Musings on an Efficient Marketplace for Actors

Thirty years ago, the New York branch of Screen Actors Guild was enmeshed in a hot debate about talent agency commissions. Who ought to pay them? Should it be the actors? Or should the producers pay for agent services? The conclusion was that the actors ought to pay because that way the talent agents would have the keenest financial incentive to go out into the world to find acting work.

Indeed, it was concluded, the most efficient market place -- and the best situation for actors -- was one in which talent agents would earn 100% of their income from commissions. Casting directors, on the other hand, should be paid by producers because that gives them the greatest financial incentive to beat the bushes to secure the best possible talent at the lowest possible price. Talent agents and casting directors, therefore, have opposite roles to play in the market place. Talent agents work for actors, casting directors work for producers.

I bring all this up now because it is my strong opinion that the market place for actors in the Bay Area is not as efficient as it ought to be. For one thing, we probably have too many talent agents for the amount of local acting work that is available. And, while most of the agencies are making 100% of their income from commissions, several have found back-alley ways to bring in additional money.

Some, for instance, are promoting acting classes in which they have a financial interest, a practice which is flat-out against California state law. Some are charging actors for a garden variety of services, from head-shot book fees to Internet web site fees to...you name it. One agency is even selling CD's, tee-shirts and baseball caps!

Free enterprise is a wonderful concept, folks, and I happen to be more libertarian than most in that regard. For me, it is almost a religious conviction that an open, competitive market place is healthy. But in an industry like ours, where there is an imbalance in supply and demand -- i.e. where there are more actors trying to get work than there are jobs available -- unfettered free enterprise can too easily lead to exploitation of actors and an inefficient market place. This is why we have SAG, AFTRA and AEA in the first place, and it is why Section 1700.5 of the California Labor Code was written.

We all applaud the Bay Area talent agents who work diligently in this small market to secure acting work for their clients. But to the degree that some of our talent agents are making money from other sources --from selling goods and services other than agenting -- we have a problem. It's not good for the actors, and it's not good for the agents who try to play by the rules, earning their money only from commissions.

If a talent agency is having trouble making ends meet from commissions alone, its only responsible, legal options are: (1) cut costs, (2) find more acting work, (3) go out of business.

But who is going to complain when agents sell services other than agenting? Not actors. If actors complain about talent agency practices, their agents may get angry and drop them as clients. Actors therefore depend on the good will of the talent agents, the vigilance of the performing unions and the oversight of state Labor Commission regulators to maintain an orderly, non-exploitative, efficient market place.