“Dealing With Agent”

by Brian McKim & Traci Skene on September 1st, 2010

It’s called “Dealing With Agent.” It’s the latest in a series of videos that are popping up that seek to illuminate the complex relationship between talent and venue or, in this case, between venue and talent’s representation.

It’s created by Marshall Chiles, a comedian and a booker who books Atlanta’s Laughing Skull Lounge and The Funny Farm.

Coincidentally, we received an email from Bert Haas of Zanies in Chicago, who asked if anyone was booking a comedy club the old way– offering quality standup comedy and only occasionally offering big-name talent. That letter and our thoughts are below the video.

Bert Haas, Executive Vice President, Zanies Comedy Clubs, Inc., writes:

I am just curious if anyone books comedy clubs anymore?

By that I mean a club that people attend because of the club itself and not to see a particular comedian?

In the 80’s and early 90’s there were entire chains (Zanies, Funny Bone, Punchline, Laff Stop) that were attended by customers that wanted to be in the club. This allowed the club to book great comedians that were not necessarily that well known.

Every four or six weeks the club might bring in a celebrity to oil the publicity machine.

Now it seems as if every club is booking “name” acts every week.

What happened to comedy clubs that sold tickets on their own and did not depend upon the headliner to sell tickets? It strikes me that these new rooms are just venues with no identity or individuality.

Any thoughts or explanations?

To which we reply:

We’ve been wondering this for quite some time (and we’ve written about it once or twice in the pages of this magazine).

Back when the business collapsed (1993 may have been the nadir), many wondered if standup comedy was “over.” Of course, this was ludicrous. It was just a provocative meme that various panic merchants and media types liked to peddle. Standup comedy, we said, was enjoyed too much by too many to simply disappear. It had become too much a part of the pop culture over the previous 20 years (or the previous 40 years, if you go back to the Lenny Bruce/Bob Newhart/Shelley Berman era… or the previous 80 years if you go back to the vaudeville era!) to simply go away as a fad or a passing fancy might.

We predicted (and with eerie accuracy) that it would come back in the following form: The stronger comedy clubs would remain and get stronger. Small 100- to 150-seat rooms would book mid-level comedians on theri schedules in addition to booking, say, folk acts, indy label singer-songwriters and other musical acts. Larger venues in the 750- to 1,200-seat range would bring in the comics who established themselves in the 80s and 90s via exposure on cable and network television. Well, whaddya know. That’s precisely what happened.

Now, of course, the transition hasn’t been smooth. And that has resulted in some quirks, like that which is contained in Mr. Haas’ letter– conventional comedy clubs that book “name” acts every week. These hybrids– these conventional comedy clubs that cough up a steady and wide stream of cash in order to present a (rather top-heavy) bill, week in and week out– are something that we couldn’t have foreseen. (And, from what we hear on the street, the formula is meeting with varying degrees of success.)

We are puzzled, as is Haas, however, at the seeming demise of the comedy club that offers as its main product Good Solid Standup Comedy. For some time, we have wondered exactly what has happened to the business model that depended on a certain sort of trust– a pact between club and patron– that was, simply stated: We offer good standup from people you may not have heard of, but you can rest assured that we offer the very best that we can find. The corollary was: We know our customers and we know what our customers like and they trust us. It takes some energy and imagination. The booker isn’t so much a talent booker as a curator. He watches DVDs, he attends festivals (and actually attends some shows!), he asks trusted acts if they know of anyone who might appeal to the club’s crowds. He also considers offers from agents, but carefully.

The other pact– that between club and talent– states that the club treats the talent well, pays them fairly and seeks to make the experience of performing a pleasant one, in a room that is above-average technically and aesthetically.

We like that model. Of course, there’s a certain degree of self-interest at work here: We fit right into a club with that policy. Notwithstanding our recent appearances on primetime network television, we still can’t be considered a draw in any meaningful way. But, due to our lengthy and extensive experience performing in a multitude of venues and locations, we are certain to deliver in such a venue. And, we are eminently marketable– that is, we have a good story, a “hook” upon which any decent marketing people can hang a decent press release, often resulting in ink in the daily paper or a hit in the local free weekly or a spirited radio appearance, all of which serves to not only get people in the house on that particular week, but makes thousands of other impressions which raises the profile of the club in the mid- and long-term.

It would seem like a sound strategy to take three-quarters of that money spent on comics with major television credits and pump a good portion of it into marketing and advertising– in radio, or in the dying local newspaper– and build up the customer base. We seem to recall that people who go to comedy clubs are prone to a certain kind of low-level fanatacism– Once they get hooked, they show up over and over again, rather like sports fans. And they proselytize. (“A satisfied customer is our best advertising.”)

We don’t know all of this for a fact. It’s mostly conjecture.

Does there exist, out there, any hard data on these matters? Has any club ever taken marketing so seriously that they’ve gone to the trouble of actually surveying their customers and finding out any information about them regarding frequency of visits, income, etc? Has any club ever polled the audience beyond “How did you hear about us?” or “Who would you like to see appear at the Comedy Club?” (We suspect that much of the decisions are based not on data, but on anecdotal evidence.)

We suspect that the “superstar” model (for lack of a better term) is viewed as a legitimate way to do business and that it is supported by a complex spreadsheet that takes into account the number of seats, the ticket price, the number of drinks sold, etc. (As for the idea that those clubs are lacking in identity, we would counter that, if they’re in a market where there is competition, then their “identity” is that of “the club that brings in name talent.” And that no further defining is needed.)

Of course, in the battle for hearts and minds, after all the gobs of cash spent on comedy stars, it quite often comes down to the battle of YouTube clips. No matter how much money Club X paid for their Comedy Central darling, Mr. and Mrs. Comedy Club Patron are more and more frequently making their spending decision on who is funnier in the YouTube clip on the respective comedy club websites. We hear it and see it when we hit the road. (We’re not bragging here, just making an observation.) Perhaps the internet will be the catalyst. Perhaps, if the customer has more autonomy and more information, the power will shift, there will be less of what the economists call “friction” in the transaction between customer and venue. (Of course, clubs can only benefit from the data if they collect it, analyze it properly and then act on it properly. It’s a long shot.)

If they’re in a market with no competition… and they’re still spending a fortune on big names… we’re not so sure that’s wise. Perhaps it’s a preemptive measure designed to keep competitors from even thinking about coming into the market.

In any event, it seems as though the word on the street is that some comedy clubs are growing a bit leery of the big-ticket acts. Either because they don’t sell tickets or they don’t deliver once onstage. Or both. In this economy, the old model might be looking better and better.

Or not. We hear more stories like the one in the video… which end with the club agreeing to the exorbitant fees and demands… and ultimately being dissatisfied with the results. (And then we hear of yet another club doing the same. And then another.)

from → News • View 9 Comments • Print-Friendly • Back To Top