What Shows Are Going Non-Equity for 11/12? - Page 4

[ChiChi]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 1:11am

I just recently saw the non-equity tour of Spring Awakening when it was in Tempe and I was actually impressed. The scaled back lighting was a disappointment, but the lack of the swing didn't impact me too horibly. Mostly the entire set just looked a bit stale compared to the original.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 11:03am

I get it, theatre is about making money for presenters, producers etc. Actors are last on that list, and i just think its a bit busted.

To play devil's advocate, at least the actors get paid what they're due regardless of how many tickets are sold. The presenters and investors could lose money, and I gather that they often do. In that sense, I'm not sure it's fair to say that actors are the last on the list.

Also, while I understand that the touring life not the best choice for raising a family, $400-600/week, with basic living expenses covered out side of that amount, does not sound like a pittance to me.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 11:26am

When you consider what they used to make, its an insane pay cut. And all non commission based/salary based workers get paid regardless to what the company nets. That's a given.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 11:59am

Yes, the Tiered and SETA contracts do represent pay cuts from full Production contracts, but so do most of the other Equity contracts, including Off-Broadway, LORT, TYA, URTA, SPT, Guest Artist, and the list goes on (not to even mention the Showcase code).

And while it is a pay cut for some to take these contracts remember that without the creation of these contracts there wouldn't be any job to take. Do you think Little House on the Prairie, Chicago, 9 to 5, Next to Normal, or Mamma Mia would have been out the past couple of seasons under an Equity contract without the SETA being in existence? All of those would have gone non-Equity or not out at all.

Even before the economic downturn the shows going out under full Production contracts were having a hard time out on the road, hence the emergence of the non-Equity touring.

It would be great to see more shows able to go out under full Production contracts but I think we have to face the reality that unless it's one of the mega-hits full Production is just not going to happen anymore, it's just not cost effective. I know some of the old guard do have a problem with these modified contracts, and I understand that they are used to a very different way of life, but I personally would rather see Equity members still have the choice to be able to do a first national tour as opposed to losing these tours to the non-Equity market like we did with the revivals of Oklahoma, The Music Man, and the first national of The Wedding Singer.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 12:44pm

Well said, AEA AGMA SM.

I'm not sure Jules is expecting a return to Production Contracts across the board. But I don't think she/he really grasps the financial realities. It's not about producers wanting to GET RICH at the expense of the actors. It's about creating a sound, feasible business model.

Producers, like the owner of ANY company (and yes, each production is a registered COMPANY), need to create a model that is fiscally responsible. The unions have realized this, and thus these new contracts have been born and union members continue to strut their stuff on the road.

And going back to a previous post about seasoned actors, perhaps I used the wrong samples. I worked on a SETA tour a year or two ago with several seasoned performers with strong Broadway credits. And they weren't leads. And they weren't being paid huge salaries like Ms. Hoty.

And as someone who tours pretty frequently, it's really not a bad gig and is QUITE comfortable. Most people I know in our line of work love touring. And in some cases, since most of your costs are covered (if not directly, than via your EXTRA per deum), it actually can be more financially successful for you to be on the road (even on a tiered tour -- gasp) than to live in Manhattan and make a scale Broadway salary... where you have no per deum.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 12:50pm

Edited for spelling error.

Definitely not arguing that everyone is hurting right now. And that pay needs to lessen. However actors are hit pretty darn hard with Seta. It IS basically a non-union contract. There needs to be a something in between seta and the tiered tour. Yes the Full Production Tour is dead. That fact has been faced. What i worry about is that touring is going to be all together far too cost inefficient for professionals.

You can argue that the Seta is keeping jobs equity, i dont know if this evil is lesser tho.
Updated On: 4/13/11 at 12:50 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 1:05pm

That's what the Tiers are. Mid ground between Production and SETA. Tiers exist at different pay scales and agreements.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 8:19pm

problem is that the tiers like the full prod. will soon also be obsolete. Why pay more when you can find a way to pay less.

Sorry for the delay i was away from my comp.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/14/11 at 9:58pm

Remember though, that to use the Tiers and SETA the producers can only have a certain average weekly guarantee. It's not like the producers are rolling in dough while the actors are getting completely stiffed. The advantage to the overage participation created in the Tiers and SETA is that the actors actually do get to benefit when a production is doing better than expected (they also get a salary increase once/if the tour recoups as well as a higher percentage in the overage participation).

Yes, it was a hard decision and to some it may look like Equity is selling out its members, but the producers are just as hard hit. A show like 9 to 5 or Next to Normal is not being bought by local presenters at the same price as a show like Wicked or The Lion King. Without these contracts audiences across the country would not be seeing Next to Normal starring Alice Ripley fresh from her Tony Award winning run on Broadway, they would be seeing Jane Nobody fresh from receiving her Bachelor of Fine Arts in Musical Theatre.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the fact that you do seem to understand the importance of the union and making sure actors are paid fairly and treated well on the road. The reality is, however, if Equity had dug in its heels and refused to make any modifications to accept the reality of the financial situation producers and road presenters are now facing we would be down to only a slim handful of Equity tours.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 4/15/11 at 4:05pm

I'd much rather a show go out in its full form for 6 months of touring rather than 5 years in a cheapo, bargain basement edition with midi orchestra.

At any rate, this thread is depressing.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/15/11 at 4:39pm

I just saw Spring Awakening in York, PA, and sound quality was the only really significant way the experience differed from when I saw it on Broadway. There were some simplifications in set and lighting, but these were pretty negligible.

I realize this show might be an exception, though.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/15/11 at 11:07pm

I'd much rather a show go out in its full form for 6 months of touring rather than 5 years in a cheapo, bargain basement edition with midi orchestra.

Yes, because that's how all Non-Eq tours run.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 4/15/11 at 11:31pm

Who said that's how all non-equity tours run?

I said I'd rather a shorter run on tour with higher standards (and proper pay for the actors who make it happen) than substandard national tours.

A lot of non-equity tours happen to leave much to be desired. At least in my experience. However, I've also seen some excellent non-equity productions and know better than to claim ALL non-equity tours to have crap standards.

I was really blown away by a non-equity tour of Hairspray I saw last year. The cast was excellent, the production didn't look cheap, and their slim orchestra sounded wonderful for what consisted of a couple of keyboards and two electric guitars.

Spring Awakening was also good, although it was obvious to me the cast was very inexperienced. That didn't necessarily make them bad though. They all put in a ton of energy into their performances and had attractive voices. The band that travels with the tour was the highlight for me. The set and lighting were all really well done, too.

But I can't deny that those two non-equity productions were pleasant surprises out of the several I've seen.

In all cases, even Hairspray and SA, their sound systems were so horrible, they threatened my enjoyment of the shows. In fact, they did put a huge damper on the whole thing. Hairspray's sound system sounded like walkie talkies. I'd have walked out had I not been within the first 5 rows where I could hear them well even without amplification. The SA sound system was shameful. I could only make out the occasional lyric here and there. Again, sitting 2nd row helped.

It seems sound quality and music are the first things to go and really suffer on non-equity tours. I feel this is a huge mistake as not only is music important in musicals (duh), not everyone has memorized the cast recordings prior to seeing the show live and if you can't make out the lyrics, then what's the point of even sending it out to tour in the first place? Makes no sense.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 1:05am

"I'd much rather a show go out in its full form for 6 months of touring rather than 5 years in a cheapo, bargain basement edition..."

Then you'd rather no tour because virtually no Broadway show (on any contract) can recoup in less than six months let alone on a full prod contract! If you were only able to book 24 weeks (6 months or so in your example), on a full prod contract, your guarantee (just to BREAK EVEN) would have to be SO high that no presenter could afford to bring in your show. This is why most tours go out for a year or so minimum.
Updated On: 4/16/11 at 01:05 AM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 1:44am

OK, then a year.

It's not so much the downsizing that upsets me. If the show had a successful equity tour then there's no reason to pout over a non-equity one. I just wish they'd not skimp on the basics of decent sound, orchestras (I can see past the replacing of strings with something that sounds like strings, but when it sounds like an organ, it's just tacky), and talent. I've sat through non-equity versions of A Chorus Line, West Side Story, Miss Saigon, and Evita where it seemed like actually intended to cast the least qualified actors possible.

On a positive note, it does seem like current non-equity tours feature better talent and higher standards based on the two recent productions mentioned above. The turkeys I saw were back during the late 90s and early 00s.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 2:58am

That is true. Non eqs have come a long way since the 90s.

But I've experienced ****ty sound on Eq tours. And in many cases, sometimes it CAN'T be helped because every single venue has different acoustics and the set up a show is traveling with might sound GREAT in one house, and awful in the next because they may not have time (with a one nighter/split week booking) to adjust accordingly.

[jamiekennywicked]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 4:45am

Is 9 to 5 going non equity?

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 10:56am

tourboi m starting to believe you'll always argue for the cheaper option.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 12:48pm

Unfortunately sound is indeed the first thing to suffer on the road, and even more so nowadays with all the new restrictions being put in place on what frequencies can and can't be used for wireless microphones. Last year I was on the road with Seussical for Theatreworks and there were some cities where just finding the 12 channels we needed was a challenge. I can only imagine how much harder it is to find the 20+ that a full cast musical would require. And, as tourboi stated, every venue presents its own acoustic challenges and one performance is often just not enough time to really adjust and finesse the sound of a show.

I do also agree that there is a need for the non-Equity tours and I don't feel that they should be abolished completely. There are some cities that, even utilizing a SETA contract, an Equity tour will probably never hit. When I get upset is when the shows are going out for their first national as non-Equity, such as the previously mentioned The Wedding Singer and revivals of Oklahoma and The Music Man. I also find it a somewhat misleading business practice for presenters to advertise these shows as "direct from Broadway" (or other similar phrasing) and to price them the same way as they do Equity tours.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 12:51pm

It's not a question of cheaper. It's a question of being realistic. If you've got a tour that has 40+ weeks booked, and nothing shorter than a one week stop, it's realistic then to spend a little bit more for a couple extra speakers and what not. You're moving costs and time aren't as limited.

If you've got that same time frame, but you're moving your show two or three times (or, gulp, MORE) a week... you're turnaround time is limited, and things have to be reduced.

How is that a question of cheaper? It is a question of logistics, and smart budgeting.

Further, if you have a show like WICKED, I do believe that the responsible thing to do is send it out full production contract.

If you have a middle of the road show like MEMPHIS which, despite winning best musical isn't even selling out on Broadway (it does fine enough, but it's still not a sell out) and you're sending that show (with a decent sized cast) on the road with no name stars... then a tiered contract is far more appropriate from a business standpoint.

Each and every show has it's own business plan, and model.

Not every show can be budgeted, and routed like WICKED or PHANTOM. The road markets just can't handle it.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/16/11 at 6:52pm

Never once mentioned it could. But u just said what i said earlier. If i cant sell out... then i should pay you less. Just digging at you now in fun. We will never agree on this one. El Cheapo

[Mtdewelite2010]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 3:47am

"Spoken like a true producer. If youre making 650/800 a week, then youre bringing home around 400/600 dollars. Last i checked you could make that at burger king with NO degree and NO prior skill set. And yes your per diem is meant to cover your expenses, but really..?

I Got to read some of the SETA rules. And please correct me if im wrong... but it states something to the effect of 550.00 minus either 40$/38$ per day for single/double occupancy in provided hotel rooms (im paraphrasing). So lets say 550.00 minus 280.00(hotel cost). That leaves 270.00. Divide that by seven (days a week) and then three (meals a day). That leaves $13 a meal. Enjoy your mcdonals, dancers.

Unless you wanna room with a castmate like this is college, Then youll have a bit more. Sound like something Digarmo would go for?

So now whats left? 400/600 bucks a week with which to pay bills and live life. Is Subletting the only way to make that liveable? Can you provide for a family on that? Doesnt sound to great to me."



HERE IS THE DEAL WITH SETA TOURS. YOU STILL MAKE A VERY DECENT LIVING ON THESE CONTRACTS. ANY FIRST NATIONAL OR TOUR OF THAT NATURE IS TIER ONE WHICH HAS A MINIMUM SALARY OF 834 A WEEK. ON TOP OF THAT THERE IS A 6 MONTH RIDER THAT YOU SIGN BASICALLY SAYING YOU WONT LEAVE THE TOUR FOR ANOTHER JOB AND THEY PAY YOU ADDITIONALLY FOR THAT. ON TOP OF THAT YOU GET PAID EXTRA FOR FEATURES AND HAZARD PAY. ON TOP OF THAT YOU GET PAID EXTRA FOR COVERING PRINCIPLES WHICH PAY YOU AS IF YOU GO ON ONCE EVERY WEEK AND ADDITIONALLY EACH TIME THEREAFTER. SO YOUR BASE MINIMUM NOW LOOKS LIKE 1000 DOLLARS A WEEK. TO DEBUNK THE PER DIEM ASPECT. THE COMPANY PAYS FOR YOUR HOTEL SO NOTHING COMES OUT OF YOUR PER DIEM FOR HOUSING. IF YOU ROOM BY YOURSELF YOU GET 41 DOLLARS A DAY. 51 IF YOU HAVE A ROOMMATE AND 84 IF YOU FIND YOUR OWN HOUSING. 41 ISN'T GREAT BUT YOU CAN STILL MANAGE TO SAVE ON THAT ESPECIALLY IF YOU BUY GROCERIES INSTEAD OF EATING OUT ALL OF TIME. ALSO THE COMPANY HAS A DOUBLE DIAMOND REQUIREMENT OR HIGHER ON HOTELS SO IT IS NOT LIKE THEY ARE PICKING SLUMS FOR YOU TO LIVE IN. MOST HOTELS ARE FANTASTIC. SO AFTER TAXES YOU ARE LOOKING AT 1000 A WEEK TO EITHER BANK ALL OR SOME. AND THAT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE OVERAGES. NOW I KNOW NOT EVERY TOUR DOES WELL ENOUGH TO HAVE OVERAGES EVERY WEEK BUT WITH A POPULAR TOUR OVERAGES AVERAGE ANYWHERE FROM 200 A WEEK TO 700 A WEEK. ON TOP OF THAT WHEN THE TOUR RECOUPS PAY GOES UP 17% AND OVERAGE PERCENTAGE GOES UP AS WELL. SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE ON A TOUR LIKE SOUTH PACIFIC, RENT, LES MISERABLES, MARY POPPINS, WEST SIDE STORY, ETC. YOU GET A GOOD CHUNK FOR OVERAGES EVERY WEEK. AND SETA MIGHT BE ONE OF THE BEST CONTRACTS FOR OVERAGES BECAUSE THE GUARANTEE IS LOWER WHICH MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR PRODUCERS TO MAKE A PROFIT IF TICKET SALES ARE STRONG. PLUS THE PRESENTER IS BETTER OFF AS WELL BECAUSE THEY GET A HUGE BOOST IN SEASON TICKET SALES. PLUS THEY AREN'T LOSING A TON OF MONEY ON THAT PARTICULAR SHOW BECAUSE THE GUARANTEE IS ASTRONOMICAL AND TICKET SALES WONT COVER IT. PLUS IF YOU ALSO THINK ABOUT IT, BROADWAY MINIMUM IS ABOUT 1600ISH A WEEK BUT YOU DONT GET PER DIEM. AFTER TAXES YOU ARE LOOKING AT 1200 A WEEK. WITH COST OF LIVING BEING SO HIGH IN NYC YOU ARE LOOKING AT SPENDING 600-1200 A MONTH ON AN APARTMENT WITH UTILITIES ON TOP, SPENDING 100 DOLLARS A MONTH ON A SUBWAY PASS, AND SPENDING MONEY ON FOOD. IT EVENS EVERYTHING OUT AND MAYBE GIVES A LITTLE MORE ADVANTAGE TO BEING ON TOUR. ONE OF THE FEW MAIN BENEFITS OF NOT BEING ON THE ROAD IS HAVING A LIFE, BUT REALLY WE TOUR FOLKS AREN'T SCROUNGING FOR PENNIES. WOULD I LIKE EVERYTHING TO BE PRODUCTION CONTRACT? SURE. BUT REALLY I THINK THESE SETA TOURS ARE A FAIRLY GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR A SHOW GOING NONEQUITY INSTEAD. IT IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO GET A JOB IN THE EQUITY WORLD AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT WE GET. I TRULY BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FUTURE OF TOURING UNTIL THE ECONOMY TURNS AROUND. IT'S NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE BUT A LEAST IT IS STILL STAYING IN OUR UNION.

ONE LAST THING SETA IS FOR SHORT ENGAGEMENTS MEANING 1-2 WEEKS NORMALLY. WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THAT IS THAT IF THE SHOW DOES REALLY WELL IT STILL HASN'T OVER-SATURATED THE MARKET MEANING THE SHOW COULD COME BACK A LOT SOONER AND DO JUST AS WELL. THAT GIVES A LOT MORE LONGEVITY AS OPPOSED TO THE "1 YEAR" AND THEN GO NON EQUITY.


ALSO SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, WANTED TO DISTINGUISH FROM THE EARLIER QUOTES!


Updated On: 4/27/11 at 03:47 AM

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 12:14pm

Ah. A voice of reason.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 2:05pm

I dont know about all that. How is memphis going out for 750 if the minimum is 800+. Also youre banking on alot of "ifs." If producers decide to put you on a six month rider... they dont have to. IF youre covering a lead... in which the bump for a production tour is around 30 something per week and an 8th of your salary IF you go on. I dont know the rate for seta. I also think your idea of taxes is a bit off. Bway folks making the minimum and claiming 1 deduction walk away with about 900. And a touring person making (even 800+) is still walking away with around 500. Features and hazard pay are all ifs. So once we are done with all the ifs and taxes i think we are right back where i started.

Listen if you love it, go head and make that money. I dont see it in the same light as you. I just worry that we wont get the same quality show on the road. Anywho.



I asked to be corrected if i was wrong about the hotel monies, i still dont believe im understanding it correctly. I wanna see a seta rule book.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 2:12pm

Those per diem figures are correct, they are the same I have written down in my notes from the meeting Equity held last fall about the Tiers and SETA.

"I just worry that we wont get the same quality show on the road."

Not too bash non-Equity tours, but if you are concerned that the quality will dip on these contracts what do you think the quality will look like when these shows go out non-Equity?