The programme might say that it doesn't start until 1 August, but don't be fooled. The Edinburgh Fringe has been in full swing for months. Comedy clubs across the country are chock-a-block with Edinburgh previews, while the inboxes of hapless journos like me are flooded with press releases.
With three weeks to go, we're now into the publicity stunt phase of things, as comedians start looking for novel ways to generate some press interest. Two of these stunts in particular have caught my eye because they both involve the same things: offering money to reviewers.
Caimh McDonnell has announced on his website that he will pay £100 for every review from a recognised media outlet, up to a total of £3000. "What I'm definitely not doing is trying to buy a good review," he says in his statement. "I just want to get my show seen". So reviewers are not obliged to give him a positive review and, to further ease everyone's conscience, the money will be donated to the MacMillan Cancer Trust.
Then another comedian joined in. Stuart Goldsmith, who has already earned some attention after his show's title was censored in the Fringe programme, has issued another financial challenge to critics. Goldsmith promises to donate £1000 to the Waverley Trust, as long as reviewers follow his rules. £100 will be taken away from the total donation any time a reviewer uses a cheap pun based on the title of his show (now known as Pr!ck in the programme). Goldsmith has provided a long list of potential puns which are banned
Goldsmith's challenge was issued on YouTube and it's clear the whole thing is a jocular bit of reviewer-baiting. I personally found it slightly annoying, not least of all because it shows the cognitive dissonance to be found in Fringe performers who hate reviewers but also desperately want their show to be reviewed.
Also, while McDonnell's offer seems sweet and well-intentioned, something about Goldsmith's offer just seems crass. Waving a wad of cash around and asking journalists if they'd like to save a life? Sure, it's a joke. Just not a very well-judged one.
McDonnell managed to swerve some of the ethical problems here but Goldsmith has tripped and landed face-first in them. Is it really okay to offer money in exchange for a say in the reviewing process? Even if the money is for charity?
Obviously there's a question of objectivity here. Even if you offer the money with good intentions, like McDonell, or jokingly, like Goldsmith, it still presents a problem. It's still a distraction from the show itself. Are reviewers going to add a star to show they appreciate the effort? Or detract a star to show they can't be bought? Certainly, there's going to be at least one reviewer who will fill their review of Goldsmith's show with the banned puns. It's so tempting to make things hard for him, just to see if he'll pull it off. The point is, this makes it slightly harder to concentrate on the actual show, which is not ideal for reviewers.
And then there's the thing that makes the Fringe go round: money. Edinburgh sees the kind of financial doping that would make Manchester City blush, and often Fringe success is not about who can write the best jokes but who can stomach the biggest monetary loss. This is an event where losing £8000 is seen as a fact of life. Do we really need a way for comedians to spend more money?
McDonell anticipates this point in his statement, stating that Fringe performers "spend thousands of pounds on PR for their shows. I've decided to cut out the middleman and give the money directly to you". This is absolutely true, but this solution doesn't address the basic problem, namely that the average working comic struggles to keep up with the cost of the Fringe. Free Fringe comic Yianni, a man who understands numbers, expressed his irritation at this concept by tweeting, "I have 10 kittens in a sack. Every time a comedian uses financial coercion to garner reviews, I will drown one."
Reviewers can kill this new trend off by simply not reviewing the shows in question, at least until the offers are revoked. Reviewers can also help by broadening their search for good shows and by exploring every nook and cranny of the programme. The harder we work, the less money comedians can spend on PR. That's ultimately good for the Fringe.
Comedians should simply decide this is a bad idea and walk away. If you are a comedian and you're absolutely determined to give away some cash this August, might I suggest a different recipient: the punters. Nathan Cassidy is giving £1 to everyone who comes to his free show, which is clever because most of those coins will go into his bucket afterwards. Meanwhile, Jo Caulfield is offering to personally buy a pint for anyone who buys a ticket before July 15th. This may not be the best PR strategy ever, but it's bound to be more fun than courting journalists.