I have to say there is no obvious benefit to being listed in Spotlight from the perspective of many actors. I have never generated any direct offers of work from being included in it, and nor have most of the actors I know. Because Spotlight hold a monopoly as the 'actors directory', they can charge what they like for inclusion in a service that was, once upon a time (albeit eighty years ago), voluntary.
I appreciate what you are saying about agencies - which is that, if you aren't represented, then whether you are listed in Spotlight or not is less relevant. This is probably true, as most of the work you will generate for yourself would never come through the breakdowns that might be sent c/o via Spotlight link (although a few actors get decent jobs this way, the breakdowns sent to all and sundry are notorious for being completely unsuitable for 99% of all perfomers - this is one of the reasons why casting directors, normally very selective people, are reduced to effectively putting out an A.P.B. for these types of part - they are looking for performers so specific that there is no other way of sourcing them!). It is, however, also true that were you to have an agent, they would demand that you be a member of Spotlight because the standard form of applying for any breakdown has come to be via the Spotlight Link, and you can generate a link only when the client has a paid-up account. It is also likely that many agents (particularly the more impressive ones) would refuse to consider representing you if you lack Spotlight affiliation...and I don't think you can honestly say now whether or not it will seem worthwhile to elcit agency interest *anytime* in the next 12 months. In that sense, not being paid up to Spotlight is a risk for you, because you may miss an opportunity that you can't forsee.
The other point, as Splat hinted at, is that you can never be certain what members of the industry are taking on board when they analyse your profiles, follow up on your applications etc. Unfortunately, unlike CCP, Spotlight offers no facility for us, the subscribers, to check whether our online profiles are being regularly accessed, whether those who have found us on other sites are then transfering their attention to Spotlight listings, whether the 'buzz' surrounding projects we have been involved in has generated more attention for our profiles - there is actually some discussion amongst Equity members at the moment to ask whether this might not be a useful function for Spotlight to introduce in the future. The point is, that it is hard to tell what is being assumed about your 'professionalism' and accessibility by industry types at any given time, because they so very rarely bother to mention these opinions to you, even if you have worked with/are due to work with/have just finished working with them. It is undoubtedly only received wisdom that being listed in Spotlight is the be-all and end-all of an acting career, but it is almost equally certain that without being listed, a whole host of members of the industry will be inclined to take you less seriously. I don't wish this to suggest that you cannot generate work for yourself without being listed in Spotlight (I am certain you can), that most lo/no pay productions would be *unduly* concerned about Spotlight listing (although I don't think you will secure professional paying gigs without the 'bona fide' of a Spotlight entry in place), nor that you cannot continue to work efficiently without an agent representing you (as many actors can, and do). But many would say that, without representation, your *best* bet is actually to be in Spotlight, because that is what gives you a small element of the 'guarantee' of trustworthiness that being represented magnifies several times over.
It is almost certain (and you will find many casting directors voice the complaint) that the old style directories (now running to multiple volumes for both sexes in order to accomodate the vast numbers of declared actors) are increasingly considered outmoded, unwieldy and unpopular. However, the fact that the online directories are fully accessible and very user oriented still guarantees that casting directors are utilising Spotlight day in, day out - whether because they are using it to draw up shortlists, to check on applicant's credentials or whatever. Vast numbers of agents are referencing it, too. It shouldn't be forgotten just how prevalent its place within the industry is.
As regards IMDB being a better investment - that rather depends on what you are hoping to do with your career. For a start, there is no need to actually pay for IMDB to pay for a listing if you are featuring in work that is broadcast or travels the festival circuit, and has the appropriate page devoted to it by the production team concerned. Even if not listed on an initial cast list, you are at liberty to add your own credits to the page subject to IMDB ratification. It is true that you can only add a CV and photographs for a small sum, and that this then becomes accessible via your profile - though whether or not it is tremendously useful is an open question - even most prominent actors don't seem to bother with it, presumably working on the assumption that their details are better hosted elsewhere. IMDB Pro is a different ballgame, and will allow much more in-depth access to casting information, contact details etc. for screen production but a) it is worth noting how US oriented the majority of this information is and b) it is even less likely you will be taken seriously on grand international projects if you are not carrying basic UK bona fides like Spotlight affiliation and membership of Equity. In my experience, the actors who find IMDB especially useful are those who are trying to make a serious film career for themselves in the States. If that is your ultimate destination, then you may be right that investment in IMDB functions is a wise investment.
