Professional vs Amateur

Can anyone point me in the direction of info about the differences between setting up a professional company vs an Amateur one.

Am I naive in assuming the major difference is that some people might get paid ?

cheers

Russell Chandler

There are huge differences. but whether or not you choose to set up an amateur company or a professional organisation it will need to be run as a business. Each will need such things as public risk insurance. Not sure where you are but in most states there's a somemthing like the Department of Fair Trading (NSW) that will have guide lines for a constitution for an amateurt incorporated organisation... that at least contains your financial risks in setting up an amateur company.


Should you choose a professional organisation and I'm assuming that this is just for a single production why not consider a cooperative? I'm not even sure that Equity doesn't have some guide lines as to the setting up of a cooperative if not Las Mama in Melbourne, which oversees a lot of cooperative work, might be able to help.
Nic

I may be wrong here but in setting up a co-op theatre company it means that every member is financially accountable for the show, meaning if the person that starts the show can't afford to pay the bills after the season then the rest of the cast and crew have to chip in to pay it off. If there is a monetary fine or legal issue, once again the whole cast and crew are accountable.

I would suggest checking out the legal guidelines of starting a co-op as well before heading into it.

thanks guys

I have a shell company that I have already set up and used for other business ventures so I can use that and deal with issues like insurance, public liability etc.

Thinking about it, unless we go down the co-op path, it really is just a business like any other, with employees, OH&S, contracts, licencing etc etc...

It's just that I have always thought of my amateur theatre involvement in a different light to that of operating a small business. In reality I think that differentiation is just in my head !

The Children's Theatre Company of Victoria doesn't actually mount productions. We work in association with schools and theatre companies, both professional and amateur, but we never put ourselves in a position where we're exposed to risk, especially financial or legal.

In my other professional work I'm a management consultant, trainer and author specialising in small and medium business, and I've lectured in graduate and post-graduate business programs. My web site at http://www.profitclinic.com has a global reputation.

All of this gives me some insight and experience to comment on this topic, but the reality is that nothing is completely cut-and-dried when it comes to liability and legal claims.

In more than 40 years of active involvement in live theatre, both professionally and in an amateur capacity, there are some simple, common realities that I've experienced or observed when it comes to the differences between professional and amateur.

-- Amateur companies can be as professional in the way they're run as any professional company.

-- Both have legal and financial obligations under the law.

-- Any kind of corporate structure, including close corporations, co-operatives and incorporated associations, is covered by unified federal legislation and regulation. State Offices of Business and Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have jurisdiction locally over other issues. It can be tricky differentiating them at times but, in a nutshell, if it involves a company or incorporated body, federal law is likely to apply.

-- A limited partnership may be a better option than a co-operative or company, especially for a one-off production. It pays to seek competent legal advice before deciding on any formal structure.

-- Professional companies tend to be more focused on money -- especially profits -- than amateur companies, and will make decisions based purely on financial considerations. Amateur companies are more likely to give higher value to artistic considerations... but the down side to this may be self-indulgence, especially in the decay phase of a group's life cycle.

I hope this helps in some way.

John

[%sig%]

Are most actors/performers happy to work for Equity rates? Or are equity rates equivalent to the award rates of entertainment? Do people care even if they are award rates?

Opinions?

Ta. Ruth

As a professional actor receiving equity rates, I have to say as a fulltime job it would be essential.

When it comes to theatre (In Perth especially) no company offers you equity rates (unless you somehow manage to get involved with Deckchair or Black Swan as far as I am aware) and most of the supposed professional companies are merely co-ops and profit share.

In these cases I personally prefer to tell the company to keep my share of the money to help them put on their next production (hopefully this is the case and they don't simply divie it up amongst everyone else) unless (here I get greedy) it is of a reasonable sum of money(of which I would probably still divide and give some back to the company but this case is very unlikely in the first place) or if I have incurred costs that I think should be covered.

To expect equity rates in Theatre in Perth is simply naive and we all tend to be grateful for whatever little bit is offered.

So in perspective the difference between amateur and professional theatre here is simply the professionals might make a token amount of money for their effort where as the amateurs (I really prefer community to be the term because some pros are no better in talent and some community actors are a damn sight better than the pros) do it because they enjoy theatre for whatever reason they do it'.

Besides which companies have the guts to put on massive musicals with a cast of forty or more where you simply have an absolute ball meeting and socialising with everyone? The Community companies.
Some of the best and pobably most educational theatre experiences I have had have been with Community theatre and I have performed at larger venues to larger crowds with better direction, better technical aspects and as I have said before, better actors, by being involved with these companies and I have had a much better time of it. (Then get back to community theatre I here some of you cry - I don't think I'd ever leave community theatre if I wasn't moving to England - it's way too gratifying to simply ignore both as an actor and as a human being)

Ruth wrote:

> Are most actors/performers happy to work for Equity rates? Or are
> equity rates equivalent to the award rates of entertainment? Do
> people care even if they are award rates?
>
> Opinions?
>
> Ta. Ruth



AHarwood wrote:
>
> As a professional actor receiving equity rates, I have to say
> as a fulltime job it would be essential.
>
> When it comes to theatre (In Perth especially) no company
> offers you equity rates (unless you somehow manage to get
> involved with Deckchair or Black Swan as far as I am aware)
> and most of the supposed professional companies are merely
> co-ops and profit share.
>
> In these cases I personally prefer to tell the company to
> keep my share of the money to help them put on their next
> production (hopefully this is the case and they don't simply
> divie it up amongst everyone else) unless (here I get greedy)
> it is of a reasonable sum of money(of which I would probably
> still divide and give some back to the company but this case
> is very unlikely in the first place) or if I have incurred
> costs that I think should be covered.
>
> To expect equity rates in Theatre in Perth is simply naive
> and we all tend to be grateful for whatever little bit is
> offered.
>
> So in perspective the difference between amateur and
> professional theatre here is simply the professionals might
> make a token amount of money for their effort where as the
> amateurs (I really prefer community to be the term because
> some pros are no better in talent and some community actors
> are a damn sight better than the pros) do it because they
> enjoy theatre for whatever reason they do it'.
>
> Besides which companies have the guts to put on massive
> musicals with a cast of forty or more where you simply have
> an absolute ball meeting and socialising with everyone? The
> Community companies.
> Some of the best and pobably most educational theatre
> experiences I have had have been with Community theatre and I
> have performed at larger venues to larger crowds with better
> direction, better technical aspects and as I have said
> before, better actors, by being involved with these companies
> and I have had a much better time of it. (Then get back to
> community theatre I here some of you cry - I don't think I'd
> ever leave community theatre if I wasn't moving to England -
> it's way too gratifying to simply ignore both as an actor and
> as a human being)




I understand what you're trying to say, Anthony, but you make a few statements that need clarifying.

I think you might be assuming 'professional company' means 'company that gives you some money for performing'. But just as you make a distinction between amateur/professional performers which isn't defined simply by whether they get paid or not, similarly I would say just because you get offered some money doesn't make it a professional company.

All of the funded companies in Perth pay Equity rates - Perth Theatre Company, Black Swan, Deckchair, Barking Gecko, Yirra Yaakin, Spare Parts. It is a condition of their funding that they pay their artists proper rates, not co-op or profit share arrangements.

There are other companies too, that appear from time to time, that may apply for special grants or operate on a professonal budget, and pay Equity minimum rates.
Many other groups (at the Blue Room, say) may apply for some funding to put on a show, but not have a complete budget to pay wages - these are the 'co-op' or profit-share situations you mention. And other shows have no budget at all.

This is why amateur groups have the 'guts' to put on huge cast shows...the professional ones literally can't afford it - not because they are stingey and want to keep the money for themselves, but because the Live Performance Agreement stipulates that they MUST pay everyone proper rates. If the government would provide more funding and/or the public would support professional shows with higher ticket prices more often, then companies would be more likely to turn a profit and employ larger casts. Oh, and that's another good point - all of the funded professional companies I mentioned above are NON-Profit Organisations, which means they pay wages as part of covering their costs, but no one stands to make any huge profits out of the deal. Budget surpluses are re-invested in future productions, and effect how much funding is allocated to them next round.

So, call me naive but I DO expect (and get) Equity rates from the theatre I do in Perth. That's how I make my living, and why I consider myself a professional actor. On the occasions when I do participate in non-paying performances (our recent romp in Big Fun Sometimes, for instance), it's me indulging in my hobby, in the same way most of you with jobs also like to indulge in theatre in your spare time. And like you said, it's great fun to participate in large cast musicals, which are rare in the Perth professional scene.



To answer Ruth's questions, then;

Equity rates are really the MINIMUM standard that performers should be receiving for the work they do. It's entirely possible to receive ABOVE the Equity minimum.

Yes, it is the same as saying 'award rates for entertainment'.

Are most performers happy to work for Equity rates? Yes, because getting paid for work in the arts is a good and rare thing. But No, the minimum rates are still disgustingly small when you compare them to virtually any other industry which requires a similar degree of skilled labour, often with a degree.
The problem is partly one of economics - an oversupply of performers and a limited demand for their skills. And partly one of valuing our Arts and Culture...because it is so often seen as a 'hobby' and not a skilled job, you're expected to be satisfied with 'the sheer enjoyment of performing' rather than with reasonable monetary recompense.


Most performers should be DEMANDING Equity rates, because this has been established as the MINIMUM for which you should stoop to sell your skills at. It is entirely possible to negotiate above-award rates if you have the skills to offer, but that becomes increasingly difficult to justify when performers out there have been known to offer their services for free.
If performers were more conscious of demanding at least Equity minimum and refusing to give freebies, the average performance wage would rise and we would all be in a stronger position to continue to negotiate.

The performance job I am currently doing is paying above-award rates,
and we turned down other gigs that simply weren't offering enough money.
Personally, I think that's the real definition of 'professional'.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Well, I have only one thing to add to your comments Craig.

well said.

Thou gleeking full-gorged flap-dragon!

crgwllms wrote:

> I think you might be assuming 'professional company' means
> 'company that gives you some money for performing'. But just
> as you make a distinction between amateur/professional
> performers which isn't defined simply by whether they get
> paid or not, similarly I would say just because you get
> offered some money doesn't make it a professional company.

So what does? Because I believe many of the actors involved in the companies they pay co-op/profit share tend to believe they are now professional because of it.

> And other shows have no budget at all.
> This is why amateur groups have the 'guts' to put on huge
> cast shows...the professional ones literally can't afford it

We had this debate a while back if you recall. I wasn't having a dig at the professional companies for not doing the big musicals, I am merely saying don't write of Community theatre simply because you don't get ten dollars for doing it - that some of your best experiences (again as an actor and as a human being) will come from being a part of these shows. As you know I have produced a couple of shows myself and now totally understand the difficulties and costs associated with doing shows whether they are big musical or otherwise.

> Oh, and that's another good point -
> all of the funded professional companies I mentioned above
> are NON-Profit Organisations, which means they pay wages as
> part of covering their costs, but no one stands to make any
> huge profits out of the deal. Budget surpluses are
> re-invested in future productions, and effect how much
> funding is allocated to them next round.

As they should be.

> So, call me naive but I DO expect (and get) Equity rates from
> the theatre I do in Perth. That's how I make my living, and
> why I consider myself a professional actor.

I did not mean to say you were naive for doing it, but think what would happen if everyone that wanted to be a professional actor gave up work and sat on the dole waiting for their next professional gig. I mean, seriously, how much work is there for a Professional actor here in Perth without going out and making it yourself (which means you need money from somewhere - thus a job) let alone trying to break into the A-list castings associated with the Pro companies here in Perth. I am simply saying Realistically (funny since I am reknowned as an idealist) people shouldn't simply EXPECT to survive off Theatre alone here in Perth and I can't abide people who do simply wait on the dole until the next role pops up - which could be five a year to one every five years. How productive is this for you as an actor and as a human being? (wow these two things pop up a lot in my speaches)

> On the occasions
> when I do participate in non-paying performances (our recent
> romp in Big Fun Sometimes, for instance), it's me indulging
> in my hobby, in the same way most of you with jobs also like
> to indulge in theatre in your spare time. And like you said,
> it's great fun to participate in large cast musicals, which
> are rare in the Perth professional scene.

Hear Hear!

> The performance job I am currently doing is paying
> above-award rates,
> and we turned down other gigs that simply weren't offering
> enough money.
> Personally, I think that's the real definition of
> 'professional'.

So it is the money - the being paid Equity rates - or is it the ability to be turning down work because you aren't being paid enough?

Personally - (isn't it always) I agree. The money defines the status somewhat but I have to say, shouldn't the work standard as well as the attitude also have a part in this? Because once again, I have encountered some very Professional Community actors and some very (I will use the word because I know few Community actors that would behave and perform the same way) Amateurish Professional actors.
Or am I simply being Idealistic again?

Anthony

I just want to say don't bother with that last bit. If anything represents unprofessionality it is pretty much everything I said in my last paragraph.

It is just that I know there is much debate about the line between professional and Community theatre actors and companies in Perth (and probably everywhere) But I think the answer is simple. There is no difference. Some actors are Paid Equity rates. Some are paid a token fee, some are paid nothing. Some are University Qualified, some are high school trained, some have absolutely no quallies at all. Some have jumped straight into professionally paid work, some have worked a couple of years in the industry before making it, some have been in the industry for over ten years and finally made it, others simply haven't made it yet.

I guess what I am saying is there is no definitive line between a professional actor and a community actor that can be illustrated beside one of monetary interest. I just like pushing the point but I should shut my mouth and accept this fact.

What should be said is - Acting should be about entertaining a crowd, giving every audience member the chance to see the best show they can. It should be about enjoying the work you do both during rehearsals and through the performance stage.

So go out there and Perform everyone! Community and Professional actor alike.

This is Anthony Signing off with what should be my last rant on this website.

Me.

AHarwood wrote:
>
I believe many of the actors involved
> in the companies they pay co-op/profit share tend to believe
> they are now professional because of it.


Well they shouldn't.

It's like people who play for their local cricket club on a Saturday afternoon and go around telling everyone they're a professional cricketer.

AHarwood wrote:
> This is Anthony Signing off with what should be my last rant
> on this website.

Bugger.

;-)

Cheers
Grant

Thou jarring fool-born nut-hook!

[%sig%]

AHarwood wrote:
>
> crgwllms wrote:
> > just as you make a distinction between amateur/professional
> > performers which isn't defined simply by whether they get
> > paid or not, similarly I would say just because you get
> > offered some money doesn't make it a professional company.
>
> So what does? Because I believe many of the actors involved
> in the companies they pay co-op/profit share tend to believe
> they are now professional because of it.


O-kay...that's back to YOUR argument again, which was how do ACTORS define themselves as pro or am. I was talking about COMPANIES, and to be considered a professional company I would expect them to be paying Equity Award rates, including superannuation, workers compensation insurance, and public liability insurance. Rehearsals and overtime would be paid and a host of other standard work conditions would be met.

As far as the MEAA is concerned, there is no such legal entity as a 'co-op' (those situations we usually call 'co-ops' are actually 'partnerships', legally speaking), and 'profit-share', while acknowledged as a form of partnership agreement many actors and producers find themselves in, is not really considered to meet professional standards as defined by the Award....regardless of the fact that they might pay you a bit of money.

There are also the rare independent producers who put on a show and might not follow the Award exactly, but pay the talent handsomely in compensation, so that give or take some conditions, the artist comes out with better than the Award minimum.

I'd say that answers your question, and Ross's analogy about cricketers isn't too far off the mark.



> > And other shows have no budget at all.
> > This is why amateur groups have the 'guts' to put on huge
> > cast shows...the professional ones literally can't afford it
>
> We had this debate a while back if you recall. I wasn't
> having a dig at the professional companies for not doing the
> big musicals, I am merely saying don't write off Community
> theatre simply because you don't get ten dollars for doing it
> - that some of your best experiences (again as an actor and
> as a human being) will come from being a part of these
> shows. As you know I have produced a couple of shows myself
> and now totally understand the difficulties and costs
> associated with doing shows whether they are big musical or
> otherwise.

I was simply responding to your previous post, which made it seem that you were complaining about the professional companies not 'having the guts' (perhaps you just meant Black Swan and Deckchair..?). I fully agree with you and am certainly not writing off Community theatre...it's only been 2 weeks since I was there with you enjoying such a performance experience.

However, as much fun as being a part of a Community Theatre musical is, I have to state (as a full-time actor and part-time human being!) that my absolute BEST experience was not from being in one of these unpaid shows, but from being in a fully professional large-cast musical....for exactly all the reasons you state, PLUS the fact I was being paid..!




> > Oh, and that's another good point -
> > all of the funded professional companies I mentioned above
> > are NON-Profit Organisations, which means they pay wages as
> > part of covering their costs, but no one stands to make any
> > huge profits out of the deal. Budget surpluses are
> > re-invested in future productions, and effect how much
> > funding is allocated to them next round.
>
> As they should be.

And I forgot to mention the Cameron Macintosh -type companies (and whoever produces We Will Rock You, Mamma Mia, etc), which ARE 'For Profit' Organisations, but still pay their performers standard rates. These guys sometimes make obscene amounts of money, and I say good on 'em as long as they're not ripping their performers off.




> > So, call me naive but I DO expect (and get) Equity rates from
> > the theatre I do in Perth. That's how I make my living, and
> > why I consider myself a professional actor.
>
> I did not mean to say you were naive for doing it, but think
> what would happen if everyone that wanted to be a
> professional actor gave up work and sat on the dole waiting
> for their next professional gig. I mean, seriously, how much
> work is there for a Professional actor here in Perth without
> going out and making it yourself (which means you need money
> from somewhere - thus a job) let alone trying to break into
> the A-list castings associated with the Pro companies here in
> Perth. I am simply saying Realistically (funny since I am
> reknowned as an idealist) people shouldn't simply EXPECT to
> survive off Theatre alone here in Perth and I can't abide
> people who do simply wait on the dole until the next role
> pops up - which could be five a year to one every five
> years. How productive is this for you as an actor and as a
> human being? (wow these two things pop up a lot in my
> speaches)

Your original quote was "To expect equity rates in Theatre in Perth is simply naive and we all tend to be grateful for whatever little bit is offered."

Sure, it might be naive to expect to get a lot of work, and to survive off it. (Although I can demonstrate it IS possible).
My point was that you SHOULD expect Equity rates for the work you ARE offered. The sooner we all expect it, and demand it, the better off we'll all be.

Your paragraph above has actually helped refine our definition of what it means to be professional. Giving up work and sitting on the dole does not make you a professional ANYTHING. Just saying 'I want to be a professional actor' does not make you one, regardless of whether you occasionally earn money or not. None of what you describe above really applies to SERIOUS professionals, therefore you are describing a different type of performer who by my definition is NOT professional.




> > The performance job I am currently doing is paying
> > above-award rates,
> > and we turned down other gigs that simply weren't offering
> > enough money.
> > Personally, I think that's the real definition of
> > 'professional'.
>
> So it is the money - the being paid Equity rates - or is it
> the ability to be turning down work because you aren't being
> paid enough?


It's both. It's working for the correct amount of money, and it's being willing to turn down insufficient offers.
The ABILITY to turn down poorly paid work only arrives from the DECISION to turn down poorly paid work.


That DECISION might be the ONLY thing that separates a professional from an amateur...



> Personally - (isn't it always) I agree. The money defines
> the status somewhat but I have to say, shouldn't the work
> standard as well as the attitude also have a part in this?
> Because once again, I have encountered some very Professional
> Community actors and some very (I will use the word because I
> know few Community actors that would behave and perform the
> same way) Amateurish Professional actors.
> Or am I simply being Idealistic again?


The words 'professional' and 'amateur' have so many connotations that they start to lose their meaning. Work Standard, Attitude, Money Earned, Status, and I would also add Work Ethic all contribute to the mix - none of the component parts by themselves define you as professional, it requires top marks in all. Your 'Professional Community actors' may be high up the list, but unless they're being paid to work in a community project, I don't define them as professional.
But by the same logic, just getting paid doesn't make you professional, so I would dispute the existence of your 'Amateurish Professional' actors. I'd just call them lucky amateurs.



Cheers,
Craig

AHarwood wrote:
>
> I just want to say don't bother with that last bit. If
> anything represents unprofessionality it is pretty much
> everything I said in my last paragraph.
>
> It is just that I know there is much debate about the line
> between professional and Community theatre actors and
> companies in Perth (and probably everywhere) But I think the
> answer is simple. There is no difference. Some actors are
> Paid Equity rates. Some are paid a token fee, some are paid
> nothing. Some are University Qualified, some are high school
> trained, some have absolutely no quallies at all. Some have
> jumped straight into professionally paid work, some have
> worked a couple of years in the industry before making it,
> some have been in the industry for over ten years and finally
> made it, others simply haven't made it yet.
>
> I guess what I am saying is there is no definitive line
> between a professional actor and a community actor that can
> be illustrated beside one of monetary interest. I just like
> pushing the point but I should shut my mouth and accept this
> fact.

I like what you're saying about the many different faces of performing artists. Not sure I agree with your conclusion though...see my argument in this thread. ('Willo vs Harwood'.)


> What should be said is - Acting should be about entertaining
> a crowd, giving every audience member the chance to see the
> best show they can. It should be about enjoying the work you
> do both during rehearsals and through the performance stage.
>
> So go out there and Perform everyone! Community and
> Professional actor alike.

A great sentiment, and according to the criteria in my other post, you've just climbed a few rungs higher toward 'professionalism'.




> This is Anthony Signing off with what should be my last rant
> on this website.

Don't let distance stop you ranting. This is the world wide web, after all.

Take care mate, all the best in your travels.

Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Why shouldn't they? The Equity Guild Awards (run by the MEAA) recognises profit share productions. Last year's nominations prove that. Even our professional union (which I have been a member of since 1987) realises that the only way many professional standard actors in this town (particularily those from certain demographics) can practice their craft is through independent profit share theatre. If we were back in the 1980's, I would suggest MANY more of our fine profit-share actors would be in fully paid work simply because there would be so much MORE professional work going around. I hear a rumour that of all the plays in the upcoming Perth International Arts Festival, only one WA actor has employment.
Unfortunately, I think some of these definitions of "amateur" and "professional" are becoming archaic.

Angelique Malcolm

Worms! Worms!, git 'em while theys fresh! Long short fat and skinny, we got cans and CANS of 'em people! Git your worms...

ahem...


*leaves*

[%sig%]