|
Post by fatfingerjohn on Aug 21, 2023 14:57:51 GMT
Hi,
Just an interesting one, deesn't affect or involve me.
Pub in our local village is getting some flak following a 2-day 'charity event last weekend. I don't know any of the details of what was arranged but raises a couple of interesting points which others may like to comment on, either through experience or just opinion. The bits I do know are ..
--the pub hosted what was sdvertised as a 'charity event'. The 'organisers' of the entertainment over the 2 days were a third party (not the pub) and they got a lot of performers to attend over the two days, with a headline act or two on Saturday evening. The charities were genuine bodies.
--I don't know what arrangements were made between the organisers/bookers and the acts re payment/expenses.
--The event was free to attend with collecting buckets. Some stalls were present in the garden, selling small things.
A couple of acts have complained on Social Media (after the event as far as I can see) that they didn't get paid or even any expenses.
To put it into context, it's a small village and the event was not high profile at all. However it appears to have been well-attended and successful.
There is now a huge debate and the usual social media nastiness going on with the pub saying, as they were not involved with the arrangements being made with the acts, then the question of the payment or expenses for those performing is not down to them.
So the specific questions of interest being raised include ...
--Is it 'normal' for individuals/bands to attend a charity event for no payment; and no expenses?
--Apparently all the pub staff got paid as normal; so why, if it's for charity, is it just the performers who are expected to do their bit for charity for nothing when others get paid?
--As the pub in question has had a much larger than normal 'footfall' and thus much higher turnover from drinks and food sales, what contribution are they making to the 'charity'; or are they simply getting extra profit and not contributing (the assumption being made, which is not necessarily fact, is that the ub did not pay the organisers to put on the event).
I don't expect anyone to have all the answers to this especially as I know I'm thin on the facts, but interested on your general thoughts. I'm sure a lot of you/us do charity stuff and therefore have an opinion?
FFJ
|
|
|
Post by PistolPete on Aug 21, 2023 15:27:11 GMT
I used to get invited to play charity events a lot. A few years back I started responding that, although I would love to play I couldn't afford to work for free but I would be very happy to offer a 30% discount on my usual rate, and interestingly enough I've never yet had anyone confirm the booking.
Without knowing the ins & outs of your local event. The way it usually works is that the pub spends money on some promotion, the bar staff and a sound engineer then keep the bar take. The charity gets whatever is put into the bucket (I assume for most punters that's probably less than they put behind the bar) and the musicians get nothing but a 'thank you' if they're lucky*
A friend of mine who does one every year at a pub where he is friends with the landlord told me that one weekend a year puts enough in the till to keep the business afloat during the lean months. I'm sure that's not always the case & I have heard of these events where the pub has made a loss after the advertising and stage hire, in spite of not paying the musicians.
*Once, I even got a telling-off that I wasn't donating my CD sales to the nominated charity from the landlord. Who was keeping all the money spent on beer.
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,908
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Aug 21, 2023 16:23:19 GMT
Well, this is going back B.C. (before Covid) but charity event invitations when I played in a ceilidh band were not infrequent. As I tended to handle the diary and bookings we had agreed as a band from the outset that we would charge our normal (ie non-wedding) fee for charity events but would subsequently donate a proportion of it (more for local charities, less for national ones) back to the charity. This means that there could be no word of mouth comparisons later on of what it costs to hire us.
We much preferred to organise charity events ourselves as we could get any of several halls locally for no cost. We'd do a couple of those a year in support of a different charity (chosen by band members) each time. For these we would obviously not charge anything - they were just for fun not only to support the charities but as a gift to the relevant communities in which they were held. We were a local band for local people!
Pubs we tended to steer clear of for the reasons mentioned by John and Pete.
However, Glyn and I did put on a couple of open mike evenings in one particular very local pub. We agreed with the landlord that there would be no admission fee and that performers would each receive a free drink - organisers (Glyn and me) would each receive two free drinks. The first event was well supported by performers and audience and the "arrangements" went as planned and agreed. The landlord was well pleased and delighted in telling us that he took four times his usual amount over the bar. As such we agreed on a further date; same arrangements. This turned out to be equally well patronised, but no free drinks were forthcoming. To cut a messy story short we didn't take the landlord up on his request for a further event....
Since that Glyn and I have put on several local charity events, sometimes just us performing, sometimes with a guest or two, sometimes as part of our covers band. We didn't charge to get in but charged to get out! i.e. we explained about the charity we'd chosen and suggested that if people had enjoyed themselves they might like to leave a (folding) donation as they leave. Never failed to raise a decent sum as the hall was free and we didn't charge anything - the point was mainly to have a village social event and hope to raise a little cash on the back of it.
We were only just preparing for the first one since Covid and now Glyn (and Mrs Glyn) have Covid, so our rehearsal this week isn't going to happen!
Keith
|
|
Wild Violet
Artist / Performer
Posts: 3,554
My main instrument is: Symonds OM-14
|
Post by Wild Violet on Aug 21, 2023 20:26:28 GMT
I've played a fair few charity gigs over the decades and never received any payment or expenses. I do know people who complained for the reasons you mentioned John - why were we the only ones doing it for free, especially as we were the ones drawing the crowds? Some of the organisers of the events never thanked me for coming and playing, some treated me so indifferently that I wondered why I had turned up at all. I didn't need a cake or balloons but a simple "thank you" or even a hello would have been nice. Once I had a regular rota of paid gigs, I only accepted charity ones that weren't far away and where I already knew the organizers. I played a charity gig the Sunday before last - my first official gig since lockdown! Everyone there had volunteered their time, the food and drinks had also been donated by the organisers. It was a cause I was happy to support. I'm sure I'll do a few more charity gigs in the future, but only if they are within easy walking/biking distance from where we live!
|
|
|
Post by delb0y on Aug 22, 2023 5:53:11 GMT
I know a few acts who gig very regularly indeed and I'm always amazed at the number of gigs they get... Then it was pointed out to me that the majority of these gigs are free. I used to play lead guitar for one if these acts until I gave it up on account of the number of free gigs. So nothing's changed. I used to say to the guy that he was worth more than nothing but his argument was that he was retired, he wanted people to hear his songs, that it was his hobby and way of having fun, so why shouldn't he get out there?
I think this why event organisers expect and assume the musicians will play for free as they enjoy it, unlike, say the stage hands, lighting engineers, or security guards. My point wasn't around wanting to be paid for money's sake, but more about principles and that we were worth something. As I say, nothing's changed and more and more acts are happy to play for free. Also, when we do get paid it seems like we're still at 1990s payment levels...
|
|
|
Post by forestdweller on Aug 22, 2023 7:51:16 GMT
Played a charity gig at the weekend at my local zero waste cafe. They had me playing inside whilst everybody who turned up seemed to want to go and eat outside! I played a 2 hour gig non stop and the most people I had 'listening' was 6! Still, the cafe were very happy for me to be paid in refreshments, but.....at the end they then started to hand over the money they had raised for me to give to my nominated charity (my local hospice). I thought this was a bit cheeky in that I would then have to do all the work about handing it over to the charity, so I just suggested they put it straight into their collection box.
But yes, some interesting points raised in this thread- especially why it is the musicians are the ones giving their time for free (to prepare for this gig I put hundreds of hours of work into learning the music) and yet the staff still get paid as normal.
Robbie
|
|
|
Post by lavaman on Aug 22, 2023 8:01:42 GMT
I've adopted a similar approach to Wild Violet. I play a couple of pub based local gigs each year that support charities that I admire such as local food banks. These gigs are organised by people I know. I don't expect payment but I do limit the time I play to no more than 40 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 22, 2023 10:49:28 GMT
Gosh, this is a thorny subject, and one I've discussed with all sorts of people over the years. I've never really come to a proper conclusion in my head, but I have reconciled the various factors in my head so that I don't worry about it any more. In other words, I do what I think is right and don't get involved in arguments about whether I'm right or not in someone else's opinion. Here are some points I think are salient: 1) The payment of bar staff. A well run business should be a money making machine. No element in isolation will create this. So for the case in point, the bar staff should be paid. The pub takes money because the drinks are served. The customer doesn't help himself. The profit arises as a result of this transaction, so in the same way as the futile argument as to whether rates should be suspended for the duration of the event, or whether a proportion of the rent should be refunded by the landlord, the success of the event is achieved by generating money after overheads are paid. 2) A contribution by the landlord. This is less cut and dried, and, in my opinion, depends upon whether the business owner is instrumental in organising the event or whether he's just facilitating it after being approached. In the former case, he should contribute a proportion of his excess profits, in the latter it would be nice if he did. 3) Should the musicians be paid? I think this depends upon the musician's choices and nothing else. Frankly, if it's the musician's choice to perform for free, then it's nobody else's damn business. If they won't do it without payment, then that's fine too. One thing, though, for professional musicians (if they pay tax on their musician earnings) there can be a technical difference for tax purposes between working for free or working for pay and donating the money to the charity. Working for free doesn't generate taxable profit, but tax relief for charitable donations is given in a different way (through the Gift Aid system). So technically, the fee for the event should be included in turnover and thereby taxed and then relief claimed by the charity under Gift Aid. So the musician should donate a "net of tax" amount and use the tax element to pay his taxes in the usual way. 4) The point often made by people that all the excess should be contributed to the charity without costs being deducted is, in my opinion, fatuous. I haven't seen it in this thread, by the way, so I'm not aiming at any of the points made by anyone here. For some reason, some people belief that there's something special about a charity and that noone should take anything out of it except the beneficiaries. That's a great way to reduce the amount that is paid to beneficiaries. Generating money always involves activity. Some activity can be achieved for no cost, but much activity and often the most effective activity cannot. Consequently, by fundraising at cost, the net amount devolving to the good works of the charity is usually greater in total if everything is paid for than trying to rely on that given for free. Hence, when finding charitable organisations to support, one should examine their efficiency and not look at their level of overhead in isolation. I'm finding it difficult to explain succinctly what I mean here. Any road up, for myself, I'll play for free at a charity event if I feel I would like to and I often do. It's my choice. It gets me out there and people seem to enjoy it. If it raises funds for a good cause, that's great, but it's not why I do it. BUT, I don't earn my living from music. I'm not undercutting proper musicians, because these gigs aren't usually offered for a fee. I don't accept the argument that free music waters down the local music scene. In my experience, that particular old chesnut is usually stated by musicians who have an exaggerated sense of their self-worth. Cutting down the number of open mics and similar free performances won't generate more paid gigs for professionals. It will, however, stop all the experiential oportunities for people starting out. That's not good for anybody. Sorry, I wish I'd chosen a lower horse to get up on. Please accept this rant/ramble as my contribution to the thread. I wouldn't read it if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by borborygmus on Aug 22, 2023 13:43:26 GMT
4) The point often made by people that all the excess should be contributed to the charity without costs being deducted is, in my opinion, fatuous. I haven't seen it in this thread, by the way, so I'm not aiming at any of the points made by anyone here. For some reason, some people belief that there's something special about a charity and that noone should take anything out of it except the beneficiaries. That's a great way to reduce the amount that is paid to beneficiaries. Generating money always involves activity. Some activity can be achieved for no cost, but much activity and often the most effective activity cannot. Consequently, by fundraising at cost, the net amount devolving to the good works of the charity is usually greater in total if everything is paid for than trying to rely on that given for free. Hence, when finding charitable organisations to support, one should examine their efficiency and not look at their level of overhead in isolation. I'm finding it difficult to explain succinctly what I mean here. An illustration of this, perhaps: the most successful charities in the UK (by which I mean the amount spent on charitable activities) are run by teams of professionals, who are very often quite well paid. The Wellcome Trust spent well over £1 billion on charitable activities last year, although many of their people earn over £100k per annum. Peter
|
|
|
Post by PistolPete on Aug 23, 2023 5:53:41 GMT
1) The payment of bar staff. A well run business should be a money making machine. No element in isolation will create this. So for the case in point, the bar staff should be paid. The pub takes money because the drinks are served. The customer doesn't help himself. The profit arises as a result of this transaction, so in the same way as the futile argument as to whether rates should be suspended for the duration of the event, or whether a proportion of the rent should be refunded by the landlord, the success of the event is achieved by generating money after overheads are paid. I don't think anyone is arguing that bar staff shouldn't get paid, but rather pointing out that no one expects, or asks them to work for free because an event is for charity. As you rightly point out, bar staff is an overhead - but so are musicians.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 23, 2023 8:48:16 GMT
I don't think anyone is arguing that bar staff shouldn't get paid, but rather pointing out that no one expects, or asks them to work for free because an event is for charity. As you rightly point out, bar staff is an overhead - but so are musicians.[/quote] I'm sorry I didn't make my point clear, Pete. I'm not saying that msuicians shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that some charity events budget for paid musicians, and some don't. If they do, then fine, and it's the musicians' choice to work for free for the benefit of the charity. If they don't, that's also fine as long as it's made clear from the outset, because it's still the musician's choice whether to play for free. It would be wrong, of course, for a musician to take on the engagement thinking he'll be paid, and then not, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and I'd be astonished if it happens very often if at all. The parallel between bar staff and musicians is an interesting one, and one I'm not sure holds completely. What is parallel, though, is that they can both choose to work or not (barring any contract of employment obligations on the bar staff's side). Please can we not get into a discussion about what constitutes an overhead? That sort of thing is the main reason I don't actively seek out the company of other accountants. I'd rather be a lion tamer, but there it is.
|
|
brianr2
C.O.G.
Posts: 3,050
My main instrument is: Brook Lyn guitar
|
Post by brianr2 on Aug 23, 2023 9:21:56 GMT
I'm sorry I didn't make my point clear, Pete. I'm not saying that msuicians shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that some charity events budget for paid musicians, and some don't. If they do, then fine, and it's the musicians' choice to work for free for the benefit of the charity. If they don't, that's also fine as long as it's made clear from the outset, because it's still the musician's choice whether to play for free. It would be wrong, of course, for a musician to take on the engagement thinking he'll be paid, and then not, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and I'd be astonished if it happens very often if at all. The parallel between bar staff and musicians is an interesting one, and one I'm not sure holds completely. What is parallel, though, is that they can both choose to work or not (barring any contract of employment obligations on the bar staff's side). Please can we not get into a discussion about what constitutes an overhead? That sort of thing is the main reason I don't actively seek out the company of other accountants. I'd rather be a lion tamer, but there it is. [/quote] Your final question is easy: accountants are overheads.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 23, 2023 11:50:02 GMT
Your final question is easy: accountants are overheads. Just because accountants are overheads doesn't make all overheads accountants. Well, thank goodness for that, I say. In my business, accountants are not overheads. I will not be drawn into this. Whatever next, a meaningful discussion on depreciation and the various methods of calculation? The accruals concept? The benefits of market price valuations of assets. NO! NO! Get thee behind me, Brian.
|
|
brianr2
C.O.G.
Posts: 3,050
My main instrument is: Brook Lyn guitar
|
Post by brianr2 on Aug 23, 2023 16:51:42 GMT
Your final question is easy: accountants are overheads. Just because accountants are overheads doesn't make all overheads accountants. Well, thank goodness for that, I say. In my business, accountants are not overheads. I will not be drawn into this. Whatever next, a meaningful discussion on depreciation and the various methods of calculation? The accruals concept? The benefits of market price valuations of assets. NO! NO! Get thee behind me, Brian. There is evidently no taste for accounting… Brian
|
|
|
Post by fatfingerjohn on Aug 24, 2023 12:19:11 GMT
Hi all.
Thanks for all of your measured and informative replies. As is expected on this forum, no-one criticising others and all respecting the different viewpoints. I suppose the main things I would summarise from the responses are ...
--make sure you know the deal before you commit to it --there seems to be an 'expectation' that performers for many charity functions will do it for nothing, or a small gesture of some sort. --that in itself may be fair, if everyone knows the deal --but there is a residual feeling from quite a few that the performers are the only ones, rightly or wrongly, who may be 'expected' to do it for nothing, whereas everyone else gets rewarded as per normal. --and of course the usual discussion about performers doing things for nothing (whether for charity or not) and how that may affect those trying to make some sort of a living from performing.
Once again, thanks for interesting feedback and debate. Of course the issue it doesn't arise with me as it goes without saying that no-one would pay to hear me performing (unless it's to do so somewhere else!🤣).
FFJ
|
|