[This is going to be a moderately sized post about the mechanics and economics of small scale alternative theatre. If that is of no interest to you then you are more than welcome to carry on past as if nothing is happening. More other things soon I promise.]
My friend Bryony wrote a blog the other day about the relationship between artists and venues. Lots of people read it and had very different opinions. Some people suggested that artists are being taken advantage of by venues, whose salaried staff simply don’t understand the difficult economic conditions faced by freelance artists. Other people suggested that we should be equally sensitive to the difficult economic conditions the majority of venues are also struggling through, with many doing the best they can for their audiences. Some suggested artists should be able to ‘name and shame’ venues or rate them like trip advisor, which seems relatively unfair without some kind of right of reply for venues, which it is too easy to forget are not faceless institutions but are in fact made up of real people doing the best they can, often far fewer people than you might think.
Another thing that someone might have said is that this is all a little bit like bickering over deck chairs on the Titanic; that theatre as we hope it might continue to exist is basically a capitalist impossibility but that this is ok, in fact it is one of the best things about it, and what we collectively need to do is make a more compelling case to the general public for why we (venues, festivals, artists, etc.) should be better supported to make survivable careers out of doing this financially illogical thing.
I think I have all of these opinions to a greater or lesser extent.
I am sometimes an artist and sometimes I run a festival and the arguments from both sides (if there even are sides, which there probably shouldn’t be) certainly resonate with me. Forest Fringe doesn’t pay people sometimes and sometimes it does. We (myself, Ira and Debbie) don’t get paid to run it sometimes and sometimes we do. This is a situation that we are only able to sustain with any degree of good will and support because of the level of transparency we ensure we have at all times. When they work with us artists know what the full deal is all the time. Whenever anyone asks how Forest Fringe works we tell them with all the fullness we can. In so doing we hope it is apparent that we are always trying to do the right thing, and if it isn’t we hope this level of transparency encourages people to say so.
Taking this into account it is perhaps not surprising that I think some of the fundamental conflicts and suspicions that arise between artists and those organisations that support and present their work could be immediately improved if we found ways to hard wire a greater degree of transparency into the relationships between them. And to that end I wanted to make two small suggestions that I think might immediately begin to make things better.
1. To create an online space where artists can declare how much they have been able to charge for their work, venue by venue, in the UK and internationally.
This is not about naming and shaming, about slagging off venues you’ve had a bad time with, or a license to have a moan about something that went wrong. This is only about trying to create a paradigm shift in how everyone talks about the money they currently earn. Doing so should in the first instance, give all artists a clearer sense of what they should or could be charging for their work. It should also make it clear where its not worth approaching a venue about your work, or visa versa, and thus avoid some of the messy haggling that Bryony describes.
2. To encourage venues and festivals to declare as a percentage how much of their annual income goes directly to artists.
Artists in this instance might also include writers, designers, workshop leaders, associate or supported artists etc. Again, this is not about shaming venues. It is about finding simple ways in which to gauge the fairness and consistency of the way in which venues are dealing with artists. It is also a way for venues and festivals to honestly demonstrate the commitment they have to artists that is not implicitly tied to the size of fees they pay. I’m not even saying that there is a percentage amount of your income that you absolutely must be paying to artists, but perhaps making these percentages public would encourage venues to elucidate far more than they currently do where the money they have goes and why, which can only be a good thing.
–
I am not suggesting that either or both of these things are the solution to a very difficult situation. In fact I think I’m suggesting that there is no solution and that that is main problem. However, perhaps if we trusted one another more, were more consistent and transparent in how we talked to and dealt with one another, then we could all go on trying to solve this impossible problem together. Maybe these are two ways we might build some more of that trust and transparency.
Ephemerous 
Hi Andy. Great response and I definitely agree with everything you say in the main, but I would differ slightly on your egalitarian ethos.
Whenever this debate pops up, and it does, I often think about the same questions:
Is there a blacklist? If there isn’t, why are people so scared of speaking out?
Can we prove it?
What’s the whitelist?
(I recognise ‘white’ and ‘black’ lists engender problematic associations, please excuse that)
I hear lots from colleagues and the like about demonstratively ‘good’ and ‘bad’ experiences. Often the same venues and people are cited/referred to as well. I don’t want to distract us from the more interesting discussion on pounds and pennies, and Andy: your solutions seem perfectly doable for all parties in this debate to provide. BUT I do often wonder why I hear so many people complaining but rarely able to deal with them. The same issues keep cropping up by often the same person so it’s obvious that the problem exists and is not being listened to. There’s a fear – a rarely addressed but all-to-obvious fact – that most people don’t say or do much because they think there’s going to be negative action taken against them. And in this instance we all know of one or more examples when this has actually happened.
So…surely it’s about time this was just put out there publicly and with the collective support and protection of the larger community. This is where we deal with this ‘collectively’ as you say. But it starts with individuals sticking their neck out first, which means we need to empower a degree of safety and support when they do it, which in the past has mostly been dealt with by people throwing generic race-to-the-bottom arguments into the mix, or worse; burying their heads in the sand in the hope that their reputation is damaged by association.
Yes: the most important thing to begin with is that this moment should NOT just be catalyst for a (yet another) moaning session…even though I appreciate that both ‘sides’ have a fair amount of gripes and groans. We should of course share these anecdotes and stories. Yes: If we can get anywhere in all this we should do so ‘together’ and In the understanding that we are all part of the same industry, market, community…whatever you want to call it.
We must believe that everyone involved in the arts is involved because some portion of their soul or heart is devoted to the arts for the same reason yours is. This I firmly agree with. But there ARE ‘sides’ in this issue. We are not ‘in this together’ in the same way that Andy implies (for me).
That being said, thinking ego-centrically is damaging. We suffer various forms of divide and conquer edicts and dictates, so to create our own, or perpetuate the existing threats in any way is clearly not going to solve anything.
Therefore we must be more socio-centric. Infighting and creating an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ dichotomy is as destructive as the external forces that clearly seek to suppress and marginalise us. If there was genuine unity our industry would be MASSIVE. It would be a force to be reckoned with.
I think we should DEFINITELY name and shame bad practice and those who perpetuate it, we should remember that these incidents and moments are just that. People – individuals or collectives/corps’ – need to know when and where the relationship is not effective. And it needs to come with thoughtful reflection on how best to learn from such moments. As an educator (too) I know I learn best when my students and peers refer directly to ‘me’, ‘my’ strengths and weaknesses (etc.) and – with proper channels and structures (of course) to enable progression – I will always understand that even the most aggressive criticisms can be learned from and positively dealt with.
To paint an entire market (or venue) with sweeping, vague, generic and crude assumptions is pointless. Artists are obliged to react proactively and constructively with ALL forms of evaluation and critique, and we are evaluated and critiqued by EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. There’s simply no reason why venues, producers and all ‘other’ roles in this industry shouldn’t be subject for similar (positive) scrutiny and feedback.
If we really are the same community, or ‘in it together’ then all rules apply to all.
Artists need to be realistic about their expectations and understand the true worth of what they do, and venues need to know that without artists they are not venues (they’re just buildings). This is not an issue with ethos, it is a recognition that artists need places that people go to (to share their art as widely as possible) and venues need artists (otherwise they’re just buildings: they serve purpose).
Pounds and pennies, and what things actually cost is one of the biggest things to solve and expose in this entire debate, not ‘who’s nice’ or not. They’re seemingly connected though in most contexts.
We shouldn’t be creating a culture of fear and oppression in reaction to being fearful and oppressed. These moments or issues shouldn’t tar the reputation of the venue in absolute terms. There’s nothing to gain by being strident and superficial. Colloquial and emotive gripes and groans are just that. Evidence is everything.
Equally we should exonerate and revere the venues and people that are genuinely supportive. We should also draw up a list of ‘could do betters’ and specify HOW they can do better.
Naming names – even figuratively speaking – is important if BOTH the good and the bad are named. It’s not enough to just expose bad practice OR good practice. It leaves people with the choice to ignore.
I’m certain most venues would really like to know how they can help us (yes yes, I know we keep telling them, but we do this usually in crudely idiosyncratic ways, and citing specific problems are rarely useful for solving general issues), so I would go a step further and suggest that there are measures that bring venues (AND ARTISTS) to account for their foibles and failures.
There’s no point in providing a ‘definitive’ report: ‘papers’ and such objects will likely be out of date by the time they’re published. That being said there’s something to be said about the way a ‘place’ where information can be presented is important.
Such ‘places’ exist in other industry. Trip Advisor is a user-led point-of-knowledge where customers (audience and artist etc.) get to share open, subjective, even biased and unfiltered reviews of their visits. The ‘score’ is achieved by the sum total of positives and negatives. Yep – that was what I ‘proposed’ and what Andy cites above. But I do want to clarify that the venues DO get right to reply in such fora, just like the way various disability groups lobby and expose venues via websites to improve modes of access.
So maybe there’s another – related, but not intrinsic – issue about this debate that gets dealt with by being more aggressive or direct.
People who don’t ‘get’ us, or don’t pay us…or whatever…are not as bad in this industry as bullies and nepotists – they are victims, like us, of a capitalist system and economy that the arts haven’t properly exploited. So if we – the artists – start by exposing bad practice, then the only objective is for the venue to learn and change or else their feedback works against them (like it does the artist).
I think equity and the ITC (and the few other org’s and unions) should consider consolidation and joining forces on this matter, and the whole debate does go all the way to the top.
Imagine what would happen if there was a national strike by all artists for just a week. ‘We’ wouldn’t lose out that much (the issue being that we don’t get paid enough anyways mean a minor and temporary ‘cut’ in income!), but society, culture, education, venues, the economy, and more will be directly and massively impacted.
The people who don’t participate in this collective act of protest would clearly be the people who a) want to perpetuate the status quo, or b) are the ones that benefit most from the status quo. They will expose themselves by their inaction.
Anyways…that’s my tuppence. Hope it positively adds to the dialogue.
Rob.
Hiya.
This is going to be a short sized post. I liked that BK posted initially and I like your outlining of various opinions/positions. I like the intention behind asking venues / festivals to be transparent and I think, maybe deludedly, that TFT is reasonably on the side of the angels bearing in mind our means. I’m afraid that I think that your current suggestion isn’t going to work at all as a/ operating models are, quite validly, really variable and b/ companies already declare all financials annually according to agreed measures (audit). It’s an expensive and time-consuming business. I don’t think that many would agree to duplicate this work according to another, different set of agreed measures.
Keep on keeping on.
Ali
Hi Andy. Really interesting post.
Just some quick thoughts from me, but bearing in mind that the venue I work at is not typical in that we have an unusual building set up and we mainly programme dance. I don’t think we’re perfect as a venue and I certainly can’t speak for any other venues, so these are very much my personal thoughts.
Firstly I wanted to say I agree that we all (venues, artists, funders) need to have this conversation. It’s in everyone’s interests that good artists stay in the profession, stay in the country, keep making good work and are provided with the facility to share this work with an audience.
I have a couple of worries about your suggestions, which are mainly around the fact that I think it’s difficult to compare both fees and costs without a wider context. We pay different fees to different companies which are based on what they ask for. I trust them that this isn’t based on what they think they can get because of what other people have got from us, but rather on a range of factors which are particular to them and their particular work – how much it cost to make, how much it costs to tour, how much they need to earn from each venue to make the sums add up etc. So I worry that comparing how much we paid x company doesn’t really give y company any sense of whether it’s appropriate for them to charge us a similar amount.
Then on the venue comparison, I’m similarly worried about missing the detail. Venues cost different amounts to run dependent on a huge range of factors not least the terms on which they run the building (owned/leased etc), heating/lighting costs, size, whether they employ full time tech staff, whether they pay front of house staff or use volunteers etc. There’s all the other things that they may or may not do – a venue may also be a development organisation, an agency, a conference venue, run classes etc whilst other venues may just open for shows each evening. Whether they’re a mixed art form venue or not has an impact. Then there’s all the other aspects of the deal which may not go direct to the artist but benefit them – providing space in kind, production time in kind, paying for artist’s accommodation and travel etc. So I’m just concerned that saying x venue supports artists more than y venue because a greater percentage of turnover goes on artist fees may miss quite a lot of nuance. I know you say you would hope some of this would be elucidated by venues but I think it would be easy to miss.
So, I wonder whether, rather than this numerical comparison, there are some shared principles we can all sign up to? But even this is really difficult – it’s hard to find a model which takes into account the myriad different ways in which companies and venues work. I certainly wouldn’t want to say that how we work is how other people should work.
Personally, I think there is a real need for dialogue with funders around this. For ACE funded venues I think it’s important to be talking about why we work in the way we do and, in a reduced funding model, whether we change this way of working, or simply do less and the implications of these decisions on the wider artistic community. For me there are also some problems around expectations (from audiences and artists as well as funders) of what can be delivered based on historical levels or, again, comparisons with other venues getting the similar levels of funding which don’t take some of the issues above into account.
Anyway, just some slightly garbled thoughts.
p
Both sound like good ideas. As someone with limited practical knowledge of the arts, but more knowledge about economics and pricing, here are a few additional thoughts:
1. If a website where people posted the rates they’ve been paid became known, you might find that venue contracts start to contain a clause forbidding artists from posting in it. Maybe not – but it’s something to think about, and if you’re aware of the risk in advance it’s easier to fight against.
2. People might not want to talk about how they’ve been treated, or about the amount they’ve been offered or paid – not because of a blacklist or any direct material consequence, but because they’re uncomfortable raising such things and of the impact on their perceived value (as perceived either by others, or by themselves). This is complex psychological and economic territory – and I think these ideas can help to open it up but there will still be barriers. People in most industries (except those with large-scale collective or standardised bargaining structures) are cagey about saying what they’re paid or what they pay for things. They want to maintain their negotiating position for the next job, and they don’t want to look like a mug if they’ve been ripped off. These aren’t insoluble problems but they are problems.
3. Because of the large proportion of (relatively) fixed overheads in running venues, the proportion of income paid to artists is likely to be highly conditional on success. The artists’ percentage on Les Miserables or the new Star Wars film will be a lot higher than on the next Finborough production. Is that because the Finborough is meaner than Disney or Cameron Mackintosh? Hardly. It’s because the Finborough still has to buy lights, pay rent and run a box office just like Cameron Mackintosh, but with 1% of the income.
The reason artists’ incomes end up so contingent on success is that most other suppliers to a venue are able to (and choose to) demand relatively fixed payments for their work, while artists become the risk partners. This is partly due to demand and supply, or as you might call it, economic power. A manufacturer of lights has a firm cost base, and also have other markets to sell their lights to when a theatre offers them a share of box office instead of a fee. In that transaction the manufacturer has the power. They’d probably be happy to work for a box office share on the Star Wars sequel, but Disney and George Lucas have the power there, so the manufacturer gets a fixed fee instead of a percentage on that deal.
In theatre, there are more shows without venues than venues without shows, so the artist doesn’t have a lot of power – unless they can produce a guaranteed or likely hit. Collective bargaining (e.g. Equity) does create more power, but at the fringe level this probably won’t help – the venues themselves are not powerful players compared to their landlords, funders or even punters – so if they somehow did get squeezed by artists, their in-house staff might lose out instead and/or the venues might stop operating altogether – there’s always another use for a building.
The other reason is convention – because artists have become accustomed to accepting risk-based payment, and venues have become accustomed to offering it, that’s the default mode. You can try and change this but if you’re the only one doing it, the business will probably go to someone else. (I note that Bryony, in the original post, already says she won’t accept a share of sales – but the low fees she’s being offered are a reflection of the same phenomenon: high risk puts pressure on artist fees more than on other suppliers).
Overall, transparency is usually beneficial so I can’t see much downside in the ideas you propose. But be careful in interpreting the numbers that may end up posted there.
I’ve been thinking about this all day. I think more transparency is really needed, you’re right. But I do think there’s a problem with this ‘we’re all in it together’ rhetoric. Not because I don’t think its true, we are all in it together, but because I don’t see continued leniancy and flexibility from artists being any kind of solution.
Artists are flexible, forgiving and resiliant. If anything our contiued flexibility is part of the problem. I’m afraid that this ‘hey chill out guys’ approach becomes another kind of power play and a de-legitimizing tactic.
We are all well aware that both artists snd organisations have it hard but any system that always pays artists last. That always pays artists the least, needs to change. Not just for the sake of the artists involved but also for the venues. What we all need is better art. Its actually shit economics to pay your most valuable asset the least money. Venues protect their own assets with amazing tenacity in the face of very tough
economical situations but they MUST start
seeing freelance, independent artists as part of that ecology. As things stsnd venues do not protect the salaries of the artists that make up their programme because they don’t pay enough in fees.
I wonder if the starting point should be with venues. On one level, they could give the basic information such as the type of work they programme, how they fund it, what conditions they impose on artistes. This would, hopefully cut down, for them, speculative enquiries and allow artistes to focus on the venues where there is a better chance of them performing. This shouldn’t prevent further conversations, of course, but it gives a starting point.
As an actor, the fringe is of particular interest to me. There are a number of venues which treat visiting companies badly and they should be named and shamed. There are even some who appear to be getting grant monies under false pretences.
It would be good to see even the very best fringe theatres make clear what their overheads are. Does your rent pay a salary to the venue’s staff? Is it just to cover their outgoings? Is someone making a profit out of it? (Not a bad thing in itself – it would be just nice to know what you’re dealing with)
This should also apply to producers, of course, especially when they are offering ‘profit share’.
There seems to be a reluctance to talk about finances. Somehow, we’re led to believe it’s vulgar. It’s not!
Like James I keep thinking about this blog, and Bryony’s. The more I move away from reviewing as a practice, the more I travel towards wanting to build a culture in which transparency about how theatre is made and staged is normal. Last year as part of being critic-in-residence with Chris Goode and Co I wrote a big thing about a collaboration between the company and West Yorkshire Playhouse during the Transform season, which looked at the relationship between Chris, CG&C producer Ric Watts, their producer at WYP Amy Letman, and the various tech etc teams at WYP. It wasn’t about money, but it was about how they all talked to each other, what they wanted from each other, where those ideals were met and where they felt frustrated. I wrote a first version and Amy felt I’d represented her quite negatively, that there were complex reasons for some of her actions that Chris hadn’t appreciated, so we spoke again and I rewrote to make it more balanced. And although at first she found it a nightmare, because her actions are rarely subjected to such scrutiny, in the end she appreciated the way it showed her own working practice back to her, and helped her improve her relationship with other artists. (On the off-chance anyone wants to read it, it’s the middle section of this: http://statesofdeliquescence.blogspot.co.uk/p/chris-goode-and-companys-9.html)
I agree with the people here who’ve said it’s more complicated than a table of numbers: it is. But the root point isn’t the money, it’s transparency, the lack of open dialogue about how theatre is made/staged. It’s producers and programmers talking honestly about how they make decisions. Over the past year I’ve been working with Fuel on their New Theatre in Your Neighbourhood touring research project, and it’s fascinating how many decisions are made from what looks like expediency rather than common sense. Eg, venues booking shows that would appeal to students at a time when the local student population is back home for the holidays, because that’s what seems the best possible compromise with time restrictions. The more I question decisions like that, the more uncomfortable people get. They feel attacked. But I don’t mean to attack, or even to criticise. I believe in examining practice as a step towards improving practice. And as Robert says above, there’s an imbalance if the staged work is subject to public critique, but not the process of it being staged. (I was planning to write about this conversation on the NTiYN blog yesterday, but ran out of time. When I do, it’ll be here: http://newtheatreiyn.wordpress.com/)
So yes: this is why I set up Dialogue last year. Since reading Andy’s blog on Sunday night I’ve been feeling frustrated that Jake (Orr) and I weren’t already doing this, hadn’t already opened up this space for honesty and transparency. I mean, we’re trying, but we’re so so far from it. The change we’re talking about here is going to be very slow to come about: there’s a lot of fear to get over, trust to be built. This conversation is happening at a really useful time, when Jake and I are shifting how Dialogue operates on the web, thereby – we hope – making it more possible for others to collaborate with us, and for the ideas coming up here to be put into practice. Anyone wants to contact me about that, please do: maddy[at]welcometodialogue[dot]com
Oi, Field. Whatup, beatch? Interesting thunking, as ever. Cheers, daddio. I’d offer to stick in my two pence but I’m loaded, so here’s two quid:
The models of crapitalism have never favoured the dudes who are actually making the shit. Whether it be exploited workers making I-Phones or Nike trainers within a system that has always thrived on economic disaparency; or musicians sticking it to the man and griping about how much the cheesemakers profit from the animals which make the milk which makes the cheese (once Sony, now Spotify); or Bryony Kimmings pointing out how hard we all hustle while salaried employees of arts institutions sit back and count their wads of cash, turning a blind eye to the slave labour they profit upon; basically we’re all fucked, apart from the Queen, Branson, and the dudes what own all the other stuff.
Cheesehorse Rice! I sound like a flippin’ Marxist! I’m with Russell Brand! Let’s take this shit down! I’m coming to chop your head off right now, Boris, you over-privileged sponge pudding of a human being!
Not really. Only joking. Most change is incremental. Let’s move towards transparency, and invite representatives from all sides to the party. Round tables, not left and right. Last week I heard Chris Evans talk about how much he enjoyed the theatre of politics. Imagine if we remixed the way that business and politics gets done, like theatre’s been remixed of late, audiences walking around punchdrunk, not having known what’s hit ’em and yet liking the fact that they’ve been hit?
Perhaps tricky, within the established paradigms that hold sway; you can’t just throw out the baby with the bathwater. For every Forest Fringe, there’s a darling, orating Shakespeare with the flourish of Laurence Olivier on a cocktail of cocaine and crystal meth.
that’s what Russell Brand had issue with.
On one hand you have Brand, Kimmings, me, Snoop Doggy Dogg and Pussy Riot (notice what I did there?); and on the other you have policy wonks, oompaloompahs tightening nuts in Wonka’s machine with spanners and calculators and data and research. By the process of diplomacy, we inch towards each other, and try to create systems that are just for all. Dare I say it? Systems where all of us profit.
Brrrrrrrrrap
Shane Solanki, no hanky panky
ps I have no idea whether anything I have said above makes the slightest bit of sense to anyone but me
[…] by Bryony Kimmings heart felt blog You show me yours. And followed up by many others including Andy Field, David Jubb, Emily Coleman and Amelia Bird. Thank God, people care. The debate has widened to […]
[…] Andy Field‘s blog is here […]
[…] reading some of the many blogs by Bryony Kimmings, Amelia Bird, Andy Field et al, I felt compelled to offer my venue’s […]
[…] response from artists, venues and producers alike. Fellow artist and co-director of Forest Fringe Andy Field put forward a proposal for greater transparency from all quarters, suggesting that an online space […]
[…] by Bryony Kimmings heart felt blog You show me yours. And followed up by many others including Andy Field, David Jubb, Emily Coleman and Amelia Bird. Thank God, people care. The debate has widened to […]
[…] Andy Field’s one: https://andytfield.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/transparency/ […]
[…] is a word that gets bandied about a lot, but in truth we all need to talk about money more. We need to be open, upfront and unashamed. We […]
[…] is a word that gets bandied about a lot, but in truth we all need to talk about money more. We need to be open, upfront and unashamed. We […]
[…] theatre maker Andy Field so beautifully puts it, “perhaps if we trusted one another more, were more consistent and […]
[…] that no venue has really responded to the entirely reasonable call for more transparency, made by Andy Field and others. This prompted me to look at the figures and I can’t think of a good reason why we […]
[…] venues has heated up. There’s been a lot of good sense written by people like Bryony Kimmings, Andy Field, Amelia Bird, Susan Jones, Maddy Costa and others. I think it’s important for more people from […]