Time for a band new jobs rating system?

Mark: no - for sure the world ain't perfect now.

• 11 years ago
• 41

Ah, Mark, I love your passion and I command you for trying to find solutions but I still don't see how a grading system would change anything since it's already obvious on first look what job is what.

And I'm not afraid of a grading system, I just don't see the point; and it would be one more hassle to deal with.

• 11 years ago
• 42

Thanks Claire...but I am afraid you are still missing the point of it!!

The whole idea of it is to greater define the professional financial status of a job listing on a CV and for a production Co's job listing.

I bet you £100 I could pick out hundreds of CV's on this site and, and there are jobs the actors has listed which read as featured roles in main feature films...but in actual fact were unpaid amateur films or minor Fringe, or even walk on work, or pure amateur productions. To be quite blunt....anyone within reason can get that kind of work….it's the majority of what is advertised on this site!! ….and if it isn't how is it that everyone is moaning about it?

Sadly "I need to work for free or I wont work" physiology has become the norm!! This has meant a huge increase in unpaid work being offered which should be paid at a greater rate or even the Equity rate. ie: There is a budget, but coz actors are desperate to work, they willingly allow themselves to be used in this way. Much of this work is actually illegal for the Prod Co to have even put on with unpaid staff…..but nobody is doing much about it…..yet everyone is up in arms about the amount of unpaid work being undertaken.

Anyone who feels this is acceptable, is being completely naïve.

If actors, and Prod Co's had to show that on a CV.....there would be much less of the lower rated jobs on show....because of not being of the higher status rating due to their "financial rating"

It's rather like the Hotel Star rating for hotels. If you have a budget, what do you look for cheap 1 star hotels, or 5 star hotels? Its not to say the 1 star hotel isn't very good value though.

I disagree with you Claire, and say this is not obvious on a CV. I also feel that if we were all professionally defined, some form of "professional status" would be returned to the industry….and in turn there would be far less demand for the unpaid work to be undertaken by actors. Production Co's would have to pull their socks up a bit in order to attract a better rating/status….and the physiology reverses.

Nowhere do I claim lower rated productions and or actors are worse actors or productions in any way. What would everyone be afraid of showing then? What are we saying, ….that we would not want the world to see my CV covered in lower rated productions? GOOD!! Exactly why we need a new system to define our status much more clearly!

To say it would be hard to police, to implement etc at this early stage is stating more than the obvious and irrelevant. What I am trying to encourage is a debate on the idea and the principle effects of such an idea.

In time I'll most likely get bored by the appathy and the protests .....but these are folk who are moaning at castinsg about how bad things are.....and on this forum and just about any other. They all moan like hell....and then go and do what they are moaning about!!!

• 11 years ago
• 43

This all looks great on paper but with the internet all was inevitably going to change.

Pay structures have changed hugely as we all know, and for commercials, some of the buyouts are now a joke.

Because there are so many online casting systems around (of varying quality and reputation), and an increasing number of them, more and more the media companies are going there to find their actors.

Now is where the man-hours issue comes in. From the CD's point of view, time efficiency is of the essence and I'm not convinced that they could be bothered to grade their jobs as has been suggested as this is a form field to first consider and then complete. And all that takes more of their time.

On Spotlight, for example, some of the casting directors can't even be bothered to fill in all the form fields there currently are - such as Gender, Age, Race, etc. My guess is that it's quicker just to cut and paste one single long paragraph containing all the details into the Job Description. From their point of view, this avoids tedious form filling and once pasted, they move on to the next casting site and paste in their single paragraph, and so on. In the meantime our 'filtered' job notifications come through with totally irrelevant castings because of it! As an aside, I've spoken to Spotlight and asked them to make some form fields compulsory, such as Age, but they haven't taken this up as yet.

I just don't think grading the job would be considered time-efficient for them, although in the long run, I can see how it might actually make their job easier and sift out some of the inappropriate applications.

• 11 years ago
• 44

Good interesting points Cia....but isn't about time these jobs "were" graded and if they were graded in a simple uncomplicated way, then the actual practice of it all is not that hard. If there is an industry rate for the job....and that rate is ignored ...then rate the work accordingly. I cannot see how it need be any more complicated than that? Each job only need meet a simple set of criteria.

However, we are diverting to how would one would implement it once more!! That's way down the line.

Its the Physiology of the idea I am interested in debating at this stage. If an idea is no good....then there is no point implementing it in the first place.

• 11 years ago
• 45

CCP DIRECTORS: Would you have objection to adding a simple G rating system against Jobs offered within your listings? I think it would be interesting to hear your feed back about the IDEA....but not the implementation details!

• 11 years ago
• 46

This is a really intriguing notion, though for different reasons than the ones Mark is suggesting I think. I have to agree in part with Ms Dodin - top casting directors simply just know the quality of credits on a CV, they don't need a separate grading system. If this new proposed system is designed to give us actors an idea of which companies are reputable and pay well and which are taking the mickey and should be avoided - and therefore hopefully will subsequently vanish - this is largely pointless too: the simple fact is there are just too many actors for the small amount of work that 'reputable' companies produce.

Bearing this in mind, I was pondering over why we as actors feel entitled to be paid anything other than the national minimum wage for what we do? 'Taint difficult after all. We don't need to have formal training, we don't even need any experience or special skills, and talent is largely intangible and mostly in the eye of the beholder after all. If you are well known and the public will pay money to see you simply because of who you are, then I see no reason why you shouldn't earn big bucks, as your employer will recover this in box office receipts or the equivalent. But for the rest of us? We stand on a mark and say lines, hopefully in a vaguely convincing or performative manner. There are over 10,000 people on this website alone that can do this, it seems, and a hell of a lot of them will happily do it for less than expenses. So why then, do the reputable companies feel obliged to pay us so much for something that requires so little effort on our part? That's the real mystery. Surely if the only monetary rewards on offer were limited to minimum wage, not so many people would want to do it, and that would solve the problem of an over-saturated market - it would be left to those performers who have it "in the blood"...

• 11 years ago
• 47

I think you'd be amazed at just how many can't hit their mark!
In these days of video it seems to matter less but if it's 70mm or 35mm or even 16mm film that is a hell of a lot of wasted money as well as time.

• 11 years ago
• 48

Quite right Dan...film projects in particular whilst not so much the norm these days...demand much more than Ed's anyone can do it approach....but there again ....any project - to be of quality - demands much more than Ed's approach or notion! After all….filming someone on a camera…anyone can do that too…I mean as long as you press record ..a.nd point it at the actors….you got it right. Directing a play….is just a case of telling someone where you want them to stand on the stage yeah?

Come off it Ed….I think you under estimate yourself and many of your colleagues with that approach!!!

You like Claire are concentrating your argument on casting directors scanning a CV, its irrelevant what casting directors think of our CV's. They will continue to scan and chose in just the same way that they do now. Most of them probably scan the directors we have worked under before anything else in any case!

The CD's looking for star names and or very experienced actors with some hefty credits will easily scan a CV…quite right, in fact they will most likely just call an actor they have seen and or know directly via his or her agent. Those projects will almost certainly have been or would be at a G1 status in any case. The system I put out for discussion is for the lesser known stuff and or the middle of the road projects. Theatre tours…must be able to drive a big van ….do get in and get outs….driving across Europe for 3 months at £165 per week!!! Student films avoiding paying actors either through cheap skating or their film schools neatly by passing the legal requirements to pay the agreements already set and in place.

I wish people could see the inner reasons for this idea rather than avoiding them and going off at a tangent!! However, I put that down to my inability to make myself clear?

As for "anyone can do this job and perhaps we should all get just the NMW"….Jesus….I'd be the first out the door I can tell you!! I'll leave it for others to see what they think of that notion Ed!!

PSST…CCP are the offices closed today? No comments yet on these heavily monitored forums?

• 11 years ago
• 49

I just received this PM, who has given me full permission to post it as was written
===========

Hello there Mark, I'm not on Casting Call Pro anymore as I felt it was probably doing me more harm than good to be listed but I just thought I'd have a quick look at the forum to see what's going on and I must say I commend and agree with your proposals for a grading system, above all I don't think people realise the size of the issue and what no pay/low pay work is doing to the industry, people don't even seem to realise that a string of (bad!?) credits will hinder their casting prospects! I work damn hard to keep my CV quality up and like you I'm slowly scraping up the ladder for better and better parts...I can't (much as I'd like to) start filling it up with fringe just to please my ego and do more work (which we all want)I really think people are missing the point here, although it understandably takes time and courage to start saying NO to projects... but that's what they rely on to get people cheap, they KNOW how much passion and drive most actors have and many people are taking advantage of that and causing damage to the industry as a whole. It's great there are people like you with the experience and backbone to shout out about this...thank you!
Kind regards,

Marc Parry.

• 11 years ago
• 50

Hi mark kempner

Your response to my first post did give me a good understanding of why doing unpaid work can have a negative effect for everybody, and I really do take that on board.
There are just two points I still feel strongly about in terms of my first post

- say for example, it's 10 years on from now and the G rating system is firmly in place. G1 is now understood to mean 'professional' and G3 now means 'amateur' . You have just collaborated on two G2 projects you were very passionate about, and one G1 project. You then see, and apply for, your dream role/job on a G1 project. The busy, stressed CD for the project says to her assistant 'Grr, a ridiculous amount of applications for this one role! Just look at theirs CVs and only take the ones whose three most recent credits are G1.' You would not get seen and would miss out on the part you've always wanted to play. Can you honestly say this wouldn't be gutting for you?

- my second point is it would be great if this system made everybody pay everyone more so as to become G1, but some people literally do not have that money and - if G3 did become equated to amateur - would not want to go ahead, and a great fringe show may not happen. Or say a film maker has just completed their first feature, and has an idea, interest, a buzz around them to create a second one, but they have to postpone it 3 years raising thousands of pounds to cover everyone's cost. By this time the interest in them will have died down, or the intial creative spark for the plot they wrote 3 years ago withered. Or they have to chose between the costly process of submitting feature 1 to festivals, or saving to make another. This would be quite a bad scenario, no?

But I definitely don't mean to shoot your idea down here. It is clever and obviously very popular! :-)

• 11 years ago
• 51

Mark, I see that the reason why I keep missing your point is because it seems obvious to you that a grading system would stop/damage unpaid and badly paid work.

Personally, I don't think that it would change anything.

G3 companies would just keep up business as usual because there will always be an influx of new actors who will want to do the work, even if it's a G3.

The reason why hotel ratings work is because customers care about the ratings, so the ratings affect the hotels' profits.
And the reason why customers are interested in the hotel ratings is because it is about the quality of service, not about the employees pay.

The customers (paying audience) of the theatre companies or the movies won't care about the G rating because they are not about the quality of the product, and they won't even know about it.

I've done the badly paid touring shows with ins/outs of the sets and 4 shows a day. Not once did the venues nor the audience care how much we were getting paid nor how hard the work was. They keep ordering the shows back.

As long as the ratings don't affect the revenues of the companies, the rating system will have no impact on the rate of pay or work conditions for actors and crew.
They already chose not to sign with Equity, which in itself divides the work into two separate ratings, and they still keep flourishing...

As for you betting that you can identify hundreds of cvs on this site with lies on them, you actually make my case, I believe you, yes people lie, yes it's easy to identify, and I'm sure they'll lie about the ratings too, and it'll be easy to find out the lies too. I don't foresee a change happening here.

Now if the companies were forced to disclose their ratings to their paying customers, then maybe these ratings would have an impact... but maybe not.
People still buy cheap clothes made in China despite the risk of child labor and terrible work conditions, because they want to buy something cheap. Same goes for i-pads and such, and they are not even cheap, yet we all know the scandal of Apple manufacturing conditions. This has not stopped billions of profits this year.

You think you can shame a company into doing the right thing, but unfortunately life doesn't work this way. It's all about profits.

I don't know what the solution is to minimize badly paid work, but I don't see a rating system being an answer to it.

• 11 years ago
• 52

TUULA: With all the best will in the world, a casting director on a main "dream" role aint gonna scan many CV's, certainly not on CCP...and not in general. He/she will have known people in mind already….99% of the time.

I take on board your arguments against….but the rest of what you say amounts to: If Co's think they are going to get a G3 rating as such….they won't put the show on? Eh….why not? People put on projects now knowing its for the love of it and that its obviously low budget…or no budget.

So it seems to me…what you are saying is: We are all happy to work for nothing as long as people don't know its for nothing? Precisely what I had predicted would be the main protest!! Too many actors are in this for the fun of it….which is fine….but the working professional, in it to make a living as well as everything else, has seen his/her industry, and their professional status dissolved because of it! In short….there has been nothing in place to stop a Co, employing actors at below the required rate if anything at all. There are laws, but they don't seem to be implemented when it comes to our industry…because the majority of co's and actors, crew, could not care less about undermining the law. Exactly why this should be stemmed with a rating system.

CLAIRE: Good arguments! However, its not about trying to shame the Co's or actors for the clients…..I agree with you re audiences not giving a stuff. It's just an idea to at least maybe put the brakes on for those being so willing to go into unpaid work without reason or without thinking. I honestly believe that it is done most of the time because one is trying to build up or look good on a CV. What do you want to tell everyone, you just done 6 feature films this year!! What if they were all G3 rated…how good would that sound then? G3 projects would not suffer either. There would always be enough actors willing to do G3 rated projects. I know I am like a dog with a bone over this….but if I was an actor I would not want to show too much G3 rated work on my CV….but I could still do it….so the idea does not prevent anyone wanting to put something on or actors wanting to get experience.

If you are saying, some of the weaker quality projects would not go ahead because of having to be rated….then I see that as good…and as a way for everyone from all angles to simply think twice before being used as they are now. The effect is knock on….and the larger Co projects certainly would not want to show that they are G3 rated projects if they can afford to pay actors and crew or stage hands.

Back to Tuula: Don't be kidded about budgets on the larger scale projects either….they are massive in many more cases than you think. An indie film might not carry anywhere the budget of a Bond movie….but there are still 1000's of productions Stage and Film, that could pay the actors something…but they don't….coz they do not have to reveal to any one what the financial situation is. Their productions are all financially unrated. Theatre Co's are using amateurs or unpaid actors to bolster up the minor roles, even with a successful run and fuller audiences, these actors go unpaid. Well it's about time this stopped.

The biggest mugs of all of course are those who work on such productions….why? It's so sad and so desperate, and totally misguided foolery! Did you know one of the film schools in London - the students are paying…6K per "term" over two years they will part with 50K. ….are you saying that film schools are not able to adhere to the Equity agreements…and that this is acceptable….just because you want to show the world you are an actor?

If someone pitches up about how they did a student film and it was brilliant, although not paid......well great…you one of the very few lucky ones. However, you will have to offer a better reason than that not to be graded, or for me to think that this is not something that is required!

Tuula and Claire, I do appreciate you both furthering the debate, as I said….you both put up good arguments.

• 11 years ago
• 53

I suggest Mark if the job's not paid
don't take it!

• 11 years ago
• 54

Preciso!

• 11 years ago
• 55

Rory...you are preaching to the converted...now tell that to the 100's of actors who dont heed it!

• 11 years ago
• 56

I'm sorry, but everytime an actor works for free, another individual thinks, ''oh, we don't have to budget for actors 'cause they don't mind not getting paid'

And this is why we are in this mess in the first place!

You can say, don't do it if you don want to. But as long as these castings continue to surface people will always do it for free!!

I got asked to play a prostitute by the Met film school (for no pay naturally), when I looked at the casting I had to be naked for a the whole film. Not only is there an article roaming about somewhere proving that the Met have a lot of funds towards final year projects, but then someone pointed out that a real prostitute would be paid!!!

We need to have respect for ourselves as performers or no one else will!

Rant over

• 11 years ago
• 57

Very well said Catherine.

• 11 years ago
• 58

Odd that the Met film school offered no pay for that project, as I've worked for them and know other actors that have and have been paid.

I wonder what their policy is then?

Anyway, back to the main point...

• 11 years ago
• 59

You must have been very lucky or their policy has changed. I noticed on my CCP dashboard that they have a new listing in the opportunties section today.

Anyhoo, as you said, back to the main point. I was just feeling the rage this morning.

Power to the people!

• 11 years ago
• 60