Name Shows

[Craig Gustafson]

<font face="Times New Roman"><font size="4">
But...

That didn't address my main point. My point was that a show MUST be marketable and that the name is NOT the only marketable aspect.

I'm not saying we should do a season of Brecht. Nobody would come. But Lucky Stiff was extremely marketable, it was marketed properly and it made money. Did the newspapers refuse to print articles because they didn't know the name of the show? They don't give a shit about community theatres or WHATEVER shows they're doing. They care if the article looks interesting enough for people to read. What makes you think newspaper people know anything about theatre, including the names of hit shows?

Also, the trick for a hit is to get as many people in on the first weekend and get word-of-mouth going. I can't remember the last time anybody I know mentioned reading anything at all in their local paper.

The idea (for me) in a five show season is to do three Sure Fire Hits, interspersed with two unusual, challenging, but MARKETABLE shows. And there really is no such thing as a Sure Fire Hit -- people at WDI were not expecting Cuckoo's Nest to make money -- they were hoping. Because the Logic was "Dramas don't sell anymore." There were a lot of people who were whining, "Oklahoma?! Who's going to see that?! EVERYBODY does it!"

The season picked for next year at Wheaton is going to sell out. The Odd Couple? "Oh, everybody does that!" You know, like everybody does Oklahoma!, so don't do it. The Odd Couple will sell; but so will the two "risky" shows, both musicals. Especially the dark horse, A Year with Frog and Toad. Because although most theatre people are saying, "A What with Who and Which?!", the target audience will be there in droves. The Frog and Toad books are taught in grade schools. The kids will KNOW these characters and they will be there with their parents. It also has a terrific, jazzy score. It's a good family musical, not a kid's show.

Everybody has different opinions on what defines a Name Show. I'm just saying, pick the best shows you can and market them as well as you can.</font></font>

[skyhill]

I actually thought I had responded to your main point.

My main point is that the difference between nice attendance and huge attendance is the "public." Not the people who know us, but the ignorant many who fill the seats those who know us can't fill. Those people come out a lot easier for a name show than something they've never heard of. And I agree Dan Muir, that's why Will Ferrell, despite not being funny in any way, is a guaranteed box office draw.

To "the public" Cuckoo's Nest is a name show.

I Hate Hamlet is not a name show. Neither was See How They Run, a show which was produced by essentially the same staff that did Don't Dress for Dinner, with WAY different results. A few cast members were the same, the set was gorgeous, and the show was a farce....yet it couldn't sell tickets in the same slot that Don't Dress had. Maybe 60 extra seats were the difference.

I look at the seasons at WDI and I don't see where WDI has taken the safe route more than 60% of the time, despite vocal membership insisting that they do. Here's a list of our shows in the last 7 years.

2001-2002 Dancing At Lughnasa; A Christmas Carol; Don't Dress for Dinner; Lucky Stiff

2002-2003 The Apple Tree; A Company of Wayward Saints (which replaced Inspecting Carol); Twelve Angry Men; A Chorus Line

2003-2004 Once Upon a Mattress; A Christmas Carol; Over the River and Through the Woods; To Kill a Mockingbird; Rumors

2004-2005 Moon Over Buffalo; Broadway Bound; Annie; You Can't Take it With You

2005-2006 H2$; Bus Stop; Cuckoo's Nest; Blithe Spirit; Cabaret

2006-2007 Charley's Aunt; Wizard of Oz; See How They Run; I Remember Mama; Oklahoma!

2007-2008 Nunsense; A Christmas Story; I Hate Hamlet; A Few Good Men; Little Shop of Horrors

Maybe I'm off base, but I think WDI takes way more chances than even I thought. With the exception of the anniversary season (2005-2006) and ARGUABLY this season (but I'd argue that both Nunsense and Little Shop don't register on "the public's" radar - making 3 this year) I see at least 2 and sometimes 3 risky propositions each year.

My bigger point is there seems to be a formula for success in place, and despite appearances, a lot of risks are already being taken so why fuck with it? No matter how much people may bitch, their voices are usually quelled by results. It's annoying to listen to them, but they're always the same people and always the same complaints.

You think picking the season was tough? Trust me, that was NOTHING compared to getting the building built. And I was one of the main bitchers on that one at the end.....

I agree, next season should sell a million bazillion tickets. I also think there may be some unpleasant surprises in store. I may be wrong, as those that predicted that Oklahoma! wouldn't sell were, but that's the great part about opinions, you can express them, back up your arguments with great logic, and still be dead wrong. Wahoo!

I'll say this as next year progresses:

What's name to us ain't name to the rest of the world.

And that's all I have to say about that.....

[Craig T Gustafson]

<font face="Times New Roman">
<font size="4">
Ok, this seems to be one of those things where we're making exactly the same points but somehow ending up on opposite sides of the fence.

However, I disagree with the "risky" claim -- unless you equate "no name" with being "risky". There isn't a show on that list that couldn't be marketed well. And Nunsense isn't known to the public? Please...

I was just reading The Adding Machine by Elmer Rice, a brilliant expressionistic play from the 1920s. Tell me about risk when any theatre around here does The Adding Machine followed by The Duchess of Malfi followed by Marat/Sade.
</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 21, 2008 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Bilko ]</font>

[pungster1]

Originally posted by skyhill:

My main point is that the difference between nice attendance and huge attendance is the "public."

To "the public" Cuckoo's Nest is a name show.


Neither was See How They Run, a show which was produced by essentially the same staff that did Don't Dress for Dinner, with WAY different results. A few cast members were the same, the set was gorgeous, and the show was a farce....yet it couldn't sell tickets in the same slot that Don't Dress had. Maybe 60 extra seats were the difference.

I look at the seasons at WDI and I don't see where WDI has taken the safe route more than 60% of the time, despite vocal membership insisting that they do.

<font size="2" face="Times, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I agree with your assessment that to our public, "Cuckoo's Nest" was a name show-although the association was more likely to have been because of the movie than the stage play-no matter.
However, according to the year's budget which listed expenditures and revenue, it was expected to make a fair amount of money-that it exceeded those expectations was gravy on the mashed potatos.

As far as "Don't Dress" and "See How" and how each sold or didn't sell, let us remember that the Bears were in the Super Bowl during the run of "See How". Let us also remember the one really big whopping snow storm occurred during the run. The late Jan/Feb. time slot is always a crap shoot because of weather and holiday hang-over.

Randy, thank you for the time it took to go back a ways and compile the list of all the WDI shows.
It makes a very good point-we do challenge, and we do inspire excellence in every show we do, even with that humongous mortgage hanging over our heads.