Acting : Hollywood's Dirty Secret (one of them, anyway) by Matthew Cornwell

If the rates for actors on location are they same as LA, then costs increase. In business, you keep the costs down.The local IATSE rates would increase in time to match LA rates. This would eliminate any incentive to shooting on location, and location areas would suffer and die. In LA, working at the studios, I've seen first hand were roles were offered for scale for shooting in LA. No increases. The cost of doing business away from LA is lower, that's why they go on location, or choose locations around the world. Imagine owning a home in LA $900,000, and then you go to Atlanta, and find pretty much the same house, same lot size. The Atlanta realtor doesn't say, "Oh, you're from LA. Pay the LA housing price, here's the home for $900,000." Everyone wants more money in, hard to get money when business is controlling costs, especially these days.

Thank you for sharing this Matthew Cornwell I am one of those NU actors in a right to work state, so I had no idea this was a thing. My first thought was if they aren't supposed to say "Scale only no negotation" can't you report them to SAG-AFTRA? Now that Arizona has tax incentives and the City of Phoenix is actively working to bring filming there, I am sure I will be hearing a lot more about this.

I think your analogy about the price of the house is not same Lindbergh E Hollingsworth It's no different than a conventional job. People want to be paid what they're worth. It doesn't matter if the cost of living in your state is less than California or New York. Paying the talent and the crew what they deserve is the reason why states offer tax breaks to film there. They want to boost the local economy. And it's a good way to keep costs down. A lot of productions have left California because they stopped giving tax breaks. When I was doing extra work 10-15 years ago, production was way down in LA and Atlanta was booming. This was BEFORE streaming took off. The whole point is, it is cheaper for productions to film outside of California, cost wise, and paying local talent and crew what they're worth is not one of those cost cutting things. Especially since they don't have to provide housing and a per diem. If anything, LA is suffering and dying. Paramount TV Studios is great example of this.

However, Matthew Cornwell is right, there will always be someone willing to work for scale. It's just like a conventional job. Do you want to pay me, someone who has a lot of skills more than minimum wage and you know what you're getting, or do you want to hire the 20 yo with no skills for minimum wage? I am not going to take less than I deserve just because the company only wants to pay $14/hr. These producers are counting on your desperation to exploit you. Which is what a union is for.

Austin, TX, was a hotbed of production activity, and it died quickly as Vancouver, Canada, was cost effective. The Czech and Slovak Republics, Australia, all got film friendly. So each area has incentives to lure production hoping to beat out other locations, we are all aware of this. These are tax-breaks, which are separate than pay rates. The rates paid by the studios, or any production companies, are guild and union rates. All one has to do is open the Paymaster and see the rates for local or location hires. Pay the rates, and PHW (pension, health, welfare), and there's no issue. Is this exploitation? No. These rates were officially signed off by SAG and the Studios. The verbage of "no negotiation" is strong arming, and can be dropped, and once it's dropped the rates in the Paymaster remain the same. As the gentleman in the video mentioned this is a talking point that was brought up in the negotiations, and hopefully next time there will be further discussions with a bump. The pay rates in other states are lower, and with tax incentives, are very attractive to film in. There's the concern that changing a few conditions which causes an increase in costs will cause production to drop in those states. Both sides - SAG and the Studios - run financial models and "what ifs" to see impacts that are positive or negative.

Lindbergh E Hollingsworth I appreciate your insights. While I am under no delusion as to why Atlanta is #3 in production (sometimes eclipsing LA in terms of actual filming activity), I still stand behind my argument. Because, by your argument, if I spend 20 years in LA, building a resume, and let's say my last 5 jobs was paid triple scale, then the SECOND my zip code changes to Georgia, I am suddenly only worth being paid scale. That seems to be your argument. And if so, I'll have to agree to disagree.

Because what also doesn't make sense in this situation is that, yes, they come to Georgia to save money. BUT, if money is ALL they cared about, they would cast every role that doesn't need a celebrity out of the local market. But they don't. When casting that one scene, 5-line role, there are countless examples of them casting out of LA. Now, even if that actor is working for scale, they spend a few thousand dollars on their travel (first class plane tickets), hotel, and per diem.

So that makes the whole "saving money" argument seem like nonsense to me. And if the argument is they're paying for "peace of mind", which I get, well that argument has been slowly losing merit over the last 20 years here in the Southeast. With the growth of the market, and a FLOOD of LA actors moving here, we have become a melting pot. So the label of "local actor" doesn't mean the same thing it did in 2005.

I circle back to the basic problem of productions trying to HIDE the fact that they are blatantly offering a role at a higher rate to LA actors (who they'll have to fly, house, etc) vs the Atlanta actor.

This doesn't negate the argument you put forth, of course, just adds more nuance to the whole topic.

Matthew, you bring up a very good point with your example, being LA paid at X, and then moving causes an actor to drop into a different tier, ie scale. It's also true, it doesn't make financial sense to hire an actor in LA, fly them to location (first class since it's SAG), pay food, lodging, and per diem. I did see a few times up and coming actors that were being groomed for bigger and better roles being flown out. Does this cover all instances? No. When I was with the studios I saw the budget comparisons for shooting in LA v. two other locations, and there were financial savings that would warrant shooting on location stateside. There's a solution out there! The first step is build the awareness of the issue and get both sides talking.

Lindbergh E Hollingsworth yes, the solution will eventually present itself. I appreciate your comments, your wisdom, and the debate it created.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this Matthew Cornwell so please forgive the inexperience. But if Atlanta pays an LA actor a higher wage, what would be the pay if the actor is from a "lesser" market than Atlanta such as Nashville? Lower than what it would pay a local?

Leonardo Ramirez to clarify, Atlanta is not the one paying. These are LA-based productions who choose to fly in LA-based talent (first class), pay for nice hotels, travel to/from set, and per diem. They could save thousands by hiring locally, and when they do, they often refuse to pay above scale.

For those unfamiliar with "scale", it's the minimum wage an actor can be paid under a UNION CONTRACT. So if the TV show is under a SAG-AFTRA contract, then the Nashville actor can't be paid less than scale. So in that sense, all markets outside LA, NY, and maybe Chicago, are all in the same boat.

If you move into the nonunion realm, it's the wild west. They can pay you nothing. They can work you 18hrs with no overtime, they can decide not to credit you, not pay you residuals, etc. So I'm only talking about the union jobs where at least actors are guaranteed minimums.

That does help Matthew Cornwell. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. That is an awful practice.

Yeah, I hear you! ( hello from Toronto ✨)