 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
L1® Users Forum Musicians General Forums What Do You Think of This New Approach? L1® Business Models - thinking out loud|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
5. The Show
The Producer drops the Show onto the Stage.  |
|||
|
|
|
Okay - having considered what we normally think about when producing a show (with thanks to John and Mark for great ideas), what else goes into making the show?
The audience, and then all the ways we talk to the audience (marketing), and all the ways we continue to talk to the audience after the show (marketing and recordings?). I hate to put it this way, but ... I think in order to thrive in the current and future realities we have to think outside the box. So what influences are there outside the box? What are the entities in the music business ecosystem that have an impact on our ability to deliver a show to a willing audience. Willing — that is, to participate in the show with us, and to provide the revenue to make it all possible and feasible? edit: grammar This message has been edited. Last edited by: ST, |
|||
|
 |
ST,
I can only think of a snippet to contribute here, but at least from my experience, the physical stage itself can contribute to a "disconnect" effect with the audience. I find that we have the best audiences where we are set up on the floor, right with the audience. I feel that this setup contributes to maximum participation, and allows for the best performer/audience connection. All the items that Mark listed also have a huge impact on audience connection/participation. Watching Steve Miller perform after standing up and walking out in front of me from the same group of folding chairs I was sitting in was so much more personal and meaningful to me than seeing him on a stage. Just pure performance right in my face with nothing in between. Best Wishes, Jeff |
|||
|
Hi Jeff,
I've noticed this as well, at least for the type of audience we have played to. A stage that is 12 to 18" high contributes moderately to the potential "disconnect". Hi ST, Since the question is What are the entities rather than Who are the entities I offer:
One way to view "Willing" is in terms of need or want. What does the Production offer that may fill the audiences needs or wants? An audience is an entity created from a gathering of many Individuals. Each individual has their own set of needs and wants. Should we define the "box"? What are the boundaries of this "box"? Mark |
||||
|
 |
ST -
The conceptual model you have sketched and have made reference to, is one I have seen used annually in my neck of the woods. It has proven successful for one individual I know. I refer to him as a "promoter", instead of "the producer", but the general concept is the same. He secures the venue, ensures the lighting and sound for the stage performance is in place, hires the bands, does the promotion via radio/newspaper advertising, and actually performs in the Host band. Oh, and he MC's the show as well! He's handled every aspect of the production, as Mark referenced. Even to the point of the wardrobe for his own band! He ensures they present as a pleasing visual image with each band member demonstrating a professional appearance. He doesn't do this for a living, but is active with his own band on the Bluegrass circuit during the summer months. Over the years, he has taken some pretty big risks, in my book, by booking national and regional acts for this one show. Its a wonderful opportunity for the people in my region to actually see these acts locally, and to that extent, he has made it possible to expose the music to some who would not have otherwise sought out this style or kind of music. The show is locally well attended each year. The only problem.... well two problems (probably more, as I really think about this) is that he only does it "once a year" and the sound company he hires for the event has never used Bose L1 systems. That aside, I suspect his original intent was to make a profit on the production, which I'm sure he did in the earlier years. These days, I suspect he may only be breaking even (or losing a little) on the productions, for a number of reasons. (cost of venue rental, band costs, sound company rates, attendance, economic times, etc.) The reason I've mentioned all of this is that I see this model hard to sustain for any length of time. Why is this? What needs to occur to make this into a recurring successful model? I must not be thinking outside the box far enough yet. I'd love to find a successful model of this that could be replicated on different scales and be marketable. If I could, maybe I'd have a retirement career on my hands! I'm following this topic with interest.... "outside of the box thinkers", please respond with some ideas! In the mean time, I'm trying to think outside the box, but I keep coming back to reality and not getting very far... John |
|||
|
|
|
Hi Jeff,
Good to hear from you.
This is an interesting observation. In an intimate setting with a small audience, I have enjoyed that sense of being on the same plane as the audience. As we get into larger venues I find that a little elevation helps with the sight lines for people at the back of the space. At a recent show for which I provided L1® sound, the man in charge was adamant that we have a stage for the performers. I didn't think it was absolutely necessary. I did assert that having a stage was creating a boundary that among other things, was limiting our options for stage layout. Be it was his show and this point was not negotiable. The headliner for the show didn't care either way. But the producer wanted to honour the acts, setting them apart as special, elevating them just a little (about 12 inches) above the audience floor. There were several ensembles performing in that show. Some of those performers were seated. If there had not been a stage, only the people in the first few rows would have seen everything. Interestingly, I used to find stage monitors to be a bigger isolating factor than stage height. Stage lights hold no allure for me, often leaving me unable to make out anything beyond the edge of the stage area, elevated or not. I find that pretty 'distancing' even if the lighting makes me seem more accessible to the audience. But take that to the level of a moving spotlight, and then it's a completely different thing. I am hoping that we can acknowledge the existing model whether I have drawn it correctly or not, and then look beyond it. The plug 'n play model may have worked for some of us in the past, but I wonder if serves us well today or if it is sustainable going forward. This message has been edited. Last edited by: ST, |
|||
|
|
|
Hi John,
I was thinking along the lines of role similar to a film producer, being the person who has control over most aspects of a show or production possibly ceding creative control to the (Music) Director.
Yes, "that" guy.
That is why I would like to acknowledge the model so that we can question its validity in light of current circumstances. Rather than polish and refine it, I am wondering if we should put our attention outside the show; outside the box.
I know that I am not thinking far enough outside the box yet. But this thinking out loud part is exactly that. Looking at what is happening now and asking questions. I don't think we have a lack of answers to the questions of the past. I think we need some different and better questions.
Defining reality (and asking questions) with the vocabulary from a model that doesn't work may well be the limiting factor on how far we can get. I don't have a new vocabulary to describe reality, but I hoping we can come up with better questions. I don't really want to be a producer. I want to play more live music for more people in a way that is self sustaining. If I have to be a producer to make that happen, okay. But I would rather be playing music. Thanks for thinking about this with me. This message has been edited. Last edited by: ST, |
|||
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your ongoing thoughts. For me the term "entity" can be any person, place or thing, corporeal or otherwise that can be seen singularly or in a collective as having an influence. What and Who would be interchangeable. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to impose some boundary or definition that excluded people or groups of people.
Yes, there are individual needs and wants, but there are several shared motives that bring people together. Music is often a part of the celebration of life's events Birthdays Mitzvas Proms Graduations Weddings Anniversaries Wakes New Years Eve Hallowe'en (a tangent and yet an annual favourite). I think some of these can be very lucrative. We might observe that for some of these events music may be incidental, but tradition dictates that music must be a part of the proceedings. Where the events are lavish with big budgets, the budget for music as a percentage of the cost may be a minor concern. These kinds of events may continue to be profitable; at least until the overall cost sends people looking for a new model. Consider for example the rise of do-it-yourself iPod jockeys at some of the events on the list above. Here are some other events where a lot of money is involved, and the line item for music may be relatively small. Still - a relatively small portion of a substantial budget could still be good money for a band. Fundraisers (Charitable) Political Gatherings Annual Meetings Corporate Events - Store openings - Holiday parties
From wiktionary outside-the-box we get "Beyond the bounds of convention. " If we look at the L1® as a model, one aspect of the box was shaped this way (Q: can be a question or a need) Q: "can't hear?" A: "more volume" Q: "can't hear myself" A: "more monitor" Q: "I am too dry in the monitors" A: "reverb" While it may be fruitful to produce better shows, I wonder if we can productively spend time thinking about things outside the show (the box). |
|||
|
|
|
Hi again Mark,
Back to entities. I tend to think of entities as people or groups of people. People have motives and I think more so than inanimate objects like money or time. One approach for identifying entities. Follow the money. Consider a dollar that a consumer of music spends on live music. Where does the money go Ticket agents Venue (hall rental,.... ?) Artist Management Transportation Labor (Roadies, serving staff) Instruments Sheet Music Royalties and Performance Rights |
|||
|
Hi ST,
Potential Venues:
Money, More Money
Artist often undercut themselves. Why not charge for each function of a production that we provide? Communicating clearly to the client each task/service that we are supplying for the event during contract negotiations. Itemize all that you are providing but set a global price. Only consider itemizing the price for each price if the client presses the issue. One should also have a rider stipulating minimum standard for each service should the client offer to supply it. For a show that my duo will be performing in November, our asking price was 20% higher than what a five piece band was asking. In our offer we are including the sound system and lights. We also offered on set more than the other group. We were not aware that they were negotiating with two groups at the same time but detailing what they would get for their money allowed them to see the value we were offering. What about being a co-producer? What if your package included some leadership/direction that would assist potential partners handle the details. This could include a list of contacts and information i.e. information on Royalties and Performance Rights. The committee producing our show in November had heard that SOCAN was "going after" these small cultural committees to collect royalty fees for their events. The client was in a panic, thinking they would be charged thousands of dollars for a non-profit event. I did some web research and place a couple of telephone calls. With a minimal investment of time I was able to get the facts for them. The royalty fees will likely be $35 dollars for the event. They were relieved and very appreciative. We could create a generic package that details and provides direct in many areas of a production. Even if we don't actively participate in these area for a given production, the producer may appreciate the assistance and consider us to be a collaborating partner in their event. This could increase our perceived value for future events. Mark |
||||
|
Went out for lunch today for a change but I forgot to turn my brain off!
 Live Band Karaoke! Karaoke signers backed by a real live band. I may have said too much... Is this considered as straying too far out of the box? Mark |
||||
|
|
|
Even "outside the box" has to have boundaries. That'll be a 5 yard penalty, mister!  All kidding aside, with the advent of "Rock Band" and other virtual live music substitutes, It could be a viable and lucrative alternative. This message has been edited. Last edited by: holliwil, |
|||
|
 |
Hey Le5 We call that Open Mic and to be honest people love it at first but seem to tire quickly unless someone with real talent shows up. If we are chasing the money, maybe the best 8 singers from local Karaoke bars backed by a live band in the box. Not a competition but 2 singers per set performing for their friends with a big song at the end were they all come on to sing something like..Aquarious |
|||
|
Hi Jeff,
 "Rock Band"... I wonder how someone could interface the game with a Live Band? There is potential... Hi Rick, I work with a couple of musicians and we chatted about this after lunch. The initial reaction was "open mic" as is your reaction but after further discussion we concluded that it could be produced differently and possibly has appeal. Most Karaoke signers don't necessarily attend open mic nights. I get the impression that open mic is mostly frequented by aspiring performers. I can imagine that the Karaoke experience would be very different with a live band. I realize that things get old and audiences want change. If I were to consider doing this I would probably aim for private parties or special events. The first and possibly second set could be just the band performing with the Karaoke kicking in sometime after midpoint of the evening. Just something different to keep working with a value added option for the clients. Honestly, when the Karaoke thought came to mind I cringed. But, there may be potential to have fun and draw new audience connections. By the way, I have no desire to participate in this type of event but I'm trying to find the "outside" of the box... Mark |
||||
|
|
|
Speaking specifically in terms of the L1®, does using the L1® give you any specific advantages over someone who doesn't have one?
Here are some of those things for me.
This is all old news for seasoned L1® owners. The question is, does being able to do this create any opportunities for you? Do you have greater access to different kinds of venues or events? Do you use your time differently (productively) while on site at a show? |
|||
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
Yes! While I would much rather be playing or rehearsing, I do take some of the time that I save with loadin/setup/teardown/loadout and use that to work with potential and existing partners. I find that it is tough to get venue management to meet unless I visit them on-site. At least when I see them, I can often combine that with the gig. This saves time and money. I also find it far easier to do this since getting my L1® just because everyone, including me, is a little more relaxed. Pre-L1®, I didn't want to have meetings with venue management after a lengthy loadin and setup. I never wanted to do that after a sound check. Sound checks in an empty club or restaurant always seemed too loud and intrusive. Strategically it was always better to meet on a non performance day. That was before the (high value, low impact) L1®.
Excellent points Mark. With the L1® we can raise the bar with the quality of the sound that we provide. Outside the show there is an opportunity to create a high quality interaction with a comprehensive package of knowledge and experience. In the past I might have relied on an agent or manager to handle these kinds of details but if you can do it personally and be effective with your time then it sounds like a good investment. |
|||
|
|
|
The Client
Hi Mark, In the following, it appears that the client is the venue or perhaps the owner of the event.
These are interesting ideas and certainly worth pursuing in the model that the client is the person writing the cheques, the venue or event owner in this case. I don't want to get tied up in knots over the semantics of whether we are providing entertainment, or we are there as musicians. Perhaps as musicians we are concerned with what happens on the stage and out in the audience. If we are there as purveyors of an entertainment product we can extend the scope of what we are doing to include ancillary tasks and services that facilitate the event. At that level we may be removing objections as much as providing more value. I think there is a strong case to be made for demonstrably collaborating with the clients, expressing concern for their success and learning about their businesses, metrics for success, and desired outcomes. For example, if the client is a restaurant you could actively discuss whether or not they are trying to increase turns (number of customers served per hour per seat), or if they have some other goal at those times when they have live entertainment. I came across this tonight. "Turning the Tables"
Turning the Tables ← see pages 7 and 8 and the references (18) and (19) appear on the last pages of the article. It takes some skill to talk with clients about their needs and to work with them to meet those needs. This message has been edited. Last edited by: ST, |
|||
|
|
|
Competition
Do you set your price differently if you know that another act is also bidding for a contract? I think about the competition as everything that is competing for the attention (and dollars) of the music consuming public. Other musical acts may be a part of the competition, but a very small part. Looking at the big picture, another musical act is less of a concern than something like a shrinking economy, or one where people are afraid. I want to understand and work with or around those trends that are changing the way that people spend money for entertainment. |
|||
|
|
|
The Client part II
If you look at competition as I have above, then it may strike you that the client is not necessarily the venue or the owner of the event. Lately I have been exploring the idea of creating a relationship with "my" audience treating the audience members as my customers. Over a long term, I end up creating relationships with those customers, and inviting them to come and be part of the show regardless of the venue. As I write this, I am reminded of bands I was in years ago where we actually had a following; fans who would follow us from venue to venue. They came to hear old favourites and they came to hear new material. They came to listen, and they came to dance. They came to see us in different environments and to hear how we would interpret ourselves in those new environments. I think they came to see us, to see each other, and to be a part of whatever unique and repeatable experience we were offering. |
|||
|
|
|
Hi Rick,
I have an admission to make. I have hosted lots of open mic events and the guilty pleasure is being a part of things when someone puts their heart and soul into a brief performance. Sometimes that performance is a simple matter wanting to play LOUD, and they have no other opportunity to do it. It could be that they don't have enough material to do a set let alone an entire show. But I have a great time when people can entertain their friends, family, or a supportive audience, if only for a song or two. Things seem to have changed but... I miss the days when I could go to three or four jams in a week and get up on a stage with some pretty good players. Many of those good players were people who were in town for a show and then moving on. Some of them would show up to jam just to share some music with the unknowns and those with nuthin' but potential. I learned an awful lot at those sessions. I think that the customer in that model was the venue. The open mic or jam was an event to sell beer on quiet nights. At least that is how it might have looked to a casual observer. When one of my bands was hosting the event (as the house band) we would play the opening and closing sets, and they were good sets. The time in between was for the jammers. The members of the house band would fill in any empty slots on stage as impromptu groups would form to play their 2-3 song sets.
These sessions were fertile ground for new collaborations. People would show up hoping to find talent to round out a band. Others would be there scouting. Sometimes musicians would invite prospective customers to come and hear them. They used the open mic event as an audition. Several of my long-term musical relationships started at events like this. I like to create environments where this can happen for others. Being able to do it with L1®s is just a bonus. This message has been edited. Last edited by: ST, |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
L1® Users Forum Musicians General Forums What Do You Think of This New Approach? L1® Business Models - thinking out loud|
|
|