Posted: 8/15/16 at 7:39pm
Hork, a non-union production of Rent, which is inexpensive to produce, is not worth the same ticket price as a Union production of Wicked, Aladdin,Phantom or Les Miz at the same venue. Yes, the public is getting ripped off.
Updated On: 8/15/16 at 07:39 PM
Posted: 8/15/16 at 8:10pm
I normally frown upon non-Equity tours of Broadway productions because it is indeed a "bait and switch" for the audience - they think they will be seeing Broadway actors when it's actually mostly actors fresh out of school who don't yet have the experience (or perhaps ability) to play their roles at a "Broadway level."
HOWEVER, I think shows like Rent are an exception for a couple of reasons - first, all of the characters are supposed to be in their early/mid-twenties, and it's usually better to see actors who are actually that age as opposed to 30-something's trying to look young. More importantly though, Rent doesn't necessarily need traditional musical theater performers, and people who perform mostly in rock bands, etc. might actually be better qualified than some who perform mostly in musicals. I believe several members of the original Broadway/Off-Broadway cast were non-Equity people who worked mostly as singers, not musical theater performers. Adam Pascal for instance had never been in a musical in his life and Idina Menzel was working mostly as as wedding singer.
That said, I bet a lot of the kids in the cast would really like their Equity card, and an Equity contract would of course pay more and guarantee that they won't have outrageous performance schedules and such. So although I don't think the audience will be "ripped off" by this particular tour, the actors certainly will be.
Posted: 8/15/16 at 8:31pm
Mike Costa said: "Hork, a non-union production of Rent, which is inexpensive to produce, is not with the same ticket price as a Union production of Wicked, Aladdin,Phantom or Les Miz at the same venue. Yes, the public is getting ripped off.
If a non-union production of Rent is indistinguishable from a union production, what difference does it make? Rent is Rent. It's worth whatever audiences will pay for. The production cost has nothing to do with the value of a ticket. Hedwig is also inexpensive to produce, union or non-union. Does that mean it shouldn't be playing at the same venues as Wicked?
I went to see the non-union production of 42nd Street at the Pantages in L.A., which normally houses union productions. I knew exactly what I was paying for, and felt like I got my money's worth, as did, I suspect, most of the audience. Equity versus non-Equity doesn't matter to people as much as you seem to think it does.
Posted: 8/15/16 at 8:59pm
Retn has long been the textbook example of a show to tour with a non-equity company, to allow the producers to find fresh talent. Although it may partially be a cost-saving method on this tout, it does allow the producers to bring in the best and brightest young performers they can find.
The tour route is interesting. It is a full week or more in just a handful of major markets, a split week season special in some other full week markets, and then playing most of the major bus and truck markets to fill out the rest of the tour. While this might seem like a rip-off when packaged against Wicked, Mormon or Hamilton, it will be the best show of the season in many of the smaller markets it is playing, which would not be possible if it were to run on an equity contract-Most small markets can't afford even the lowest tier SETA contract.
Posted: 8/15/16 at 9:13pm
hork said: "Mike Costa said: "Hork, a non-union production of Rent, which is inexpensive to produce, is not with the same ticket price as a Union production of Wicked, Aladdin,Phantom or Les Miz at the same venue. Yes,the public is getting ripped off.
If a non-union productionof Rent iindistinguishable from a union production, what difference does it make? Rent is Rent. It's worth whatever audiences will pay for. The production cost has nothing to do with the value of a ticket. Hedwig is also inexpensive to produce, union or non-union. Does that mean it shouldn't be playing at the same venues as Wicked?
I went to see the non-union production of 42nd Street at the Pantages in L.A., which normally houses union productions. I knew exactly what I was paying for, and felt like I got my money's worth, as did, I suspect, most of the audience. Equity versus non-Equity doesn't matter to people as much as you seem to think it does.
"
Hork, you're still missing the point. Even if a non eq tour is indistinguishable from its Eq counterpart, do you think it's right to still be paying the same price for either one?? I certainly don't.
The majority of non eq tours indeed are different from their Eq counter, but here's the thing. Even if they were identical, The fact that they are being marketed as "Broadway", "Straight from Broadway" when they're not in reality and the tickets cost just just as much as a Broadway/Union production ticket is WRONG. That's scalping in its own twisted way and it's the PRODUCERS who are doing it...disgusting.
Good heavens the fact that it seems the Union status (or lack thereof in this case) was still in question tells me everything.
Even today's announcement of the Cinderalla tour new cast didn't mention this AT ALL. It says one of two things 1.Thats it's the second national tour...which is kinda of bull it's the same damn tournthatbwas just running, it just went non union. Or 2. It doesn't say anything at all about this...it's almost like its a brand new tour. BULLSH*T.
The problem isn't the existence of non union tours themselves, it's the fact that they're not being marketed as such to switch and bait the audience. Audiences will be paying the SAME PRICE for that non union tour of Cinderella as they did when it was union....and yet that money isn't going to the actors protection via the Union. It's merely to line producers pockets. See the problem now?
Posted: 8/15/16 at 9:55pm
JennH said:
Hork, you're still missing the point. Even if a non eq tour is indistinguishable from its Eq counterpart, do you think it's right to still be paying the same price for either one??
Yes, I do. Because they're indistinguishable. Which mean they're exactly the same thing.
The majority of non eq tours indeed are different from their Eq counter, but here's the thing. Even if they were identical, The fact that they are being marketed as "Broadway", "Straight from Broadway" when they're not in reality and the tickets cost just just as much as a Broadway/Union production ticket is WRONG. That's scalping in its own twisted way and it's the PRODUCERS who are doing it...disgusting.
The Rent tour isn't being marketed as "Broadway" or "Straight from Broadway." It's being marketed as a touring production. Which is what it is. If audiences are feeling ripped off because the cast isn't made up of Broadway performers, that's their fault for not doing research. I never buy a theater ticket without first looking into what I'm paying for.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 9:00am
Hork-While you're right in that Rent isn't being marketed as "Broadway" it certainly isn't stating about how it's non union. Many non union tours don't make any statement about this at all. And either of these marketing schemes is pretty morally wrong. One is straight up lying and the other might as well be, because it cleverly hides the fact that it's a non union tour...which btw, it's ONLY the actors that are non union, everyone else is. How is THIS right?
I'll repeat this, non union tours cost way less to put up, for many reason but the biggest one is the actors. Non union actors cost/are paid 50% or more less than their Eq counters. I used the Cinderella tour as my example. That tour will charge the same the same ticket price as it did when it was Union...even though it costs 50% or so less to produce overall...and your actually saying this is right? Wouldn't logic dictate that ticket prices should be less because it COSTS LESS??
Let me ask you a question...if you bought something somewhat pricey but was happy to do so because you knew it was quality and you knew what goes on behind the scenes to justify that price because of all the costs involved in making that product... but later again bought the same thing, the quality hadn't changed, you paid the SAME price, but then found out that somehow the costs involved in making that product were now significantly less...you telling me you WOULDN'T feel ripped off and not put up a stink over it? Really? I find that hard to believe. If something costs less to make/produce/put up then the tickets should reflect that. Period.
The quality of that Cinderella tour won't change...which is fine...but now it's non union, therefore costs much less to produce that tour, THEREFORE the ticket price should drop. Isn't that just plain logical from any consumer perspective of buying anything at all? I'd certainly be ticked if I paid the same price for something that I know cost to make than it used to.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 9:53am
With all due respect, while I can see both sides of the argument of equity V non equity touring,no one outside theatre people like us in the know/care/know to care etc about who's in what union. Do those of you who feel that non union tours are a bait and switch really think that the audience in a small town, one nighter bus and truck tour stop is going to know let alone care? I honestly think that this is a debate amongst ourselves here. Now, once again, I am not saying that there were good points made on both sides of the debate. I am, however, saying that I find the notion that the fact that a show isn't made up of a union cast something that should be made clear to the audience as something that is laughable. The majority of those in the audience/seeing these tours don't care.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 10:03am
The company putting out the tour, Work Light Productions, puts out stellar work. Their tours of In The Heights and Avenue Q were both absolutely wonderful.
The public is in no way going to be getting an inferior show by virtue of it being non-eq, which Rent was for nearly a year with NETworks. Will the cast be getting a rougher time? That depends entirely on them and who the actual producing company is. I know people who have been touring almost nonstop in Non-Eq tours and they love it.
Updated On: 8/16/16 at 10:03 AM
Posted: 8/16/16 at 10:16am
Rent is probably one of the best shows for a non-eq tour, due to its very low tech demands and young cast. A budget Rent won't look any different than a Broadway Rent.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 11:42am
JennH said: "Hork-While you're right in that Rent isn't being marketed as "Broadway" it certainly isn't stating about how it's non union.
That's because it's irrelevant and nobody cares. What do you want, a disclaimer stating, "These actors are not members of a union and therefore are not as experienced as other actors you may have seen at this theater. Viewer discretion advised"? Give me a break.
I'll repeat this, non union tours cost way less to put up, for many reason but the biggest one is the actors. Non union actors cost/are paid 50% or more less than their Eq counters. I used the Cinderella tour as my example. That tour will charge the same the same ticket price as it did when it was Union...even though it costs 50% or so less to produce overall...and your actually saying this is right? Wouldn't logic dictate that ticket prices should be less because it COSTS LESS??
We're talking about Rent, not Cinderella. Two different things. I've said nothing about other non-Equity tours. I'm not going to argue the ethics of the Cinderella tour with you because I know nothing about it.
Let me ask you a question...if you bought something somewhat pricey but was happy to do so because you knew it was quality and you knew what goes on behind the scenes to justify that price because of all the costs involved in making that product... but later again bought the same thing, the quality hadn't changed, you paid the SAME price, but then found out that somehow the costs involved in making that product were now significantly less...you telling me you WOULDN'T feel ripped off and not put up a stink over it? Really? I find that hard to believe. If something costs less to make/produce/put up then the tickets should reflect that. Period.
No, because this happens all the time. It's just good business to cut production costs. I love ice cream, buy it all the time. I wouldn't feel ripped off if I learned the ice cream makers found a cheaper sugar supplier but kept their prices the same. That's ridiculous.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 2:20pm
While I get the 'most of america doesn't care', that what this whole thing is about. Educating them. That they are paying the same Ticket price that they would on Broadway for something that isn't "Broadway". That has nothing to do with the quality of the actors,or their amount of experience, it has everything to do with how audiences are paying the same top dollar...so the same amount of money is there for each kind of tour...but where is that money going instead, the greedy producers.The same amount of money is being earned. THE SAME AMOUNT. But where is it going...to the producers who want to line their pockets not to the actors for any Union protection.
So yes I WOULD like that disclaimer, but not for the reason you mention. Not because the 'actors are not as experienced, but because the audience should know where their money is going. To producers, not actor protection via the Union. Again the same amount is being made...but it's going where it shouldn't. If the same amount is being made, then the money exists for it to be Union instead of producers only looking to make a quick buck off of 'cheap non union actors' who are actually doing the work. It soundslike we'll have to agree to disagree, but they way you seem to have no problem with this, almost makes you PART of the problem. There's nothing I can say to help you see otherwise, and I know when to bow out.
Some shows being non union works, but others...not so much. Each show is different. I'm surprised Cinderella lasted as a SETA as long as it did. Rent being non union actually works better, but as it's already been mentioned, Equity did fight to make it Union. Fun Home being SETA makes total sense. If Wicked went SETA or non union right this second (heaven forbid, but thank goodness that nowhere close to happening...pardon that pun) I would throw a fit. But smaller scale shows liek the upcoming ITW makes totally sense as non union but I'm glad it turned out ot be SETA, so at least it's Union.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 2:49pm
That they are paying the same Ticket price that they would on Broadway for something that isn't "Broadway". That has nothing to do with the quality of the actors,or their amount of experience, it has everything to do with how audiences are paying the same top dollar...so the same amount of money is there for each kind of tour...but where is that money going instead, the greedy producers.
that is entirely on the venue, not the tour. My theatre maxes out at $60 a ticket for its non-eq tours. That is a far cry from top Broadway dollar.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 2:49pm
JennH said: "While I get the 'most of america doesn't care', that what this whole thing is about. Educating them. That they are paying the same Ticket price that they would on Broadway for something that isn't "Broadway". That has nothing to do with the quality of the actors,or their amount of experience, it has everything to do with how audiences are paying the same top dollar...so the same amount of money is there for each kind of tour...but where is that money going instead, the greedy producers.The same amount of money is being earned. THE SAME AMOUNT. But where is it going...to the producers who want to line their pockets not to the actors for any Union protection.
The producers? You mean the guys who paid for the production, who own the production? Who are in the business to make money? When you buy gas, and it costs more than the last time you bought gas, do you complain that the extra money isn't going to the workers at the refinery?
The audience's money is going to the producers whether it's union or non-union. Your issue is that you want the audience to know how much the actors are getting paid. I guarantee you, nobody would care, and if they do care, they're free to look up this information. The actors know what they're being paid when they take the job. If they're unhappy with their pay, they're free to turn it down. Just because a production once existed that cost more than this one, it doesn't mean the producers are obligated to spend the same amount or lower their ticket prices so they make less profit.
Also, they're not paying the same ticket price as they would on Broadway. I don't know of any touring venue that charges as much as a Broadway theater.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 3:18pm
You will recall that earlier in the throat I mentioned the orch ticket prices in Dallas for this non-union production are $130 with a $210 top. There are about ten major markets this non-union show will play mixed in with Union Shows at the same ticket price with no mention to the public. Soon ALL shows will be non-union at Union prices since the producers have learned that audiences cannot tell the difference.
I do appreciate you staying with the thread, Hork, your thoughts and clear writing have illuminated me and other union actors on Broadway who have played these venues and now can no longer afford to own a home or car. Twenty years ago we were paid triple what these non-union actors were paid in these very venues. Ticket prices were always under $45 and we actually had stars on tour with us and producers still made a killing while paying us union scale.
Your explanation is enlightening to us. Thank you.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 3:32pm
Mike Costa said: "You will recall that earlier in the throat I mentioned the orch ticket prices in Dallas for this non-union production are $130 with a $210 top. There are about ten major markets this non-union show will play mixed in with Union Shows at the same ticket price with no mention to the public. Soon ALL shows will be non-union at Union prices since the producers have learned that audiences cannot tell the difference.
I do appreciate you staying with the thread, Hork, your thoughts and clear writing have illuminated me and other union actors on Broadway who have played these venues and now can no longer afford to own a home or car. Twenty years ago we were paid triple what these non-union actors were paid in these very venues. Ticket prices were always under $45 and we actually had stars on tour with us and producers still made a killing while paying us union scale.
Your explanation is enlightening to us. Thank you.
"
PRECISELY my point. My hometowns theater is a non union market and that's fine, it' s not a union city hub, no union tour has eve come through it. Even for cities that ARE major Union tour hubs, I don't mind the mix of union and non. but like you said producers are relying on audience ignorance for THEIR dollar. Good grief, they can still make money on a Union tour...will it take some creative thinking? Yes. But no one wants to take that time anymore...in ANY respect. It's a moral problem.
And I did remember your mention of Dallas, it just didn't happen to be on my mind initially when writing all my responses.
NOW I'm out. I hope...
Posted: 8/16/16 at 8:06pm
Mike Costa said:
I do appreciate you staying with the thread, Hork, your thoughts and clear writing have illuminated me and other union actors on Broadway who have played these venues and now can no longer afford to own a home or car. Twenty years ago we were paid triple what these non-union actors were paid in these very venues. Ticket prices were always under $45 and we actually had stars on tour with us and producers still made a killing while paying us union scale.
Are you really trying to tell me that you can't own a home or a car because non-union tours exist? Even though they've always existed, and union tours still exist? I'm pretty sure it's not the fault of the Rent tour producers that you can't find enough work to sustain your lifestyle.
Posted: 8/16/16 at 8:40pm
Hork, non-union tours have always existed but not in these venues. That is the entire problem. Are you reading the thread? Yes, since Susan Stroman let the first National Tour of Bullets Over Broadway go out non-union and non-union Ragtime played in Dallas with an orchestra of TWO and Cinderella is out non-union we professionals lose years of work that would have paid our mortgages.
Rent certainly does not affect me but it does affect twenty five union actors who would have been able to put a down payment on their first apartment if the tour had been union. The non-union actors will make about the same as a waiter does in NYC and the producers will pocket the funds.
Actors Equity has even created several low paying contracts to help compete with the low wages paid by non-union producers. These contracts pay about half of the regular union production contract. The current National Tour of The Sound of Music is on a low paying contract to keep it from going non-union and it is selling out in all major markets. So even with a union contract the producers are not giving actors a fair piece of the pie anymore.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here and hope you will read the thoughts of others and understand the greed that is taking place in our business and steadily eroding the amount of working weeks for professional actors.
Updated On: 8/16/16 at 08:40 PM
Posted: 8/16/16 at 11:14pm
Is it correct to assume the backstage crew for a non-union production is also non-union? If so, this is an example of producer greed.
As for the claim Rent is the prefect show for a non-union tour because the characters are in the 20s and 30s, do you mean to tell me there are no union actors in this age range?
Hork, sorry if I'm getting personal, but, would you have any problem with your employer telling you you are being replaced by someone who will do the same job as you, but will be paid less?
Posted: 8/17/16 at 12:14am
A Director said: "Is it correct to assume the backstage crew for a non-union production is also non-union? If so, this is an example of producer greed.
As for the claim Rent is the prefect show for a non-union tour because the characters are in the 20s and 30s, do you mean to tell me there are no union actors in this age range?
Hork, sorry if I'm getting personal, but, would you have any problem with your employer telling you you are being replaced by someone who will do the same job as you, but will be paid less?
Regarding whether or not the crew is union depends on the theatre a non equity tour is playing in. For example, the current tour of Rent is going to be playing at The Pantages Theatre in L.A., a theatre that is a union house. Therefor, the crew is union but the only group that isn't union would be the cast. However, when Rent plays Kalamazoo, everyone involved isn't going to be in any union whatsoever. Seems to me that the issue became more and more a thing when there was a divide between union and non union houses when it came to tours. Now that there's a clear crossover between the two, then you have some issues.
Posted: 8/17/16 at 6:53pm
Mike Costa said: "Hork, non-union tours have always existed but not in these venues. That is the entire problem. Are you reading the thread? Yes, since Susan Stroman let the first National Tour of Bullets Over Broadway go out non-union and non-union Ragtime played in Dallas with an orchestra of TWO and Cinderella is out non-union we professionals lose years of work that would have paid our mortgages.
Rent certainly does not affect me but it does affect twenty five union actors who would have been able to put a down payment on their first apartment if the tour had been union. The non-union actors will make about the same as a waiter does in NYC and the producers will pocket the funds.
Or, to put it another way, the creation of this tour gives 25 non-union actors their big break. I guess the union actors will have to pay their down payment some other way. Most people in the world would love to be making what a NYC waiter makes while doing something they love. I know I would. You sound very entitled.
Posted: 8/17/16 at 6:55pm
A Director said:
Hork, sorry if I'm getting personal, but, would you have any problem with your employer telling you you are being replaced by someone who will do the same job as you, but will be paid less?
No one is being replaced here. It's not like there was a pre-existing Equity tour and they were all fired to make way for a non-Equity tour.
Posted: 8/17/16 at 7:10pm
I've just been keeping my mouth shut in this thread but the pure ignorance from one person here is just ridiculous. If you can't see the issue with non-Union tours, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. Yes people are getting their break, they're also not protected by a union and are being significantly underpaid. It's almost like this one person is completely ignoring what everyone is saying. The producers are overcharging patrons because they're greedy. The fact you refuse to understand this is ridiculous.
Updated On: 8/17/16 at 07:10 PM
Posted: 8/18/16 at 12:07pm
Blah blah blah first world problems blah blah blah
Posted: 8/18/16 at 12:22pm
It sounds to me like Non-Union tours are fine for newer and younger productions as long as the ticket price is lower than it would be for a Union/professional performance. In the shows mentioned where they are playing only at smaller/non-union theaters, and are capping ticket prices at a certain low amount, I don't see any real problem with that. But in the cases where a major venue is charging just as much for a Non-Union performance as for a union professional Broadway tour, that to me is a ripoff. There's no reason to charge that much other than pure greed, and if they want me to spend that much on something that cost me less, then I'm not going to fall for it. Of course, if enough people, even when educated, still don't care, there's not much we can do about it if they insist on supporting greed. But my stance is that if the producer wants me to give them a ton of extra money for no reason other than they're paying the actors less, I want compensation - I'll only buy a ticket if I get to see the producer being whipped through the entire intermission. No other negotiations.
Updated On: 8/18/16 at 12:22 PM
