I thought I'd post this, after reading the thread on what is okay for an agency to do in terms of fees. I think this is a relatively unknown and unfortunate situation. In brief, some agencies actually CAN charge upfront fees--per SAG. Ick.

The Working Actor
7-6-06

Dear Jackie:

I've had an issue with (an agency charging website fees) just like Otto from New York (6/15/06 issue). I checked with SAG directly and found out that SAG franchised agencies can apply for a waiver to charge union talent, you guessed it, up to $100.

Jay
Washington D.C.

Dear Jay:

I was shocked when I discovered that, yes, agents in what are referred to as “smaller markets” – meaning, per SAG, anywhere but Los Angeles and New York – can apply for a waiver to charge actors a $100 fee for the upkeep of websites, making a company CD to advertise clients, and other digital marketing. The review process for such a waiver is intensive – approval must be given by the local Branch Council, the Regional Executive Director, the National Agents Relations Committee, and the National Director of Agencies before it can take effect. As such, these waivers are quite rare. The waivers are meant to increase Guild work opportunities in less active markets. How they do this is a bit of a mystery. I suppose subsidizing the overhead costs of struggling agencies may help - if such agencies can compete in the digital realm, perhaps they can make up for the fact that they are located outside of the bigger markets. But is $100 really that helpful? My first thought was that it wasn’t enough to tempt impropriety, but then I did a little math. If an agency carries 100 clients, they rake in $10, 000 before doing an ounce of work. I’ve yet to find out if such a waiver is a one-time deal or if the agencies can charge their clients year after year after year.

I imagine the folks at SAG have good intentions. Maybe the battle here is to keep SAG agencies in existence in unfriendly – mainly non-union - waters. Maybe this is an “incentive” for agencies to retain their franchises, under which they can be held to higher actor-agency standards. An argument could be made that all actors actually benefit from this waiver. Fortifying SAG agencies in less unionized climes might strengthen the hold of SAG throughout the country, ensuring better wages for all. Still, I have to wonder: Doesn’t this waiver blur the most basic rule between agent and actor? If agents can charge actors for putting their faces and resumes online (a service the big online casting services don’t charge agents for, by the way), why not charge them for postage? For getting the breakdowns sent to the office? For a portion of cell phone bills? I just don’t see what differentiates the web costs from all of the other costs an agency has to worry about. I don’t doubt that agencies in smaller markets are struggling, but aren’t there other ways to help them besides taxing their clients? Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m disappointed, and more than a little perplexed.

Going back to the original letter from Otto, remember that he was writing from New York – a market in which such waivers are prohibited. Actors in New York and Los Angeles should take note that agents in these cities cannot even apply for the waiver. The old rule of never paying an agent any upfront fees holds true for you. Actors outside these metropolises, I wish I had better news. At any rate, don’t take an agent’s word for any charge – even a little old website fee. Call your local SAG branch and do a check before writing a check.