Meeting 22.03.04/Blackfort Art Truck & Thingsradio.com Gig (1 Viewer)

[taubstumm]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Em, c'mere
I don't want to cause a fuss or anything, but I was thinking about the drinks company sponsorship (for the gig in the digital hub) that Helen and Declan were talking about last night, and I'm not too comfortable about the idea. I know it might seem like a small deal - we put up a Guinness banner or something behind the stage, and in return get 5 free kegs or something, but really extra people are not going to go to to the gig because of free beer. I know the gig is not my baby, and Stoat may well not even be able to play at it, but shouldn't we be able organise something like this without corporate sponsorship?

If we don't think we're going to be able to pay for the venue without ... ahem ... selling our audience to advertisers, then perhaps we should think of putting on the gig somewhere else?
Sorry, sorry, I know I'm putting my oar in without having been involved in the gig up to now, but ...

with cormac on this one.

 

[cookiemonster]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

with cormac on this one.

i thought you might be.
i don't think any of us want a big heineken or whoever banner over the stage, the general thought was if we could get some low-key sponsorship that'd be great to give out some free drinks to bands playing, but if sponsors want banners & their logos on the tickets etc we'll do without the sponsorship.

 

[Juno]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

i don't think any of us want a big heineken or whoever banner over the stage, the general thought was if we could get some low-key sponsorship that'd be great to give out some free drinks to bands playing, but if sponsors want banners & their logos on the tickets etc we'll do without the sponsorship.

This strikes me as a good idea. If sponsorship involved only minimal advertising (such as bunting or a few posters in the venue or something) I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it. Don't know anything on the legal position regarding alcohol sponsorship of radio stations though.

 

[egg_]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

If sponsorship involved only minimal advertising (such as bunting or a few posters in the venue or something) I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it

I would. Sorry
If the advertising is only minimal, we'd only be getting something very minimal in return, so why bother? If we/ye can't pay for the bands' booze out of the door take, then we shouldn't be giving out free booze ...
Better to throw an extra euro on the entry fee. It's more honest

 

[MDR]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

I haven't been involved in the organising of this, so I don't want to interfere unnecessarily when other people have obviously put so much work and effort in.

But, in principal, I don't think 'Things' should not be involved with corporate sponsorship in any of our enterprises. I think it undermines what we're about and gives the wrong message that we're independent only to a point.

I don't want to be someone who does none of the organising and then jumps in to make life difficult for those who are doing the work, but I think this is an important issue.

 

[sarah]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

I would. Sorry
If the advertising is only minimal, we'd only be getting something very minimal in return, so why bother? If we/ye can't pay for the bands' booze out of the door take, then we shouldn't be giving out free booze ...
Better to throw an extra euro on the entry fee. It's more honest

Well the companies we are looking at for sponsorship would be
foreign imports as in Budvar and Krombacher.
These companies have previously given out free fridges and beer for the
day to the gallery at one of the launches there. The only advertising
they got (and had asked for ) in return was that their beer was served
there, as they like their product to be associated with
these kind of events.
Also I think if companies have a certain allocated fund to invest
back into community enterprises and art then it's just unrealistic idealism
to refuse to accept any form of sponsorship.
Also I think for me and a lot of other people it's generally seen as
launch = a certain amount of free booze.

And lastly we are putting our money towards this and so far as I know
nobody else has been any way involved in the organising of this event,
which is a combined things your missing & Blackfort venture.

That's all from me!

 

[egg_]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

it's just unrealistic idealism
to refuse to accept any form of sponsorship.

!!
Why?
Sarah, you've organised a million gigs without any form of sponsorship. It's not unrealistic at all!

Here, I'm not going to push this - as you say I haven't been involved (in this particular venture) up until now, so I'm probably not qualified to comment. But, y'know, I feel pretty bad about throwing away Things You're Missing's independent status for a fridge full of beer ... whether it's part of a joint venture or not. So I'm not arguing, I'm just asking - it's just a measly amount of booze, c'mon, make a friendly goodwill gesture to the oddball left-wingers and give up the idea
(if I wasn't so broke I'd sponsor the booze myself)

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

i also don't want to butt in where i might not be welcome, but i think cormac is dead right.

i'll gladly pay more for a sponsor-free event. that's not 'unrealistic idealism'. it's entirely achievable and practical.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Can one o you pinkos explain why youse think corporate sponsorship is such a bad thing? Not being smart actually, my political nous is non-existent, so I'm ripe for some brainwashing here.

 

[egg_]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Can one o you pinkos explain why youse think corporate sponsorship is such a bad thing? Not being smart actually, my political nous is non-existent, so I'm ripe for some brainwashing here.

Ah Richie
I'm swamped with work at the minute but here's some quick thoughts:

- the more ubiquitous corporate sponsorship becomes, the more difficult is becomes to put on events without corporate sponsorship (cos the extra money the corporates inject means the prices go up), which means that we open ourselves in the long run to only being able to put on events that will be endorsed by corporations

- advertising at an event is a hidden cost for the punters - people pay less money, but in return allow themselves to be subjected to marketing ... you can see on the web that people are often willing to pay to avoid having to look at ads, but people don't have that choice at most events

There's kind of a gut reaction factor at work here too. If I organised a gig, I wouldn't want Guinness or whoever to, in return for a few kegs of beer, somehow make the thing into a Guinness Event. It's a smaller deal with someone like Budvar who maybe just want to target young underground types for their product but at the same time ... I'd hate to help a corporation convince people that Budvar was a cool thing to drink by allowing it to be given out for free at some underground gig I was running. If Budvar want me to be a marketer for them, let them pay me a salary.
On the other hand, if there was some local family-owned organic beer company that made good beer and needed some support, I'd be delighted to help them out

 

[Shnake]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Cormac, explain this then please:

Acunamanacana
Coca-cola drinka lotta
Carlsbergbestofalltheworldsbeers
Croco-di-al on my t-shirt

It's a six inch nail driven into my Nike

der ner ner ner ner ner ner (that's the bass line bit)

etc...

well???!??

 

[Ex-User (250)]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

yeah! that's my job!!! what's the about whoresyouremissing?

I don't want to be someone who does none of the organising and then jumps in to make life difficult for those who are doing the work, but I think this is an important issue.

 

[sarah]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Righto I see what you people are saying, but the fact is if we're getting sponsorship
we are taking it, in the form of Digital Hub who are giving us the venue for the
cost of the insurance, so they term the fact that they aren't charging us rental
sponsorship.
Also we will be contacting companies like CANON and PHILIPS to provide us
sponsorship in kind in the form or projectors and as much other stuff that
we think we can get out of them.
Next we will be contacting as mentioned before some sort of drinks company,
and personally I find it hard to see where the line stops between a family run
company and a larger company when does it start being evil corporate sponsorship?
Do companies always have to be struggling or very small in order for them to be
socially acceptable?
Next I think that people who will be attending this event in the first place
have been drinking for long enough to not be persuaded by the beer that
we will be giving out at this thing into thinking it is cool, you seem to be
saying that people are mindless drones that are completely helplessly pummeled
into a consumer frenzy by advertising.
The gallery gigs where on a much smaller scale than this, although John has
taken advantage of Krombacher sponsorship before and it's through
him that we have gotten the contact details for these guys.
I can see that some of you believe very strongly in this but I think if the company
doesn't make us proclaim it loud and proud and have huge banners around
the place stating sponsored by such and such, then it isn't such a big
deal for me nor the other people organising it.
Obviously if it would turn out to be like Wittnness or however you spell it,
that the drink would be the main thing that people associate at the event,
then we'll leave it out.
But if it's the same as the NCAD thing I attended there were a few punk-looking
kids hand you a can at the door, it will be much appreciated.
We are already trying to keep the tickets cost down to as low as possible
and not everybody will be as happy as you too to pay that little bit extra.

Anyway thanks that you all care about this so much at the end of the day we just
want to help promote music and art that we think is worth the effort but the scale
we are looking at and will ultimately want to do it at is way past what the gallery gigs
ever were.

 

[Ex-User (250)]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

sarah, if i believe in something, i make it work, whatever way i can. as long as none of them interfere with what you're trying to do or detract from what you're trying to do in any way, any sponsorship is good sponsorship. you delve deeply enough into any company's business, chances are you'll find they do something you might not want to be associated with... where do you draw the line? it's a personal thing... i think what you're trying to do is great, it's all-inclusive and ambitious. it's your baby, as long as you're comfortable with the companies who are sponsoring you, that should be enough for you. it's really no one else's business if someone has a problem with it, they don't have to go.

i am starting to understand pain in a more deep and meaningful way now... i find the more you put yourself through, the closer to clarity to get. sorry, i was just thinking out loud.

GO ART TRUCK!!!

let me know if you think i can help in any way.

Anyway thanks that you all care about this so much at the end of the day we just want to help promote music and art that we think is worth the effort but the scale we are looking at and will ultimately want to do it at is way past what the gallery gigs ever were.

 

[egg_]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Next we will be contacting as mentioned before some sort of drinks company, and personally I find it hard to see where the line stops between a family run company and a larger company when does it start being evil corporate sponsorship?

Ah Sarah, I'm not saying corporate sponsorship is 'evil', I just think it's undesirable and unnecessary

As for drawing the line - the difference between a corporation whose shares are traded on a stock exchange and a family is pretty obvious to me

Next I think that people who will be attending this event in the first place have been drinking for long enough to not be persuaded by the beer that we will be giving out at this thing into thinking it is cool, you seem to be
saying that people are mindless drones that are completely helplessly pummeled into a consumer frenzy by advertising.

Advertising works. Branding works. Marketing works. If they didn't work, any company who spent billions on these things (as all the most successful companies do) would very quickly lose out to companies who didn't. If you are immune then you are very unusual. If you think everyone is immune then you are wrong

 

[Ex-User (250)]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

hey egg_

have been talking a lot with billy and sarah about this venture so i'm just going to voice my opinions on this...

Ah Sarah, I'm not saying corporate sponsorship is 'evil', I just think it's undesirable and unnecessary

As for drawing the line - the difference between a corporation whose shares are traded on a stock exchange and a family is pretty obvious to me

i don't get this at all... by family business, you mean a company who doesn't trade shares on the stock exchange? how can you be sure they wouldn't if they could? how can you be 100% sure of anyone's motives? that's what's at issue here, right? you want to make sure the motives of your sponsors are all ok by you... just because someone is a member of a family business, doesn't mean they wouldn't suck satan's cock given the chance...

Advertising works. Branding works. Marketing works. If they didn't work, any company who spent billions on these things (as all the most successful companies do) would very quickly lose out to companies who didn't. If you are immune then you are very unusual. If you think everyone is immune then you are wrong

surely it's not sarah's or billy's duty to protect the masses from advertising? what they're trying to achieve is very very ambitious... and with some of these company's help, they might actually achieve it in the next couple of years as opposed to 20 years time without any sponsorship... i think it would be more productive to think of the bigger picture in this case than to wallow on the usual points of contention...

they'll hopefully just go ahead and do this anyway without listening to the ramblings of us dinosaurs...

 

[LMD64]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

if only i could...
...i'd make the world a better place
if only i could...
...i'd make the world a better place
believe me, beLEEE-HEE-EEEEIVe me
believe me, beLEEE-HEE-EEEEIVe

if only i could
<wocca-wocca-guitar breakdown bit>





...sure, greedy corporate fingers in every pie is a fairly bad-ish thing, but anyway, on you go, sarah, grab that sponsorship. As long as there isn't someone at the door with a red-hot spitting Coke-shaped branding iron, i say get what you can, and if they're willing and happy to do so (especially as far as the lending of expensive audiovisual equipment are concerned, which tends to be well beyond most peoples pockets)

an dat's my shpake, bhuoy. gaan, up the cuff.

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

i'd prefer if there wasn't sponsorship, but i realise that this isn't really anything to do with me, that i haven't been involved in putting it on, that i haven't even been to a meeting for months (a whole other story) and that anything i say can be called begrudgery or dogmatism or unhelpfulness or being-a-fucking-eejit and written off.


so...

i'd like to add, by way of part-explanation...

there's no line that can be drawn between what is okay and what isn't, and what is seen as 'selling out' drifts over a wide area of possible choices. that much is obvious, there's no point arguing by saying things like 'so should we hold all our gigs in a hole in the ground with no electricity? huh? is that what you want?' and the like.

i've always seen t.y.m. as a group of people who are interested in making things happen on their own terms and in a way that they can feel comfortable with, because the music of people involved deserves to be appreciated on its own terms.

in a city like dublin, where nobody seems to be able to put on anything without ringing up a drinks company for sponsorship, any organisation which articulates these ideas, and attempts to put these kind of things into practice is, i think, sorely needed.

doing things in a certain way (with sponsorship, not on our own terms and in ways that we feel uncomfortable with) is kind of going in the opposite direction to what the whole thing is meant to achieve.

the rest of my objections would pretty much flow from that initial way of looking at things.

the more we do this kind of thing, the harder it becomes to do things some other way, and the less likely it will be that events can take place without this kind of stuff happening.

however, i wasn't involved in organising this, and i'm being unhelpful by even posting this, but i wanted to try and give a version of how things might be looked at.

 

[egg_]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

hey egg_

Hey hag

i don't get this at all... by family business, you mean a company who doesn't trade shares on the stock exchange?

No dude, by family business I mean a business owned and run by a family.
Lookit, I only threw the 'family-run organic beer company' into the equation in an offhand way - what I was trying to illustrate is that if I was organising a gig and someone who needed help asked me for it I'd most likely oblige, and happily. Helping someone out and accepting sponsorship from a global corporation are different things

how can you be 100% sure of anyone's motives? that's what's at issue here, right?

No, not at all. There's kind of a few issues all tangled up here ... firstly, I don't think it's a particularly good idea for gigs to be sponsored by anyone - for reasons see what I posted in respons to Richie's question. The exception would be the family-run-organic-beer-company type situation, which is less sponsorship and more just being nice. Then, secondly, I think corporations whose stock is traded publicly are more often Bad Things than family-run businesses are because their owners are not involved with the day-to-day running of the business, and therefore they are unaware of (and unconcerned with) the impacts their behaviour is having.
(This is kind of obscure but hopefully explains my reasoning a bit)

surely it's not sarah's or billy's duty to protect the masses from advertising?

I'm not asking anyone to fight against advertising ... I'd rather that people didn't fight for it, that's all

what they're trying to achieve is very very ambitious... and with some of these company's help, they might actually achieve it in the next couple of years as opposed to 20 years time without any sponsorship...

I have no idea what they're trying to achieve. Care to fill me in?

they'll hopefully just go ahead and do this anyway without listening to the ramblings of us dinosaurs...

I'm sure they will

 

[LMD64]

Re: Meeting 22.03.04

Lookit, I only threw the 'family-run organic beer company' into the equation in an offhand way

would the Dublin Brewing company be open and amenable to sponsorship? dunno if they're a family-run business, but they're small-ish, and they don't sell bottled tap water to the masses and call it 'Dasani'.
and they have a home-brewed, guaranteed-irish, non-affiliated-with-indonesian-sweatshops kind of feel to them. in other words, they're more rock-and-roll than, say, Miller Light.