I read The Stage’s recent low pay/no pay issue with interest, writes Stuart Piper. As managing director of Cole Kitchenn Personal Management, my job is to protect the interests of the actors we represent, while as someone who has produced in theatre, I also know the realities of working to a budget.
Should an actor ever work for free? My answer is an unequivocal no, except if it is in aid of a worthwhile charity. The producers interviewed argue it would be impossible to pay full union rates in a small studio - but when producing in small studio spaces, I have been able to pay actors £400 per week at the New Players Theatre, £200 to £250 per week at the King’s Head and £300 to £350 per week at the Trafalgar Studios. Some have been plays, some have been musicals. So, when people are asked to perform on the fringe for nothing, for not even the cost of a travel card, I struggle to see the reasoning, other than that the producer hasn’t gone out to raise the required funds.
It’s true that it’s harder to pay at all when producing a large cast in a large musical - and I would therefore question whether or not large musicals are the best thing to produce on the fringe. Off-Broadway’s financial constraints have produced many pint-sized musicals and revues - London fringe producers should perhaps look to produce new British boutique musicals with two to six roles, where the actors can be paid.
Small cast shows can still get a transfer - Rent and Love Story are both shows without big chorus lines that made it to Broadway and West End from small theatres. Even on Bells Are Ringing, which did require a large ensemble, producer Jonathan Russell did a great job making sure he was able to pay everyone travel expenses, which actors on the fringe don’t often get.
Most of the debate seems to centre around no pay on the fringe, and work underneath national minimum wage. But I’ve also seen reports of actors complaining that their pay has steadily decreased in recent years, with many saying they are paid less than ten years ago.
My own experience doesn’t reflect this. Yes, I have had individual cases of pay being lower than it should. But across the board, I have not been experiencing actors’ overall earnings decreasing. Our agency experienced a 25% increase in turnover in our last end of year figures, which was our highest turnover in the history of our company, and we are set to better that in our next year. I think that’s because in this ever-changing industry, we look at their careers globally, and find many of our leading artists additional revenue streams to complement their TV, film or theatre contracts, be it from branding, endorsements, PAs, IP rights, digital and publishing. An agent’s job is no longer just to secure them an acting contract, now it is to market and exploit that opportunity to maximum effect.
Which is why I oversaw our company merge with Jonathan Shalit’s company ROAR Global, to become part of the ROAR Group - a group of entertainment companies. Now, when an actor reaches public recognition, we have a literary department to find them an autobiography deal, a music department to find them a record deal, and even a broadcast department to find them non-scripted television work that might be outside of our acting agency’s remit.
And for actors without public recognition, it is the agent’s job to build and sustain a successful career with the client. If there is a job with a financial offer they’re not happy with - they should simply turn it down, or realise the job is nevertheless worthwhile for them and accept it gladly.
While unions set minimum rates, agents are there to negotiate. If you’re an actor, and your agent tells you there’s no negotiation when you think there could be, change agents. And if you are starting out in your career and unavoidably working on Equity minimum payments, then look at the bigger picture and know that if you believe in your talent, your career will progress to the point where you are earning far more than the average national salary, and at least you have that possibility, whereas many working in the public sector - for instance - never even have that potential.
I completely agree with this that if we cant trust the agent for not negotiating than we should change the agent. Thanks for the post.
Thank you Stuart,
It is wonderful to hear from a solid business mind in this debate. You make some really good points and I am glad to have heard you contribution.
Can you say whether you go to unpaid theatre? The Actors Minimum Wage Campaign has heard from a few agents and casting directors who say they no longer go to see unpaid or underpaid shows for many reasons (including quality and ethics).
What is your perception of this?
Best
Annie
I don't disagree with the points raised in this article but there are always exceptions. I am working on a fringe show this year for the first time in many years. It is a new play and everyone is working for free. The writer/producer is covering the cost of promotion, registration fees, accommodation and train fares for everyone. Its free fringe so although a profit share is in place the reality is that a profit is damn near impossible. However there is potential for the play to win awards, get good notices and perhaps a tour all of which will reflect well on everyone involved for future work. For the actor specifically (one man show) he is being offered a role that will stretch and challenge him and allow him to be seen by potential employers. It is unlikely that he would get such an opportunity in paid theatre as the safer bet would be offered the job. Perhaps after this he will be perceived as the safer bet and his overall annual income will increase exponentially.
In most industries nowadays people are generally expected to work for little or no money to get a foot in the door. I know several students personally - very bright young people with good degrees - who are on their second year of unpaid internships. I don't condone this practice but the reality is that in oversubscribed professions where competition is fierce for every opportunity then no matter what is 'right' and 'wrong' there will always be a queue of people willing to work for nothing for their chance.
In France every young person graduating from teacher training is GUARANTEED a job at a specified salary. How can they do this? Quite simply they only accept for training the number of people they know they can find work for. Perhaps if we stopped encouraging every tom dick and harry to follow their dream we may be able to offer a reasonable living wage.
How this can be achieved and who is the arbiter of which ones deserve the chance I have no idea. But this problem isn't limited to acting, it applies across the arts, in PR, fashion, media etc. In most of these fields a 1-2 year period of internship, either unpaid or very lowly paid, following a degree course is now the norm. Why should acting be any different?
Lorraine,
With respect, I just don't see why we should all believe that, just because the practice is widespread, it makes it OK.
I do think that it would be very interesting to hear from casting directors and agents who still go to the fringe...
Inviting agents and CDs to the fringe shows I used to do was the main reason I worked unpaid. Despite all the headshots, CVs and letters I cannot recall one ever turning up!
You're right, I don't think we can ever limit the numbers of people joining the profession. NCDT training with an Equity card or professional credits used to count for something and would act as a quality control of sorts. However, now what we have is a small group of lucky working actors with good agents and the rest of us fight it out with fellow trained actors and those who have no formal training or experience. The average actor just gets drowned out in a sea of faces before they even get the casting.
What we do not want, I hope, is for a profession that relies on an actor's ability to work unpaid instead of their talent.