Non-Equity Tours - Scam?

[BroadwayDetroit]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 2:25am

This is the latest advertisement in the local paper.... it's the same stuff every year. Joseph and the Amazing/Dreamcoat is playing tonight. They charge like $60 (and up) a ticket, they use the offical logo and "Broadway is coming to your city!" slogans, but the official Joseph tour ended in December. I saw the Osmond tour in the mid-90's with the huge staircase... this is just a static set with a few colored lights and painted backgrounds. They wait for the official tours to end and take off the next day... the local media is excited and hyping this up.

Fair?
Updated On: 5/3/07 at 02:25 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 2:33am

These days, a lot of the "official" tours are non-Equity. It's the same producers, same directors, sometimes the same sets. The only difference is the actors are making about $1000 less per week and don't have health insurance, and that's going straight into the producers' pockets.

[BroadwayDetroit]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 2:52am

Your right!... I saw on the Hairspray site that they promote their non-equity touring version. So I guess some of those shows are affiliated with the NY companies or creators.

Posted: 5/3/07 at 3:03am

Yeah what exactly is the difference? I'm always confused... And is the difference less than it used to be?

i remember in the very early 90s I was fairly young but still paid attention to this kinda thing and I saw a non equity tour of Guys and Dolls--VERY VERY bus and truck small scale with a lose relation tothe Broadway version--however in that case the cast was so outstanding the flimsiness of the show didn't matter.

But recently I saw--for instance--the Fosse non equity tour a few years back and thought the dancers were excellent--they also made a fe wminor changes from the standard (no Dancing Man and they added the full Take Off With Us) which was odd but it seemed to all be officiallys anctioned and I had no complaints. A few months back I took my 6 year old cousin to the non equity Cats--not a fave show of mine but honestly I thought it was a lot of fun and the cast were actually better than what I remembered from an equity tour 10 years before--with the set basically the same.

So....?

It odes seem that maybe as it's becoming more "kosher" ot have non equity tours though more producers are doing them cuz it means more money in their pocket for them. Then again I've heard some complainst from actors about equity rules too...

[antonijan]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 4:53am

I saw both the non-equity tours of Rent and Aida and they were great! It just saddens me that the actors make less and have less benefits as compared to the equity thing.

But in the competitive world of Performing Arts...these young actors would definitely grab an opportunity to tour even tho it's non-equity just to do the passion of their life for performing, for experience and for making a name for themselves.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 7:18am

The best way to understand what's going on with the growing proliferation of non-Equity tours is to use the analogy of cooking a frog.

If you want to cook a frog you can't just toss him in a pan of boiling water, he'll hop right out. You have to put him in cold water, and gradually heat it up. By the time the water is boiling it will be too late for the frog to do anything.

Actors hoping to make a good living in the future touring under Equity contracts should realize that they are the frogs and the water is almost boiling. The producers have discovered that there's no need to negotiate tough contracts with the unions when they can just work around them.

The same thing is happening with the orchestra minimums on Broadway. It doesn't matter what each theater's minimum is when the Special Situations Committee grants the producers waiver after waiver.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 7:25am

Hey, actors need jobs. I don't think there are a heck of a lot of non-Equity actors out there that will turn down non-Equity tours based on their principles once the bills start piling up and no Equity jobs are coming their way.
Updated On: 5/3/07 at 07:25 AM

[Jon]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 8:42am

I think the sad fact is this: Folks in Saginaw will be more willng to pay $50 to see a non-equity tour than to pay $100 to see an Equity tour.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 8:49am

The whole I hate non eq tours because I am an eq actor and going to no eq tours doesn't help me pay my dues is a stupid idea. Yes it is true that the members of the union have to pay dues. But, in no way shape or form is an non equity tour going to effect them. Actors need jobs. I am sure that there are many actors who will take whatever they can find. As an actor it is hard to find work regarless of where your preforming and you can't be picky and choosy about what you work on. If a job is offered to you you take it.

[Jon]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 8:57am

Ummm, actually it DOES affect Equity actors. Every tour that goes out non-equity equals thousands of dollars a week that are NOT being paid into Equity's pension and health plans.

As a 30 year member of Equity, the security of my old age pension is dependent on young actors who join equity, pay into the plan, and then get discouraged and quit the business (or quit equity) before they are eligible to collect their pensions!

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 9:51am

winston89, I think you're missing the point. Of course actors are going to take whatever work they can get, and there will always be an actor somewhere willing to work for less. This is why unions are so critical. Unions should provide an opposing force to counter the financial pressures that will otherwise push standards and quality ever lower.

Those young struggling actors are the ones who will be most harmed if the majority of Broadway national tours become low budget non-Equity affairs. There won't be any stable well-paying careers left for them to prepare for.

I understand that a year or so after the Equity national tour is done it makes financial sense for all to have a non-Equity "Hairspray" playing smaller markets. A non-Equity Chorus Line tour playing major markets next year is a different matter.

[erikaamato]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 9:57am

I completely agree with TechEverlasting (both posts), and that frog analogy is brilliant.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 10:03am

Techs post should be linked in every future thread about non-equity tours and their place in Showbusiness. As an Equity actor, and former non-eq touring actor, I see both sides. TechEverlasting has hit the nail right on the head!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 10:06am

Remember guys, non-Equity tours provide work and exposure for the millions of actors who don't live in NYC, the only city in the country where the majority of work is Equity. For the rest of the country, being a member of Equity means your options are extremely limited, and in many cases, practically nonexistent. Yes, the actors deserve higher pay and benefits, but the actors themselves know they are auditioning for a non-Equity tour and in many cases, have no desire to join.

Living in Houston, I watched so many of my friends work in chorus for one theatre company in order to earn their Equity card performing in a couple of shows a year while working at many of theatres the rest of the year. Once they celebrated their newly earned Equity status, they could....work in the chorus a couple of shows a year for that ONE theatre company and hardly anywhere else. After a few years of this, they either dropped their Equity status or moved to NYC and became waiters or whatnot. I never tried to earn my Equity card because I enjoyed performing rather than handing out samples on a street corner downtown.

Now, I'm not saying Equity is a bad thing. There are a few people out there who can work steadily in a few major cities as an Equity actor (usually as an company member for a regional theatre), but that is a miniscule percentage. And let's face it, company members tend to hang on as long as possible, being recycled show after show after show (gee...I wonder why), leaving few opportunities for new faces. I've seen it everywhere. Equity is a great idea that has never been fully realized.

By the way, does anyone really think identifying a touring show as "non-Equity" to the general public will really make any difference? How many people in the audience for Annie or Hairspray in Saginaw do you think would even know what it means?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 10:09am

"As a 30 year member of Equity, the security of my old age pension is dependent on young actors who join equity"

Maybe you should have thought of that before becoming a performer. It is by no means a safe profession. And honestly, I think this is really just a lot of whining. If you look at work hours alone, actors make more money than just about every single profession (I don't know anyone who makes $1400 a week for only 16 hours worth of work). And before people start shouting at all the training and education these people go through...well other professions have that as well. So stop complaining that this people are underpaid with no health insurance. Other than government agencies, I know of very few places that provide its employees health insurance if they don't work 35 hours a week. This is why I hate actors. They think they have it rough when in reality they chose a "profession" that is known to have high unemployment.

That said, non-equity doesn't always equal bad quality...though I have yet to see a non-equity tour where the sets didn't look as though a high school drama club built them. The talent seems to vary. I saw the Miss Saigon tour (with pretty much everyone in the cast being an Equity defector) that was excellent, and The Music Man tour actually had a pretty good cast. But Oliver...oy...that was horrendous.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 10:55am

I've seen Equity actors on Broadway who really were terrible and unprofessional, and I've seen non-Equity actors in little showcases and off-off Broadway who worked their tails off and did a great job. In mainland Europe AEA and non-AEA actors sometimes work side by side on shows which recruit American performers. So, union status does not necessarily assure quality of performance.

The audience isn't going to care if it's union. They're only going to care if they get a great show.

Is AEA a good thing? YES. Should actors on these tours be protected? YES. Do some of these non-union producers take terrible advantage and shortchange their performers? YES, and that needs to be addressed. As far as I understand it, the special contracts in place on some tours were designed to give the producers an incentive to "go Equity" instead of staying non-union. Fair enough.

But one can't fault non-AEA actors for taking these tours.
What are they supposed to do, sit in their apartments and wait tables for years until that mythical Equity job appears? Because they took away the Equity-eligible category years ago, it's very hard to even be seen for Equity work if you're non-union. And, as others have mentioned, being Equity can unfortunately be very limiting if you want to work outside NYC.

Or would it be better for them to go on the road for a while, get some experience and work in their chosen profession? I think so.

Oh, and Fosse76...your attitude toward actors strikes me as a bit odd. You want them to be there to entertain you, and yet you hate them and you don't think they should be paid and protected for their time and work?! Weird.

Also, where do you get a 16 hour work week?

8 shows/week X 3.5 hours (call time + length of show + wardrobe) = 28 hours, during which time the actor might be put in physically demanding and risky situations with the potential for longterm injury. Add rehearsal time and you're easily up into the 30 hour range. Add holidays, weekends and a six day work week--more than most any other job--and yeah...the actors deserve every penny they make and more.
Updated On: 5/3/07 at 10:55 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:11pm

Here's what everyone seems to forget: non-equity tours almost always play one-nighters--these vendors who present these non-eq tours (for the most part) cannot afford to present an Equity show for a town of 25,000 people--it's as simple as that.

And orangeskittles, the national tour of GREASE paid $600/wk minimum for ensemble, plus they booked and paid for hotel and travel-yes, no benefits, but poorly paid? No way. Which, by the way, starred Derek Keeling, a finalist for the Bway revival--so you actually WERE getting a Bway-quality show, in theory anyway.

BUT Fosse, you also have to factor in the HUGE BARGAIN that producers get with rehearsal pay--it's next to nothing and it's the most demanding. You also must consider that most people don't have to do their jobs in front of an audience--that's an external pressure that would make most people tremble with fright--doesn't public speaking routinely top the list of biggest fears? That should count for SOMETHING...and a good performer shares his sould with the people he "works" for--how many people do that?

Every touring company is different, just like any other business.

I also maintain my stance that Equity simply has too many members who have no business with Equity cards.

EDIT: To answer your question, no, it's not a scam--some of our tickets prices were $30 or so...
Updated On: 5/3/07 at 12:11 PM

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:34pm

"non-equity tours almost always play one-nighters--these vendors who present these non-eq tours (for the most part) cannot afford to present an Equity show for a town of 25,000 people--it's as simple as that."

No lildogs, it's not as simple as that. It used to be, but now first run Broadwy shows are starting to go out and play multi-week engagements in major markets non-Equity. No one is complaining about a low budget non-Equity production of Oklahoma that plays one night in a little town. This is the sort of things unions have to fight if they're to be of any value to their membership.

It doesn't have anything to do with Equity actors being better than non-Equity actors. At the rate things are going there won't be any Equity actors other than on TV and in New York, so of course the non-Eq ones will be good.

The average theater-goer doesn't care if a show they go to see is non-Equity, any more than they care if their sneakers were made by slave laborers in China.

I'm not an actor and have nothing to do with Equity, but I'm sorry to see the theater acting profession going down the toilet so quickly.

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:35pm

This is a very touchy subject with a lot of people and it always surprises me with how divided everyone is. Personally for me (and I have heard this from several audience talkbacks and such) they don't know when a tour is non-equity and I don't think they really care as long as it is a great production. I am not saying every non-equity tour out there is "amazing", I've seen my fair share of duds. But this topic will never be resolved as I believe it needs to be taken on a case to case basis. For example: I have chosen not to pursue my Equity status because of the fact that it would severely limit my chances of performing onstage, not only because it's a profession with a high unemployment status but I am also ethnic as well. I will NEVER be able to audition for a show like "Hairspray" because I just don't fit the "image". Now I understand that competition is what this profession is known for, but I have had more work being non-equity than I would ever have being equity. I'm not saying that I wouldn't ever want to, but just right now it's not the best thing for me.

I know someone who was a long-time member of equity and was presented with an opportunity with a show that was non-equity. She had to decide whether or not she was going to pay her mortgage and keep her house, or keep her union status and lose her house. If you were forced to make that decision, what would you do?

It's also sad to see performers from the "hey day" of Broadway not getting any work also. I saw one woman who was in the original cast of La Cage working just to keep her Equity status and make "some money" in bumble**** OR. I also know of a woman who was in the original casts of Evita, Starlight Express and ACL and now she lives in a rented room in So Cali still trying to make ends meet. The most disconcerting thing she said was that "once the opportunities became few I struggled to make ends meet. I needed to take non eq gigs where I would make money. Some money. Any money. All Equity could say was just hold out and something will happen. But when you're in your late 40s and deciding whether or not your'e going to eat that night, you take anything you can get. Equity was good to me over the years but at the end of the day, if there's no work, EQUITY doesn't pay my bills."

It's a sad state but people have to do this all the time. But it's the nature of the business, you just got to know that for some people, it just is over.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:39pm

"but now first run Broadwy shows are starting to go out and play multi-week engagements in major markets non-Equity"

Which ones?

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:41pm

The Music Man, The Broadway Oklahoma revival and reportedly the current production of A Chorus Line just to name a few.

Edit: Have a look at the image in the first post of this thread for other examples. Big subscription houses in large cities are building their seasons around non-Eq tours.

Updated On: 5/3/07 at 12:41 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:53pm

I'm not an actor and have nothing to do with Equity, but I'm sorry to see the theater acting profession going down the toilet so quickly.

?

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:59pm

Well, I knew those...

Yes, we played the Kodak Theatre in LA for a week, but we also had to play Waco. Yes, we got the Fox, but we also had to do the show in many arenas on fold-up platforms...

But you talk of non-Equity shows playing major markets--MY point was about non-eq plays playing one-nighters...it's the only theatre these people can see and I think they should at least be allowed a non-eq tour a few times a year. Even the low-end non-eq tours pay more than many Equity contracts. Hell, Chamber Theatre tours kid' shows at $500/wk! That's more than I make in my day job!



EDIT: "Have a look at the image in the first post of this thread for other examples. Big subscription houses in large cities are building their seasons around non-Eq tours. "

Sure, but ANNIE, MOVIN' OUT, PRODUCERS and HAIRSPRAY aren't first run-tours...with PRODUCERS AND HAIRSPRAY, maybe like 4th or 5th...
Updated On: 5/3/07 at 12:59 PM

[Kev]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 1:04pm

"but now first run Broadwy shows are starting to go out and play multi-week engagements in major markets non-Equity"

Which ones?

The Wedding Singer in the upcoming season.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 1:08pm

I guess there's about 1 every couple of years--Music Man was like 2001-2 or so? And then OK! was maybe 2 years ago...I guess we're due.