Equity and the 99-seat plan

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 3:25am

I did a search, and I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here yet. I'm not going to pretend I am well-versed enough in the economics of theatre and unions to explain what is happening, so I will leave this article:

http://www.backstage.com/news/la-99-seat-theaters-say-revenue-isnt-full-picture/

I find what's going on here alternately fascinating, tragic, and infuriating. Putting on a play is ridiculously expensive, but I think equity actors need to be compensated fairly for their work, or else what reason is there for having a union? But on the other hand, I have heard many equity actors in other cities complain about how going equity can be very limiting, as you're closed off to the whole world of non-equity work--I've heard of actors refusing their cards or revoking their memberships. Some of these theatres have rather large operating budgets to not be paying actors minimum wage, but then again I don't know how these budgets break down. Anyone care to weigh in?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 5:38am

I think the reason you don't hear of it here, is that this is an LA thing exclusively. (At least my understanding.)

I'm torn. I know an LA theater owner/director of one of these type of theaters, so I have heard about it mostly through him.

The argument from the owners/producers is that if they have to pay the actors more for their shows, many of the theaters will close down. That only have the 99 seats makes a higher payroll impossible. Just how big of a ticket increase do you need all at once. Raise ticket prices 10 bucks a piece, that's only a grand -- IF you are selling out! But will their audience be willing to pay the jump from a 24 dollar ticket to a 34 dollar one?

Equity is figting for more money for their members. But should working in a 99 seat theater be considered a full time job? T know my friends theater operates more like a community theater, rehearsal on nights and weekends. He and his partner both have outside jobs. (Obviously, I cannot claim this is true of all the 99 seaters.)

Additionally, most of the 99 seaters run a show for only a short time....a month to three months....would you expect to "make your living" from that?

Not being involved in the community, I don't really feel its my place to be able to know who is right.

[Mike Costa]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 6:02am

Another way to look at it is that the cute boy selling snacks in the lobby is making more money than all of the Union actors on the stage combined.

Also, isn't it simply illegal to work for less than minimum wage in this country, how can this even be a question?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 7:06am

Pardon me while I roll my eyes.
Frankly, it is a complex issue being reduced down to buzz lines and foolishness.
Perhaps we should start from the position of saying that as it is, it is Equity sanctioned community theatre and it does allow AEA membership to perform and keep up their skill set in a way that simple classes do not, and many of these companies were started by actors and for actors who wanted to be in front of an audience and develop things they were working on in ways that other types of theatres couldn't allow them.
Now, where we go from that, there is the root the discussion should come from.
The "should anyone work for less than minimum wage" line is a reductive distraction that disregards every type of volunteer work or recreational excercise of a passion.

As far as what a theatre can earn over the course of a run, let's not forget that you can't just keep growing the amount of product you sell. You have a finite number of seats that may be sold every week, so increased revenue has to come from donations and higher ticket cost. But again, AEA has not bothered to address or discuss that, because it is better to free actors out of performance opportunity and the potential for paid work (because some of these theatres offer profit sharing) than it is to have a comprehensive discussion about HOW to works and HOW it can thrive.

The comment about the boy selling candy in the lobby.. Well, I'm sure he does get more money, significantly because he can be tipped by the patrons. Perhaps AEA would care to negotiate tip buckets along the apron of the stage and Broadway Bares Rotation style tipping at curtain call.

Nothing is so destructive as someone who can only see black and white, when really there are many shades of gray to explore here to create a richer picture.

Right now this an LA issue, but AEA has openly expressed that the outcome here will be a model in other markets, likely meaning the shredding of the already painfully limiting Showcase Code in NYC. That could endanger AEA member participation in many off-off-Broadway venues, including the well known and well loved Gallery Players.

Updated On: 3/13/15 at 07:06 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 8:42am

"likely meaning the shredding of the already painfully limiting Showcase Code in NYC..."

No, it doesn't. The Showcase code (aside from lacking the tumultuous union history that the 99-seat plan has) is far, far more logical a setup than 99-seat, where you have theatres with sizable budgets and well-paid admin staff performing productions that can transfer to larger venues and sometimes even to NYC under the same umbrella as the "community" theatre. That is absurd.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 1:00pm

Kad,
Nowhere in my post did I say that the 99-seat plan was perfect "as-is". Nowhere did I say it did not need revision. What I said I said was that it deserves reasoned talk and productive discussion to ruin companies.
All of those things should be addressed...
And yes, it could vey well mean the end of the showcase code. AEA has distributed materials and said rather openly that they intend to apply the minimum wage standard to all contracts in all markets, so that could - and probably would - very well include the showcase code.
By "painfully limiting" I am referring to the greater risk to the presenter because AEA establishes maximum box office intake and mandates free seats, as well as forbidding video recordings that would help market shows being developed under the showcase code to lather, more well paid venues.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 2:29pm

I'm not familiar with the goings on out in L.A., but Larry Cahn, who is running for President in the election that is coming up this spring, put out a posting about it that sums up a lot of why Equity is calling for these changes.

"ON 99-SEAT:

I am one of three or four current Councilors who were on Council and present when the original Waiver Theatre was passed. Back then, there was no Western Regional Board. There were maybe three or four Councilors living in the LA area. Council was run by, and pretty much for, New York. There wasn't much input from LA, and there wasn't much oversight.

So if you wanted something from the Council, you had to go to New York to get it. And if it was at all controversial, you had to sell it to New York. That’s what happened with Waiver. It was sold. And it was sold as LA’s answer to New York’s Showcase Code. The argument was, almost exclusively, “You’ve got yours, we want ours.” A very difficult argument to refute.

So Waiver passed. But we believed that we were giving LA what they asked for – a reasonable facsimile of New York’s Showcase. And New York’s Showcase, as you may know, was Mickey and Judy rent a barn and put on a show. Nobody makes money. Let me repeat that. NOBODY MAKES MONEY. Now, there was one obvious difference. In New York, actors banded together in an effort to get seen by people who could get them access to jobs - In The Theatre. To that extent, AEA had a dog in that hunt. If the showcase were to be successful, everybody wins. There wasn’t even the pretense of that in LA. Actors wanted to do these shows so they could be seen for TV and Film. We all knew that. And despite that, we passed it.

(And one thing that’s forgotten in this whole argument is that the premise of Waiver, to showcase your talent to people who can help your career, is now vastly changed. When Waiver started, there was no internet, no such thing as a DVD. In 2015, why would a casting associate take four hours out of their night, driving to and from a theatre, parking, grabbing a bite, and spending two or more hours watching three or four actors perform in a medium he or she doesn’t cast for, when he or she can sit at his or her desk on a lunch hour and see a dozen actors perform on a computer, in a medium he or she does cast for? The answer, from my experience doing 99-seat in LA, is - they don't.)

Now around that time, LA had perhaps a dozen medium-sized theatres that paid decent salaries to actors. By the time I arrived in LA in ’04, those theatres were largely gone. LA’s decently-paying theatre became the Taper and the Geffen, sometimes the Ahmanson, and the rest of LA was a stop on a road tour. At this time, LA, the self-proclaimed Entertainment Capital of the World, has less paying theatre than Pittsburgh or Milwaukee. And some producers of 99-seat are making money hand over fist. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

My first participation as an audience member at a 99-seat show was the day I arrived in LA. My wife’s best friend was the managing director of the theatre company (a LORT or Off-Broadway position). There were two artistic directors who, last I heard, each currently take home six figure salaries. With staff and overhead, this theatre has to raise at least half a million dollars before they can even think of producing a show. And they don’t produce much – one or two shows a year. It was readily apparent to me that the main purpose of this theatre was to get those six figure salaries into those artistic directors’ bank accounts. That’s not enriching the Los Angeles theatre scene. That’s a scam, perpetrated on the backs of AEA actors.

(About five years ago, I began something at AEA called the LA Initiative, which has become Equity’s official, long-term project to help bring decently-paying theatre back to LA. This project would inevitably lead to changes in 99-seat. Every study we have done shows that. In order to bring back actual jobs to LA, change in 99-seat was inevitable.)

Do I agree with every word of the proposal? No. But the producers of 99-seat, who are making money when it was never intended that they do so, have had a 30-year free ride. What we are doing here is going back to what was originally intended. Actors can still band together. Mickey and Judy can still rent that barn. What is changing is that the owner of the barn can’t put on a show, hire Mickey and Judy, put money in his pocket, and not pay the actors.

That puts it in line with New York’s Showcase, as originally intended.

And 99-seat producers who want to put on shows and NOT pay actors Can Still Do That. They just can’t use AEA actors to do it.

And if the Chicken Littles believe that this will destroy theatre in LA, take a look at New York, where Showcase has always existed side-by-side with a thriving Broadway and Off-Broadway industry. The argument simply doesn’t hold water.

The subject of membership companies is, admittedly, a bit more problematic for me. I am very open to debate on that portion of the proposal – in fact I initiated such debate in Council. But in the end, I believe the only circumstances under which actors should forego pay is when everyone else involved is doing so. As a member of Council, and as a candidate for President, I don’t think that is a difficult stance to defend."

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 7:14pm

AEA, I'm sure you don't want to start a war between different unions and guilds, but I hope in revising the 99-seat plan you will look at the practice of paying sizable fees to directors and even designers, while pay actors carfare or less.

I was used to directing for free in NYC: after all, the actors weren't even covering their experiences, often wearing their own clothes as costumes, etc. Although it wasn't required, most also helped with such tasks as painting sets.

I was shocked when I moved to LA (1985) and discovered directors were making $1,000 and up--even though their job was basically over when the show opened--while actors made a pittance for an entire, extended run!

[15minutecall]

Posted: 3/13/15 at 9:15pm

"LA had perhaps a dozen medium-sized theatres that paid decent salaries to actors." Please cite those theaters. LATC is the only one that comes to mind.

"At this time, LA, the self-proclaimed Entertainment Capital of the World, has less paying theatre than Pittsburgh or Milwaukee. And some producers of 99-seat are making money hand over fist. I don’t think that’s a coincidence." You infer that waiver is responsible for the loss of ~ 10 well-paying theaters. Please explain how. Please cite which producers are making buckets of cash. The salaries quoted for the two mentioned in the LA Times included activities beyond producing plays.

As for directors making more than actors, they are paid to commit to being at every rehearsal throughout the process. Actors can leave if they get paying work and, in practice, miss rehearsal anytime an audition comes up. Further, if the show is a hit, actors make hundreds of dollars a week doing the show so that over time, their pay can beat that made by the director, who usually only gets that initial fee.

I doubt even the cutest boy selling snacks usually makes more than the actors.

My position: I don't think the Showcase agreement is an entirely different animal from LA's 99 seat plan. Just as waiver productions move up the ladder to Off-Bwy and elsewhere so do showcases. And as has been cited, it seems AEA is looking to change the showcase agreement eventually. But I do think the issue of pay needs to be addressed. It isn't fair if some get paid very well and actors get very little. But that's a rare occurrence and theses issues are not as black and white as some are making it out to be.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/14/15 at 1:42am

I've been reading a fair amount about this controversy and all I can say is this (and I say this as a professional actor):

Acting in a play is, as far as the real world is concerned, not a "real" job. Not unless you're doing it at a top-tier regional theatre (i.e. Steppenwolf) or in a Broadway show. Most of the small theater companies in New York, Chicago, and L.A. can barely afford to keep their lights on, let alone pay people a living wage. Therefore as an actor working at a small theatre, you should not expect one.

I make very little money for my stage acting, even when working at Equity theatres. But I truly believe that most of the companies I've worked for have paid me the most they can afford.

In short, it is ludicrous to expect theatre companies with less than 100 seats to be able to pay minimum wage, because in most cases, the money simply isn't there.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/14/15 at 11:17am

I am an Equity Actor and Producer.
Equity is not pro actor. It is pro Equity.

If Equity gets rid of the 99 seat plan in Los Angeles, they are hurting actors. I have produced in Los Angeles and that plan made it possible to take risks.

Lets face it, any theatrical endeavor is a risky business. Most of the time you lose money. Occasionally, someone hits the jackpot. The producer takes the risk not the actor. If Equity were smart, they would come up with a profit sharing plan for the actors if and when a show makes a profit.

I produced Stray Dog Story in Los Angeles (about ten years ago) and it cost about $35,000 to produce. It did very well and made a profit. I also produced From Shirley Temple to Aimee Semple under the same production code and it lost money.

One hit. One miss. Some of the Actors in the shows in Los Angeles got tv or film acting roles from being seen in those shows. That was the pay off.
Don't kid yourself. This is hurting actors!

The producer takes the risk. They take the loss or they take the profit. What is wrong with that?

The actors in Los Angeles get to perform and show their wares to casting directors. Nia Vardalos did My Big Fat Greek Wedding under this code and Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson saw it. Hanks and Wilson backed it as a movie and she hit the jackpot.

Equity is not helping actors by changing this rule. If Equity were smart, they would come up with a profit sharing plan with the producer if and when the show made money. Equity is so hell bent on taking their dues and health insurance, pension and welfare which most of the time puts money in Equity's coffers; not the actors. Equity is a business. And they know it. There was a time they were pro actor. Nowadays they are pro equity.
(Why is there no Equity Library Theatre anymore?)

Producing in New York your hands are tied. I am surpised anyone gets it done. I am trying to produce a small off broadway show in New York and with only three shows a week at The Actors Temple Theatre. It is a small off Broadway code. You can't do it Equity for less than $100,000. If you do it as a showcase code with a top ticket (which Equity limits) of$15, there is no way to make your money back. That would be throwing 30-50,000 out the window. If I did a full 7 or 8 week run, my costs would be $700,000 thanks to Equity Salaries, Pension and welfare. How can anyone take a risk with those numbers?

The showcase code in New York is not actor or producer friendly. It makes it impossible for a producer or actors or anyone to make money at 15$ a ticket and by limiting the amount of performances.

Equity needs to be pro theatre; pro actor...not pro Equity.


Updated On: 3/14/15 at 11:17 AM