Why should producers share in profits?

[temms]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:37pm

So, the producer goes to investors and raises the money to put up the show. The investors are paid back up until recoupment, after which the profits are split 50/50 between the producers and the investors.

But - why? Once a show is open, a producer's work is done. It's not their money, so why do they share in profits? There is a press office AND a publicity office to handle promotion, a General Managemet office to handle the day-to-day business, a Stage Management team to run things at the theatre, etc.

They don't write the shows, they don't perform the shows, they don't participate in the day-to-day operation (it seems the only time I see a producer after opening is when they're showing off for some chick they're trying to bang behind their wife's back.)

It seems to me that producers should make a weekly salary for the weeks they actually work, after which point they should move on to the next project and the profits should go 100% to the investors - it was their money, after all, that made it possible in the first place.

I mean, this is America. I don't understand why certain people think they are entitled to get paid for doing nothing, and I think it's time we put a stop to it. Investors should refuse to put money into a project unless they will get the profits unencumbered by those who don't deserve them.

Once a show is open, it is produced. I don't see why a producer is needed beyond that point or why they should receive any sort of continuing payment just because they had an idea one day and got other people to pay for it.
Updated On: 10/21/07 at 07:37 PM

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:40pm

The producer found the investors...?

And also, many producers are involved with the shows they work on well past opening.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:43pm

I may be wrong, but I thought the producers also have money involved.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:51pm

Producers work on the show from beginning to after it ends. Some producers put in their own money, some don't. All those teams of which you're speaking, original poster, are paid and handled through the producers' office(s) and staff. I think perhaps you should do some research before you make such a grand statement.

[EugLoven]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:58pm

It is also VERY not-uncommon for the producer to hand-select the creative team... Director, musical director, lighting, set, costume, book, lyrics, and sometimes even the actors.

It is his/her name and money on the line after all.

If you'd like more detailed information on what a producer invests into a production other than money, take a look at these two interviews (conducted by yours truly) that shine a little light on that indeed, many producers actually do care about the results.

Michael Tucker & Jill Eikenberry produce a documentary film:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=18956

Stewart F. Lane on his book and producing Tony-award winning musicals:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=19661

[EugLoven]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 7:58pm

double post sorry Updated On: 10/21/07 at 07:58 PM

[Clara's Pony]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 8:07pm

"Why should producers share in profits?" - to have lunch at Sardis every day and drink champagne until they puke...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 8:11pm

Why should archaic featherbedding work rules still be on the books? If producers should not share in the profits neither should the stagehands.

The size of the load in crew should correspond to the size of the show & the sets.

I used to know someone who worked for the LIRR. He was paid big bucks & retired on a big pension for occasionally moving trains out of the yard & playing cards the rest of the time. Many MTA employees are flat out lazy & sleep or BS & do no apparent work. I see it daily.

What I am saying is I cannot see paying for work not done.

Updated On: 10/21/07 at 08:11 PM

[Kev2222]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 11:51pm

But - why? Once a show is open, a producer's work is done. It's not their money, so why do they share in profits?

I don't see how you're figuring that it's "not their money." Of COURSE it's their money!

Putting it simply...a producer is the owner of the production, and has the same rights and responsibilities as the owner of any other kind of business. The producer raises the money get the show up and to pay all of the people (authors, actors, director, designers, stagehands, etc.) involved. None of these people are taking any risk--they're guaranteed payment for their work whether the show runs for 20 years or closes at the first preview. Not so with a producer, who's shouldering ALL of the risk and has no guarantees.

So why shouldn't a producer benefit if the show makes a profit? Taking that away would take away the main incentive of producing commercial theatre in the first place: a huge payday.

I mean, this is America. I don't understand why certain people think they are entitled to get paid for doing nothing, and I think it's time we put a stop to it.

Oh please. Overseeing a production that's already opened--even a long running one--is hardly "nothing." All of those people you mentioned who are involved in the day to day running of the show need to answer to someone.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/22/07 at 12:12am

Mr. Roxy, I do understand your point and yes I have seen this behavior as well. What a company though is paying these guys to do, is make a commitment to be there and work, when something does go wrong. If it was cheaper, to just hire Electricians, Engineers, Grips the whole technical staff, don't you believe they would?

The cost, of calling in a professional on a job by job basis, is not worth the down time these people have to suffer without them. What Producers now are trying to do, is be guaranteed on-call availability without paying for the benefits of these skilled workers.

Just as a Producer may have plenty of time off or on, to chase skirts or drink martini's so do skilled workers who know their stuff. If you like what they get to do, go to school, get the training and then you too can get paid to be available at any hour to solve whatever comes up.

[BrianS]

Posted: 10/22/07 at 12:24am

temms, there is nothing wrong with not understanding how something works and asking for clarification, but your question is phrased to make a judgment rather than to gather insight.

There are good producers and bad producers, but the good ones combine taste (the single most valuable commodity in the entertainment industry) with business acumen. Current projects like Wicked, Hairspray, and Jersey Boys (all of which are pretty great shows and employ many industry people) were initiated by producers. They sought out a creative team to further develop their vision. Even shows like Les Mis, Drowsy, and Avenue Q wouldn't have gone beyond experimental theater if they weren't nurtured and developed by very competent businessmen with great taste.

That is the nice answer. Another answer that covers this topic along with questions like "why are ticket prices so ridiculously high?" is that this is a BUSINESS. It's not a philanthropy. These people take a business risk much greater than in almost any other industry and are entitled to the business repercussions both positive and negative. They don't take advantage of the market... they work within the rules of the market. Why should they sell you a ticket at $65 when there are plenty of people who will pay $120? The market adjusts accordingly. Why do producer's make money? Because they are entrepreneurs in a free market.

Updated On: 10/22/07 at 12:24 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/22/07 at 3:35am

There is a press office AND a publicity office to handle promotion, a General Managemet office to handle the day-to-day business, a Stage Management team to run things at the theatre, etc.

And, who do you think is in charge of them all, my love?