Minimum Pay

I still don't think it will help.

A far better way would be to review a broad range of shows and, if you can demonstrate bad faith on the part of the producers, then call them out it as part of the review.

That sort of public shaming will have far more effect than just not giving coverage.

I have always been bewildered why fringe shows where the actors have not been paid much (if anything at all) were looked upon and reviewed as professional shows. To me the definition of professional is being paid - at least the minimum wage by law. If the performers are not paid it is simply an amateur show whether the performers were professionally trained or not. No different to the local am dram society.

So I support Mark Shenton in this, although he has strongly championed the Union Theatre in the past ( I believe he lives locally to the theatre) where performers have been paid well below Equity rates in the past. I hope he sticks to his commitment!

My only concern is that if actors are prepared to work for free it is because they want the exposure and the showcase of what they can do and need the "reviews" to help their careers - so not reviewing fringe/amateur work may work against them.

I agree with the principle that performers absolutely should be paid rather than exploited. I don't know the solution where it involves theatres that can only afford to offer a pittance, if that (it's far too simplistic to say "if you can't afford to pay, you can't afford to put on the play"), but I don't think refusal to review is it. To take it FAR too far, the 1949 Geneva Conventions have collective punishment as a crime. Although it's not the same *thing*, it's a relatively similar principle to my thinking. Theatre is collectively created, and where producers are behaving poorly and should see consequences, I'm reluctant to impose any myself (such as refusing to buy tickets) because that will *also* impact negatively on the artists who haven't done anything wrong themselves and just want to put on a good show.

Literally NOTHING is ever easy.

How do people determine whether any given production is paying people at the level you consider appropriate?

As there is no longer a legal requirement for Equity rates to be paid to performers, how do you determine what is the appropriate level for pay?

I agree that people should be paid in all professional spheres but it is surely up to performers and their agents to negotiate with producers to agree on their pay - as long as it meets the minimum wage rules.

There are start-up producers who don't have a lot of capital who will want to pay as much as they can - but also need to establish themselves in the profession so that they can continue to make work in the future. Why should their productions be denied the oxygen of publicity that a review can bring - just because they can't (at this point in their development) afford to pay what someone else thinks they should?

I would much rather see people being guaranteed payment below Equity rates than being promised a Profit Share that may never actually be generated.

I don't want to see anyone be exploited in any profession. But I also don't want anyone to sit as judge and jury with regards to which productions should or should not be reviewed.

We should be supporting start-up producers - not setting up barriers.

I wonder how many non-Equity rate shows Shenton has reviewed over the past year.

Just to get a sense of what he sees to be the scale of the problem.

I really don't have any real idea as to the scope of non-Equity rates in the industry.

Ok, let's take somewhere like Hope Mill Theatre. It's on record, in The Stage, that although they pay £300 per week during the run of a show, they only pay £200 per week for rehearsals, which, depending on the number of hours spent rehearsing, must surely be below the National Living/Minimum Wage.

Although I've not been yet, as I understand it, Hope Mill Theatre is most definitely professional rather than amateur.

"Wow, ticket sales are REALLY down for this show. We'd hoped to just about break even, but we're definitely going to lose money. Better take all that money we don't have and give EVEN MORE of it to the actors, and never mind the bills!"

I mean, it's a nice thought, but even with a concentrated online campaign making it clear to the producers just why people aren't buying tickets, it doesn't sound like an especially realistic scenario...

An awful lot of fringe theatre comes about via groups of friends (out of work/aspiring actors, writers, and directors) getting together and saying "hey let's find a venue that offers b/o split and put something on so we can invite people, rather than sitting in front of the telly all day waiting for the phone to ring." That kind of truly collaborative unpaid work needs to be protected, because without it you effectively close down one of the only avenues artists from non-mainstream backgrounds have to get a foot in the door. But it can be difficult to target the exploiters and not harm the artists.

Labelling it as amateur actively hurts and blocks opportunities for many early-career artists. How do you avoid that? The last thing we want is to do more to shut out people who are already marginalised. 

Collaborative fringe work and the career boost it can give (and critics are an essential part of that) has been responsible for launching the careers of a hell of a lot of actors, writers, and directors. I know Olivier winners who would never have been able to start their careers without it. I pay the mortgages on two houses entirely through what I earn making theatre and that certainly would not have happened without collaborative fringe. Without it the theatre landscape would be drastically smaller.

Is this the same Mr Shenton who was complaining about not getting a free ticket from The Nash for a plus one previously? Or am I thinking about someone else?