Post by BWPost by Steve FreidesPost by BWNext time a club owner or a benefit organizer asks you to play for
free, and says "It's great exposure", what about this response.
"Well, I grant you that it might be great exposure, but I also know
from experience that "great exposures" often aren't. So let's make a
deal. We agree on a price for the band that's fair. You don't pay it.
We play the gig. If, within a reasonable amount of time, say a month,
we book a gig, even just one paying gig, from someone who saw us for
the first time at your event, you don't owe us a penny.
But if we book nothing from your event in that agreed upon period of
time, you pay us the previously agreed price. How 'bout that? Fair to
all involved."
How many would agree to that? And it would, of course, have to be in
writing.
Attorneys among us - your thoughts?
I'm not saying your idea isn't a fine one, but I'm with Jimmy - just say
"no, thanks" and be done with it if it's nothing something you want to
do. In my mind, you do a benefit because you are willing to
contribute
to the cause, and you hope the exposure will do you good but you don't
do the benefit _because_ of the exposure. A fine point, perhaps, but an
important one, IMHO.
-S-
I generally DO just say no. But I thought this was a good approach to
at least get the 'employer' to put his money where his mouth is. If
he (or she) really believes it's good exposure - good enough to not
pay any $ - then prove it with a promise that if the exposure proves
to be not worthwhile, we get paid.
Also, I didn't post this in reference to a real charity situation,
but more for a club owner or similar amoeba who just wants free
music.
Yeah, I'm not really on that circuit - thank goodness.
I did one of these for free a few years ago. At the time, it was a cafe
here in town that was trying out entertainment, and the entertainment
was me playing classical guitar for a few hours. I hadn't ever done
that before, and I offered to do it for free with the understanding
that, if the owner felt it was good for business, he'd pay me after
that. For me, I wanted to try it for the first time - very different
than your situation.
It worked out pretty well - I got asked back several times, got paid for
every time except that first one, and in the end, they had to stop using
me because they were doing such a brisk business and the place was so
small they felt it wasn't a worthwhile tradeoff - they no longer needed
me, and they needs the space I took up. The place is still there, still
doing a booming business, still small, and still has no live
entertainment.
Post by BWAs for playing for free, I like the idea of "cut me a check and I'll
donate it back to you". Tax deduction.
Non-profits have all sorts of rules and their own culture. The one I
playing for tonight has a very strict rule - they don't pay _anyone_
from our town. It's a town-based college scholarship charity, and a
pretty serious one in that it raises about $100,000 every year. And it
is good networking for me - I meet a lot people who might become my
students or send their children to me as students, and I feel it's a
win/win. And I enjoy doing it - we have an 7-piece pit band that I
enjoy working with once a year.
My point is that the nonsense the club owners spout to people like you
which, in your situation, is truly complete nonsense, is actually valid
for some people and some circumstances. I've just never gone that
route - all the paid playing I've done, except for the above mentioned
classical guitar stint, has been through schools or religious
institutions. I played a few shows at the local community college, I
get paid to accompany musical theater at the school where my wife
teaches, I sub as a church organist, that sort of thing.
-S-