I’ve regularly decried the ever-escalating price scales of the West End, not least over the iniquitous spread of premium pricing (which is, however, ultimately a matter of choice; if you’re stupid enough to pay that sort of money, they’ll be clever enough to take it from you). But there’s also a more pernicious spread of below-the-radar, compulsory charges, none of which revert to the producers of the plays you’re going to see, like booking fees or obligatory restoration charges that the theatre owners get the benefit of, all of which is working to drive the cost of going to the theatre even higher.
But a parallel steep rise has also gradually been affecting the fringe, and I’ve been slow to notice it. Of course, you don’t expect theatre critics to necessarily be on top of such matters: we don’t pay for (most of) our tickets, after all, so it doesn’t directly affect us.
The other day, however, I noted here how prices for the new Bush are now pegged at a top price of £24; though it’s difficult to track just when and how the prices got to that level, I looked up a play that I remember seeing less than three years ago at the old Bush, The Contingency Plan, when they were only £15.
It seemed to me that audiences were being penalised for the move to a more expensive venue, but also a bigger one (that means they’ve got more seats to fill and therefore more money to take). But one commentator pointed out that in reply that they had already reached £20 in the old Bush; £15 was the old Saturday matinee price.
£24 is a big leap, though, and a big leap particularly for the sort of untried, untested work that theatres like the Bush specialise in. While various commentators, from Simon Stephens to Mark Ravenhill, are noting an increasing conservatism in the tastes of theatrical audiences, it’s little wonder that they’re not going to try bolder fare, that they may or may not enjoy, when they’re being asked for such an investment to do so.
The ads for Mamma Mia!, and its unbelievable popularity, say it all: “You already know you’re going to love it!” Audiences want guaranteed good times — especially when they’re paying through the nose for it. The fringe should be playing a more adventurous role, to more adventurous audiences; but when, say, the Menier Chocolate Factory musicals now cost £33.50 a ticket, that’s not fringe anymore, but virtually West End levels. Admittedly, you get a much closer view (for the recent Pippin, you got a minute inspection of many of its actors’ exposed bodies).
The Menier is at one extreme of the price bracket, with subsidised off-West End houses like the Donmar and Almeida close on its heels with a top price of £32.50 and £32 respectively (though unlike the Menier, the house is actually graded so there are lower prices available in different areas of the theatre). On the other hand, the Finborough still manages to charge a top price of just £15 for some of the best shows in town, and looking through the fringe listings for Time Out, there are still plenty of theatres charging around £12.
Of course, the fringe often doesn’t pay its actors, so costs are lower overall, and if they did, fringe would become unaffordable for audiences to attend anymore. But the more prices go up, the fewer the chances that audience can take, too, in supporting it in the first place.
Hi Mark. An interesting read, as always. I'm sure someone from The Bush is better placed to respond than I, but I would suspect that there is probably a direct correlation between price rises and funding cuts. Cheers. Richard
Hampstead is terrible. Nearly every seat outside of previews is £29. You'd think for something that's not selling too well they'd at least reduce the prices in the Circle - but instead they just don't sell those seats..
(There was a 2for1 offer for Ubu, I believe - but not everyone wants to drag their friends along to something with sketchy reviews..)
I like Southwark Playhouse's 'Ryanair' pricing in which the earlier you book, the lower the ticket price - even though capacity for the £10 entry-level seats is strictly controls and all but disappears for later performances in a run.
What irritates me more is how the West End theatres sweat their asset by extending 'top' (as opposed to 'premium') pricing to almost the back rows of both dress circle and stalls. At Hay Fever, for example, the £53.50 'top' stalls goes back to row R, and even the back two rows of the stalls are only £10 less. All plus assorted booking fees.
As the circle overhangs the stalls from row G, the view from rows further back becomes increasingly cinemascopic until at about M or N you miss half the stage and by R it's like peering at the performance through a letterbox. Top Price should mean seeing (and hearing) all the show. Selling what's essentially restricted view seating for the same money is disgraceful.
I find it a very worrying trend. For a keen theatre-goer with a strictly limited budget like myself, a ticket costing more than ￡20 is quite painful.
I too have noticed Menier's price hike, and I no longer feel that I can afford their shows unless I find a ticket on lastminute.com or somewhere (which I did for Pippin). The same goes for Charring Cross Theatre. I am having to constantly shop around for affordable tickets. Do fringe theatres really want to lose loyal fringe-fans such as myself?
Fortunately, I still have my local (and excellent) Orange Tree Theatre whose prices are still all around ￡15. But how much longer? That's what I am worried about.
Of course prices for small scale theatre are going up. The only reason they have been kept so low for so long was on the backs of unpaid actors and unpaid stage management.
The writing is on the wall and actors have to be paid, or businesses are going to be fined and effectively shut down. It's the law and enforcement is improving. I think we are just a tribunal away from a complete change in the way theatre works, and the smart managers are already living in the future. The 'opportunity instead of pay' culture is unpopular with the public and with the unemployed youth. You must pay your workers.
So the venues are grasping this. They need to allow the companies coming in a chance to make money. Subsidy is dead, it is too late for many to economise by changing scale and moving to larger venues, corporate sponsorship is too deft a game for most grubby little fringe companies, so they have to raise ticket prices. If venues had more seats it would be different.
And let's face it, all prices are rising in all consumer and utility sectors. It costs more to do business. Theatre is a business.
My question is whether this will lead to an increase in value. Will we now see smaller, entirely professional casts and well crafted writing? That is what made the fringe great, after all.
It is a little sad to think that the days of £12-15 tickets are gone. Let's be realistic... we had those prices back in the day of the £2 pint, and that ship sailed.
I pay more than I used to for my beer now, and I expect it to be the best for those prices.
So if Carlsberg made fringe theatre....
AY
Interesting blog but it fails to address the issue, it merely highlights it.
It cites 2 sources, the Bush and The Menier and then compares them with the Finborough. Both the Menier and the Bush use Equity compliant contracts (ie. pay their actors an acceptable rate according to Equity) the Finborough does not. Indeed only a couple of months ago Celia Imrie along with many others (yes the one that's on in the West End at the moment) was working at the Finborough for nothing - that's how cheap prices are sustained.
We've had a National Minimum Wage in place for since 1998 (that's 14 years) yet still we tolerate unpaid actors (and household name actors at that) working unpaid. Its not just intolerable its illegal and its about time the cash strapped audiences wised up to the 'if only I was cash strapped instead of penniless' actors many of whom are young working in such penury. Has the Fringe adapted in these 14 years? No. Has it grown its industry, expanded premises, developed better models? Well no again. The only way its grown is by creating ever more non paying venues - if this was unpaid work any other industry there'd be an outrage - oh there already is, its called workfare.
Mr Shenton I applaud you for bringing up the issue but the Fringe needs to sort itself out and get its house in order, or pretty soon the law will bear down upon it. Why does it costs so much, well if you want quality actors on the Fringe dahlings (the critics judge enough awards ceremonies and celebrate it 'quality' enough) then it needs to be paid for. Like everything else in this world.
Is it only me who is thoroughly fed up with these NMW trolls?
It would be less irritating if they'd just own up to the fact that they've not had any paid or even unpaid acting work for years and think that closing all the fringe theatres down is the way to get it. In reality, if they got their way, they'd be only a very few venues left who would then give the paid work to those who already have plenty of paid work already, resulting in even less opportunity, not more.
(Cue self-righteous protestations from the trolls, but betcha they don't tell us how much paid acting work (let's say, as defined by an Equity contract) they've had in the last twenty years...)
First of all, it sounds like you read a lot of comments and post yourself, so you are a troll Peter. I'm an activist, and an agent of change. I can't tell you how many young producers and actors are encouraged by the changes in the industry.
Am I a legitimate actor? You tell me. Last year was typical, I have had 20+ bookings through my agent last tax year, and made a living by anyones standards from working as an actor. I benefitted from a worldwide advert, repeat fees on VO's, and royalty payments from the BBC and others. I just wish theatre paid well enough to spend more time onstage. But maybe next year it will;-)
Guess you called that one wrong, Pete.
AY
Whats your connection Peter? Just curious - any blatant self interest?
I agree - I am a little bit of a troll myself, but am (unlike yourself "Annie") quite open - if sad - about having to use a pseudonym. When I have challenged other "agents of change" on this issue in the past using my real name, I received a whole spate of abusive letters and a month worth of silent phone calls at home at all hours of the day and night, so I really don't have any choice.
If you're one of the few "activists" in this area who have actually been paid to act then my apologies, but sadly you're the exception that proves the rule.
Your post, though, does prove my point precisely when you say "I just wish theatre paid well enough to spend more time onstage. But maybe next year it will;-)". Just pay us all the respect of not pretending that your motives are altruistic - but entirely selfish.
Do think through what your schemes would ultimately mean. A theatre scene with a very few bigger theatres which, yes, would all pay minimum wage all the time, but would doubtless have to play very safe with their programming and their casting to survive. In the end, a theatre scene where those who already have plenty of paid work would have even more. Just don't delude yourself that your plans will mean you might get cast onstage. If you're not working on stage now, you sure as hell won't then!
Hi Pauly - Yes a little. I usually do one profit share a year as a matter of principle. Not for the money (obviously), but for the exposure (and the other paid work it's got me) and more often for the chance just to do something different. Best, "Peter"
Thanks Peter,
then reading between the lines, I'd say Annie Yactor is the 'professional actress'. She really wants to do theatre but can't sustain the economics of it and clearly doesn't want to undermine her rates of pay.
For you its just a diversion and a to 'do something different' (like Am Dram) - and you ask her about how many Equity contracts she's done - as if you are a shining example, undermining the legal minimum rates of pay as you do.
Nothing becomes of nothing. Our youth deserve better.
Hi Pauly
Nobody is suggesting that anybody in the world can do profit share productions all the time. "Petra" above mentions Celia Imrie who is a good example - always in work, but does the odd profit share here and there if she feels like it and believes in a project - and all power to her.
You're missing my point. If she's the "professional actress" who "can't sustain the economics of it" then she isn't working in the right places. Are you saying that the Equity rates of pay at, say, the RSC, National Theatre, West End, TMA tours, good regional rep etc aren't possible for her to survive on? My major gripe is that she doesn't seem to have thought through the effects of her campaign and where it will end up, and is not being honest with us about her self-interest. If Annie Yactor believes that closing all fringe theatres down is the way to gain herself paid employment, then she's - at best - mistaken. If she gets her way, only the people who are already making a living working in theatre at the RSC, National Theatre etc will get cast in the first place because the few theatres that are left will be able to pick and choose (even more than they do now) and will have to play safe to survive. And poor Annie and her friends will still be unemployed.
Forgive me, but just google some of the most vociferous supporters of Annie's stance on this issue if you want to see some REAL amdram credits. And where is the evidence that the London fringe (or for that matter, Bristol, Birmingham, Exeter, Brighton or the big one - Edinburgh) is undermining rates of pay in the real world? The RSC aren't suddenly going to start paying profit share because Jermyn Street do.
Thanks Peter,
Isn't this the politics of fear? Forgive me for being blunt but the argument goes like this 'work for nothing or you wont every work in this town again and you have to do it because we cant (and never will be able to) pay you ever again.
I don't buy that, sure a contraction of the market may take place but isn't that already long overdue? At the moment its not sustaining livings, all its sustaining is promises, and you can't live on them.
Neither do I buy that those already in jobs will get whatever's left. There'll be more competition for paid jobs, but it doesn't follow that those already being paid will get first look in, in fact only the best actors will get the jobs. At the moment many of those good actors (perhaps like Annie) aren't doing fringe because they can't afford to or don't agree with working unpaid.
Public funded organisations aren't all of the real world, there's plenty of commercial outfits out there, a friend of mine just finished a job with 3 unpaid actors on it, working alongside paid actors - why were they unpaid? Because they'd failed to assert their rights and felt it was a right of passage that they must work unpaid (and of course the paid actors didn't know that the youngsters were going unpaid - so scared were they).
I disagree that the model as it stands is a good one, it needs changing and there is no evidence that any new future will be worse, except from those who wish to peddle fear in order to maintain the status quo.
That isn't my argument at all. I'm just asking Annie Y to follow her scheme to its logical conclusion. A "contraction of the market" would be putting it mildly (and no I don't agree that that is of itself a good thing). In London, we'd be left with perhaps half a dozen larger "fringe" venues - maybe - and let's not even get into what would happen to the Edinburgh Festival.
Precisely as you say, "the best actors" will get the jobs that are left. And if you're running a theatre who are you going to cast (indeed, who are you even going to audition) - someone who has trained somewhere decent for three years, done 2 years at the National, 3 years at the RSC and has West End credits - as opposed to someone who has done an advert and a couple of voiceovers (and Annie's credits are much better than some of her supporters). Exactly as you say too there are many actors who aren't currently doing fringe because they can't afford it - but again they'll only be cast if they have credits good enough to get the job in the first place (If Annie can't survive on West End Equity minimum, she won't survive on NMW...). In case you think I'm overstating the case, just look at the top rank of fringe theatres - say, Jermyn Street, Theatre 503, Finborough - all are casting at that level already, whether the job is paid or low paid. (And indeed even there it's not black and white re pay - none of them pay ALL the time, but ALL of them do pay often enough for their loss to be felt if they're all forced to close down).
I absolutely agree with you 100 per cent that some actors being paid while others are not is outrageous. I strongly support absolute equal profit share or absolutely equal low wages if that's necessary, open accounting and transparency at all levels. I - and most of the cast - did once walk off a fringe show when we discovered the lead was being paid £500 a week when everyone else was on £150. I think that's the really negative side effect of Annie's campaign - in focusing just on the single NMW issue, there's a lot more serious abuses of the system happening at some venues and by some companies which are being ignored.
I - and most of the cast - did once walk off a fringe show when we discovered the lead was being paid £500 a week when everyone else was on £150.
But isn't that your problem, you care about inequality, but not when no money is involved at all?
The reason for that employer paying £500 was because s/he couldn't afford to pay everyone £500, now when a smaller employer puts the same argument that they can't afford to pay ANYONE, you are willing to overlook it entirely.
One can't be partial about whether or not actors one believes actors should be paid, particularly when its underlined by the law.
Simply by focussing narrowly on 503 et all you miss, Blue Elephant, Etcetera, Lion and Unicorn, Rosemary Branch, Old Red Lion, White Bear and a thousand others.
No, Pauly. That issue was about an equality of sacrifice if we are deciding to work for low pay. A company or a venue that has money to pay a cast - however much or little that may be - should be paying everyone involved the same if they are paying less than Equity minimum. You just reinforced my point - that focusing solely on NMW is allowing abuses like that to flourish.
You just made my point for me precisely again on casting and venues. Yes there's many other fringe venues like the ones you list there, but already the top rank of the fringe casts almost exclusively from people with plenty of paid stage experience. Nobody is going to cast someone with amdram credits and student films if they can have an RSC regular. If you had your way, then the few fringe theatres that are left would also do that - and that's undeniable because it's happening already. And then poor Annie and her friends are still unemployed - if not actually worse off...
Thanks Pete,
I disagree, all you have is conjecture.
Your view is that any contraction will simply lead to more jobs for those already with a name - Annie is already working and currently competes with names - no actors are afraid of competing for paid jobs, that's the nuts and bolts of their lifestyle . Celia Imrie is the only example you have of a name doing the fringe. I've yet to see Orlando Bloom or Sean Bean working at the Landor - it wont happen. Those newly paying jobs will be filled by those WANTING to work there - such as Annie.
You've already decided you want more theatre - whatever the cost, quantity and quality of it. That's not a model that delivers for theatre or humanity. Companies are ripped off and humans are left disillusioned - dabbling with the Fringe once in a while (like yourself) but unable to sustain commitment or livelihood.
Wanting more theatre, whatever the cost doesn't work, Capitalism doesn't see it that way neither does it pay heed, luckily the world is waking up to the social effects of market forces in every industry and individuals are speaking out, rather than being afraid. You seem to want to support a world with ever more unpaid work and ever less opportunities for youngsters and Annie, but as long as you are ok to 'dabble' then that's fine. No sir, my world is more compassionate to all and yes more competitive, but so it ought to be when people gain jobs on the basis of their talent rather than their ability to work for nothing.
Absolutely fine for us to disagree, but afraid we must. Maybe we should ask Annie to speak for herself, but I stick with what I've said. It's not a question of "names" - of course Judi Dench is unlikely to do a four week run at the Southwark Playhouse, but of the plain realities of the marketplace which will become worse if Annie and her supporters have their way. Annie, for example, is already competing for paid acting jobs on stage and, quite simply, has not got any - in a contracted marketplace, it's going to be less likely that she gets acting jobs, not more. On the "basis of talent", she has not got paid onstage acting work, and mandatory NMW at the half a dozen venues that might be left open, is not going to change that. My point remains: that if her primary motivation for her and the others like her is because they genuinely believe that in a contracted marketplace they will suddenly be employable (when they are not getting that work already) then they're dangerously deluded.
You say "You've already decided you want more theatre - whatever the cost, quantity and quality of it." That's not true. I am arguing that in the sole concentration on the single issue of NMW that there are other abuses (such as some actors being paid on one show while others are not or are paid less, unequal profitshare distribution, closed accounts etc etc) which are being ignored. Or indeed all the energy that is being focused on this single issue could be used to campaign for something positive - like access to public funding for these smaller venues - rather than something as despairingly negative as closing down an entire sector.
.......... rather than something as despairingly negative as closing down an entire sector.
Remind me why theatres that pay staff, cast and crew are bad thing and don't deserve to proper? I'm afraid that simply being unpaid and providing opportunities is EXACTLY the same debate that's all over the press concerning WORKFARE - and that's also subsidised by the state!!!
Hi Pauly, With respect, you're just becoming rather incoherent now.
Of course theatres that pay everyone are a great thing and of course they deserve to prosper. Nobody ever said otherwise.
I can't speak for them but am sure that the smaller venues would love to be subsidised by the state, so they CAN pay their actors. The reason they're not paying is because they're NOT subsidised by the state.
I can't speak for them but am sure that the smaller venues would love to be subsidised by the state, so they CAN pay their actors.
You seem to have fallen under the assumption that state aid is there to provide wages alone and that its acceptable not to pay people because you don't have state funding. Its not.
The law states wages must be paid where due, the state doesn't simply step in because a bunch of employers unwilling to create better business models up simply don't get around to it.
The conversation is getting a bit circular now - maybe we should just go for a coffee!
As far as "creating business models" go, I obviously can't speak for small theatres but off the top of my head I would hazard a guess that the only possible business models that might help would be:
1. Get public funding (which is something that you and Annie could be helping to campaign for).
2. Get private funding (which again is something that you and Annie could be campaigning for).
3. Closing completely (which I know doesn't bother you and Annie a jot - but which I think would be a disaster for British theatre - certainly, the Edinburgh Festival would no longer be the acknowledged leader of arts festivals worldwide)
4. Moving to a bigger venue which I'm sure is not as easy as you make it sound. If they had the money to do that, they'd probably be paying people already!
You clearly know more about the legalities of all this and excuse me if this is naive, but I don't quite understand if profit share is all as illegal as you say it is, why nothing has been done to stop it. Could you enlighten me?
Well said Mark, I've take your comments and added a few of my own
http://frontrowdress.blogspot.com/2012/03/marching-upwards-west-end-and-fringe.html
"You clearly know more about the legalities of all this and excuse me if this is naive, but I don't quite understand if profit share is all as illegal as you say it is, why nothing has been done to stop it. Could you enlighten me?"
Hi Pauly or Annie, Would really like to know the answer to this. Could you let me know?
THE QUESTION:
Can a company get out of paying NMW by forming up as a collective?
Interesting question. When I first heard about this NMW situation and emerging artists, I thought there must be some way out of it if you are running a company. There is. Don't hire anyone else or have any partners who do any work. If you are entirely in control of the company and don't want to pay yourself that is your option.
But as soon as you are working with someone else who may choose to claim wages as a worker then you are vulnerable to a claim for NMW. No one can contract out of their statutory rights- so even if someone signs an agreement otherwise, they can claim NMW.
I just spoke to the Pay and Worker Rights Hotline and reviewed online guidance on this so this is all up to date.
THE SHORT ANSWER:
NO (apparently)
BUT WHAT ABOUT IF EVERYONE IS A PARTNER OR DIRECTOR OR SHAREHOLDER?
Still no (apparently)
WHY DO YOU SAY APPARENTLY:
I am not a solicitor, and there may be some case law out there which or an appeal ruling in a tribunal that I am unaware of that would override all the advice I have seen to date. I have not found it yet (and I have looked!)
COMPANY DIRECTOR
Company Directors (who are registered with Companies House as directors of a Ltd company) have an exemption from NMW, BUT ONLY for their work as a company director. Not their time as a worker or an employee, just as a company director. But proper incorporation and filing would likely be required even for this to kick in, so an ad hoc 'let's start a production company' would likely leave you vulnerable to claims for wages from your startup colleagues.
PARTNER or SHAREHOLDERS
This 'directors duties' exemption could possibly be extrapolated to people in a limited partnership. So perhaps partners in a limited partnership do not have to be paid for their time performing company director duties. This exemption certainly does not apply to shareholders of a company, unless of course they are registered company directors.
What is clear is that a director/partner will be due NMW if there exists a contract for work other than for directors duties. And remember that a contract may be spoken, written, or implied. It may be as simple as an offer an acceptance of loose terms in an email or over the phone.
THE WORKER CONTRACT TRUMPS DIRECTOR EXEMPTION
The law certainly has provision to allow someone who is a director or partner, but acting as a worker or employee to bring a claim for a minimum wage against the company. This claim would likely be successful should a contracts exists, spoken, written, or implied, for their time as a worker or employee for that company.
So yes, you would probably have to pay minimum wage. I only say probably because I am not a solicitor.
If you want to avoid claims then you should certainly pay NMW.
SHARE FISHERMEN
The only exception to this is a formal section of NMW regulation relating to share fishermen, which allows "If you are a share fisherman who receives part of the proceeds or profits from a catch instead of getting a fixed wage or salary, you are not entitled to receive the National Minimum Wage." No such exemption exists for acting, even if you are playing a share fisherman.
You can read guidance on the NMW regs on the UK government information site at: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/TheNationalMinimumWage/DG_175114
or call the Pay and Work Rights Helpline: 0800 917 2368
or take a employment rights solicitor out for a drink and ask them.
Hi Peter,
I have been off making a living as an actor and would have stuck my oar in sooner.
Pauley is right, in that the current system seems to be failing actors. I see loads of people who are good actors, but the profession is rigged to provide artistic opportunities primarily for those who can afford to work for free. The rest of us can go hang, it seems.
But if you can work for free and are well connected, you are virtually unlimited in terms of the artistic opportunities open to you. I can see how that appeals to some people. And I can see why the young members of Equity are against the status quo. The current situation also allows venues, producers and directors to lift themselves out of obscurity on the backs of unpaid actors. But these are just the drawbacks. You have given a balancing view of the benefits and everyone needs to decide for themselves.
I would like to see these artistic opportunities expanded with greater subsidy so that everyone makes at least minimum wage (living wage would be preferable of course- but it is not a legal requirement.) Minimum wage simply means that it is worthwhile for the economically challenged to tread water in the profession on speculative or artistic projects.
But really, greater subsidy with this government is unlikely these days. What is likely is that musicals, Shakespeare, and solid financial propositions could be produced by theatre managers who have the business sense and integrity to make enough to pay the wages due to actors (and stage management). But the better and more honest theatre managers won't get a chance if the established, unpaying producers remain ensconced. Instead of a revolving door of actors, wouldn't it be great to have a revolving door of talent young producers?
Here is an absurd idea put to me last week by a brilliant young producer. Wouldn't it be great if the workfare programs could provide £1000 per actor plus benefits to underwrite a fringe show?
And yes, I would like to see some of the smaller venues with real history move to premises that have audiences that will allow them to pay their companies lawfully. I think this is a good thing, don't you?
But as long as venues and companies participate in unsavoury practices then public subsidy and corporate sponsorship looks less than likely. Who wants to subsidise or sponsor someone with a dodgy history and no records of paying NMW?
The cyclic nature of the debate serves to prove that we are caught in a cycle. And we can choose to stay in it or move on to a new structure. I'm for wages, but of course I would be. I'm for art as well, but of course I would be.
What I do know is that this is an important debate. Let's keep having it.
Any solution will take some campaigning and fundraising (and probably a different government.) In the meantime the Actor's Minimum Wage Campaign is raising awareness and getting people talking (as you and Pauly have been!) And occasionally giving some of the most flagrant abusers a good telling off.
We are reporting everyone and everything to the LPC and the HMRC, who have begun to take notice, and they are working at closing the loopholes. Eventually a solution will be found and everyone will move toward it. Or get lost in the rush. But the fringe has always been about revolution and evolution.
Some solutions and actions proposed include:
1. a boycott of unpaid theatre- if you advertise for unpaid actors it will publicised and people will be encouraged to boycott your theatre AND the pub it is in.
2. fairtrade 'fairplay' tickets - so that part of your ticket price is guaranteed to pay the actors
3. lobbying for a new NMW exemption to the law for share companies (perhaps based on the model used by shakespeare's company?)
4. lobbying for better guidance and enforcement of current laws
5. campaigns like the one at the Kings Head to put together a fund to pay all actors at least Equity Minimum.