Economics of the faire

[Prof. John Bull]

(Partly an effort to avoid derailing the stage & street thread)

Substantially all forms of employment that are enjoyable and rich in intangible rewards pay poorly.  Nowhere is this more true than in the arts.  Visit any forum frequented by commercial musicians, photographers, actors, sculptors, painters, writers, etc., and if you read between the lines, an omnipresent low-level buzz of discontent over pay rates and frustration with newcomers to the activity screwing up the market can be discerned.

Fest performers are therefore in good company.

I think it's interesting to examine the economics.  Taking TRF as an example, typical attendance is 400,000, with tickets at $23 less discounts.  If we make a generous allowance for discounts and passes, we might still imagine gate receipts somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 million.  We also might imagine that booth fees and net proceeds from food and beverage sales (itself surely a profit center even when the cost of employees and food is considered) drive this higher.

The other large fests are managed similarly and we might imagine that the situation is roughly similar.

What becomes clear is that performers aren't a significant part of the budget.  If you count the number of paid performers and multiply by typical rates, performers are less than 10% of the budget.  It's puzzling to me because I just don't see where the money goes.  Publicity, sure, some of it.  Facility maintenance, some, though it's hard to look and see how that can take millions a year.

Yet we have comments like these:

I've not found anyone who made a lot of money backing a faire.  I've known a number who have had little or no return on their investments or lost money.   At best, faire is a marginal enterprise.  If we want to play, we live with it.  If not, we move on.

So, where does all the money go?

[L Dale Walter]

I can only speak for the faire that I had a hand in managing, which was Silver leaf Ren Faire, so this might not apply to all shows.

Our biggest expense was site maintenance, and it was on going and never ending.  From sand washing off the joust field and having to be replaced, to maintaining the ever sinking paths, to dealing with water issues, that was a HUGE strain on our budget that just never gets better.  Problem is you can't budget for it.  Entertainment I can set a price for, and keep to that.  When a huge storm hits 3 days out of show, and you have to rent tons of equipment just to repair the site (this happened in 2008), you just don't see that coming.  Plus SLRF doesn't even have permanent buildings, so I can only imagine the costs of keeping those up to code.

Advertising is a big expense as well.  I didn't oversee that, but having an MBA and knowing the market, I know it isn't cheap.  Without that you are dead in the water.  Remember 95% of your crowd do not read this, or any other ren board.  If you don't remind them of your event, they will put their $$$ elsewhere.

The thing that people don't get is that I can fill a show, that is easy.  But can you fill a show where your capacity pays for the filling of the show?  Book the Rolling Stones and you will sell out a bar, but if the bar seats 250, there is no way you can make it back, UNLESS people wat to pay $5000 a seat, and that is doubtful.  We had an event in 2006 that gave us our biggest day ever, but attendance couldn't offset the cost of the event.  Believe me it sucks when you break attendance records, and are in the red due to the cost of the draw.

That's just my perspective, your mileage may vary...
LDW

[Sonata]

I would imagine that property taxes and liability insurance also take quite a chunk out of the potential profits.

[Carl Heinz]

Since ours is no longer a permanent site, a chunk goes to LA County.  A comparatively small number of sites are actually owned by the events.  Then there's the expense of rebuilding the site each year, such things as privies, renting office trailers, office space for year round staff, and year round staff.  In addition to the entertainment staff, there are such expenses as Security, parking, first aid, etc., and other infrastructure expenses..

When RPFS was owned by REC, it was publicly traded and budgets were a matter of public record.  You might want to dig back a few years to find a prospectus.  It typically ran in the red. In fact, I can't recall a year when it ran in the black.   We got a bit of a write off when it became a penny stock.

Northern is now run by a corporation made up of vendors and participants who have purchased stock in the operating corporation.  They've been running if for several years and, I understand, they've about broken even in the last year or two.  The LLC which "owns" the Guild of St Cuthbert is a shareholder.

I get the impression that Arizona and Minnesota may be in better shape, but that's only a guess.  I think they own their sites but I'm not certain.  When we attended Arizona, the entertainment staff consisted of a small number of theme characters and mostly pass the hat events.  It apeared that the "profit" there was being plowed back into site develolpment.

As you've pointed out, a goodly amount goes for publicity and comps.

I stand by my original statement.

We contribute our time and effort because we enjoy faire and want to keep it going.

[Terry Griffith]

I don't have specific information on profit and loss and I don't want to dispute the facts known by someone who does but something just doesn't seem right here.  Maybe there is a difference between the small faires that don't own their sites nor have permanent buildings and the larger faires that do.  I know for sure that the owners of larger faires that do own the property with permanent buildings are not doing it just for the love of doing it.  There is profit to be made if it is well managed and properly advertised.  These owners put a great deal of planning and money into making their events bigger each year and you can't invest capital on projects that are failing. 

I have seen a faire that has failed after many years in the same location and when a new owner bought it out, he made it profitable.    Proper management is everything and it is an artform in itself.  The faires that are operated as a profitable business can and do succeed and the faires that are run just for the love of faire usually fail.  It is a business like any other that requires a desire to make money in the end.  Some of the practices of successful faires are not always popular by the participants but they need to understand why those things are done.

During these hard economic times, faire owners need to adjust something to make up for the losses caused by higher operation costs.  There are two things that are happening at some faires around the country.  Some have cut the cast and performers pay in half.  Others kept the previous pay rate and cut the number of cast members in half.  The casts and performers in both situations have complained but the faires go on with record numbers at the gate.  It must take a very cold heart to make a faire work but they do whatever it takes. 

[L Dale Walter]

During these hard economic times, faire owners need to adjust something to make up for the losses caused by higher operation costs.  There are two things that are happening at some faires around the country.  Some have cut the cast and performers pay in half.  Others kept the previous pay rate and cut the number of cast members in half.  The casts and performers in both situations have complained but the faires go on with record numbers at the gate.  It must take a very cold heart to make a faire work but they do whatever it takes. 

One must remember, it is show BUSINESS.   In this economy people shop for deal, so must businesses.

Plus, no one has to work for any faire.  Local casts are most able to just say "ummm, not working for that much..." and not do the show.  However, as many are caught up in the social event, they do it anyway, and grumble about the pay.

I have walked away from several Ren shows several times, and plied my shows, and talent, elsewhere.  As a performer you have to be flexible.  In 2006 I went from playing Porthos in a scenario show, to a vampire guitar player in a stage show.  It pays to have multiple talents, and, remember, if the check clears the bank, it's art!

LDW

[Lady L]

I get the impression that Arizona and Minnesota may be in better shape, but that's only a guess.  I think they own their sites but I'm not certain.

Mid America Festivals (Minnesota) didn't own the land, they owned the festival. They leased the land from other people. As I understand it, the landowners are now part of the new lease agreement with the festival management. I don't know anything about how they split the costs/profits and I don't know anything about the AZ faire.

[aerial angels]

Different faires work in different ways. There are faires that make money and faires that don't. There are faires that make large profits, faires that make small profits, and faires that lose money in varying amounts.

It's like trying to generalize about a retail store. Family business or corporation? Multi-national firm or small-town storefront? Staff size? Are there volunteers or is everyone paid, or a mix? What's the mission - community event, benefit, for-profit extravaganza?

Just as you can't compare the Goodwill store with Macy's, you can't make assumptions about every festival.

Big expenses are always insurance, site costs, taxes, PR, liquor license, local permits, entertainment, garbage/power/water/potties. And there are lots of small expenses.

We might be able to give you better insight if you mentioned who you are, where you're from, what aspect of faire you do, what fairs you've been to, etc.

* * *

And in response to:

Substantially all forms of employment that are enjoyable and rich in intangible rewards pay poorly.  Nowhere is this more true than in the arts.  Visit any forum frequented by commercial musicians, photographers, actors, sculptors, painters, writers, etc., and if you read between the lines, an omnipresent low-level buzz of discontent over pay rates and frustration with newcomers to the activity screwing up the market can be discerned.

I'll reprint a comment I posted to Stephen Brust (the fantasy novelist)'s blog:

I'm a professional street performer And I sure wish the comments had fewer characterizations of artists as never making any money and art as something that just doesn't pay because that's a bovine poopie lie and an excuse to either not be good enough, smart enough, or work hard enough to make it good and make it your living.

If you can't be a fulltime artist because it's not paying you, then either choose to do it in a way that makes money (by being smarter, working harder, or getting better) or accept that it's your delightful hobby, not that you're really a fulltime artist who just isn't supported as you deserve by society, boo hoo.

Is IS possible to make a living as a fulltime artist, and it sends the wrong message to society as a whole when we stomp around like six year olds whose mother won't give them ice cream until their room is clean. Nobody else gets paid unless they figure out how to do a job people will pay them for, and artists are no more entitled to societal support than any other vital, necessary function.

If you can, generate content that people are happy to pay you for. If you can't, start figuring out what else you can sell, or how or where else you can sell it.

I am sick and tired of whiners who are really hobbyists bitching and moaning about art not paying well. It DOES pay well - it just is a lot pickier about whom it pays than one might suspect. I'm going back to my doctors here (from the other post) - If an artist put the amount of time and energy and personal financial investment into their art career that a doctor put into med school, internship, and residency, chances are pretty good they would be a working artist.

It is 100% possible to be a working artist. It is even possible to be a wealthy artist. But you know what, if someone whined:

"How come I'm not a BRAIN SURGEON!  I've ALWAYS WANTED to be a brain surgeon and NO-ONE WILL PAY ME to operate on their BRAIN!!!! I only get to CUT OPEN BRAINS on the WEEKEND in that CLINIC in the BAD PART OF TOWN instead of in the GOOD HOSPITAL!!!"

We would expect them to have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and ten or more years of their life before taking that complaint seriously.

Being an artist is no different. It's a career that a lot of people want and very few people have the drive, work ethic, and perseverance (notice "talent" is not on that list) to achieve. It's not that the art business is any harder than any other line of work, it's that people expect it to be easier. They expect that it's going to be a magic world of discovery when in fact it's a hard cold realm of self-employment.

I suspect the low-level buzz of discontent can at least partly be attributed to the fact that the working artists are too busy making art and selling it to do much blog posting. On that note, gotta run - I have clients to email and pages to write

[Prof. John Bull]

Aerial,

I think I agree with most of that.  It is certainly true that there are people who can't make a living in the arts because they lack talent (either due to a lack of training or a lack of aptitude or both).  There are also people who can't make a living in the arts because they don't understand the market or how to produce art (broadly speaking to include theater, music, visual arts, and so forth).

On the other hand wages are low and are driven down by people who have day jobs and are willing to work for free or for little.  There are people with a high school education making more money running a 1-800-GOT-JUNK franchise than people with MFAs working in their chosen field.

[temper]

 

Wow, did my blood pressure so go up reading some of these comments.
I guess some of you would call me a "hobbyist" even though we make a profit -but I work full-time at *another* job I love.
I guess I'm a hobbyist because no one is particularly interested in buying the papers from symposia and I don't charge for them.
I'd like to quote a full-time sword teacher here on the East Coast
"There has to be an easier way to make 20,000.00 a year" (this is a joke, folks if you are familiar with the COL in this area)
So a construction crew that subcontracts can't be a 'professional' because they don't have full-time staff that does *everything?*
To sum up, I don't think it's a mark of shame to supplement one's income with multiple talents.
As the much scoffed "weekender" I get along fine with people who do this full time. And I wouldn't consider me or anyone who works for me "unprofessional" and any of our corporate customers would feel comfortable with the "p" word. (Two of my favorite faire owner/organizers are lawyers by day)
So please folks, take care as to the depth and breadth of that broad brush
Now having vented my spleen,

I rarely complain about pay, if it sucks, we won't take it unless it has big benefits (disgustingly fantastic advertising for instance) and if I was all about that, I'd be doing birthday parties every weekend. Ka-Ching.

I agree about investing on one's art.  However I did work as a freelance artist for two years and when a sufficient amount of people had stiffed me (yes, I was trusting) I said "enough."  If you don't make enough money, don't do it.

Performers should not undersell themselves to greedy faires (or any other employer of that type) and much as I love doing this, the first time someone tries the "love of faire" hook/guilt trip on me in conversation, my eyes rolls so far back into my head that I can tell you what my brainstem looks like.  But I also believe in karma, I am watching the recession weed out the bad businesses, because although a lot of their help is free, gas, equipment and costuming is NOT and once that coin of goodwill is spent-buh-bye Bad Faire.

[L Dale Walter]

Beyond a certain point, talent, as in the actual performance, has little to do with success.  I spoke with a very talented guitarist at last years NAMM show (the big music merchandise show in LA) who was amazingly taleted, and had played with Wicked Wisdom (Jada Pinket - Will Smith's wife's band) on Ozzfest (and the Tonight show), yet he was living on Ramen noodles, and recording in his apartment with a drum machine.

When I showed him our press kit for the Netherworld: Vampire Apocalypse show, he was blown away.  The kit included pictures, bios, a DVD, marketing materials, and reasons on why my show will make someone money if they book it, broken down in financial terms.  He said to me "Hell, Wicked Wisdom never even had press like this..."

Now this guy could smoke me on guitar, but couldn't make the leap to selling his talents.  They always say the best guitar players are home in their basements right now, practicing, and you will never hear them.  Really good guitar players think I suck, but they are not our fan base, and don't buy tickets to shows.  My sponsorship deals are based on the fact that we SELL, and look amazing doing so (providing great shots of us with our sponsors product), not that I can rip a scale faster than anyone else, or what some basement aficionado thinks of my playing.

Faires are much the same thing.  I recently told a young performer how to make money on a show, how to construct it, document it, and sell it.  I told him you don't get paid by saying "I will do a great show if you pay me..."  but rather by DOING a great show, and then saying "Here are the stage counts, here are pictures, here are a stack of e-mails from fans.  Now, we really like doing your show, and we have proven we are a draw..." and it goes from there.   You have to take the long view, and be willing to put off getting paid sometimes to make money later.

He told me that was too much work... ::sigh::

It's basically a "work in = rewards out" kind of thing.  I have been doing this since 1981, when I was a 16 year old floundering as a street character.  My resume now would take several pages to enumerate and is only PARTIALLY ren fest stuff.  It's what you can bring to the table in terms of DRAW and SELL that gets you paid, not that you LOVE Ren Fests, or that (the one I love to hear) that "This is your LIFE!!!"  That's all great, but if you can't get the job done, meaning put butts in the seats and KEEP them there, plus provide pictures/interviews/press for your venue, then you are never going to succeeded. 

[L Dale Walter]

To sum up, I don't think it's a mark of shame to supplement one's income with multiple talents.

Not at all, in my book.

The reason I can do what I do with Ren Fests is BECAUSE I have other talents, and another full time job.  One of the biggest problems I see in ren fest shows is undercapitalization, meaning they can't sink the money in to make their show rock, because they just don't have it to spend.  I do, and can.  I make it back, but sometimes the capital outlay to get a show up is heavy, and, if you don't have it, well, no show...

If all of your eggs are not in one basket, you have more flexibility.  This does not make you "unprofessional".  Single product companies rarely survive, and the most successful Ren Fest performers I know have several shows, plus other money making ventures (games, exhibits, booths) that all contribute to that bottom line.  Whether these contributors are vertical or horizontal integrations are personal choice, but I'll take a recession resistant horizontal spread over an income stream that is all tied together vertically.

[aerial angels]

Aerial,

On the other hand wages are low and are driven down by people who have day jobs and are willing to work for free or for little.  There are people with a high school education making more money running a 1-800-GOT-JUNK franchise than people with MFAs working in their chosen field.

Wages are no lower in the arts than in any other field of self-employment. It's not that it's art, it's that it's entrepreneurship, and most people aren't suited to be entrepreneurs. The working performers I know (and I'm using that category to mean, "people at the renfaire who do this as their primary living") own houses and cars, get braces for their kids, and live the lives they want to live on their performing pay.

There are other fields where making money is a problem because others are willing to do it more cheaply - like, selling books on Amazon, for example. However, the challenge is to figure out what you have that someone else doesn't. Yes, some faires will hire locals for free or for hat or for cheap rather than a professional act that might be better, and their patrons generally won't know the difference, but you have two choices: You can whine and moan about how you're better and they should hire you; or you can go find another job where they value what you bring. People who make the first choice are complaining about their MFA not getting them anything. People in the second category are working.

I don't get the point of the (not unique to you) comment that people [with inferior qualifications] and/or [doing less-artsy job] are somehow less deserving of making money than [artist with qualification]. If the high school grad (or drop-out for that matter) with the garbage franchise makes a living through her efforts, where is the Rule From God that says "artists should make more"? Why?

There are lots of people without advanced degrees, or working in non-glamorous fields, who make more than people with advanced degrees or in glamorous fields.  So I guess I don't get your point.

Are you saying: Anyone with an MFA deserves to make a living in their chosen field?
Are you saying: Anyone who does a job in the arts should be making more money than anyone not in the arts?

What's your actual point? Because all I'm getting here is "some people in some fields make more money than other people in other fields" and while that's loosey-goosey enough to be true, it doesn't really forward the discussion.

[aerial angels]

To sum up, I don't think it's a mark of shame to supplement one's income with multiple talents.

No, it's not. The shame is only if the artist spends their time whining about how they "deserve" to make more money as an artist and how terrible it is that "society" doesn't support them.

If you don't make enough money, don't do it.

Bingo. Or choose to do it - as you have - in a way where you enjoy the work you do, get paid a price you're happy with, and have it fit into your life as a part of your overall working time. (I don't know you in person, but it sounds like what you have is a successful part-time job, not a "hobby".)

[Carl Heinz]

The best example I can think of who ended up having to get a day job to support his arts (and I do mean plural) is a friend of many years.

He's an excellent character actor and has had a variety of caste roles.  He's also a very good tenor and sings with what I think is the major musical group at RPFS.  He also is the instructor for apprentice BFA workshops.  But he eventually needed to find a day job.  He continues at faire.

There are many of us who do faire for the love of it.  But, if we want to maintain a comfortable standard of living, we use our other skills for "day jobs".

We got into a similar heated disagreement on AFR a number of years ago.  I saw similar comments about those willing to do faire for the love of it being attacked by "artists" who felt that their willingness to work for little eroded their earnings.  This is probably true.  But, I refuse to stop what I'm doing just to protect their incomes.  If they're truly artists, I suggest that they seek employment in venues where they don't have this competition or develop their entrepreneurial skills so that they can attain the wages they seek.  I have other skills that I used in my "day Job".  A senior programmer/analyst/IT manager can make a comfortable living.  I'm now retired, but I still play.

Sorry for the rant, but it is a hot button.

[L Dale Walter]

The shame is only if the artist spends their time whining about how they "deserve" to make more money as an artist and how terrible it is that "society" doesn't support them.

I have a standing joke that the next performer, or vendor, who bitches to me that "This is my LIVELYHOOD" about anything gets punched in the nose.  That has become the cry of those who's shows can't compete, or are selling; #1 things no one wants or, #2 overpriced stuff.  Like it is somehow OWED to them because this is how they make their living, yet they don't understand simple economics of supply and demand, or that physical fitness and personal hygiene is important if you are selling yourself as a performer.

Two examples:  Vendor - I had a guy complaining that he wasn't making any money, when he was selling carved walking sticks (something no one needs) the cheapest one was $75, and the faire was in a depressed area.  Ummm, duh?  Get some under $20 items my friend...

Performer - This guy has gained an average of 10-15 lbs every year since I have known him.  He now tips the scales at over 350, is in terrible shape, and can't understand why he isn't getting fight team/stunt work.  Hello?  He can't physically do the work, and no one really wants to see him flop about on stage panting and turning red.  Could he have played another role, possibly, but he was convinced he was a FIGHTER, even though I bet his physician would advise otherwise...

It's your livelyhood?  Then ACT like it.  Treat it like job, not a social event.

[L Dale Walter]

the market rates for performers are depressed by the fact that people are willing to work for peanuts because of the intangible rewards.  I think that is an important part of the context for the discussion of the impact of entertainment expenses on the P&L of the promoters, which is what this thread is really about.

Agreed, but then you also get what you pay for.  Costuming my "Three Musketeers" show to get them "movie perfect" costs about $2500 per Musketeer.  If a faire wants that look, with professional performers with spot on accents and characters, then they pay for it.  If they will accept a 16 year old who will work for free in a tabbard bought from Halloween USA as their standard of Musketeers, then they get what they pay for, and their show suffers accordingly.

So, at one level, yes you are correct.  At another, not at all.  Quality draws, and sells.  Some shows realize this, other do in time, some never do.

THAT is the market.  Where you ply your trade is dependent on who wants what you are selling, and can afford it.

L. Dale Walter
Director
Knights of Iron

[vinceconaway]

Why is there such focus on day rate here?  Unpaid and underpaid acts can only depress salary scales, not hat or sales revenue.  Don't make your act better so that you can impress a few entertainment directors, make your act better so you can blow away your audience and get a hat full of tens and twenties.

After doing this for a few years, and making yourself into a festival draw, ask for more money from management.  If you've made yourself a big enough part of the festival you should get it, and if you don't you can take your blockbuster money-making act anywhere else and do just as well.

Vince

[L Dale Walter]

Why is there such focus on day rate here?  Unpaid and underpaid acts can only depress salary scales, not hat or sales revenue.  Don't make your act better so that you can impress a few entertainment directors, make your act better so you can blow away your audience and get a hat full of tens and twenties.

Well, for my part, I run mostly no hat shows.  I can't see a way to make it work in the contex of our performance without cheapening it.  Kind of like the King and Queen standing at the front gate at days end asking for hat.  It just doesn't look good...

I do have one "hat" show that I sell, and, yes, there I agree with you.  However you still have a bottom line that you must make, or you lose money.  On rain days, or when you are up against another event, it is hard to make hat.  Nice to know your hotel, gas, and food are still covered...

[GoldenGoose]

Generally, I've found people woefully underestimate how expensive it is to put on a show like a Renaissance Faire. The advertising/marketing budget alone for a larger show can run $50-100K. Toilets -- admittedly, I have high standards and insist on a high rate of potty to patron, but really, for a 1500-1800 person daily gate, you can easily spend $1200 a day. Those people picking up trash, parking cars, taking tickets...they all have to be paid as well. A HUGE chunk of change. We're a very small show -- but almost $5000 in gravel. Gravel. Don't even get me started on construction costs. Permits and licenses. Liability insurance. Websites, printing, fuel. Ice. Fabrics, paints, tools, machinery.

A larger show may have some people working year round. Salary. Benefits. Office space and expenses. Phone lines, credit card fees and services. Lawyers, accountants.

My point being -- it sounds like a lot of money coming in through the gate, but it takes a lot of money to get and keep those gates open. And you always have to keep a healthy rainy day fund. Because you will get a crappy season, weatherwise, and while the patrons don't show up....you still have to pay for those toilets, those staff people, the advertising.

Admittedly, performers are trapped to a certain extent. A faire owner has to ask him/herself -- just how good does the act have to be, to make our patrons happy? (Remember, our bread and butter, especially at larger faires does NOT come from the regulars. The vast majority of the gate is the one-offs -- people who come once a season.) Do you pay for a couple of name acts and fill in the rest with folks who are willing to work cheaply? A name act may be a gate draw -- but will they draw enough to pay for the act itself? Go medium-range all around -- figuring people have made the decision to come to the Faire based not on the acts, but on wanting to have a good time and medium-skill is good enough. At what point do you risk having people not come back because the stage acts were not good enough? Some faire managers/owners have high standards, believing that delivering a high quality show is what brings people back over and over again. Others believe that people are really there for the whole experience and "mediocre" stage acts (and I mean that not as a slight, but in terms of polish/skill/experience/notoriety/money demanded) entertain the patrons enough.

If you only hire "names", the "best"...how do the new guys get started? How do they improve? There are only so many venues! But of course, there are shows who take advantage of that -- they know that they can always fill the stage with a new guy/group that will work cheap/free. And yes, that does drag down the pay of the pro's. There's ALWAYS a pirate group that will work for free...or damn near it.  And that's what kills the entertainers trying to make a decent wage -- you CAN be replaced, especially if you're at the low to medium end of talent/polish/experience/solidity. The people who do make a living at this work very, very hard. They have great press kits, great social and other media presence -- ensuring that they are a draw. Their act is tight and professional, original/catchy. They are known for showing up on time and delivering the goods. Which is STILL no guarantee that you'll be booked as much as you want, at the fee you want. Which is why so many are involved in other ventures -- CDs, DVDs, t-shirts, other shows, booking acts, doing documentaries, films, books, plays, being agents, working outside the rencircuit.

There are shows like ours. We are cash-poor and concentrating on building a good solid show and we're willing to plug along slowly without risking debt. We can't afford to pay our entertainers what they're worth. We get that. There are folks who would like to do our show -- that we'd love to have -- but we can't afford to do it. If you don't like the pittance we offer, we understand that you have to move on to a better opportunity. And we fear being lumped in with those shows that expect folks to work for nothing, because they can get away with it. But we're doing the best we can and our view is long-term, with a goal of eventually paying entertainers enough to forbid hatpass.

And there are other shows that have realistically looked at their budgets and said hey, we just can't afford any more than this. Or, even, your act is just not worth the extra cash to us, to our business plan and goals. It sucks, but it's a business decision. Just as you have to think "I can take this job for chump change, or I can walk away to find something better" or "I really need this on my resume, could use the practice, it's a good opportunity to polish."   You're a business person too -- only you can decide where the line lies between "I really need the cash, I have no other opportunities and something's better than nothing" and "this money is not worth getting out of my jammies. I can find another job, or another opportunity, or enjoy my time off, I'm not selling myself cheap because then they will expect it."

Anyway, that's just some thoughts from someone who writes the checks, but also lives with an entertainer, so I can play devil's advocate all day long....

[vinceconaway]

Well, for my part, I run mostly no hat shows.  I can't see a way to make it work in the context of our performance without cheapening it.

I think the phrases "I can't see a way" and "cheapening it" are telltales here.  The idea of "cheapening" a show seems to lead directly to supposed conflicts between art and commerce, which may be a bit big to get into here.  As far as I'm concerned, entertaining your audience should be paramount and their willingness to give is a pretty solid indicator of their level of enjoyment.  And, as I read it, "I can't see a way" speaks more to inflexibility than impossibility.

I do have one "hat" show that I sell, and, yes, there I agree with you.  However you still have a bottom line that you must make, or you lose money.  On rain days, or when you are up against another event, it is hard to make hat.  Nice to know your hotel, gas, and food are still covered...

Often, however, variable incomes even out over time.  You can budget using averages and have a decent idea of what to expect.  And how much are you spending on hotel, gas, and food that even a low day rate won't cover it?

[L Dale Walter]

I think the phrases "I can't see a way" and "cheapening it" are telltales here.  The idea of "cheapening" a show seems to lead directly to supposed conflicts between art and commerce, which may be a bit big to get into here.  As far as I'm concerned, entertaining your audience should be paramount and their willingness to give is a pretty solid indicator of their level of enjoyment.  And, as I read it, "I can't see a way" speaks more to inflexibility than impossibility.

Ok, lets change that.  I can't see a way to maintain the reality that I, and my employees, have worked all day to establish, to keep the believabilty of the characters in the eyes of our patrons, especially the children, when Robin Hood, or Robert Earl of Huntingdon as it were, hits them up for a dollar.  In the reality they have bought into, he is a noble, and wouldn't need their money.  SO unless you are willing to abandon the characters, and we are not, passing hat doesn't work for us. 

Inflexible?  May be, but I don't need the hat as much as I need to see that the people buy the story.

Often, however, variable incomes even out over time.  You can budget using averages and have a decent idea of what to expect.  And how much are you spending on hotel, gas, and food that even a low day rate won't cover it?

Depends on the show, and the number of cast.  Some of our shows have up to 15 people in them.  That takes a lot of gas and lodging.

And I like suites...

LDW

[Paolo Garbanzo]

I've arrived late to the discussion, but I thought I would throw my 2 cents in without trying to sound too ranty.

I'm looking back at the original post and really, the only question is "Where does all the money go?"

If you're actually interested, You can (as a matter of law) ask the town/city/province that the faire is located in for the business's tax records.
this won't show you everything, but it will show profit and into what categories money was spent.  This is a matter of public record.
of course, the faire owners salary may or may not be hidden in the "employees" pay roll, or bonuses, or any number of tax loop-holes.
so take it all with a grain of salt.  But after reading all the other posts, I have a feeling this is not the real question.

I do have a problem with your opening theory:

"Substantially all forms of employment that are enjoyable and rich in intangible rewards pay poorly.  Nowhere is this more true than in the arts.  Visit any forum frequented by commercial musicians, photographers, actors, sculptors, painters, writers, etc., and if you read between the lines, an omnipresent low-level buzz of discontent over pay rates and frustration with newcomers to the activity screwing up the market can be discerned."

I'm not going to say that I'm paid handsomely, but I do all right.  Also, many of my friends are doing ok too.  They are musicians, actors, sculptors, painters and writers.  are we disgruntled about not making more money?  If we are, then we should be doing something about it.  I love performing!  I get to do it 2 days (sometimes more) per week!  The rest of the week I'm my own agent, secretary, web designer, cook, bottle washer, and head intern.

your last line is a whole other can of worms, but the shortest story I can make of that is this:  If you're new, you don't charge a lot because you lack experience, you want to work and gain experience, build a show, build skills, etc.  Can you command a high price? ...NO.  so you charge what they will accept, which isn't much.  Hopefully, someday, when you've gained experience and are working your way around the circuit you charge more because you're a known quality.  What happens when some new kid comes in "on the cheap" like you did?  They hire him.  Does the faire keep you?  That depends on you and the faire.

some faires don't really care about the quality of the acts that they hire, they just go by price and sometimes the assumed draw that an act will have.  "do we have a juggler? Check! Magician? Check! joust? Check! Celtic Music Act? Check! Sword fight Act? Check!"  As long at the boxes are checked off, they don't care if they got a good one, they got The Cheap One.  Usually the faire as a set entertainment budget, and if they can save some money, they will.  If it means they can get their sword fighting act AND a couple more musicians for the price of of just your show, they will consider this a deal.

It's time for you to move on to a faire that values your quality and/or had the budget.  Are the newbies driving down the price?  Maybe for a show that doesn't care or have the money.
If they tell you that someone else will do it for a hundred dollars cheaper, Let them.  Your only power as a performer when negotiating with that attitude is your willingness to walk away.

You then touch on the largest renaissance festival in the US (TRF).  this faire makes money.  There is no doubt the owner of this festival is walking away with a stack of cash.  but it took a while to get there.  There are several other faires in the US that do well also.  These are mostly very established faires that are over 25 years old.  Remember, most business ventures in the US fail!!  (this is outside of Ren Faires!!!)

You also talk about some of the other non-entertainment costs.  Faire are expensive, yes, millions go into some of them, but millions come out of them.  But this changes not only from year to year for an individual festival, but from festival to festival.  Some reinvest, some don't.

So where does the "unaccounted milions" go?  To the producer of the festival, the person(s) who laid down the cash and took the risk in the first place.
This happens for rock concerts as well as ren faires.

just my 2 cents.

Paolo

[meauho]

As an organizer of conventions - who is constantly questioned about where our "piles" of money go - I would like to point out:

Attendance numbers
Is attendance counted on paid attendance, or does it include all visitors - even if they got free tickets for one reason or another?
Do the attendance numbers count the staff?  At many conventions, it does.  I don't know if TRF does, but over 16 weeks, just the clean up staff and registration could count for a couple of thousand.

Police
Anybody ever hired cops before?  Now hire them for 24 hours, for weeks on end, and lets get a couple of dozen or more...

Insurance
For a 5,000 attendee convention, we have to have $1 million or more in insurance.  This is without insuring Jousting, attendees with swords, people juggling fire, birds that may view audience members as food, slippery mud, etc, etc.

Staff benefits
Many faires offer staff free tickets for family/ friends as part of their pay.  This can skew attendance numbers (because they don't get paid for these attendees, but they still count). 

State/ Federal taxes for employing people
Remember, employees aren't the only ones to pay taxes - employers pay as well.  In addition to taxes, they have to carry worker's compensation, and other state or federally regulated services, insurance, taxes, and fees related to employees - even when they are non-profits.

There is more, but it's late and I'm tired.  Just saying, take a look at the whole faire, including what goes on behind the scenes.