Glamstand under review

Glamstand under review

One of the Mardi Gras parade’s best-known features, the BGF Glamstand, is under review.

New Mardi Gras chair David Imrie confirmed yesterday the widely circulating rumour that the organisation is considering taking back control of the raised seating area at the end of the parade, currently operated by the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.

New Mardi Gras is exploring the various possibilities for a change in the commercial operation of the reserved seating area on Flinders St for next year’s parade, Imrie told Sydney Star Observer.

It’s not commercially viable for NMG to continue to license the raised seating to any external organisations and we’re looking at other potential fundraising partnerships between NMG and BGF.

BGF CEO Bev Lange, herself a former Mardi Gras chair, declined to comment on the possible change.

Glamstand is BGF’s single biggest fundraiser which, according to its 2006-07 annual report, raised almost $90,000 for the organisation last year. The same report shows BGF to have more than $5.5 million in assets. It has been operating the stand for 14 years.

Positive Life president Jason Appleby said he was concerned about the wider implications of taking $90,000 out of the HIV sector.

Withdrawing support for the BGF Glamstand, one of the most successful fundraising ventures available to BGF, will no doubt have negative implications for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, Appleby said.

The unfortunate reality for people living on pensions and low incomes, particularly given the economic crisis, is that many people with HIV are struggling to make ends meet. Mardi Gras has a long history of supporting people with HIV, one which we hope continues into the future.

Imrie reiterated that New Mardi Gras was not withdrawing its support for BGF and was keen to look for other mutual fundraising options with the organisation.

He said New Mardi Gras was repositioning itself to ensure its long-term viability so it could continue to support BGF and other community organisations in the future.

This is part of a broad business plan to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the organisation, Imrie said.
We would like to think the public won’t react badly to the change in our business relationship with BGF. We hope they can see that the best thing we can do for ourselves, our members, and the broader GLBTQ community is refine our business model so we are there forever more to support BGF and all the other organisations we support financially.

NMG has put in place a community organisations funding scheme system this year. Rather than Mardi Gras giving away its income, we’re refining the business model so we are donating profit rather than income.

SSO understands NMG and BGF will meet next week to discuss further fundraising ventures between the two operations.

You May Also Like

55 responses to “Glamstand under review”

  1. While I strongly disagree with the decision, I find it revealing that the people with the most harsh criticism can;t distinguish between cash and profit.

    I am a strong support of BGF who provide important services to those with HIV/AIDS in the state of NSW. Services that no other service provider affords.

    I dare say that this decision may make NMG even more unpopular, and irrelevant to the community.

  2. Marcus,
    What I meant by corporation was that NMG should not be run like a greedy corporation. Of course it is a company and bound by relevant legislation. Dont shy away from the issue.

    BGF came up with the idea of Glamstand and have been successfully running it since the beginning – all the while PAYING NMG for the “privilege”.

    YES, NMG must come up with ways to diversify their events and fund raising activities. Why that means stealing Glamstand, and Azure for that matter, is beyond me!

    Surely there are intelligent and innovative people at NMG who can come up with other events to raise money!

    Sure, it is important for NMG to be successful and continue to be in a position to support the community and continue to run MG. It is the WAY they are going about it that is plain wrong.

    Yes there are other charities that are out there in need of support, but they didnt come up with Glamstand and they werent the ones running it! Again, I have to stress that BGF’s assets are completely justified and necessary in order to continue the good work they are doing! BGF seems to be copping a lot of flack for doing their job of supporting those with HIV WELL.

    Cmon NMG – you are smart enough to come up with other ways of securing your long term viability without putting BGF’s in jeopardy!

  3. I have to say that I agree with the disciusion taken by New Mardio Gras.

    Mardi Gras put the parade on and other organisations (BGF, the pubs and shops along the street etc) gain all of the finaicial benefit from the parade. The parade is the most expensive part of the entire Mardi Gras Festival season and BGF get one of the largest chunks of revenue that the parade generates.

    BGF will still be able to apply for funds from NMG through the ‘community partnerships’ (sic) program that NMG run. There will also be significantly more money to distribute to BGF and OTHER community organisations who don’t have in excess of $5 million dollars in assets to generate other income (that’s what you do with assests like that folks).

    We aren’t talking about the Luncheon Club here folks (who always struggled financially until taken under ACON’s wing), we are talking about a charity with a sizeable amount of cash and a sizeable regular income from that cash.

    Mardi Gras could have just shut the stands down by saying “No” to anyone, but by taking them over they can ensure that the funds can (in the words of Barak Obama & Dolly Levi) be “…spread around.”

    Maybe BGF can get back to raising cash the way they used to; by getting their volunteers to get out there and shake their money makers.

  4. Why is it that NMG is criticised for making money. Perhaps if the directors in the late 1990s and early 2000s had the foresight of the current directors, then it wouldn’d have gone broke. Congratulations to the current board for being brave and savvy enough to finally run it as a business.

    Everyone who above who is criticising NMG also appears to have ignored that NMG gives cash donations to community groups including BGF and is working out new fundraising ventures with BGF.

  5. Phillip – it intrigues me when people say that NMG should not be run as a corporation. it’s a public company limited by guarantee. it has a constitution which should guide the directors decision making. like all other directors, the directors are subject to the fiduciary duties of the Corporations Act. I’d be interested in understanding what you mean when you say this?

  6. According to their financial statement, last year, BGF spent $368,002 on ‘client support and care.’ Their total assets were $5,241,284. While NMG is reportedly receiving $400,000 from Events NSW to help with the parade costs, including ‘in-kind’ assistance. Now while I’m not a financial genius, I think the pleas for the poor charity seem a bit misplaced. I also wonder if expanding NMG’s income from other sources isn’t part of the conditions the govt. places on the sponsorship.

  7. to say that BGF did not support MG when in need is a joke. BGF is not able to donate ‘cash’ to other organisations under its constitution but it did invest and risk substantial losses by planning and promoting Glamstand, within weeks of any guarantee there would even be a parade.

    If BGF pulled out at that time, the recovery would have been immeasurably harder.

    NMG should think very carefully about this – the financial risks, reputational risks, community divisions, operational risks (distractions) make all of this a very brave call.

    How many of us would break a picket line of people with HIV/AIDS to get to a seat?

    BGF have built the event, taken the risks, know how to do it and should be left alone. NMG should concentrate on the main event and ensure all are as successful as possible.

    If BGF is financially stable, one needs to look no further than NMG to see why this is vital for the work that it does.

  8. This is the harsh reality that NMG and our community needs to face if MG is to survive. It’s simple – No parade = No stand. Then everyone loses out. At least this way the parade and festival will be able to continue and new events and fundraisers can be created so that organisations like BGF can continue to raise money.

  9. I think it would be a real shame if this singularly important fund-raising opportunity were taken away from BGF. It wasn’t said that BGF have $m5.5 sitting in the bank – but in assets. I don’t think this means they are “rich” and have no need to struggle for funds to provide the truly beneficial services they provide to genuinely needy members of our community. BGF have made such a successful ‘happening’ out of the Glamstand and deserve to keep their licence to run it [and I have heard they don’t get ‘given’ it, but pay for the privilege – is this so?].

    I would be loathe to pay for seats in Glamstand if it weren’t for a transparently charitable purpose. BGF needs the revenue – please don’t take it away from them, NMG: find new and original ways of getting more income for yourselves – we certainly need some new and revivifying initiatives.

  10. Also, on a side-line… Re: Tim’s comment…
    Yes, people ARE selecting smaller dance parties… so why doesn’t NMG be more open and work with other promoters…. what would be better than 5 different spaces/events all in the one complex… it would certainly be better than the uninteresting, no-variation, no-where else to go but the Horden… Sleeze party we just had…

    The big parties ARE dying out but with NMG’s insular focus… surely, it a self fulfilling prophesy!

  11. Poor effort from NMG… obvs this is fund raiser or even that they want for themselves (interesting what happened to Harbour party!)

    I am from the UK, and every year I take my visiting friends to the BGF stands… I certainly wont be standing on the street with rough-necks from the outer suburbs…

    Anyway, It was heaps better when it was in Hyde Park! Why dont they just move it there… surely, the NMG dont have a claim on all the land in and around Oxford Street!

  12. I can understand NMG’s position, especially after such a disastrous Sleaze Ball (the last?). For many years, MG and NMG have heavily relied upon the post Mardi Gras Parade Party and Sleaze Ball to fund their operations and the costs of all their other events, especially the parade.

    Unfortunately for NMG, the time of the big and profitable dance party is fast coming to an end. People who attend dance parties are increasingly selecting smaller parties that cater to their individual tastes in music and/or their specific sub-culture. Competition is fierce, you only have to look at how many parties ran Sleaze weekend. This leaves NMG in a difficult position when trying to secure their long term viability.

    Of course, BGF is not the first casualty in the struggle for NMG’s survival. The Iris Foundation, who ran Azure (harbour party) and gave large donations to gay and lesbian charities and causes outside of the HIV sector, was also devastated when NMG appropriated their party.

    The unfortunate harsh reality for NMG is that to continue to exist, they need access to more diverse sources of income. The alternative will be dwindling funds leading to cut backs on everything that makes Mardi Gras what it is. So from their perspective, I imagine it’s a case of -˜sorry BGF, but NMG need that money thanks’.

    BGF was founded in a time when being HIV-positive was a death sentence and the support they gave was usually time limited. HIV is now substantially a chronic manageable disease where people on treatment should, in most cases, be able to look forward to long, reasonably healthy and productive lives.

    I can see a time, very soon in the future, where specialist support services and organisations for people who are HIV-positive will no longer exist. They will be mainstreamed into other generalist services or cease to exist. After all, raising money or getting funding for people who were likely to die very soon was a much easier sell than supporting people who are predominantly well and living long, mostly healthy lives. Looked at like this, a loss of funding or donations to BGF (and other HIV charities) is not only understandable, but inevitable.

    According to the most recent National Centre for HIV Epidemiology annual report, in NSW in 2007, 22 people died from AIDS while 409 people tested HIV-positive. Now people move around Australia and don’t necessarily live or die where they test positive, but using these statistics as a rough guide, last year there were 387 additional potential clients for BGF (and other charities) to support over their lifetimes and this is projected to continue to increase until a perfect prevention method (vaccine) or cure is found.

    As there become more and more people wanting to access BGF (and other HIV services), BGF realistically has only a few rational choices to make. One is to limit access to support and services, so that those who are -˜well off’, or able to work are denied access. The other is to give less support per client, so that all clients can be serviced. A combination of these methods may be more desirable. BGF has already had to face this and the harsh reality is that the loss of income from Glamstand can only make this situation worse. The alternative is to use up funds faster than funds can be raised and then close the doors when its all gone.

    Both NMG and BGF are valued organisations for our communities, but when adapt or collapse time approaches, its often everyone for themselves. I hope they can both adapt and work together for an outcome that ensures the survival of both.

  13. I think this is a very greedy decision by NMG. I have to agree with other posts supporting BGF.

    1. They have a healthy bank balance because of generous community support for those living with HIV and because Bev and those before her have run the organisation tremendously!
    2. It is not appropriate for BGF to bail out a poorly run MG. How could they justify taking money away from those in need and give to a poorly run and supported MG??
    3. PAYING NMG for Glamstand every year should be “support” enough. They could have asked for more for the right to run the Glamstand, but they are chosing to strip it from them entirely with virtually no notice!
    4. NMG should NOT be run like a CORPORATION! They have received considerable funding for the first time and can bank on continued support through Events NSW and yet they STILL felt the need to deny a charity their primary fundraising event.

    Writing this has made me even angrier than I already was. I am a NMG member who was considering re-newing, but i now will definitely NOT!

  14. Suddenly taking a source of revenue away from a community organisation that helps hundreds of people in need doesn’t really fit with the spirit of Mardi Gras.

    I can understand why this decision would be made, but wouldn’t it be more diplomatic and community-minded to at least give BGF a few years warning?

    Those that have pointed the finger at BGF for not contributing to the bail out of Mardi Gras should remember that BGF’s remit is to look after people with HIV/AIDS, and not to bail out community organisations. They are accountable to their donors to do what they were set up to do and they’d be irresponsible if they did otherwise.

  15. My understanding is that BGF have always paid NMG for the privilege of running the stand, so to say BGF does not support NMG is a tad disingenuous.

    A properly run organisation must have a good amount in reserve – especially a group like BGF. Fundraising is getting harder and harder for HIV charities – they will in the future have to dig into reserves I imagine. The large reserve appears to be the result of an incredibly generous bequest some years ago.

    And the interest/dividends earned from reserves is a crucial contributor to an organisation’s bottom line.

    Finally – just to ignore all of the ‘commercial’ realities – there is to me an element of ‘feel good’ about attending the Glamstand knowing that it makes a real contribution to those who rely on support from BGF. Each year I am amazed at all the volunteers who troop in to help make sure the place runs smoothly. To change this in the very year that NMG have finally secured government funding (rightly so) seems – well – wrong.

    I’m normally very supportive of NMG but I am not comfortable with this ‘decision’.

  16. A very tough decision to make. I checked the BGF website to see if this year’s annual report is up – it’s not. Strange that Bev isn’t making any ‘official comment’. But then again the ‘rumours’ must have come from somewhere?

    BGF was not one of the organisations that ‘came to the rescue’ when SGLMG went into administration. If BGF had been committed to the future of the Glamstand at that time, you would have thought they would have been right up there with the Lobby, QS, Pride & ACON creating NMG!

    In fact, BGF have done very little to support Mardi Gras over the years. They dropped Shop Yourself Stupid from the festival and have been happy to simply trade off Mardi Gras’ prime intellectual property – the Parade – as their major fund raising opportunity.

    Not that there is anything wrong with acting out of self-interest – which is what both BGF and NMG have and are doing now!

    Each organisation is answerable to its own members. If Mardi Gras need to start talking a firmer and more direct control over their properties to cement it’s future – good on them.

    BGF has many other avenues to revenue raise – there’s nothing wrong with making them think outside the box.

    And with so much stashed away in it coffers there can be no excuse for allowing any of its services to the HIV community to drop. At the very least, any person or organisation that seeks to ‘blame’ NMG for lack of support will be exceptionally misguided. Everyone should check the constitutions of each organisations which dictates how the directors of each organisation should act. NMG is not there to directly support BGF or – as David says – to give away income / revenue.

    The biggest concern is the pressure to deliver. If NMG are doing the stands themselves, they better do it right and raise the bar! The proof of the pudding will be in the eating both in terms of the quality of this year’s parade adn stands and afterwards how much they give back to the various community organisations!

    it’s a big gamble. Let’s hope it pays off!

  17. I think the point is NMG needs to make money so the Glamstand is still there for the $90k profits to be made. No parade no Glamstand.
    Don’t get me wrong the concerns are valid, that’s $90k we’re talking about. Maybe it’s time BGF took an active hand in helping increase the profits for NMG to continue benefiting and perhaps discover better ways to generate revenue.

  18. In the previous post it may appear when I put brackets around the $23,000 and $140,000 figures that these are negative. OOps I forgot about (nnn) representing a negative figure. The figures are profit or claimed profit respectively.

  19. It will be interesting to see if NMG are as successful as BGF in packing the seats out.

    I also recall seeing the 06-07 BGF ‘profit’ at a considerably less figure ($23,000) than the $90,000 claimed as profit for the stands. This will have an impact either on how BGF is managed or on services provided.

    I can remember Dot Dingle (those saying who should look up some G&L ancient history) announcing some 12 years ago if not longer, the amount raised from the stands for BGF being somewhat higher than the figure mentioned in the story ($140,000), then it was a long time ago and it was the night John Howard came to power (Madam gleefully flattened the crowd dead with that announcement, I understand it had something to do with aircraft noise).

    I digress – I am sure and I am willing to be corrected that the expense for client services was around $365,000. Losing the reported $90,000 represents 25% approx of that amount.

    Let us hope that the discussions that take place are fruitful and services are maintained.

    Maybe Ms Lange can represent the organisation for which many people give money (if I don’t do stands anymore I would at least throw something the way of BGF within every twelve month period)and discuss the situation with the community’s press. Or is that the job of one of the minions?

  20. I read this story with some interest. I’m not an idealist – and I completely understand that Mardi Gras must remain financially viable. I also generally embrace innovation, change and courage.

    However, I also understand that Mardi Gras is a not-for-profit organisation. I get concerned when the public commentary from a spokesperson of this community organisation uses words like “the commercial operation”, “our business relationship with BGF” and “our business model”. To be frank with David Imrie, that is language for the boardroom not for the press. Unless you want to Mardi Gras to continue attracting flack for its increasingly commercial outlook, Mardi Gras should have more sensitivity in how it presents its financial decisions in the press.

    The decision seems sensible to me – but perhaps your spokesperson needs to present it with a bit more heart, and a little less high-flying, commercial crass.

  21. There seems to be a lot of BGF bashing, i’m not sure why?
    As far as I know, Glamstand was the brainchild of BGF, not NMG. It is great that NMG supports numerous charities, but that doesnt explain why they feel the need to betray BGF?

    If BGF has a good bank balance, thats because it is obviously well managed and supported. Some of these posts sound like bitter lemons and tall poppy syndrome to me!

    I also don’t understand the “us and them” mentality either. BGF has done an amazing job at creating Glamstand and managing it for so many years, and if it is that successful in raising funds for those living with HIV, then it is because of their efforts with the support of NMG.

    Ian, I was just saying that I could understand NMG’s reasoning if they were struggling with funds, but the NSW governments support, along with the great work NMG has done at revitalising itself should mean they leave Glamstand alone.

  22. Imrie’s a brave man to pull out the rug from under BGF like this.

    Would have loved to be a fly on the wall when he told Big Bev the news.

    Good on him for doing something that should have been done years ago. Can’t wait for the Mardi Gras Bake-Off :p

  23. At least New Mardi Gras is finally starting to think of other ways to raise moeny, rather than relying on the same old tired dance party syndrome. It’s what we’ve always talked about and asked for …

  24. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that BGF refused to help bail Mardi Gras out in 2002?
    When ACON, Queer Screen, Pride, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and the Sydney Star Observer all lined up to chip in in cash and kind, BGF was a glaring omission fromm the line-up.
    Hmmmmm …..

  25. Looks like the bubble has burst ….. it will be interesting to see what comes from this and what kind of agreement can be reached between the two organisations. Both have important roles to play in our community,but I can understand why NMG feels it needs to take care of itself first … after all, BGF has never been on the brink of collapse.

  26. Well let’s face it, NMG has very limited funding opportunities, and has struggled to pay its own way for a while.
    I think it entirely reaosnable the organisations looks to secure its own financial future by taking ownership of every fundraising opportunity it has.

  27. Hang on, BGF have $5.5 MILLION in the bank, with a limited number of clients AND THEY WANT MORE MONEY!!

    By my calculations, at 7% interest (and with canny invetsing even in todays market you can get better that that with safety), without them dipping into the principal equals $385,000 A YEAR TO HELP PEOPLE WITH HIV. Given their significantly reduced client list, this should be MORE than enough to help clients AND run themselves, seems like BGF are being greedy and NOT NMG.

  28. It’s not suss at all John. Why shouldn’t NMG run the event and make the money from it? It’s their parade, not BGF’s. Maybe the extra money from Glamstand will help NMG “improve the quality of the parade and festival” as you say. And besides, NMG gives plenty of money to all the charities and it looks like their going to give to BGF too. Not that they need it, with their “$5.5 Million in assets”

  29. This sounds suss to me!
    NMG sees how successful the event is in raising money for BGF and now it wants to take it for themselves!
    They talk of long-term viability like it is under a cloud, despite the NSW Government decision to fund the event!
    Leave Glamstand to BGF and concentrate on improving the quality of the parade and festival!