2019 stage manager survey (usa) report · 2020. 4. 22. · 2019 stage manager survey - usa...

2019 STAGE MANAGER SURVEY UNITED STATES Conducted: November 2019 Report Published: April 2020 Lead Investigator: David McGraw Assistant Investigator: Tara Patterson http://smsurvey.info

The Stage Manager Survey is a volunteer study seeking a better understanding of American stage managers, their production practices, working conditions, and education/training. Anyone who had served as stage manager or assistant stage manager on at least 3 dance/opera/theatre productions in the United States (or tours that originated in the US) was encouraged to participate in the 2019 edition of the survey.

This report contains not only the 2019 survey data, but also comparisons with previous national surveys. We can begin to track how the profession is evolving over time. In addition, this survey includes five comparisons with a companion survey of technical staff working in South Africa (www.sacits.com for the full report). Ronel Jordaan and I conducted the South African survey in October-November 2019 and included identical questions to see how the performing arts (or Creative Industries as they are called in South Africa) compare in the two countries.

This seventh edition of the Stage Manager Survey holds unanticipated and unfortunate significance. Since the survey began in 2006, it has expanded its focus from seeking regional innovations in calling scripts and cueing to career data to work/life balance and career satisfaction. What none of us could have predicted, however, is that the 2019 survey provides a snapshot of American stage management prior to the global pandemic of COVID-19. The final report was written at a time in which most American stage managers were out-of-work and even student productions were closed. The performing arts will return but what will be the impact on stage management?

I would like to thank the Stage Managers’ Association (www.stagemanagers.org) for their continued support of this survey (full disclosure: I am a board member). In 2017, the survey reached a high of 296 SMA members but in 2019 we exceeded all goals with 397 SMA members participating. I would also like to thank everyone who shared the survey invitation with their friends and colleagues, as well as the social media groups who promoted the survey during its three-week data collection period. As you will see, this survey has grown well beyond its original base of stage managers working in theatre and, as a result, the survey can provide a more complete view of the profession as a whole.

As the lead investigator, my goal is not to advocate for particular practices but to provide data for stage managers to make informed decisions about their work and their careers. I hope you will discuss this data and use it to improve our profession.

http://smsurvey.info

2019 Stage Manager Survey - USA

LIST OF FIGURES

Section I: Stage Manager Demographics 5 Figure 1: Weeks Served in a Stage Management Role in the Last Year 6

Figure 2: Longest Continuous Stage Management Contract 6

Figure 3: Stage Management Positions Existing on Most Recent Project 7

Figure 4: Responsibilities by Position on Most Recent Project 7

Figure 5: Art Forms/Genres of Stage Management Work in Past Two Years 8

Figure 6: Number of Employers and New Employers Over Past Twelve Months 9

Figure 7: Percentage of Annual Income from Stage Management 9

Figure 8: Weekly Pay on Most Recent Project 10

Figure 9: Number of People Dependent Upon Participant’s Salary 10

Figure 10: Years of Experience 11

Figure 11: Age 11

Figure 12: Experience Levels Divided by Age Brackets 11

Figure 13: State of Residence for Survey Participants 12

Figure 14: Highest Level of SM Education Completed 13

Figure 15: Stage Management Training 13

Figure 16: Access to the Performing Arts as a Child 14

Figure 17: Weekly Payment for Most Recent Internship/Apprenticeship 14

Figure 18: Interns/Apprentice Non-Pay Compensation Based on Weekly Pay 15

Figure 19: Usefulness of Internship/Apprenticeship in Past Two Years 15

Figure 20: Financial Support Received at Start of Career 16

Figure 21: Gender Ratios by Survey Year 16

Figure 22: Gender Ratios by Age Brackets 17

Figure 23: Identification as Part of the LGBTQIA Community 17

Figure 24: Race 18

Figure 25: Change in the Staging of Intimate Scenes 19

Figure 26: Married, Domestic Partner, Civil Union 20


Section II: Performance Procedures 21 Figure 27: Name for Projections and/or Video Cues 22

Figure 28: Crew Members on Headsets Allowed to Take Own Cues 22

Figure 29: Comfort Level in Reading Music 23

Figure 30: Training - Musical Instrument/Voice 23

Figure 31: Additional Pay Per Week to Run Boards 24

Figure 32: Calling Position in Past Two Years 24

Figure 33: Frequency of Wearing “Show Blacks” in Past Two Years 25

Figure 34: Frequency of Wearing Costumes for Performance in Past Two Years 25

Figure 35: Training Time for Taking Over Calling an Existing Production 26

Figure 36: Frequency of Responsibility to Give Acting Notes in Past Two Years 26

Section III: Technology for Stage Managers 27 Figure 37: Technology Use in Rehearsals 27

Figure 38: Technology Use in Performances 27

Figure 39: Technologies/Techniques to Distribute Group Information to Performers 28

Figure 40: Source of Company Contact Info on Most Recent Production 28

Figure 41: Method of Distributing Company Contacts on Most Recent Production 29

Figure 42: Technical Equipment Proved by Most Recent Producer 29

Figure 43: Theft in the Workplace in Past 5 Years 30

Figure 44: Stage Management Software/Applications 31

Figure 45: Desired Features in SM Software/Applications 32

Section IV: Employment 33 Figure 46: Number of Applications Received for Stage Management Openings 33

Figure 47: Sources Used to Find Stage Management Work 34

Figure 48: Social Media Usage for Promotion and for Job Interviews/Offers 34

Figure 49: Frequency of Negotiation and Negotiation Success 35

Figure 50: Frequency of Negotiation and Negotiation Success by Gender 35

Figure 51: Additional Pay Earned through Negotiation 35

Figure 52: Non-Salary Items Negotiated on Stage Management Jobs 36

Figure 53: Union Membership 36


Figure 54: Method of Joining Actors’ Equity Association 37

Figure 55: Age of Stage Manager when Joining Actors’ Equity Association 37

Figure 56: AEA Members Earning More than Union-Minimum Salaries 38

Figure 57: Weekly Pay for Participants Over Age 30 39

Figure 58: Performing Arts Related Income Apart from Stage Management 40

Figure 59: Stage Management Educational Roles in the Past Two Years 41

Figure 60: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance 41

Figure 61: Vacation Time in the Past 12 Months 42

Figure 62: Method of Work Commute on Most Recent Job 43

Figure 63: Fast Food/Caffeine/Alcohol/Exercise in a Regular Work Week 43

Figure 64: Contributing Factors in Decision to Leave Stage Management 44

Conclusion 46


S E C T I O N I : S T A G E M A N A G E R D E M O G R A P H I C S

In November 2019, the survey recorded full responses from 1,746 stage managers. Identifying a full response of the Stage Manager Survey can be difficult as participants are not required to answer every question and not all participants complete the final comments section of the survey. A total of 1,904 people consented to participate in the study. We are reporting a response group of 1,746 because that is the number who answered at least the sixth common question and proceeded to branches of questions based on early responses. In this report, we will primarily use percentages but we will also note how many stage managers responded. For instance, the figure for gender identity will list (n=1388) where “n” is the number of responses.

As individual questions have different sample sizes, we are not reporting the margin of error or the confidence level of each question. However, if we estimate the number of American stage managers to be approximately 8,000-10,000 (and quite possibly less), then the overall study has a confidence level of approximately 95% with a margin of error of 2% when detailing the field as a whole.

Nearly half of all survey responses were from first-time participants: 49% had not taken previous versions of the survey. This group of newcomers were asked several questions that returning stage managers skipped in order to minimize fatigue from multiple years of the survey and to ensure strong participation in the later sections of the survey. Each edition of the survey uses a different “veteran path” to rotate questions. If this was your first year, you were asked questions about the following topics: ‣ Serving as an apprentice/intern in the past two years ‣ Taking over a show from another stage manager ‣ Wearing show blacks and/or costumes ‣ Stage management software ‣ Use of standbys and warnings in cue calling

In order to keep the total survey length manageable for all participants, we rotated off questions about separate blocking and calling scripts, verbal confirmation of cues, and distinctions between musicals and non-musicals. For participants identifying as students, we also removed less-relevant questions about salaries, insurance, touring, and commutes. In 2021, we will rotate other questions off in case the loyal survey takers have changed their practices over a four-year period.

This survey ensures anonymity for the individual. When cross-referencing questions, such as age versus years of experience, we do not report behavioral data from groups smaller than 10 as it might inadvertently reveal an individual. We did ask several demographic questions of all participants as part of our longitudinal study of the profession.

The survey was open to anyone who has served as stage manager or assistant stage manager for at least 3 dance/opera/theatre productions in the United States. When asked to identify their current occupation, 926 indicated stage manager, 371 were assistant stage managers, 67 were


apprentices or interns, 250 were students, 112 were teachers, 65 were unemployed, 18 were retired, 360 held other positions in the arts, and 175 listed “Other.” Compared to the 2017 survey, this year’s pool has more SMs, ASMs, and people working in arts-based positions and fewer students. It was possible for participants to select more than one occupation, given the trend towards multiple sources of income. Some sections of this report will isolate the responses of just current stage managers and assistant stage managers: 1,297 participants. Participants were also asked which role on a stage management team they preferred: among 1,750 responses, 33% chose PSM/GSM, 41% chose SM, 20% chose ASM, 4% did not indicate a preference, and 2% either chose PA, Intern, or write-in responses such as Show Caller and Deck Manager.

As for time spent working in each stage management role in the past year [Figure 1], there was an increase from 2017 in the separation of ASM, SM, and PSM roles: more participants indicated that they had not worked in one of the roles at all that year. There was also slight drop in participants who had worked 41-52 weeks in a role but a corresponding increase in the 31-40 week category, which could be an indicator of shorter ‘annual’ contracts. To investigate this topic in 2019, two new questions were introduced. Figure 2 shows participants’ longest contracts (excluding academic contracts unless hired only as SM) and Figure 3 shows which roles exist on a recent production:

Figure 1: Weeks Served in a Stage Management Role in the Last Year

Figure 2: Longest Continuous Stage Management Contract

0 Weeks

1-2 Weeks

3-10 Weeks

11-20 Weeks

21-30 Weeks

31-40 Weeks

41-52 Weeks

ASM 36% 4% 18% 19% 11% 8% 4%

SM 24% 7% 20% 17% 15% 10% 8%

PSM 35% 4% 17% 13% 10% 9% 11%

0 25 50 75 100

2113103224%

Under 3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months Over 1 Year

(n=1261)

(n=1711)


Figure 3: Stage Management Positions Existing on Most Recent Project

“Other” included deck managers, floor managers, company manager, Sub SM, Calling SM, and non-union ASM. Another new question asked which role was responsible for each major task.

Figure 4: Responsibilities by Position on Most Recent Project

PSM/GSM

SM

ASM

PA

Intern

Other

Total Responses

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

51

401

565

1343

1226

948

Record Blocking

Be on Book

Line Notes

Prop Tracking

Rehearsal Schedule

Check Attendance

Shift Plot/Crew Assignments

Record Cues in Tech

Manage Fight Call

Understudy Rehearsal

Notes for Performers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

9

10

1

1

4

7

5

21

20

1

2

8

9

1

47

26

1

62

33

34

6

50

43

55

54

35

44

47

24

26

25

54

46%

47%

35%

45%

13%

20%

51%

6%

10%

10%

39%

PSM/GSM SM ASM PA Intern Other

(n=1701)

(n=1466)


It should be noted that Figure 4 shows percentages based only on participants’ most recent production which, based on responses to Figure 3, often did not include all roles. For instance, if a small production hired only a stage manager and an intern, only those two roles would divide the tasks. When isolating this question to only productions that had a PA position (565 productions), the PA was responsible for being on book for 56% of productions and providing line notes for 57% of productions.

While many people may connect the stage manager position to theatre, participants in this survey work in a variety of fields:

Figure 5: Art Forms/Genres of Stage Management Work in Past Two Years

The most common answers for the “Dance, Other” category were Flamenco, Tap, Hip Hop, and Burlesque. Participants used the “Other” overall category to indicate concerts, comedy performances, awards shows, magic acts, theme parks, cruise ships, and immersive theatre.

Participants also reported the number of different producers and new employers for whom they had worked in the past year [Figure 6]. Both the breakdown of employers and the breakdown of new employers have not varied by more than 2 percentage points since these questions were introduced: the number of employers was first asked in 2013 and new employers in 2017.

Responses

Non-Profit Theatre 1290

Commercial Theatre 561

Theatre for YA (N-P & Commercial) 451

Ballet 144

Modern Dance 136

Dance, Other 110

Opera 314

Cirque/Cirque-style 61

Circus 34

Performance Art 183

Industrials 117

Events 643

College/University 561

Other 118

(n=1547)


Figure 6: Number of Employers and New Employers Over Past Twelve Months

Participants were asked both the percentage of their annual income that was earned through stage management and how much they earned per week on their most recent job. Figure 7 shows the percentage of annual income from stage management work, factored by membership in AEA (n=499), no union affiliation (n=337), and all responses regardless of union affiliation (n=950). Figure 8 (n=942) shows the percentage of average weekly pay along the same divisions. Comparisons were not made with other unions (SAG-AFTRA, AGMA, AGVA, etc.) as participants could identify as a member of more than one union and so the data sets were not distinct. For this same reason, Figure 8 should not be used to directly measure AEA contracts, only AEA members, as participants might be reporting work under other union or non-union jurisdictions such as event management. With the increased survey participation by AGMA members, a new question will be added in 2021 to measure weekly pay against the type of union (or non-union) contract. For now, it should be noted that members of AGMA (n=94), whether also members of AEA or not, recorded the highest percentage of income from stage management: 48%. Geography can make a difference: 43% of stage managers who currently live in NYC make 100% of their income from Stage Management, compared to 29% of stage managers not currently in NYC.

Figure 7: Percentage of Annual Income from Stage Management

Total Employers

New Employers

0 25 50 75 100

402

12

3

8

4

15

7

22

15

25

29%

18%

One Two Three Four Five Six+ Zero

AEA Member

Non-Union

All Survey-Takers

0 25 50 75 100

2

4

9

16

4

8

14

4

13

16

10

12

14

12

24

18

30

32%

19%

41%

100% of Income More than 75% About 75% About 50%About 25% Less than 25% No SM Income

(n=1261)

(n=950)


Figure 8: Weekly Pay on Most Recent Project

A new question, asked of both American stage managers and South African technical staff were how many people are financially dependent upon the survey participant, including spouses, children, parents, and extended family members.

Figure 9: Number of People Dependent Upon Participant’s Salary

$0

<$100

$101-200

$201-300

$301-400

$401-500

$501-750

$751-1000

$1001-1250

$1251-1500

$1500+

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

10%

7%

11%

18%

19%

7%

6%

5%

7%

8%

2%

3%

2%

4%

8%

16%

11%

7%

10%

13%

20%

5%

16%

10%

14%

25%

23%

4%

4%

1%

1%

1%

0%AEANon-UnionAll Survey-Takers

American

South African

0 25 50 75 100

3110

1

14

3

14

4

27

18

31%

74%

None, Only Myself 1 2 3 4 5 6+

(n=942)

(USA n=950, SA n=100)


Survey participants shared the number of years they have worked in stage management [Figure 10] and their ages [Figure 11]. The 2019 survey recorded a higher percentage of both older and more experienced stage managers than previous editions. In fact, 2 participants reported working as stage manager for more than 50 years. Figure 12 [n=1386 for comparing both questions] demonstrates that not all stage managers begin their careers at the same age.

Figure 10: Years of Experience Figure 11: Age

Figure 12: Experience Levels Divided by Age Brackets

Age SMs by Age Group

<1 Year as SM

1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-25 Years

26-50 Years

51+ Years

Under 21 80 1% 89% 10% — — —

21-25 335 3% 73% 24% <1% — —

26-30 294 — 22% 69% 9% — —

31-40 362 — 6% 30% 64% — —

41-50 155 — 5% 6% 69% 21% —

51-60 104 2% 3% 3% 22% 70% —

61-70 43 — — 2% 16% 79% 2%

71+ 13 — — 23% 8% 62% 8%

26-5010%

11-2527%

6-1029%

1-5 years33%

< 1 year1%

61-703%

51-607%41-50

11%

31-4026% 26-30

21%

21-2524%

< 216%

(n=1749) (n=1387)

(n=1386)


Participants of the 2019 survey resided in 48 states [Figure 13, map created with mapchart.net], with only Montana and Mississippi not having representatives. As has been the case with all seven editions of the survey, the state of New York had the strongest representation with 251 responses, followed by California (146) and Illinois (111), but Florida (64) climbed to the fourth most represented state, followed by a three-way tie of Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington state (60 participants residing in each). But 25% of 1386 participants noted that they have primarily worked outside their state of residence over the past two years. Although 51% of participants had only stage managed in only one state/district/US territory over the past two years, 25% had worked in two states, 13% had worked in three states, 4% had worked in four states, and 7% had stage managed in five or more states. In addition, 81 participants were taking the survey while on tour.

Is New York City truly the center of the performing arts in the United States? Out of 1,388 responses, 14% currently work in NYC and another 25% have worked in NYC in the past, leaving 61% having never worked in NYC.

Figure 13: State of Residence for Survey Participants

Figure 14 shows the highest level of SM education completed with the 2017 percentages for comparison. The most common “Other” education answers were degrees in Music and Opera. Figure 15 shows stage management training with participants able to indicate more than one form of training. The “Other” training experiences included observing and being mentored by individual stage managers.

(n=1382)


Figure 14: Highest Level of SM Education Completed

Figure 15: Stage Management Training

MFA in Stage Management

Some SM Grad Training

Grad Degree in Theatre

Grad Degree (not Theatre)

BFA in Stage Management

BFA in Theatre

BA in Theatre

Undergrad Degree (not Theatre)

Undergrad SM Course

Multiple Undergrad SM Courses

No Formal SM Education

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

6%

13%

4%

4%

4%

32%

6%

15%

1%

3%

2%

10%

6%

11%

3%

2%

6%

31%

8%

18%

1%

3%

1%

10%

2019 2017

Production Assistantship

EMC Internship

Non-union Internship

Theatre, but not SM, Internship

Shadowing SM

Shadowing ASM

Other

None of the Above

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

6%

39%

64%

20%

36%

20%

36%

13%

4%

42%

69%

20%

36%

23%

39%

2019 2017

(n=1451)

(n=1450)


Figure 16 compares the early access that American and South African survey participants had to the arts. Participants in both surveys could indicate more than one form of early access.

Figure 16: Access to the Performing Arts as a Child

Over 200 (32%) new survey participants reported having worked as an apprentice/intern within the past two years. Figure 17 compares how much they earned each week through these training programs in 2019 (n=207), 2017 (n=312), 2015 (n=420), 2013 (n=204). It should be noted that in each edition of the survey some participants reported that they actually had to pay the producer in order to apprentice (4, 2, 11, and 3 participants, by year). Of the 141 people who held paid internships in the past two years, only 18% reported earning overtime (compared to 16% in 2017).

Figure 17: Weekly Payment for Most Recent Internship/Apprenticeship

Immediate Family: Paid Work in Perf. Arts

Immediate Family: Volunteer in Perf. Arts

Extended Family: Involved in Perf. Arts

Dance Classes Outside School

Theatre Classes Outside School

Voice Classes Outside School

Summer Camp w/ Perf. Arts Focus

None of the Above

Percentage of Responses

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

47%

0%

4%

22%

10%

10%

10%

7%

28%

27%

24%

42%

34%

16%

21%

7%

United States South Africa

2019

2017

2015

2013

0 25 50 75 100

2

1

1

5

26

21

18

18

28

27

30

32

14

20

18

15

29%

30%

33%

30%

Unpaid Less than $100 $101-250 $251-500 Over $500

(USA n=1444, SA n=115)

(2019 n=207)


Not all compensation for these positions is monetary. The survey also asked whether these SMs-in-Training received housing (either fully provided or at a discount rate), meals (beyond any 2-show day company meals), local transportation reimbursement, or travel to the producer’s city at the start and end of the contract. Figure 18 shows what was provided to 2019 survey participants (by percentage; some participants received more than one form of compensation).

Figure 18: Interns/Apprentice Non-Pay Compensation Based on Weekly Pay

Survey participants who had completed an internship/apprenticeship in the past two years were also asked if they felt the compensation was fair (only 44% reported the compensation was fair) and was the experience valuable [Figure 19].

Figure 19: Usefulness of Internship/Apprenticeship in Past Two Years

The survey also asked about the growing role of the Production Assistant. Of the 1,433 stage managers who responded to the question this year, 37% reported taking a PA position even though they had professional credits in another community, compared to 35% in 2017 and 34% in 2015.

Weekly Pay Category

Housing Discounted Housing

Meals Local Transport

Contract Travel

Paid Producer 50% 0% 25% 25% 25%

Unpaid 15% 5% 3% 8% 2%

Less than $100 32% 0% 13% 29% 3%

$101-250 49% 3% 6% 12% 5%

$251-500 11% 5% 0% 5% 8%

Over $500 0% 0% 0% 22% 0%

0 25 50 75 100

14203243%

Extremely Useful Very Useful Moderately Useful Slightly Useful Not at All Useful

(n=207)

(n=206)


A question that was posed to both American and South African survey participants was how much financial support they received from their families, spouses, and partners at the beginning of their careers. Figure 20 compares early-career financial support.

Figure 20: Financial Support Received at Start of Career

One of the most interesting shifts over the 14 years of the survey have been the gender ratios of American stage managers:

Figure 21: Gender Ratios by Survey Year

In addition to a Non-Binary gender identification, 2% respondents in 2019 identified as Agender, Other categories, or preferred to not answer the question. Figure 22 illustrates gender identities by age category; Agender, Other, and Prefer Not to Answer are not included as the sample sizes are not large enough to provide ratios. In the original 2006 survey, men made up 48% of all participants over age 40; in the 2019 survey, men comprised 36% of participants over age 40. This shift indicates a change to the stage manager population as a whole rather than support the argument that older stage managers will skew towards male identity representation.

United States

South Africa

0 25 50 75 100

15

9

20

22

15

17

12

21

38%

31%

No Financial Support Less than 25% 25-49% 50-99% 100% of Cost-of-Living

Female Male Non-Binary

2019 Survey 71% 23% 4%

2017 Survey 70% 26% 2%

2015 Survey 73% 25% Less than1%

2013 Survey 69% 31% No Data




(USA n=1261, SA n=113)

(2019 n=1388)


Figure 22: Gender Ratios by Age Brackets

Another significant change has been in the percentage of survey participants who identify themselves as part of the LGBTQIA community. National polls suggest that the American LGBTQIA population runs between 4.5% (2017 Gallup Poll) to 12% (2016 GLAAD study).

Figure 23: Identification as Part of the LGBTQIA Community

When cross-referenced with gender identities (n=1335), 59% of male stage managers identified themselves within the LGBTQIA community versus 32% of female-identifying stage managers. Within the group of 563 stage managers who identified as part of the LGBTQIA community, 21% reported they “felt unsafe in a theatrical community”due to their sexual orientation, showing an increase from 17% in 2017 and 10% in 2015.

Under 21

21-25

26-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71+

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1

4

6

7

6

8

67

60

69

75

76

75

67

92%

33%

40%

30%

22%

18%

18%

27%

Male Female Non-Binary

Affirmative

2019 Survey 41%

2017 Survey 35%

2015 Survey 30%

2013 Survey 27%

(n=1370)

(2019 n=1387)


Survey participants were asked to identify their race/ethnicity based on the categories provided by the 2020 U.S. Census. Figure 24 shows both 2019 and 2017 survey data. Although Pacific Islander registered as a 0%, 6 survey participants selected this category. Participants who identify as Hispanic/Latino(a), which on the U.S. Census is categorized as an ethnicity and not a race, rose from 5% in 2017 to 6% in 2019. Unlike the 2017 survey, the greatest percentages of racial diversity were in the Under 21 and 21-25 age groups.

Figure 24: Race

Survey participants were also asked about disabilities and accommodations. Among 1,389 responses, 8% identified as having a disability. When asked if accommodations were made on their most recent job, 55% responded that accommodations were not needed and 21% reported that accommodations were made, but 17% responded that “accommodations were not made for me to fully do my job” and 6% preferred not to answer. Focusing on mobility-based accommodations, all survey participants were asked if the rehearsal room on their most recent job was accessible to artists using wheelchairs: only 73% of 1,387 respondents reported that the space was accessible to artists who use wheelchairs. When asked if the calling station was accessible by wheelchair, only 25% replied yes, 16% responded that it could be with minor adjustments, but 60% replied that the work space was not accessible to stage managers who use wheelchairs.

Hiring discrimination continues to be a major issue facing stage managers. Among 1,376 responses, 44% reported that identity discrimination had impacted their ability to get work at some point in their stage management career and another 4% preferred to not answer. This percentage is up from 2013 (22%) and 2015 (27%) but down from 2017 (53%). Within the group of 600 participants who reported hiring discrimination, 53% cited gender discrimination, 52% age discrimination, 13% race discrimination, 7% sexual orientation, 5% disability, and 8% “Other” such as body size, marital/parental status, and religion. One-third of non-binary-identifying stage managers cited gender-based hiring discrimination compared to 25% of female-identifying SMs and 13% of male-identifying SMs. Among participants who cited racial discrimination, the highest percentage was among African-American stage managers (40%), followed by Asian (20%), Latino(a) (11%), Multi-racial (10%), Native American (8.3%), and White (3%).

WhiteBlack/

African-American

AsianNative

AmericanMulti-racial Other

Prefer Not to Answer

2019 Survey

86% 2% 4% 1% 6% 1% 1%

2017 Survey

91% 3% 3% 1% 3% 0% 1%

(2019 n=1387)


In addition, among 1,387 respondents, 40% reported that they had personally experienced sexual harassment in their stage management work. In fact, 46% of female-identifying stage managers reported having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. In a separate question, 60% (n=1388) reported that they had witnessed sexual harassment while working as stage managers.

Since the 2017 survey, Arts Intimacy guidance has become much more common on productions: 33% of 1,390 participants have worked with one of these coaches or consultants. When asked whether there have been changes in staging since the #MeToo, #Notinourhouse, and similar movements, responses were generally positive but may fall short of current goals.

Figure 25: Change in the Staging of Intimate Scenes

Comments on workplace discrimination can be grouped into the following categories: ‣ Micro-aggressions and condescending behaviors from those in positions of power

‣ Upper Management not willing to accommodate religious observation

‣ Age Discrimination - Companies would rather pay less money for less experienced and younger stage managers

‣ Age Discrimination - Young age incorrectly correlates with lack of experience; staff display a lack of trust in a younger stage manager

‣ Trouble establishing authority as a woman

‣ Derogatory slurs used in the workplace

‣ Lack of transparency about hiring practices leads to speculation about discrimination

‣ Not being hired due to family/childcare responsibilities

‣ Feelings that men have an easier path to better paying positions

‣ Correcting misgendering in a way that doesn’t disrupt the rehearsal process.

‣ Hiring to fill a specific narrative, or diversity quota leads some stage managers to feel their whiteness hinders them. Other stage managers feel as though they were hired for their identity over their qualifications and skills.

‣ Invisible disabilities ignored by employers

No Change16%

Slight Change21%

Moderate Change39%

Significant Change

24%

(n=1354)


The demographic section concluded with questions on relationships and family status. A 2019 USA Today study found that 48% of all Americans age 15 and older are married.

Figure 26: Married, Domestic Partner, Civil Union

Another 14% of the 1,387 stage managers who answered this question listed their status as being in a long-term relationship, 2% reported they were divorced and less than 1% were widowed. Of the 398 survey participants with spouses or legal partners, 43% reported that their partners also work in the performing arts and another 20% reported that their partners had formerly worked in the performing arts.

All survey participants were asked about children: 10% of 1,381 surveyed stage managers have children or dependents under the age of 18. A strong majority of parents of minors (88%) indicated that they were married, had a domestic partner, or were in a long-term relationship, but 4% of stage manager parents identified as single and another 4% identified as being divorced. Among 560 participants who identify as part of the LGBTQIA community and answered this question, 4% reported having children/dependents under age 18. Analyzing by gender, 7% of male stage managers and 11% of female stage managers reported having children, the same percentages as the 2017 survey.

Affirmative

2019 Survey 29%

2017 Survey 25%

2015 Survey 28%

2013 Survey 36%

2011 Survey 35%

2009 Survey 37%

(2019 n=1387)


S E C T I O N I I : P E R F O R M A N C E P R O C E D U R E S

Perhaps the most iconic part of the stage manager’s job is calling cues. There has been a slight decrease in the preference for handwritten cues: 56% of participants (n=1928, multiple responses allowed) write directly in their scripts, down from 59% in both the 2017 and 2015 surveys. Writing cues on flags and stickers have also decreased in use: 22% of participants, down from 28% in the last survey. And the sudden decline in typing cues has more than rebounded: 15% of stage managers typed cues in 2015, only 11% did so in 2017, but 20% did so in 2019.

While many parts of a stage manager’s job have moved entirely digital, cue calling is not one of them. Of 1,523 participants who answered the question, only 29% have ever called cues from a digital device, up slightly from 27% in 2017. While many stage managers have typed cues, the strong majority have then printed the scripts for calling. In choosing a digital device, 328 stage managers have tried laptops, 237 have tried tablets, 59 have tried desktop computers, and 26 have tried other devices such as phones (many of these staged managers have tried more than one digital device). And among the 463 stage managers who have tried calling from a digital device, only 25% strongly recommend or recommend the practice, up 2% from 2017 data. The majority of comments (60%, n=312) about calling from digital scripts have been negative: ‣ 28% of comments expressed a lack of trust (chance of malfunction, connectivity issues).

‣ 25% stated a need for a printed back-up, reducing the savings of using a digital device.

‣ 4% noted the difficulty of looking ahead in the script or inadvertently ‘flipping’ pages.

‣ 3% of comments identified the difficulty adjusting vision from screen to stage

Among the positive statements, 7% stated the advantage of a digital calling script for non-linear performances, 5% found ways of reducing booth light and therefore window glare, 5% found digital calling scripts ideal for working with multiple show-callers and substitute SMs, and 4% noted the advantages in some systems to tracking changes.

A question first asked in the 2006 survey, what to name the announcement just prior to calling a cue, was only asked of first-time survey participants (n=750). This new group had nearly identical responses to the 2017 survey: 85% use “Standby,” 5% use “Warning,” 6% do not use any cue announcements, and the remaining 4% use other terms such as “Ready.” Another original question, how often do you use a warning and a cue announcement (i.e., a warning and a standby), also saw nearly identical usage among new survey takers (n=712) as the last survey: 19% never use a warning, 30% rarely use it, 37% sometimes use it, 10% use it most of the time, and 5% always use a warning.

There does not yet appear to be a consensus for what to call projected image cues [Figure 27]. In addition to the listed options, other popular cue names included VX, VQ, PQ, Proj, and “Lights” or “Sound” if run through those boards.


Figure 27: Name for Projections and/or Video Cues

There has been a significant shift in stage managers allowing crew members on headset to take cues on their own in 2019 (n=1576) versus 2017 (n=884, only new survey-takers).

Figure 28: Crew Members on Headsets Allowed to Take Own Cues

The main reasons cited for allowing crew to take their own cues were crew members having a better line of sight (38%), cue timing was based on a visual like a light switch (34%), and tight sequences in which there were too many cues at one time (24%).

Vid

Video

A/V

Slide

Tab

Projection

Media

Multimedia

Other

N/A

Total Number of Stage Managers [Select All that Apply]

0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750

99

154

17

122

731

291

163

160

623

189

2019

2017

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1%

1%

3%

3%

36%

43%

36%

43%

24%

10%

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the Time Always

(n=1527)

(2019 n=1576)


In 2017, only 67% of the new survey takers (n=885) had ever used cue lights, a decline from 74% in 2015. That decline resolved itself as 78% of this year’s survey participants (n=1579) have used cue lights. The stark drop in usage reported in the 2017 survey may have been an anomaly among new survey takers that year.

The 2019 edition was the second survey in which participants were asked about both their comfort level in reading music [Figure 29, n=1605) and training in music [Figure 30, n=1607]. These two questions were asked rather than whether a stage manager is proficient in reading music as there is not a test to prove proficiency. In the past two years, the comfort level has risen slightly (Extremely Comfortable responses were 35% and Comfortable were 34% in 2017) whereas music training remained largely steady. In short, comfort rose even as training levels did not. It should be noted that there are a variety of ways to learn how to read music; this survey question asked about playing an instrument or taking voice classes.

Figure 29: Comfort Level in Reading Music Figure 30: Training - Musical Instrument/Voice

A notable trend is the increase in the number of stage managers running their own light board, sound board, or video/projection system. Among 1,379 stage managers, 61% of those surveyed reported running their own board at some point in the past two years, an increase from 57% in 2017 and 53% in 2015. Among those who ran their own boards in the past two years, nearly all (93%) had run a light board, followed by sound boards (74%), video (40%) and combination systems such as boards that triggered lights and sound (30%). Unfortunately, there was not an increase in the number of stage managers who are paid extra for this additional job: 23% in 2019, compared to 24% in 2017 (but up from 17% in 2015). An additional 9% of those running a board reported that the SM position was unpaid. In the past two years, those who were paid extra received the following compensation:

Extremely Uncomfortable

7%Somewhat

Uncomfortable11%

Neutral10%

Somewhat Comfortable

35%

Extremely Comfortable

37%

Cannot Read Music

10%No Training

but Read Music11%

1 Course or <1 Year

18%

2-4 Years28%

5+ Years33%

(n=1605) (n=1607)


Figure 31: Additional Pay Per Week to Run Boards

Calling positions have changed very little over the past two years. Please note that the percentages presented in the 2017 report have been updated to reflect a total of n=1449 in 2017.

Figure 32: Calling Position in Past Two Years

The most common “Other” calling locations included back of house, jump calling positions, outdoor spaces, balconies, and immersive performance environments. Many traditions in stage management have faded away, so are stage managers still wearing “show blacks”? Figure 33 (asked only new survey participants) identifies the frequency in which SMs and ASMs have worn “show blacks” in the past two years based on their primary location. The “N/A” response indicates that the participant had not worked in that capacity or location.

Backstage

Booth

Separate Room with Video

Other

[Select All that Apply]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6%

7%

92%

51%

7%

7%

92%

50%

2019 2017

Light Board

Sound Board

Video/Projection

Combo

2017 - All Boards

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

9%

4%

6%

9%

8%

41%

46%

32%

28%

40%

8%

7%

13%

11%

7%

24%

21%

19%

28%

24%

14%

18%

26%

19%

18%

3%

3%

3%

5%

4%

$1-9/week $10-19 $20-29 $30-39 More than $40 Other

(n=119)

(n=1279)


Figure 33: Frequency of Wearing “Show Blacks” in Past Two Years

While the stage management team may elect to wear “show blacks,” in some situations we are required by the production to wear a costume. Figure 34 is a new question, asked only of new survey-takers, to determine how often members of the SM team wear costumes. If you are an ASM, you may want to get your costume measurements!

Figure 34: Frequency of Wearing Costumes for Performance in Past Two Years

SM - Backstage 2019

SM - Backstage 2017

ASM - Backstage 2019

ASM - Backstage 2017

SM - Booth 2019

SM - Booth 2017

ASM -Booth 2019

ASM - Booth 2017

SM - FOH 2019

SM - Separate Rm 2017

Other 2019

Other 2017

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

16

11

32

14

19

15

24

21

1

1

9

6

6

5

14

18

11

18

18

23

3

3

9

7

6

3

6

8

6

5

12

10

4

4

5

3

13

11

16

16

17

20

21

23

13

13

17

19

59%

70%

32%

44%

47%

42%

26%

23%

79%

79%

60%

65%

Always Most of the Time Half the Time Sometimes Never

Stage Manager

ASM

Production Assistant

Intern

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

64%

62%

48%

84%

28%

30%

45%

14%

8

4

5

1

2

3

1

1

2

1

1

Always Most of the Time Half the Time Sometimes Never

(n=595)

(n=517)


The 2019 edition found that, among the new survey participants (n=737), 48% had at some point taken over cue calling responsibilities from another stage manager, including tours and co-productions. This is much lower than the 60% of total participants who reported affirmative in 2017 and 52% who reported the same in 2015. The newer group (n=354) also reported less training opportunities with the show before taking over calling responsibilities [Figure 35] than the 2017 participants (n=1035). This data will be checked again in 2021.

Figure 35: Training Time for Taking Over Calling an Existing Production

Lastly, another new question in 2019 investigated how often stage managers have the responsibility of giving acting notes to the cast after Opening.

Figure 36: Frequency of Responsibility to Give Acting Notes in Past Two Years

2019

2017

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

9%

7%

7%

6%

19%

13%

28%

25%

17%

23%

20%

26%

No Training 1 Performance 2 Performances 3 Performances4 Performances 5+ Performances

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

11%14%8%22%44%

All Productions Most Productions About Half of Productions Few Productions Never

(n=354)

(n=1360)


S E C T I O N I I I : T E C H N O L O G Y F O R S TA G E M A N A G E R S

Personal computers are nearly ubiquitous in both rehearsal and performances. Figures 37 and 38 show the type of personal technology used by different members of the stage management team in rehearsal and performance. The percentages for PA/Intern may be higher than indicated as not all participants had a PA or intern on their most recent production.

Figure 37: Technology Use in Rehearsals

Figure 38: Technology Use in Performances

PA/Intern

ASM

SM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

90%

73%

43%

25%

17%

8%

92%

74%

44%

Laptops Tablets Mobile Phones

PA/Intern

ASM

SM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

75%

59%

29%

16%

11%

4%

55%

23%

11%

Laptops Tablets Mobile Phones

Percentage

Percentage

(n=1499)

(n=1151)


The transition to digital communication channels continues, even among older stage managers. Figure 39 shows which communication tools stage managers have ever used versus currently use. Despite the transition to digital, two older communication tools, physical callboards at venues and wallet cards, climbed 5% and 1% in overall use from 2017.

Figure 39: Technologies/Techniques to Distribute Group Information to Performers

Figure 40 examines who distributed contact information on the participants’ most recent production and Figure 41 identifies how contact information is shared. The “Other” responses for Figure 41 included Company Management, General Manager, Rehearsal Department, and Director.

Figure 40: Source of Company Contact Info on Most Recent Production

Physical Callboard: Venue

Physical Callboard: Artist Housing

Online/Website Callboard

Actor Hotline/Phone

Wallet Cards

Group Email to Full Cast

Group Text to Full Cast

Calendar Exports

Scheduling Apps

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

72%

33%

32%

1%

39%

57%

56%

75%

6%

8%

14%

9%

2%

26%

36%

13%

16%

10%

20%

54%

59%

97%

35%

7%

31%

8%

84%

Used in the Past Year Used at Least Once, but not in Past Year Never Used

0 25 50 75 100

513342424%

Production Management Company Management Stage ManagementProducer's Office Other

(n=1600)

(n=1605)


Figure 41: Method of Distributing Company Contacts on Most Recent Production

Figure 42 displays producer-provided technology by percentage in both 2019 (n=1292) and 2017 (n=1522). Many “Other” technologies were sound-related, e.g., QLab on a laptop with speakers.

Figure 42: Technical Equipment Proved by Most Recent Producer

Single Contact Sheet for Full Team

2+ Partial Sheets based on Function

Contact Info Shared, but No Sheet/Directory

Other

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

31

88

490

999

Laptop

Desktop

Tablet

Office Phone

Cell Phone

Printer

Copier

Other

None

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

9%

1%

28%

28%

1%

12%

2%

10%

9%

7%

1%

28%

30%

1%

12%

3%

9%

10%

2019 2017

Percentage

(n=1608)

(2019 n=1292)


Overall, there was a range of comments about technology use in rehearsals and performances: ‣ “Banning technology in the rehearsal room only serves to lengthen the SM team's span of

day, since all handwritten notes will then need to be typed and sent out.” ‣ “It also allows the SM team to stay in touch with props, costumes, etc, to give and get

information on style and necessary items without waiting for the report at the end of the day.” ‣ “It has its place but can be distracting and unreliable." ‣ “Texting/Messaging between SM/ASMs is a great way to keep the room running smoothly

and quickly distribute information. “ ‣ “I use my iPad for timers, stop watch, video camera to shoot sequences I need to learn” ‣ “Paper is more reliable than battery-powered devices.” ‣ “I try not to have the barrier of a laptop or phone when I'm actually partaking in a theatrical

rehearsal process, because my attention is needed and the connection I have to the work and performers is significant and important.”

‣ “I don't feel like it creates a barrier between me and the cast because I don't let it. I'm still a very engaged stage manager”

‣ “I also use my phone as a Flashlight”

A new question for the 2019 survey in both the United States and South Africa was about theft at the workplace. While 61% of surveyed Americans (n=1517) and 28% of surveyed South Africans (n=127) reported no workplace theft in the past five years, Figure 43 lists the types of items stolen in both countries. There was not an “Other” category in the South African survey; most of the “Other” items cited in the American survey were props and costumes, but also larger items such as appliances in housing and pianos in rehearsal spaces.

Figure 43: Theft in the Workplace in Past 5 Years

Personal Belongings

Laptop

Cell Phone

Office Equipment

Technical Equipment (Lightboard, SM Kit, etc.)

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0%

49%

20%

20%

29%

38%

7%

8%

8%

4%

7%

27%

United States South Africa

Percentage

(USA n=1517, SA n=127)


While the number of software applications for stage managers continues to increase, the adoption rate for individual SM programs/apps remains relatively low. There was one exception: QLab. While this software was not designed for stage managers, 79% of respondents have used it. In this edition of the survey, the software question was posed only to new survey-takers (n=660).

Figure 44: Stage Management Software/Applications

ArtsVision

Aurora by Cirque du Soleil

Callboard & Co

Cue List

forScore

iAnnotate

Line Notes App

MegaWatch

Production Pro

Propared

Scene Partner

Shoflo

Show Stopwatch

Show Timer

ShowTool SM

StageWrite

SM Stopwatch

Tagnotate

Time:Calc

Virtual Callboard

Other

None of the Above

Total Number of Stage Managers Who have Used This Software/App

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

89

32

40

21

38

52

95

26

59

73

12

14

20

33

22

37

18

18

48

11

17

28

(n=660)


“Other” software and apps that received between five and ten votes included Final Draft, Flexcil, Line Notes by Thank You 5, Onset Software, Scriptation, StoryBoard, Take 10, and Theatre Blocking. Despite low usage, interest in new stage management apps/software was much higher than previous years: among 666 stage managers surveyed, 45% reported being Very Likely or Likely to try new software compared to just 36% in 2017 (2017 n=1676). Figure 45 shows which components most appeal to stage manager in new SM software.

Figure 45: Desired Features in SM Software/Applications

Some of the other features that stage managers are seeking include live messaging between crew/cast, quickchange paperwork, character/actor databases, contact list generators, Equity break timers, and document sharing.

A wide variety of opinions on the creation of stage management-based software can be summarized into the following categories: ‣ Costs too much ‣ Only compatible with IOS devices ‣ Paperwork generators differ from a preferred, personal aesthetic ‣ Concerns with malfunctions ‣ Way for apps to synch with other devises to share information across the team ‣ Apps help simplify the process ‣ Preference of having one app that is designed to cover all of these things

Rehearsal/Performance Reports

Paperwork Generation (Props, Costume, etc.)

Daily Schedules

Blocking/Choreography

Line Notes

Scene Timings

Cueing/Calling Script

Other

(Select All that Apply)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6%

81%

72%

96%

87%

82%

88%

83%

(n=248)


S E C T I O N I V : E M P L O Y M E N T

For over half of all survey participants (52% of 1395 responses), stage management was their first career and this priority will likely continue as 24% of responses to this question were students. The survey pool included 471 participants who hire SMs, ASMs, Interns, or other stage management positions. Although there has been a rise in the number of applications received for each job opening, the overall numbers may still be lower than many expected:

Figure 46: Number of Applications Received for Stage Management Openings

The unemployment rate for stage managers from November 2018 to November 2019 dropped to 17% (n=986), down from 19% in the 2017 and 2015 studies. When asked how clear the unemployment system was for filing and collecting funds, 31% reported Extremely Unclear and 23% reported Somewhat Unclear (n=782). This survey was conducted prior to the coronavirus pandemic. Stage managers are using more sources to find work [Figure 47]. Some of the Other responses, besides simple word-of-mouth, include Opera America, Stage Management Jobs in Opera on Facebook, Chicago’s Kick-Ass Stage Managers on Facebook, Backstage/West, the Minnesota Playlist, Mandy Theatre Professionals, and HigherEdJobs. Figure 48 breaks down which social networking channels were used for self-promotion versus promoting a project and whether respondents were contacted for interviews or job offers via those channels. Some of the “Other” responses included blogs, podcasts, Tumblr, and Google+. Over 700 respondents have been contacted for interviews/job offers on Facebook. Note: 1094 participants used Facebook to promote a production (beyond the chart scale for Figure 48).

1-10 Applications

11-25

26-50

51-75

75+

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

4%

2%

9%

22%

63%

3%

3%

12%

23%

59%

2019 2017

Percentage

(2019 n=456)


Figure 47: Sources Used to Find Stage Management Work

Figure 48: Social Media Usage for Promotion and for Job Interviews/Offers

Facebook*

Instagram

LinkedIn

Offstage Jobs Profile

Twitter

Personal Website

Other

None of These

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

597

84

107

15

121

300

67

703

173

105

95

193

12

51

767

1094

224

106

320

151

135

597

503

667

To Promote Yourself On Behalf of Production Contacted for Job Interview/Offer

AEA Casting Call

ARTSEARCH

SMA

OffstageJobs.com

Playbill.com

Producer's Website

Social Media

Colleagues

School/Alumni

Cold Calls

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

18%

11%

36%

56%

37%

15%

35%

49%

19%

21%

22%

16%

11%

31%

62%

41%

20%

40%

50%

24%

20%

26%

2019 2017

(2019 n=1402, 2017 n=1536)

(n=1153)


Figure 49 tracks the percentages in 2015 (n=692), 2017 (n=1541), and 2019 (n=1245) of salary negotiations over participants’ last three jobs.

Figure 49: Frequency of Negotiation and Negotiation Success

Both the number of stage managers who attempted to negotiate and the success rate of those negotiations have increased. Figure 50 divides this data by gender identity and Figure 52 (n=435) shows the results of successful negotiations (sample size too small for Non-Binary).

Figure 50: Frequency of Negotiation and Negotiation Success by Gender

Figure 51: Additional Pay Earned through Negotiation

Up to 5% Increase

6-10% Increase

11-20% Increase

20+% Increase

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

10%

14%

32%

45%

15%

19%

38%

28%

12%

16%

32%

40%

All Participants Male Female

Negotiated All 3 Times

Negotiated at least Once

Never Negotiated

Always Succeeded

Sometimes Succeeded

Never Succeeded

Male 19% 34% 47% 33% 52% 15%

Female 8% 34% 58% 34% 44% 22%

Non-Binary 2% 26% 72%

Not enough data

Not enough data

Not enough data

Negotiated All 3 Times

Negotiated at least Once

Never Negotiated

Always Succeeded

Sometimes Succeeded

Never Succeeded

2019 10% 33% 56% 34% 47% 19%

2017 8% 26% 66% 29% 51% 20%

2015 8% 33% 59% 24% 69% 7%

Percentage

(2019 n=1245)

(n=1226)

(n=435)


Salaries were not the only issues discussed in negotiations:

Figure 52: Non-Salary Items Negotiated on Stage Management Jobs

The most common “Other” categories being negotiated were start dates, time off, pets in company housing, cell phone reimbursement, prep time, comp tickets, extra pay for laundry, childcare, hotel preference, travel for spouse, subway card, right of first refusal, and per diem.

The Stage Manager Survey asks participants about union/group membership. Actors’ Equity Association had the largest representation with 49% of all survey responses. “Other”categories included EMC, academic unions/groups and Canadian Actors’ Equity Association.

Figure 53: Union Membership

AEA

SAG-AFTRA

AGMA

AGVA

IATSE

USA

Other

None

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

602

64

1

65

17

117

29

653

Stage Managers [Select All that Apply]

Travel/Transportation

Housing

Parking

Staff/Assistants

Work Space

Work Equipment

Program Billing

Other

None of the Above

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

483

112

105

151

71

211

198

309

435

Stage Managers

(n=1168)

(n=1329)


Among the 653 Equity members, 50% joined the union on a SM contract and another 45% joined as an ASM. Only 5% joined AEA on an Actor or an Actor/ASM contract. Actors’ Equity Association expanded the ways of joining the union through their EMC program in October 2017. In the 2017 survey, 3 participants had joined under the new option of 25 EMC points; in the 2019 survey, this number grew to 10. Figure 54 shows how stage managers joined AEA by percentage. None of the 2019 respondents had joined in the pre-2002 method of 40 EMC points and an exam.

Figure 54: Method of Joining Actors’ Equity Association

Among participants who are not Equity members, 32% plan to join the union at some point and another 41% were unsure. Most current AEA members joined in their twenties; the overall ratio being nearly identical to the 2017 study.

Figure 55: Age of Stage Manager when Joining Actors’ Equity Association

4A Sister Union

Offered Contract w/o EMC

Pre-Oct17: 50 EMC Points

Pre-Oct17: >25 EMC Points, Offered Contract

Pre-Oct17: <25 EMC Points, Offered Contract

Post-Oct17: 25 EMC Points

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2%

7%

11%

6%

72%

2%

2019

2017

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1%

2%

2%

11%

10%

33%

32%

52%

52%

2%

3%

Under 21 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

Percentage

(n=651)

(2019 n=651)


In examining the gender wage gap, we have a useful metric that reduces non-gender variables in that AEA has reached a minimum salary for each venue through collective bargaining that union stage managers can negotiate above. We asked AEA participants whether they were offered more than union-minimum salaries in any of their last three Equity contracts. The percentages were calculated based on individual categories as not all AEA members have worked on at least 3 contracts (648 had worked on at least 1 contract, but only 622 had worked on at least 3 contracts). We then analyzed this data by gender. There were only 19 AEA members who identified as Non-Binary in the 2019 survey, so this data is not represented in Figure 56 as a single person’s experience could change the category by 5%. It is notable that the percentage of female-identifying AEA members who negotiated above union minimum climbed with recency.

Figure 56: AEA Members Earning More than Union-Minimum Salaries

To further study the gender wage gap, we also considered age as the survey found that AEA stage managers in their 20s and 30s received above minimum 22% of the time on their most recent contract compared to 38% of participants in their 40s through 60s. And this study has shown that older age brackets of stage managers have higher percentages of participants who identify as male. Figure 57 therefore revisits the weekly salary data of Figure 8 and, examines gender identification only from those who are older than age 30. Stage managers who identify as Agender, Non-Binary, Other, or preferred not to provide a gender identity appear in Figure 57 within the total numbers but not as separate groups as they are not large enough to divide into weekly pay categories and still provide participant anonymity. The bars represent the percentage of participants within a given gender identity who selected that pay category. In other words, 12% of all female participants over age 30 indicated they earned over $1,500/week whereas as 30% of all male participants indicated that same category.

All AEA Members Male AEA Female AEA Non-Binary AEA

Most Recent Contract 28% 33% 28% Not enough data

2nd Most Recent Contract 27% 27% 27% Not enough data

3rd Most Recent Contract 23% 31% 20% Not enough data

(n=622+)


Figure 57: Weekly Pay for Participants Over Age 30

In addition to their stage management work, many survey participants earned income from other fields in the performing arts [Figure 58] while 45% of participants reported no work other than stage management, down slightly from 46% in 2017. Due to significant numbers of “Other” comments, two new categories - Box Office and Production/Company Management - were added for 2019. The survey also asked about the educational roles that many stage managers have taken on in addition to their other stage management duties over the past two years [Figure 59]. Many of the “Other” responses referenced training and education provided to high school students.

$0

<$100

$101-200

$201-300

$301-400

$401-500

$501-750

$751-1000

$1001-1250

$1251-1500

$1500+

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

17%

11%

15%

22%

19%

3%

4%

2%

4%

4%

1%

30%

11%

15%

17%

14%

1%

1%

3%

4%

2%

2%

12%

11%

15%

23%

21%

4%

5%

1%

4%

5%

1%FemaleMaleAll Survey-Takers

(n=463)


Figure 58: Performing Arts Related Income Apart from Stage Management

Acting/Singing

Dancing

Directing/Music Directing

Choreographer

Vocal/Dialect Coach

Scenic Design

Lighting Design

Costume Design

Sound Design

Marketing/Publicity

Facilities

FoH/House Management

Stagehand

Wardrobe Crew

Electrician

Musician

Props

Scene Shop

Costume Shop

Production/Company Management

Box Office

Other Theatre Field

Stage Managers

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

20%

2%

8%

8%

1%

11%

4%

19%

13%

4%

4%

5%

1%

9%

3%

1%

2%

7%

1%

5%

15%

1%

7%

2%

6%

7%

2%

9%

3%

16%

11%

3%

4%

5%

2%

7%

3%

1%

2%

8%

1%

4%

2019 2017

(n=1291)


Figure 59: Stage Management Educational Roles in the Past Two Years

The final section of the survey asked about work/life balance, time off, health and wellness, and general career satisfaction. Satisfaction with work/life balance continues to decline each time the question appears on the survey. As noted in previous surveys, these dissatisfaction levels may be underreported as some stage managers who are dissatisfied with their work/life balance may not be inclined to take a 15-20 minute survey.

Figure 60: Satisfaction with Work/Life Balance

Backstage Tour for Patrons/Students

Pre-Show Talk for Patrons/Students

Talk-back for Patrons/Students

Shadowing Experience in the Booth

SM Presentation for Patrons/Students

One-day SM Workshop/Master Class

Summer/Holiday Camp for Theatre

Undergraduate SM Course

Graduate SM Course

Other

None of the Above

Total Number of Stage Managers

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

198

68

32

181

160

277

515

869

459

262

871

2019

2017

2015

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

2%

4%

6%

18%

24%

27%

30%

33%

33%

42%

33%

30%

9%

5%

4%

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

(n=1377)

(2019 n=1213)


The comments received in 2019 about work/life balance included: ‣ “Need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, makes doing outside things difficult.” ‣ “Recently, I've been trying to ask myself who exactly is expecting me to always be on call - is

it the people I work for, the people I work with or is it just me? I've been making a conscious effort to turn off or unplug at the end of the day or on a day off.”

‣ “I cannot imagine a producer being fine with you having to miss rehearsal to take care of a sick child”

‣ “In recent years I have cut down on the number of shows I SM in a year to have a better work/life balance”

‣ “The theatre industry should have a two day weekend. I truly believe the current model of one day off a week is at the root of the burnout for so many individuals in this field.”

‣ “You miss friends’ birthday and important milestones because I find it is less acceptable to have an SM with conflicts than an actor.”

‣ “If productions cannot succeed without stage management carrying the show on our backs to the point of exhaustion and burnout, things need to change.”

‣ “Don't have push notifications on your phone for your work email address. Eat somewhere beside your desk/in front of your laptop. Don't let people talk or ask questions during your break. “

‣ “It is very hard to be successful, good at this job, and then maintain a smooth working life” ‣ “I find it easier to manage a semblance of a balance when I ASM vs when I PSM. I find it

hard to manage a balance when we only get 1 day off a week.”

We have limited the data results on vacation time [Figure 61] to current SMs (n=791) and ASMs (n=306). Participants were asked to list vacation time and not unemployment.

Figure 61: Vacation Time in the Past 12 Months

Figure 62 shows comparative data from South Africa (n=98) and the US (n=1506) on commuting to work. It was possible to select more than one method of transportation. As New Yorkers accounted for 41% of all public transit responses; the graph also includes a non-NYC participant category (n=1196).

SM

ASM

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

5%

7%

8%

11%

23%

23%

11%

12%

53%

47%

No Vacation Time Less than 1 Wk 1-2 Weeks 3-4 Weeks More than 4 Wks

(n=1097)


Figure 62: Method of Work Commute on Most Recent Job

Figure 63 compares 2019 and 2017 data on how much fast food, caffeine, and alcohol stage managers reported consuming each week. In 2019, new categories were added for weekly exercise and the number of meals SMs cooked themselves. A CDC study conducted in 2013-2016 found 37% American adults eat fast food every day. A 2014 study found that 85% of Americans drink at least one caffeinated beverage each day. According to the 2016 NSDUH survey, 51% of Americans drank alcohol in the past month, but “binge drinking” is classified as 4-5 drinks (depending upon gender) at one occasion.

Figure 63: Fast Food/Caffeine/Alcohol/Exercise in a Regular Work Week

United States

USA w/o NYC

South Africa

0 25 50 75 100

3

1

1

73

53

46

7

7

8

10

19

24

1

4

4

6%

16%

17%

Walk Bicycle Public Transit Taxi/Shared Ride Car/Motorcycle Other

Fast Food in 2017

Fast Food in 2019

Meals Cooked in 2019

Caffeine in 2017

Caffeine in 2019

Alcohol in 2017

Alcohol in 2019

Exercise in 2019

0 25 50 75 100

2

3

15

17

7

1

1

1

4

4

15

14

7

2

1

1

6

7

20

19

11

4

4

10

13

15

21

22

22

13

13

38

31

30

14

13

38

39

39

19

19

17

5

5

9

20

20

31%

25%

24%

10%

10%

6%

21%

22%

Zero 1 2-4 5-7 8-10 11-14 15+/week

(USA n=1506)

(2019 n=1365)


A new question was added to the 2019 about health insurance. Among 971 responses, 44% reported having health insurance through their stage management work, 14% through work outside of stage management, 35% through someone else’s plan, and 7% reported not having health insurance. A follow-up question about whether their SM work offered health insurance options found that 61% (n=963) did not have this option. These two questions were flawed in that they did not provide a clear category for those purchasing health insurance directly through the marketplace, with or without pay from stage management work. Future editions of the question will define employer-purchased, union-purchased, and self-purchased health insurance. When the subgroup who reported having health insurance from their stage management work was asked whether they anticipated having health insurance in one year, 94% expected that they would with the other 6% being uncertain due to not being able to anticipate their SM contracts. Among 1172 participants, 44% reported Very Satisfied, 27% Satisfied, 13% neutral, 7% somewhat dissatisfied, and 8% very dissatisfied with their current health insurance situation.

The final set of questions examined the future of the profession. When asked how likely a participant (n=1206) was to leave stage management in the next five years: 11% were very likely and another 12% thought it was likely that they would exit the field in this timetable, which exceeds the 2017 report (8% and 10%, respectively). When narrowed to just those survey participants who listed SM or ASM as their current occupation (n=991), “very likely” lowered to 6% but “likely” remained at 12%. Figure 64 shows the primary reasons for leaving stage management for those most likely to leave the profession in 2019 (n=243) and 2017 (n=229). Participants could indicate more than one reason; all categories are percentages based on that year. The majority of “Other” reasons were based on higher pay in other fields, trouble finding work, drastic changes in the industry from start of career, discrimination, changing interests, demands of raising children, and a desire for new challenges.

Figure 64: Contributing Factors in Decision to Leave Stage Management

Retirement age

Burn out from long hours

Burn out from high stress

Challenges of balancing family/personal life

Ratio of income to hours worked

Move into another position within the arts

Move into a career with more stability

Other

0 25 50 75 100

16%

48%

56%

52%

58%

42%

54%

17%

18%

52%

49%

37%

67%

50%

63%

16%

2019 2017

(2019 n=243)


Despite the continued drop in work/life balance satisfaction, overall job satisfaction remains consistently high: nearly three-fourths of the survey participants listed that they were very satisfied (21%) or satisfied (51%) with their careers. Factors contributing to career satisfaction included: ‣ “Working for a company that values me, my skills, and my experience.” ‣ "I am literally living the dream. It is not always glamorous and it's not always easy, but I know

how lucky I am to be able to do this work.” ‣ "I can choose what jobs I take” ‣ “I have gotten much better about advocating for my personal needs for life.” ‣ “I get to work with amazing people and I get to be apart of the art that I love.” ‣ “I love that I can pay bills doing what I love most!" ‣ “Working at a place that supports stage management as members of artist management and

as artists themselves.” ‣ “When company executives, production team members, or cast members acknowledge your

work and thank you for the time and energy you put in to making a smooth running show. People say stage management is a thankless job, but it doesn’t have to be!”

To end on a positive note, when students (n=178) were asked the their likelihood of pursuing a career in stage management, 71% were Very Likely and 19% were Likely to make stage management their profession. In February 2020, a new longitudinal survey was launched to follow new stage managers in the first ten years of their careers to track their challenges and see how starting in the profession has changed. More information on the SM2030 Project can be found at www.smsurvey.info.


C O N C L U S I O N

This survey is entirely a volunteer effort. Hundreds of stage managers volunteered over 500 hours collectively to provide candid responses about their careers. Each edition of the survey requires more time due to deeper data analysis; the 2019 edition required over 215 hours to create and conduct the survey and to generate this report. Many thanks to Elon University for providing access to the Qualtrics software necessary to run a survey of this magnitude. The survey and its mailing lists are managed by SM-Sim, LLC (www.sm-sim.com), solely owned by David McGraw, who is on faculty at Elon University while also working as a professional stage manager.

If you have any questions about the data or would like to make a recommendation for a future survey, please e-mail [email protected] with “SM Survey” in the subject line. Each survey cycle starts with corrections and improvements based on your suggestions. If you would like to participate in future surveys, please join the mailing list at http://smsurvey.info. The next survey will be conducted in November 2021.

The Stage Manager Survey has gone global. In 2018, Yue Shi used this survey as the model for her own survey of stage managers in Mainland China. As mentioned in the Introduction, David McGraw traveled to South Africa in 2019 to assist Ronel Jordaan in creating a version of this survey for technical staff in the Creative Industries. If you would like to create a similar survey for your country and would like guidance or support, please contact [email protected].

The goal of this survey is to provide information about our field at the national level. As the founder of the survey, my hope is that others will use this data both to discover that they are not alone in their experiences and to find ways to improve our profession.

There is so much that we can learn from each other.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You are free to share or post this report for noncommercial use as long as you provide a link to http://smsurvey.info. If you wish to use any portion of this report for commercial use, please contact David McGraw at [email protected].

http://www.sm-sim.com

mailto:[email protected]





2019 stage manager survey (usa) report · 2020. 4. 22. · 2019 stage manager survey - usa...

Documents