When it comes to the profession of representing talent the profession of personal manager is unfortunately the most fraught with shady characters. Individuals operating scams that at worst defraud actors. At best create a lopsided arrangement. One that is less an advisor-n-artist partnership but where the “manager” is a self-serving predator. Managers are not regulated by actor unions and/or local and state government oversight as are agents. Yes, there are reputable, respected managers. Their industrious support of actors is overshadowed by opportunists tagging themselves unjustly as a “personal manager.”
The largest red flag demarcating a “manager” of questionable integrity from a reputable personal manager is the ethically challenged “manager’s” manager-actor contract.
Answers for Actors reviewed one such eyebrow raising manager-actor contract littered with dubious clauses. Binding terms that are not in the best interest of the actor.
For identification purposes this management’s operation will be given hereinafter the fictitious moniker Management Extraordinaire: M.E. as an abbreviation.
“Answers for Actors calls, B.S. on such a broad, and open clause.”
Actors beware of the following.
First some good news. Some industry respected managers collect 10 percent commission on actor salaries derived from projects of which the actor participates as talent. It’s the same percentage that agents collect as regulated by performing artists’ unions. A larger number of managers collect 15 percent. Not so good news? Being that there is no government or union regulation or oversight of managers a manager can collect whatever percentage they choose, that an actor is willing to sign away. Management Extraordinaire collects 20 percent. Above the norm. An actor going into an agreement with a manager should not part with more than 10 – 15 percent commission.
To Management Extraordinaire’s credit—unlike one greedy “manager”—they don’t collect commission from the actor’s survival job(s).
Bilking the Actor:
Slipped slyly into Management Extraordinaire’s terms for commission is this:
“Artist agrees to pay or reimburse Manager for all out-of-pocket expenses which Manager incurs from time to time on behalf of Artist.”
Answers for Actors calls, B.S. on such a broad, and open clause. The “manager” could claim anything as “out-of-pocket expenses.” Agents are not permitted to invoke such a swindle.
Later in the contract Management Extraordinaire hits the artist again for reimbursement of operating expenses—which in any above-board representation firm are covered by the representation’s income that is earned commission. But M.E. is greedy:
“Pursuant to Manager’s Model’s Loan Agreement, Artist shall reimburse Manager for all costs incurred on behalf of Artist. Such costs, among others, include, messenger fees, comp cards, portfolios, web site charges and other such charges pertaining to the management and representation of a model.”
A franchised talent agent in Philadelphia had a similar scheme of charging actors for web site fees, office expenses and alike. Answers for Actors exposed the agent’s actions to Actors’ Equity Association, and SAG-AFTRA. The agent was instructed to cease and desist or lose their agent franchise agreement. Unfortunately with managers, no such Sword of Damocles can be held over the enterprise of the manager. If the actor signs a contract with a “manager” that has these types of soaking-the-actor-for-more-monies clauses—the actor is not the victim but the fool.
Management Extraordinaire—like a bank manufacturing fees at whim—finds more ways to profit off of the actor with the following:
“Artist is aware and agrees that Manager is entitled to receive a service charge for any and all of the Clients who utilize Artist’s Services.”
Basically M.E. is attempting to additionally proffer with a service charge billed to producers who hire the actor. B.S. flag again. M.E. successfully asking for and receiving a service charge from producers is highly unlikely. Possibly, Management Extraordinaire negotiates a salary for the actor taking 20 percent commission plus an additional, undisclosed, amount from the salary as well earmarked as the “service charge.” How could they do this without the actor knowing more money has been deducted? The deception begins in an earlier clause in M.E.’s manager-actor contract.
M.E.’s contract gives the company power of attorney to “collect and receive monies on Artist’s behalf, to endorse Artist’s name upon and deposit same in Manager’s account with any bank, and to retain there from all sums due Manager at any time.”
The actor never receives monies directly from a producer. M.E. could be telling the actor that the producer has agreed to pay the actor $600 per week. But actually M.E. negotiated that the producer pay a higher amount. M.E. doesn’t disclose the higher amount to the actor, and since monies go directly to M.E.’s bank account, M.E. skims off the excess as the “service charge.” Plus, the 20 percent commission. The actor is never the wiser.
Manager as Loan Shark:
From M.E.’s manager-actor agreement:
“Artist hereby assigns to Manager the proceeds of all assignments performed by Artist, against which advance payment is made by Manager to Artist. Upon completion of this Agreement and pursuant to the terms of Manager’s Pay and Personal Loan Policy Agreement, advance payment is made if and only if vouchers are presented to Manager immediately after said assignments and are duly completed and signed by Client and Artist. If, in accordance with Manager’s voucher system, Manager does not receive a collection within three (3) months, Artist will upon request reimburse Manager for the sums advanced to Artist. Manager will take all reasonable steps to collect the amounts due with respect thereto. The risk of collection, in connection with Artist’s vouchers, and the legal costs thereto shall be borne entirely by Artist.”
Basically M.E. is loaning out to the actor the anticipated income from a booking. This should never be a consideration. With union projects, a bond is required of the producing organization. Some sum due to the actor is guaranteed. With M.E.’s inclusion of this clause it means that historically M.E. has booked their past or existing actors with likely non-union entities that stiffed talent on payment. And in those instances the actor paid to the manager the monies never received from the booking(s).
If I State in Writing I as Your Manager Can Not Manage or Negotiate Your Deals—But I Negotiate Anyway—I Can’t Be Violating the Law, Right?
M.E. is trying to be clever and coy stating in the contract they’re not really part of job procurement for the actor. But M.E. lacks grammatical dexterity to cover their ass that they are negotiating:
“Artist shall advise Manager of all offers of assignments submitted to Artist with respect to modeling and will refer any inquiries concerning Artist’s services to Manager. Artist acknowledges that Manager is not an “artist manager” under the labor code of New York or an employment agency in any jurisdiction, and Manager shall not be required or expected to obtain offers of employment for Artist.”
There are, reputable, transparent, well-regarded personal managers. The contractual abuses highlighted here should not deter actors from seeking a manager. If a contract—with these or similar terms—is presented the actor must heed caution before proceeding further.
There are several personal manager associations that managers can join which screen managers for legitimacy. Joining one of these associations is voluntary. Legitimate managers exist who are not members of manager associations. Self-regulating, the associations set professional operating standards for approved members. The U.S.’s prominent personal manager associations are the National Conference of Personal Managers, and The Talent Managers Association. Both have a Code of Ethics. The Talent Managers Association (TMA) has the more extensive Code of Ethics which includes limiting commission a manager may charge clients. TMA establishes limits on managers as to how long the manager represents an artist under a single-term contract. Plus TMA’s Code of Ethics expressly prohibits managers from charging clients fees for: coaching and acting classes, office expenses, and web site registration.
Both TMA and NCOPM have on their web sites their individual Code of Ethics, plus listings of current manager membership.
When signing with representation—agent or manager—bear in mind these guidelines:
- Representation should only be collecting commission from the actor on projects from which commission collection is permitted.
- Representation is not to be charging an actor fees for any operating expenses related to representing the actor.
- No Advances. No Loans.
CASTING DIRECTORS, TALENT AGENTS, DIRECTORS & ACTORS
LOVE PAUL RUSSELL’S BEST-SELLING BOOK FOR ACTORS ACTING: MAKE IT YOUR BUSINESS!
“Humorous and witty…
Actors everywhere who are trying to succeed in the business, young or old, on stage or on camera, anywhere in the world, take note:
This is your roadmap!”
— BERNARD TELSEY, casting director – CSA (Mary Poppins Returns, Hamilton, This Is Us,NBC’s Jesus Christ Superstar – LIVE!, Wicked)