I heartily endorse (a) the "guarantee + profit sharing" concept of performer compensation, however the committee works it out, (b) the clear articulation of the compensation formula and (c) the plan executed as articulated, no matter what nasty surprise happens when you count the gate (meeting our obligations is part of being civilized, right?).
(Works for me as an organizer, works for me as a caller. And if as a caller I want something different, I can ask BEFORE I SAY YES. If the organizers say no, then I can choose to accept or refuse the gig. Same in reverse - the committee doesn't have to hire a performer whose compensation requirements are beyond what the committee can or is willing to provide.) The dances I've helped organize have had the following "guarantee + profit sharing" formula: Pay X guarantee per performer, then take out expenses/overhead, then any remaining gate is split 80/20 (performer compensation/series kitty) with the performer compensation bonus being divided equally among the performers. Flat fee for sound (more for a separate provider.) We now cap band guarantees and bonus shares at 4. (So 5+ musicians divide 4 guarantees/bonuses amongst themselves) The kitty covers shortfalls. We don't vary our formula. Many other workable formulas are out there - simpler, more complex. But, in terms of what's "best", I just shout a big AMEN to Brian Appleberry's comment below. If all (or most) of the committee agrees with the way you're doing the job, and likes the end result, then all should be well. Clear communication and general agreement/approval within the committee is crucial. Beyond that, it's simply the prerogative of the committee to do whatever it wants. (!!!) As in booking, compensation, sweeping the floor, admission fees, sound provision, lighting, snacks, promotion... all of it's up to them. Performers, dancers, other organizers looking on... we can all have our opinions of what that particular committee "ought" to do, but it's their project. Ideally dance organizers would welcome and consider well-intentioned input on how to make the series successful and sustainable, but in the end, it's their series to manage as they will. One might imagine all of us organizers would aim to continually refine our 'best practices', but that's ours to decide. Chrissy Belfast, ME PS (Oh how I love a good soapbox.) "Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~ Rumi chrissyfowler.com belfastflyingshoes.org westbranchwords.com > From: [email protected] > Subject: Organizers Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5 > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:06:53 -0500 > > Send Organizers mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Organizers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) > (Merle Mceldowney) > 2. Re: Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) (Jeff Kaufman) > 3. Re: booking as a team? ([email protected]) > 4. Re: Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) > (Mary Anne Eason) > 5. Re: Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) > (Merle Mceldowney) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:23:55 -0500 > From: Merle Mceldowney <[email protected]> > To: Mac Mckeever <[email protected]>, A list for dance organizers > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a > team?) > Message-ID: > <cak4w+gpftv2dwvsa5nisy--gnha_zjwecmvwwx1nfznkm5i...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > There are real down sides in paying musicians based on attendance. There > are lots of factors: competing dances, birthday parties, weather and > somethings that are even more flukey - a transit problem for example. > > We do promise a guarantee that makes it almost worth while for the > musicians to come to NYC. Many nights we come out behind on the dances. > Once there is enough admissions to meet our expenses they get half. So it > means that if they attract more of their friends and followers they get > half. Many of our dances do not make enough for basic expenses. We have > to have a rather major fund raising campaign at the end of each year to > make up for our deficits. > > NYC is bigger in any way. We have more dances that many places. We > probably pay more rent. We probably have more newcomers over a period of > time. That means we have more people that do not come back. > > I hope our experience is helpful to others. One of the things that I think > makes these dances difficult to run is the talent and committment of the > musicians and callers. Most of them work hard practicing, rehearhising, > and making arrangements and programs. There are musicians that have > studied this stuff for years and want to make a living at it. I really > appreciate it and all of us dance organizers need to. However, in the > scheme of thing there are just not that many contra dancers. Those that > do, want to dance weekly but still it is not unusual for there to be 60 > dancers in the hall. if we have 200 it is a major feat. Dancers want to > dance frequently so they do not want to pay much. I can get a ticket in > the top row of madison square garden to hear sting sing for 181.00. If we > charge 25 to hear Wild Asparagus, or Perpetual e motion there would be a > revolution. We need to consider financial realities to keep the program > alive. > > Merle > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Mac Mckeever <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have always struggled with the concept of paying the band, caller and > > sound tech a percent of the admissions. It penalizes them when attendance > > is down for something out of their control ( a huge number of dancers went > > to an out of town weekend or the weather was really bad) and, of course, > > the opposite can be true for good nights. > > > > Instead, we have a standard pay schedule not tied to attendance and make > > adjustments for special occasions as needed. We monitor it throughout the > > year to be sure it is all evening out. If there is a problem over time, we > > tweek our strategy to put us back where we need to be. We have close to > > 100 events a year - so there is a big enough sample to keep any single > > dance from causing a problem. > > > > Mac McKeever > > St Louis > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Merle Mceldowney <[email protected]> > > To: A list for dance organizers <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) > > > > > > It can get really complicated. We pay the musicians a set amount with a 50 > > percent cut of the gate. We need that 50 percent. Many of our dances do > > not make the expenses, so the ones > > that do well help out with the ones that > > loose. We have a saturday night every week from September untill May; that > > is a lot of dances. We have been doing this for 60 years. We also run a > > weekly english dance. > > > > I have been involved for about 15 years. a long time. I think only three > > of the board members have been around longer than me. One problem - and > > this often involves payment of musicians is policies get lost over time. > > There is a manual available that covers a lot of stuff but when there is a > > question the people in charge of the dance do not realize there is a > > description of that policy someplace in this large binder we have that has > > that stuff. > > > > Merle > > > > > > On > > Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dana Dwinell-Yardley <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Good heavens: that kind of miscommunication sounds like no fun at all to > > > deal with. I'm grateful (especially now that I'm taking on booking > > > responsibilities!) that we now have a very clear payment system figured > > out > > > in Montpelier. > > > > > > After we take out our overhead, and pay the sound guy, we split what's > > left > > > evenly between the folks on stage, with a limit on band size. So: > > > 2-person band (3 people on stage) = 1/3 to caller, 2/3 to band > > > 3-person band (4 on stage) = 1/4 to caller, 3/4 to band > > > 4-or-more-person band (5+ on stage) = 1/5 to caller, 4/5 to band > > > > > > We also have a minimum guarantee if we have a lower turnout, which isn't > > > all that often. We subsidized 7 of our 28 dances last year, but we had 4 > > > dances with a huge turnout and well more than that with an above-average > > > turnout, so it all comes out in the wash. > > > > > > We make special exceptions to this VERY rarely: for example, last time > > our > > > dance was on New Year's Eve, we paid the band and caller a little extra > > to > > > stay past midnight. > > > > > > It took us a while to iron all this out as a committee, but it was well > > > worth it for the lack of confusion we have now! > > > > > > Dana Dwinell-Yardley > > > Montpelier, VT > > > > > > > > > On > > Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >Jerome Grisanti wrote: > > > > > > > > Make sure you let the treasurer know who is getting paid, and how much > > > ... > > > > I've been in the uncomfortable situation of handing someone money and > > > > having them say, "this is not the agreed amount." I've also been the > > > > caller when the person with the bank asked, "how much do we pay you?" > > > > ... Of course, it's not about the money, but smooth relations. > > > > > > > > AMEN ! > > > > > > > > In my > > experience, lack of clarity on money happens all-too-often. > > > > It's usually not a big deal, but occasionally makes a mess. > > > > > > > > I still have uncomfortable feelings about a glitch like this -- from > > > > over a decade ago. At the break, the treasurer came up to me and > > > > began, "We should have talked about this in advance ..." It turned > > > > out that instead of the standard payment (which I had been led to > > > > expect), they wanted to apply a different formula (reducing my pay) > > > > because of an unusual band situation. I didn't know what to say, but > > > > observed that I had traveled hundreds of miles, which might also be > > > > considered unusual ... We concluded the discussion (which occupied > > > > the break, and > > would have been more happily spent socializing, and > > > > planning the 2nd half) with me saying "Just do whatever seems best to > > > you." > > > > > > > > The organizer felt ruffled and grumpy, I felt ruffled and grumpy. I > > > > suspect that whatever compromise was achieved was explained to the > > > > band, so they felt that way, too. Ugh ! A lot of unnecessary > > > > annoyance over $50 or so. > > > > > > > > As Jerome observes, "it's not about the money, but smooth relations." > > > > It's really worth the extra communication to avoid putting performers > > > > and volunteer organizers in awkward situations. > > > > > > > > (postscript: there was a blizzard on Sunday, and I totaled my car on > > > > > > the way home. Definitely not my favorite dance weekend of all time ...) > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://www.scotthiggs.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dana Dwinell-Yardley > > > graphic design & layout > > > Montpelier, Vermont > > > 802-229-4008 > > > [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Organizers mailing > > list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Merle McEldowney* > > *212-933-0290* > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Organizers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > _______________________________________________ > > Organizers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > > > > > -- > *Merle McEldowney* > *212-933-0290* > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:37:49 -0800 > From: Jeff Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: Mac Mckeever <[email protected]>, A list for dance organizers > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a > team?) > Message-ID: > <CAK36jCNvzf-HLBDEmL=cmp0b0vzote0iwwbgl7nu7_jr0zu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Mac Mckeever <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have always struggled with the concept of paying the band, caller and > > sound tech a percent of the admissions. It penalizes them when > > attendance is down for something out of their control ( a huge number > > of dancers went to an out of town weekend or the weather was really > > bad) and, of course, the opposite can be true for good nights. > > > > Organizer hat on. I like a "profit sharing" model where you guarantee > a fixed payment and then if you make much more money than usual you > give most of that extra to the performers. Two reasons: > > * With a pure percentage system you expose performers to a lot > of risk and variability without much benefit, but if you offer only > a fixed payment then it can be hard to hire performers who play > professionally or come from a ways off. > > * Looking over our attendance sheet there's a lot of variability > that looks like noise, but there are consistently performers > who bring in larger crowds. My model is that we have regulars > and newcomers who tend to come regardless of the performers, > plus some occasional dancers who come out to dance when > they're especially excited about who we've booked. > > Profit sharing seems to mostly protect performers from variability > that is unrelated to their presence, while still compensating them > well when they bring in a big crowd. > > (I do agree about sound. A good sound person makes the band sound a > lot better, but people don't come for the sound person. So pay enough > that you can get someone good, but fixed price is fine.) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:58:20 -0800 (PST) > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: A list for dance organizers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Organizers] booking as a team? > Message-ID: > <1393462700.32512.yahoomailandroidmob...@web121501.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Regarding booking as a team, or any other work done as a committee/board > member,? I think the most important thing is to talk about what you're doing, > in every meeting.? If all (or most) of the committee agrees with the way > you're doing the job, and likes the end result,? then all should be well. > Cheers, > Brian Appleberry > Queen City Contras > Burlington Vermont > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:06:06 -0500 > From: Mary Anne Eason <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a > team?) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dana, > > How do you have money to pay the minimum on lower turnout nights if you > never keep any money for yourselves? > > Mary Anne > > On 2/26/2014 3:59 PM, Dana Dwinell-Yardley wrote: > > Good heavens: that kind of miscommunication sounds like no fun at all to > > deal with. I'm grateful (especially now that I'm taking on booking > > responsibilities!) that we now have a very clear payment system figured out > > in Montpelier. > > > > After we take out our overhead, and pay the sound guy, we split what's left > > evenly between the folks on stage, with a limit on band size. So: > > 2-person band (3 people on stage) = 1/3 to caller, 2/3 to band > > 3-person band (4 on stage) = 1/4 to caller, 3/4 to band > > 4-or-more-person band (5+ on stage) = 1/5 to caller, 4/5 to band > > > > We also have a minimum guarantee if we have a lower turnout, which isn't > > all that often. We subsidized 7 of our 28 dances last year, but we had 4 > > dances with a huge turnout and well more than that with an above-average > > turnout, so it all comes out in the wash. > > > > We make special exceptions to this VERY rarely: for example, last time our > > dance was on New Year's Eve, we paid the band and caller a little extra to > > stay past midnight. > > > > It took us a while to iron all this out as a committee, but it was well > > worth it for the lack of confusion we have now! > > > > Dana Dwinell-Yardley > > Montpelier, VT > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >>> Jerome Grisanti wrote: > >> Make sure you let the treasurer know who is getting paid, and how much ... > >> I've been in the uncomfortable situation of handing someone money and > >> having them say, "this is not the agreed amount." I've also been the > >> caller when the person with the bank asked, "how much do we pay you?" > >> ... Of course, it's not about the money, but smooth relations. > >> > >> AMEN ! > >> > >> In my experience, lack of clarity on money happens all-too-often. > >> It's usually not a big deal, but occasionally makes a mess. > >> > >> I still have uncomfortable feelings about a glitch like this -- from > >> over a decade ago. At the break, the treasurer came up to me and > >> began, "We should have talked about this in advance ..." It turned > >> out that instead of the standard payment (which I had been led to > >> expect), they wanted to apply a different formula (reducing my pay) > >> because of an unusual band situation. I didn't know what to say, but > >> observed that I had traveled hundreds of miles, which might also be > >> considered unusual ... We concluded the discussion (which occupied > >> the break, and would have been more happily spent socializing, and > >> planning the 2nd half) with me saying "Just do whatever seems best to you." > >> > >> The organizer felt ruffled and grumpy, I felt ruffled and grumpy. I > >> suspect that whatever compromise was achieved was explained to the > >> band, so they felt that way, too. Ugh ! A lot of unnecessary > >> annoyance over $50 or so. > >> > >> As Jerome observes, "it's not about the money, but smooth relations." > >> It's really worth the extra communication to avoid putting performers > >> and volunteer organizers in awkward situations. > >> > >> (postscript: there was a blizzard on Sunday, and I totaled my car on > >> the way home. Definitely not my favorite dance weekend of all time ...) > >> > >> > >> Scott > >> -------------------------------------------- > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.scotthiggs.com > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:06:21 -0500 > From: Merle Mceldowney <[email protected]> > To: A list for dance organizers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a > team?) > Message-ID: > <CAK4w+grnc=01GUPPzz8b13_vGnrN29=tABuo3NGQ=b5nc5+...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > We have a special circumstance. Our rent is more than 300 We almost > always have the money to pay the band and caller. We frequently fall short > of the rent, but that is not a problem at the dance. We send a letter to > the band with information before. I believe it is in that letter, that if > we do not have the money to pay the talent in the cash box they will get a > check after the dance. That rarely happens. The band can tell that the > crowd was really small so they can not complain when they have to wait a > few days for the money. It is so much worse for us to loose that much on a > dance than it is for them to have to wait a few days for a check. I hope > they feel bad for us then. It is a community dance and they are part of > our community. > > Merle > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Mary Anne Eason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dana, > > > > How do you have money to pay the minimum on lower turnout nights if you > > never keep any money for yourselves? > > > > Mary Anne > > > > > > On 2/26/2014 3:59 PM, Dana Dwinell-Yardley wrote: > > > >> Good heavens: that kind of miscommunication sounds like no fun at all to > >> deal with. I'm grateful (especially now that I'm taking on booking > >> responsibilities!) that we now have a very clear payment system figured > >> out > >> in Montpelier. > >> > >> After we take out our overhead, and pay the sound guy, we split what's > >> left > >> evenly between the folks on stage, with a limit on band size. So: > >> 2-person band (3 people on stage) = 1/3 to caller, 2/3 to band > >> 3-person band (4 on stage) = 1/4 to caller, 3/4 to band > >> 4-or-more-person band (5+ on stage) = 1/5 to caller, 4/5 to band > >> > >> We also have a minimum guarantee if we have a lower turnout, which isn't > >> all that often. We subsidized 7 of our 28 dances last year, but we had 4 > >> dances with a huge turnout and well more than that with an above-average > >> turnout, so it all comes out in the wash. > >> > >> We make special exceptions to this VERY rarely: for example, last time our > >> dance was on New Year's Eve, we paid the band and caller a little extra to > >> stay past midnight. > >> > >> It took us a while to iron all this out as a committee, but it was well > >> worth it for the lack of confusion we have now! > >> > >> Dana Dwinell-Yardley > >> Montpelier, VT > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> Jerome Grisanti wrote: > >>>> > >>> Make sure you let the treasurer know who is getting paid, and how much > >>> ... > >>> I've been in the uncomfortable situation of handing someone money and > >>> having them say, "this is not the agreed amount." I've also been the > >>> caller when the person with the bank asked, "how much do we pay you?" > >>> ... Of course, it's not about the money, but smooth relations. > >>> > >>> AMEN ! > >>> > >>> In my experience, lack of clarity on money happens all-too-often. > >>> It's usually not a big deal, but occasionally makes a mess. > >>> > >>> I still have uncomfortable feelings about a glitch like this -- from > >>> over a decade ago. At the break, the treasurer came up to me and > >>> began, "We should have talked about this in advance ..." It turned > >>> out that instead of the standard payment (which I had been led to > >>> expect), they wanted to apply a different formula (reducing my pay) > >>> because of an unusual band situation. I didn't know what to say, but > >>> observed that I had traveled hundreds of miles, which might also be > >>> considered unusual ... We concluded the discussion (which occupied > >>> the break, and would have been more happily spent socializing, and > >>> planning the 2nd half) with me saying "Just do whatever seems best to > >>> you." > >>> > >>> The organizer felt ruffled and grumpy, I felt ruffled and grumpy. I > >>> suspect that whatever compromise was achieved was explained to the > >>> band, so they felt that way, too. Ugh ! A lot of unnecessary > >>> annoyance over $50 or so. > >>> > >>> As Jerome observes, "it's not about the money, but smooth relations." > >>> It's really worth the extra communication to avoid putting performers > >>> and volunteer organizers in awkward situations. > >>> > >>> (postscript: there was a blizzard on Sunday, and I totaled my car on > >>> the way home. Definitely not my favorite dance weekend of all time ...) > >>> > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> -------------------------------------------- > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://www.scotthiggs.com > >>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > Organizers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > > > > > -- > *Merle McEldowney* > *212-933-0290* > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Organizers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > > End of Organizers Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5 > *****************************************
