26 Feb
2014
26 Feb
'14
10:37 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Mac Mckeever <macmck(a)ymail.com> 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.)