If my blog were a person, he’d be feelin’ pretty old right now.
I wrote the blog because I was producing Off-Broadway at the time and it was painfully clear that there wasn’t enough demand for 8 shows a week. So using the Actors Equity “Per Performance” contract, we were able to keep shows running for a much longer period of time, and therefore keep people employed for a much longer period of time.
And here’s some case study data for you:
The shows that did less than 8 shows a week were more commercially successful than the shows that did 8.
You can read the blog here. Reminder, it is 14 years old. I like to think I’m a better blogger now. But you’ll tell me, I’m sure. 🙂
Why am I rubbing my blog’s age in his old face?
In other words, some shows might come back for 7 shows a week or 5 or. . . . whatever they can agree on.
And yes, that’d mean a pro-rated salary as well.
Fewer shows per week, allows you to reduce other expenses as well. You don’t have to spend as much advertising to fill 5 shows as you do 8. You shouldn’t (!) have to pay as much rent (this was what made the Off-Broadway model work).
So, since we know that demand is going to be less when Broadway comes back (due to the fact that tourism won’t be at the levels we need to support 8 shows a week for so many shows – and locals are still not wanting to go out on a Tuesday night), I believe pro-rating is a “makes sense” solution for our first step back.
Provided that everyone gets on the pro-rating page, of course. This comeback means every party pitching in to make this work, from unions to producers to accountants and managers and . . . everyone.
But if it worked, pro-rating could get MORE shows back and FASTER, because there will be less risk for returning or new shows. They will not only be exposed to less risk, but they’ll be more likely to fill a house, provided a better experience for the audience and those on stage as well.
Want more news like this? Join the TheaterMakers Facebook Group and connect with more theatermakers like you.