As the local arts festivals get closer and Companies are busy rehearsing their productions, the “would you work for free” rears its ugly head. We see this every year; the cast is being paid and suddenly they realise that they need a lighting/audio operator, and they hope to get one for free. Exposure if offered as an incentive to them, exposure might create more work, but it does not pay the bills.
Now if the show is a true amateur production, everybody doing it for love and as a hobby, I do not have an issue with them have someone keen to do the lighting and audio. It is a great way for them to learn and the social aspects are great. But when it comes to shows where the cast are paid, either profit share or award rates, and they are expecting techs to work for nothing, that is totally wrong. This becomes an “us and them” situation. It is very demeaning to the tech who has spent and money learning their craft like actors do. Then they join a show and be the only ones not getting paid. They need to be on an equal footing, all getting something or all getting nothing.
There is a mentality among a very small minority of companies that techs are happy with just the acknowledgment. The concept of getting exposure is a falsehood. Exposure of this kind basically indicates that you are willing to work for free and you will most likely not get any paid work. It should be up to the technicians to decide if they want to offer their services for free, and that would be most likely to amateur companies. I have done the same, there is a couple of amateur companies I am happy to do the job for nothing.
These companies often use the line “we did not budget for someone, it was an error” or “we did not know we needed a tech” when they hire a venue. All venues would have this in the standard terms and conditions.
So, if you are a tech and they offer you a gig, for the exposure and fun, but everybody else is getting a cut – SAY NO