Viewings

I must say that I'm now going to get in touch with my agent to see if she's heard about a job when the name's withheld. It's a bit risky. I think meeting the CCP people would be a really good idea.

• 15 years ago
• 41

Spotlight seem to cater both for casting directors, agents, and actors when it comes to playing range.

You can set your playing range in five yearly increment ie: 31- 35 36-40 41-35 etc. you are allowed to tick more than one box so for instance I have ticked two boxers and have a playing age on spotlight of 31-40.

When asking advice from casting directors at Northern Actors Centre workshops about playing range they all say the majority of actors should set their playing age 5 years either side of their real age. So if someone is 35 they would probably have a playing range of 30 to 40. They also say in some circumstances there are exceptions as often very slim petite flat-chested twentysomething actresses can play convincing 12-year-olds for theatre work. Also sometimes an actress who may only be in her 50s but has very sun damaged skin could have much older playing range than her real age. But for 90% of actors five years either side of your real age is the rule.

So personally I think CCP should just copy the precedent set by spotlight after all spotlight has been here much longer, and has many more blue-chip casting directors, agents and actors using it. Spotlight is CCP's biggest competition and spotlight has now started circulating cast breakdowns to actors who do not have agents.

I also notice Spotlight has:

Made it free to upload additional photographs to your portfolio.

Reduced the price of uploading showreels.

Started advertising non-acting work suitable for actors on its homepage.

Perhaps these changes have been made because of the competition it is feeling from CCP. IF Spotlight started a green room that was very similar to the style and format of CCP then would any of us have need to subscribe to more than one casting service?

Think on.

Cheers
Tracey

• 15 years ago
• 42

I am away filming now for two days and so will be unable to view any further activity on this thread till Tuesday evening at the earliest but I DO wish Alan and everybody else all the best in their efforts to stage a meeting with CCP to make our views and rights clear! By rights, I refer of course to the Data Protection Act which, if anyone would like to google it for clarification, does suggest that this anonymity of employer issue is on very shaky ground indeed! As I say, I have been a member of this site for FIVE years now but, as Toni also seems to realise in starting this post in the first place, I think there has been a sea change in CCP's standing in the industry of late and the quality jobs just are not there as a result! I must stress I LIKE CCP very much but do feel it needs help almost, from us actors, in helping it to expand and improve its status in the casting community. You have to ask, if everybody out there knows of CCP's existence, then where are the jobs that are of at least comparable status with those on other sites? I also must say that I find it very ironic, in view of everything that has been said on this issue, that the last JOB to be posted on this site before the weekend has asked for an actress to enter a closed set, with just two other people present and be completely naked for them and agree to have their "voluptuous buttocks" photographed and distributed to "creative industries" all for the princely sum of £100. The employer's details have been kept "withheld at company request".

• 15 years ago
• 43

well said Mr Lord!

• 15 years ago
• 44

I think a meeting with CCP really is in order. We're paying THEM, after all; I've only been a member since last December, and for the first few months was very impressed; but I do think the quality of jobs has deteriorated. The comment about the last posting for an actress on a closed set was on very DODGY ground, and I'd like to know how they monitor potential employers! PLUS my own gripe is about the voice-overs and I am really cross that they are preventing genuine actors from accessing genuine work with this policy - what was the point of me uploading a voice reel onto this site if all v/o work is going to another site that I - a PROFESSIONAL actress and V/O artist - am not allowed to access for some money-grabbing, spurious and ignorant motive! I thought the people who ran this site had at least some knowledge of the business - clearly not! And this should be of concern to all professionals, and all serious employers - which is maybe why less of the latter are using this site...

• 15 years ago
• 45

It was good to see a detailed response from CCP addressing the issues raised in the thread. I don't think it is as easy to raise concerns openly with Spotlight for example ( by that, I mean that any niggles or complaints to Spotlight do not get aired on an open forum).

I did not expect to be leaping to CCP's defence but a few thoughts have occurred to me whilst reading the discussion under "viewings":

The playing age issue can be frustrating but there has to be a way for CCP to prevent inappropriate submissions, otherwise the jobs will dry up completely. Anyone who has ever openly advertised an acting job will know that the most ridiculous submissions can be received from desperate actors or hopeless agents who have blatantly ignored the brief. Personally, I agree with others posting here that the very best way to do this would be for CCP to vet more carefully the actors registered on this site. I believe there are quite a number with amateur credits and I have spotted at least one who has been "economical with the truth" over training.

Although actors are the paying customers here, CCP has to find a way to keep employers happy, otherwise there will be no paid work advertised ( and that would make the actors very unhappy!). CCP does need to listen to both sides but consider for a moment just how much control we have over what Spotlight does?

I have felt uncomfortable about Spotlight's virtual monopoly in the industry for some time. I know that I have to have Spotlight entry and recognise how efficiently it is run, but I think the organisation makes a lot of money from actors who have little choice but to pay up ( which I do, with reasonable grace, recognising that it is an unavoidable annual industry expense from which I gain a tangible benefit). I think competition from organisations like CCP can only be a good thing for the actor so that Spotlight has to think hard about what it provides for its (actor) customers (which I think it is now doing). Spotlight is a private company, operating seemingly very efficiently and successfully, in a market place where it is currently the market leader. It could go on and on putting up prices and it could choose to ignore what the actors wanted (concentrating only on employers) if there were no competition.

The CCP website is a marvellous thing, with all sorts of searches and tracking and databases and numerous other bells and whistles. Ultimately though, none of these is particularly valuable to the actor (i.e. they are not all that likely to pay very much for all this information) if there are no jobs. And I mean paid jobs.

One of the things CCP provides is free registration and free access to unpaid "job" opportunities. Although this might seem to be an excellent thing, I think this is attracting the wrong people into its market place. CCP has to tread a difficult economic path. The free registration is hugely attractive (in a kind of "I have nothing to lose" fashion) so it lures actors to the site who are then (CCP presumably hopes) tempted to upgrade so that they can apply for paid jobs. However, the very fact that the site has so much unpaid work ( much of it, as has been previously discussed at length, possibly against the law) I think lowers its standing. The fact that it is free to register will tempt non-professionals as well as professionals to register and this will make employers less likely to advertise paid work or more likely to ask for anonymity/limited age ranges etc in an effort to limit inappropriate submissions.

There is a very good reason why Spotlight gives employers the chance to choose who sees casting breakdowns and why Spotlight ( and Castweb for that matter) only send out a very limited number of casting calls to individual actors. It's because actors are desperate for work and some WILL try to squeeze themselves (if you'll excuse the expression) into inappropriate briefs. The casting breakdowns actors DO get to see are those where the employer is happy to cast the net very wide ( commercials being the obvious example).

CCP could do what Castnet does ( which would stop us moaning about the age thing!) which is allow us to see ONLY the casting breakdowns CCP believes we are suitable for ( which in many cases will mean an arbitrary cut off due to a perceived playing age).

Now I need to stop rambling and get on with some work (currently looking for the paid acting variety…)

• 15 years ago
• 46