difference between equity and non equity tours- Page 2

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:01pm

Erin I see both sides of the issue because 1. I am a current member of Equity. and 2. I performed on Non-union tours for over 2 years of my early career.
Equity is bemoaning the fact that these tours were going into major markets that previously were reserved for the Union Tours. The shows were sandwiched in between the Phantom, Les Mis, Lion King, tours and were advertised as part of the "Broadway Series" in many of these markets. ( Iknow this because I was on 2 of these tours). Cameron Mackintosh's Oliver Tour (a non-union production co produced by NetWorks) in 03 openned for an extended run at the Kodak theater in LA, and charged in the neighborhood of 100 bucks a ticket. Equity isn't upset at Tours that stay out of the major markets. There is a place for shows that play the Bus and Truck circuit of Colleges and reional PACS. And suggesting that they support producers that are unwilling to even try to negotiate with them is at complete odds with the mission statement of the union.
Here is the problem and the reason why it is far from being solved. Non-Union producers are able to hire actors at a much lower cost thatn their Union counterparts. They are younger, need the experience, and aren't necessarily as concerned with health insurance issues yet. (I know there are exceptions to this so don't flame!) My Salary/perdiem package on my first non-union tour in 1999 was 300/375. The 375 went to pay for my (double occupancy,sometimes tripleto save cash!)hotel room and my food. No health insurance, no pension input. Just two months before my tour openned the tour was on an equity contract. The person in my track was making about 1275 in salary and about 600-700 in per diem, plus there was a healthand pension input by the producer to the tune of about 160 bucks a week. This is the same show-costumes, set, director, choreographer, etc. My non-union tour played the same venues and charged the same ticket prices as the equity tour had the year before. It was a no-brainer for the producer, the profit margin is ridiculously better going non-union. The production costs of an equity production on a full contract are very restrictive. In the 2004 negotiations, equity had to acknowledge this fact and make changes to the Production touring contract in an effort to find some kind of parity.
Now, Would I trade the opportunity to perform in a multi-million dollar production while seeing the U.S. and Canada on someone ele's dime. Not at 21. Now? Maybe but I probably would hold out for better money. Somehere in between these two extremes, I believe is the answer.
I will say though, that I would hold up both of my Non-union tours against the awful Broadway perfomance of RENT I saw last week.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:32pm

wow erin.....just wow.....

well said neverandy Updated On: 1/5/07 at 12:32 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 1:03pm

However if SHNSF ever makes a non-equity tour part of their “Best Of Broadway” series, they will get a piece of my mind.

Didn't they do that with Rent at one point? (I could be wrong.)

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 5:52pm

mercades, if you have something to discuss, say it!

neverandy, I agree that there is a possibility for a middle ground, but I'm not optimistic that it will occur. The friends I have on the current Rent non-Eq tour are making considerably more than the figures you quoted, which is understandable considering the time passage since you did a non-Eq tour. The ticket prices for the tour in most cities are, as I said, top-priced in the $50-60 range. This includes their stops in large cities. I cannot get a ticket to an Equity tour in that range anywhere that I've lived or visited now, nor have I been able to for many years.

I don't know what the solution is, or if there even IS a reasonable solution. The reality, though, is that it's unlikely that the non-Eq tours are going to go away, and in the meantime, they are providing valuable experience to their casts and crews, just as they did to you several years ago.

I do agree with you that the talent on the non-Eq tours can be just as good, or bad, or better, than what you'll see on Broadway. I've seen just about every show on Broadway for the past ten years, in addition to most off-Broadway and dozens of regional productions, as well as many non-Eq tours. The fact that some people refuse to see non-Eq tours, whether due to the misconception that the talent is somehow lesser, or due to the fact that these actors are not members of the union, is really doing a disservice, both to themselves and to the shows.

[Swango]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 5:53pm

Neverandy has it EXACTLY right and brings up critical issues regarding benefits. Even if non-union weekly pay is close to union scale (and that's incredibly tempting if you're getting 750 a week to NOT be in a show, but sit at a desk), you still have to consider your health insurance and pension. Most actors (particularly dancers) are like atheletes in that they have a limited earning period in their lifetime. If you think paycheck to paycheck, you can end up broke.

Even if, in that fantasy world, Equity were to give every actor membership upon graduation, it would make no difference. All those actors with cards would still have no work and be tempted into working non-Equity. There will always be union and non-union work, and there's no impetus for Equity to "support" non-union.

As long as a show doesn't try to pass itself off as an Equity show, as a union member, I have no problem with it.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 7:13pm

I do not come on these boards to bicker....erinbecca.

But when you use phrases like equity members "bithcing and moaning", you simply sound like a disgruntled non-union actor. That's all.

[Hank]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:40pm

Just my observation, coming from a fan, I don't work in theatre at all. In this case, I'm a big fan of Thoroughly Modern Millie, having seen it many time on Broadway, then afterwards on tours. First in Baltimore Nov 2004 (equity), and then in Newark June 2006 (non-eq). Ticket prices were about the same ($60 something), but the productions were worlds apart. In both cases the orchestrations were no where near Broadway quality. There may have been some talent here and there, but we'll never know in the non-eq version because the choreography was dummied down drastically. Scenery and direction were changed around a lot in the non-eq as well, and not for the better.
btw. One talent I did notice was Darcie Roberts as Millie in Baltimore (eq), and I look forward to seeing her in the up-coming Curtains.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:55pm

For $50-60 I would expect performances by professional actors and not an amateur gaining "valuable experience." For that I will see Summer Stock.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:59pm

I'm sure you wouldn't want to know how many Broadway/national tour performers are just starting out, and in their first union job, then.

A lot of non-union performers have more experience than some union performers.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:39pm

brdlwyr, I was wondering how long it would be before you showed up! :) Non-Equity actors ARE professional actors, despite what you believe.

Not sure what "summer stock" you see, but many actors who do summer stock productions are Equity members.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:42pm

True, but the issue is standards. Erin recently was defending her non-union tour because the understudies were not ready to perform.

[Dover]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:11am

That's why it's so difficult to join, unless of course you are cast in a Broadway show/National Tour, in which case you're automatically a member.

I'm not going to claim it's easy to get your card (it sure ain't, unless you're lucky), but this makes it sound way harder than it is. It's not like you have the option to work 50 bajillion weeks as an EMC, OR get cast in a Broadway show. Every Equity contract all over the country, LORT, Off-Broadway, SPT, LOA, etc. is theoretically open to the best person suited for that job, Equity or not. If someone wants you for a job which requires the Actor to be under an Equity contract, they hand you the contract, you sign it, take it to Equity and BAM you've got your card. All it takes is for someone to want you -- of course getting noticed is the hard part.

I got my card doing an LOA for $300 a week. I never had a single EMC point (not on purpose, I just didn't). There are ways to get your card in between slogging around for four summers as an EMC and somebody just handing you a production contract out of the blue. I'm sure every Equity actor on Broadway will not be auditioning for that choice role in the $300/wk production, so the opportunities for a non-Eq to get noticed are greater.

[BobPopa]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:39am

It's true that in most of the large city venues that they charge almost the exact same for an Equity or Non-Equity tour. Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, WPB, Ft. Lauderdale, & Miami are examples of cities I know charge both.

While it's true you can't gurantee quality no matter whether its union or not. Your percentages are higher on a Union tour. The worst tour I ever saw (by far) was the non-eq Showboat tour in the late 90's. It was so sad.

I am a AEA member, though most of the time I am working on the Producer side of the business nowadays. The fact of the salary/pension/health is the ONLY reason why tours go non-eq. Trust me for the regional non-profits Union Benefits are a huge expense, but we are comitted to what we believe is the top quality and that includes the affiliation with AEA.

I do not think non-union tours should be allowed to use phrases such as "direct from broadway" that's fradulent in my opinion.

I am no union homer...you can catch me swearing at AEA all the time.

AEA's admission policies/standards are one of the things that actually work for the union.

"Summer Stock" is an outdated term, some of the best actor's in the world do Summer Theatre these days, go checkout the annual roster in Williamstown. And its not even the big theatres. I've had the pleasure of working with Charles Nelson Reilly, Tom Troupe, Carole Cook and others in a summer theatre that sat 240 in a mountain town with a population of 1400

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 9:35am

I've seen two non-Equity tours. "Oklahoma!" (in San Francisco) was actually pretty good. The major problem was that the orchestra had been reduced by several instruments and that was an issue for me. The non-Equity tour of "Saturday Night Fever" that played in Cupertino was awful. There were many problems such as the "actor" who played the mother was younger than the kids. Also, the sets had been scaled down a lot, scenes were eliminated and the "orchestra" was reduced to two people.


Lizzie, SHN in San Francisco had "Rent" twice as part of their "Best of Broadway" tour but it was Equity. Subsequent returns were Non-Equity.

[Colle]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 3:50pm

The only non equity tour I have seen was the last U.S. "Miss Saigon" tour, and I thought the quailty of acting was just as good as any of the union tours I have seen(Les Mis, Lion King, Cats). I admit I can't compare it with the union tour, because I was not able to see it. The projection helicopter was good, but I could understand why it might be a disappointment to those who have seen big equity productions of "Miss Saigon."

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 10:46am

I know a lot of people get all angry over these non-eq tours, but for us over here in small town America, that is our only source of quality broadway-style performances. In small towns, a week for a broadway tour is a long run. Maybe if these producers of Equity tours had their shows do shorter runs in a small town, there wouldn't be all these 'non-eq tour problems'. Believe me, I would LOVE to see these equity tours like In The Heights, Mary Poppins, South Pacific, Spring Awakening, Young Frankenstein, Wicked, and MANY MANY others, but they refuse to do a short run in a small town. I lift my hat off to equity tours like Mamma Mia, who actually stop in smaller markets for smaller runs. All I'm saying is, not all of us can go to new york and see a ton of shows, not all of us can drive to a major city near us and see big equity tours.

Updated On: 4/10/09 at 10:46 AM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 1:07pm

Marry Poppins
Soth Pacific

I LOVE you!

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 4:59pm

Just to throw in my two cents, having seen both Equity and non-Equity tours, and Equity and non-Equity productions in Chicago, I can say that generally speaking, Equity productions are higher in quality acting-wise than non-Eq productions. And I myself am a non-Equity actor who is still early in his career (I will be doing my first Equity show as an EMC this summer). HOWEVER, in terms of what is "professional," I strongly believe that as long as you are getting paid for what you are doing, you are a professional (and by paid I mean at least a stipend of a few hundred dollars, not $50 at the end of the run to make up for subway fare). If you are getting paid, you are a professional. However, let's be honest--I think that once you reach the age of 30 or so, you are held to a slightly different standard. By the time you're a professional in your thirties, if you're still doing theatre for $300 stipends, that's a little depressing. By then you want to be getting a weekly salary that can at least make a substantial contribution to your living wages. And very few non-Equity companies pay a living wage.

Equity IS a symbol of quality, as much as anything can be, because most actors do have to earn it. There are many very talented non-Equity actors out there (such as myself, thank you very much), but we are, as the Equity office likes to call us, "pre-union," because we have the talent to join eventually, and we will.

That said, don't go to any non-Equity tour expecting to see much Broadway quality. There's a reason why these people are non-Equity: either they're very talented and just early in their careers, on their way to their Equity cards but not ready yet, or they just aren't very good. Sometimes you get way too much of the latter and it's very disappointing.

[broadwayrob]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 5:11pm

I will agree that non-eq production values most always will be considerably less. However, I have seen several non-eq tours that were far superior to their earlier equity counterparts. The most recent non-eq tour of Rent is a good example of this in the fact that I thought that entire cast is better than the one that is currently on the road right now and also superior to most of the Broadway casts that had been around for a long time.

Now in saying this I realize that Rent is a young show, therefore younger actors that will eventually get their card.

I don't necessarily equate equity with quality. I equate it with a union. There are SEVERAL equity actors who phone in performances for lots of reasons, most of them not good ones.

Just my 2 pennies.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/10/09 at 7:11pm

You know, I'm thinking about this thread a lot. The more I think about it, the more I realize that people don't realize one VERY important thing

You still have to be REALLY good to be in a non-equity tour.

They're not just pulling random people off the street and asking them to join a broadway tour!!! Sure, equity actors are tend to be more seasoned performers that earned their Equity cards after lots of practicing, which allowed them to grow as performers and get to the level they are currently at; but that doesn't mean that every actor who doesn't have an equity card is without talent. To be in a non-eq tour, you STILL have to be a talented performer. Just my .02

Updated On: 4/10/09 at 07:11 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 4/10/09 at 7:23pm

It's true. To be a paid actor, you gotta have at least some talent (or at least have convinced the director that you do). As I wrote earlier, if you are being paid, you are a professional, whether you are Equity or not.

That said, there are different levels of professionalism...

[Neverandy]

Posted: 4/10/09 at 7:53pm

Boy-I love re-reading this thread! Some of my fondest BWW memories!

[BWayJunkie]

Posted: 4/11/09 at 2:08pm

This is just my two cents of what I think. I'm not stating what I'm about to say as fact because I live in NYC and am seeing my first ever tour in Chicago in May (Mary Poppins and the sit-down of Jersey Boys). To AndAllThatJazz, for some shows like Spring Awakening, I don't know why they wouldn't do a short run in a small town. It isn't a big budget show, so what do the producers have to lose. I haven't seen Mamma Mia! but I'm assuming that also isn't a huge spectacle of a show and thus could benefit (like you said) from doing shorter smaller venues. For a show like Mary Poppins, Wicked or Young Frankenstein though, the money made even in a 5 day sold out run in a small town wouldn't equal the production value of these big-budget spectacle shows. It's unfortunate that they are limited to bigger cities with large houses and an audience who can fill them, but the shows are there not only to entertain but to make money. All of this is probably common knowledge but if not, just thought I'd post an opinion.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/11/09 at 9:12pm

Good point BWayJunkie. I'm crossing my fingers that SA will come to my town. I've looked at the new tour dates and it seems like the same type of market ALL over again... "Atlanta, Charlotte...". But, (I'm not sure about Charlotte) it was only like a 5 day run... so there's hope. I would be THRILLED if it came to my town!!!! A couple inside sources at my theatre told me that Mama Mia is coming to town for a 5 day run. It's been to my town before, and at the time I didn't realize it was an equity tour. I didn't even see it. I could understand why Spring Awakening wouldn't come to my town. I live in east Tennessee... which is VERY conservative; however, we've had 2 very successful runs of MOVIN' OUT, in which the audiences's loudest applause (other than the end bows) went to captain jack... the sex number!!! AND, we had a VERY successful run of rent a couple of years back. SA is still a newer tour, so it might go through one more string of big cities before it comes to smaller markets.

Updated On: 4/11/09 at 09:12 PM

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 4/12/09 at 4:15am

"for some shows..., I don't know why they wouldn't do a short run in a small town. It isn't a big budget show, so what do the producers have to lose....

Whoa Whoa there. The reason "producers" don't book shows into smaller-town venues for "less than a week" is because your small town isn't the only stop on the tour.

Tour bookers work crazy hard to set up tours that can move from city to city in the short time allotted, still allowing for load-out, drive time, load-in and a (usually) shorter-than-one-day tech. Theater owners want to have the show in the house for AS MANY nights as possible, because a dark house is many, many unsold seats.

It's not just producers, there are lotsa people involved in coordinating tour packages that will allow the tour to make money.

And before you start snorting about greedy producers, remember that if a tour can't be projected (on a spreadsheet) to make money, the tour won't happen. That means actors, musicians, and crew Not Working instead of Working.

Even in smaller towns, theaters have contracts with producers that provide for a guarantee, in money (seats sold), and/or in number of performances -- it behooves no one to load-in and play three days (e.g.). Actors/musicians/crew, by contract, need to get paid for the WEEK, so playing three days instead of six sucks money right out of the operating budget, with no return.

So proposing a shorter playing week wouldn't save money; it does the opposite.