The Outsiders Tour Contract - Where is the concern?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 2:31pm

The Outsiders is the most recent winner of the Tony Award for Best Musical and has demonstrated substantial commercial success, with the Broadway production averaging weekly grosses of $1.3 million. These achievements solidify its status as a bona fide hit, and yet the producers have been approved for a Level 5 touring agreement rather than a Level 1. This decision raises questions about whether the agreement reflects the success and earning potential of this production and if it ensures fair compensation for the performers and stage managers who bring this acclaimed show to life.

It is worth noting the involvement of major producing entities such as the Nederlanders, the John Gore Organization, and the Independent Presenters Network, all of whom are co-producers of The Outsiders on Broadway. These organizations also serve as owners or operators of numerous Broadway touring presenters across the country. This dual role raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest: by participating both as producers and presenters, these entities have a clear stake in minimizing the costs of touring productions, potentially at the expense of fair compensation for performers and stage managers.

The decision to approve a Level 5 touring agreement for The Outsiders—and potentially other lucrative productions like Hell’s Kitchen—appears to allow these “double dippers” to negotiate lower-tier agreements, effectively diminishing the financial benefits afforded to Equity members. Actors’ Equity must take a closer look at how these agreements are negotiated and consider implementing safeguards to ensure that the financial success of a production is accurately reflected in the pay and working conditions for its cast and crew.

Equity members deserve contracts that reflect the true earning potential of the shows they help create, and it is essential to hold producers and presenters accountable for ensuring respectable salaries and working conditions.

I want to know how I can help as an outsider to the agreement. Should I write letters to the producers of The Outsiders or other organizations involved? Would continuing to post on social media platforms to raise awareness of this issue be helpful? Are there other ways I can support Actors’ Equity in advocating for stronger contracts that align with the success of these productions?

 

Updated On: 1/23/25 at 02:31 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 2:46pm

I ran out of outrage some time in 2023.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 3:05pm

It’s not the first time this has happened. It’s practically the norm now, and until equity revises or does away with the tier system, producers will continue to take advantage in order to maximize their profits.

[SeanD2]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 3:10pm

If actors feel that a tour isn't paying them enough for the work they're doing they're free to turn down the job. It's a producer's job to maximize revenue returned to their investors and part of that is keeping costs as low as possible. Actors have the fuzzy end of the supply & demand lollipop which makes low wages possible.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:13pm

SeanD2 said: "If actors feel that a tour isn't paying them enough for the work they're doing they're free to turn down the job. It's a producer's job to maximize revenue returned to their investors and part of that is keeping costs as low as possible. Actors have the fuzzy end of the supply & demand lollipop which makes low wages possible."

Oh, sure! Just turn the job down. No problem at al, right? So many, many jobs available. Talent so scarce. 

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:20pm

It's so weird when the bootlickers come out and try to explain Broadway capitalism to people. Yes. We know how it works. It shouldn't work that way. 


"Outrage" does feel like a lot tho going the situation.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:25pm

Call_me_jorge said: "The Outsiders is the most recent winner of the Tony Award for Best Musical and has demonstrated substantial commercial success, with the Broadway production averaging weekly grosses of $1.3 million. These achievements solidify its status as a bona fide hit, and yet the producers have been approved for a Level 5 touring agreement rather than a Level 1. This decision raises questions about whether the agreement reflects the success and earning potential of this production and if it ensures fair compensation for the performers and stage managers who bring this acclaimed show to life.

It is worth noting the involvement of major producing entities such as the Nederlanders, the John Gore Organization, and the Independent Presenters Network, all of whom are co-producers of The Outsiders on Broadway. These organizations also serve as owners or operators of numerous Broadway touring presenters across the country. This dual role raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest: by participating both as producers and presenters, these entities have a clear stake in minimizing the costs of touring productions, potentially at the expense of fair compensation for performers and stage managers.

The decision to approve a Level 5 touring agreement for The Outsiders—and potentially other lucrative productions like Hell’s Kitchen—appears to allow these “double dippers” to negotiate lower-tier agreements, effectively diminishing the financial benefits afforded to Equity members. Actors’ Equity must take a closer look at how these agreements are negotiated and consider implementing safeguards to ensure that the financial success of a production is accurately reflected in the pay and working conditions for its cast and crew.

Equity members deserve contracts that reflect the true earning potential of the shows they help create, and it is essential to hold producers and presenters accountable for ensuring respectable salaries and working conditions.

I want to know how I can help as an outsider to the agreement. Should I write letters to the producers of The Outsiders or other organizations involved? Would continuing to post on social media platforms to raise awareness of this issue be helpful? Are there other ways I can support Actors’ Equity in advocating for stronger contracts that align with the success of these productions?

Your post just BEGS for a Jesse Tyler Ferguson dramatic reading.  

 

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:36pm

I mean..."Conflict of Interest" is basically the John Gore Organization's entire business model when you get down to it.

And of course Equity needs to rethink the tier system for these tours. As a rule: if there is any way to short change actors, producers WILL use it to short change actors. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:39pm

How does that boot taste, JSquared2?

[Ensemble1698878795]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 4:41pm

MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "I mean..."Conflict of Interest" is basically the John Gore Organization's entire business model when you get down to it.

And of course Equity needs to rethink the tier system for these tours. As a rule: if there is any way to short change actors, producers WILL use it to short change actors."

AEA is the weakest link. They don't have a backbone. It would take a serious strike to change the touring system. If a show is currently running on Broadway, actors should not be doing the same labor for 1/2 the price on tour. 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 5:16pm

Call_me_jorge said: "How does that boot taste,JSquared2?"

 

Sorry -- not getting your reference.  Care to elaborate?

 

[troynow]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 5:31pm

Call_me_jorge said: "The Outsiders is the most recent winner of the Tony Award for Best Musical and has demonstrated substantial commercial success, with the Broadway production averaging weekly grosses of $1.3 million. These achievements solidify its status as a bona fide hit, and yet the producers have been approved for a Level 5 touring agreement rather than a Level 1. This decision raises questions about whether the agreement reflects the success and earning potential of this production and if it ensures fair compensation for the performers and stage managers who bring this acclaimed show to life.

It is worth noting the involvement of major producing entities such as the Nederlanders, the John Gore Organization, and the Independent Presenters Network, all of whom are co-producers of The Outsiders on Broadway. These organizations also serve as owners or operators of numerous Broadway touring presenters across the country. This dual role raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest: by participating both as producers and presenters, these entities have a clear stake in minimizing the costs of touring productions, potentially at the expense of fair compensation for performers and stage managers.

The decision to approve a Level 5 touring agreement for The Outsiders—and potentially other lucrative productions like Hell’s Kitchen—appears to allow these “double dippers” to negotiate lower-tier agreements, effectively diminishing the financial benefits afforded to Equity members. Actors’ Equity must take a closer look at how these agreements are negotiated and consider implementing safeguards to ensure that the financial success of a production is accurately reflected in the pay and working conditions for its cast and crew.

Equity members deserve contracts that reflect the true earning potential of the shows they help create, and it is essential to hold producers and presenters accountable for ensuring respectable salaries and working conditions.

I want to know how I can help as an outsider to the agreement. Should I write letters to the producers of The Outsiders or other organizations involved? Would continuing to post on social media platforms to raise awareness of this issue be helpful? Are there other ways I can support Actors’ Equity in advocating for stronger contracts that align with the success of these productions?


I want to agree with you....but you really do not understand the theatre busisness or investments. There is no double dip, and a the ability to offer a lower contract. 

The touring contracts are based on a HUGE GUESS of what the road market MIGHT do. Being an investor above title of show has NO bearing ont he touring contract. 
The presenter has invested in the "mother company" and will be a royalty participate from subsequent companies. 

Your complaint should be with the AEA who allowed the passage of a SETA contract. That contract has tiers. 
However, on the producer side, if the show does well the overages kick in and the talent can make more than "Production Contract". 


"

 

[dan94]

Posted: 1/23/25 at 11:14pm

The fact that there won't be a single show out on a Tier 2, 3, or 4 contract this year shows the SETA system was a costly mistake. Nevertheless, touring contracts were recently renegotiated. We are out of the Production Contract/SETA system and into a new Unified Touring Agreement with similar failed tier levels.

Any way you slice it, Hell's Kitchen will clean up on the road. There is no reason in the world for them to not be Tier 1. Tier 5 is an insult. The Outsiders is extremely likely to do well. If the tech budget was a massive impediment, I have to think one of the three unused tiers would have been a more fair compromise than Tier 5.

The low budgets means a more limited pool of talent. The reality of the road now is less talented performers performing on major budget sets with 2 kazoos in the pit to play the score. (Parade, a revival that was largely centered around the orchestra and reinstating the work to the American Epic status it was initially created as, has a total of 9 musicians, part local part traveling, in their pit.)

There needs to be outside accountability. Perhaps that takes shape of a bipartisan panel comprised of AEA reps, producers, and outside third parties that take a look at the guarantees offered and vote on which Tier Level has to be offered. Whatever happens, the system is currently broken and needs to be fixed. Which will not happen until this current contract expires in September of 2026.

What you can do as an outsider? Nothing. It is up to AEA members to elect leaders who will have a backbone and care more about getting fair contracts for their union than they care about bruising potential employer's egos.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/24/25 at 12:03am

troynow said: "I want to agree with you...."

I, respectfully, disagree with several points you’ve made. While I understand the complexities of the theatre business and the inherent risks producers take in mounting a show, it’s important to examine how these structures impact fair compensation for artists and how those risks are mitigated by the players involved.

The notion that there is “no double dip” and that above-title investors in a Broadway production have no influence on touring contracts is misleading. Major entities like the Nederlanders, the John Gore Organization, and the Independent Presenters Network are not just passive investors. These organizations own or operate the very venues that host touring productions, giving them a vested interest in negotiating contracts that benefit their dual roles as producers and presenters. By leveraging their influence across multiple aspects of the production and presentation pipeline, these entities are uniquely positioned to control costs while profiting on both ends—earning royalties from the production company and revenue from presenting the tour in their venues. This creates a clear conflict of interest, as their financial incentives are aligned with minimizing labor costs, even at the expense of fair pay for performers and stage managers.

While it’s true that touring contracts are based on projections of the road market’s potential, The Outsiders is not an unknown quantity. It is a Tony-winning, critically acclaimed, and commercially successful Broadway show grossing $1.3 million weekly—a figure well above the average for most Broadway productions. The risk here is far lower than for a new or unproven production. Using a lower-tier contract, such as SETA, for a show of this caliber sets a troubling precedent, as it allows producers to exploit a system intended to protect smaller or riskier tours while denying cast and crew the compensation their work deserves.

Finally, while it’s true that overages can provide additional compensation when a tour exceeds its financial expectations, the base pay under a SETA contract remains significantly lower than that of a full Production Contract. Overages are far from guaranteed and depend on ticket sales surpassing projections—projections that are often underestimated to minimize initial costs. This creates a system in which performers and stage managers must rely on uncertain bonuses to achieve fair compensation, rather than being paid adequately from the outset for their work on a high-profile, profitable production.

The underlying issue lies not only with the existence of the SETA contract but with how it is applied. The decision to place The Outsiders under a lower-tier agreement, despite its evident success, reflects a systemic problem that allows producers and presenters to game the system. Actors’ Equity should address this issue by reevaluating how tiered agreements are applied to ensure that hit shows cannot use them as a means of cutting costs at the expense of their artists.

I understand the risks producers face, it is disingenuous to suggest that large, financially secure entities lack the ability to pay performers equitably. I believe it is critical to hold both Actors’ Equity and the producers accountable for ensuring contracts are fair and reflective of the production’s success.

 

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 1/24/25 at 12:48am

While I agree, I do think this board over examines tiers as a buzzword that we “know” but don’t have solution to the issues they cause. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/2/25 at 3:17pm

The Hell’s Kitchen tour will be going out on a tier 6 agreement. A $995 weekly minimum for the same work being done on broadway. That’s a $1,643 pay discrepancy.

Updated On: 2/3/25 at 03:17 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 2/2/25 at 3:55pm

Call_me_jorge said: "The Hell’s Kitchen tour will be going out on a tier 6 tour. A $995 weekly minimum for the same work being down on broadway. That’s a $1,643 pay discrepancy."


Boo. Hoo. 

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 2/2/25 at 10:56pm

OP is acting like performers have no choice in taking a show.

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/2/25 at 11:20pm

There is nothing to be "outraged" about. Please take a basic business course. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/2/25 at 11:35pm

“OP is acting like performers have no choice in taking a show.”

Saying that performers have a choice in taking a contract ignores the larger systemic issue at play. Yes, technically, no one is forcing an actor to take a job, but when an industry standard is set in a way that undervalues labor, the options become severely limited. Performers shouldn’t have to choose between taking a lower-paying contract or being unemployed especially when they are working on a commercially successful, Tony-winning production that clearly has the financial means to offer better compensation.

The issue isn’t just about this show; it’s about the broader pattern of producers using lower-tier agreements for productions that should qualify for full Production Contracts. If Equity doesn’t push back, producers will continue using these lower tiers to cut costs, knowing that there will always be talented actors willing to take the jobs, even at a reduced rate. That doesn’t make it right.

At the end of the day, theatre workers just like professionals in any other industry deserve fair pay that reflects the revenue they help generate. A show grossing over $1 million a week should not be paying its cast and stage managers under a contract meant for riskier, unproven productions. The fact that performers have a choice to accept an unfair contract doesn’t make the contract itself fair.


“There is nothing to be "outraged" about. Please take a basic business course.”

I appreciate your perspective, but dismissing concerns about fair pay in the theatre industry as a lack of business understanding is reductive. In fact, a fundamental principle of business is that labor especially skilled people labor should be compensated fairly based on the revenue and profitability of a venture. The Outsiders is a commercially successful, Tony-winning production with a proven track record on Broadway, yet its producers have opted for a lower-tier touring contract that minimizes compensation for the very artists responsible for bringing the show to life. That’s not just a business decision it’s a choice that reflects systemic inequities in how labor is valued in the theatre industry.

The issue at hand isn’t a failure to understand business; it’s recognizing how major industry players use their influence to structure deals that benefit themselves while limiting costs for labor. Large theatrical producers and presenters, many of whom are co-investors in The Outsiders, stand to profit on both ends of this production through royalties from the tour and through presenting fees at their own venues. If a show is making money for its producers and presenters, it should also pay its cast and stage managers fairly. That’s not outrage it’s advocating for equitable labor practices.

Suggesting that concerns about fair pay stem from ignorance of business principles ignores the real issue: how contracts are negotiated and approved within the current system. If there is a legitimate business case for offering lower-tier contracts to financially successful productions, I’d be happy to see it laid out transparently. But dismissing concerns with a condescending remark does nothing to address the fact that theatre professionals deserve contracts that reflect the success of the productions they work on.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/3/25 at 12:33am

"Boo. Hoo."

If that’s the extent of your argument, it only reinforces my point there’s no real defense for underpaying artists on a successful production. Dismissing concerns about fair wages with a flippant remark doesn’t change the fact that The Outsiders is a hit show making substantial revenue, yet its producers are taking advantage of a system that allows them to cut costs at the expense of performers and stage managers.

If you disagree, I’d love to hear a substantive argument explaining why a show grossing $1.3 million a week should be categorized under a lower touring contract instead of fairly compensating its workers from the outset. Otherwise, “Boo. Hoo.” sounds more like an excuse than a counterpoint.

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/3/25 at 10:53am

I wasn't being condescending, I was telling you to take a business course because you don't seem to understand how business or capitalism work and driving your point over and over into the ground helps no one. The "It's not fair" mantra isn't how the world works so I hope you channel that energy into a field you can make real change in. There's nothing you can do here so I hope you accept that and move on. 

This is clearly personal to you so just remember three things:

If you want to be poor and creatively fulfilled be an actor. 

If you want to make money become a wise investor and/or producer and study business. 

Angelina needs to keep going with the parental alienation thing and that's very, very expensive. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/3/25 at 11:19am

I appreciate your response, but I find it ironic that you’re telling me to take a business course when, in fact, I am a finance major. I study financial models, investment strategies, and market structures—so I understand quite well how business and capitalism function. And from that perspective, I can confidently say that just because a system works a certain way doesn’t mean it’s fair or ethically sound. Markets evolve, industries change, and people advocating for better conditions are often the ones who drive that change. 

You’re dismissing my argument as if it’s just emotion-driven frustration, but the reality is that my concern is rooted in financial logic. Large commercial producers who double as presenters do have financial incentives to drive down labor costs, and their involvement at multiple points in the revenue stream creates a structural imbalance in contract negotiations. That’s not me “not understanding business”—that’s me identifying an inefficiency and a loophole being exploited. 

As for your claim that “there’s nothing I can do here,” history proves otherwise. Labor disputes, contract renegotiations, and industry standards have changed because people refused to “move on” and instead pushed for better terms. The fact that you’re so intent on shutting down any discussion of this issue suggests that the pushback is already making an impact. 

Finally, your three “life lessons” are reductive at best and condescending at worst. Plenty of financially successful people work in the arts without being “poor and creatively fulfilled.” Plenty of actors, musicians, and creatives make smart financial decisions and live well. And plenty of finance professionals, including myself, care about more than just maximizing profit at the expense of fairness. If you believe the only way to make money is to exploit labor or accept unfair systems without question, maybe you’re the one who should take another business course.

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 2/3/25 at 11:42am

As some actually working doing this, you're allowed to be outraged that producers are exploiting the SETA system and that these huge musicals are paying their performers peanuts doing the same work on the road (which is arguably HARDER) than having a home in NYC. 

Also I have to say, the bootlicking on the financial side from some of these users make me wonder if some of you are producers on the show, work in these offices, or know people on them. Because I even know these producers, and yes, it is exploiting the tour system. That can all be true without being rude, @Sutton. If you're going to recommend classes to people, I personally recommend you take the Business of Broadway courses, taught by actual Broadway producers, so you can get your facts straight.

Call_me_jorge, thank you for bringing light to this where many performers won't, because they are scared speaking out = no work. The previous AEA tour negotiators gave away an immense amount of power that will be hard to wrangle back for negotiations to come.

Updated On: 2/3/25 at 11:42 AM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/3/25 at 11:44am

Yeah, I'm not going to read another boring, rambling statement from you since this entire thread is simply that. I stopped when I read you were a finance major which is funny since you don't know how business or money or financial matters work. Are you attending Bernie Sanders University? Nevermind, don't answer that since I will literally never open this thread again.

Good luck changing the world of all Broadway tours and trying to beat everyone over the head with your morality tho! <3