Quite frankly, I'm appalled. Not only by the fact that the faire is *still* going down despite changes in management, but the attitude of entitlement that the failing management has. To blame the competition for your failure is to fail doubly because by doing so you will never see the reason you failed in the first place, and can never correct it. I'm so sick of this discussion that I just about left the Dickens Fair Folk tribe in disgust.
The worst part though, is seeing someone I looked up to in the thick of it, perhaps causing some of it. I'll be sad to see him go down with the ship, as it were.
Argh, this is so aggravating!
The worst part though, is seeing someone I looked up to in the thick of it, perhaps causing some of it. I'll be sad to see him go down with the ship, as it were.
Argh, this is so aggravating!
posted by:
|
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 12:19 PMTell me about it. For some people the blame seems to lie everywhere but with the faire it self. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 2:13 PMEvery suggestion I tried to make as ideas to think on got shot down by the same person with the excuse "There's not enough money" I stopped reading the posts cause it's just the same stuff. More like whining than anything else.
-
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 9:36 PMThat sense of entitlement doesn't end with management. We--meaning actors, as a whole and not any particular person--are being every bit as whiny. More so; I haven't actually seen or heard word one from a Patterson. All the "sacrifice for the good of the fair" proposals have also come from actors, and not management.
Every group that I ever belonged to that put together a show or experience or service for a larger audience has hit the crisis of character that is making itself known through the Dickens/RenFair group. It's a very simple question:
Why in hell are we doing this?
There are 2 (more than two, but it can be simplified down to two) core interests that come into conflict: actor & audience.
If Dickens or Marin is meant--by the Pattersons/Red Barn, the management-- to be a money-making affair, then success is defined by financial intake. Pleasing the customer. A completely legitimate interest.
If these fairs are meant to serve as some form of education, then pleasing the audience isn't the main point. A certain level of pleasure is needful to draw them in and keep them interested & paying attention, but the real point is historical accuracy and information-dispersal. Actors seem to fit on this side of the equation.
The two aren't always going to be compatible interests. When there comes conflict between them, some compromise is probably the best bet. I'm not sure how many of the debaters have framed the problem this way.
On a different point, Dickens & Marin Fairs are expensive. Enormously so. For a singleton, it isn't so bad. $25 for a day's entertainment, including parking. A dual-income couple can do pretty well, too: $45.
But then we get to what I think is the core audience: the family. Dual income & 2 kids: $70? (Assuming $12 tickets for kids; could be wrong.) Before food, toys, telegrams, programs, souvenirs, games. Easily a $100 to $120 day.
Those dual incomes better be middle-level executive positions.
What to do, I don't know. What I love most about Dickens--the professionalism, the standards, the workshops, the scale--are also what make it so expensive. You'd need a detailed analysis of your market to figure out whether, by lowering ticket prices (let's say by $5 per ticket), you'd draw in a larger-enough customer base to improve the financial health of the fair. Are there enough people who would love to come, but don't because of cost? I dunno. I would think so, if advertising was done well enough to let everyone know about the fair. Just a guess, tho'. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 10:22 PMI agree that the educational focus is at odds with the profit margin, and my suggestion was that an NPO should be formed, such as the Casa folks did. Honestly though, the Pattersons' complete failure to give that idea any more than the barest shrug of "too many limitations" convinces me that they're not in business to put on Renaissance Faires, they're in business because they expect people to throw money at them for having started Renaissance Faires.
One of the things that frustrates me the most is that they're constantly saying "not enough money to do _____" when speaking of vital things like PUBLICITY of all things, and then talking about putting in a "real" snow effect at Dickens to the tune of thousands of dollars! Even with someone else holding the purse strings, they manage to let the money burn holes in their pockets. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 11:34 PMThey could be counting on the "gee-whiz" effect of indoor snow inspiring greater attendance or more return visitors. It's "magic bullet" thinking, as opposed to the work of advertising.
I am fine with the Pattersons trying to make a profit from fairs. Am I right in thinking that this is what they do, their major source of income? My problem comes from their not acknowledging that profit is the most necessary objective. And I don't know whether they believe that it is & are dissembling in public, or whether they haven't admitted to themselves that the bottom line is, in fact, the bottom line.
If the Pattersons were to pursue other sources of income and manage Dickens etc part-time as a (non-profit) labor of love, that might reduce the concern about income. It would also, I suspect, lead slowly to a set of fairs more similar to small fairs (which are fun, but less dedicated & "in character"). Lack of full-time focus from management might well harm the fair, and I would mourn what was lost. But that would reduce the profit concern.
-
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 11:45 PMJust because something is a not-for-profit org doesn't mean you can't make a living doing it. If the org has a director, that director still gets paid a director's salary - so it'd be labor of love my foot. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Wed, August 10, 2005 - 11:54 PMI don't think very many people get wealthy doing so. We're looking at support of how many family members? Unless it's directing the NAACP or one of the major political parties, I don't think many non-profit directors serve as sole support of their families.
Could be wrong; I'm shooting from the hip here. If there were a way of managing so that finances were less of a consideration, and devotion to historical & literary accuracy were even more the main concern, I'd be thrilled.
Bear in mind that such a focus would rule out at least a few of the food vendors, and probably a number of the other vendors, too. And require the ones left to meet the same dress, speach, and action requirements as the actors. Might be hard to convince them. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 8:54 AMWorking from a booth as opposed to a an actor standpoint, historically accurate is in reference to clothing, language, attitude, and feel, not necessarily the product itself. Yes each booth tries to provide for items that are historically accurate as possible, and there are booths, such as the booksellers, that can do an entire stock of historically accurate items, but the majority of vendors couldn't accurately create or be able to sell historically accurate items. Most people would be reluctant to buy items made in the fashion that things were made 150 years ago, yet alone 400 years for the rennaisance faires. It is a very difficult balance, especially when concidering things like handmade clothing, leather goods, food, metals, etc. I shudder at the thought of unrefridgerated food at a Renn Faire btw. Even those of us who work at a booth are working for several possible reasons: love of the period and the atmosphere, joy of seeing our friends who also work or act at the faire, loyalty to our bosses of the booth we work at, and the joy of acting as well; at least for me. I personally don't want to see any of the faires, large or small, disappear, but if the main focus for management is to gain money, then the faire is there for the wrong reason to start with.
Yeah, I kinda rambled my point on here, sorry. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 9:47 AMOh, I'm no fanatic. But if we were to go for a higher degree of historical accuracy, I think the Greek food (which was fantastic) would have to go. And at Renaissance Faires, there are usually several booths that sell mass-produced, badly-cast pewter. Confessing my own bias, I'd weep not a tear if there were a few fewer of those.
If a family is depending on revenue from fairs for its financial security, then I think it's only to be expected that they'll be seriously concerned with money. Actors have other jobs, and we expect to lose money on fairs. Many booth employees are the same. But how many booth _owners_ would, or could, continue their booths if they lost money on them? It happens to any number of vendors every year, and that's why we see new ones while old ones stop appearing.
So say I, having never worked a booth and knowing only one booth owner. Am I wrong? -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 10:16 AMmost booth workers don't support their families on the wages from a booth, but it does support being at the Faire and enjoying all the other parts of the faire and interacting with the customers. Actually, almost every single booth would be gone if you wanted historical accuracy. Swords, gone: not hand forged. Pendragon, gone: not hand sewed. Every food booth, gone: sanitary means. Ale, gone: not drawn from a tapped keg. The list goes on. We are re-creating a time period. We cannot do so accurately to the standards that someone from that period would not know the difference.
We lose booths every year for a variety of reasons. Cost of materials, cost of booth space, lower attendance, lower sales. Another long list. Unfortunately this is a reflection of our world today. Most people didn't purchase with coin during that time period, it was barter. Some of us still try to make barters with other workers, to help each other. But we couldn't do that with every patron who walked through the gate.
Not as a flame, but more as a point of fact, pewter cast during that time was cast with lead and was not high quality, only the very rich could afford nicely polished pewter.
We also need to remember that we are here to entertain and educate, we can't expect every customer to start referencing historical data when looking at someone's costume. They see someone dressed differently, and they are happy. It is our fellow participants that are concerned with accuracy. We work because we love to, and we love being at the faire, not because we want to be sure that everyone around us is perfectly accurate. This is first and foremost about enjoyment, ours, the patrons, and those around us.
btw: I find it ironic that the phrase "the floggings will continue until morale improves" is on many Renn Faire shirts, yet now we can't have floggers because they are inaccurate. And I made mine by hand damnit. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 10:38 AMIt isn't just polished pewter that would have been beyond all but the wealthiest; it would have been any pewter at all. This is coming not terribly long after a time when, if a peasant was moving, he burned down his old house--to reclaim the doornails, the only metal in its construction.
My point was not that historical accuracy must triumph, and certainly not where health and safety are concerned. It was the reverse: that for a goodly portion of fair, including--especially--the management, finances have to triumph. To a certain measure of success, at least.
And I'm not trying to drive anyone out of business. Couldn't if I wanted, but I don't want that. It happens too often as it is, and much of the time it's the booths I'd most love to see continue, because they keep a higher overhead through concern with craftsmanship & quality.
I'd like to see less poor-quality things sold at fair, true. But my true objection, which is mild, is not the quality but the subject matter. We're not talking about poorly-cast goblets, but poorly-cast fairy figures. And fantasy swords, some of which come from Star Trek. That kind of period-inaccuracy I would love to see evaporate.
But it won't, because it sells, and those booths support the fair. Which I completely accept.
-
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 11:16 AMThankfully, I've only seen those horrid sword booths at small faires. Larger ones have enough clout to enforce better QC, but small faires are open to all comers. Which sucks - because there are some people out there with a reeally weird idea of what "period" means. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 12:00 PMlol unfortunately half the swords selling this year at Stafford have little "made in china" on them. And I agree on the LOTR and more recently Pirates of the Carribean have changed the face of what the faire is. That is mostly due to that is what the customer wants to see. I shudder every time I see someone walking around as Jack Sparrow. Unfortunately, we do have to give on accuracy to satisfy the general populace. They are the ones that spend a large part of revenue.
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Thu, August 11, 2005 - 11:13 AMAnd here we come back to the age old question of accuracy versus theatricality. I think to go "comepltely" period would be a mistake - it's easy enough to overlook machine stitching on garb and pouches, and easy enough to rig a tap through a faux barrel to make it look period. The problem is that a lot of wares are simply fantasy these days, because that's what sells. *Particularly* with the trends in movies - I mean there were some horrid things that came from the LOTR movies that I saw at faire. *Gimli helmets* for one, and the elf paraphanalia just about made me want to strangle someone.
We've all got a booth or two that we feel is a crime against the period. I'd say that the Greek food is fine, but the Amy Brown style fairy art booth needs to go. So does the place that sells nothing but those huge velvet-over-foam cavalier hats in purple and red. Tower of London, too. Much as I love them, I can't see a single item in their stock, besides perhaps the plain tanned bunny furs, that'd be period. Not even the corsets - they're Victorian - and not the handcuffs - they're obviously fetish inspired and have nothing to do with period restraints. -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Fri, August 12, 2005 - 12:03 PMAt Fair Oaks a few years ago, I was in a sword booth with a couple of other Pryanksters. I looked at a sword which had designs and runes all over it, then saw a series of runes at the base. I turned to the others, and asked "What's this? Dwarvish for Pakistan?" -
-
Re: Another post on the Imminent Death of Stafford Lake
Fri, August 12, 2005 - 1:36 PMGnomish for "Hold the rounded end, stupid."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
