June 11, 2010

½ Price Tickets: The Salvation or Destruction of Theatre

“I work in the theatre. I can't afford to pay full price. And I want to go.”

Hello all you beautiful theater people.

You know I love controversial issues in theatre, and this is a big one. We live in a world where theatre pales to the allure of television and movies. Going to the theatre is seen as a luxury for the privileged few. Why? Many people argue it is based on accessibility and cost and, in this economy, disposable income is not that easy to come by and people are definitely more conscious of what things cost. Consequently, most people are bargain shopping for everything, including art. But is it to the detriment of the theatre company? Does unbridled capitalism destroy artistic merit and accessibility to theatre? 

Nothing hurts my soul more than sitting in a theatre, watching a wonderful story with amazing performances and 4 people in the audience. Now, since most of you reading this article are involved in the industry in one way or another, we all know the different ways to get tickets: full price, ½ price, wait for an industry night, comps from friends, usher, etc. However, the general public has only a few options for getting tickets. By combining the perfect storm of accessibility, cost and theatres not wanting empty houses, ½ price ticket venues are born. It makes sense on paper for sure, but are we actually shooting ourselves in the foot? Are we equating our art to the K-Mart Blue Light Special status or making it accessible to the masses? What is our time and effort worth and can theatre companies continue operating and providing quality theatre under this fiscal restriction? Is it better to have ½ seats than empty seats? 

There are very strong opinions on the topic. You ask many actors, they respond “Discounted tickets are always a good thing because it fills the houses and makes it affordable for people to come and it never denigrates any theatrical product. Period.” Development and marketing staff usually say, “Specialized discount programs are good ways to bring in new audiences, and if the product is good and the patron is shown appreciated with prompt follow-up from the organization, then you can cultivate to a returning full-paying single ticket buyer, then hopefully a subscriber. And it certainly beats papering a house with comps that often get unused - that devalue the product.” The public’s general sentiment is, “The problem is that the cost of a ticket is too expensive these days. Without discounted tickets to make it more accessible, it will die.” 

The first logical question that occurs to me to ask is why do tickets cost what they do? It appears to me that the perceived value of a theatre ticket is entirely indefinable. Yes some theatres have formulas, demographic studies and so forth but really, what is the difference between a $20 ticket for a smaller theatre company and $78 for a larger theatre company. Is one show inherently better than the other? That is certainly not true. The absolute best production of my favorite musical Little Shop of Horrors was done by a community theatre in Miami I paid $12 for that ticket. The Broadway version, which I spent almost $100 for, was so bad, that I left at intermission. Sure, I will gladly pay $100-$150 to see Angela Lansbury, John Lithgow, Nathan Lane, or Marcia Gay Harden on stage but that is the exception, definitely not the rule. So perhaps the answer is you are paying more for production than performance quality.  

Another interesting area of consideration is: Are we training people to pay less for theatre overall? In a blog posting, the CEO of Goldstar stated: “...people don't buy half-price tickets just for price. They buy because they're sampling or testing your product or because they want to go do something. The lowering of the price is just there to lower the friction to a new person.” The Centre Theatre Group in LA estimates that 21% of people seeing shows in one of their 3 theatres are “newbies” and most were referred by word of mouth or through ½ price tickets through an outlet like Goldstar. Ticket outlet sites have run into some scrutiny from theatres because they are restricted on which ticket price can be discounted, the general admission or the already advanced discounted rates. Some argue, and quite justly it seems, that in order to compensate for the loss from these outlets, ticket prices have steadily increased.  

There are interesting and different things being done in the theatre community to address these issues. A theatre I came across decided that trying to figure out ticket prices was not working for them and they converted to an interesting convention, charging a monthly membership for unlimited access to of the shows instead of individual tickets. The theatre found that this yields better results in the long run than full price single ticket. I am definitely about the innovative approaches. Filthy Lucre, a blogger on theatre topics, also suggested “We price everything backwards in theatre.” Some ideas presented in the blog were to reward people who buy tickets early not those that wait to the last weekend to see the show, focus on building your patron base up one committed patron at a time instead of focusing on low commitment bargain shoppers, don’t assume young patrons are all poor as they are usually just highly uniformed about theatre, and above all it doesn’t matter if people think your tickets are expensive, it matters if they think they got a good deal for their money.  

My opinion is a firm it depends on who you are. Half-priced tickets hurt the smaller theatre companies that rely more on ticket sales than grants and sponsorships. Larger theatres rely on filling the house because they are much less reliant on ticket sales. There is no definite formula for this but all theatres should have a marketing plan and active money raising process that is separate from ticket sales. A theatre company I managed once had a goal: no more than 20% of your revenue should be from ticket sales. That is a difficult goal to meet sometimes, especially for smaller theatres. However, smaller groups need to ensure there is a viability plan in place that involves getting sponsors, grants or utilizing innovative methods to stay alive.   

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please email me at: hyatt.josh@yahoo.com

Have a wonderful week. The Informed Actor.

June 5, 2010

Welcome to First Amendment Theatre, Smoking or Non-Smoking Section?

Hello all you beautiful theatre people. On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court directly weighed in on a decision that affects all theatres throughout the country. Does a ban that stops smoking on stage violate the constitutional right to freedom of speech? The Court spoke volumes on the issue by declining to hear the case and saying nothing. For anyone that knows me professionally, they know I love constitutional law and this is a fun one.

(left - Cleveland Playhouse Keeps Puffing)

Here is the skinny; two theatre companies in Colorado were seeking an exemption to the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act claiming that smoking on stage is a form of First Amendment freedom of expression. It is fair to note that the law prohibits smoking tobacco or "cloves and any other plant matter or product that is packaged for smoking," in most public places, including theaters. Since cigarette substitutes have been used by many theaters in recent years, this kind of ban is very significant to many productions.

Since they were challenging a state law, they had to go through the state court channels. They lost each step of the way: district court, appellate court and Colorado Supreme Court, which upheld the ban on smoking in theatres. Since the crux of the argument for the theatre groups was a first amendment violation, which is a federal not state issue, they petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court can only speak to whether the state law violated federal law, in this case the first amendment. By saying nothing, the Court is saying, “This is a state issue, not a first amendment issue.” But is it? What are the compelling interests the state is trying to protect by restricting the rights of others?

The first amendment, as you may remember from 5^th grade civics, is the first addition to the constitution, and the beginning of the ten amendments that constitute the American Bill of Rights. There are actually several rights guaranteed to citizens in the First Amendment and most people remember the big three: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. This allows people to publically state opinions, have this column, openly disagree with government or other interests, say or write what they want no matter how controversial, no matter how “unfair and unbalanced” (yes Fox, I am talking about you) or slanted. My grandfather was in the Navy during WWII and Korea and he use to say, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.” I did not really grasp those words until I realized how much the first amendment is ingrained in our culture and collective mind think.

However, inherent in this right is our responsibility to observe some common sense things such as not screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, threatening terrorist activities against the public or specific individuals, issuing fake bomb threats, etc. These activities generally affect the interest of the state by creating dangerous situations for the populace in mass. If you threaten to blow up buildings or cities, that would affect the public operations significantly. If you threaten elected officials, they are unable to properly legislate. If you scream “fire” in a crowded theatre, you would create pandemonium. My favorite example, and one that I am guilty of, is screaming “shark” at a crowded beach. Now, in my defense I was like 6 years old and I had just seen JAWS and everything looked like a shark to me when I was at the beach. I assure you, I was a very unpopular kid that summer at Haulover Beach in Miami.

First I wondered if this issue arose to the level of first amendment status. The theater companies argued that theatrical smoking has been a part of free expression in America since the First Amendment’s ratification in 1791. “Theaters rely on actors’ expressive conduct, including smoking, to convey meaning in tandem with a play’s dialogue, movement, mood and tone.” There are approximately 18 states that ban indoor smoking and prohibit theatrical smoking, but they claim the laws are inconsistently applied. Some theaters have taken the extreme position of not performing shows that include smoking, rather than modifying the plays or facing fines or criminal charges. The groups believe the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear their case because so few theatres signed on to the lawsuit.  

Here is an interesting tidbit of information. In 2008, after an indoor smoking ban was passed in Minnesota (which excluded theatres), a large number of bars decided to exploit the loop hole and turned into temporary theatres. Bars were claiming that they were losing 30-40% of their business when the ban went into effect. It cracks me up but one bar had “Theater Night” in which a “non-professional actor” (their definition, not mine) would smoke at the bar, which they defined as their “stage,” and, therefore, that was the show. I love it. Americans are so inventive.  

Next was: what is the compelling state interest to enforce the ban? First, is the ban fairly applied to all social settings? In Colorado, you can still smoke in casinos, cigar shops and the smoking section in the airport. I find it interesting that in Colorado you can smoke in casinos but not theatres. I wonder why? Oh wait, I just remembered, lobbyists and money. Duh. The only compelling interests I can seem to piece together is the concern for public health, unless you are in a casino, then you are on your own. I am unaware of any studies that tie “clover or herbal” cigarettes to long term health risks but I am very sensitive to the nature of asthma and allergies. So to combat this, most theatres put up warning signs to patrons.

I have been to plays where the “Warning, this play contains…” signs are as long as the playbill. Strobe lights, if you have epilepsy, important to know. Smoking, if you have asthma or allergies, important to know. Nudity, if you are easily offended, fine whatever. Adult themes and adult language seriously grow up. Full puppet nudity, that’s just damn funny.

I agree that theatres which use herbal or cloves should be sensitive to their audience’s needs and their size. In the play Killer Joe at Compass Theatre, many herbal cigarettes were used in a 49 seat black box theatre. To avoid smoking out the audience, the Set Designer extraordinaire Michael McKeon built a system to suck smoke off the stage to the outside. I thought this was brilliant. It did not eliminate all of the smoke but a vast majority of it.

Where do the bans end? What if people do not like certain subject materials, do we ban them? What if people do not like violence, do we ban simulated violence on stage? What if the state does not like propaganda plays, do we ban them? I am not usually the slippery slope kinda guy but this does get awfully close.

The First Amendment is one of the most precious laws theatres have in place to protect the artistic integrity and leeway we have all come to love and appreciate. Be aware and fight back when needed. The Informed Actor.

May 28, 2010

Love Letters

Hello all you beautiful theatre people. This week’s article will not be about us (gasp). It is for the unsung heroes that allow us to do our art with their love, support and encouragement (sometimes). This is for our loved ones that are left in the wake while we are in rehearsals and production. For many of us, we also work fulltime jobs so when we look back and see how much time we spend away from loved ones, it is very substantive.

My Love (or dad, mom, son, daughter, dog, cat, fish, dying cactus, etc),

I just wanted to tell you that I love you so very much and appreciate the patience you show while I’m involved with my various theatrical projects. I know that it takes so much of my time and energy but I want you to know that I am always thinking of you while I am away. I also want you to know that I do not take anything you do for granted and I am so lucky and blessed to have you in my life.

Since there’s no way to thank you for all the wonderful things you do in my absence but here is a list of just a few.

Thank you for:

1.      Being understanding when I have missed dinner parties/recitals/long weekends/sporting events/etc.                       

2.      Re-scheduling anniversary and birthday parties that conflicted with a rehearsal or performance.

3.      Sitting through 2½ hour shows that may have not been very good to see me for 5 minutes on stage.

4.      Listening and nodding when I come home from rehearsal and vent about the director and other actors.

5.      Making dinner and leaving it in the warmer for me so I had a wonderful surprise after a long rehearsal.

6.      Picking up the kids from school/homework duty/taking out the dog for a walk/cleaning the house/etc while I was gone.

7.      Going to cast parties and dinners with my theatre friends where we do nothing but talk shop. I know you are bored but you sit there and smile when I look at you.

8.      Giving me a cuddle and kiss when I get home from a long day without me having to say a word.

9.      Understanding when I have to kiss or have stage intimacy with a fellow actor it means nothing and I am thinking of you.

10.   Allowing me to practice my accents when we go out for dinner and around the house.

11.   Running lines with me and hearing the same song over and over to the point your ears begin to bleed and your patience wears thin.

12.   Applauding and hooting during my curtain call.

But mostly, I want to thank you for being you, loving me and being there when I do my thing. And I promise, when the show is over, we will do something special together.

Your devoted and #1 fan.  

May 21, 2010

To DIVA or not to DIVA, that is the question!

Hello all you beautiful theatre people. Last week’s column generated some very interesting discussions. Thank all of you who commented to me. This week I thought it would be interesting to examine the issue of the DIVA. We all know or have known the DIVA… or do we? I would wager that anyone who has worked on stage or screen has met or worked with a person they would classify as a DIVA. But who is this person? Why does this person get that reputation? How do you deal with a DIVA if you are caught in the wake?

Quiz. Are these DIVA moments?

1.   The lead in a musical outwardly refusing to talk to or acknowledge other cast mates in order to stay in character.

2.     A lead that gets upset and leaves a rehearsal when an understudy is taught choreography or music before they have the chance to learn it.

3.     A director threatening to quit a show when a playwright is giving direction to actors, without the director’s knowledge and contrary to the director’s vision.

4.    In a production of Sweeney Todd, the Beadle refuses to get dumped down the chair trap door because he has seen how the mechanism works and feels unsafe.

5.      An actor on stage stealing focus from other performers by “hamming” up a performance by making up lines and drawing out other lines.  

6.      An actor yelling at a stage manager that repeatedly misses cues or makes technical errors.

7.     A stage manager threatening to resign on the spot if the director or producer continuously add new, untested cues and changing blocking that affects cues, minutes before a performance begins.

8.     A costume designer that ignores a director’s costume brief, does their own thing and then has a meltdown when the director does not like what is presented.

First it’s important to look at the construct of and operationally define the DIVA. Traditionally the DIVA conjures images of Norma Desmond descending the staircase at the end of Sunset Boulevard. /i>DIVA is from the Italian meaning goddess or fine lady and is often used in opera to define a “distinguished woman singer.” But now it means so much more to us in theatre. The common thought is that a DIVA is someone that thinks the production, heck the whole world, revolves around them and they make the lives of those they work with a nightmare. However, many DIVAS I have worked with transcend beyond the actor and enter other realms, such as director, stage manager, producer, critic, playwright, conductor, etc. I see a DIVA as anyone whose point of view and/or behavior negatively impacts the theatrical process.