Charitable Performances
Mon, 27 Sept 2004, 03:23 pmWalter Plinge19 posts in thread
Charitable Performances
Mon, 27 Sept 2004, 03:23 pmI have noticed, lately, a few charitable organisations popping out of the woodwork and putting on theatre productions. The advertising clearly states that "all proceeds go to ( insert charity)"
Well How true is that statement really
The Director, MD, Choreographer, SM, Musicians and even the ticket sellers are paid.
Then we have the theatre, the lighting designer, set designer , set builder etc etc etc ...all paid
As these are "amature" productions ...the cast are NOT paid.
So how true is the statement that "all proceeds go to the (insert charity)"??
These organisations are run by marketing people who , once again , get paid. It is in their best interests to make a profit to fund their next production.
However when the public purchaes a ticket to a show that states all proceeds go to ...whichever organisation I suspect the paying public think their money is going to help those people afflicted by the particular condition/illness/disease and not line the pockets of production teams, marketing gurus,publicists and the like.
Well How true is that statement really
The Director, MD, Choreographer, SM, Musicians and even the ticket sellers are paid.
Then we have the theatre, the lighting designer, set designer , set builder etc etc etc ...all paid
As these are "amature" productions ...the cast are NOT paid.
So how true is the statement that "all proceeds go to the (insert charity)"??
These organisations are run by marketing people who , once again , get paid. It is in their best interests to make a profit to fund their next production.
However when the public purchaes a ticket to a show that states all proceeds go to ...whichever organisation I suspect the paying public think their money is going to help those people afflicted by the particular condition/illness/disease and not line the pockets of production teams, marketing gurus,publicists and the like.
Re: Confusion say
Sat, 16 Oct 2004, 06:02 pmconfused wrote:
> It was an ok production but certainly not worth the $48 i paid.
I don't know the exact economics of things, and I understand that theatre is horribly expensive to mount, but I can only respond like most of us do, from a consumer's point of view.
As a consumer with a limited budget, if I pay a lot to be disappointed, I'm going to be confused in future as to what is worth paying for. If a big show comes to Burswood and charges $80+ a ticket, I'll assume it's of high standard and so I'll save my theatre budget for those one or two shows a year. Every other local production suffers as a result.
And if I see a local production charging only $22 a ticket, will I be brave enough to try it, remembering I spent the $48 above and was still disappointed? The local industry, once again, may suffer.
And finally, if it was not made clear to me that a production is amateur, I will probably assume from the flashy costumes and production values (which they can achieve, not paying their casts or professional rights) that it is a local professional show...and you guessed it, the local industry suffers from my disappointed opinion.
And the sad thing is, there is probably not much wrong with the show...I would probably be quite satisfied with it had I not been charged too much.
> One thing that they had to pay was a $20 'administration fee??
> This came along about 3 weeks into rehearsal so what was it
> for. They have now been told I believe that they will get a
> receipt for it and it will be a donation to the MS
> Society.......how can a charity make you 'donate' to them.
What would have happened if you'd ALL refused? 3 weeks into rehearsal, what are they going to do, recast everybody?
This is really a bit scary, how performers get pushed into this sort of thing because they are scared to rock the boat...all they are doing is giving power and precedence to the company who will only continue to rip casts off because it's obvious they can...all the while making it look like THEY'RE doing YOU a big favour. It's exploitation...not so incidentally the subject of a fair bit of debate I remember concerning Music Spectrum's production of Les Mis that you mentioned...read here for a lot of past debate on a similar situation:
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=21&i=99&t=81
At the time I received this in response:
Emmalee wrote:
>>Did anyone ever consider that if this production goes well, and makes money, that the next time around there may be enough money in the kitty to pay the performers.
And I replied:
>Sorry, but no, I am more inclined to believe that if the production goes well and makes money (largely because they are exploiting the eager amateur performers), the companies will only be more inclined to do the same again next time because we let them get away with it now.
It doesn't please me to say I told you so...but why do I feel like Nostradamus?
Cheers,
Craig
> It was an ok production but certainly not worth the $48 i paid.
I don't know the exact economics of things, and I understand that theatre is horribly expensive to mount, but I can only respond like most of us do, from a consumer's point of view.
As a consumer with a limited budget, if I pay a lot to be disappointed, I'm going to be confused in future as to what is worth paying for. If a big show comes to Burswood and charges $80+ a ticket, I'll assume it's of high standard and so I'll save my theatre budget for those one or two shows a year. Every other local production suffers as a result.
And if I see a local production charging only $22 a ticket, will I be brave enough to try it, remembering I spent the $48 above and was still disappointed? The local industry, once again, may suffer.
And finally, if it was not made clear to me that a production is amateur, I will probably assume from the flashy costumes and production values (which they can achieve, not paying their casts or professional rights) that it is a local professional show...and you guessed it, the local industry suffers from my disappointed opinion.
And the sad thing is, there is probably not much wrong with the show...I would probably be quite satisfied with it had I not been charged too much.
> One thing that they had to pay was a $20 'administration fee??
> This came along about 3 weeks into rehearsal so what was it
> for. They have now been told I believe that they will get a
> receipt for it and it will be a donation to the MS
> Society.......how can a charity make you 'donate' to them.
What would have happened if you'd ALL refused? 3 weeks into rehearsal, what are they going to do, recast everybody?
This is really a bit scary, how performers get pushed into this sort of thing because they are scared to rock the boat...all they are doing is giving power and precedence to the company who will only continue to rip casts off because it's obvious they can...all the while making it look like THEY'RE doing YOU a big favour. It's exploitation...not so incidentally the subject of a fair bit of debate I remember concerning Music Spectrum's production of Les Mis that you mentioned...read here for a lot of past debate on a similar situation:
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=21&i=99&t=81
At the time I received this in response:
Emmalee wrote:
>>Did anyone ever consider that if this production goes well, and makes money, that the next time around there may be enough money in the kitty to pay the performers.
And I replied:
>Sorry, but no, I am more inclined to believe that if the production goes well and makes money (largely because they are exploiting the eager amateur performers), the companies will only be more inclined to do the same again next time because we let them get away with it now.
It doesn't please me to say I told you so...but why do I feel like Nostradamus?
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···