Avoiding the "Second Comedy Bust" Pt. 3:Zanies bringer show
The folks at Zanies added a Tuesday open mike show. Then they sent out an email to all their local talent and laid down some rules. (The email is ricocheting around the internet. It showed up in our inbox this morning, with a link to former comedian David Spark’s blog, in which he posts about the email and analyzes it. We’re not in love with his analysis, but the back-and-forth in the comments is worth checking out.)
What it comes down to is this: Zanies, Nashville’s A-room according to many of those familiar with the venue, has created an open mike night… and it’s a bringer show.
Readers of this magazine know that we despise bringer shows. For obvious reasons. So, right there, we’re not supportive of the folks at Zanies in this particular instance. Oh, sure, admission is free for the bringees, but that hardly matters. What does matter is that there is a quid pro quo with regard to the comics and stage time. It’s not exactly pay to play, but it’s still reprehensible.
Aside from that, there are a couple other hitches in the plan.
We had to laugh at #2 on the list of rules:
2. Out of respect to every performer; you and your quests are required to stay through the entire show and just not your set.
Required? Did they say “required?” Exactly how does the club expect to enforce this one?
Don’t get us wrong– We’ve always been annoyed at the jackasses who come to a show, usually en masse, to see their friend (the wannabe comedian) at the open mike night, and then exit as soon as their blowhard buddy is offstage. It’s annoying, it’s rude, it’s totally lacking in class and it reflects poorly on the guy that brung ’em. But there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Requiring anyone to stay anywhere against their will is what they call “unlawful detention.” It’s a felony. Whoever worded the rules is not thinking things through.
Of course, if the folks you brought to the show take off just moments after your set is over, you should be in for a world of shit– from your fellow open mikers and, maybe from the club’s manager. (But, if that happens to you, perhaps you should invite a better class of people to your next open mike performance, should there ever be one again.)
Number 5 seemed to touch off some controversy:
5. Excessive Vulgar Language is frowned upon. Please do not make us have to ban you from performing. TIP: If you are really serious about pursuing a comedy career then you will have to perform clean as an MC on a consistent basis.
No problem there. We only mention it because some of the folks in the comments on Spark’s blog had a major problem with it.
No, it’s not a First Amendment issue, so don’t even go there. The folks at Zanies are entirely within their rights to place such restrictions on their performers. What they’ll get in return is comics that are more suited to emceeing (and more suitable faster). And, let’s face it, one of the primary reasons for having an open mike is to cultivate local talent so that you might have competent weekend show hosts.
Ditto when it comes to the restriction on political humor. (And, as someone astutely pointed out in a comment, the rule is probably not enforced if someone uncorks a political jibe that is actually funny.)
Someone identifying herself as Beth Schumann, a comedy club manager, defends the various nickel-and-dime aspects of the club’s new policies, saying, “It costs a club $$ just to open its doors on any given night. To open its doors and then take a loss every open mic night is not good business.” To which we reply: With the cost of licenses, taxes, insurance, etc., a club loses money if it opts to keep its doors closed.
Where Zanies (and other clubs that cook up such lame schemes as this one) go horribly wrong is that they open the doors on an off night and then seek to place the blame for the loss (?) of money on the comics. Starting from that point, they then seek to compel the comics to do all the things that they themselves should be doing– promotion, advertising, marketing, etc.
This is laziness. It is ass backwards. There are plenty of ways that a creative management team can bulk up the (free) admission to its open mike night.
Rather than whine and moan about the economy, they might solicit advice from fellow comedy club owners (or fellow restaurateurs) and use some of the tricks they employ to get people through the door. If you’ve ever skimmed a copy of one of those industry magazines with names like “Food And Drink Monthly” or “Cocktail Quarterly” you’re probably as blown away as we are by the ingenious methods that restaurant people use to squeeze every last nickel out of every square foot of their establishment. People who make their living in food and beverage are relentless and brilliant in getting people through the door, keeping them there and siphoning money out of their wallets. This is what it takes, apparently, to be in the club business– relentless energy and intelligence. We don’t for a minute begrudge them a penny, for we are well aware of just how exhausting and frustrating it must be to constantly dream up ways to motivate your customer base to come through that door. But to totally abdicate your responsibility for that part of your business– and lay it on the talent— is to signal that you have given up, that you are out of ideas or energy or both.
One way might be to hold the open mike after your second show Friday or Saturday (or after the Thursday or Wednesday night show). Another might be to hand out free passes to the open mike night as the crowd is filing out from the regular, paid shows on the other nights of the week.
This was done with tremendous success at the Comedy Factory Outlet in the 1980s. Initially, the CFO had “Midnight Madness,” which was a new talent night after the Friday evening show. When the club went to two shows Friday, the new talent performed on Thursday night at what was then one of the best open mikes in the country– on some nights, folks were turned away– and the audience was there mainly because they had received a free pass when attending a prior weekend show.
It’s entirely logical– the weekend crowd has seen a tremendous show (it is hoped), and they have all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings toward the club. Inviting them back to see “the stars of tomorrow” for free is inviting them to be an ongoing part of a live performance venue’s process– a participant in the development of a local scene. If just a small percentage of those free passes return, the meager investment in ticket printing is well worth it.
If an open mike is sold or promoted as something of value, free passes (or BOGO passes) will be looked upon as having value. And the response to the show will be good. If the open mike night is structured as a pathetic D.I.Y. affair (with comics practically begging strangers and friends to attend or papering windshields with flyers or hectoring co-workers), the show will not be viewed favorably. And the response from the co-opted attendees will be forced, the atmosphere uncomfortable. Can we really blame those who were roped into attending for bugging out as fast as they can? The very fact that Rule #2 includes mandatory attendance speaks volumes. Has anyone, in the history of entertainment, ever heard of a club that demands people stay through the end of the performance? No. That a comedy club should do so is an embarrassment to us all and should also embarrass the folks at Zanies.
17 Responses
Reply to: Avoiding the "Second Comedy Bust" Pt. 3:Zanies bringer show
P.S. I should have read the Zanies email before posting – although we do have a 2-person bringer, we certainly don’t make any demands about language or politics, impose a minimum purchase, or go overboard on banning people.
The Shecky stance on this issue at bit at odds with the Hack List. Where as the unofficial and unenforceable hack list is flamed, banning political humor is just a good solid rule. One that would be obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.Is good comedy not just good comedy? If as you detailed in the response that the no one would object to a political joke that was actually funny then is the rule not just a bit heavy handed?When I hear comedians say, “I do not do political humor” it is often in meant as a put down to the political comedians in their surroundings. A way to market themselves to owners that has nothing to do at all with how the jokes are received by the paying public. It is a marketing strategy that avoids a serious analysis of the comedian’s content or stagecraft. Quality control requires not only diligence but verification as well.If the hack list was a way to bully and shame a group of comedians than I would like to know why rule #5 meets the gold standard for open mic nights?
I’m definitely with George on this. Though I disagree with the rule about language, I can see your point and where they’re coming from. Why restrict any topics? Stand-up comedy is ABSOLUTELY the place to talk about your political opinions. Who cares if it’s not funny? The majority of stuff at open mics is not funny and political humor isn’t intrinsically any less funny than other types of humor. Why single this out? So your guests don’t get mad and complain when a comedian says something they don’t like?But you’re right on about bringer shows. Clubs should do their own booking and if comedians would stop doing bringers, then club owners would stop holding them. There is absolutely no reason for a comic to ever do a bringer. If that’s all a club has, go somewhere else or move to a better city, which you would have to do anyway if you’re serious about stand-up. It’s just laziness on the club owners’ part.
The Hack List and Rule # 5 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.A comedy club is entirely entitled to put any kind of restrictions on the comedians who mount the stage.A comedian is entitled to work somewhere else if he doesn’t like the conditions. If he chooses to work at a club that has conditions, he must adhere to them or be sanctioned.Simple.You want to run a clean club. Feel free. You want to run a club that stipulates all comedians who work there must have political content. Feel free.It is the age old clash between art and commerce. If you are an artist and you can’t stand to work under even the slightest restrictions, find a club that allows for that. Or start your own.The Hack List is a device by which comedians seek to bully fellow comedians into abandoning certain subjects or premises. We say that’s bad. We say comics should be able to write a joke about any topic and to place such restrictions on the creative process is bad, and “would be obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.”Performing is a whole different ballgame, for it is when a comic seeks to perform his material (usually for money, initially for free), he can expect to have restrictions place on his performance by certain venues.A comic has every right to write any joke he wants. He does not have the right to have that joke be heard. Things become a whole lot more complicated between writing a joke down on a coil bound notebook while waiting for the light to change and doing it on a stage with proper sound, lights and a crowd.Are the venues “wrong” for placing restrictions on material? Certainly not. They’re paying for the lights, the heat, the stage and supplying the liquor. If they wanted to present shows that featured comedians using only words that began with the letter “s,” they could. Why they might want do so is not exactly any of our business.Is the performer endowed by his creator with the inalienable right to perform on that stage, free from restrictions. Not at all.The performer is entirely welcome to do his proscribed material on the street corner (provided the local laws allow) and solicit remuneration from the passing crowds. Therefore, his freedom as an artist is very much intact.The performer is also entirely welcome to find a stage in another venue, or in another city or in another state, or in another country that allows him to do his material as he envisions it. Fortunately, this isn’t usually necessary.It has been our experience that we have refused to pursue work at various venues here and there over the years that place the odd restriction on material or clothing or whatever. Did we once feel as though our freedom of speech or expression was curtailed? Not at all.A club owner has rights, too. When he puts restrictions on content, he is entirely within his rights to do so. Is it a good thing? No. Is it a bad thing? No. It’s just a thing. It makes good sense for him to present a certain kind of comedy.When a club owner requires his open mikers to bring people to his show in return for stage time, he is also entirely within his rights to do so. Is it a good thing? No. It is a bad thing. It puts the burden of promoting and marketing the club on the talent. It is not arguable that the object of the club is to sell food and liquor. It is a major part of their income. But the ostensible purpose of the club (the reason for its being) is to present the talent. If the talent is seen as part of the problem or as a cog in the wheel or as an obstacle (“I lose money just opening the doors so you goofballs can tell your dick jokes.”), then the entire equation is perverted.
In that reply I am still searching for the part where you would expand on why banning political material makes for a better show. I completely agree that an owner has the right to make whatever rules that they like. At no point did I even allude to the clubs being wrong or closed minded. Nowhere did I even hint at the thought comedians should be able to do whatever they want.Corporate gigs have rules. Television appearances have rules. For the love of all that is good even swingers clubs have rules! Why this topic sparked interest for me is the debate over what rules are truly helpful in growing the business. In general most people agree with the list but even Shecky Mag did not agree with all of them.For the record I have felt free to start my own room. I pay for the lights, mop the floors, clean the toilets, promote relentlessly, and always seem two requests behind on comedians who want a copy of the archive video.Three years later one of my best friends <>is<> the local comedy club owner. Who offers helpful advice and is not threatened by a DIY guy who will in all likelihood be poorly received. I was trying to begin a dialogue because I believe that there are best practices and was hoping for some feedback on that level. I guess I will simply be satisfied with your <>it is what it is<> response to a bunch of statements that I never made.
“Has anyone, in the history of entertainment, ever heard of a club that demands people stay through the end of the performance?”
Are we counting clubs that don’t drop checks until the end of the show?
For the record, our club has a similar bringer arrangement for our open mike show. You only have to bring two people, they get in for free, and we don’t look at the night as a money-maker anyway. We do, however, want to make sure there’s enough of a crowd for the night to be worth everyone’s time (performers included).
Obviously, I think “reprehensible” is kind of a strong label for the arrangement.
First of all, George, we are responding to a number of comments, not just yours.
Now, onto your latest comment–
George said, regarding our last comment:
“…I am still searching for the part where you would expand on why banning political material makes for a better show.”
Let’s be clear: We NEVER said that banning political material makes for a BETTER show.
We merely stated that it is the prerogative of the club owner to ban it or allow it.
We suppose the tendency is to view the whole situation subjectively– To judge the actions of the club owner using subjective criteria. This can lead to the conclusion that a show where political material is banned is somehow… inferior.
Of course, this is folly. Your idea of a good show and the club owner’s idea of a good show probably do not coincide. Nor should they be required to coincide.
He does your thing, you do yours.
This posting was never about what makes for a good show. It was about a set of rules and whether or not the club owner was unnecessarily abdicating certain responsibilities. And placing unnecessary burdens on the talent.
In the course of the posting, we addressed the restrictions on vulgar or political material because it seemed to spark much of the controversy– And our position was that these were the least controversial rules in the email. (In other words, we isolated those two and quickly dismissed them in order to focus more clearly on the parts that rankled us most– as evidenced by the subtitle of the posting, “Zanies bringer show.”)
We are inclusive. We imagine that there all kinds of shows, all kinds of venues, a variety of reasons for presenting comedy and a variety of ways to present it.
But once again, that was not the point of our post. Perhaps our error was to even begin to address Rule 5 and the other rule regarding political content. We did so merely because, as we said, they seemed to be the basis for a lot of the controversy. In our attempt to get to the _real_ controversy (as we saw it), we tried to briefly address them, then move on.
And perhaps our second error was to be distracted by the side issues in our subsequent comments.
This may be a totally separate conversation, but I’m curious why in the age of Facebook, MySpace, email lists, YouTube and cheap postcards, you consider promotion to still be the sole responsibility of the club.
Probably the best thing that the owner and comedian can do for each other is to show mutual respect, and to respect the audience.
An attitude like that would solve most of the problems with this letter, or if not, at least the owner/manager(?) would show more appreciation for local comics, and create a better atmosphere in which to do comedy.
Some club owners do get the point, and there are places where owners and comedians do what they can to support each other. As you guys (the Shecky Halves) witnessed, we have a great example here in Twin Cities at the Joke Joint. And we also have lots of DIY open mics that are great for the comedy community. And some of us drive an hour south once a week to go to another open mic that respects performers and audience.
And for the aspiring comedians that don’t have these opportunities, you don’t have to give in, you can do it yourself. You can find a room, promote it, find local comics, do a free workshop, and have your own show.
If nothing else, I heartily endorse your spelling of “open mike,” rather than “open mic,” which I see elsewhere and which is an affront to decent people everywhere.
“depending upon a disparate group of comics (who have zero inclination to start a room and promote it– otherwise, they would have!)”You don’t know what you’re talking about. There are more than a few DIY shows around Nashville.
Chad Riden writes:“You don’t know what you’re talking about. There are more than a few DIY shows around Nashville.”Actually, we do know what we’re talking about. The statement you single out for scorn was a general statement and not necessarily about Nashville.And you know that we know what we’re talking about– Check out this from SHECKYmagazine in August of 2005:<>Thanks for mentioning www.NashvilleStandUp.com – we’re longtime readers of Shecky and appreciate the nod. Anybody coming thru the Nashville area – whether you’re a professional or an insane drifter with two open mics under your belt – you’re all more than welcome to stop in any time.. give us a yell and we’ll buy you a beer, if not get you on stage somewhere.<># posted by Blogger Chad Riden : 11:19 AM, August 30, 2005We’ll make everybody a deal: We’ll try to write with more clarity if you try to read with more care.
Let’s clarify two things:
1. When we alluded to “a pathetic DIY affair,” we did not intend to demean DIY open mikes. We are huge supporters of DIY open mikes. In fact, we always encourage folks to start their own open mikes. We’ve even been invited to a couple (and, on rare occasions, have gone up at one or two) and they’re usually exciting and the comics are supportive of each other and the crowds are often enthusiastic.
And, since the comics who organize such nights have a stake in the proceedings (and pride of “ownership”), they hustle and they use creative methods to draw an audience.
An alleged A-room is different. It should not be depending upon the talent to promote its open mike night. It should draw upon all the resources it uses to pack the weekend shows. When it doesn’t, its open mike then appears, by comparison, to be a pathetic affair, underserving of an A-room.
If a comic (or a handful of comics) has/have the drive and the stamina (and, in some cases, the guts, as these shows sometimes alienate the big boys in town) to produce an open mike show, the results are usually grand.
Conversely, depending upon a disparate group of comics (who have zero inclination to start a room and promote it– otherwise, they would have!), is (usually) a formula for an uneven, lethargic mess.
2. To Timmy Mac: You are correct, this is a totally separate conversation– one that has been on our “To Post” list for a while now.
The conversation is about open mikers. Open mikers should pretty much be worrying about one thing: Getting good, becoming better comics.
Promotion for an open miker is putting the comedy cart before the comedy horse.
When it comes to an open mike, the club should indeed take on the vast bulk of promoting the show. If an aspiring comic wants to browbeat friends, relatives and strangers to come out and see him suck (using Facebook, Myspace or any of a number of new or old technologies), he should be entirely welcome. If, however, he wishes to figure this whole thing out in relative anonymity, it should be an option.
Sorry, I thought we were discussing Zanies in Nashville and the rules they have put in place for open mic’ers when you wrote:
“An alleged A-room is different. It should not be depending upon the talent to promote its open mike night. It should draw upon all the resources it uses to pack the weekend shows. When it doesn’t, its open mike then appears, by comparison, to be a pathetic affair, underserving of an A-room.
If a comic (or a handful of comics) has/have the drive and the stamina (and, in some cases, the guts, as these shows sometimes alienate the big boys in town) to produce an open mike show, the results are usually grand.
Conversely, depending upon a disparate group of comics (who have zero inclination to start a room and promote it– otherwise, they would have!), is (usually) a formula for an uneven, lethargic mess.”
Timmy Mac, I hate to disagree with not only you but SHECKY also on this one, but when I was managing clubs, and whenever I write about shows, I make it a point to use “Open Mic” and cringe whenever I see the improper “Open Mike”. The show is based on the premise of an Open Microphone, hence Open Mic being the proper spelling that all decent people everywhere should use.
Ben, Tim:
The Los Angeles Times ran a recent headline that used “Mike” as short for microphone.
See here.
But AP has a bunch of stories that use “mic.” (Google the word “mic” and behold the gusher of instances!)
We prefer the former over the latter. It’s a matter of style.
Just like we use “standup” rather than “stand-up”– probably contrary to the AP Stylebook, but, over ten years, it’s saved us a lot of hunting for that damned hyphen button! (We’re very practical that way! And we’re rebels! The best of both worlds!)
Here’s a story about a club that is doing an “openmyk” the right way. (BTW, yes, I am starting a new spelling. It looks and sounds Orwellian or Soviet.)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-open-mic8-2009mar08,0,4107004.story