Name Shows

I'm part of a committee currently selecting the next season at a local theatre. So, of course, the old "Name Show" argument has come up. My contention is that we need to provide "Marketable Shows" and that the name is only one possible facet of the marketing.

Why do we assume that if someone hears an unfamiliar name on the season list, their automatic reaction is, "Well, I won't be seeing that!"? Wouldn't their next logical reaction be, "So, what's that about?"

Several years ago, I directed the musical comedy Lucky Stiff at a local theatre. This was a show that people thought was a big risk because nobody had ever heard of it. It was the top grossing show of that season. Why? Because people read the press releases and said, "Hey, I want to see that!"

That, and the fact that the people working on the show were having a blast and pushed their friends to see it. That is a BIG consideration. I've been in shows that straggled because the cast was miserable and didn't want to tell anyone about the show.

The other top grossing show that year was Don't Dress for Dinner - a Can't Lose proposition, as it is a bedroom farce. But when it was chosen, some people bitched about it because they hadn't heard of it.

Conversely, a local theatre recently did I Hate Hamlet. I love the show, but I've seen it four frickin' times. The production was fine, but I didn't rush right out to see it because the name was so familiar that I couldn't stay away. I dragged myself to it because my sister was in it. I know audience members whose reaction to an impending Fiddler on the Roof is, "Oh god, not again!"

A couple of years ago, I was in a musical that had been selected for its Name Value. It was one of the longest running musicals on Broadway, it won numerous awards (including the Pulitzer), was revived in the mid 1990s and had a touring company come through Chicago -- twice. But most of the chorus had never heard of the show before being cast in it. The stage manager said she'd never heard of it. There was a similar lack of recognition from the audience. This is really sad to me, since it means that not only is the audience NOT that well acquainted with what we regard as Name Shows, but the people who are supposed to love theatre have little knowledge or love for any show done previous to 1990. Unless it's Sondheim, of course. But the Name truly doesn't mean that much. It's the quality of the show and how well you entertain the audience so that word of mouth builds.

Yes, the publicity crew has to work harder to push an unfamiliar show. So what? There are shows that are harder on the lighting crew; shows that are tough for the set crew; why shouldn't the publicity crew have a tough one once in a season?

So does the idea that the <font color="red">NAME</font> is not the only marketable aspect of a show sound reasonable to you? Choose a show because you love it and think it will be good for your audience and your members, not because it's what you think will sell.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 10, 2008 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Sgt. Bilko ]</font>

I have had several experiences with the same theater company about 2 plays I submitted to direct. The first(Hello, Steve Schroeder, you remember this one)was "To Gillian on her 37th Birthday". It made it all the way through to the board decision and I was told that the show was "too depressing". What did they chose in it's place? "A Trip To Bountiful", a show which would make you want to slit your wrists by the end of it. In this particular incident the decision had everything to do with who wanted to direct what play as a main stage offering-and star in it. (I know-meow,hiss,spit)
The second show was "Dr. Cook's Garden"(Hello, Craig-remember that kick-ass poster that you designed for it?) I was told that the cast was too small, having only two major roles and several minor ones. It was suggested that I submit it as a studio show, but I haven't given up on either play and will be submitting them in the next year or two.
Craig, tell me that you saved that poster...

This is a great topic. My group is choosing their next show, too. As the person who usually does PR, I agree that the name is NOT the thing. It helps, but it's maybe one third of the reason people see shows. There's also: author, topic, popularity of that theatre location in general, and as you've already mentioned, people in the show telling friends and family. Less known works of well-known authors can work well. Something topical to the time, like "come see a love story on Valentine's Day" can work. You can find an angle to promote just about anything.

I'd only choose a big name play if I absolutely loved the play and thought I could bring something new to it. Then I'd be promoting "a bold new interpretation of a classic play."

A-men, brother!

I was recently involved in a local production of "Nunsense." The same "been there, done that, not enthused" atmosphere overpowered the seemingly undefeatable name. The houses for that show were modest at best--only one performance could have been labled close to a sell-out.

Here's another interesting comparison (and I'll still keep the theater company anonymous, although I think most of us can make correct assumptions) . . .

Twelve years ago (wait--I have to shake off the "I'm getting old" heebie geebies now), I was selected by a certain theatre company to direct "110 in th Shade"--certainly not a "big name" outside (and arguably inside) the insider theatre crowd. Through good marketing, casting a good number of kids (who always bring with them a solid audience base), and exciting the cast and crew with a great show and a positive, fun rehearsal process, we had fantastic crowds. I was then asked (no, make that begged) to direct the next musical for the same company--which followed immediate on the heels of 110. 110 closed the previous season, and they wanted a "big name" musical to start out the next season--that musical being "Man of La Mancha." No kids in that show, but I followed the same philosophy of excite the cast and crew with a great show and a positive, fun rehearsal process. However, I experienced with that show behind-the-back griping (mostly from factions outside of the cast and crew) about my casting choices and creative approaches to staging the show. Go figure--the big-name "La Mancha" had lackluster audiences.

So here is Steve's formula for boffo box-office:

An established theatre company + an excited cast and crew + unified, unqualified support from said theatre company (well, as much as you can realistically expect) + casting as many kids as possible (when appropriate) = Box office success

Notice that nowhere does "name recognition" come into the equation. Now get a name that excites the cast and crew and has any aspect that can be marketed by good publicity people (in other words, unqualified support from said theatre company) and you are in business.

Business . . . hmmm . . . that word brings back nightmares in more ways than one . . .

Ok, I've just received an e-mail questioning this, so I need to clarify:

I'm not against doing Fiddler on the Roof (for example) if you truly love Fiddler on the Roof and can approach it enthusiastically.

But if you hate Fiddler on the Roof but are just doing it because you think it will sell -- it won't. Because your lack of enthusiasm will filter its way into the show.

I love The Music Man, which many theatre people are sick of. I would approach it with excitement and we'd get a good production out of it. But if I were asked to do The King and I, a show many people like and I hate, it would only be for the money. And that would show in the final product.

Maybe I'm just strange, but I'd estimate that at most, only 1/3 of the shows I've seen are within the "NAME" production category. There are so many incredible shows from all theatrical periods that are almost never done. It's a shame, because theatre wasn't meant to be stuck on a page, it was meant to be performed. (I will concede that some of it should really stay on the page.)

Why should I have to go to Chicago, New York, or London to see something different?

If a company is selecting multiple shows, then balance out the season. Because inevitably there will be theatre-goers and participants who will give the turned-up-nose "what's *that*?" reaction. Select a couple of well-known shows and then introduce the audience to some shows that may be new to them, too. There are plenty of talented people in the area to pull it off. I know I get tired of being a brainless drone audience member and need to be challenged to think about a show as I'm seeing it. I really can't be the only one, can I?

This is a great topic, and one that has irritated me in the past. Why people assume it's going to be easier to generate publicity for a show everyone has seen a thousand times is beyond me. The issue is especially problematic when it infects not just one organization, but a lot of them at once. If you think it's easy promoting a "name show", try doing it when three other theatre companies within a ten mile radius are also doing it in the same season and the only real argument you have to make is, "Oh yeah, well mine's better!"

This reminds me of having done a benefit for a certain theater website where you, Craig, chose all the songs, some from name shows, some from others so obscure I doubt one could find a script anywhere. But when talking to a member of the one theater group most mentioned in this thread, she said, "This is okay, but wouldn't it be better if you did songs we all know?" My retort was, "Why should we? We've heard all the songs we know. If we did, you'd never get to know any new songs. That's no fun."

Maybe it's the same for theater. Maybe some people would rather stick to what they know and relive the memories they experienced with them than try to get used to something new.

I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but it's so funny this should be a topic.

I just finished a promotion for a client and had to create an incentive gift of theater tickets. We could have gone with a local theater - the client's in Philly and they have some quality theaters - but all of the local theaters were doing avant guard productions. These just didn't have the "sell value" so we ended up sending the recipients to NYC for a Broadway production with huge name value.

However, I absolutely feel theaters should not only be free to do less well-known shows, but have a responsibility to do so. Without growth in any industry there comes stagnation and eventual death. If only the motivation for profit drives local, small or mid-sized theaters to pick shows so conservatively, as they often do, they're bastardizing an industry that was founded on art and creativity (i.e., new creations/productions).

I've wondered if local business people don't sometimes bring or send clients to their community or local dinner theater's productions when the name is big. It's all good for building good will and future business. Still, if a theater group is making safe choices for all shows in a season, i'd say they've totally missed the boat. Again, i'm speaking from a business point of view. If you only make safe choices, your growth and/or longevity are completely uncertain and most likely doomed to failure.

Doing at least one Non-Name show per season should be an absolute minimum for any theater group that has any interest in what they represent: the Arts. If they aren't advancing theater, even just a little, they're just parasites riding on the shoulders of giants.

The idea of name shows/non name shows is something that, like everything, requires perspective.

Craig, although I know your memories of Lucky Stiff and Don't Dress for Dinner are what they are, there are a couple of things you may not know about that season. 1. A Christmas Carol was on that season and sold almost every single seat in the theatre before it opened. The only reason it didn't add performances (which undoubtedly would have sold out) was because there was objection from some cast members. 2. Dancing at Lughnasa was a 'non name' show that opened September 14th, 2001, not exactly a banner time for entertainment dollars. 3. Lucky Stiff added 3 performances that were not previously scheduled before opening. None of them was particularly HUGELY attended, and ultimately led to the decision by the board to suspend the practice of adding performances. A practice that continued even through such blockbusters as the following season's A Chorus Line. By the time the theatre was done paying for dinner for everyone in Lucky Stiff the days of the additional performances, it just wasn't really worth the additional performances.

Lucky Stiff was a bigger hit than expected, as was Don't Dress for Dinner. They were nice surprises. Unfortunately, they are the exception, not the rule. I wish every 'non name' show was a surprise. They usually are not. I'd rather do them too. They're the ones I enjoy doing the most. They don't sell tickets very often though.

WDI's (I'll name the 800 pound gorilla in the room) Annie sold a bazillion tickets. Oklahoma! sold a bazillion tickets. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sold a bazillion tickets. Cabaret sold a bazillion tickets. A Christmas Story sold a bazillion tickets. Stop me when I get to a 'non name' show. Some of those, while good productions, were not exactly artistic triumphs, nor could their scripts allow them to be. Those are the blockbusters following the addition to the building.

I was the director of that I Hate Hamlet. I'd take that work anywhere, and I'd certainly take that work against any of the above that sold a bazillion tickets in terms of "great theatre work." Bottom line: The idea of just doing great work doesn't sell tickets. The cast was content, they all pushed people to see it. The crew was content, and the show was very, very good. Simple fact is that I work in an office with a whole lot of non theatre people and none of them had ever heard of it. They came out to see it, and all of them can't wait to see the next one. How about that? Unfortunately, that's 8 people I had to directly sell the show. I couldn't walk around Wheaton knocking on doors doing the same. Just because we theatre types think a show is "name" doesn't mean it is. Yes, it was the umpteenth production of I Hate Hamlet, but outside our circle that doesn't mean a lot. So, who exactly is going to be buying the seats once we get past the friends of the cast and crew? The public. And they don't know as much as we think they do.

As to publicity: it's community theatre. At WDI, there is a five show season. The publicity is dependent on "free" articles written by local papers (which is a misnomer anymore). Do we really expect that the local papers are going to pick up 5 stories a year about WDI? That's crazy. It simply won't happen. So, how exactly does one get this publicity? If the papers don't pick it up, they don't. You can't force them, because you ain't paying 'em.

I'd like to posit that there are LOTS of things that affect any show's 'success' and that it is often more complex than an a=b and a=c, therefore b=c stream of logic. Often times the truth lies in about 10 other places. So - if doing Annie keeps the mortgage paid, then so be it. It gives a theatre the opportunity to challenge its membership with 'better' work OCCASIONALLY. I don't want to do Music Man again. I'd rather do Glengarry Glen Ross. I don't see that happening any time soon. I'll take the work I can get in the meantime. Bottom line is it's a WAY safer proposition long term to make sure the 'names' are available to the relatively ignorant public more often than not. Lots of theatres like to take risks more often than not.

Lots of those theatres aren't available any more to take those risks.

I still like having places to play when I want to play.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 20, 2008 06:55 PM: Message edited by: skyhill ]</font>