ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 6 months ago - Adam Jennings

Thank you all for your feedback everyone - much appreciated.

I have contacted both Spotlight and Equity and also conducted some research online, (using sites such as Drama UK). I can only really estimate the figures but, for those who might be interested, I think the following might be a reasonable suggestion:

Spotlight has 40,000 members in it's full database, (of which approx. 600 are 'dancers' and approx. 800 are 'presenters')
The Spotlight Graduate Directory contains between 700 and 800 per year, (but these are only from the 19 colleges accredited by Drama UK).

Equity wouldn't tell me how many members they have and weren't able to tell me any figures on graduates; but they did point me to an article based on a survey they had conducted that found that, (from the 3,000 members who responded), approx. half of respondents earned less than £5k per year.

On the flp side, Drama UK reported, (in their 'The Real Employment Landscape' report), that nearly 500 graduates took just over 1,500 jobs in the year prior to the reports publication.

So what does this all add up to?

Well, I was interested in the total number of people graduating from a drama course of some description each year, (not just those coming from the Drama UK accredited schools). If the accredited batch are between 700 and 800 each year and you wanted to be conservative in your figures; you could round that up to 1,000 graduates per year, (including drama courses at universities, colleges and adult education / drama schools).

As for total number of actors in the UK at any one time? Well, the 40,000 Spotlight members were classed by Spotlight as "professional", (i.e. taking paid jobs), but that's quite a blurry distinction. Clearly there are actors out there who supplement their income with work outside the entertainment industry, and, as my curiosity wasn't related to specifics of financials nor "source" of the graduate, (as in, what course they have graduated from); I took the view that you could add 50% to the Spotlight figure.

What do you all think? Is 1,000 graduates a year about right, too little, too much?

What about 60,000 actors in the UK at any one time? Is that too high / too low?

Would really be interested in your thoughts.

11 years, 6 months ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna

No comment on the Soviet system then? It's customary to knock them especially now they're down - but that's human nature - and I knocked them enough when they were playing nuclear poker with Reagan and Thatcher, but there were things about the system that forced admiration e.g. no unemployment, no homelessness. OK at a price. And not that many good movies either.

11 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Hi Allan, I'm sure as with all figures they could be read a number of ways - for instance 'acting as sole source of income aside from partner paying the rent and bills' vs 'works 26 weeks/year doing touring and panto but signs on for the other 26' vs 'has one job a year at £15k, spends rest on beach' could all fall one or the other side of any statistical line! Do roles ever really come back-to-back? Or are there inevitable periods of not working, even for the busiest of performers? Are there 'actors' who take restaurant jobs and don't go to auditions after theatre school?

I suspect there's a lot of truth in the numbers though. I'd be stunned if only 80% of scripts went unmade each year - it's much easier to write an unmakeable script than a good one. If we were under a system where every script had to be produced, can you imagine the quality of the output?!! ;-)

11 years, 7 months ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna

And pertinent to this, does anyone know if there's any truth in the stat which suggests that only between 6% - 8% of actors actually earn living from acting? Put another way at any one time 92-94% are out of work. Also allied to this, I've heard -whether true or not - that of every 10,000 film scripts 8 thousand are binned annually. Is this true also? If there's even some truth in this it means we're in a pretty crap profession folks. Perhaps the Sovs of yesteryear had the answer - everybody worked - being out of work wasn't an option - and you earned something equivalent to a factory worker. Sounds pretty good to me.

11 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

See if Equity have an opinion? I guess it'll depend on what kinds of course, how you measure 'graduate' etc., but it's the kind of thing they *should* have a feel for.

11 years, 6 months ago - Adrian Bracken

When I left the Guildhall in 1970 I was one of 40 from my year going into the profession. Within 5 years most of the 40 were doing something other than acting, and 10 years on only 5 were working at all. In those days it was the Equity card that was important. No Equity Card ,No Job. No Job, no Equity card. A vicious circle. Restricting entry to Equity was seen as a way of keeping a check on the mass of aspiring actors. I have always understood the "90% out of work at any one time" statistic as being largely correct, but acting is much bit like playing the Lottery - you've got to be in it to win it - if it's in your blood you have to do it. You might hit the jackpot, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. 40 years later I still act (occasionally) present and also Produce, but it was working in Engineering companies that kept my mortgage paid & children fed and clothed over the years. Not sure why you want the information, research or general interest, but Equity will probably be able to help you with the actual numbers. If you want to read about the struggles of getting into the profession (in the late 70's & early 80's) - read " What's my Motivation" by Michael Simkins. Very, Very funny, brilliantly written, but importantly tells the story of getting into the profession (from RADA) as it really was/is.

11 years, 6 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Hi Allan. I agree with Paddy. 8000 scripts in the bin seems low. Last year, a little over 100 spec scripts sold here in Hollywood. And this is a town where everybody--EVERYBODY--has a script.

I know quite a few actors that work for a living. But that's changing drastically. 20 years ago, a solid character actor could work for 3 weeks a year and actually live off of that. Especially if you did enough to get the residuals flowing in. But that's really changed. Those 10 thousand a week paychecks are just gone. Pirating killed the residuals. A buddy of mine did 5 TV shows last year and the lead in a low budget feature. One job is a recurring role on "Sons of Anarchy". He still has to caddy at a golf course to make ends meet. That would have never been a necessity prior to 1998. Film budgets are shrinking to nothing. So not just actors are having a tough time. Currently, I'm lucky to have a post supervisor job on a film that triggered the completion bond. But that's not my usual job. I know I sound like a broken record here, but piracy has killed the indie film market. Those mid level films are just gone. The majority of films being shot now are under 1 million. How can anybody make a living off of that? Certainly not a middle class living like it used to be. So not just actors and writers are on this race to the bottom.

I think most actors I know would prefer the old studio system: You're on contract. You get paid whether you act or not!

11 years, 7 months ago - David Kitchen

Ask Spotlight, they'd know exactly how many actors are on their 'books' and roughly how many drama school leavers they get each year.