Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Perhaps, help me understand the point you are arguing. Is it that SNL should pay new cast member more, because life in NYC is expensive? Or should they pay them more, because other stars get paid more? Either one is rather flawed logically. Let's assume that $3k/episode is the correct amount (this information is not published and all hearsay, but regardless). SNL makes 18-21 new episodes per season; so, $54K-63K for 20 weeks of fun and learning on the most desirable comedy show in US. Not a huge amount for living in Manhattan, sure. But they can and do work other gigs - clubs, private functions, filming industry etc. They can also share an apartment and drive a limo, like Larry David did, to support themselves. And why should SNL pay young unproven cast members same or close to other stars? They are not stars yet. Similar to pro-sports: athletes are paid low in their first contracts and get much more if they become a star.
It is hard to disagree with this logic. So it must be a different point then. What is it?
|
I'm not making any point other than just trying to zero in on what they might be paid, as you noted it's unpublished and hearsay. I just think the $3k/m you noted is way off, even just by industry scale standards, and would basically be an unsustainable living in NYC. They are almost assuredly underpaid relative to industry counterparts, but to what think your point might be, is that there are other reasons people want to work there than money, which is true. It's also probably a big reason people don't normally stay that long despite most of them recollecting it as some of their favourite moments in life. But keeping the performers at or close to scale is probably a big reason the show survives as well. Otherwise they would have ended up paying people $1M/episode and it would be unsustainable.
So yeah it's in a unique position where it's a highly touted and enjoyable yet notoriously difficult and underpaid gig. Underpaid doesn't necessarily mean poorly paid.