Erik Desando Barry Falck Be Productions The Lies continue

I received a cc of this e-mail from another concerned parent about the practices of Be Productions:

I am writing to lend support to Mr. Scott Poggenburg's issue with My Artists Place/Be/Gonnabe. Mr. Poggenburg shared your correspondence with Liz Brainerd of Be, and I would like to refute some of the information she has given.

My story is similar to Mr. Poggenburg's: I signed up my son with Be (then My Artists Place) in 2007. My son was promised, amongst other things, a paid spot in one of their in house TV productions and also the opportunity to showcase with talent agents both locally and 'in Hollywood" using videoconferencing. This branch of MAP/Be/Gonnabe is operated by Dynamic Showcases, which is also owned by the owners of Be/MAP/Gonnabe.

Recently, after the San Jose branch closed without warning sometime in February, we have been signed up to do a showcase on May 31st, which Ms. Brainard mentions in her response to your email regarding Mr Poggenburg's situation.. I must point out that this showcase date has been rescheduled multiple times, and that there may be some "bait and switch" operation going on in this particular showcase.

When I signed my son for this showcase, I was led to believe that this showcase would be with Los Angeles/Hollywood Talent Agents. This is what is stated in Be literature, and verbally by Be Talent Directors, and their website mentions "Agents" as attendees; the purpose of showcases being to get my son a talent agent for finding and booking work.

However, after a recent "email blast" from Be, some Internet research on the "agents" that are slated to attend 5/31, and conferring with another Be parent with similar concerns, I have found out that this showcase is being attended only by Talent Managers, not Talent Agents. Our Talent Director made it a point to delineate the differences between talent agents and talent managers (ironically); he stated multiple times that showcases were for talent agents to view potential clients.

While Be's email does state up front that two attendees are talent managers, it goes on to erroneously list one of the attendees as a 'Talent Agent' working at a talent management company; however we contacted this woman today and confirmed that she is not an agent, but indeed another talent manager.

I don't know if Be intentionally misrepresented her status and affiliation or is just playing another game of semantics; but given its practices, I would not be surprised.

Thank you,

David

Come on Erick..how can you look at yourself in the morning?