I am a professional actor in favor of wage increases for artists, and I am at a crossroads. I believe many people in our theatre community are. It has been a tumultuous week that has brought many of our core values into question, and the debate is heated to say the least. I am, however, extremely disappointed that there seems to be so much vitriol being hurled at an organization whose core mission is to support the artists and organizations that make up that very community.
from DCTS: Recently, theatreWashington announced a major change to the qualification process for the annual Helen Hayes Awards, instituting minimum wage requirements across several artistic fields. This is the latest in a continuing series of opinion pieces, meant to reflect the different points of view of producers, actors, designers, directors, and other artists on the recent change.
Let me start by saying I respectfully disagree with Molotov Theatre Founder, Alex Zavistovich, who stated in his article on this very site just days ago that we must deal with the “uncomfortable fact” that “theatre in DC… is a business.” Theatre has forever been a business. It is the business of creating art, in the same way a law firm is the business of practicing law and a restaurant is the business of creating and serving food. The only way I know of to do theatre, as a solely artistic venture would be devised street guerilla theatre performed for free by a group of friends. Any group that takes in and puts out money is a business and while we may think of the purpose of our particular one as a higher calling, that doesn’t change the fact that money needs to exchange hands for it to continue and thrive. There are hundreds of college’s around the country with degrees and masters being awarded every year to students set out to do just that, manage and grow the business of art.
What is also a business is theatreWashington. A non-profit business with an admirable mission, but a business never the less, and that business is currently trying to deal with the reality of our oversaturated market. Since the awards inception, the DC theatre scene has had an average company growth rate of 2.6% per year, although anyone who has been around since 1985 can tell you the bulk of that growth has happened over the past 10 years. It is not viable for an organization to continue sending volunteer adjudicators of a high and respectable level to see 2-9 productions at over 90 theatres every year. Nor is it viable for that organization to continue offering tickets to its largest fundraiser and celebratory event of the year at significantly below market costs to staff members of those 90 theatres and counting. I am not insinuating these were the primary factors in the decision to revamp the criteria for award consideration, and as the board decision was made behind closed doors I have no way of knowing if these were even a factor at all. It is, however, important to remember that this conversation should not leave out the strains on the organization administering this event every year.
The business of being an actor
On a personal level, theatre is a business for me. I make the overwhelming majority of my living off of theatre. Acting is my day job and I supplement that income the way most low-income workers do, by picking up odd jobs and contract work here and there outside of my day job. I understand I may be in the minority of DC actors, but I also understand that is a choice. Some of the most talented and professional actors and artists I have worked with have full-time day jobs outside the industry that they commit to with just as much passion as their work on stage and the smaller professional theatres in town allow them to pursue both. I applaud and respect them for that work as much as I hope they do me for mine. I don’t think that means my work is more professional or artistically more viable than theirs, simply that we have chosen to go about it in a different way.
The sad reality is, it seems like 99% of Americans feel they don’t get paid enough for the work they are doing, and that is certainly no different in theatre. Even if an actor worked at the highest level of regional theatre available in this town 52 weeks out of the year (an impossible feat as no theatre produces every day of the year) you would still be raking in over $33,000 less than the median income for a Washington, DC resident. With the current national and even international debate over fair wages and minimum wage, I think it is noble and necessary for us as a community to face that conversation head on, even in the touchy area of artist compensation.
Most artists file their taxes as a self-employed business. According to the IRS, to qualify as a business you need to have a 3-to-5 loss to profit ratio, otherwise it is considered a hobby and you cannot write off your expenses. While I don’t think the IRS is the end-all-be-all of defining professionalism, most actors I know relish writing off acting books, classes, make-up, audition mileage and transportation, trade magazine subscriptions, on-camera and audition outfits, scripts, and music on their taxes. I have a hard time believing, with all those expenses, a $300 stipend will help them meet this loss-to-profit ratio.
the proposed Helen Hayes Awards regulations
The Helen Hayes Awards was founded to “celebrate outstanding achievement in professional theatre.” In that, they, and they alone, have the right to define what professional means for their criteria. Just as other regulations have been set in the past to define a theatre or production’s eligibility, these new regulations define “professional theatre” only in the eyes of the Helen Hayes Awards. They do not suppose to be the one true deciding factor in the professionalism of any company or show. Now many have argued that these new criteria feel arbitrary and with rehearsal minimums starting at $12.50 per day, come nowhere near the federal minimum wage, and I would have to agree with them. However, as Linda Levy, theatreWashington CEO, was quoted as saying, “we had to start somewhere.”
Theatres that do not currently meet these minimums are going to have a choice ahead of them. I think it is far too early in the process to suppose what they are going to do and each theatre is going to handle this differently. However, I think the argument that theatreWashington has some how dampened opportunities for actors and artists in this town by administering these regulations is preposterous. The organization cannot be held responsible for the decisions individual companies make in regards to fitting into or not fitting into these guidelines. That is no different than Papa John’s cutting jobs and blaming the Affordable Care Act, except of course in the fact that the ACA was a federal mandate, not an optional participation event. Mark Rhea, artistic director of The Keegan Theatre, summed up this argument beautifully in the Washington Post, stating if they wanted to produce a show with too large a cast size to make the wage minimums manageable, “We’d likely produce the show anyway, recognizing it would not be eligible for recognition by Helen Hayes. Helen Hayes doesn’t determine whether or not we do a show; … they aren’t our reason for existence.”
Read this: more in our series on the Helen Hayes professional wage requirements
The other argument being spouted a lot on social media is that theatre companies that are no longer eligible for the awards will lose out on the marketing opportunity provided by nominations and wins. First off, these awards are purely retroactive, so while you can advertise your company as a past Helen Hayes Award winner, you cannot sell a current show based on nominations or awards. As far as what the awards can do to bolster donations and grants, I turned to a current sitting board treasurer of a local DC Theatre for that question. “Awards are helpful, sure, you can’t deny that.” He said, wishing to remain anonymous for the purpose of this article. “But they aren’t a deciding factor. If my company [wasn’t meeting the new Helen Hayes regulations] I would want to run a case study to see how much awards actually affect audiences and therefore revenue before I even begin to worry about it.” It should also be noted that these regulations are strictly for the awards, and does not preclude companies from the many other services theatreWashington has to offer, including marketing and support.
The last side of this conversation that I have seen come across more in subtext is the idea that many of these theatre companies CAN pay more to their artists and are just choosing not to or spending that money elsewhere. I am sure many theatre producers are staring mouth gaped at these accusations and assumptions. There are more factors that go into creating the budget of a non-profit theatre than I care to ever think about, that’s why I tread the boards rather than sit on one. However, one thing I think we can say of anyone that gets into this business on either the artistic or producing side, is they are not in it for the money. I don’t think we should stunt or stifle companies struggling to grow to a point where they can pay all their staff and artists the wage they deserve, and maybe this method of compensation requirement isn’t the best one out there. But the point is, this is what theatreWashington has decided for eligibility in its Helen Hayes awards ceremony.
You can’t win a Tony unless you are on Broadway, and you can’t win a Helen Hayes unless you meet these requirements. Maybe that just means we need our own version of the Obie awards.
At the end of the day, the supply and demand of the market will determine what happens to artist compensation, not theatreWashington, nor any one individual organization. If you produce theatre at a high-quality level in an underserved niche or assert yourself as the cream of the crop, audiences will pay and pay well for tickets. If “DC’s very talented professional actors and technical people” continue to be “happy just to receive a stipend or a percentage guarantee against gross profits” then that is what they will continue being paid. And while many artists I know love the work they do, especially the cutting edge work at many of these smaller companies, I know very few, if any, who don’t wish they didn’t have to work several jobs simultaneously to do so.
To demonize a company trying to stand up for the beginnings of a decent living wage for artists, when we rarely do so for ourselves, seems to me to be the worst offense of all.
———————–
Contributor Carolyn Agan is an Equity actress and teaching artist.
She has been an active member of the DC theatre scene for the past 8 years.
If tickets are sold, artists should be paid. Don’t work for free. Don’t work for exposure. If you want to be considered legit, create something that people want to see. You can be important and entertaining at the same time. Stop making excuses. Fail better, right?
Art, being subjective, isn’t a viable way to sustain your life in most cases. Don’t even pretend it is. You’re kidding yourself. Most cannot live off their art. Very few who can, who actually do, well, bravo. But so much else in the world is more important. Sorry for that reality check. Art will always come second, even third and fourth, to other things we have to sustain in society so you can “play around.” If you’re really good at it, sure, you’ll make a living off it. But thousands of others are competing for a few few spots on the stage and less and less of the public appreciate the art. It’s niche.
Ho ho ho, small professional theatres, young and old! Let’s give DC audiences a beautiful gift for 2015: indietheatredc.org
Professional just means you got paid; not that you got paid what you’re worth. My Subway Sandwich Artists is a professional; but my grandma’s freelance BLT deserves the trophy. tW was/is in the trophy business, yes? Are they doing this because they think it will induce some companies to pay their artists more? Or is it to save them the hassle of covering more productions?
I ask because the companies either can or can’t pay a minimum wage – it’s a pretty straightforward marginal cost to calculate and I don’t think that “prospects for an HHA” wash as a budgetary consideration months in advance of production. The tW decision doesn’t sound like standing up for artistic labor; it sounds like productions are only bad if they’re poorly funded.
In other words, you’ve got one priority – the judgment of artistic merit – colliding at right angles with a rather different priority – paying essential labor what it’s worth. Nearly everyone is guaranteed to remain upset. Well done!
This is quickly devolving into an “Us vs Them” debate, which is not what our community has been for me. tW is an independent entity that can do as it pleases. If you wish to be a part of what they do in our community you must abide by their rules. They are a part of the community, just a part of it. We, the artists and audiences ARE the community. I urge you to remember that the general public and theatre-going folks couldn’t care less about any of the Helen Hayes fauxwards, the “marketing opportunities”, or what any of us is paid. We all want the same thing, great theatre. Be a part of this community for whatever your reasons may be, but please stop dividing it by arguing over these petty non-issues. I am proud to be a member of the DC theatre scene and only hope to continue to elevate the quality of the work WE create here in the District. I hope you do too.
“i find it kinda ridiculous that people actually approach art with as a means of living.”
The fact that you say this is insulting to the myriad of people who work in theatre as a living. My time and skills are valuable, and I deserve to be compensated for it. I am not the only one in the arts who works this way – we all deserve to be compensated for what we do above the threshold of poverty.
“I am an actor, and a fairly busy and successful one in DC, but no matter how much I work or who for, I still have to find other things to supplement my income. And this doesn’t bother me. I don’t do art for the money. I don’t even do it for the awards. I do it for the beauty.”
When you say that, you are unilaterally devaluing the work of yourself and ALL of your colleagues. When you are offered a show below your worth and you accept it, you’re not just devaluing yourself, you’re devaluing your fellow artists. If you are willing to take a lower fee as an actor, you are implicitly agreeing to lower wages through the community. While our work may often have beautiful results, we all work incredibly hard in every position to create that beauty and it’s work we should be paid for fairly.
“Theatre remains, however, a business. And the only way we continue making theatre is by making money. We can’t do that via ticket sales- anyone can tell you that ticket sales even for a sold out run cannot pay for production costs alone. So we do it via dobations[sic] and other sources. Which tW is trying to rob smaller theatres of by refusing them the due recognition.”
If you want to make the argument you do theatre for the love of it, don’t cry when you can’t win awards for it.
“Those that bend and bow to these new standards end up putting so much money into their artists that their production values suffer- where do you really think they’ll find that money otherwise?”
To be brutally honest, do you seriously believe that? I am a Lighting Designer and I can tell you right now that stunning pieces of work can be made simply with the actor, the story, and the connection with the audience. A company just needs to get back to roots of their mission. Rethink the goals, rethink the plan, and raise the funds needed to do the best show. Do ONE show so well it gets people to come out and LOVE IT. You can do that simply, artfully, and beautifully. But further – no one is telling companies they CAN’T continue to operate paying sub poverty wages, they simply can’t win a Professional award for paying their artists worse than interns.
“Are you such a fool to think they’re just sitting on it to keep the artists from having it?”
No we are not foolish in thinking that companies are sitting and hoarding money. They function as not for profits. But are you foolish enough to believe that all 90 companies in Washington deserve to be called professional? Are you insinuating that in a city that is oversaturated with theatre (because you know audiences are small) that we need all 90? Is each company so unique that it must stand alone? Why not band some companies together, get bigger pools of resources, audiences, and artists, now everybody wins.
“Don’t let the art suffer because you’re too lazy to work a day job.”
And now to the most offensive comment of all – laziness. Are you KIDDING me? Theatre professionals are some of the hardest working people that I know. To suggest art is suffering because an actor will get $2.00 an hour to rehearse is absurd, and basically criminal (when you consider American wage laws). What we all do is HARD WORK. The fact that any theatre colleague would call me lazy for not having a full time job is wrong. I made a choice to make my living doing theatre. There are sacrifices that come with that, and one of them is that I am always on call. I have a full time job: it’s creating theatre. You, TB, are a hobbyist.
Matt O- I couldn’t agree more. We are talking about $75/$150 per week— enough to offset the cost of even BEING IN any given production (travel, parking, metro, etc.). Until now, these artists have basically been PAYING to be a part of the productions of which they’ve been a part. These new requirements for pay are, in no way, unreasonable.
Of course artists enter into this field for the love of the art. I, for one, am not ‘too lazy’ to work a day job. I have at least two, if not three, at any given time. I know countless other artists who have similar situations. The problem is that often, to do a show for a small professional company for $200 or so (for 4-6 rehearsals per week, for 4 weeks, and then performances), this means taking extensive time off from that day job (or night job). Which means losing a lot of the money one would have made at that job. It is not a lack of will to work; artists are some of the hardest working people I know (at any job). So of course, we ALL ‘do it for the beauty.’ But we also live in the real world, in one of the most expensive cities in the country.
Of course, we all recognize that producing art is hard and expensive, and it’s difficult to get the money to pay for it all. But to just accept a mediocre status-quo is about the least creative thing, as artists, that we can do. I say all of this as someone who runs a very new, very small DC company, and as someone who has a lot of respect and love for other small companies in DC. Right now, my company cannot afford these standards, but I understand the sentiment behind them. I strive to create a model that can one day appropriately compensate people for their work–not just because a union says so, and not just to be eligible for a HH award, but because it’s the right thing to do.
Egress = egregious. Stupid autocorrect.
Wow…there is a lot to unpack here…but I will only hit the most egress points…
Please expand on why it ridiculous to get paid for your art? Do you really value yourself so lowly that you do not feel your talent and skill is worth it?
Second everyone who is involved in theatre isn’t doing it for the money. It is impossible to do theatre for the money. There just isn’t enough of it. That’s not what the discussion is about instead it is about being paid and compensated fairly for ones time and effort. These minimums are too meager already, but they are a start. The way you describe them in your comment it makes it sound like actors suddenly are getting a HUGE pay increase when in fact they are getting a starting point that barely covers what can be considered fair for the amount of work.
Finally “too lazy for a day job?” That’s just rude. Every DC actor I’ve known is far from lazy in any sense of the word. If I were a DC actor I’d be very upset to hear a colleague talk about me in such a way. I think someone who obviously considers themselves a professional actor would act more professionally but what else can we expect from someone who won’t sign their name to such a nasty and ill advised missive.
i find it kinda ridiculous that people actually approach art with as a means of living. I am an actor, and a fairly busy and successful one in DC, but no matter how much I work or who for, I still have to find other things to supplement my income. And this doesn’t bother me. I don’t do art for the money. I don’t even do it for the awards. I do it for the beauty.
Theatre remains, however, a business. And the only way we continue making theatre is by making money. We can’t do that via ticket sales- anyone can tell you that ticket sales even for a sold out run cannot pay for production costs alone. So we do it via dobations and other sources. Which tW is trying to rob smaller theatres of by refusing them the due recognition. Those that bend and bow to these new standards end up putting so much money into their artists that their production values suffer- where do you really think they’ll find that money otherwise? Are you such a fool to think they’re just sitting on it to keep the artists from having it? Don’t let the art suffer because you’re too lazy to work a day job.
I have to say- the mindset that if no one is making a livable wage then no one should demand better wages is ridiculous. Furthermore, whether or not an actor’s salary is a livable wage depends entirely on the individual actor’s circumstances. All of that being said- we are missing the point here- none of that is what this new requirement is about. It’s about drawing a line for eligibility for an award for Professional artists. Professionals need to be paid. Period. There are awards given for unpaid/community theater and there are awards given for Professional theater- both are deserved and important. The new eligibility requirement is simply that- a requirement for eligibility. It is acceptable, commendable, fair and long overdue.
And… why is no one talking about the fact that these amounts are still less than minimum wage in DC, MD and VA — if you can’t pay someone minimum wage for their work, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.
You are fortunate and I congratulate you. How long ago was this and what area? Where I live, with property values being what they are, and with the amount of local Equity contracts available and what they pay, and earning what I currently earn outside of theatre, Equity is not an option for me at my age. Maybe when I retire.
“The fact remains that if I worked 50 weeks a year as an Equity actor, I would make somewhere between a third and half of my current salary, if I was lucky. I don’t have any other means of support (affluent significant other, trust fund, etc), so if I want to eat, pay rent, have health insurance, be able to eventually afford a house, raise a child, etc, then there is no choice. I have a non-arts day job.”
As someone who was an actor for many years, I worked roughly that amount as an Equity actor. I made sacrifices to live and work as an Equity actor. That was my day job for almost 8 years. I was able to eat, pay rent, have health insurance, and I bought a house. Was it easy? Hell no! But I resent the idea that an actor can’t possibly make a living wage and therefore they shouldn’t demand it. Trust me there is a choice and trust me I know ALL about that choice.
(posting your reply to my post above…)
1. I’m not saying they are being asked to stop producing theatre, but it will require dramatic budgetary increases for many small companies, some of whom may not be able to meet that requirement. So either go broke, or go without HHA recognition.
2. My livelihood isn’t dependent on my acting income, so no. If it were otherwise, I would. In DC I was, on the whole, perfectly content with my remuneration. In Boston, I work for free when it’s my own production company, and rarely will consider working for no pay for other companies.
3. In the small theatre community, the artists and producers are on the same side of the country’s increasing wage gap crisis, not opposite sides. There’s no CEO producer making millions off the labor of the penniless artist/serfs. We’re ALL the 99% here.
4. When it means that Helen Hayes Awards are based more on artistic remuneration than artistic achievement, definitely.
The irony here is that I’m lobbying hard for better pay for Boston actors, and using the DC scene as a model, one that TW is now declaring inadequate. A $400 stipend in DC may apparently be insufficient for HHA consideration, but it’s $400 more than the average Boston actor is accustomed to receiving. Some perspective is appreciated here.
John –
First – no one is telling people to stop producing theatre, people are telling people that are minimums by which a professional company will be deemed. That’s two very different distinctions.
Second – I would have to ask you, were you ever demanding more wages?
Third – As americans we are demanding higher wages across the board because the costs of living are too high. Is your suggestion that we try and lower DCs cost of living instead of work as a community to find ways to meet the financial needs of our professional artists?
and finally – is this REALLY an aggressive solution?
(argh, had to re-type this from memory, thanks DCTC)
Matt and Andrew, you can demand more salary because you’re top-level designers, and the market for your skills is far more competitive than for mine.
In my days in DC, I almost never felt exploited/mistreated by any of the companies I worked with. And if I did, I’d leave. There have been, and probably still are, some companies that exploit, underpay or otherwise mis-treat their artists. Those companies typically don’t last long. You talk as if the theatre artists of DC have no clout. This is not the case. Companies that treat people poorly, by and large, quickly go out of business. Word gets around.
If people feel exploited by the theatre scene in DC, they are at liberty to try other markets. I react the same way when people complain about DC’s subway system. You think it’s bad? Try Boston or NYC’s.
DC was and remains the healthiest theatre market I’ve ever worked in. In DC I got paid. In NYC, I didn’t. In Boston, I rarely do. (Of course now, I am mainly a producer. We pay our artists as much as our budget permits.)
The issue isn’t so much that DC-area artists are underpaid, it’s that the cost of living is too damn high. Bark up the right tree; don’t villainize the theatremakers. most of whom are making far less off the creation of their work than the artists are.
TW is proposing an overly aggressive solution to a problem that really isn’t much of a problem, a solution that I believe will create far more harm than good.
At the end of the day companies want to create the best product – therefore to say companies will drive their prices down where there is currently strength and momentum in a movement to raise wages of the artists who’s time and skill is the product is insane. Even if they try, artists should value themselves more than a race to the bottom. Stand up for your worth.
I look forward to be proven wrong.
i don’t know John, talking about my fee with other people it became pretty obvious there was generally room in the budget for a varying amount of pay. If this does nothing else it should enlighten actors that their more valuable than a steipend. As for bigger theater’s lowering the fees in response; before there were no requirements so what was stopping companies from paying their actors at all? (Didn’t one theatre try to pay some members of the chorus in tickets? But then had to backtrack once the word got out?)
There is no way that this will lead larger theatres to pay non-union any less. Most are already paying much more than these minimums and this type of fear-mongering is dangerous and uncalled for. This hurts some of your more thoughtful arguments.
Right on! Not in.
PS DCTS, please get a site that is mobile responsive and a comment section that allows for an editing window.
Right in Carolyn! It’s crazy to me that there is so many people who are against paying people even these meager sums. It is my belief they chose these numbers because the fees are really the absolute minimums anyone should recieve for their work. I’m am very happy the HH has put this forward and excited for can a healthier theatre industry in DC because of it.
The fact remains that if I worked 50 weeks a year as an Equity actor, I would make somewhere between a third and half of my current salary, if I was lucky. I don’t have any other means of support (affluent significant other, trust fund, etc), so if I want to eat, pay rent, have health insurance, be able to eventually afford a house, raise a child, etc, then there is no choice. I have a non-arts day job.
So when I act, I neither require nor expect a living wage. I do expect, and usually receive, some degree of remuneration for my labor. It’s odd to hear that DC’s smaller theatres are being pressured to increase pay to their artists, especially when I was paid far better in DC than I was previously in NYC, or am now in Boston.
The fact remains that even the HHA-mandated minimum still isn’t a living wage. Hell, even the average Equity salary means DC’s leading Equity actors still have to wait tables, tend bar, teach, do headshot photography, temp, etc. to make ends meet.
I’d love to make more money – wouldn’t we all? – but I have sufficient faith in DC’s smaller theatre companies that the majority of them are already paying their artists as much as their budgets will allow, and are already engaged in as much fundraising as they are able (that work/life balance again), and are now facing the prospect of doing small-cast shows and/or slashing their rehearsal schedules in order to accommodate this minimum if they want the marketing and publicity perks of being Helen Hayes award candidates.
I also have sufficient cynicism to believe that once this minimum is in place, there’ll be nothing to stop DC’s Equity companies from lowering their non-Eq pay rates down to said minimum. Why pay me $225/wk when they can pay me $75 or less and still be HHA-eligible?
So, exactly how is this making things better?
The example of Papa John’s has more basis in bad reporting than in fact. “Many in the media reported that I said Papa John’s is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act.” – John Schnatter, in an op-ed in Huffington Post
I’ve worked for a professional DC theatre company that has spent more money on an actor’s shoes than on the actor’s understudy. Two months of near-daily labor is worth less than a pair of shoes.