Equity vs. Non Eq Tour Thoughts?

[magictodo123]

So I saw a discussion about this somewhere and I thought it'd be interesting to discuss with people on this board.

Equity tours: Usually have performers who get their start there and then go to Broadway (see: most recent touring cast of DEH who have now moved to Broadway). Obviously made up of Equity actors, some names (the Frozen tour comes to mind). 

Non-Equity: I was looking at the cast for the non-equity tour of Waitress and Bandstand and didn't recognize any names. I know they're paid so much less than an equity tour member. But that does not mean we should boycott non-equity tours....we could be seeing a star being born! 

So I was wondering...what are your thoughts? If an equity tour wasn't coming to your area, and you really wanted to see the show, would you see it if a non-equity tour? 

 

PS. Sorry to post so much. I just remembered I had this discussion with someone and I don't think it's been on here so I wanted to know thoughts. 

[dramamama611]

Its been here. Often. Lime Everything else, you wont find a consensus. I will not patronize a non eq tour. Mostly because I dont like their practices. I also think their quality drops waaaaaay off.

[Plannietink08]

Equity tours guarantee performers rights and protections. It means they get certain pay, they’re allowed certain rest time, etc. The tricky thing about becoming an Equity actor is you have to work professionally to gain your Equity membership but rarely will producers hire people who aren’t part of Equity. It’s a Catch 22 scenario. 

The good thing about Equity-tours is that is gives young performers the chance to work professionally, albeit it not in the best working conditions, and also have a working credit against their name which will contribute towards them gaining their Equity card. 

 

[ArtMan]

I agree that the quality drops off.  However, if it is the only way to see a show that I was interested in, I will see a nonequity tour.  What I don't like is the prices that are charged for tickets through who is bringing it to town.  I would assume a nonequity tour is cheaper to book.  The prices for tickets are the same.  High.  The average ticket buyer would not know the difference between the two.  When I ask whether the tour is equity or nonequity, the administrative staff can't answer the question.  I know someone higher up in management knows the answer.  I usually do a search and find the answer myself.  I wonder at times are they being evasive because they are still charging high prices, and don't want to give the answer.

[magictodo123]

ArtMan said: "I agree that the quality drops off. However, if it is the only way to see a show that I was interested in, I will see a nonequity tour. What I don't like is the prices that are charged for tickets through who is bringing it to town. I would assume a nonequity tour is cheaper to book. The prices for tickets are the same. High. The average ticket buyer would not know the difference between the two. When I ask whether the tour is equity or nonequity, the administrative staff can't answer the question. I know someone higher up in management knows the answer. I usually do a search and find the answer myself. I wonder at times are they being evasive because they are still charging high prices, and don't want to give the answer."

Oh my. I just looked up prices for one of the tour stops and the price for Orchestra is over $500!!! WHAT???? I don't even think Broadway charged that much (although I could be wrong). WHAT???

[bwayphreak234]

magictodo123 said: "Oh my. I just looked up prices for one of the tour stops and the price for Orchestra is over $500!!! WHAT???? I don't even think Broadway charged that much (although I could be wrong). WHAT???"

It sounds like you are looking at a third party broker site.

[HeyMrMusic]

Equity tours also employ union musicians, so the quality of the orchestra should be high. That isn’t to say that non-Eq shows have low quality performers on- or offstage, but union shows employ and protect professional performers (and you’ll likely get a larger orchestra). In addition, Equity tours aren’t just for young actors before they make it on Broadway; in fact, you will find seasoned adult performers in all Equity shows, where they have the luxury of finding people of the correct age range to play adult roles.

Most Equity actors have done non-Equity productions and tours. I don’t think it’s necessary to boycott all nonunion show, but just know that the production quality might be cheaper, so don’t settle and pay those exorbitant ticket prices. Those high prices are not fair to the audience, who expects a Broadway quality show.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Support Equity.  Always ask if it's Equity.

What many non-eq shows do in their advertising is paramount to outright deception.  'Direct from Broadway' or something similar.  And the prices...  Total crap

 

 

[Becky]

You can find information about tours and whether they are equity here:

https://askifitsequity.com/

Also has info as to why it’s important to support union shows.

[Call_me_jorge]

To me, the argument is never really about the quality of the performers. Rather it’s supporting greedy producers vs. less greedy producers. Some of these tours that go out on non-equity contracts can easily tour on equity ones and still rake in a ton of money. Also, even lower tier equity tours are guilty of this, but non-equity tour physical elements are dramatically worse than their equity counterparts.

[ACL2006]

Low tier non-equity tours can be brutal on the performers. Like one-nighters bus & truck tours tend to be brutal and often not good later in their run. Lack of sleep, injuries aplenty & numerous understudies on. The old bus & truck tour of Cats(like over 10 years ago) used to have 10-15 swings on it due to injuries and cast members quitting. However, I don't knock anyone for working and touring can be a great thing. I've seen some great non-equity tours. The Memphis tour a few years ago, the recent ACL tour, the last Once non-equity your(2017?). And I've seen some trainwrecks. The long-running Beauty and the Beast tour that looked like the set was going to fall down. The last Elf tour which had its curtain delayed a half-hour due to load in issues. Any non-equity tour of Annie. It's a bit of luck with non-equity tours, but if the ticket is cheap enough, go for it.

[AEA AGMA SM]

I do think there is a place in the market for non-Equity tours. The issue I mainly have is when a show is going out on its first tour post-Broadway without an Equity contract. That is pure penny-pinching on the part of the producers. Even shows that were marginally accepted here in NYC, such as Spongebob, could easily have qualified for a lower SET tier and gone out under an Equity contract.

As others have said, there are more likely to be quality issues in many areas when seeing a non-Equity tour, yet you'll often be paying the same prices as you are for an Equity tour despite the lower operating costs. Under a non-Equity contract the cast won't have anyone advocating for them for basic protections such as rules regarding travel, span of day, hotel quality, and even basic safe and sanitary conditions. Case in point, last time the recent non-Equity tour of Rent went to Cleveland the reviewer for the Plain Dealer noted that the cast had just come off of several weeks of one and two night engagements and it was clear that they were exhausted.

Or consider the non-Equity tour of Ragtime a couple years ago that had an "orchestra" consisting solely of two synthesizers. People across the country were pissed, and rightly so, that they were paying top ticket prices for that.

So yes, once a tour has run its course, such as Waitress, then I would say let a non-Equity producer send it out for another year and hit those tiny markets that probably couldn't support even the lowest touring tier. But I call bull when Nickelodeon tries to claim that interest across the country for Spongebob wasn't strong enough for them to be able to use an Equity cast.

[Luminaire2]

Interesting to note; some non-Eq only results in actor contracts. The musicians and stage hands may still all be union.

In terms of the Waitress tour, they definitely are just taking over the first national tour package. So same set and design, direction. Non-Eq actors and likely union musicians and stage hands.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

I think some shows, like RENT or HAIR, might work with a non-Equity cast, since they tend to cast mostly actors straight out of college, IME. Production values vary from production to production, as does the quality of direction.

If you have a decent regional theatre scene near you (like D.C., Philly, Chicago, etc.), you're often better off waiting for a local company to stage a production. That aforementioned RAGTIME tour was one of the biggest disappointments of my theatre-viewing years. Ford's Theatre did a production the very next year that blew that tour out of the water.

[HeyMrMusic]

Non-Equity tours rarely have AFM contracts for musicians, so that means musicians are also not protected under their own union. It really is more accurate to say a tour is nonunion.

[SouthernCakes]

I think the main point should be that audiences are paying the same for less. Not sure how to get that info to audiences, but I’m sure the tour of Spongebob going out can’t really compete production value wise with the Miss Saigon tour as far as bang for your buck.

[OlBlueEyes]

I’ve never known much about tours, I guess since I’m lucky enough to be able to see everything in New York. But Bandstand is one new musical I enjoyed that only had a short run. That show is just launching a non-Equity tour, over two years after the show closed on Broadway.

It looks like they are hitting mostly “A” venues. A lot of early shows in the Midwest and South where the theme of neglected veterans might find more traction. Sounds brutal to me. Three or more consecutive one nighters.

But this tour is booked in March for the Tillis Performing Arts Center right here in Nassau County, a half hour drive from New York City, if you consider Queens to be part of New York City. The concert hall has a capacity of over two thousand and ticket prices are $45 - $85. Did I read that this could have been an Equity tour if the producers had been less greedy about profits? Might a show just be too expensive and risky to make an equity tour practical?

Are the original cast and creatives not permitted to be associated with the non-Equity tour in the nature of publicity and any other matters? They have a good film of the show, shown twice in theaters, and ready to be marketed in some way. The original cast has a stake in a successful tour, I think, through a share in the film profits.

[singer234]

It depends on the show. A lot of shows hire the same people and just give them their equity card or don’t depending on the show’s union status (Spring Awakening, Dear Evan Hansen), so it’s funny to me when people complain about the “non-union” tour actors, mostly in shows revolving around youth, when the equity actors probably just received their cards a few months berore you saw them in the Equity tour. Some shows, of course, are different, and it is harder to find older non equity talent. Which is why you’ll see a 22 year old character actress playing a 29 year old’s mom on non-union tours every once in a while.

[David10086]

BenjaminNicholas2 said: "Support Equity. Always ask if it's Equity.

What many non-eq shows do in their advertising is paramount to outright deception. 'Direct from Broadway' or something similar. And the prices... Total crap
"

I’ve brought this up for discussion before. Misleading , untrue ads and they get away with it. 

[Mister Matt]

What many non-eq shows do in their advertising is paramount to outright deception.  'Direct from Broadway' or something similar.

I hear people complain about this, but I don't recall having ever seen this myself.  Not in the last 20 years or so, at least.  I don't remember having seen a non-Equity tour thinking I'd been deceived in any way.  In Chicago, I have noticed that non-Equity tours have a lower price point for their tickets and a usually shorter run.  If I saw a non-Equity show advertise itself as "direct from Broadway" or the official "Broadway tour", I might feel quite different, but there's definitely a grey area when an Equity tour ends and transitions to non-Equity, especially when they use the same sets and are directed by the same director (sometimes the same director from the Broadway production) or those Broadway productions that only offer non-Equity tours (eg Bandstand).  For example, Fiddler on the Roof in Chicago was a non-Equity tour of the recent Broadway revival.  Since I couldn't get to NYC during the revival's run, this was my only option to see this revival.  I don't feel I was deceived at all.

I've seen several excellent non-Equity tours, including those that were almost indistinguishable from their previous equity runs (Once and American Idiot, which used the exact same sets when the equity tours finished, immediately spring to mind).

Personally, I don't have a problem with the existence of non-Equity tours.  Generally, they cover a lot of markets that never see Equity tours at all, giving exposure to audiences that often can't afford to travel to the larger markets.  And they offer work, experience and exposure to the millions of performers in the majority of the country where being a member of Equity means high competition for VERY few roles, many of which are cast out of NY or LA. 

I do wish non-Equity performers received the same treatment and benefits as Equity performers, but realistically, if that were the case, I honestly think it would probably cause even more friction with Equity members.  I've had several friends perform in numerous non-Equity tours who loved the experience (one of whom received such great exposure, it did lead to becoming an Equity performer and starring in regional and international productions when he'd previously been ignored for years at auditions).  And I've definitely seen awful performances from Equity performers, so it's not like the union has a monopoly on performance quality.  If I wanted all non-Equity tours to become Equity or have them simply no longer exist, I'd be wanting fewer opportunities to those performers for whom Equity is not a practical option if they want to work.  Do I want better pay, conditions and health care for non-Equity performers?  Of course I do.  Who wouldn't?  Do I demand Equity?  No.

[wish i were here2]

This may be a bit off topic, but the current Beautiful tour is coming to a city near me, so I went on the website and noticed the entire tour route consisted of 1-2 day stops. Considering that this IS an equity tour, since a handful of the actors have been on Broadway, is this normal? 

I know a lot, if not most, non-equity tours do this, but I haven't seen a lot of equity tours do this. I can't think of an equity tour that's done this in the past few years.  

[bowtie7]

I know a lot, if not most, non-equity tours do this, but I haven't seen a lot of equity tours do this. I can't think of an equity tour that's done this in the past few years."

The current Jersey Boys tour is still equity and doing a crazy schedule of many one night stands

http://www.jerseyboysinfo.com/tour/schedule.html

[OlBlueEyes]

David10086 said: "BenjaminNicholas2 said: "Support Equity. Always ask if it's Equity.

What many non-eq shows do in their advertising is paramount to outright deception. 'Direct from Broadway' or something similar. And the prices... Total crap
"

I’ve brought this up for discussion before. Misleading , untrue ads and they get away with it."

I’m afraid that advertising like this is endemic in our society. “All’s Fair in Love and Marketing”. Caveat Emptor

Mister Matt - Thanks for good discussion.