Most of our bookings are private and clients don't really want them to be filmed. Offering discounts is great but that will eat into your profits. Your rates should be at least £150 per person as I think that is the minimum I would pay musicians. Ouch. Pretty soul-destroying words. A kick in the teeth? Despite asking us to think about reducing our price, the agent insists we should pay at least £150 per musician, regardless of the engagement species.
Firstly, let's re-clarify our position with regards to Musicians Union Rates.
Why has this been posted? Because we feel that there is nothing we can say to the agent in this particular dialogue that will help matters. The agent has effectively undone all of our suggestions. We feel uncomfortable in imparting our own opinion in the small hope that this might influence the agent, lest this grate on the agent - just as Work Not Play campaigners can't preach an 'all or nothing', one-size-fits-all approach to the rest of the world. The views expressed in this blog may be considered controversial: we'd rather house them here in our own arena - a safe, virtual space - as opposed to forcing our viewpoints upon someone who won't necessarily understand or agree. Secondly, let's point out, at face value, the contradictions...
The agent advises against filming their events. This drastically reduces bands' capability to generate new promo materials. By extension, in advising against asking clients for permission to film events, the agent advocates bands spending more money on music video shoots - which does nothing other than to open up additional financial and logistical problems for bandleaders, as is well-documented in this blog. See Empower the individual and Risk Factor for some tasters, and culprits such as Delfina and Alexandra. How else would the agent expect bands to generate new promo materials? Thirdly, let's quickly review the Phasma budget.
These are merely the capital costs and exclude money spent on costumes and travel expenses for the studio rehearsals and recordings estimated £200 - £300 excess. While the label managed to save money in some areas (thank you to those who made that possible), how many musicians do you know of who have invested this kind of money? Also consider the quote from SLV Studios: £495 DRY HIRE (not including videographer, retoucher and musicians and the potential expense that this would add to the bill. Fourthly, let's look at the implications of some of these statements. From: SM We always ask bands to be self contained, all PA provided by them. Excuse me while I take a moment to magic 3 fully-staffed PA systems out of thin air...
Here are some example equipment purchase costs.
These costs are non-exhaustive and extracted from Red & Black Music's account records 2012-2014. They EXCLUDE:
The client always asks us to be self contained, all PA provided by us. Yes, we are self-contained, but we apportion monetary value to provide PA. Why? Because the financial overheads involved in transporting equipment around the country (not to mention the depreciation value of using equipment) are greater for than they would be otherwise. If the client provides PA (e.g., music/arts venues and festivals), we discount the charge of ourselves providing PA included by default in all of our quotes. This way, we're flexible: we're still 'self-contained' but we give clients the choice. If provision of PA is expected, plus the responsibility of setting up and sound checking, it is not unreasonable to expect this to be reflected in the cost, otherwise someone is ultimately doing a load of extra work for free. If the client opts to provide their own PA, this might work in the interests of both parties. For example, the musicians needn't transport equipment around the country should equipment be available at the venue already. And the client needn't spend extra money on equipment if cases where they have access to their own. It works both ways. All it requires is simply asking and answering the question: that simple mechanism of COMMUNICATION (in this case reading and understanding a quote), that invariably doesn't happen. If the client doesn't read or understand a quote and provides PA yet still pays the PA charge then that's fine too. The client may be too "Busy" and that's fine but at least it couldn't be said that we haven't been willing to negotiate on this. A specialist AV company is entitled to charge for the hire of their equipment as well as its upkeep and maintenance. Why shouldn't musicians be entitled to do so? At the heart of this lies an assumption and expectation that musicians - being musicians - are automatically qualified sound and lighting suppliers. This invalidates the accreditations specialist sound and lighting suppliers attain for their disciplines - disciplines completely separate from those of singing or playing an instrument, all of which potentially take years of study and rack up thousands of pounds in student debt. Yes, we are self-contained, to an extent... By including PA costs in our quotes by default, we're actually helping the client to save money by taking some of the provision in-house rather than them having to fork out more money for a specialist AV supplier. And yes, we are encouraged to be multi-disciplinary and we have adapted to that expectation to a certain degree. Our moderate PA charge does at least achieve that happy medium whereby we're able to cover our own overheads whilst also giving clients the freedom and the flexibility to opt out of paying those charges if, for example, they're a festival promoter running a stage and providing their own sound, lighting and back line for the musicians. If addressed in advance, it might make more financial sense for the festival promoter to hire an AV company to look after a whole day's billing rather than pay multiple PA charges across all bands: less cost and less administration all round. Win Win. See also Zara K incident. Why wasn't this communicated in advance? It is appreciated that Rory has offered to reduce his fee by £50 for his PA but I think that he should be aware that I have spent £210 for equipment with Farnham Sound and Light for the use that evening. I always thought that bands provide all their own equipment. We always ask for hot food, soft drinks, dressing room and travel (if over 20 miles from your home address) per car. This is all very well, but can we say that this always works out as expected? A few choice examples of where it didn't:
As we've seen from these examples, it's not always easy when managing multiple bookings via multiple agents, all of whom nuance a slightly different opinion and approach on this - all of which we respect but don't necessarily apply to us. By the same token, we've been made aware of an 'unwritten expectation' for clients to feed musicians. But can we say that all clients are aware of such an expectation, especially if they haven't had the opportunity to hire musicians previously? Hence why we include it in all of our quotes, to cover our own backs in situations where we're not in control of circumstances, but discount if the client says that this can be provided. That way there can be no doubt. We don't change prices for corporate clients or weddings, this is something I believe in. I don't think people should mark up prices because clients can afford more. The agent doesn't believe in changing prices for corporate clients or weddings. This is fine. The agent is entitled to that belief, and we assume that there is a valid reason behind this. However, note that the agent is discouraging us from charging higher rates for weddings and corporates. Let's imagine a scenario whereby our quotes work out to be over 35% - 50% of the total ticket sale revenue for supporting band, if tickets are priced at £30pp this is the maximum that customers are willing to pay in London for emerging artists, the venue only has a capacity of 116 and if all the tickets are sold, that would not leave enough to cover the main artist fees, advertising and other event expenses. Would we still charge them the same as if we would for a wedding or a corporate client? Probably not... Here are a couple of stark reminders why we would charge more for a wedding or a corporate:
Let's add to the mix the possibility that our venue might allow us to film the event and also promote exposure of the band. This sweetens the deal somewhat and provides other mechanisms by which we might reduce our fee. Why are we discussing this at all? The reality that so many factors come into play here that it's more than just a simple case of quoting MU Rates across the board. Don't get us wrong: quoting MU rates can be a good thing too. But there needs to be an accountable basis for doing so in the first place. It's also paramount to stick to your guns once quoted, i.e., not accepting an engagement at perceived 'lesser terms' without having an accountable reason - a concrete incentive such as transport, subsistence or a sound PA. The Conclusion...What's to gain from this discussion? MU Rates, whilst being a useful tool and reminder to not undermine one's worth, is invariably abused as a stick to beat with.
As a working musician, I'm proud of the fact I'm prepared to play for less than the recommended MU Rates. I believe that this doesn't make me any less of a musician. I've said many times before I'd rather play for free to a client who is communicable, accountable, takes the time to engage, ask and answer questions and provide feedback, and treats us WELL, than a client who pays more money yet lacks such qualities. Why? Because I perceive other virtues of being a musician that go beyond the purely financial. This is my decision and I will not let myself be swayed or altered or CRIMINALISED for creating work, on the basis that this doesn't conform to a certain expectation, enforced by someone else who isn't me, hasn't lived my life or experienced what I've experienced. Comments are closed.
|
BlogRed & Black Music was set up in 2012 to stop musicians cancelling. PurposeAt Red & Black Music, we believe in accountability = learning from experience. This blog serves as a record of challenges we’ve faced and how we’ve worked to resolve them. By sharing this, we aim to demonstrate our commitment to professionalism, problem-solving, and continuous improvement. Archives
May 2025
Categories
All
Pamela Molina 2022-23
Rory Duffy 2012-13, 2018-22
Claire Maillot 2016-18
Jo Mantini
2013-16
|
RSS Feed
