A while back BB sent me a good size check and a thank you note saying thanks for the encouragement in the beginning.
(It pays to be nice to the young people because you never know where they may end up.) So I assume he is still doing very well.


Tom

Nice assumption. There is a saying that cones to mind. You are great with sayings Tom. Do you know it?

Why would a guy with so many million dollar companies need a good size check from a young person just starting out?

Never said I needed it, did I?

Just thought it showed how professional he turned out to be.

Some people appreciate the encouragement.

Speaking of saying's a good for you is,

“people may forget what you said or what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.”

You should remember that one Danny.

Anyway, I will give you the last word.


Tom

Well think how bad people feel following your bad advice and losing money. If you can't handle the truth that is a you problem.

Truth seems to bother you. You can have your own opinion, but can't have your own facts.

Alleged anecdotal stories that are unsubstantiated are not impressing anyone Tom. And how that makes you feel does not concern me in the least.

I like the way you learn to use things others post like the last word thing lol. You ALREADY said you were leaving but just can't help yourself.

But again when you post things that seem to need correcting we will.

I know Danny.

Anyway I have apologized to Brett for derailing his thread.
Hopefully you will do the same.

Take care,
Tom

Now THAT is your last word? LOL!

Why should anyone BUT YOU apologise for derailing this thread? You were the one who did it!

And where exactly did you apologise for derailing the thread? I can't find it.

Lots of things you can’t see Danny.

Just like you failed to see the title of this thread,

“Fees for a show based on audience size.”

And how he said,

“For some years I have based my stage fee on the size of the audience.”

And you failed to see how easy it was for me to think he meant all his shows.



Now that’s it for be, I promise.

Tom

Tom you have no experience in this. When does this sink in? That is other than your experience having failed at being a performer.

Where did you apologise? Show me.

And you KEEP derailing this thread. Irony abounds with you.

If it's that important, I guess you could just ask Brett when he comes back. huh?

Or PM him like I did. Anyway I don't have to prove anything to you Danny.

Enough.

Tom

This only is clever if you actually stop typing.

This is a great question. I love when people like Brett come in and ask such questions because it demonstrates you are never too old, too experienced, or too successful to learn. I have a lot of respect for him asking on an open forum where many others can learn from his question. His question was actually very specific. He asked if his strategy made sense to planners.

Likewise, it is exciting to see those with extensive experience willing to provide answers and discuss such topics. There is a lot to be gained from their perspectives. Unfortunately, discussion here does often come off the rails a bit and we loose opportunities to fully gain from the discussion. For example, in this thread Ray Pierce made a very interesting post relative to the initial question when discussing how some performers capabilities to entertain and control larger audiences provides additional value to those hosting such shows (I am assuming with the same content they would use for smaller shows).I thought it was an opportunity to further explore Brett's original question and get further clarity. Instead, his post was never responded to. Is anyone willing to revisit this?

You right charliecheckers, and saysold1 deserves a straight answer
to his question, “does this make logical sense to planners?”

YES it makes sense that the event cost is often determined by the size.

True I am not a event planner per ser, but my long time office manager had a background as a party planner.
She helped me plan many events and I’m sure that she would agree with me that it’s not uncommon for some to
charge by the size of the audience.

Food costs are figured by the number of people that will be there.

Supply costs are figured by the number of people that will be there.

The building size is determined by the number of people that will be there.

Many, many other things are figured by head count, so it is no surprise to the planner or the buyer
when the entertainer asks how many will be there.

Much depends on how honest your party planner is or how honest your agent acting as planner is.
Certainly he wants a one size fits all so he can come out ahead with the larger events.

So Yes, to some it makes sense that your price is not the same for everyone.

Hope that helps,
Tom

While it may be clear to some, it may not be as much to others. As Brett, Ray, Kevin and Danny pointed out there are many different and individual issues at play here. That's why like Kevin and Danny responding to Brett's posts and what many feel is wrong with the many aspects (some related and some not) brings so much into play. We see the can or worms this will open.

Ray addressed offering the same show at different prices for different size audiences, vs. having different shows of differing values for different audiences. To be clear, no one would charge the same for a kids party of 20 guests as they would for a theater sow of 800. Of course not, but as Ray points out you should also be offering a show of greater value for the theater show than the one you would for the smaller kids event. Nothing wrong with this. But to just change your rate based on the size of the audience for the same show (and it's value) is what many here are objecting to. You have your show at your created value and once offered and booked it what you perform whether for 300 or 1000.

From an agent's, event planner or DMC's perspective we want a price to market so we can do what we need to offer it to the client. Not a bunch of variables and differences. You value doesn't change with the number of attendees or the client's budget.

Also there is nothing wrong with offering different prices for different markets. This may be where budget concerns may come in. For example say in the education market top dollar is $1500 for an all-school stage show, where a fair might be $5000 for a stage show. You also have to account for the markets for pricing and value to them. But unless you have a gate deal (based on the number of tickets sold/attendance), attendance or size of the audience should not be as such a factor in your pricing or determining your value.

I also do not agree with "name" entertainers able to offer the same show as another for a greatly increased price. This is more often a performers myth than reality. Also then comes the issue of a spike in awareness (perhaps due to a media appearance) and using the media appearance to create actual greater value. Most don't have a clue as how to do this or how important it is to understand this (hence my book).

I think the problem is Brett talks to too many he looks up to and aspires to become. While I understand the reason and positives that can come from this, there are also some delusions that can also come into play and do more to work against you. It can fill your head with bias and unapplicable mentalities (not just Brett but anyone).

Simply put, if you are charging more for one thing over another it should be based on value, content and measurable differences and results, not just an uncontrollable dynamic(s). You must create both your value and perceived value (that's a whole other topic) and it should be based on your position within each specific market, market value and other controllable and desired factors.

I often use the term "magician's thinking" here. And much magician's thinking starts with either kids party magic or the approach of taking whatever work you can get (usually initially, but for some that never evolve it becomes their ongoing way of operating and business model). Many kids magicians are more concerned about the wrong things - size, attendance and such to think it dictates their pricing structure. That's why for the most part kids entertainers are interchangeable. Few have any real established value. Some take the time and make the effort to evolve, and the other option is to become a 50 year old doing the same thing. These are often the same guys that base their value on comments from parents and cheering, yelling and responding from the kids. Value comes from know what your market will bear and your place or position within it.

As I always try to stress, these are all things that need to consciously be thought of and decided early, in the beginning of building your structure and foundation. Not later as it comes or worse yet, not acknowledging it or addressing it at all.

Also the issue is many performers do not know how to work "the big room" or in this case larger venue events. One show does not necessarily transfer well to other. A prime example, and using Brett's AGT reference is Mat Franco. He did closeup on AGT and then was offered a stage show in Vegas. Not doing well at all. Gee, I wonder why. It's because one doesn't necessarily transfer well to the other. He's not a stage entertainer. Even with the AGT title, it is the smallest of splash's I've seen in Vegas in a while. He should've done what he does best, what won him AGT and what his value is in which is closeup. He should have done a series of specials or perhaps a reality-style street show like the Carboni Effect or similar. Play to your value and strength. Don't try to think you can adapt to the big room just by making your cards bigger, adding some showgirls and some multi-media. It doesn't work that way. Not pickig on Mat, he's a great kid, but I'm talking the realities of the business and the mentalities of buyers and the audiences.

Some of the stuff Brett seems to be diving into withour having done his due diligence and making the proper foundational decisions and determinations.

Also we create our shows and content based on the level we are at and this includes the size or range of markets and venues you can play. The Castle analogy is a great example. Working "parlour" (I hate that word) is quite different for working a 1000 or 3000 seat venue. Play to your strengths. I have never, I repeat never, when asked to "read my mind" or "hypnotize me" even consider it I immediately reply with a clear and definite "no." Why? Because I am a stage performer! Period. This is my venue, this is where may value is. Sure I could go out today and do a kids party and do very well. But why? It's not my venue, it's not how or where my value is. If anything it could diminish my value. That's one of the reasons I have a problem with stage mentalist that "also offer strolling, tableside or mix and mingle mentalism." Where is your value created? Where is your perceived image and value? What is this perception to the client? Trust me, it's not "wow, he can do that too?" "Can you also do funny balloon animals too?" It's more like "Would you like fries with that?" I wouldn't expect Copperfield to do mix and mingle in addition to his stage show. That's absurd. I wouldn't expect Gene Simmons in full Kiss regalia to play cocktail music at a wedding receptions guest are arriving. This is so absurd. This just doesn't apply to name entertainers, it pertains to all levels of performers. For many it may be the very thing that is preventing their progess and evolvement.

Not at all!

Being a "party planner" is like being a magician. Buy a couple of magic tricks and self-proclaim you are a magician. Plan a party or two and self-proclaim you are a "party planner" Brett has made it clear he is talking about DMCs which are more that consumer-level self-proclaimed they tend to usually be more professional, corporate and legit. Nobody ever mention party planner (but Tom).

Also Brett's question does not have a simple answer. If after all of these posts that has not been established some are having comprehension problems or the topic is way over their heads. Why mislead him on something you have no experience in? He is clearly looking for actual experience and advice. I just don't understand this.

And no I do not know any event planners that book entertainment based on the size of attendance. This is laymen's thinking not industry procedures.

Food costs and the other things you mentioned...there you go again with trying to think entertainment is just another conventional product or service. It's absolutely not! You're trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. It will never work properly no matter how much you claim it will or try to believe this.

I also think your idea of what is being discussed to as an "event planner" is different from what you are perceiving and referring to as "party planner."

The flaws in the post here are just astounding. This is why experience matters. Have all the justifications you want and it won't matter.

Tom you say that people remember how hoe make them feel right? Well when professional planners and destination management companies feel they are getting ripped off or taken what do you think will be the result?

Again it is about YOUR VALUE, and how you arrive at it. If you want to only make good money when you have bigger events that is up to you. Seems like a non sustainable business model to me.

Bottom line is smart professionals know their value. They set their value and receive that value. If someone wants to let others factors control that value go for it. Also if youu can deliver X value and the planner knows that, then you want to charge XXL because of crowd size you will LOSE that because the planner will not use you.

What I am saying is that in the mind of planners or DMC or an agent every act is not equal. Every act is not worth the same thing. So if you charge over what your perceived value is you will simply not get the gig. The planner doesn't care the size of the show. You have a value of X and no more to them. Again just like a house. You can only get so much for it in the mind of the buyer.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the honestly of a planner.

So then we get to the nut cutting. If you can deliver X value why don't you get that all the time? This is the real issue. Audience size has nothing to do with it. You should ALWAYS get that much if you have that value. Why ever take less? You should always get what you are worth.

Planners have done this before, unlike Tom. Yes buying MORE of something costs more. But you are going to do the same show, so trying to bang them for more based only on the fact that they have more money is insulting to the professional. Once again as Tom says it is about how you make them feel, remember Tom? So it is a surprise that it would cost more, Toms imaginary friends not withstanding.

For some reason magical performers have trouble setting their value. Many think all are created equal. News flash they are not. It is a tough thing to look within yourself and assign a true value to what it is you do. But once you start to do hundreds and then thousands of shows you develop a sense of your value to a client. It takes experience. Just looking at a caterer and saying well he charges more for more people so will I SHOWS the client inexperience on your part. Oddly it telegraphs that you may not have a higher value.

Find your value and ALWAYS get that value. It is probably higher than you think Brett. Using some sort of justification to charge more is not necessary. You are worth what you are worth. Do not let other factors determine your value.

Awesome posts guys! This thread is pure gold!

Not to derail the thread, but what makes Mindoro and Danny such experts?
Their responses to Tom (and others) seem far from professional to me.

I do agree with them, that true event planners aren't gonna mess around with entertainers who quote on a sliding scale based on attendance.

Yes, and often you have to point out the bad to see the good. Understand why something is wrong to properly understand the right. That's how people learn.

So if you agree what is the problem?

I never said there was a problem. I was just curious.