Although U.K. actors union British Equity has not negotiated a new formal agreement with regard to voiceover fees, the bottom line is that London commercial production companies have been able to continue business pretty much as usual-particularly since battle lines softened after a highly contentious period.
The dispute began around Sept. ’97, immediately after Equity extended its boycott of U.K. spots to visual as well as voiceover artists. It subsequently escalated until Equity lifted its actor boycott in Jan. 1998. During
the boycott, production houses found ways around the problem. Primarily, they used non-union and "real people" talent (which Britain has freely been able to do for a decade, when it abolished a restrictive practices act that forbade employers from tapping into the non-union pool). Production houses, in some cases, also cast Equity actors who didn’t participate in the boycott. Additionally, some houses chose to shoot and cast abroad.
Looking back on it, the Equity affair has been like "a squall in a teacup," comments James Studholme, managing director of London production house Blink. He contends that the boycott may have affected commercial production initially but, after awhile, the impact lessened. "It became obvious that the whole advertising business could survive quite well [despite the dispute]," says Studholme, who adds that no Blink jobs were delayed or cancelled.
Robert Campbell, managing director of London shop Outsider, agrees that while the dispute initially threatened to harm production, it ultimately became a "non-event." Adds Campbell, "It was a story when it started: "Ooh, Equity strike-it’s going to be terrible.’ Well, I think it was for the agencies; it gave them a pain because of the voiceovers. But for production companies, it just wasn’t really an issue, ever, and I think I speak for the majority of us on that one."
Jo Godman, managing director of London house Godman, affirms the dispute didn’t significantly impact her company’s commercial business. She reports that her directors used non-union talent, which made casting a little more difficult but not impossible. "It can’t be impossible, can it?" says Godman. "We have to do it; that’s our job."
This is echoed by Jenny Edwards, partner/executive producer in The Producers, London, who also says they used non-union actors. If the boycott had extended much longer, she believes, the same faces of "real people" might have begun cropping up regularly in spots, although it didn’t come to that. "Our choice of actors wasn’t as wide as it usually is," says Edwards. "But I can’t say it became a huge problem."
Going Abroad
As earlier alluded to, shops in some instances went abroad to cast and produce spots although, for the most part, they say this was as much a decision dictated by the boards as by the boycott. Outsider went overseas in addition to shooting in rural U.K., as did London shop Gorgeous, which also shot in Eastern Europe (a Sony Camcorder spot "The Unexpected" via BMP/DDB Needham, directed by Frank Budgen).
Blink also wound up traveling to the U.S., South Africa and other foreign locales at the height of the dispute, according to Studholme, citing a late 1997 job for Caffrey’s beer out of WCRS, London, directed by Dominic Murphy. They went to the States to shoot and cast Screen Actors Guild (SAG) talent.
"The British union had tried to get SAG to get involved," says Studholme. "SAG sort of half-heartedly said, "We support you,’ but they weren’t really too bothered."
If anything, the boycott perhaps changed the nature of spots being produced, believes Studholme. Since non-union talent was being utilized, it may have resulted in an increase in man-on-the-street type ads. At the same time, the success of some non-actor-type commercials prior to the boycott action may have also led to their popularity. A case in point is the lauded Volkwagen ads via London-based BMP/DDB Needham and directed by Paul Gay through Outsider. The campaign features people who are startled by how reasonably priced the VW is. One spot, "Lampost," shows a man walking into a lamppost, another depicts a woman who gets dizzy on the street. According to Campbell, the pre-boycott VW ads were cast with unknown and young actors for optimum effect.
However, during the boycott, Outsider did utilize non-union talent. "We like using street casting anyway," says Campbell, "and that’s what we continued to do [during the dispute]."
Paul Rothwell, managing director of production house Gorgeous, says the company’s solution was to set up its own in-house establishment for casting real people. "It has worked so well that we’ve been using that route for everything ever since," he says.
Although U.K. published reports (in Campaign, among others) indicate that the Equity dispute over voiceover fees has been resolved, an Equity spokesman contends that it hasn’t been settled and that a resistance movement continues. Equity press officer Martin Brown told SHOOT that the fight began over two years ago when employers of voiceover talent made a proposal to cut voiceover residual fees by two-thirds. "We [also] feared that their intentions might be to cut fees for all performers," says Brown.
The client side, though, is explained by Frank Lieberman, head of television at Abbott Mead Vickers/BBDO, London, who relates that U.K. union rules allow voiceover talent to work simultaneously on jobs for competing clients.
"We don’t have what you have in the U.S., which is an automatic block on a category," says Lieberman. "In the States-once you do something for a certain product-you can’t do anything [else in that category] while your contract is still going. But an actor here can do as many voiceovers as they like for whomever they want, and get residual payments on all of them. So in fact you end up with voiceover people earning more than on-camera actors, who are unable to work on anything else in the competitive field. The structure was just getting out of hand and the clients decided it was unfair to pay voiceovers more money, in some cases, than on-camera actors."
Even though Equity lifted the actors boycott in early ’98, Brown notes the action continued in that Equity instructed its voiceover artist members to accept jobs only from agencies willing to work under an updated version of the ’91 contract (which included a rate increase tied to the cost-of-living index).
"We have had a change in recent weeks," says Brown. "We told our members that, while we recommend that they continue to insist on repeat fees in line with the old agreement, they may now accept contracts below the minimum. There is no agreement with the employers, and we’re still resisting the employers attempts to force members to accept buyouts-that is, one fee with no additional use [residual] fees."
Although Equity contends that there are unresolved issues, others view its softened stance as caving in. Studholme opines that the agency side really won. "It’s the status quo," he says. "You know, it’s a pure market-good people will be able to hold out for more money."
And despite the dispute, Lieberman acknowledges, "At the end of the day, actors are as important to us as anybody else in our business because ads live or die on the quality of the actors-both visually and vocally.""
