Posted: 7/16/16 at 2:25pm
Do they? Like at all the different venues they play? Or is it more like they get invited to the certain venues?
Posted: 7/16/16 at 3:17pm
Well, the venues themselves need to be paid, you know for all the utilities and such.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 3:23pm
The productions don't pay, they're invited to perform by whatever group is presenting them at the venue. It's that group that's paying the venue.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 3:56pm
Oops, yep, he's right, it's the presenters.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 3:58pm
like most answers in the theatre, there is no universal rule. The only universal rule is that someone will always post one on here anyway.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 5:44pm
Hogan is right that there are always exceptions, but basically it isn't called "rent". The local promoter (who may be the theater owner or a group renting the space) splits the gross proceeds with the touring company. In the Dark Ages when I ran a local house, the usual split was 75% to the tour, 25% to the local promoter (my boss).
The local promoter provides the space (including "rent", if any) and any local personnel, including box office, maintenance, and the local crew and musicians.
The tour producer pays royalties, provides the sets and costumes, and pays any traveling personnel, including cast, lead crew and musicians.
At our theater, we also split advertising 75/25.
Bottom line: somebody is paying rent, certainly. In the classic model, it is not the touring company, but the local entity controlling the theater.
Hope this helps. I should add the disclaimer that things like non-Equity tours were virtually unknown when I was working in theater management; I'm sure a lot has changed.
(There used to be (and probably still is) another model in which a group of theaters (e.g., the "Starlight" theaters in the Midwest, the "Kenley Players" in Ohio, plus individual theaters such as Papermill and the Miami Beach Theatre for the Performing Arts) where the theaters themselves mount a tour. In this model, we used to pay the usual "local" expenses PLUS a flat fee calculated by dividing touring production costs by the number of participating theaters. For this type of tour, we kept 100% of our gross.)
Updated On: 7/16/16 at 05:44 PM
Posted: 7/16/16 at 5:56pm
@GavestonPS There are (much less common nowadays) venues that can be "rented" in the same way that Broadway houses are. In these situations, the producer assumes 100% of the risk. But technically, even though we call it rent, it is not ever rent because even in these straight rentals (flat fees plus variables plus a percentage of the gross paid by the producer) the arrangement is a license not a lease. It is also at possible (although I recall any cases but thereprobably have been some at some point) where a producer could rent a space (likely not a theatre per se) for a flat rent for a time certain. As you say, it probably all seems unnecessarily complicated (unless of course it is your money or your risk that's at stake).
Updated On: 7/16/16 at 05:56 PM
Posted: 7/16/16 at 6:27pm
That makes sense, Hogan, thanks. And now that you mention it, we even did something similar with Alexander Cohen and the national tour of RAISIN in 1976. Our Miami Beach theater was booked for the season, so we rented the big hall in the City of Miami proper as part of our cost as "local promoter" for the tour. I can't recall the fee split, but I'm sure everyone involved lost a small fortune.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 7:13pm
Another question: what would be the average fee for a Broadway house? And touring house?
Posted: 7/16/16 at 8:38pm
Call_me_jorge said: "Another question: what would be the average fee for a Broadway house? And touring house?"
Are you asking about the fixed costs paid to the landlord (which include dozens of pass throughs)? They can range from high 5 figures to a quarter mil or so.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 9:26pm
"Like most answers in the theatre, there is no universal rule. The only universal rule is that someone will always post one on here anyway"
Why is it that Hogan feels it necessary to continually insult the members of the Board, is it caused by a psychological insecurities? He seems intelligent enough to be able to give an answer and then stop without demeaning others. It is a regular occurrence and makes reading the boards a much less pleasant experience. Everyone is doing their best and need not be perfect in order to join the discussion.
Still hoping he will one day use his knowledge for good.
Posted: 7/16/16 at 10:20pm
Mike Costa said: ""Like most answers in the theatre, there is no universal rule. The only universal rule is that someone will always post one on here anyway"
Why is it that Hogan feels it necessary to continually insult the members of the Board, is it caused by a psychological insecurities? He seems intelligent enough to be able to give an answer and then stop without demeaning others. It is a regular occurrence and makes reading the boards a much less pleasant experience. Everyone is doing their best and need not be perfect in order to join the discussion.
Still hoping he will one day use his knowledge for good."
I do, Mike, every day.
What I don't do is insult people (although I confess I don't consider trolls people).
What I DO is criticize ideas that I think are wrong. And this one is a really big one. There is no more insidious error in the theatre than the pervasive notion that there are rules of universal application. It is not my intention to make anything unpleasant for you, but I do think that rigorous criticism of rule-spouting is kinda important. My sometimes-sharp elbows are not a symptom of any insecurity; they are a function of my strong feelings about and for the theatre.
My mother, by the way, had a rule about speaking of people in the third person when they are present. 
