Hamilton actors to get profit-sharing

I'm happy to hear this! I wonder what this means for those who took part in the workshops and ended up not in the off Broadway and Broadway productions. Very interesting article about a topic the general public doesn't get to hear much about!

The producers of “Hamilton,” a show that could well make hundreds of millions of dollars, on Friday bowed to pressure and said they would share some of the musical’s profits with original cast members.

The deal, which was announced by a lawyer representing more than two dozen actors and dancers who were part of the show’s development and first productions, is a major victory for the cast and could have ripple effects in the theater industry, where the huge success of “Hamilton,” and the lack of profit-sharing, catalyzed a growing debate about actor compensation.

http://nyti.ms/1SQUWpY

Dave13 said: "Very interesting. Is this while the actors remain with the show, or forever? I hope this means the original cast will remain longer as they now have an incentive to continue. "

While details have yet to be released, my understanding is that the profit sharing would be for quite a few years (whatever they agree upon) - as it would have been if their original contract included it. So they can leave the show and still get money from it because they are being compensated for the roles they helped create and bring to life for the first time. This would also include profits from future touring and sit down productions. I think it's probably the group of actors sharing 1%, but that can ultimately add up to serious cash (just ask anyone who workshopped Wicked).

Updated On: 4/16/16 at 11:30 AM

SueBee06 said: "Oh wow. I'm surprised it would be in perpetuity. I thought it would stick to the 18 years, but who knows. I'm happy for them either way. "

No you are probably correct! I used the wrong term - I intended to mean a predetermined contract length rather than only for the period of time they remain actively in the show which Dave13 asked.

I'm going to edit my comment to make more sense. Thank you!

^its for the original workshop cast. I think.

The cynical me is genuinely surprised this happened. Good for them!

Good point - what kind of precedent is this going to set? I think this whole thing has opened some real dialogue with equity. It seems recently that shows have been going with the Lab contract that pays more each week upfront and doesn't include any profit sharing instead of the Workshop contract that does.

Even though Lab contracts are worse for actors, if those become the only kind of new material opportunities available, what choice do they have? I know Equity is holding member meetings to address his and ensure that members know what they are signing when they sign.

I don't have a horse in the race but I find it all compelling. I heard on a podcast this week that Lin's father has been contracted all along to receive a 1% royalty as a creative consultant. It made me wonder if there was any discord at the Richard Rodgers over this.

Also, an explanation of the contract types from the Times article:

For years, many shows have been developed using an Equity workshop contract, under which actors are paid a flat rate of $631 for every five-day workweek. The actors also get benefits, are entitled to a right of first refusal to their role — and to split 1 percent of any future royalty pool for 18 years.

But, in more recent years, producers have tended to favor an alternative Equity contract, the developmental lab, under which actors are paid $1,000 a week but have no right of refusal and no promise of royalty participation.

'Money is the root of all evil' not original I know but---I remember the day when we [the performer] would have PAID [not really] to be in a show. The hours and cost of classes, the disappointments, the joy, all to try to be a part of show biz.

$90.a week as a chorus boy and an away from home allowance--we were all in Heaven.

I believe you are contracted and paid for a job and that is the end of the responsibility of the employer. If an agent is involved-their job is to negotiate.

Hamilton could do a 'Friends' thing and threaten to go on strike, as they collectively might already have done but where does this end? As someone above said--what happens if something flops? Greed, envy is the problem and the attitude--- don't do anything or even give information/service,unless you are paid for it.

Give the performers a bonus if you will but if you are not happy with the conditions, when contract time comes around ,leave, as there are dozens of others just as capable of playing your part.

SL.........x

Mr. Musical said: "NJ_BroadwayGirl said: "Even though Lab contracts are worse for actors"

This is not necessarily true, because in most cases, the actors are getting paid more up front and if the show flops (which most do), they've actually made more money that if they had profit sharing/lower workshop pay checks (like the original Workshop contract has).

It's really in hit shows that this debate matters significantly, which is a (relatively speaking) small percentage "

True, true. I guess my characterization of it being worse is that a Lab pays less than $400 more a month and that's it. No right of first refusal or profit sharing. So they do get paid more upfront but they are (potentially) giving up a lot. Though as you pointed out, more shows flop than hit. I wonder if producers who really feel good about a show are more likely to offer Lab contracts since they know they won't have to profit share?

Any time you start off with something like "in my day we would have PAID to be involved" you kind of remove yourself from being able to talk seriously about labor issues.

Actors shouldn't just be happy to be involved and take whatever they give them, and coming from that perspective always disempowers actors as workers and contributes to the very popular notion that allows shows to not pay actors at all. Which is why AEA exists and why for many years the workshop contract was standard.

What happens when a show flops? There's no profit to share so they don't have to get paid the extra money.

I am happy for all the actors involved, getting more money is very nice. That being said, the investors take all the risk and if the show does not recoup the actors still get their money for as long as the show runs. I am not in the business so I don't know if a show closes before the actors contract ends if they get paid for the entire length of the contract.

haterobics said: "yankeefan7 said: "That being said, the investors take all the risk and if the show does not recoup the actors still get their money for as long as the show runs. I am not in the business so I don't know if a show closes before the actors contract ends if they get paid for the entire length of the contract."

Yes, but the point isn't that they just showed up and performed the script, but that they played a vital role in shaping the work into what it is now, and that they have helped in the creative process.

And, no, they don't."

The reference to the investors is inapt. Investors are the only royalty participants who have risk; the "creative team" and even the producer have shares without risk. The issue, in essence, is whether the participants in the development stages are entitled to a slice, and if so under what circumstances.

SweetLips said: "and Taryn--blow it out your a.se----I am so glad I was 'in' the dark old ages because in those days, to us dumb chorus boys,.theatre was all about the show and NOT the business--we could not have cared less about that because we were IN IT and doing what we prepared for and loved. It seems there is absolutely no way you can or could relate to that.

SL"

Wow, there is like no reason for you to be so aggressive at me for saying that actors should still have worker's rights. I was not the one who said anything about the dark ages or dumb chorus boys. But it's still harmful to approach the situation with an attitude of "actors should be happy with whatever they're getting" because it's part of such a common group of justifications for mistreating actors. I'm sure that these actors are thrilled to have been a part of the development of one of the most important shows in recent years. But money isn't dirty. Wanting money in return for professional work isn't greedy. The insistence that talking about money is uncouth or against the artistic purity of art is a super common way to silence workers in the arts. The fact that it's art and it's beautiful and important doesn't take away from the fact that it's also people's livelihoods and they deserve to be able to organize.

Interesting and good for them. Wonder how popular/profitable a show will need to be for this to happen with future shows. How would it happen for a Shrek/Last Five Years vs. Wicked/Phantom. Would love to see the actors from the concept albums of Les Mis or JCS get something like this? Or how about the Carnegie Mellon group that workshopped Godspell?