First, we've got to establish the difference between "paying to play" and splitting the profits with the venue. In most scenarios: the profits will always be split between the venue/promoter and the artists, and there's nothing wrong with this. However,
how these profits are split defines "pay-to-play," in my mind; "paying to play" is when the venue charges the artist because they did not recoup a certain amount of money. However, the thing I don't like about this practice is that the band is basically held accountable for the success of that night, when it should be seen as a shared responsibility.
In my opinion, Kenny is (and many others are) right:
NEVER pay to play!
(Sorry for the long rant, but sharing my experience will hopefully make this lesson more memorable at the end...)
My most notable experience regarding a "pay-to-pay" situation was at The Roxy. We had been on a multi-state tour and that was on our list of places to stop. We were aware before playing that there was a requirement in the contract that 50 people attend the show or we had to make-up the difference, and we only got paid on-top of that; $10 per ticket, so $500 if nobody showed. We thought this would be cake on a Friday night in downtown L.A. with a 4-band bill, so we signed the paperwork before we left for our tour. Little did we know that the person at the ticket window was asking everybody who purchased a ticket which act they came to see, and then was tabulating the results for the end of the night; although the contract didn't specify whether or not those 50 tickets were for the whole show or each band -- it said: "50 people in attendance, or 50 ticket sales," and one ticket granted admission to see all four bands -- we were still treated like each band was playing a separate show. At the end of the night there had been
several hundred people in the venue, but because less-than 50 people specifically said they were there to see us -- and we had no idea whether or not the person in the ticket window was
actually asking -- we ended-up having to make-up around half of the $500 fee.
Most promoters are absolutely out to screw musicians and cover their own asses before anything else. In Denver you can play a show at The Bluebird theater, but AEG (the management company) takes $1,250 right of the top for operating costs, and you had better believe they stick the bill with the musicians -- arguably the "workers" with the lowest possible wage that evening -- if they don't make that amount judging by ticket sales alone. (Never mind bar sales, or the fact that they have an obligation to use their channels/connections to advertise, etc.) If you do make it over $1,250: usually other fees pop-up that were never discussed, like "catering" (you know, for that beer-case/handle-of-crummy-liquor "sold" to you at a 400% retail mark-up that nobody ever put back-stage) and "insurance." (If you don't make the $1,250 mark: they'll usually tell you -- while handing you the bill -- that those fees were waived as a "courtesy" to you.)
One of the times I played Red Rocks we had signed a contract to be paid $200 for a 30-minute set at a festival; at the end of the night the management company (AEG again) cut us a check for $150, because they needed to recoup $50 for "insurance fees," which we had never heard about until that moment. I told our manager to raise a fit, but the fact is that it's $50, and AEG knows that most of the bands at the festival don't have the resources/patience/interest to fight them for that money. On the other hand: $50 per band times 50 bands is an extra $2,500 in someone's pocket. It wasn't even worth our manager's time to recoup that $50.
In my experience this is just the climate of playing music in a modern metropolitan area, which is why many of the bands with which I play now are renting their own venues (like community centers, churches, etc.) so that we can avoid slimy music promoters. A little more than 10 years ago it was customary for bands to get not only a percentage of the door, but a percentage of the bar as well; the logic was that the band had at least some hand in bringing people who buy drinks, so profits were shared. At some venues I remember being offered 100% of door sales,
and a percentage of the bar. This almost doesn't happen anymore; bands are usually treated like a burden and a liability for the venue:
not business partners, an asset, or something that could be a success with the right support.
(Of course: none of this applies if you're a well-known national act with a built-in crowd and guaranteed sales, but I guarantee you those people didn't get to where they are by paying to play; they achieved that status via smart business practice
and musical appeal.)
My advice (as echoed by others here) is:
get everything in-writing before you agree to play. That's why these venue owners are hinting that they like your band and would want you to play at their venue; they want you to agree to something without pre-defined terms. Take this as an opportunity to take the professional initiative: put together a proposal and make your own offer.
This happened all the time in one of my previous bands: we'd get an e-mail that just said: "Would you play (X Venue) at (X Date)?" Most of the time our idiot lead-singer/manager/label-owner would just write back immediately and say "Yeah, we'll totally be there!" He would then wonder why we weren't getting paid afterwards, or why he had to argue with the club manager to get a cut of the profits. (Suffice it to say: I quit that band long ago.) The problem was that he acted like the venue was doing him a favor by asking us to play, so by defining ourselves within that relationship as dependent and subordinate we got exactly what we deserved: nothing. He failed to realize (every time, even when I warned him) that an e-mail saying we would play at a certain venue on a certain date -- with no offer for compensation on the table -- was a legally-binding contract where our band agreed (in-writing) to play for
no compensation.
Promoters increasingly act like they are doing musicians favors, and that the opportunity to play the show ("exposure") is either enough compensation, or is worth musicians paying a price.
Do not support this dogma!
Musicians are contractors, and
professional contractors define their terms (contractually!)
before accepting a job; everything is laid-out in-writing between the time when the job was offered, and the time when the job is accepted -- all costs are defined
before the contractor arrives on the site.
There's one problem with this, though: promoters are so used to dealing with idiot musicians who don't know how to do business that sometimes a business-savvy group is
less appealing than the plethora of musicians who don't know any better; the latter is less of a financial risk for the promoter/venue.
To put it succinctly:
professional musicians are much harder to screw.
Regardless: there are some great tools available on-line which can help your band assemble a
professional estimate which you can then submit to the promoters/club managers to negotiate your payment
before you agree to play at their venue. These tools include mileage costs (outlined by the US Federal Government), hourly wages that include travel-time, loading time, set-up, performance, and tear-down time, equipment rental costs (if applicable), management fees, licensing fees, and whatever other factors might be included in any particular musical performance. They can be as simple or as detailed as you like; the more details: the more professional your act will appear ... and whether that's a good thing or not is your discretion:
http://gigcalc.gehwokka.com/
http://www.gigcalculator.com/
Yes, venues have employees and bills to pay, but if musicians do not establish themselves as a specific part of the business transaction then they can't be expected to have the venue factor those musicians into their nightly costs. So many musicians don't realize this that promoters are actually beginning to expect this, and many see it as an opportunity to run a "leaner" show.
Don't grease any palms; those people are making enough money. What happens when you pay a contractor "on the sly" to do work on your home? They do a half-hearted job that's not up to code. Paying someone to do something that's not on-paper is generally a bad deal for the person doing the paying, because they lose money
and have no recourse if they didn't get what they wanted.
Put everything in-writing, and be as professional as you possibly can; act like a professional contractor, because that's what you should be at the end of the day.
(Thanks for reading!)
Can you sell drinks? For original music with multiple bands on a night It seems to be the you have to sell x number of tickets model. My current band opened at the Filmore but that was because our drummer had connections. Still by the time we paid the road crew ( The drummer insisted we have to look pro ) we made no money. With expenses through the roof can you actually tour & make enough to eat these days?