RESEARCH FINDING: These two ingredients are KEY to making better panto

It seems like forever ago that I started my PhD research exploring the question: "How does contemporary British Pantomime respond to Evolving Ideas of Identity?"  For those of you that have continued reading my blog, I'm sure it seems like even longer!

In truth, it's only been three years (nearly), and the end is very firmly in sight. In that time I have:

• interviewed dozens of panto big wigs, 
• held town hall meetings with my audiences, 
• gathered stakeholder feedback, 
• recorded dozens of hours of audio diaries, 
• innovated the form, and 
• analysed my companies data to death.  
• And read about a bajillion books about pantomime history.  
• And another bajillion about identity politics.  
• And at least two bajillion about academic methodology (don't even...) 
• Oh, and best of all - I've produced 7 pantomimes, which I used as a test bed to put my research and ideas into practice.  

I am knackered.  I look forward to publishing my research next year, telling you all what I've discovered, along with my recommendations for best practice.  BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG... Right here, on this very blog I can reveal for the first time ever  

My Top Two Innovative Contributions to the Form!!!!

* Application of the Hyperlocal Lens *

* The Repositioning of Meaning-Value with a Gifting Paradigm *

"What are you on about?"  

"Why those two things?"

"How did you get to that decision?"

So many questions! I know - it's exciting, isn't it?  Let me explain... from the very beginning. It's a very good place to start. (Apparently - Julie A.)

The Big Bang (T = -6 months)

I got the idea to start my research after a very effervescent conversation about race and Aladdin.  The conversers were a diverse bunch with loads of different opinions, and I found myself defending the "it's traditional" corner.  Before anyone gets any silly ideas: I wasn't in the "slap on some yellow face paint and pigtails" corner, just the: as long as everyone is respectful, it's surely OK to set it in China camp.  

The Emperor of China, Stockport Plaza (2012).
Yellow masking tape over eyes, Wickes (£3.50 per roll)
NB Going by the poster, the upcoming 2025 production features the same costume track! -
hopefully the make-up pad has run out of yellow by now...

I love a good argument!  I'm not even very averse to a bad one, from time to time.  However, in this case I found myself frustrated - not because I was losing. Because I was shut out.  I was white, middle-class, privileged - I had no first hand experience of "feeling yellow," or racial discrimination - and therefore, my view was deemed worthless and therefore disregarded. I'm eager to concede that there is huge and irreplaceable value to be derived from those with lived experience, both in the perspective that it may offer and also in the profundity of subjective truth that it can unlock - however, doing so would not help me.  Even if one could change race, to do so just to win an argument would surely be the worst type of colonialism. 

With all other options off the table, it is to my great chagrin that my antagonistic-ape-brain conjured up for me a secondary, more obscure route by which I might enhance my credibility: "All you need to do" it whispered, "is become the world's expert in that field, and then, come back in 4 years time and retort "AHA! My opinion does matter!"

Stupid, petty, peevish ape-brain... why are you always inventing the most ridiculous strategies just to try and defend your overinflated ego?!

Six months later I was enrolled as a PhD candidate.

Aladdin (T = 12 months)

That Christmas we produced Aladdin at the Met in Bury.   It was the second time we'd staged the show - this time in a much bigger town with vastly different demographics.  Our production practices were informed by what I was learning - we tried different approaches to casting, rewrote the script to reflect different heritages of the actors, even remade a few costumes. However, I didn't lose sight of the main aim: vindication.

The production did end up with a more ethnically diverse cast, but it also had:

• Traditional Peking location
• Glittery Chinese set and cloths
• Chinese policemen
• An Empress in traditional style costume and black wig
• Hanfu inspired costumes
• A traditional Chinese liondancer costume
• Travel to Egypt
• Traditional laundry scene
• Traditional character names
• A gong sound effect
• The Old Bazaar in Cairo
• Sand dance choreography

It also had zero audience complaints, record box office takings, and excellent reviews across the board - including a review in the British Theatre Guide that acknowledged the production "sticks to its traditional setting... while avoiding any uncomfortable racial stereotyping" and "is made by people who clearly love the form."

"There," I thought, "that proves it - it can be done."  I should have felt vindicated, but actually, I felt like... I was answering the wrong question.

The tropes of Aladdin were solidified over 100 years ago, in Victorian Britain - a Britain that was very, very different to the country we live in today.  Not just demographically, but culturally, and also internationally.  The reasons why the Victorians included all these conventions in the panto have either dissipated or withered away.

"OK," I thought.  "So, you can defend Victorian Aladdin. But so what?  Why should we bother?"

If the Victorians used pantomime to build their identity, why shouldn't we?  If pantomime could help build an empire, what else could it do?  It seemed to me, these were much better questions!

★★★★★ 

"Pure family Christmas entertainment and everything you want for a fun filled two and a half hours (including interval), take the family and enjoy"

ABOUT MANCHESTER

 

Rumpelstiltskin (T = 12-24 months)

My first attempt to explore these questions was Rumpelstiltskin.  

No. Days to rehearse the play: 8
No. Days for Will to make the cartouche hang straight: 1.5

It was a familiar title with a mostly-forgotten story, which was great for me.  I bastardised the script and turned it into a play about otherisation and in-/out-grouping dynamics.  Even though the production felt super traditional, it challenged fundamental tenets of the form including what it means to be a villain and the Boalian positioning of the audience as spect-actors.  I loved turning everything upside down, encouraging the children to sell their souls to Rumpelstiltskin in act 1 and hearing the whole audience chanting spells for his revival by the end.  Dramaturgically it had such depth, we had some audience members weeping, yet we managed to deliver it with a lightness of touch that made it relatable for all ages.  It was in the words of the Manchester Evening News a "family crowdpleaser that punches well above its weight."

Nancy Penvose (left) was so dedicated to the role of Rumpelstiltskin
she purposefully lost 4" of height during rehearsal to make him appear more vulnerable

It was a great first foray into how panto could address issues of identity.  But it did so passively.  It was time to try a more active approach.

The Victorians didn't use panto to talk about identity, the used it to create identity.  "I'm going to have a go at that," I thought.  Then spent a few months wondering what identity I wanted to create.

A great fact I'd picked up somewhere from some book that I'm currently too lazy to look back up is: by 1900, 60% of all London pantomimes were staged at least partially in another country. Aladdin was incredibly popular, but even titles like Cinderella had been spruced up (with one production being set in Ethiopia) and seemingly every time we had a war (which was a lot of times, btw) some production of Jack and the Beanstalk would personify our opponent as the Giant.  That's all well and good if you're trying to inculcate an imperial identity within an ethically homogenous, not internationally travelling audience.  But I don't have one of those - so I'd have to do some more thinking.

The Hyperlocal Lens

During my research, I've been keeping a reading log.  I'm now up to about 300 books, which is about right for a PhD bibliography.  But unlike other PhD bibliographies, mine reads like marched through a library with a blunderbuss full library cards, randomly shooting at every disciplinary section and reading the first five books on any shelf I hit.  

Partly this is because when I started I was so ill-informed that I had to get up to base level on pretty much everything all at once.  I've read books on Victorian pantomime, the British Empire, Crip Theory, Feminist theory, Orientalism, Identity Theory, Identity Politics, Psychology, Post-Colonialism... you get the idea.

It was about this time, as I was getting immersed in Media Studies, that I came across the idea of hyperlocality: a way of thinking about geographically bounded shared cultural experience.  Or in other words, things made for people who live near each other.  It was a really interesting lens. Over the last 100 years, demographic shift had changed the make up of panto audiences so much that the rationale underpinning the conventions of the genre was increasingly unsound. Unlike Victorian audiences, modern pantogoers are not a sea of white, Christian, or even British faces - so what are they?  Well, unless you're producing the Palladium panto... they are all local.

This is a local pantomime for local people!

Ironically, Victorian panto producers were already onto this idea, long before Media Studies even existed.  The go-to academic on the topic of regional pantomime production 1860-1900 is Jill Sullivan who first showed in her PhD thesis (2005) "the available empirical evidence has served to foreground the pantomime text as an expression of local concerns and political interests that were particular to each town and displayed an acute awareness of issues of regional identity and status."  

Tip-off: Sullivan's book on the topic:  "The Politics of the Pantomime: Regional Identity in the Theatre 1860–1900" is a fantastic read for anyone interested in the topic (as it was particularly for me, as it has a plethora of specific examples of pantomimes staged in Manchester.)

These hyperlocal conventions seem to get slowly shed by commercial producers during the twentieth century, as mass media shrinks first the country and then the world.  Popular comedy routines become embedded, divorced from their original meaning and then stale.  The pursuit of economies of scale lead to the consolidation of regional contracts into large portfolios of a small number of national players.  The final death knell for hyper localism may well have been heard with the casting of international celebrities, as documented by the UKPA's Simon Sladen.

In the process, the form lost two things of immense value: urgent relevance and connection to their audiences.  I want them back.  And I think we can get them.

A note of caution: Victorian Pantomime production and contemporary practice face vastly different contemporary mores and demographies.  Victorian pantomimes reinforced local identity as a foil against London-centred homogenisation of extent regional cultures. Modern pantomime must respond to modern audiences who increasingly originate from diverse locations and may include transitory and immigrant populations with few or no long standing ties to the local area and/or theatre tradition.  When we use pantomime to reinforce local identity, we do so not to defend, but to create.  For the modern producer, hyperlocality is an action, not a reaction - and as such, demands a greater level of sophistication, forethought and precision in its application.

Mother Goose (T = 24 months)

The next iteration of my practice was a hyperlocal production of Mother Goose which we made from scratch specifically for Saddleworth.  I'm not the first person to reimagine this outdated story in the present moment - in our production, Mother Goose didn't wish for beauty or youth, but 100000 TikTok followers instead.  

Despite his best efforts, hyperlocal puppy Toby was largely ineffective at installing the set

Not only did we make it much more relevant for right now, at the same time we made great efforts to make it relevant right here. We made it hyperlocal.

I love Saddleworth, and so does my audience.  So it seemed like the natural place to set the story.  We went round the town taking photos of interesting and recognisable views - views which we then reimagined in our cloth designs.  Saddleworth is a rural community, so I dumped the demon and brought in a Fox... from Fox Entertainment in Media City, Manchester (the valley and the identity of those who live there is distinct from, and contrasted to their giant metropolis next door).  I wrote in dialect, and filmed VT sections around the town with local people and familiar faces, which we then projected as part of the show.  

Imaginary villain Phineas Fox played by real-life fox Tessa Vale 

Outside the auditorium I called town hall meetings and took polls on what the audience thought was important.  We visited local events throughout the year, in costume.  We engaged with local drama groups, schools and charities, running workshops and competitions.

It was in the production of this show that I felt, as a practitioner, the reward I had hoped would have come from our Chinese-Aladdin.  Aladdin had been my show.  Mother Goose was Saddleworth's show.  And the audience knew it!

Mother Goose led me to articulate another vital pillar of my theoretical framework: 

Meaning-Value and the Gifting Paradigm

When I had started, I had viewed meaning as a thing to be owned, as exemplified in thoughts such as: "You don't own the story Aladdin, just because you've got Chinese heritage," or "I can use my production to create my own meaning."

I have now come to understand that greater value of meaning is realised not through the act of claiming ownership over it, but through the act of giving ownership away.

Pantomime is a commercial form.  Producers make shows to sell.  The most successful and canny producers have a very firm understanding of their target audience: demography, price points, access requirements, celebrity draws. Their production processes are well-oiled machines, turning out palatable productions that equate to bums on seats.  One might say that these producers make these shows for their audience. This is a linguistic trick.  Actually, they make their shows for profit.  The pantomime production is a product, owned by the company, and rented out in 2-hour viewing slots to their target demographics. 

If a pantomime production were truly made for an audience, ownership must be exchanged.  Production processes are still acts of creation, but not of a product, but of a gift.   The distinction is hugely important.

A product is something you can buy off the shelf, generic, available to anyone, anywhere.  Commercial producers love making products - products are very profitable. They can be made to a blueprint by on a schedule, on a line, by workers who only do one thing. Products can be made from interchangeable parts so they are easy to replicated, standardised and predicted.  Products are replaceable.  When somebody buys a product, they buy one instance; the company retains the blueprints and the processes to turn out another instance, and another and so on ad infinity.

When you make a gift for someone, you do so with that person at the forefront of your mind - from the start to the end of the process/. You think about what they already have, and imagine what they might need or want or be delighted by. To make a gift is to make something bespoke, one-off, especially for them, especially by you.  When you give a gift, you relinquish control. It still remains your creation - just as one might recognise a painting as "a Picasso," without implying Picasso still owns it - it just stops being your thing.  

For all the reasons commercial producers love making products, they really don't like making gifts.  Even making a gift for someone you know takes thought, creativity and imagination - and the process is ten times harder if it's someone you only see once a year.  Worst of all, even if you make the perfect gift, once you've given it away, you have to start over again.  Different gifts suit different people - a fact much attestested to by, and at the annoyance of, every Christmas Eve shopper who wishes they could by 12 of one thing and call it quits.

5 signs your show is a product, not a gift.

1. The references are interchangeable.  
• "It could be worse, you could be in <insert name of local town>".
2. The jokes are replicated.  
• Same jokes as last year?  
• Same jokes as the production company other shows?
3. The roles are archetypes not characters.  
• The actors play DAME and COMIC, not SARAH and BILLY.
4. The costumes and set are a hodgepodge of what the producer/hire company/actor has in stock 
• "We'll work out something funny to say when he comes on during rehearsal."
• 
  
5. It contains scenes, routines or lines that somebody else wrote for some other play or film, for some other actors in some other context (and possibly some other generation.) 

• "We'll do that bit - you know that whatshisface does - does anyone remember how it goes?"

The Pied Piper of Hamelin (T= 36 months)

This year's production in Bury will be testbed for my theories and the culmination of my research.  Everything about the production is hyperlocal, from the ground up.  It's been a heck of a task to prep everything, but with 6 weeks until rehearsals, I've got a feeling we're going to give over something quite extraordinary to the people of Bury this Christmas.

There's no space left in this blog to explain how we've applied the lens of hyperlocalism, and the framework of meaning-gifting to all the different parts of our process.  If you want that kind of detail you'll have to wait for the 100,000 word thesis to come out sometimes next summer.  Not only am I recording my journey, I'm establishing recommendations for best practice - so we call all make panto better together.

Of course, if you don't want to wait that long, you can buy a ticket and come and see for yourself!

5 Signs to watch out for, that show The Pied Piper was made as a gift, not a product

(and good ideas to nab and reinvent in your own practice):

 

1.    Themes are relevant to this audience at this time. 

    Everyone in Bury gets a wish every time Bury FC are promoted

    The villain is seeking to develop the land beneath the market 

2.   Local references, characters and plot points hard baked into the script, not added on!

PEEWEE: Where are all the black puddings? Have you checked upper Ramsbottom?

BEA:          I did. I found something.  But it definitely wasn't black pudding.

          ORANGE PEEL: Quiet you two, or I'll invent the police and have you all arrested!

3.    Comedy and meaning emanate from the shared experience of the local audience.

Singing.

Market day in the borough of bury

half hour wait for a table at spoons

half a mile tailback into bury

Grind to a halt on

The b-road from Bolton

And you’ll be here soon!  

4.    Physical elements are designed or sourced specifically to facilitate the moments made by the script-in-performance.

 eg, The front cloth is a map of the town

the portals are Peel Tower and Bury Market sign

the mayor is costumed as an Orange (referencing famous Buryite Robert Peel)

5.    The community are engaged with during the process, not just at the moment of transaction.

Audition slots set aside for local residents.  Local casting.

Opportunities made available for local communities and creatives

Local businesses sponsoring access provision

Follow up surveys and opportunities for feedback

Agents: are they worth the money?

  

This blog is dedicated to 1. the young grads who told me after their showcase, how anxious they were about getting an agent.

2, The super helpful and very amenable Helen Grady who has graciously offered corrections, and for whose help I am very grateful.  Corrections following her comments are in red, and her original comment is appended at the bottom of the blog

It’s half past seven on a standard Tuesday night: trays full of mimosas tour round the crowded ballroom at the Ritz. Theatrical agents and theatre producers mingle.

“We need someone to play opposite Daniel Day Lewis,” says Mmme. Bigshot de Pinewood.  “But it’s so hard to find anyone with a 3 yr MT degree, panto experience, playing age 20-39, 5’8” with a base in both London and Bradford!”

 

“Darling, why didn’t you say?” says the agent, flamboyantly waving her vol-au-vent.  “I’ve got just the person!  Pass me your phone, I’ll type in her spotlight pin!” 

 

Oh, what a lovely scene.  

 

But it’s not how things work.  Not anymore.  Not for mere mortals like us.

 

I’m not sure the industry ever worked like this.

‘But entertainment is all about “who you know”, not “what you know”. Isn’t it?’. Don’t you believe it: training, persistence, positive work ethic and building a good reputation will (in the long run) all prove to be more valuable, more often, and more consistently than knowing the ‘right people’.  Of course, if what you mean by ‘the right people’ is people who end up giving you acting work, then there’s no better way of ensuring you’re surrounded by them than training, persistence, positive work ethic and building a good reputation!

Aside - OK, there is a slim, sliver of actors for whom this adage may hold true: ones who are part of a dynasty perhaps – a Sheen or a Fox or a Garland etc.  If your parents know everyone, you may well find you get a few ins others don’t.  However, if you have a megastar parent, you’re also much more likely to have grown up in the industry, have had excellent training, and have inherited/learned the same work ethic that helped your forebears climb to the top.  Nobody’s looking at Liza with a Z and thinking “she only got Sally Bowles because of Judy!” However, such counterexamples are merely exceptions that prove the rule.  If you do have a leg-up, use it… but 99% percent of us don’t.  And there’s no way of choosing new parents now!

 

Actual snap of Sir Ian McKellen's agent during the casting process for Mother Goose

Celebs may have agents that get them jobs “privately” – by which I mean, for which there is no audition, at least not one you have opportunity to attend.  Of these: a few are very glamorous roles, lead roles with stunt casting, names that are used to drive audience numbers, but in the grand scheme of things, these make up such a slim sliver of the pie, for our purposes, we can ignore them.  Many more roles that are “privately” cast go to returning artistes – ‘safe pairs of hands’, ‘company members’ and ‘audience favourites.’   By contrast with the very glamorous roles, these are roles that mere mortals like us might have been cast in.  The fact that these roles aren’t cast openly is a matter of huge frustration for anyone trying to get a first foot in the door, but is a boon both for time-pressed and budget-responsive producers as well as the established actors that return.  Whether it’s fair or not, is a topic best left for another time.

 

However, just about everyone else is cast through some kind of casting process, and some overwhelming proportion of these involve Spotlight.

 

The great thing about Spotlight is once you’re on it, you don’t need an agent to make a submission.

 

I’ll repeat that: you don’t NEED an agent.

 

There may have been a point in the past where you did need an agent, but those days are gone.

 

I’m NOT saying: you shouldn’t have an agent.  Nor that you’d be better off without one.

GREAT AGENTS: Costs vs Benefits
 

A great agent not only manages actors, but guides and nurtures them, working together to grow successful careers, underpinned by great relationships and positive work habits.

1: My agent has eight arms.  2: How do they smell?  1: Like an octopus!

 

Things a great agent can do for you: 

 

1. Networks – they maintain personal relationships with theatre producers (you can tell which ones because the casts of their always have one or two of the agents clients)
2. Advocates for you – they ring round producers the day before the auditions.  “Have you had any cancellations?  Any free slots?  Have you considered my client – they mightn’t quite fit the brief, but they’ve got a good look and a Manchester base.”
3. Is collaborative – they know what you want to do, they know your availability, they check in with you before subbing your profile: would you like to do this job?  
4. Sets you up for success – they make sure you fill the brief and are ready to take the role, they have checked the terms of the contract are acceptable before sending you in to audition, they communicate clearly with the producers what makes you such a good fit, they brief you beforehand: what are the producers looking for? What is going to impress them?
5. Administrate – Go through any contracts thoroughly, explain what will be expected to you, invoice in advance, chase late payments, disseminate wages quickly.  It's not rocket science, but it is admin… and if you wanted to do admin, you wouldn’t be an actor.

And what does this cost you?  A measly, piffling 20%. Believe me, it's worth every penny!

 

If you’ve got a great agent, cling on to them with both hands. They’re not as common as you might think, and they’re worth their weight in gold.

 

 

GOOD AGENTS: Costs vs Benefits

 

If your agent gets you a job, you’re quids-in right from the start.  Anyone who puts pounds in your pocket is worth their commission.  And worth hanging onto, believe me!

 

However, most agents don’t get us jobs, they get us auditions.  Which is nothing to sniff at!  Keeping an eye on Spotlight and subbing profiles is definitely work, and it definitely has a value.  Of course, if you find you find that you have to do job-board watching and ‘nudge your agent’ every time something suitable comes up… you may not be getting value for money.

 

Let’s imagine the audition.  Most of the actors in the waiting room were submitted by agents. Only a few submitted themselves.

 

Let’s imagine one of the roles goes to one of those actors who self-submitted. Imagine the contract is £3000.  At the end of the contract, that actor ends up £3000 cash in your pocket (and HMRC’s pocket).

 

Imagine you get cast in another role.  Your agent takes 20%*, so you only end up with £2400.  In fact, any actor represented by an agent, would need to be paid £3750 to end up getting as much as the un-represented performer.  In other words, an agent must provide £750 worth of value before their client is as well off as they would be without any representation.

 *Helen suggests a useful clarification here: 20% is typically at the top end of what an agent may charge for theatrical work.  Other rates are also common.  10% is, in my experience, the low end and less common than it used to be

That is a HUGE amount on a £3000 contract.  Budgets are typically much, much tighter than that. Perhaps you have a hard-nosed agent who can argue even the most spendthrift producer into covering a few travel expenses, but unless you’re arriving by helicopter, you’ll not likely break £750.

Nothing worth having is ever free

Leaving aside for a moment the value you gained from being submitted.  The rest of the shortfall is money you’re paying for watching contract management: Reading, advising, filing, invoicing.   

 

How much that’s worth will depend on the person (and the contract).but if I were paying hundreds of pounds for contract advice, I’d expect some red ink and circles with question marks… and for all the invoice to be submitted postdated before the contract began.

 
NOT-SO-GOOD AGENTS: Costs v Benefits

Some agents are in it for the artists, some are in it for the money

 

When a producer logs into Spotlight, they see a directory.  Folders and subfolders for each of the shows that they’re producing, as well as their previous productions.

 

Every production folder contains subfolders for each character.  Every subfolder contains the profiles of everyone who’s been submitted for that role.

 

It’s not possible to audition everyone who is submitted for a role.  Instead, the producer looks through the CVs and watches the showreels.

 

If you are running multiple shows, or have lots of submissions, it may not possible to look at every CV and/or watch the showreels.  Honestly, it’s not for wont of trying – we get many less submissions than big companies and when we do casting we work 100+ hours weeks.  If numbers are so high that hard work isn’t enough, you have to find ways to whittle down the inbox to something you can manage.

 

I can only speak for us, but here are some of the tricks we use:

 

If an agent has submitted more than 5 people for a role, we don’t look at them.  Some agents submit 20+ actors for every role, even though our character breakdowns are very specific.  It simply isn’t possible that they represent so many actors that match the brief.  They haven’t read the brief.  They’re just submitting everyone.  Even if one or two might be good, that means 90-95% of our time looking at their client’s profiles would be wasted.

 

If we’ve had a bad experience with lots of actors from a particular agency, we don’t look at any of their submissions.  What counts as a bad experience?  Here are a few:

• Not showing up for your audition slot (without explanation).  
• Turning down an offer for the role you auditioned for any reason you knew in advance (“it’s too far from home” “It’s at Christmas” “It isn’t TV”)
• Accepting a role then gazzumping the company for a “bigger offer”
• Claiming to live withing 25miles of the venue at the audition, then changing your mind after offer and negotiating for subs. 

 

Of course, things like this are bound to happen – they are to be expected.  As you also might expect: the more shows you produce, the more times things like this will happen.   What you might not expect is: when things like this do inevitably happen, and you go on spotlight to make a note for future reference, how frequently you see the same few agencies pop-up. How many times must you see the same name, Agency XYZ, before it becomes reasonable to assume Agency XYZ has a culture you don’t want to work with?  5?  10?  You can decide your own number.  We have our own – and after an agency reaches it, we don’t look at their submissions.

 

If we have a few bad experiences with an agent (or possibly just one big one), we don’t consider their submissions.  What are bad experiences we have with agents?

• They don’t respond to emails
• They don’t confirm attendance to auditions
• They are rude on the phone
• They don’t read the contracts properly
• They don’t read the brief/they submit performers who aren’t interested
• They are extremely pushy

If you are reading this thinking: why don’t I ever get called for a Big Tiny panto, there is some non-zero chance that you have been submitted, but we haven’t looked at your profile, simply because of who represents you.

 

 

 

BAD AGENTS: Costs...

 

Of course, you may have a really bad agent: an agent that’s losing you work.

 

Every year, when we send out offers to actors, there are a few we end up chasing.  Usually, the agents are dragging their heels on purpose: e.g. waiting for yes/no on some bigger contract (third round Les Mis, some bigger panto), and when pressed for a decision will usually try for a betterment clause.  However, some claim they’ve “not had any time to discuss it” (code for “I’ve not sent it on.”) and some agents just stop replying at all.

 

I’ll repeat that: some agents do not return emails or answer their phones. 

So…

The role gets offered to somebody else.

 One time following 2 weeks of silence we sent out an email rescinding an offer, only to receive an angry reply explaining they hadn’t been answering answerphone messages or emails because they were waiting for their client to come back from holiday… and now they had, they will accept!  Too late.

 

Some agents literally stop their clients getting paid

Luckily we’ve not had a repeat of that this year.  Although we did have an email from an actor asking for feedback; our response? We offered the part to you 10 days ago – we’ve tried to chase up your agent twice since then.  Would you like the part?  

 Delightfully they said yes!

 

ALTERNTATIVES:  Co-ops and Self-rep

 

What about you? Do you have a great agent, a good agent, a good-enough-for-right-now agents, or a good-grief-I-need-someone-better agent?

Maybe your agent is somewhere in-between. 
They might be great at networking, awful at admin.  
They might be great, but some of the time, until they’re overworked - then they’re awful. 
They might have been great when you signed with them, then they signed 200 others and now you’ve not heard from them since March.

If that sounds like you: remember you don’t NEED an agent.  Alternatives do exist.

You could become part of an actor’s co-operative.  A co-op is a group of performers who band together to share the costs and responsibilities of representation, with members taking turns to submit each other for roles and handle basic admin tasks. Popular co-ops like Act On It and The Actors' Co-operative typically charge a monthly fee (usually £20-40) rather than (and/or in conjunction with*) commission, giving actors more control over their submissions while splitting the workload of monitoring Spotlight and managing applications. 

 *thanks to the proof reader!

You don't have to be able to afford shop in co-op to join a co-op

On one hand, you’ll save on commission, on the other, your committing to giving time. Whether that’s worth it or not will depend – but for someone with lots of time but not lots of money, it’s got to be worth considering.

 

Or, of course, you could self-represent.  Watch the Spotlight board yourself, read the breakdowns, submit.  Communicate directly with the producers.  Send your own invoices.  You might have to learn a few things – you may not be a natural adminner or an accounts-whizz – but then again, plenty of other actors manage it: they can’t all have A-level business administration!  *SEE APPEND

 

I can’t speak for everyone, but honestly, The Big Tiny have never not called a performer because they were self-represented.  If you’re already having some doubts about your agent, you could always try giving self-rep a go… there’s little to lose, and you might even discover some talents you never knew you had.

Remember 10x8s?  Those were the days!

 

TLDR:

 

·      Every actor would love to have a great agent.  

·      There aren’t enough great agents to go round.

·      Having an agent (any agent) has a cost

·      Having a not-very-good agent has hidden costs

·      Bad agents can lose you work

·      You may be better as part of a co-op

·      Self-represention is a viable option

Helen's original comment. 

This is an interesting blog post, but there are quite a few things in it I would query.

1. Co-ops (in my experience) usually have lower commission than traditional agents but not *no* commission. 

2. The 20% commission you state in your remarks about what an agent keeps/takes is not universal. Some agents charge less than this -*especially* for theatre.

3. Most important of all in the discussion about agents: 

Yes, you can self submit on Spotlight without an agent. BUT- an unrepresented actor only sees a TINY percentage of available jobs on Spotlight. An unrepresented actor simply won't *know* about most Spotlight- advertised opportunities if they don't have an agent. 

It is so important for actors to knowhat to look for in an agent.

-----

ADDENDUM

Helen's third point is very apposite.  However, my limited search skills were unable to get any clarity wrt the size of the discrepency.  The following response was returned by Claude 4.0 Sonnet AI.

The commenter is partially correct, but it's more nuanced than they suggest.

Here's what the evidence shows about role visibility on Spotlight:

Self-represented actors DO see fewer roles than agents, but not necessarily just "a fraction." There will be projects that are only sent to agents, and that is the benefit of having an agent – sometimes they'll see slightly different projects to what you see as a self-represented performer. Tips for Using Spotlight When You're a Self-Represented Performer | Spotlight

The key differences are:

Agent-only roles exist: Casting directors have the option to curate which agents they prefer to get submissions from. How Spotlight Really Works Some casting directors choose to send certain breakdowns only to agents, not to all performers.

"All performers" roles: Many roles are sent to both agents and self-represented performers. Casting directors post roles to the Spotlight Jobs Board to all agents and all performers, regardless of agency status which they see in their jobs feed when signed in. FAQs and Help for Performers and Actors | Spotlight Link Jobs Board

Private lists: There is truth in the rumour that "higher tier" agents, for want of a better phrase, see higher profile casting breakdowns. How Spotlight Really Works This suggests a tiered system where established agents may receive access to more premium projects.

However, self-represented actors still have significant access: With the jobs feed board, casting directors can choose to send a project to both the agents and performers, and that means that you'll be seeing that side of things. Tips for Using Spotlight When You're a Self-Represented Performer | Spotlight

The reality is that while self-represented actors may see fewer roles overall, they still have access to a substantial number of opportunities. The exact proportion isn't publicly disclosed by Spotlight, but it's not accurate to say they only see "a fraction" - it would be more accurate to say they see "somewhat fewer" roles than agents do.