Thoughts on the Steve Cheseborough email...

[songseeds]

Hi FPTP enthusiasts,

We received an email from Steve, forwarded by Ross to the group (shown
below between the ==== equals marks). I'm moving it to this
discussion forum where we might more easily
well..........er.............uh...........DISCUSS it.

Here's what the email said followed by my thoughts:

===========================
STEVE'S EMAIL:
Fair Pay to Play folks: There is a subject that came up at the last
meeting but was not discussed much. Ross and I, in outside
conversation, agreed that it is very important. That is, giving the
venues an idea of where they belong on our star system. Eventually we
might be able to say, "Well, Holocene is 5 star, so you (Dante's)
probably want to be 5-star too." But for the first meetings we have to
give them some guidance. That has to be written into the price list we
give them. Ideally it would be based on revenue -- a place that nets
less than $150 a night is 1 star, $151 to $300 is 2 star, etc --
although I don't know if that's feasible for us to set the levels that
way without knowing more than we do about their business. Maybe
someone has another idea on how to do it. But at least general
guidance such as this:
1 star: small coffeehouse
2 stars: busier coffeehouse, neighborhood tavern
3 stars: neighborhood restaurant
4 stars: small music club, bigger restaurant or tavern
5 stars: major music club
Maybe those are in the wrong order -- do restaurants make more or less
than bars of the same size? -- but this is a start. Please help come
up with some kind of description of each level. Otherwise there is
nothing to stop the biggest clubs from coming in at the 1-star level.
In fact, it would be in their interest to do so, especially since
they'll be leery of the whole process. If we don't give guidelines, we
probably should just make one level, the minimum pay for all venues,
and forget the stars. Thanks, SC

--
Steve Cheseborough

=================================
MY THOUGHTS:
I'm already having a difficult time trying to figure out how I would
explain this to both venue owners and other musicians who haven't been
involved in the Fair Pay to Play (FPTP) planning process. Because I
live in Salem, I haven't been able to be involved as much as many of
you so I wasn't sure if this have been adequately addressed at one of
the face-to-face meetings or not. Sounds like it hasn't been
addressed. Just as in Portland, there is a need for the kind of
guidelines that such a program offers to musicians, but how venue
operators can relate to it is kind of foggy it seems. I think the
program has a better chance of success if we occasionally put on the
venue operator hat and try to imagine how to make this something that
they support.

I am concerned as Steve suggests that the goal of the FPTP effort may
not be realized unless we can figure out a good way to make fair
musician pay be something that is valuable and useful to the venue
operators. I mean, If I'm a venue operator and can look "good" by
having a FPTP sign on my window, do I really care if it's one star and
I'm still paying exploitation wages for entertainment? What is the
incentive for me to pay more?

I think that having the FPTP address and hopefully clarify what the
LOWEST END of the scale needs to be has enormous value. That is an
area where we regularly see absurd transgressions with musicians
undercutting each other to the point where we end up virtually paying
to play! If FPTP could successfully solve this one problem, it would
be a huge benefit. But, how to quantify the different venues is
difficult.

Steve suggested the net profit of the venue. I've always really liked
that idea since it suggests that we're not forgetting that the venue
operator also needs to operate in the black. However, it is not
possible to determine net profit without the participation and
cooperation of the venue operator . And because business levels
fluctuate on a daily basis, we would need to get honest "averages"
from the venue operator to make it work. It would be interesting to
survey venue operators and see if there are any pressure points that
can be found to cause them to volunteer such information. For
instance, if they see this FPTP program as potentially being something
that arbitrarily jacks up their entertainment costs, perhaps they
would prefer to have their net profit known so that we can set our
fees in accordance? A bit offensive perhaps, but just a thought.

And then, IF we could determine net profit, how would we set pay?
I've always thought that if I were a venue operator, I would want to
think of entertainment costs as a percentage of doing business (is
paying entertainers a tax-deductible cost of doing business for venue
operators? Anyone know?). For instance, I know a musician who plays
a restaurant/lounge in the greater portland area (not a particularly
high profile venue) who does a straight 20% of the nightly gross (food
& drinks) for the duration of the entertainment. On the best nights,
he averages $800.00 (usually shared with another player). Not sure on
the worst nights but I know he seems to be averaging quite well.

So, is 20% a fair level for a venue operator to pay for
entertainment? It might be interesting to ask them what their
entertainment costs are as a percentage of gross profit. I mean it
would make things easier if we could just do the math backwards - take
the gross (the hard part of the equation to find out), pick a
percentage then see if it falls above or below what we're proposing as
minimum pay. If it's below, then 20% is too low, if it's above, then
20% is too high! Keeping in mind, of course, that this works only if
it is decided that percentage of net profit should be a quantifier of
FPTP.

GOING BEYOND STEVE'S EMAIL NOW:
Another big question: Once the program is running, will the FPTP
police the fidelity of the program and if so, how? When
transgressions are found, what is to be done? Picket venues? Apply
peer pressure to scab musicians? Take away the venues FPTP sticker?
All sounding rather unpleasant, but if not those things, then what?

One more thought: Maybe musicians should quantify/qualify for the
FPTP? By doing so, they pledge not to accept work at less than the
minimum scale. Has this idea been discussed? I think it may have
merit. In fact, if we could just get most of the musicians to agree
on minimums and stick to it, venues virtually wouldn't have a choice
but to go along with all of this! Any chance FPTP member players
might provide a monthly confidential report of accepted pay including
venue name, hours, number of players? Such data could possibly be
used as an input for determining how to qualify/quantify FPTP levels
by analyzing existing pay levels. I'm thinking if we can't get venue
operators to provide $$$$ data, maybe we gain some knowledge from
ourselves (the pay recipients).

I know MOST of this is stuff that you are all preferring to discuss at
face-to-face meetings, which I can't make. I have a lot of hope for
the success of the FPTP program. It is badly needed.

Rick Clingman
www.songseeds.com

[Becky Bishop]

Good point, well said. I have recently moved to Portland from LA and I have to say from what I've seen and heard, in a relatively short period time, is that musicians here tend to get involved and speak up more so than musicians in LA, where it's all about getting exposure whether you get paid or not, but then that's why musicians move to Los Angeles. It's all about attracting industry professionals and pursuing the allusive record deal. Here, far away from Lah-dee-dah land, it's real people in a real environment. Musicians are more into their music for the sake of art and a means of making a living; and they're willing to fight to get paid for it; as it should be.

 

I have always maintained that establishment owners trying to get more butts in the seats to increase business revenues need to consider entertainment a valid part of the budget the same as bevies and food instead of frosting on the cake. Here in a city far away from the entertainment industry music should be for the sake of drawing a bigger clientele into the establishment for the sake of customer entertainment and satisfaction. The ambiance, service and quality of the food and grog should be the focus of any club or restaurant owner and the entertainment is the means to attract more business. That is the responsibility of the establishment owner and the musicians should not have to pay for it. Nuff said.

 

Becky  Bishop

(503)430-0347 - Landline

(503)781-0661 - Mobile

beckyb...@comcast.net

[Bruce Fife]

Hey all,

I just wanted to step in here for a second and offer some clarifications and answers to questions. Scroll down and I've cut them in.

Bruce

This was discussed last night. Two thoughts, one was that one of the components of "starring" a venue is capacity as defined by the fire marshall. The other thought is that both the venue and FPTP have to come to an agreement on the level of participation. If Dante's wants to be a 1 star, for example, we could just not agree to it from our side.

--
Steve Cheseborough

=================================
MY THOUGHTS:
I'm already having a difficult time trying to figure out how I would
explain this to both venue owners and other musicians who haven't been
involved in the Fair Pay to Play (FPTP) planning process.  Because I
live in Salem, I haven't been able to be involved as much as many of
you so I wasn't sure if this have been adequately addressed at one of
the face-to-face meetings or not.  Sounds like it hasn't been
addressed.  Just as in Portland, there is a need for the kind of
guidelines that such a program offers to musicians, but how venue
operators can relate to it is kind of foggy it seems.  I think the
program has a better chance of success if we occasionally put on the
venue operator hat and try to imagine how to make this something that
they support.

We are certainly going to be role playing our upcoming meetings with venues and have someone taking the role of the club owner with their issues raised and addressed.

I am concerned as Steve suggests that the goal of the FPTP effort may
not be realized unless we can figure out a good way to make fair
musician pay be something that is valuable and useful to the venue
operators.  I mean, If I'm a venue operator and can look "good" by
having a FPTP sign on my window, do I really care if it's one star and
I'm still paying exploitation wages for entertainment?  What is the
incentive for me to pay more?

I think that having the FPTP address and hopefully clarify what the
LOWEST END of the scale needs to be has enormous value.  That is an
area where we regularly see absurd transgressions with musicians
undercutting each other to the point where we end up virtually paying
to play!  If FPTP could successfully solve this one problem, it would
be a huge benefit.  But, how to quantify the different venues is
difficult.

This has been one of the greatest challenges of the Union, forever. We have always set scales, members have always been responsible for not playing below scale. And yet, the problems remain. That is one of the key reasons for attempting to reach an agreement with the clubs, who more times than not, have the perceived power. It's that perception that causes musicians to undercut each other. We've gotta change that balance of power.

Steve suggested the net profit of the venue.  I've always really liked
that idea since it suggests that we're not forgetting that the venue
operator also needs to operate in the black.  However, it is not
possible to determine net profit without the participation and
cooperation of the venue operator .  And because business levels
fluctuate on a daily basis, we would need to get honest "averages"
from the venue operator to make it work.  It would be interesting to
survey venue operators and see if there are any pressure points that
can be found to cause them to volunteer such information.  For
instance, if they see this FPTP program as potentially being something
that arbitrarily jacks up their entertainment costs, perhaps they
would prefer to have their net profit known so that we can set our
fees in accordance?  A bit offensive perhaps, but just a thought.

While this concept exists in our contract negotiations with "traditional" employers, labor law requires them to show us their books if they make the claim that they can't afford wage increases. Because musicians are independent contractors, there are no such requirements, so I would be very surprised if a venue would agree to show it's numbers. 

And then, IF we could determine net profit, how would we set pay?
I've always thought that if I were a venue operator, I would want to
think of entertainment costs as a percentage of doing business (is
paying entertainers a tax-deductible cost of doing business for venue
operators?  Anyone know?). 

Absolutely, yes, as long as it's on the books. If it's cash at the door, it never gets recorded, because it, theoritically, all goes to musicians and sound and ?.

For instance, I know a musician who plays
a restaurant/lounge in the greater portland area (not a particularly
high profile venue) who does a straight 20% of the nightly gross (food
& drinks) for the duration of the entertainment.  On the best nights,
he averages $800.00 (usually shared with another player).  Not sure on
the worst nights but I know he seems to be averaging quite well.

That's a $4000 night. Pretty good. The problem I see with this is, again, you're held hostage by the records of the employer. Does he X out at 9 and then 1 to see what the gross is? Is it possible for him to hide charges (seperate register)? It gets very complicated.

So, is 20% a fair level for a venue operator to pay for
entertainment?  It might be interesting to ask them what their
entertainment costs are as a percentage of gross profit.  I mean it
would make things easier if we could just do the math backwards - take
the gross (the hard part of the equation to find out), pick a
percentage then see if it falls above or below what we're proposing as
minimum pay.  If it's below, then 20% is too low, if it's above, then
20% is too high!  Keeping in mind, of course, that this works only if
it is decided that percentage of net profit should be a quantifier of
FPTP.

GOING BEYOND STEVE'S EMAIL NOW:
Another big question: Once the program is running, will the FPTP
police the fidelity of the program and if so, how?  When
transgressions are found, what is to be done?  Picket venues?  Apply
peer pressure to scab musicians?  Take away the venues FPTP sticker?
All sounding rather unpleasant, but if not those things, then what?

It could be some of those things, plus press pressure, public pressure or any number of things that we can get public support for.

One more thought:  Maybe musicians should quantify/qualify for the
FPTP?  By doing so, they pledge not to accept work at less than the
minimum scale.  Has this idea been discussed? 

See comments from above. The ideas of qualifying musicians is tough, because in the end, the agreement is with the club. We will certainly not succeed without musician support, and that is the base we have to continue to build. We will have to convince musicians to work on behalf of their own self interest. Seems easy, but it's not because of the time, energy, and fiscal commitments to make real change.

I think it may have
merit.  In fact, if we could just get most of the musicians to agree
on minimums and stick to it, venues virtually wouldn't have a choice
but to go along with all of this!  Any chance FPTP member players
might provide a monthly confidential report of accepted pay including
venue name, hours, number of players?  Such data could possibly be
used as an input for determining how to qualify/quantify FPTP levels
by analyzing existing pay levels.  I'm thinking if we can't get venue
operators to provide $$$$ data, maybe we gain some knowledge from
ourselves (the pay recipients).

This is information that is definitely helpful. Some has already been collected as part of our survey, but all the information we can pull together in this area will help.

I know MOST of this is stuff that you are all preferring to discuss at
face-to-face meetings, which I can't make.  I have a lot of hope for
the success of the FPTP program.  It is badly needed.

Rick Clingman
www.songseeds.com

Bruce Fife
President, AFM, Local 99
325 NE 20th Ave.
Portland, OR    97232
503-235-8791
503-296-5775 (fax)
bf...@afm99.org

[rayn brock]

Just my 2 cents here, but my band has had really no problem with owners showing, and going over their books with us. Yes you could argue the fact if their honest or not, but it's time to stop speculating, and get out there and sit with a club owner and just talk to them. You'll find that the majority of them are straight shooters. As far as the "star rating", be careful. I play some places that would fit into the 3-4 star range, that , going by what I've read so far, you would have them in a 1-2 rating. Strong arm tactics won't work either. And yes, paying for entertainment is a tax break for clubs. It falls under advertisement/promotions, and a decent percentage is deductable. Now, forgive me for a moment, and I mean no disrespect, but since I am not able to make the face to face meetings, I have to ask; are the main people who's discussions I read active musicians in the club circuit? It seems to me and my band mates that most of the questions in regards to the clubs, an active player would have a better idea on the whole spectrum. Again, I'm not trying to offend ANYONE. I just read the news letters, and find myself asking "what?"

---

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:41:12 -0800
To: clubmu...@googlegroups.com
From: bf...@afm99.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the Steve Cheseborough email...

---

With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go.

[songseeds]

On Jul 31, 3:38 pm, rayn brock <ray_n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Now, forgive me for a moment, and I mean no disrespect, but since I am not able to make the face to face meetings, I have to ask; are the main people who's discussions I read active musicians in the club circuit? It seems to me and my band mates that most of the questions in regards to the clubs, an active player would have a better idea on the whole spectrum. Again, I'm not trying to offend ANYONE. I just read the news letters, and find myself asking "what?"
>

Hi Rayn,

Sounds like you are saying you and your mates have a lot more
knowledge than the people who are going to the meetings, for which you
need not be forgiven. This online discussion forum is exactly the
medium for you to share some of that insight and now is the time to do
so. No point in asking "what" is there? Crank up those keyboard
fingers and let's hear some of your wisdom.

You could start by clarifying your statement:

"I play some places that would fit into the 3-4 star range, that ,
going by what I've read so far, you would have them in a 1-2 rating. "

Could you explain how?

Rick Clingman
www.songseeds.com

[Becky Bishop]

Okay Kids. Calm down. Not everyone can make it to the meetings, me included.
You are still contributing your valued thoughts and ideas by responding to
the e-mails threads going around. I'm new in town and I am learning a lot
and getting some good ideas about Portland's music scene just from reading
your insightful e-mail contributions. Keep it coming.

Becky Bishop
(503)430-0347 - Landline
(503)781-0661 - Mobile
beckyb...@comcast.net


-----Original Message-----
From: clubmu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:clubmu...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of songseeds

Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:48 PM
To: Club Musicians
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the Steve Cheseborough email...

[rayn brock]

I'd love to explain, but what's the point , you only read part of what I wrote. And it's obvious you took personal offense. Try reading the part about "sitting down with club owners". Read between the lines before you arrogantly attack a fellow musician trying to fight for the common goal.

---

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:49:02 -0700
From: jason...@gmail.com
To: clubmu...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Thoughts on the Steve Cheseborough email...

Please remove me from this list.

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, songseeds <r...@songseeds.com> wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:38 pm, rayn brock <ray_n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Now, forgive me for a moment, and I mean no disrespect, but since I am not able to make the face to face meetings, I have to ask; are the main people who's discussions I read active musicians in the club circuit? It seems to me and my band mates that most of the questions in regards to the clubs, an active player would have a better idea on the whole spectrum. Again, I'm not trying to offend ANYONE. I just read the news letters, and find myself asking "what?"
>

Hi Rayn,

Sounds like you are saying you and your mates have a lot more
knowledge than the people who are going to the meetings, for which you
need not be forgiven.  This online discussion forum is exactly the
medium for you to share some of that insight and now is the time to do
so.  No point in asking "what" is there?  Crank up those keyboard
fingers and let's hear some of your wisdom.

You could start by clarifying your statement:

"I play some places that would fit into the 3-4 star range, that ,
going by what I've read so far, you would have them in a 1-2 rating. "

Could you explain how?

Rick Clingman
www.songseeds.com

[Nevyn Nowhere]

Ummm, I'm going to say "let's stop this flame war before it starts".

 

Rick, you definitely gave a subtle jab.

Rayn, you fought back with a machine gun.

Come on guys....

 

Nevyn Nowhere

http://www.happyhumans.org

Sad Music for Happy Humans

[songseeds]

Hey Rayn,

I wasn't jabbing you! In the first post of this thread I mentioned
that I too am not able to attend the meetings. So saying you need not
be forgiven was a sympathetic comment.

Saying it seems that you and your mates have more knowledge of some of
this stuff than people attending the meetings may simply be a fact. I
don't think that's a bad thing.

There are people all over the map in terms of their experiences with
this stuff. Fighting for the common goal is something we all agree
on and the best way to accomplish that is a free exchange of ideas so
that there is a rich body of knowledge to draw on to make informed
decisions.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was really hoping to hear more
details of some of your insights clarifying some of the stuff that has
been discussed. Maybe start a new thread?

olive branch in hand...

Rick

On Aug 1, 3:33 pm, "Nevyn Nowhere" <nevynnowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ummm, I'm going to say "let's stop this flame war before it starts".
>
> Rick, you definitely gave a subtle jab.
>
> Rayn, you fought back with a machine gun.
>
> Come on guys....
>

> Nevyn Nowherehttp://www.happyhumans.org

> Sad Music for Happy Humans
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:31 PM, rayn brock <ray_n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd love to explain, but what's the point , you only read part of what I
> > wrote. And it's obvious you took personal offense. Try reading the part
> > about "sitting down with club owners". Read between the lines before you
> > arrogantly attack a fellow musician trying to fight for the common goal.
>

> > ------------------------------

> > Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:49:02 -0700

> > From: jasondsi...@gmail.com

> > ------------------------------

> > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on

> > the go.<http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mob...>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -