10.03.2015 Views

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

Download a PDF - Stage Directions Magazine

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Right Before the Fall<br />

By Dave McGinnis<br />

|<br />

With recession icing the assets, administrations could start turning up the heat.<br />

TD Talk<br />

The recession has fallen upon us, and anyone who attempts<br />

to deny that we’ll all soon shiver in its icy grip will learn the<br />

awful truth soon enough. In theatre, we face a battle that<br />

we can win, but that will force us uphill for some time to come.<br />

As a result, jobs that have long enjoyed both security and mobility—TDs—might<br />

soon see darker days. This scenario has divided<br />

my colleagues—the ones with whom I speak anyways—into<br />

two distinct camps, and I feel it incumbent upon me to put these<br />

notions forth so that you—the TD in the trench—can decide for<br />

yourself.<br />

The “Go-On-the-Cheapers”<br />

One friend of mine put it to me this way: “Theatres that can’t<br />

make back what they spend, close; and closed theatres employ<br />

nobody.”<br />

The theory here implies that we should decrease our expenditures<br />

in every possible way to decrease the amount of revenue<br />

the theatre must take in to “make its nut,” so to speak. In some<br />

ways, this idea makes sense. If a theatre spends less, it doesn’t<br />

have to take in as much revenue to keep itself in operation.<br />

On the negative side, though, this also means that gear purchases<br />

could virtually halt, and that would send a shockwave<br />

throughout the industry from the theatres themselves down to<br />

the very manufacturers. In addition, we all know what happens<br />

once a shop learns to live with less. People in ties start wondering<br />

how much less we could get by on.<br />

assuming they make it out of the tough times at all. While time<br />

may cause me to change my tune, based on how general economics<br />

and various “stimulus packages”—whatever that means<br />

when you get home—play into my shop, I’ve opted for door<br />

number two. In fact, I’ve agreed to the biggest build since I first<br />

came to work here, which will have been built, used and torn<br />

down before you ever read this.<br />

So before the memos and messengers invade the shops of<br />

the world insisting on doing “more with less”—which makes as<br />

much sense as beating oneself to death over a dropped screw—<br />

I will provide the theatres of the world with three options from<br />

TDs everywhere. No matter how tight belts may get, there will<br />

always be three, and only three, options where show builds and<br />

hangs are concerned:<br />

The build done cheap<br />

The build done right<br />

The build done fast<br />

Pick two. You get all three in the afterlife…if you were VERY,<br />

VERY good.<br />

Tell Dave what option you chose at dmcginnis@stage-directions.com<br />

The “It-Takes-Money-to-Make-Money” Crowd<br />

In the opposite corner, wearing thick green trunks, stand the<br />

folk who subscribe to the theory that a decrease in expenditures<br />

at every pothole eventually translates into a decrease in overall<br />

quality, which decreases theatre revenues over an extended<br />

period of time. These people maintain, as best as I can tell, that to<br />

cave and decrease spending simply “out of fear,” as I often hear<br />

it, immediately sends the technical quality of productions into a<br />

downward spiral from which it can be difficult to save it.<br />

Ultimately, this could send potential patrons away forever. I<br />

admit that I have seen this effect before.<br />

Two Outta Three<br />

As for me, I understand the kneejerk reaction to try to cut<br />

expenditures, but how many companies have cut expenditures<br />

to show short-term profits, only to lose their shirts a year later<br />

when those very cuts led to miserable product quality? In addition,<br />

using simple budget cuts to increase available revenues<br />

can eventually lead to cuts in current staffing. I can think of no<br />

way to reduce quality faster than to start cutting jobs. In addition,<br />

and on a purely philosophical note, I’ll discuss reductions in<br />

materials budgets, and I’ll even discuss reductions of job-ins, but<br />

my crew’s jobs rely on MY estimation of their importance. I’m<br />

not about to see any of my full-timers’ jobs cut because of mistakes<br />

made in the front office. I’ll make reductions in purchases,<br />

and I’ll reduce the number of job-ins I hire, but my in-house staff<br />

are safe as long as they do their jobs. Period. That is never up for<br />

negotiation. We close before they go on unemployment.<br />

I will say that keeping quality up in tough times seems to<br />

determine who’s the strongest when the good times return—<br />

www.stage-directions.com • April 2009 25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!