First, a bit of a background - I’ve appeared in shows at the 2,300-seat Madison Civic Center and some of the top regional theaters across this country (including SCR in our own backyard). I’ve also appeared locally at the Odyssey, the Hudson, and the Lillian under various production companies, and without earning a dime.

It is truly remarkable that attendance at mid-to-large size theaters has not been affected by the explosion in cheaper, smaller theaters that Waiver has allowed. However, I believe that there are producers in this town who take advantage of the waiver program — who are not just actors wanting to showcase their work, but who make their living doing theater at the expense of the professional artists willing to work under them.

For example, the Odyssey theater has a great history of nearly (if not over) 40 years producing, a subscriber base rumored to number around 6,000 people, and a theater space that costs them $1 a year in rent.

Yet they still operate under the waiver plan. When they moved into their current space, they created three 99-seat theaters. Their Artistic Director and some staff are paid a yearly, livable salary, but actors (even those that have worked their for YEARS), still made zero (under the original waiver) or $8 a show (under the current waiver).

The only solution, as I can see it, is that their should be a sunset clause in the waiver program. A theater has so many years to try and build an audience, and then they should be pushed by the program toward expansion. The SPT contract is a viable contract that could be the next “logical” step for successful 99-seat companies. It is unethical to me that a theater like the Odyssey can grow and provide sustenance for it’s main staff at the expense of the artists that have given their very best to make it what it is today. It would truly benefit the community, the subscribers, and the actors if at some point the Odyssey turned two of it’s spaces into one 200-300 seat house, and left the third as a 99-seat or under house. Experimentation could be kept alive and well in the small house, while the large house could support a strong and lively season of plays.

A smart waiver plan would not just be something that Producers could rest their laurels on at the expense of actors earning anything resembling a living. It would allow for the one-off actor/producers to try their hand and showcase their work, but it would reward repeated success with a challenge and guide towards even greater success, that benefited everyone involved. Imagine a union that worked hand in hand to try and grow companies… Is this a pipe dream or is it possible?

Am I the only actor that has felt exploited doing 99-seat theater, when I can go anywhere else in the country and be paid a living wage?

But I’m here on your blog, reading, listening to the virtues of the Waiver, hoping to learn more. Still, I’m skeptical. Awesome productions in small houses are my favorite theater-going experience, but so far, I disagree that disappointment is “occasional” in the Waiver world. It’s the norm.