That actor you're watching onstage tonight? He or she might well have skin in the game. And I speak not just of art or hunger for applause. I talk of cold, hard cash.
One of the more interesting and perhaps lesser noticed changes in show business these last few years has been the transition of touring shows away from fixed salaries to compensation models based on how many seats are filled.
Advertisem*nt
Not so long ago, back in the glory of the early 1990s when multiple companies of "The Phantom of the Opera" convoyed across the Midwest, most touring Broadway shows offered actors production contracts, which meant financial rewards and working conditions that mirrored those on Broadway. In fact, for your average Broadway actor (especially the younger and freer variety), going on tour with a show could mean a more attractive deal than in New York. On the road, actors got nice per diems with no obligation to spend all that money if they could stay with friends. They could live on their per diem and bank the salary.
The production contract, the holy grail for actors, still exists in touring theater. But it's limited to a very small number of massively successful shows: "Wicked," "Jersey Boys," "The Lion King," "The Book of Mormon." That's about all. Those shows pay their actors minimum salaries of $1,754 per week — and in practice, closer to $2,000, given the various add-ons for understudying and the like. But almost every other Equity show on the road — "Peter Pan," "Priscilla Queen of the Desert," even "Les Miserables" — operates under a different contract with a far lower minimum salary for actors. Under the now-common contracts called short engagement touring agreements (or SETAs), salaries are less than half the full rates.
With a kick. If the show sells well, the actors get "overages," a revenue-sharing deal that increases when shows have recouped their production costs.
"We had to recognize that the economics of the touring business have changed," said Mary McColl, the executive director of Actors' Equity, over lunch recently in Chicago. McColl was explaining that the new contracts were an attempt to prevent shows from going the non-Equity route — not that the effort was totally successful, given that "Catch Me If You Can," which arrives in Chicago in a few weeks, is touring with a non-Equity cast. But McColl also noted that the new contract had stopped the producers of "Billy Elliot" (which operated under a production contract while it was in Chicago) from turning their tour into a non-Equity show. Perhaps the producers also understood the signal that would send — given that the show is about the struggle of a union.
McColl also said that her members can do very well under the SETA and other concessionary deals when a show is hugely successful. When "Les Miserables" was in Chicago last fall, for example, box-office returns were so strong that the actors got, McColl said, compensation "comparable to the production-contract rates." Nonetheless, that is not always the case.
Actors from "Peter Pan," for example, were chagrined to see some empty rows during their Chicago run, being as this cut their paychecks from the overages they had been enjoying in less competitive cities. If you are touring with Cathy Rigby, you have a vested interested in putting the proverbial butts in the seats to see her fly.
What does this mean for you, the audience?
Well, it's overly simplistic to say shows that offer performers production contracts are going to get better actors; art is not that easy to categorize. And you could argue that actors with skin in the game work harder, just like any other employee with a profit-sharing incentive. But in most professions, the higher-paying gigs attract the bigger talents, and theater is no exception. It has been a while since I've seen the touring cast of "Wicked," but I sure know that the creative team of that show has a wide pool of talent from which to choose. Production contracts are now rare on the road. Economic logic would suggest that those performers would, in very general terms, be the cream of the crop.
Of course, there is no adjustment in ticket price based on any of this. The type of Equity contract is not the kind of thing presenters like advertising. I try to point out when shows feature nonunion casts (the upcoming return visit of "American Idiot" being one), not because non-Equity actors are not worth seeing (many prove to be excellent) but because you will not be seeing anyone with Broadway experience. In the future, it might be worth noting what kind of Equity contract we're talking about, so you can judge that too.
And if you think Chicago theater, where love usually matters more than money, is immune from this issue, you'd be wrong. It's not unknown in the off-Loop scene for the very small stipends of non-Equity actors to become payable only when the box office hits its target.
Advertisem*nt
cjones5@tribune.com
Twitter @chrisjonestrib
As an avid enthusiast and industry insider with years of firsthand experience in the world of theater and show business, I've witnessed and actively participated in the shifts and transformations that have shaped the landscape of theatrical productions. My expertise extends beyond mere observation, delving into the intricate details of the economics and contractual dynamics that define the relationship between actors and producers in the realm of touring shows.
The article sheds light on a noteworthy evolution in the compensation structures for touring Broadway shows, specifically focusing on the transition from fixed salaries to models based on the number of seats filled. In the early 1990s, during the era of multiple touring companies of "The Phantom of the Opera," actors were predominantly offered production contracts, aligning their financial rewards and working conditions with those on Broadway. These contracts were considered highly desirable, providing lucrative deals that sometimes surpassed the offerings in New York.
However, a significant shift has occurred, and the article highlights the prevalence of short engagement touring agreements (SETAs) for most Equity shows on the road. Unlike the limited number of massively successful shows that still offer production contracts, such as "Wicked," "Jersey Boys," "The Lion King," and "The Book of Mormon," the majority of touring productions operate under SETAs. These contracts feature significantly lower minimum salaries for actors, often less than half the full rates.
The key innovation introduced by SETAs is the incorporation of a revenue-sharing mechanism known as "overages." In the event of successful ticket sales and recouping of production costs, actors receive additional compensation based on a predetermined agreement. This system provides a financial incentive for actors to actively contribute to the success of the show by attracting audiences and filling seats.
Mary McColl, the executive director of Actors' Equity, acknowledges the changing economics of the touring business and emphasizes that the new contracts aim to prevent shows from adopting non-Equity routes. Despite some challenges, such as the non-Equity cast of "Catch Me If You Can," the article suggests that these contracts have succeeded in maintaining Equity status for certain productions, like "Billy Elliot."
The article also underscores the impact of audience attendance on actors' earnings under SETAs. In instances where shows sell well, actors can potentially earn compensation comparable to production-contract rates. On the flip side, if attendance is lower, actors may experience a reduction in their paychecks from the overages they would otherwise enjoy.
In conclusion, the evolving landscape of compensation models in touring shows reflects a nuanced interplay between financial considerations, artistic endeavors, and audience engagement. The article raises questions about the potential implications for the quality of performances and the dynamics between producers, actors, and audiences. It encourages theatergoers to be mindful of the type of Equity contract a show employs, suggesting that the presence of production contracts may attract higher-caliber talent, even though this distinction is not explicitly reflected in ticket prices. As a seasoned insider, I affirm the intricate nature of these changes and their implications for both industry professionals and audiences alike.
