co-ops

There's a lot of confusion about what constitutes a 'co-op'....and I'm not entirely sure I can be authorative here, as I'm a bit confused myself. Legally speaking they're a bit scary and something people should be more wary of, although in practice they seem to usually 'work out all right in the end'. As far as making any earnings, however, that's usually acknowledged as 'pretty rare'.


Almost always you're just asked verbally to join a show, and told 'there's no money in it, but you might get a share of the profits'. What you're not told is that legally you could be liable for a share in the losses..!
Even if no contract is used, this mechanism is automatically in place in a co-operative project. However, precisely because there is no contract, it becomes hard to prove/disprove who's sharing the responsibility and so it's all rather dodgy. It would only become a problem once there became a problem, so to speak, and usually it never amounts to any concern.
Where it HAS flared up is on the subject of recent rises in insurance costs...if something dodgy (a stunt, pyrotechnics, etc...remember that survey about getting injured in the theatre?) happens, medical expenses or liability to the public can become hugely expensive and everyone involved in the co-op can technically be held jointly responsible.

Peter Woodward at WA Equity can show you an example of a contract to be used in co-operative ventures, and talk you through any pitfalls if you need reassuring. [If you're a member :-) ]

It seems to be a different situation if a co-op has been formed which then receives funding to put on a show, compared to what is often CALLED a co-op but is really just some dedicated souls putting on a show. If funding has been received, it should have taken reasonable wages, insurance costs, etc, into consideration as well as the other production costs, and so there should be some guarantee of being paid even if it is not to Equity standards. This is perhaps how they can manage to rehearse on what seems a 'full time' basis.

But I imagine quite a few are just doing it the best way they can, not expecting to make any money. I've been involved myself in a couple of these projects, which are usually great fun and very rewarding...in a non-monetary sense.
In a monetary sense, I can pretty well generalise that even with a share of any takings at the end I have not only NOT made money but I have LOST money! This is because added to the smaller expenses like petrol, parking etc is the opportunity cost of my time - money that I am not earning elsewhere because I am spending that time on rehearsing and performing the show.
Usually I justify this by the fact that there is often no other work immediately available anyway...if I wasn't doing the co-op I would probably be living off my savings anyhow, and I'd rather be doing SOMETHING. The paid jobs I am lucky enough to get at other times are what allow me to survive the unpaid gigs. I suspect that is the case with most of those people you seem to see doing co-ops all the time...they probably have other sources of income or savings?


Having said all this, I can think of a couple of examples which HAVE made money, one of which I was fortunate enough to be in. There were a few shows in the early days of Effie Crump Theatre in which actors were contracted for pitiful wages but were guaranteed a share of takings after costs....occasionally the show was so successful, perhaps with a repeat season or regional touring, that the performers made MORE money than they would have with a standard wage agreement.
I had a similar agreement when I performed in the original production of "Stories From Suburban Road" for the Back Fence Theatre co-op. It was a runaway success at the Perth Festival, and we all made quite a bit extra...not to mention the show then had a much extended life which earned us full wages for each repeated season, and recently gave me another job ten years later!

But another production I won't name, which had received funding to pay minimum wages, found midway through the season that it was losing money and not going to cover it's costs, and the producers asked us if we were prepared to continue the last week 'as a co-op', making a share of whatever was made. Even though it was a fun show, the group consensus was to pull the pin, allowing us free of the contract to pursue other means of employment.

You're quite right about 'not being in it for the money', but the fact is, you still NEED money to be in it.


Interested to hear from other parties, though...who may have an entirely different approach/perspective...


Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]