Thread: Undercutting

I'm sure this has been posted before, but I wanted to know people's opinions

I know of quite a few performers that have been booked for a paid gig, only to be cancelled before the contract is signed. when the event happens they notice that the spot they were booked for has been taken by someone who is well known for performing for free or very little and these performers have contacted the promoters offering this for a slot they know has already been filled

What is your opinion on this? Do you feel this is out of order? Or acceptable in a capitalist society?

Are you a promoter that has had these sort of offers made to them? (I know I have) and have you ever taken, or been tempted to take them? or does this make you angry when you are looking for professional performers?

Performers. Would/does this make you angry if/when it happens to you? or do you feel its just business?

I've not made up my opinion on it, although it had made me swear a few times when I've applied for a paid casting, only to see all performers I know work unpaid in every slot on the poster, but I find myself wondering if that's just the issues you face when you are self employed in a business with a lot of competition! x

WARNING

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 60 days. information contained in it may no longer be current

I'm a strong believer in "you pay for what you get". As a promoter I want the best people for my show not the cheapest - I have a couple of low pay newbie slots so I don't expect these performers to be world - but I would never fill paid slots with unpaid performers if that makes sense, as I don't feel the show would have the same quality.

That said - what proof do you have that this person has been undercutting others. I think it's very dangerous ground to start making judgements and spreading information that might not be correct if you have no direct knowledge of whether they are being paid or not.

It is an interesting point though, but I'd like to think most shows have more integrity than to accept undercutting as most have a set budget and have factored certain levels of performers in that.

when running anything it makes good business sense to get the best "value" that doesnt mean cheap.

We as people/performers all have different boundries of how we are comfortable conducting ourselves personally/professionally, and how we consider actions vs consequences. An individual may not realise by offering their services for free that they are taking paid work from someone else as they just want to perform. The problem is that if you work for free you can lower the potential value of other performers. But it all comes down to standards some people who offer to work for free just arent good enough to get paid, some are but really want more stage time and the paid work just isnt there. The same as some who write that their fee is £150+expenses are amazing and worth it and some are deluded and totally not.

If you're worth the fee charge it, and if a promoter would rather have something for nothing the quality wont be consistant and thats when you lose audiences and events fail.

As for undercutting when you know someone has been hired, remember verbal is still a contract so its poor quality behaviour all round but not illegal.

Its difficult with there being so many who do it for fun and others for work...burlesque union required...could you imagin a strike picket line all glitter and lashes!!

Some shows will go for the performers who charge the least. Some will book people because they are good and pay them for their work. A performer should be working towards being in a position where they are booked for a show because they are THEM, they bring something exceptional to the line up, and wont be undercut because they cant be replaced.

It is annoying I suppose in some ways, but there is nothing can be done about it, it is business. I guess if it happens you are cancelled for someone cheaper then it might help to think about what type of performance couldn't be replaced with a cheaper version (that might be just as good). Perhaps also think about whether the performer is overcharging based on their experience or ability.

There is a glut of performers and lots of very similar stuff on offer so promoters really can pick their choose, it is difficult.

If someone undercut me and I got cancelled then I would be annoyed, but I would just try and be better so that I wasnt easily replaceable, and avoid the shows that ditched me in the future.

This is an interesting thread. Initially if I was a performer and had been undercut for a 'cheaper version' then yes, I wouldn't be best pleased and I would also think it extremely unprofessional of the promoter, and would make a point of not going near them again.

If I was a promoter and had booked an act - then that's the act I would stick with, simply because its the correct thing to do. Even if someone offered to perform for free, I wouldn't accept their offer if I'd already booked my line up. Extremely unprofessional and sooner or later the performer(s) in question would build up a bad reputation.

But thats just my take on it. From a personal perspective though, I don't derive a main source of income from burlesque, and some acts I get paid for, and some I don't. Naturally its nice to be paid, but if for example a promoter rang me and asked me to perform for free (which hasn't happened yet!) then depending on the circumstances (dates, location etc) I would probably accept. I perform because I really enjoy it - some people like my style - others not so, but if the opportunity is there, then I will take it. However I would not be best pleased if I thought I had been brought in at the expense of the promoter ditching a paid act that had already been booked - and if I ever found out that was the case, then I would refuse to participate as a matter of principle.

Sorry it sounds a bit mixed up - but hopefully you get what I mean.

MM x

This makes me cross, as a show producer I would never drop someone and replace them with some one else! As yet, I have not been approached by anyone trying to 'sneak' into a show that way and I would certainly not accept it!
It has long been a frustration for many of us, that performers who will work for free are the common choice for producers and I know that to be the same in other creative industries. Its a fact of life but that does not make it right!
If it were to happen to me, as a performer or a producer, I would be angry and, rightly so, my advise to performers is to keep doing what you're doing, working hard and producing great acts. Any good producer will value that and wont bump good performers for free ones.

Originally Posted by luliblue

Any good producer will value that and wont bump good performers for free ones.

So does this mean you think that people who perform for free are not good performers?

Originally Posted by Madame Mechante

So does this mean you think that people who perform for free are not good performers?

I dont think that is what she meant, its more a hope that promoters will value quality over cheapness- if they can get both in one performer then great!

In terms of the growth and development of the Burlesque/Cabaret genre, I view undercutting as a huge threat to the future.
I believe that by undercutting and the continuous trend of undercutting, we are hugely undervaluing this genre and eventually, promoters will expect that it is the norm to pay nothing or very little for acts. How on earth can the industry grow when this happens?!

Although there is a big difference between the Industry and the Community, we all work extremely hard and invest so much of our time, energy and finance into creating the best acts that we possibly can within our capability. So why should that be grossly undervalued by the constant dilution of 'what we are worth'?!
Like all professional worlds, it is clear that there is a difference in pay scale according to capability and quality but that certainly should not mean that the performers who have reached the top of the game have to drop their fees in order to just get booked!

Like many of the responses above have touched upon, the good quality promoters and show producers out there have a duty of care to ensure that they invest properly into what they can budget for and discourage any form of undercutting. I don't believe that it is professional conduct and I don't believe that anyone that adopts that tact should ever expect to be paid properly for the work they do.

I have a question as a new(ish) performer, and that is how to judge when you can start charging for your performing? At the moment when I apply for shows I am sticking to the charity/newbie slots which I know are unpaid (with no intention of trying to undercut other performers,I go for the slots which are clearly stated as being unpaid or for newbies etc). Personally I'm finding it hard to decide when I can start charging and how I know when I get to the level at which I can start asking to be paid. I don't ever want to be in the position where I undercut another performer. I have been asked to be a regular performer at a show, and I am getting a door share for my performances, so I will be getting paid. Would you assume that as someone has approached me and offered to pay me I can start asking for payment at other shows/start applying for paid slots?

xx