Promoters? Why are they used?

[HairyScaryMark]

I notice that most Aberdeen music venues hosting bands who play original material use promoters rather than booking bands themselves or through agencies.

What is the benefit for the venue in this? Is it mainly out of convenience i.e not having to distribute posters themselves?

[nullmouse]

I notice that most Aberdeen music venues hosting bands who play original material use promoters rather than booking bands themselves or through agencies.

What is the benefit for the venue in this? Is it mainly out of convenience i.e not having to distribute posters themselves?

Yes, plus the venue doesn't need to pay bands and can charge promoters to hire their venue.

[Guest MDP]

yup, tunnels and drummonds both do inhouse promotions aswell though

[HairyScaryMark]

But the bands are going to be paid anyway and some venues will charge for entry whether or not a promoter is used. This dosen't prove to me why promoters are used.

What's the deal with musician union rates? I know some people down south who try to claim Musician Union rates from doing gigs in a covers band but I don't know how sucessfull they are.

[nullmouse]

But the bands are going to be paid anyway and some venues will charge for entry whether or not a promoter is used. This dosen't prove to me why promoters are used.

When a venue charges for entry to a gig organised by a promoter, the promoter takes the money and uses that to pay the venue hire, the bands and any equipment / advertising overheads they have. The bands are paid by the promoter, with the promoter funding any deficit from his own pocket. In contrast, if the venue booked the bands directly and didn't make enough on the door to cover the bands then they'd have to pay them from the bar profit.

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why do independent promoters exist given that it's such a financial risk?

[Graeme]

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why do independent promoters exist given that it's such a financial risk?

Good Question.

[Cloud]

I notice that most Aberdeen music venues hosting bands who play original material use promoters rather than booking bands themselves or through agencies.

I wouldn't say they use promoters' date=' rather the promoters use them.

What is the benefit for the venue in this? Is it mainly out of convenience i.e not having to distribute posters themselves?

There's plenty of benefits - for a start, let's look at what an average four band local gig involves.

- Booking the bands

- Producing/Distributing posters

- Producing/distributing flyers

- Negotiating payments

- Manning the door

- Advertising online

And no doubt more. If you look at the amount of hours put in by the average promoter versus their end profit, I'd be surprised if any of them are actually making minimum wage. A venue paying someone to do those things would have to pay minimum wage at least, as well as keeping detailed records of what comes in and out of the door. If they give the night to a promoter, the promoter is effectively self employed and therefore not under the minimum wage rules - so for the venue, it's a cheap source of labour. I dare say the savings on wages/time/promotional material will be more than the profit from an average gig - hence the venue can afford to give the venue for less than the actual cost to them.

Promoters can also have a wide degree of contacts - so a promoter might be able to get a band to a certain venue that wouldn't play there otherwise. Say Band A hates Venue B - but Promoter C is pals with the band...C might be able to persuade them to play there for him, meaning that the venue benefits from the middle man.

But the bands are going to be paid anyway and some venues will charge for entry whether or not a promoter is used. This dosen't prove to me why promoters are used.

One word - tax. A venue doesn't have to account for what money comes in and gets paid out if a middle man is used - so it saves them money on accountancy fees and so on. Also' date=' as far as I know, gig charges are subject to VAT if the (it's bound to be) venue is registered for it - so by using a promoter, the promoter doesn't have to charge it and therefore prices are 17.5% lower as a result.

What's the deal with musician union rates? I know some people down south who try to claim Musician Union rates from doing gigs in a covers band but I don't know how sucessfull they are.

Covers bands tend to make a lot more money - so demanding MU rates for gigs like that is fair enough. Trying to demand MU rates for playing original material is a bit dodgy though - especially if your band pulls no-one. I think, at least in Aberdeen, a lot of support bands will play for the pleasure of getting to support a name band - any payment is nice, but the general feeling is that the support slot is worth more than money.

If bands generally started insisting on MU rates, a lot of gigs would become very unviable quickly - looking at the MU site, 56 is the standard rate. Multiply that by (say) three and you've got a payment of 168 to the local bands. Let's say the gig is 4 and pulls 100 people - that's 400 through the door. 50 to the venue leaves you with 190 to pay the headline band and cover your costs. The costs for a decent promoted gig will be a fair bit - I think we're going to spend close to 100 on the next MD night, so that would leave 90 - so it leaves effectively nothing for the promoter and a bad payment to the headline band.

[Shaki]

So why use promoters?

;-)

[Andy Mulhern]

Good Question.

Yes ... very good question

[cow tipper]

Well, I would imagine it's something like:

If the promoters are booking in bands that are pulling in punters, the venue's going to make a lot of money on the bar. Plus on top of that, some of them charge a hire fee, and/or a deposit if x amount of £ isn't made on the bar on the night. So they're at least covering their costs and maybe getting a bit more on top.

Running a venue is obviously a lot of work and trying to keep it busy all the time and booking bands/DJs etc is obviously even more work, so it's often to the benefit of the venue to take on more people to ease the burden, especially if they're people who can bring in something a little different and help boost the venue's image/reputation. The result - more stuff going on, more money coming in.

"why do independent promoters exist given that it's such a financial risk?"

Because they don't have venues of their own, and everyone needs a hobby. ;-) There's plenty money to be made as well as lost if you get a good deal, especially if you've got a club open afterwards in a prime spot in 'town'. I know someone who walked away with 2 grand in his pocket after a recent Barfly gig + club, and that was after paying all the bands the fees their agents wanted...

[Christy]

So why use promoters?

;-)

To keep Jamesy off the streets

love from christy

[Flash@TMB]

I wouldn't say they use promoters' date=' rather the promoters use them.

There's plenty of benefits - for a start, let's look at what an average four band local gig involves.

- Booking the bands

- Producing/Distributing posters

- Producing/distributing flyers

- Negotiating payments

- Manning the door

- Advertising online

And no doubt more. If you look at the amount of hours put in by the average promoter versus their end profit, I'd be surprised if any of them are actually making minimum wage. A venue paying someone to do those things would have to pay minimum wage at least, as well as keeping detailed records of what comes in and out of the door. If they give the night to a promoter, the promoter is effectively self employed and therefore not under the minimum wage rules - so for the venue, it's a cheap source of labour. I dare say the savings on wages/time/promotional material will be more than the profit from an average gig - hence the venue can afford to give the venue for less than the actual cost to them.

Promoters can also have a wide degree of contacts - so a promoter might be able to get a band to a certain venue that wouldn't play there otherwise. Say Band A hates Venue B - but Promoter C is pals with the band...C might be able to persuade them to play there for him, meaning that the venue benefits from the middle man.

One word - tax. A venue doesn't have to account for what money comes in and gets paid out if a middle man is used - so it saves them money on accountancy fees and so on. Also, as far as I know, gig charges are subject to VAT if the (it's bound to be) venue is registered for it - so by using a promoter, the promoter doesn't have to charge it and therefore prices are 17.5% lower as a result.

Covers bands tend to make a lot more money - so demanding MU rates for gigs like that is fair enough. Trying to demand MU rates for playing original material is a bit dodgy though - especially if your band pulls no-one. I think, at least in Aberdeen, a lot of support bands will play for the pleasure of getting to support a name band - any payment is nice, but the general feeling is that the support slot is worth more than money.

If bands generally started insisting on MU rates, a lot of gigs would become very unviable quickly - looking at the MU site, 56 is the standard rate. Multiply that by (say) three and you've got a payment of 168 to the local bands. Let's say the gig is 4 and pulls 100 people - that's 400 through the door. 50 to the venue leaves you with 190 to pay the headline band and cover your costs. The costs for a decent promoted gig will be a fair bit - I think we're going to spend close to 100 on the next MD night, so that would leave 90 - so it leaves effectively nothing for the promoter and a bad payment to the headline band.[/quote']

You are bang on. Saved me 2000 words.

[Afro Droid]

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why do independent promoters exist given that it's such a financial risk?

For the love of Rock!

[Guest Gasss]

If bands generally started insisting on MU rates...

...this would drive out the kind of promoters who repeatedly put on inexperienced bands (usually six at a time, who are prepared to play for essentially nothing) solely on the basis that they will bring in a small crowd of their own mates.

...fewer bands would be able to get gigs leading to a smaller number of better quality events with less splitting of the available audience (who may now have more of an incentive to check out local music).

[soundian]

...this would drive out the kind of promoters who repeatedly put on inexperienced bands (usually six at a time' date=' who are prepared to play for essentially nothing) solely on the basis that they will bring in a small crowd of their own mates.[/quote']

If the promoters are happy to put on shit, and the crowd are happy to watch shit, why does it bother you? My survival technique is to just not be there.

...fewer bands would be able to get gigs leading to a smaller number of better quality events with less splitting of the available audience (who may now have more of an incentive to check out local music).

Where are the new bands coming from in this set-up? How many bands do you know that are born perfectly formed and able to be professional from the word go?

Or alternatively:

...this would lead to promoters and venues only being able to put on cover and tribute acts, because catering to the lowest common denominator would be the only way to accrue enough revenue to pay MU rates

....live music would be confined to fri/sat nights, because that's the only time you'd get a crowd big enough to cover the inflated costs of the performers.

[Jim Stax]

Another potential source of income for bands is to join the PRS,when ready. Unfortunately this would only make sense if 'all' venues followed through with the prs forms etc. The Lemon Tree, as far as I know, is the only, mid sized venue in the deen that does this which, if registered with said org, allows for a royalty payment to come back down the line on top of any fee for the night.

If every aspect of the music industry was in favour of the musician then there is a potential for a win win situation for all involved. Unfortunately there would be casualties along the way, some deserved and some not so. Take Drakes as an example. A contributing factor in the 'timely' demise was infact the PRS fees which were extortionate for the size of the building and no amount of arguing the case made any difference. I think we would see more of this accross the board but in time things would change for the better, you would hope.

That said it is generally never really about the money when in a band and if good enough the rewards should follow, no?

Not sure where all of this came from. Must be my banana kicking in.

[soundian]

Another potential source of income for bands is to join the PRS' date='when ready. Unfortunately this would only make sense if 'all' venues followed through with the prs forms etc. The Lemon Tree, as far as I know, is the only one in the deen theat does this which, if registered with said org, allows for a royalty payment to come back down the line on top of any fee for the night.[/quote']

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I though PRS had some sort of criteria that venues have to meet before they will pay for performances at that venue.

[Teabags]

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why do independent promoters exist given that it's such a financial risk?

In the case of DIY promoting, its becasue the promoters wnat tp hold good gigs with touring bands, and if they reco they can do it and break even, we will, so that we can see good gigs. Its not about money, it is in all forms about seeing ace bands.

[Jim Stax]

Maybe I'm wrong here' date=' but I though PRS had some sort of criteria that venues have to meet before they will pay for performances at that venue.[/quote']

Nae shit bands!

(Jim emails PRS rep to find out)

[Andy Mulhern]

Another potential source of income for bands is to join the PRS' date='[/quote']

I may be wrong but i think there is a scheme where artist can fill in there own PRS form at each gig (in PRS registered venues or not) and once 10 are filled in this counts as 1 performance in a PRS registered venue and they get paid.....

Not a lot of money but if an artist is gigging regularly performing original music it will add up.

[Guest Gasss]

First of all, I was not suggesting that bands ought to demand MU rates, just (for the sake of a discussion) that there may be another side to it.

If the promoters are happy to put on shit' date=' and the crowd are happy to watch shit, why does it bother you? My survival technique is to just not be there.[/quote']

It doesn't bother me and I deal with it the same way. My own feeling is that local live music across the country is diluted by promoters and venues who do this to an extreme degree - I'm thinking of the "pay to play" end of the spectrum here. It has been said by others before me that it is too easy to get a gig and that this can hinder the development of bands.

Where are the new bands coming from in this set-up? How many bands do you know that are born perfectly formed and able to be professional from the word go?

I agree that unestablished bands would be disadvantaged.

...this would lead to promoters and venues only being able to put on cover and tribute acts' date=' because catering to the lowest common denominator would be the only way to accrue enough revenue to pay MU rates

....live music would be confined to fri/sat nights, because that's the only time you'd get a crowd big enough to cover the inflated costs of the performers.[/quote']

My point was that as this would make gigs less financially viable it could squeeze out "promoters" at the extreme end of the spectrum as above. But I agree that this would be at the cost of promoters becoming more conservative.

[Cloud]

Take Drakes as an example. A contributing factor in the 'timely' demise was infact the PRS fees which were extortionate for the size of the building and no amount of arguing the case made any difference.

Out of interest, with the PRS fees, would Drakes have seen a refund if the fees paid by the venue didn't add up to the amount of money that the PRS paid out for performances at Drakes?

[Jim Stax]

Out of interest' date=' with the PRS fees, would Drakes have seen a refund if the fees paid by the venue didn't add up to the amount of money that the PRS paid out for performances at Drakes?[/quote']

Didn't work like that. Unlike the Lemon Tree and the Music Hall (i have had my PRS feedback) Drakes along with the other bar/venues in town do not have 'live music' as their "prime business" and therefore are not liable for artists PRS payments. We were not entiltled to any refund and the fees were based on an estimate of the amount of 'cover versions'(?) played on an evening. Yup, even at Drakes!

On another note and to follow up a previous post and from the PRS

"PRS members now can claim royalties for ALL gigs they do, but

just through a separate system. If you play venues other than these ones

which ask you to complete a set list, you register on our website as a

PRS Member / Performer of your own music through the SMALL GIGS & CLUBS

scheme. Then whenever you do a gig with a core set list (which you

register with us) you simply go online & tell us about the venue & date

you played. Once you've got to 10 gigs, we can then allocate the bulk

income from those, as 1 individual payment at your next distribution."

Jim

[catherine]

Im pretty sure that for PRS you only have to pay for exactly what is played in your venue when the venue is over 300 capacity. I think if it is a smaller venue then they just pay a blanket fee which then gets given to the top artists.

Its a bit crap. its like with radio, small stations just get a 2 week screening so say you are a local band and get played like 3 times a day for those two weeks by chance. You get a lot of money. Or the money just goes to well played acts like Robbie Williams

Which is why they will be doing that thing were you tell them when you have played. So that if you really want money you can get money.

But it would be too much work if every venue had to submit every setlist from every gig when the chances are the majority of bands playing 150 capacity venues are not even going to be registered with the PRS.