AN OPEN LETTER TO THEATREGOERS EVERYWHERE

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 8:50am

AN OPEN LETTER TO THEATREGOERS EVERYWHERE


Dear fellow theatre lovers,

Professional theatre has a problem. And unfortunately, it affects you, the theatergoing public.

For decades, every actor on a Broadway stage (or in a touring company of a Broadway show) had to be a member of the stage actors union, the Actors Equity Association. And that made sense. Because Broadway shows are state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line productions. That's what you pay for when you see one of these shows - the very best of what theatre has to offer.

Actors would struggle for years, paying their dues, to get their Equity cards and join the ranks of the top-notch professionals. The idea was that not just anyone could be in a big Broadway show. You had to have achieved union status. That was the mark of the professional actor. But in recent years, Broadway producers have figured out a way to save money by doing something rather alarming: They've started sending out tours of Broadway shows with entirely non-union casts!

Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called "Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job - the start of their career. They're not seasoned Broadway actors. In fact, they couldn't be on Broadway, because they're not in the union yet.

Of course, the producers don't tell you, the ticket buyer, about any of this. They don't indicate it in any of the advertising. In fact, they often bill the show as "Direct from Broadway," "Broadway's Best," or "The Broadway Series." We in the stage actors union think that's false advertising. We think you're being cheated. You'll notice they haven't lowered their ticket prices. But worse than that, we're concerned for the future of theatre.

Theatre needs audiences. And the more audiences are disappointed with these so-called "Broadway" productions (by the way, they also scale down the scenery and eliminate crew positions), the more they'll go elsewhere for entertainment. If that happens, then everyone, including the non-union actors, will lose.

The last thing we union actors want is for an audience member to say "I saw a Broadway tour, and it really wasn't that good." At 80-100 bucks a seat, you deserve to see the very best possible stage entertainment. You deserve to see actors who have paid their dues, honed their craft, and become members of the union.

OK, that's the background on the situation. Here, in simple practical
terms, is what you can do. And it's really not hard:

Before you buy a ticket to a touring show, call the theatre and ask whether or not the cast is Equity. If the actors are not Equity members, don't buy tickets. If the person at the box office isn't sure, don't buy tickets. And be sure to tell the theatre that you only see Equity tours.

It's as simple as that. You'll be doing us, yourselves, and the theatre an enormous favor. Our interest is in preserving Broadway's reputation and in preserving the dignity and elegance of our profession.

Oh, one more thing. We're trying to educate our public, so please pass
this letter along.

As always, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for choosing live theatre. There's really nothing like it.

Michael Kostroff

Proud union member
(Currently touring in the all-Equity cast of Les Misérables)
Updated On: 7/7/04 at 08:50 AM

[BROADWAYFAN3]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 9:03am

don't union demands particulary, the cost of "load-in" rasise ticket prices to $100. that is what will hurt us all. The Union takes away competition, and makes everyone equal -- in a bad way. Just my opinion

[shesings]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 9:29am

while I agree we all want Equity to have the best benefits, and Equity is the performers ultimate goal, I think it is highly unfair to say that all non-equity performers aren't as good as those with equity and aren't worth going to see. I've seen shows on Broadway, and the non eq tours of the same shows and sometimes there were better performers in the latter. It isn't fair to categorize all non-eq actors as being inferior performance wise. Especially when some non-eq actors have been in many productions, and just weren't offered the chance to join equity b/c of todays current standards. I know plenty of lucky kids who got on Boradway or in an eq tour on their first try. How are they more experienced actors? Updated On: 7/7/04 at 09:29 AM

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 9:53am

The letter never states that all non-equity performers are inferior or that they aren't worth going to see.

The argument in the letter is simply that you should get what you are paying for. Do you think that Producers are charging less money for shows with non-equity actors?

Here's a little math equation (the figures are there to prove a point, not to be precisely what exist in reality):

Cost of an Equity actor for one week: $1000
Producer's Income from Ticket sales: $2000
Producer makes: $1000

Cost of a Non Equity actor for one week: $400
Producer's Income from Ticket sales: $2000
Producer maker: $1600

The point being, they are not charging the audience any less for having to see non-union actors...whereis the extra money going? Equity prefers that the actor make what they're worth and the Producer make less of a profit. This is the most basic of arguments, but think about it...If Producers were charging a lower ticket price since they're costs are lower, I would perhaps understand their argument, but people are paying the same amount of money to see the show, it's just a larger percentage of that money is going into their well-lined pockets while the non-equity actors are worried about getting ill because they have no insurance and can't afford to visit a doctor on their salary.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:24am

I'm sure the fat cat theatrical producers are sipping their dry martinis while wading in the lazy river encircling their fourteen million dollar house. Did you ever think that the money goes towards other shows? There is more to pay for in the shows then just the actors.

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:28am

Then I suppose that raises the question, just how important are the actors to a production? What percentage of money spent on a show should go towards performers? Because right now, that percentage is around 8%. I certainly think a larger percentage of a production budget should be spent on the performers? Care to disagree?

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:30am

Which performers do you mean? Equity or Non-Equity. Because that is a whoooooooooole different thead waiting to happen.

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:31am

I don't like how he talks about non union actors as if they are crap. Yes we may be inexperienced but being able to get a job and go on a tour is what gives that.Also I hate to break it to him but there are actors ON BROADWAY who are making debuts having never been in Equity until that point. I don't agree with tours saying they are official if they are not, but this guy just sounds like a bitter gay man with his panties in a wad. Updated On: 7/7/04 at 11:31 AM

[JeffG]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:32am

I see all sides to this argument. Another question that should be asked is what tours are actually turning a profit? If producers are consistantly losing money on the shows, can we begrudge them totally if they are trying to make the tour "work" as opposed to not letting the rest of the USA experience a musical? Curious if anyone has those numbers. Sum, She, Dawg?

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:34am

Not I said the cat.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:37am

Why is this popping up again? Didn't we already have this letter posted a couple of times?

[JamieMcG]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:43am

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=215857#217844
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=215857#217844>https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=215857#217844

The last time this was discussed...

Updated On: 7/7/04 at 11:43 AM

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:43am

>> The letter never states that all non-equity performers are inferior or that they aren't worth going to see

No, not quite. But what it does say is: Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called "Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs, which is almost as insulting.

Again, I come to this place from a different perspective, but I can assure you that membership in United Scenic Artists has done squat for my career save take several thousands in dues that brought me a poorly designed/printed newsletter of useless information (Seriously. Nothing but "this house has a USA contract for this production".) and an equally amateurish looking union card. Every job I have right now doesn't require union membership, and I daresay the jobs are just as professional and just as decently paying.

Further to that, I don't know what it's like in Equity, but anyone with enough money can buy a membership in USA. They no longer test applicants -- instead, if you dont have the cash in hand, you're given an "interview" with people who, frankly, know little about technical theatre today -- when I came in for mine, my committee swore they were looking at photos of productions and that, as a result, I had no modelling experience. I responded that these were computer generated models, and the whole concept was lost on them. It was almost laughable.

Sorry, but I have little patience for unions in our industry. I know they're an occupational necessity sometimes, but more often than not they're a hindrence. Just because one has an Equity card does not mean one is a full-fledged "seasoned professional"; I think we've all seen enough bad performances on the Great White Way to accept that as a general truth. And I can assure you that, out here in the wilds of the Great Space Between Coasts, there are some damn fine performers who have no use nor need for that little card.

Certainly the percentage spent on performers should be higher, but that's another issue altogether, and, as far as I know, not part of the current Equity/LOP discussions. I'm not sure I completely buy that it's as low as you say, Dawg, unless we're talking about a show's planning budget prior to opening. But once the show is up and running, I daresay the percentages change once the hard costs are covered for all the visual tricks that audiences seem to demand these days. It's no different than the movie industry, where a few minutes of CGI work can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. By comparison, the actor is getting squat. But that's like comparing apples and oranges, in many respects.

Updated On: 7/7/04 at 11:43 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 11:54am

First of all- I will never, ever believe the producers when they say they're not making a profit. Not unless their books are open. Because I've already been through that kind of *&^* with Bud Selig & Co. They lied, and they continue to lie, about the profitability of baseball. I don't see why producers would be any different in union negotiations.

That said, even if they're making exactly how much money they say they're making, it's also true that the prices of tickets have been rising a lot faster than inflation or the average wages of Equity actors in the past several years. So don't blame Equity entirely for this.

And while it's true that plenty of non-Equity actors are fine performers, and plenty of Equity actors aren't, it's also true that many of the tours being advertised as "straight from Broadway" are not remotely Broadway quality. And that stinks. Updated On: 7/7/04 at 11:54 AM

[localonecrew]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:07pm

"don't union demands particulary, the cost of "load-in" rasise ticket prices to $100. that is what will hurt us all. The Union takes away competition, and makes everyone equal -- in a bad way. Just my opinion"


spoken like a true producer. load in costs for personnel are relatively low in comparison to other costs. if you saw the amount of money that producers let designers piss away you would plotz!. producers always complain about crew costs cause it is a very black and white entry on the ledger. designers, meanwhile, spend loads of money on stuff that never even gets used but are never admonished for it because they have producers cowed with talk of their "art". it can really be a joke sometimes.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:10pm

and on another note, if producers are losing so much money why do they continue to produce more shows? are they crazy??!! are they insane people who cant wait to throw their money away on a continuous basis??!! poor, poor producers.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:12pm

>> designers, meanwhile, spend loads of money on stuff that never even gets used but are never admonished for it because they have producers cowed with talk of their "art".

Ahem. May I take issue with that a bit? I'm sure some designers just love to try out the latest toys and gadgets, but let's remember that the ones who decide whether or not to actually put them to use are (1) the director and (2) the producer. I can try and convince a director to use the latest whiz-bang technical gimmick until I'm that proverbial blue in the face, but until he says yes, I cant do squat.

Again, yes, there are designers whose egos are so massive that they feel they can get away with anything. But the much larger majority are very strictly bound to the budgets given to them.

But let's consider some of the oher ridiculous costs that the professional theatre has to endure thanks to our beloved unions. Put a straight play in a musical house and you MUST hire a set number of musicians who do nothing but sit in the green room all night. Put on a show with a unit set that requires no changes and you MUST hire a stage crew, even if they play canasta in the basement all evening. These are the sort of things that are killing the economics of NY theatre, folks.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:13pm

>> are they insane people who cant wait to throw their money away on a continuous basis??!! poor, poor producers

No, they have investors who are either looking for the next big hit or desperately need a tax write off.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:28pm

" Put on a show with a unit set that requires no changes and you MUST hire a stage crew, even if they play canasta in the basement all evening"

yes, 3 people all of whom are paid with the selling of less than a row of seats. those 3 also are responsible for all of the lights work on a nightly basis, that the set doesnt fall apart, and that the props are are all set and the stage clean. hardly canasta, old bean.
as for designers needing all of this permission, yes thats true. but they readily get it because they telll the producers that is what they need and producers give them what they want even if their is a much cheaper alternative. the amount of wasted money from poor design decisions is alot higher than your 3 stagehands playing canasta.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 12:43pm

>> hardly canasta, old bean

We're not talking about running crew for props or lights, old bean. Those are different areas altogether. Dont try to muddle things by bringing in other backstage areas to assume you've proven your point. And those three idle stagehands are paid very well, unless the union rate has dropped in recent years.

>> as for designers needing all of this permission, yes thats true. but they readily get it because they telll the producers that is what they need and producers give them what they want even if their is a much cheaper alternative

New York must be a very different animal from the professional theatre I work with, because that kind of reckless atttitude would get you tossed from a production in about six seconds flat, and frankly, I have trouble believing it's as wide-spread as you intimate. Cerainly, based on what I've seen onstage in NY over the past few years, the production values have shot up, but, as I pointed out before, because audiences now demand that kind of eye candy instead of quality writing. Hell, look at the thread here where folks were POd because a character doesn't fly over the audience in WICKED. To do that would put yet another cost on the production, and a big one at that. All those projections that add to the visual experience? Yep, you could take them away and not lose much. You could ditch the mechanical dragon and Glinda's bubble. You could radically simplify the costumes and the light plot and the sound effects. You could do a lot of things, but would the show sell as well? I'm betting not, because it needs all those accessories to hang off what's essentially a pretty bland little outfit. HAIRSPRAY? Harvey coming out of a tube of lipstick could be done quick and cheap, but would it be the same? Would the audiences accept it as willingly? I'm betting not. But those are team decisions, not some designer working in isolation, rubbing his hands in glee at all the pots and pots of money he's gonna spend on useless junk.

I'm not laying all of the blame on the producer or the director or the design team or the actors, but I honestly think it's time the industry did a little smartening up, just as the TV industry had to when cable took off and waltzed away with a lot of the viewers who were tethered by necessity to the Big Three networks.

Updated On: 7/7/04 at 12:43 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 1:04pm

Or maybe...just maybe...the economics of Broadway aren't as unfavorable as the producers are saying. I hate to harp on this, but unless the books are open we won't know whether they're telling the truth or where all these mysterious expenses are coming from if they are.

We can talk about wasteful designers and irrational unions 'till we turn blue in the face, but it won't mean anything without real numbers to back up the arguments. Updated On: 7/7/04 at 01:04 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 1:11pm

Actor's Equity does not own a franchise on the term "Broadway". So what if a tour goes out saying it's from Broadway with non-union actors? Just because you shell out lots of money for something doesn't mean you are getting the very best quality.

I say let the laws of supply and demand operate. If audiences continue to support the non-union tours, then so be it. If they don't, then the producers will stop sending them out.

In my opinion, you should let the audience decide what they want to see and Equity should stop trying to tell them what is good or bad.

[Bobby457]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 1:37pm

Ok....here is the deal. The "league" does not think we as actors deserve to be paid what we are paid. I have been on the negotiating commitee for over 10 years. I sat across from said "producers" when one of them said. "Actors get paid too much, they are buying houses and cars and things!" Are we not entitled to the same kind of lifestyle that everyone else in the world strives for???

The Union was put in place for protection from these kinds of attitudes. When an actor is not in the union, the producers can do whatever they like with them. Long rehearsals, no breaks, no insurance, no workmans comp, no unemployment when the production is over. I understand and know what its like to be a non-union actor, everyone has to start somewhere. I dont always agree with the Union and do think we have put too many concessions in place and that is why we are having this much trouble now. But when will young actors get it through their heads that the union is there for their protection and not think they will never work again if they dont take every job that is presented to them? They wont...therefore we will ALWAYS go through this.

Producers forget that most of the time a show doesnt last 15 years and we have to go find other work. So therefore, if you were a smart actor and invested your money that you made on tour. You MIGHT have something to live on for the next few months so you dont have to use unemployment (which is great because it screws the hell out of you come tax time!)

I believe the audience HAS the right to know where their money is going. Producers have to stop advertising a non-union show as "Straight from Broadway" when it isnt.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 1:41pm

>> I hate to harp on this, but unless the books are open we won't know whether they're telling the truth or where all these mysterious expenses are coming from if they are

Problem there is, I doubt any producer is going to let anyone shy of the IRS go that deeply into his/her/their accounting. You might see broad strokes and a P&L statement, but I really doubt you'd get much further. I know I'd never let anyone do that with my accounting, and I have nothing to hide in mine.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 1:55pm

>> The Union was put in place for protection from these kinds of attitudes

Well, see, this is what I mean about smartening up the industry. One of these days, everyone involved -- actors, producers, designers, stage crew, directors -- are gonna have to come to grips with the simple and inescapable fact that attitudes all around are killing this industry, through absurd rules and regulations that do more harm than good.

For example, I dont think it's rocket science to realize that there's a huge market out there for DVDs of Broadway productions. I mean, massive, folks. DVDs of Lion King could rival sales of the original film. DVDs of Phantom or Hairspray? A no-brainer. Everyone stands to make a decent dollar or two off this, but it won't happen because everyone involved is so busy protecting their turf that even the simple act of recording a show for archival purposes is now near unto impossible. I can no longer get videotapes of my work at Theatre Cedar Rapids because of union restrictions, and I'm sure the unions have a good reason for that rule, even though it seems incredibly boneheaded to me.

It's all starting to sound like the situation in NY is more incestuous than anything else; maybe some fresh blood in the gene pool would be a good thing. :)

Updated On: 7/7/04 at 01:55 PM