| re: They are *not* profiting $2 million a year (or profiting anything at all) | |
| Last Edit: whereismikeyfl 11:34 pm EDT 06/20/20 | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:29 pm EDT 06/20/20 | |
| In reply to: They are *not* profiting $2 million a year (or profiting anything at all) - Singapore/Fling 10:35 pm EDT 06/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| You use the word "profit," which is not the right word to use here for many reasons. Introducing that term is very misleading. The Flea made over $2 mil from both earned and unearned income--but NONE of it was profit. In any business, revenue in not all profit---there are also expenses! Also, non-profits mean exactly what that term implies--there is no profit. Any surplus is put back into the organization. However, the larger point is that The Flea is not a small off-off-Broadway theater. They have a substantial budget and were able to raise a large amount of money when needed for facilities. Writerkev spoke of the Flea as if it were the kind of marginal off-off-Broadway company, when it is operating closer to the level of the smaller off-Broadway companies even if it did not use off-Broadway contracts. Most non-profits end the fiscal year either in the red or with barely balanced books. However, that is not a reason not to compensate low-level employees. By that logic, Lincoln Center and just about every New York non-profit could justify setting up a group of artists who provide free administrative labor for the privilege of working there as artists (and for which they also do not get paid). As the 2014 article points out, the Flea is getting a lot of free labor. Somehow other theaters with comparable budgets have done fine without an army of hopeful artists providing free administrative labor. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | They are *not* profiting $2 million a year (or profiting anything at all) - Singapore/Fling 10:35 pm EDT 06/20/20 |
| Next: | I agree - Singapore/Fling 12:07 am EDT 06/21/20 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.008849 seconds.