Why is the "Xanadu" tour using Kerry and Cheyenne's photo to promote?

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 8:11am

I've noticed several markets using the two photos of Kerry and Cheyenne from the Xanadu website for flyers, etc. Why not use one of the many publicity shots of Max Von Essen and Elizabeth Stanley? Just something that irked me.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 8:26am

The Spring Awakening tour, while it has been in Boston, has also been using promotional materials with Lea, Groff, and Gallagher. I know on Broadway it is an Equity rule (or so I thought) to switch pictures of performers once they have left the show, but sometimes I do not see this happen. Would that not apply to promotional materials too?

Can someone explain why they sometimes do this and sometimes do not?

[JazzSquare55]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:03am

Because they can.

[crushgroove]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:03am

I really don't think that rule is true...since they have been using Gretchen Mol's photo to promote Chicago for about 5 years now...and she hasn't been in it for 5 years. Maybe the stars photos must be removed from ads at the theater itself(?)

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:15am

It's not a new concept. It's like when you go see a tour and the souvenir book has pictures of the Broadway cast.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:17am

What we have here is a fine example of why it's better for a show to have artwork rather than use photos of the cast on the posters.

I think a lot of it has to do with the "level" of the tour (tier a, b, c) and whether they're willing to spend the money make new promotional items.

I know, often, the rights to the merchandise and promotional material are bought by a different company for the tour. I'd imagine that this is much easier than having photoshoots. This is why you might see totally different merchandise for sale at a tour stop than you would see on Broadway. I'm going to use an unpopular example now. For the Grease tour the poster that is being used to promote the show has a photo of Max Crumm, Daniel Everidge, Matt Saldivar, and Jose Restrepo. This poster, once upon a time, hung on 47th Street. Are any of those actors members of the tour cast? No. Do people think they're in the tour cast? Yes. But this is the window card they are selling at the theatres. It was, probably, simply cheaper to use this photo.

Also, a tour contract can be as short as six months. Take Nikki Snelson, for example. She was Cassie on the Chorus Line tour for six months. What if the touring company had sunk a lot of money into creating promotional material that only had a six month shelf life? They'd have had to spend the money all over again when Robyn Hurder, who was probably not even cast yet, stepped in.

I would have to think that it's, probably, just easier to pay whatever fee comes with using the Broadway cast as promotional tools. I don't know all of the bi-laws of Equity but I'd have to think as long as people are compensated it's okay to use older photos.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:27am

Plus I think most tour promoters believe that people who see tours dont know the difference between Kerry Butler in a photo and an Elizabeth Stanley on stage and they are probably right. Patrons leave the theatre saying "that blonde girl was funny." Why waste the money?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 9:39am

Because they own the images, and don't need or want to pay more money to re-shoot, re-design etc.

Even the London SA uses some forms of the OBC.

Does anyone know, however, if the origianl actors continue to be compensated for their image use???

[Neverandy]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 10:05am

Eris is 100% correct. It is cheaper to pay the fees to the actors (those in the photos and those who are actually performing) than it would be to stage a photo shoot.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 10:44am

Thanks for the clarifications. I thought I heard somewhere on here that if the cast is no longer in the show, they had to take down the posters on the theater...so I was not sure if the same applied to promotional materials. Thanks for the people who actually answered.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 10:46am

So are you saying that wasn't Kerry and Cheyenne I saw in Xanadu in Chicago? I was sure that it was.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 10:53am

"Does anyone know, however, if the origianl actors continue to be compensated for their image use???"

I'd have to imagine so. It certainly seems like something that Equity would demand.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 11:19am

It might be different in the Tiered contracts, but I believe that there is a buyout provision for the original actors in the Production contract.

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 12:02pm

"Does anyone know, however, if the origianl actors continue to be compensated for their image use???"

"I'd have to imagine so. It certainly seems like something that Equity would demand."

Actually, that's not always so. I know, for example, that Matt Cavenaugh wasn't getting paid when the tour of Urban Cowboy went out. I think they get a flat fee upfront, but it's not on a per-usage basis.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 12:05pm

That is the type of buyout situation I described in my last post

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/11/09 at 4:56am

As a clarification... the merchandise companies aren't also the promotional folks behind the show. True, if they're a good merch company they'll work WITH the promotional companies to tie as much in as possible.

Secondly, moreoften then not it IS the SAME merch company that handles the tour that did the show on Broadway. Sometimes merch is redone for the tour to give it a fresh start, and sometimes (as with Rent, which has sold the same stuff for years) it's the same.

[heo1128]

Posted: 5/11/09 at 11:29am

Legally Blonde still uses LBB. It's probably just saving money.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 5/11/09 at 7:06pm

The provisions pertaining to removal of photographs of an actor no longer involved in the show only apply to front of house materials (i.e. the production shots outside the theatre/in the lobby). In terms of advertising/promotional materials, the actor has sold their image and the producers/ad agencies own it, same as it would be if they had used a random print model.

If you want to read up on it you can check out Rule 7(D) in the production contract (regarding front of house photos), and Rule 52 (regarding promotional materials) and Rule 69 (Televising, Recording, and Motion Picture Filming). The Production contract rulebook is available in the document library section on the Equity website.