https://deadline.com/2024/04/casting-networks-targeted-in-class-action-l...
Breakdown Service/Actors Access has been the 800lb gorilla in the audition submission space for decades. What do you all think about the merits of the claims made against them? I don't think the claim that they are blocking actors from applying for a job will stand up. There are plenty of job boards that sit behind a paywall. The casting directors might end up catching strays in the crossfire here since they are the ones only posting the job to a service that sits behind a paywall, but I don't think Breakdown Services can be blamed because the CD doesn't also post it on a public-facing forum. And let's be honest, the casting process would grind to a halt if every breakdown for major film or TV roles were open to anyone. A CD friend once told me how they had posted a supporting role for a film with a name attached and made it public-facing. They got 19,000 submissions in less than a week. Now imagine that was the case for every role being cast. I don't know what the answer is here, but I do know there have to be some guardrails for the industry to function.
As to the complaint that they are boosting submissions to the top of the list that have paid for additional products, that seems very dicey and could land them in hot water. Would love to know everyone's thoughts!
3 people like this
It's not a simple lawsuit, though I fully support it. And although other types of job boards may have a paywall for premium services, we're one of the few industries where we are PERPETUALLY looking for a job. I think that's an important nuance.
One proposed solution is that Producers pay to keep services like AA and CN going, and keep it free for CDs AND for actors. Probably won't happen, though.
And regardless of the outcome, there's no need to make all breakdowns public-facing. If AA and the other sites suddenly went away, CDs would just be forced to collect the auditions "manually" from the agents. They wouldn't make breakdowns public-facing. They NEED the agents for the very reason you stated. It's a necessary step in the vetting process.
Ultimately, the problem is that these sites are milking actors sometimes for pennies, sometimes for lots of money. And it all adds up. Take AA specifically. The profile is free along with your first headshot, and if you have an agent and are only using the service that way (i.e. NOT self-submitting), then you can get by never paying them a cent.
UNTIL... you start hearing the marketing from AA itself (which unfortunately trickles down through agents, making them slightly culpable here). For example, AA will tell you "having media like a demo reel or clips attached to your profile will boost your auditions to the top of the results when submitting a self-tape." Then Gary Marsh created the useless SLATE SHOT, which again will "boost you to the top of the results". Problem is, video cost $22/min to upload, which presumably you'll be adding to and replacing clips every year, adding up to sometimes HUNDREDS of dollars per year.
And even though the 1st slate shot is FREE, there is fine print they like to obscure. Namely, once you switch out that primary headshot (also free) for a new one, the slate shot disappears. Now you have to pay to upload one.
And so Gary is scaring actors into paying him boatloads of money to boost their chances of being seen.
BUT, any CD will tell you it's hogwash. First, if they asked for your tape, they're going to watch it. Just because it might have been sorted to the bottom shouldn't mean anything. Second, the CDs can sort the submissions however they want. The default view will prioritize slate shots and clips/reels, but only utnil the CD changes the sorting to suit their needs. So now actors have paid money for these "advantages" that may be meaningless in most cases. Starts to feel sketchy at best.
2 people like this
I appreciate the explanation Matthew Cornwell . It's reasurring to know that paying extra to upload the demo reel doesn't ultimately matter. I think one can just include a link to their webpage. This lawsuit makes me wonder do about other entertainment job boards like Staff Me Up and Mandy.com. One must pay a monthly subscription fee to submit for jobs -they're crew jobs but same principle applies- It is illegal to charge someone to apply for a job yet for some reason the entertainment industry has gotten away with it for so long. Breakdowns have always been secretive and self submission frowned upon. Now with streaming being what it is, and so many more opportunities out there, it's about time a lawsuit like this happened. I also support it and can't wait to see what happens.
2 people like this
Wow, thanks for sharing, Tom Lapke! And thank you for the additional insights, Matthew Cornwell!