Do salaries influence ticket prices?

Is the rate of actors salaries(equity minimum) increasing at the same rate of ticket prices? Or are producers just hoping to pocket more of the money?

Updated On: 10/15/16 at 12:17 AM

Call_me_jorge said: "Is the rate of actors salaries(equity minimum) increasing at the same rate of ticket prices? Or are producers just hoping to pocket more of the money?





"

My limited information suggests the opposite. More and more actors are being paid the minimum, while ticket prices sky rocket.

yankeefan7 said: "My cynical guess would be no.."

Wouldn't the cynical guess actually be "yes"?

Just a bit of devil's advocate on "skyrocketing" prices. Obviously many things play into an average, but...

"Average paid admission for the season was $103.11, which represents a decrease for the first time in recorded history. Last season’s average paid admission was $104.18."



https://www.broadwayleague.com/press/press-releases/2015-2016-broadway-end-of-season-statistics/

HogansHero said: "As to the original query, there is not and should not be a correlation. Would you want actors to work for less because a show is deeply discounting and/or not selling?"

I don think that's what the OP meant. I took it to mean are the increases in list price (over the last few years) being caused, at least in part, by increases in salaries, not that the price paid for a particular performance reflects any alteration of the actors' pay for that performance.

Or, to put it another way, are the actors, musicians and crew sharing in the increases in grosses that come from the higher ticket prices, or is it all going to the producers?

Truthfully, I don't know. Prices in any field don't necessarily reflect the costs to produce a product, but are as much a matter of what the market will bear. That is, they charge as much as they can and still have the tickets sell; discounts represent a corrective action when the producers tried to charge too much and couldn't sell the tickets at full price. If discounts get too steep and sales are not covering running costs, the show is probably closing soon.

As such, rising ticket prices don't necessarily reflect an increase in costs for the actors/musicians/crews' salaries, though it may contribute, as the producers do need to cover costs, and salaries are a major cost. But without exact knowledge of the finances of any show, we don't know the breakdown enough to do anything more than speculate.

Let's see what we know.

We know that most shows lose money.

We know that no actor in the modern era has lost money performing in a show.

We know that very few principal performers are paid at the minimum (and that many earn way way more).

We know that in at least some successful shows, everyone is earning well above the minimum, and even sharing in profits.

So the equation of profits and minimums is close to a non-sequitur. Minimums are, for the most part, protecting actors in flops. Have salaries kept up with aggregate profit? No. But losses are much more substantial today than in the past, and the millions made on the hits don help the losers a bit. What we expect is that the actors in the successes will see that reflected in their pay. But make no mistake, that has nothing to do with the minimum.

Agreed with the other posters that the evidence seems to clearly point to no.

But I could see how this could APPEAR to be the case while not actually being true - shows with celebrities, especially really big names, are frequently noticibly more expensive than productions with less big names in them, and these people are presumably being paid much more than a lot of non-celebrity principal actors. So I can see how it might seem to be this way from the outside.

Sorry

Updated On: 10/16/16 at 11:29 AM

HogansHero said: "ticket prices reflect demand. period. Enormously expensive shows paper and sell tickets via TDF and other deep discounts. Cheap shows sell gobs of premium tickets. A star (and no star works cheap though many trade profit participation for upfront bucks) is expected to affect demand so prices are expected to be higher.



"

Eventually yes, but the thing is, lots of shows set their ticket prices so high initially that they not only do not reflect the demand out there but also have to resort to TKTS or papering services like TDF in order to fill the house. Recent examples include Bright Star, Disaster!, and The Encounter.

HogansHero said: "Dave13 said: "My limited information suggests the opposite. More and more actors are being paid the minimum, while ticket prices sky rocket."

Well, your limited information appears to be wrong. Perhaps you'd care to share it so it can be meaningfully refuted.

"

I have been told several times by people in the industry that unless the actor/actress has a name or resume that will sell tickets, there is no reason to pay more than minimum as there are 100's of other actors just as talented willing to do the job for minimum.

Sure there are always exceptions, but doesn't mean it is the norm. Hamilton and Frozen maybe the most recent exceptions that are paying the original cast a percentage of profits, but then again Hamilton is a cash cow, and I am sure Frozen will be as well. Most other musicals do not have the same luxury.

Also, still using Hamilton as an example. We all know the obscene price of tickets to Hamilton. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much the new cast is earning? Once again, I would say most are earning minimum. Leslie Odom was certainly unhappy when he left Hamilton. Why would the best actor leave so quickly after winning the award? Yes he had his own album and concerts, but it is not like he is selling millions of tickets and albums.

Is it common for shows and producers to decrease wages for certain actors during slower months?

^ The principles of Hamilton are almost now different from when the show opened yet the box office has stayed consistent so .. no Hamilton isn't an exception.