Features
The tiny Union Theatre in Southwark, London, was named fringe theatre of the year at the The Stage 100 awards in January. Meanwhile, last weekend, the Offies, otherwise known as the Off-West End Theatre Awards, shortlisted productions and players that were seen at the Union and at venues including Southwark Playhouse, the Arcola, New Diorama, Old Red Lion, Finborough, Upstairs at the Gatehouse and the Jermyn Street Theatre.
I was a judge on the panels that considered these awards, and there’s no question that there’s a lot of fantastic work being done in places such as these. However, there’s another, more dispiriting thing that most (although not all) of these venues have in common, too – those whose efforts we are applauding have mostly done so for little or no pay.
Is that morally, professionally or even legally right? No actor, director or designer, of course, has a gun put to their head and is forced to work for free – they have exercised their free choice, in every sense, to do so. And it goes without saying that the box office income possible in tiny fringe venues is substantially less than it is in the West End houses.
Chess, currently running at the Union Theatre where it is sold out, will be seen by fewer people across its entire five-week run there than A Chorus Line in one night at the London Palladium. So it is hardly surprising that, by the time the theatre has paid for performance rights, rent, rates and production costs, there’ll be little left over to pay anyone much.
Yet Chess is, in its way, every bit as revelatory and impressive a piece of theatre as A Chorus Line and with a cast of 16 plus a band of six at the Union, they’ve not stinted on numbers to achieve a wonderful result. But is the alternative to not paying them not to do it at all? In the midst of the fierce arguments that rage over whether participants in fringe theatre are being exploited – and that audiences and critics are complicit in it by continuing to support such work – is it seriously being suggested that we simply shut down the fringe and not offer people opportunities to practise their craft that they may not be able to gain elsewhere?
Louis Maskell, who appeared in the Union’s production of The Fix last year, could be found at the Sheffield’s Crucible by Christmas starring as Freddie Eynsford-Hill in My Fair Lady. It was tremendous to see his rapid progress through the ranks. By the same token, the more veteran Beverley Klein – who I once saw play Mrs Lovett in Sweeney Todd for none other than Opera North – starred in the title role of Michael John LaChiusa’s musical Bernarda Alba, again at the Union, in 2011. This, she told me, was an opportunity to play a great role she wouldn’t otherwise have had.
Yet when I praised a show I’d seen at the Finborough last year, a reader posted a comment online: “Can we stop this sycophancy towards fringe just because they happen to stage a nice play (their raison d’etre) and start berating them for their business models sustained only by unpaid labour (both young and old), their discrimination on the basis of class and age and their inability to change – or is the price of West End seats somehow a more ethical debate?”
The Finborough, of course, is one of the most consistently interesting theatres in London from a programming point of view, but it is true that it is paid for largely by the actors allowing themselves to go unpaid or minimally paid. The answer, alas, isn’t simply hoping that places such as the Finborough receive more funding. In an era where funding is being radically cut, not expanded, it might also create more problems for them – with funding comes responsibility to pay properly, and the large casts that they often employ would not be possible. One of the biggest attractions of the fringe is that, with no money to make, spend or pay out, it can provide a taste for adventure unsullied by commercial considerations.
But arts journalist Simon Tait recently drew attention in his online column for The Stage to another, mostly unsung, initiative that could mark the beginning of the end to the unpaid workforce in the arts. This is the Creative Employment Programme, funded by Arts Council England to the tune of £15 million, which aims to offer 6,500 arts apprenticeships to young people in the next two years.
The fringe offers a kind of apprenticeship, too, as well as crucial research and development. Perhaps a parallel scheme could be developed, with arts council help, which could see the fringe participate so that it can offer remuneration, too. But even within the existing models, the fringe should at least offer its participants a greater sense of transparency and honesty about where the money it takes is actually going. An unpaid workforce should be able to see clearly why it is not getting paid.
Read more from Mark Shenton at www.thestage.co.uk/columns
Jobs & Auditions
Comments 29 comments
As a performer, script writer and producer of Fringe and off west end shows, I read this article with great interest. I do feel some areas of the industry unfairly attack fringe and fail to look at the industry as a whole. I have produced and written a number of productions as theatres such as Red Lion, Kings Head and Greenwich playhouse and have a comedy musical going out at The Courtyard in April. Our Casting call explained the low fee and still have over 1,500 applicants and after seeing a shortlist of just over 270 we now have an amazing talented cast in place. Their talent deserves a high wage but the budget is not there, we as a production company expect to take a loss while still paying a wage to each of the 20 strong cast. This is a chance to promote a new musical which we a company have faith in and a talented cast to do what they trained to do, perform. To suggest taking fringe away or installing a minimum wage would kill the industry and where would we be left then, with west end producers often opting for know productions such as ‘Shrek’, ‘Legally Blonde’, ‘Ghost’, ‘the body guard’ (the list goes on) making it all the more harder for new musicals to break through. We often asked people while they auditioned for our upcoming production and get the answer, we like the script, but most often due to the love to perform. We all enter this industry because we love performing, to tackle that character, to sing that song and when you get that buzz pay takes a back seat. Now for the plug…while on the subject come and support a great off west end production of comedy musical Sword and the dope with an amazing cast, this April 15th- May 12th. The more people come the more we all get paid!Report comment
I was told by someone in the chorus of a West End show that they had to supplement their wages with another job as their income from the show didn’t pay the bills; so it’s not just the fringe theatres who don’t pay the cast a living wage. After seeing one fringe theatre show I asked a cast member what they were doing next. He told me the name of the show then added ‘Yes, it will be good to have some PAID employment!’
We try to support the fringe and usually see at least two shows a week. In the West End we pay £65 a ticket. I wonder where all this money goes?
It is wonderful to see actor in a fringe production then go on to bigger things: Louis Maskell is a first rate singer: we saw him about 6 times in Iolanthe. We will be booking to see him in ‘My Fair Lady’ when it transfers.
I was shocked when I realised the actors in fringe productions work during the day then rush to the theatre to perform each night. I take my hat off to each and everyone of them and thank them for what they do in theatre’s name!Report comment
I am someone who is putting on a fringe production, entirely self-funded and not being paid and not able to even pay the actors’ expenses. If theatre production were only the realm of the elite rich then we would not be able to do this, and my cast and myself would not be able to gain the valuable experience we are.
I think the issue here is transparency as you’ve rightly pointed out. If companies or people are up-front about where the money is going I see no issue with it. Other sectors allow voluntary work, so why not theatre? No one is being taken advantage of if the terms are clear. Yes it is a lot of hard work. Yes it is a lot of time. Yes we will all lose money in this venture. But we will gain something, and hopefully give something, much more valuable than money in return.Report comment
Having seen Chess last Friday, one topic on our way home was how on earth our £18.00 tickets were able to cover everything including paying the actors and band? We came to the conclusion that the show was subsidised by the arts council or some such organisation and the actors were on Equity minimum. It has come as quite a shock to read that, the musical was probably subsidised by cast and front of house and the Equity minimum was zero.
The Show was top notch (even despite an audience member vomiting in the front row, near the end of the first half.) but I now feel sullied that I have participated in an event as an audience member where the cast and crew are not even paid the minimum wage and its unlikely I will set foot in that theatre again or any other fringe production where this is prevalent.Report comment
This is an on-going and tough debate. I’m producing a show this year on The Fringe, and will not be able to pay the cast minimum wage. I will however offer a guaranteed fee, a breakdown at the end of production costs, and will be completely transparent about how much money we need to make before we go into profit. This is not ideal, as an actor myself I want to pay my cast properly, but as it is self-funded and produced, at this point I can’t. However, if we raise funds above the current production costs, then that will be distributed among the actors and crew (Who will also be on a guaranteed fee). I’m not posting this to blow my own trumpet but to make a point. From day one I and my co producers budget has included a fee of £100 for the actors, this is nowhere near enough but unlike most fringe shows our run is only a week so opportunity for return is even less. Also worst case scenario, if we play to five people a night, our actors will still get that money. We refuse to operate on the basis that the actors will get something if we make a profit. I get that on the fringe, budget wise it can be pretty impossible to pay Equity minimum unless you are very heavily funded. I cannot however accept that producers and companies think it’s OK to not budget, however small, a guaranteed amount for the actors. To make it worse, in venues like The White Bear, not only are actors getting next to nothing, they are also working in horrible conditions. Why producers continue to support venues like this, that are both uncomfortable for the cast as well as the audience baffles me? The answer is the venue is cheap and to its credit offers a decent deal to new companies. We have been blessed with a great venue in Central London, but there was no way we were ever going to produce in a venue that we ourselves wouldn’t go to watch a show in. The venues will always be paid no matter what, so where the hell does that money go? Fringe producers need to pick venues that they themselves would go to or want to work in, and must budget for everyone involved to be guaranteed a minimum fee. If your budget cannot achieve these two things then you quite frankly should not be producing the show.Report comment
@ Barry – the Union is both a venue and a producer. A clear conflict of interests – there’s no way a performer can get a good deal since the venue can charge this producer what it likes and the producer is unlikely to disagree.
And so it runs large cast “profit-shares” which typically generate nothing for the actors. It can also ‘afford’ a casting director for every production.
Yet curiously, despite not being able to pay, its able to tour down-under. http://www.piratesisback.com/creatives.html
Despite all this the critics in their wisdom reward this….go figure.Report comment
Furthermore, performers have to badger the Artistic Director/Proprietor of The Union Theatre for months, in order to get their meagre, promised share of profits. It is shameful!Report comment
The artistic director is Sasha Regan and ms. Meyer is correct. People on all their recent productions do not get paid promptly despite going out to make the Union money. For profit share, you should not have to wait more than a month for your money. Any longer than that is blatantly immoral.Report comment
@barry
Jay is correct but in many of these low pay/ profit share gigs, the crew/ lighting designers/ management are getting paid for their engagement but mostly, actors are the bottom of the priority which means that they are seen as dispensable and replaceable. You can bet a top musical director is getting a basic salary, as is a lighting designer or a choreographer . What’s irksome in many of these situations is that actors are desperate for the credits because the industry is practically non existent . Casting directors cast from seeing people in work, so actors take the plunge.
Michael above speaks about his promise of a guraranteed low fee and that’s the best attitude to have. Actors don’t mind doing
This sort of work, as long as theyre treated with respect. The actors are the reason a show has its success and without them there is no show.
If fringe companies made the
Effort to have an open book policy, then most actors would be cool with that. But to delay paying for months on end is tantamount to giving the middle finger to the very actors who made your money for you night after night, and for that alone, Equity should step in and investigate .Report comment
Oh dear, someone has rattled the cage of the members of the Facebook group Actors of Minimum Talent….oops, oh sorry, that should be Actors Minimum Wage…Report comment
Lauren, we are members of Equity. (www.equity.org.uk) which you will find is a wholly legitimate organisation which professional actors can join. In case you find the idea of a national minimum wage (or fair pay and conditions) for actors ridiculous, you will find more information about this legislation at http://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates.Report comment
An excellent article that highlights yet again the investment we artists make every day of the year. The problems in dance are possibly even more acute than in theatre.Report comment
So nothing has changed since this last came up.
We the public dont really want to pay more for our fringe tickets to sit in damp spaces on uncomfortable seats, but we also dont want to be a part of exploitation of actors, musicians and technical and front of house staff.
Producers cant/wont pay whilst people are willing to do for free.
Some sort of sponsorship model is needed.Report comment
I would be very interested in The Stage actually talking to Ms. Regan and all the off west end/ fringe companies and addressing these comments and issues. Finding out where the money goes and a legal investigation . If they refuse to co-operate, then it’s clear what the answer is.Report comment
I think what is clear is there is a lack of “best practice” guidelines when it comes to working in smaller venues.
Bigger spaces, like the West End, regional houses and Arts Council supported venues, have SOLT, TMA and ITC to debate and set parameters for working pay and conditions – smaller theatres currently do not.
It is true that it is unrealistic for a small theatre, unless receiving subsidy, can pay Equity minimum (£410 a week). But this figure was agreed between Equity, SOLT and TMA for far bigger commercial theatres.
It is undeniable that something has to be done. There is a large gulf in London between the non-funded venues: some pay a decent weekly salary over the minimum wage, others pay minimum wage, others cover expenses, work on profit-share agreements and some pay nothing at all.
Somewhere between no pay and Equity minimum there must be a solution to this issue.
Performers, directors, designers need smaller theatres to hone their craft, take risks and showcase their talents. Shutting theatres down won’t increase the amount of paid work available and isn’t a desirable option.
What we need is an agreed standard of practise in small spaces that really will be a lighthouse for new talent as to how they should be treated and what they can expect to earn. But this will require all our sector working together in a clear headed way: venues, unions, creatives and producers.Report comment
I absolutely agree with Daniel and his very sensible comments. Especially his comment that “some pay a decent weekly salary over the minimum wage, others pay minimum wage, others cover expenses, work on profit-share agreements and some pay nothing at all.” Most fringe theatres in my experience do a mixture of all of these, depending on how their fundraising has gone.
I really wish that something like Daniel’s plan could be adopted. And that’s part of the reason for by being so down on the tiny handful who are obsessed with minimum wage for their own ends to the exclusion of everything else – because it prevents us getting a sensible compromise which would keep venues open without the exploitation and abuses that doubtless exist in a few venues.Report comment
Equity has for several years operated a Fringe Theatre contract which meets this criteria. Why haven’t these reputable producers used it? http://www.equity.org.uk/resource-centre/rates-and-agreements/equity-rates/Report comment
Derrick – Because it’s absolutely impossible to actually use for the smaller venues…Report comment
Hi Derek,
The interesting thing about the Equity Fringe Agreement is that it was never made in consultation with the Fringe/Offwestend sector. It also, as Lauren says, side steps some of the bigger issues and fails to set actual guidance for pay etc and recognise the breadth of different practices across the Capital.
The way forward, to me, seems to be the creation of a meaningful agreement that is signed up to by the producers and venues (like the other agreements – TMA, SOLT, ITC etc – are).Report comment
Barry- As much as it is unsatisfactory that hard-working, talented actors and creative teams in fringe performances are not always given the wages we could all hope for, perhaps it is even more unsatisfactory, that even the most satisfied of audience members, like you, will not return to support such work merely for this reason. As a performer, I have been in the situation where although of course I’d rather be paid for the privelige, I have had to opt for unpaid/profit-share work simply to have an opportunity to perform. As many other actors in my situation will tell you, this is simply all that is available at times, and it is often preferable to not doing any form of acting work, if circumstance allows. How disheartening to find, then, that having created a successful show, appreciated by audiences at the time, that some people will choose not to return to fringe theatre, choose not to support fresh talent and new writing, and not to nurture the development of fledgling projects that can only rely on smaller venues, companies and budgets to exist.Report comment
@ Lauren – not really an answer, it is used, basic and legally compliant.
@ Daniel – Equity is only allowed by law to negotiate collective agreements with collective management bodies. There is no such body with the fringe.
Sometimes the solutions lie within.Report comment
Derrick, I chatted at length on the whole profit share issue with the man who runs the theatre at the last low pay job I did and I understood from him that a collective like that was/is being formed, precisely to do as Daniel so sensibly suggests. If that is so, I hope you would agree that’s a strong positive step in the right direction.Report comment
You mean http://www.sitgb.org/home/, yes it seems to be a good thing for venues – although the award winning Union Theatre isn’t a member. Let’s wait and see what they do. It doesn’t address the question of what the start up theatre companies are going to do, even the ones above who want to ‘do the right thing’ are unlikely to pay holiday pay – a legal requirement.
You should talk to Equity and BECTU to understand the employment legislation better, its a good thing that people stand up for their rights, especially in a recession when they have families to feed, they ought not to be ridiculed for this.
SITGB came about as a result of pressure from Equity and disgruntled actors, we need pressure groups and trade unions in our world, they bring about change.Report comment
@Lauren- If you wish to choose to work for nothing that’s fine and I understand your preference to volunteer your services this way rather than do nothing; but really this is not a real choice because if a producer can get away with paying you nought or next to nought because you are forced to acquiesce because no properly paid work is available they will do so without shame and nothing will change; that is human nature and economics. From my perspective as a regular theatre goer, I expect that, unless there is something on the ticket to say it’s an Am-Dram, charity or self-funded production, the performers and staff are being paid and paid at least minimum wage.
Producers are being dishonest to the paying public (not for the first time) and exploitative with their performers and staff so I and my friends will avoid any show that we cannot be sure is not exploiting Performers in this way. Regrettably, if that means missing out on top notch fringe shows, so be it.
Let Producers be upfront with the paying public, tell them in advance of buying, that they are not paying the performers or paying them below minimum wage etc and just see how many of the public continue to go.
For those performers I saw in Chess, I wish them well, their talent deserves to be well rewarded.Report comment
Everyone agrees that ideally professional people should be paid properly for their work. However, without sponsorship or other non-returnable funding, the economics of theatre in small spaces just don’t add up.
Of course producers should be clear about both what is realistically on offer by way of payment and what funding is available to the production. But it doesn’t take more than a quick calculation to see that even at 70% capacity for the entire run, an £18 a seat (which is high for fringe) 4-week (28 show) run in a 50-seat venue produces £17,500k. Deduct even the most basic of costs (£5k rent, £4k set, costume, transport, lighting, £1k marketing, £1k rights) and you’re left with £6,500. Paying a creative team (contrary to popular suggestion, it is not only actors are unpaid on the fringe) for rehearsals and the run on £6,500 is going to result in limited expenses at best. Attracting outside funding is ideal but, as we all know, extremely difficult.
With a couple of notable exceptions we have all heard about, producers and venues are therefore really not in a position to rip off actors while making piles of cash for themselves, as is so often suggested – there simply isn’t money to pay people properly because the economics of producing a show in a small theatre often don’t add up to breaking even. We should either (i) ban unpaid work (which will simply result in the work not being made, not in producers and venues magicking up thousands of pounds they’ve been hiding up their sleeves), (ii) focus on finding an alternative, more commercially viable model (and accept the impact that has on the scale of creative ambition currently found on the fringe) or (iii) embrace the fact that good fringe productions produced by people who are fair and open (and often not only not being paid but risking and losing their own money) can and do provide everyone involved with an opportunity to practise and improve their craft, be seen by people who can give them paid work and walk into the next audition able to say that they’ve just come out of a well-received show. Those who decide to work unpaid should make an informed choice based on what’s on offer and their personal reasons for doing or not doing the particular show, but please let’s stop this divisive and deluded talk about actors being exploited by money-making producers and venues and focus on a constructive way of sustaining and developing the production of some of the most creative theatre around.Report comment