dividing the proceeds? S. in Seattle |
|
24 Mar 07 - 03:24 PM (#2006016) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Midchuck You have immense potential for getting people mad at you here. Especially if there are two acts performing, one a solo or duo and the other a group of several people. Splitting the take evenly between the two groups unduly favors the performers in the small group. Splitting so as to produce the same sum for each person unduly favors the large group, since the performers in the small group are presumably entertaining the crowd just as much as the large one. And you haven't mentioned the question of whether one of the groups may be better known and draw more people than the other. Whatever you do, make sure both groups are fully informed as to the arrangement, and agree to it, before the gig. Get it written down and signed. Peter. |
|
24 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM (#2006023) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Jim Lad Ah Stewart: Back to the old "Percentage versus Wages" theme are we? Agree on a figure. If there is doubt that you can raise the funds, find another way to raise money. Cheers Jim |
|
24 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM (#2006282) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: dick greenhaus What you're selling is minutes of entertainment. Or, if you're running a pub, number of pints consumed. An act--single, duo, trio or entire choir--gets paid on the basis of how they provide what you're selling. Which is, I realize, a strong argument for going solo. It's more fun playing and performing with others, but it's not realistic to ask the one who pays the pipers (or pickers or whatever) to pay for that fun. |
|
24 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM (#2006316) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Surreysinger "An act--single, duo, trio or entire choir--gets paid on the basis of how they provide what you're selling." I'm really not sure that you're actually conveying what you mean Dick!! However, on the basis of your first sentence I'm assuming that you mean that each ACT gets paid pro rata according to the amount of time that they've spent on stage (ie 50% to act 1 and 50% to act 2 irrespective of the number of performers in each group). Have to say that I would have thought that that was the way to do it - not splitting the whole evening's take between the exact number of performers - if act 2 was a choir of 30 members and act 1 was a solo artist, there'd be no justice in splitting it 31 ways. The punter who's bought a ticket for the evening is presumably paying to see/hear 2 acts - 50% of his/her ticket price is spent on each one.... so it would seem logical to me that the gross take (less 15%) should be split two ways..... personal opinion, of course! |
|
24 Mar 07 - 11:16 PM (#2006336) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Rabbi-Sol If one of the performers is the featured act and the other is just a opening act, how much do you pay the opener ? SOL |
|
25 Mar 07 - 05:09 AM (#2006469) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Sandra in Sydney I split by time, regardless of number of persons in an act, a system I inherited from my predecessors. The normal arrangement at my club is main act for 2 brackets of 30 + 60 minutes, and a support for 30 mins. Main act gets three quarters of the money, support gets one quarter, rounded as I just pay in whole dollars. Some evenings I book 2 acts for 60 minutes each, a couple of times I've booked 3 acts with an equal share of the time. The Dog only does door deals & I don't take anything definite out for the club, unless there are strange amounts left. If I have to split $538 I would definitely keep the $8 & maybe part of the $30 if the maths was too complicated! (one quarter of $538 = $134.50, support would either get $135, or maybe $130, main act $400) Our only expenses are rent & supper & misc (eg. photocopying, light bulbs, coffee, paper plates etc.) & the rest of the money goes to the performers. This year's main acts range from solo performer to a very large collection of Sydney's session singers, supports range from solo performers to 10-15 member community choirs. Choir members don't expect money in their pockets as any fees are normally used by the choir sandra |
|
25 Mar 07 - 03:37 PM (#2006867) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Stewart Thanks folks for your input. I asked a couple of local producers here what they do. One decides on a case-by-case basis: "We don't have a 'policy' about that. Sometimes we have guarantees (which are always vs. 85% of the door, whichever is more), sometimes we have an opener with a specified amount and the main artist gets the rest. I think you need to do it on a case by case basis. I can see both points of view, but people playing in a band know that they won't make as much as playing solo, but they enjoy it more! Another variable...maybe one act came from out of town and has travel expenses." The other tends to split 50/50: "We split by act, though occasionally I'll do another arrangement if we have a solo with a quartet or something like that. Particulars, I think, aren't so important as making sure all is explicit and up front--contracts aren't a bad idea, either... Hope this helps-" So I guess the bottom line is to be up front and explicit in the contract. My inclination is to split 50/50 unless there is a good reason to do otherwise (but then not necessarily on a strictly proportional basis). Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
26 Mar 07 - 03:36 AM (#2007247) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: GUEST,chris I'm surprised that the performers leave it up to you. I would have thought that they both would have a fee for which they work and you either accept paying that fee ,or not, depending on circumstances. If I were a performer I wouldn't work unless the fee was determined by me and mutually agreed by the person booking me. chris |
|
26 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM (#2007443) Subject: RE: performance pay - split bill From: Sandra in Sydney Maybe performers wanting gigs in large commercial venues that have bank accounts can ask for an exact amount of money, but in small venues where we can't guarantee how many seats will have bums on them, we certainly can't guarantee how much a performer will get. Which is why many clubs pay percentages of door money. sandra |