The Outsiders Tour Contract - Where is the concern? — Page 2

Jorge,

As a threshold matter, you need to understand the mechanics of the situation in order to assess how you might have an impact. You come out of the gate attacking the producer and presenter. There is no conflict of interest here; what they are doing is legal and proper. You can write to them but you might as well address your letter to the attention of the shredding department. All of what you speak of is contractual, so just as an actor who has a 5 minute part is paid the contract minimum (or more), even though it might not seem "fair," so too the producer/presenter is entitled to what the contract provides them. Which brings us to AEA. It negotiated what, as explained by others, is a dumb contract so a member can complain to their union about both what was negotiated and also what is being approved because it is important to understand that nothing a producer does happens without Equity signing off on it. And in a union context, advocacy is a collective undertaking; that's the whole idea. Can you, as an individual who has no dog in the race or seat as the table, do anything? You can boycott and publicize a boycott. Will it have impact? Most likely, no.

Call_me_jorge said: ""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.

"

The tour is not even in rehearsal yet -- where on earth are you getting this $1.3M a week gross from? There is no correlation or even any anecdotal evidence to support your claim that tours gross the same on the road in every market as they do on Broadway, which is beyond absurd, and only reinforces everyone's point that you know nothing about the economics of tours (or Broadway for that matter).

JSquared2,

The $1.3 million weekly gross I referenced applies to The Outsiders’ Broadway run, not the tour. That number is a well-documented fact, not an assumption. While I fully understand that touring productions do not gross the same as Broadway productions in every market, my argument is not that tours should gross at Broadway levels—it’s that a production’s financial success on Broadway should be a key consideration when determining the appropriate touring contract tier.

Major tours of similarly successful Broadway productions—especially recent Tony winners—have launched under full Production Contracts, not under lower-tier agreements. The fact that The Outsiders is being placed under a Level 5 contract rather than Level 1 raises questions about how these classifications are determined and whether they are being applied fairly.

Furthermore, your response sidesteps the key issue: major producing and presenting entities, such as the Nederlanders, the John Gore Organization, and the Independent Presenters Network, are involved both as Broadway co-producers and as venue operators for touring productions. This structural overlap allows them to minimize labor costs while maximizing their own profits across multiple revenue streams. That is the “double dip” I referenced.

This isn’t about suggesting that tours will generate Broadway-level grosses—it’s about whether producers who are already profiting from the Broadway production and have a vested interest in the touring market are using their influence to justify lower salaries under SETA, even when the show’s success suggests it could sustain a higher-tier contract.

At the end of the day, my concern is simple: performers and stage managers should be fairly compensated, and the contract levels for high-profile, financially successful productions should reflect their market potential rather than being used as a cost-cutting tool.

I welcome a constructive discussion about how these contracts are determined and whether the current system truly serves the best interests of the artists who make these productions possible.

I think you’re misunderstanding the core issue being discussed.

First, regarding the correlation between Broadway grosses and touring potential—while it’s true that road markets vary, we are not talking about an unknown or unproven title. The Outsiders is a Tony-winning, commercially successful show backed by major players in the industry. Historically, shows with similar profiles (The Book of Mormon, Moulin Rouge!, Dear Evan Hansen) have toured under stronger agreements because their brand recognition, critical reception, and Broadway success helped secure demand in the road market. It is disingenuous to act as though The Outsiders is taking a massive financial gamble when the show already has built-in advantages that many other tours do not. The decision to place it under a lower-tier agreement is not about risk management; it’s about cost-cutting.

Second, your example about individual actors negotiating better deals does not contradict my point—it reinforces it. Yes, stars with name recognition can negotiate above their minimums, but the vast majority of actors in a production, especially ensemble members and swings, do not have that leverage. Their pay is determined by the contract tier that the producers negotiate with Equity. If a production is placed under a lower touring tier, every actor—aside from perhaps a few principals—has a lower baseline salary, and no amount of individual negotiations will change that system-wide reduction. This is why it matters which contract tier a show falls under; it affects the overall earning potential of the majority of the company.

Lastly, calling my response an “emotional tantrum” dismisses a legitimate labor concern with a condescending tone that does nothing to advance the conversation. Yes, unions negotiate wages in all industries, but that doesn’t mean the workers within those unions should accept every decision without scrutiny. Teachers, nurses, and air traffic controllers push back when their unions make agreements that do not adequately protect them. The existence of a union does not mean its decisions should be immune from criticism—especially when those decisions disproportionately benefit producers and presenters at the expense of the artists who bring these productions to life.

The issue here is not whether unions should exist but whether Actors’ Equity is effectively holding producers accountable when they exploit lower-tier contracts to pay less than they reasonably could. That is a fair and necessary discussion, and dismissing it as an “emotional tantrum” ignores the substance of the argument.

If you have a defense of why The Outsiders specifically should qualify for a lower touring tier beyond “touring is unpredictable,” I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, it’s clear that this is less about financial necessity and more about producers taking advantage of a system designed to protect smaller or riskier productions.

I’m open to a reasonable discussion, but dismissing my concerns outright rather than engaging with the substance of the argument doesn’t move the conversation forward. If you have a counterpoint, I’d be happy to hear it, but resorting to comparisons instead of addressing the issue at hand isn’t productive. If you choose to disengage, that’s your decision, but I’ll continue advocating for fair treatment of theatre professionals.

Edited my post to directly address Hogan:

I appreciate your thoughtful response and your willingness to engage in a discussion about this important issue. I fully understand that the tiered touring contract was the result of negotiation and was ultimately ratified by AEA members, likely with the intention of protecting jobs and preventing more productions from going non-union. However, my concern is not with the existence of the contract itself but with how it is being applied—particularly in cases where a show, by any reasonable financial metric, should qualify for a higher-tier agreement.

You’re absolutely right to point out that a contract is in force once agreed upon, and that neither party has cause to renegotiate it mid-term. However, my argument is that The Outsiders being placed under a Level 5 agreement in the first place is an issue of misapplication, not simply an unavoidable contractual reality. The negotiation of the current touring contract does not mean that Equity must continue to allow high-grossing productions to use it when their financial success demonstrates that they can and should be paying their actors and stage managers at a higher level.

Regarding your point about causation, I do see a direct causation between the financial interests of major industry players (who serve as both producers and presenters) and the ongoing use of lower-tier agreements for profitable productions. While Equity may have felt pressured to create the tired system to prevent non-union tours, that does not mean that profitable tours should be allowed to exploit its lower pay structure simply because the contract exists. Equity has the ability—and, I would argue, the obligation—to push back when there is clear evidence that producers are opting for lower tiers despite financial success.

You also mention the percentage of Equity members working under this contract, which is a fair consideration. However, whether the constituency is small or large should not determine the validity of the concern. If a contract is being used in ways that suppress wages below what a production can afford, that should be addressed regardless of the number of members affected. The argument that actors voted in favor of the tiered system contract also doesn’t negate the need for scrutiny. If members overwhelmingly voted in favor because the alternative was an increase in non-union work, that does not mean the contract should be misapplied in cases where the production could and should be paying more.

Finally, I recognize the risk of producers opting for non-union tours if pushed too hard, but that doesn’t mean Equity should operate from a place of fear rather than leverage. If a Tony-winning, high-grossing show can still use a lower-tier agreement under the justification of “risk,” then what precedent does that set for future productions? At what point does Equity insist that financial success must translate to fairer wages?

This is not about undoing the entire touring agreement, nor is it about forcing unviable productions into unsustainable contracts. It is about ensuring that when a production demonstrates financial success, its workers are compensated accordingly. If Equity does not challenge this now, more successful productions will follow suit, and the industry will further normalize the use of contracts intended for struggling tours on shows that are anything but.

Updated On: 2/3/25 at 06:57 PM

HogansHero said: "@Jorge Do you actually know the process for approval of the tier by Equity? I don't but if Equity is not properly analyzing these contracts and the requested tiers, that's on them and I would expect that members that are out on these tours would demand an accurate result.”

I don't claim to know every detail of how Equity reviews and approves touring contract tiers, the core issue is not just about the internal Equity approval process-it's about whether Equity members are being compensated fairly for the level of success a production achieves and whether producers are leveraging the system in a way that undermines that fairness.

“Also you don't seem inclined to talk about the additional payments that members would get if the revenue exceeds that pinned in the agreement. That revenue can be quite substantial.”

Relying on overages means performers are taking on the financial risk that should primarily belong to producers. If a show is already known to be a hit (like The Outsiders), then structuring pay around the hope that it might exceed conservative revenue estimates rather than compensating performers appropriately from the start is an inequitable model.

“Bear in mind also that the tours utilizing this contract are or at least should be those that are likely to underperform tours and sit downs under other contracts. This is, by definition, a deal for short term tours, with specified guarantees and other criteria. These usually have higher costs because they are moving so often. There are many other considerations that bear on the propriety of how these contracts are executed.”

You note that tiered touring contracts were designed for shorter, riskier tours with higher operating costs. That's an important point, but that's exactly why scrutiny is necessary-because not all tours using the lower tiers necessarily fit that description.

This raises the question: are producers using the original intent of SETA (for uncertain, riskier tours) as a justification while applying it to shows that are actually viable enough to pay higher wages from the outset?

“That said, if there are anomalies, one would expect that the affected members would be the first to know and to complain. If you know some specifics beyond what you have disclosed, I'd be interested in hearing about it. So far I have not heard anything beyond generalities, and it seems most of us are not persuaded by them."

You argue that if there were major issues, the affected members would be the first to push back. However:

• Many actors may feel that pushing back risks their jobs or future casting.
• There's precedent for contract agreements that actors have reluctantly accepted due to lack of better options-this doesn't mean they weren't worth fighting against.
• Many union members who aren't currently on tour still have a stake in how contracts are set because it impacts future negotiations and the overall labor landscape.

This is why broader industry conversations matter. If issues only gained attention when directly affected workers protested en masse, little would change in many industries.

If the contract approval process is as sound as you suggest, then transparency should not be an issue. Equity should provide clearer explanations of why a financially successful show like The Outsiders qualifies for a Level 5 contract instead of a Level 1. If the justification is sound, that's one thing-but if it's based on selective financial framing by producers, that's another.

If nothing else, I hope this conversation encourages more Equity members to ask these questions and push for clearer standards on how these contracts are applied.

To answer plainly: no, not if the same pool of people are getting paid triple the amount on Broadway.

This lowest tier/former SETA contract is truly terrible. It allows shows like Les Misérables, which sells out in every venue and charges more than Broadway prices, to operate under such low costs to the detriment of the entire company: cast, orchestra, crew, traveling management. These people don’t get any of the benefits of the higher tiered tours, including the salary they deserve and comfortable living accommodations. It’s arguably harder to do a show on tour, so a first national tour of the hit new Best Musical has no excuse going out on a low tier, no matter how old the actors are. We often forget that these tour contracts also affect the traveling crew and musicians, who do so much more work having to put up and take down the show so much more frequently with local crew people and musicians.

Actors also have representation, so that means they take home 10-25% less than the already low pay. It equates to not much of a livable wage. AEA should have negotiated higher wages and honestly probably should have gone on strike during its last contract negotiations.

data I would be interested in

accounting for the recent restructuring of production contract and seta combined in to a singular seven level system

what are the number of tours within the past seven years that have gone out on what is now labeled as tiers two three and four

because if a best musical awarded broadway production making a decent profit every week is being assigned tier 5 out of 7 then what does a show need to do to get to levels 2 3 or 4

we know that tier 1 is reserved only for the obscenely successful shows like hamilton

if the number of tier 2 3 4 shows is near zero then in the next contract negotiation equity should consider dropping these and go with less tiers and raise the insultingly low base pay of what is now tiers 5 6 7

because an ensemble actors pay for a tier 5 tour is 44% of what the equivalent track makes on broadway

less than half

for a much more difficult job when you consider the challenges of touring

and it is naive to say that the actors can negotiate for a higher salary as the wiggle room is also much smaller on such a low tiered tour

overages have been mentioned but they are unpredictable and are related to how well a show is sold which is not usually related at all to the quality of work of the actors or the rest of the touring company

therefore overages arent incentives

they end up being random surprise gifts after the fact

as for those who say the revenue potential on tour is worse than broadway or at least not comparatively predictable

you dont seem to understand that practically every touring house outside of new york city is larger than the largest broadway houses

some venue capacities are double

countless shows have recouped on their national tour that did not on their initial broadway run

it should also be noted as one poster previously has

this salary disparity does not just affect actors but all tour positions including management and crew and musicians

it is a big deal



MezzoDiva47 has spoken

bow down accordingly

HogansHero said: "Someone needs to throw some data at us to replace a ton of supposition. Maybe these tours are not making as much as some here think. Maybe actors are actually making good money on these contracts when they beat the contracted expectation."

You do realize you admonish everyone for a ton of supposition, and then immediately proceed to add supposition to the thread? You are also more than welcome to offer hard data. It's also not my place to talk about what names turned down lowball offers on which tours when producers were unwilling to negotiate.

As far as spread of tiers/levels, where we stand from the last couple years:

Level 7: Annie, Sound of Music
Level 6: Clue, The Wiz, Company, Hell's Kitchen, Les Miz
Level 5: Parade, Life of Pi, Funny Girl, The Outsiders, &Juliet, A Beautiful Noise, Some Like It Hot, Kimberly Akimbo, Shucked, Back to the Future, Beetlejuice, Mamma Mia, Tina
Level 4: Hadestown
Level 3: Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast
Level 2: could not find a single example
Level 1: MJ, Wicked, Hamilton, Phantom, Harry Potter, The Lion King, Six, Moulin Rouge

I'm not speaking for anyone else saying they need to go on strike. AEA did majorly win on housing and per diem in the last contract negotiations. But as seen, the tier/level system is still unbalanced and needs to be addressed in the future.

Updated On: 2/5/25 at 10:29 AM

MezzoDiva47 said: "JSquared2 said: "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."

u must b a producer
lol
if u cant put yourself in other ppls shoes and realize how devastating this is then u should go buy a red cap


Please -- enlighten me on what aspect of this contract is "devastating" to anyone?