The April 14, 1907 NYT has a rather long story concerning the distribution of money in the New York theater industry. The estimate is that nearly $7.5 million is spent each year on dramatic and comedic theater in New York, with theater owners and house managers taking $4 million, producers take about $1 m, and actors and actresses take about $1.5 million. This leaves about $1 million to be distributed to advertising, insurance, sets and props, and the author (more on this below).

The story indicates something about "star" value in 1907:

The actors and actresses require at least $1,500,000, including with them not only the stage management, but every "super" who gets half a dollar for walking on and off, up to the "star," who may run to $500, even in some cases $1,000 a week - and get it.

EH.net indicates nominal per-capita income was about $390 in 1907. If an actor had a 40 week work schedule, the actor would have a nominal income approximately 50 times greater than the average Joe. The "star" getting $1000 per week would have an income roughly 100 times the per-capita average. This would be comparable to today's average Major League Baseball player: Average MLB salary is approximately $4m and per-capita income is close to $40,000. Coincidence?

The NYT article goes on to point out that France has legislation requiring 10% of the theater industry's gross revenue goes to the authors (who are alive) but in the U.S. authors fend for themselves and receive a little less than 5% of theater revenues overall. However, there is considerable variance in the amount of money each author receives (just like today). The article points out that there "must be an author for each play but not necessarily an author on the payroll." This would create the incentive for managers to use the "classics" because they wouldn't have to pay the author or his/her estate.

Alas, much like today, "these praiseworthy ancients do not fill the bill for a public as eager after novelty as ours. The demand is for novelty in form if not always in substance, for new turns to old dramatic tricks, and if originality can strike hands with what is uppermost in men's and women's minds and within the conventions, the reward is golden indeed."

This seems very much like today's movie industry in which it seems very few original ideas are produced. Instead we are provided with deep movies that retell the Taming of the Shrew or the like.

However, much like the authors (at least authors like me) and musicians of today, most authors in 1907 didn't get paid much:

In a year's dramatic business there are a great many of him [authors] to share this possible fund. Sometimes it is shared with the manager. It is bitten into by agents. It disappears in fool contracts; it withers under small receipts. Now and again it blossoms for him into grand totals.

The article goes on to point out that there are several playwrights who are making considerable royalties from the blockbusters of their day, such as "Shenandoah," "The Lion and the Mouse," and "Arizona". These authors, the story claims, were receiving up to $100,000 per year in royalties.

The theater industry of 1907 seemed to have a Tournament-like reward system, just like the movie, television, music, and theater(?) industry of today. Today, authors, directors, actors, and musicians struggle for years for the chance to "hit it big" some day. Authors and actors of yesterday evidently did the same. The tournament structure might be encourage the greatest diversity of creativity and, ultimately, the most well received creative endeavors - be they theater, television, movies, or music. Same today as it was then.