Better Business Bureau of Theater
It is no secret that there are plenty of people who make money in this town on the backs of producers. And while I have no issue with people making money, I do have issue with people who behave unethically in their pursuit of profit. I am sure that every producer in LA can tell a story of how this person or that company screwed him or her in some way. But all too often these companies/people get away with this behavior because no one stands up to them. During the run of a show, most producers don’t have the resources to engage a company or theater that is behaving unethically. And after the run, if a producer speaks negatively about a person or company, they are accused of sour grapes, or worse. All this happens while the rest of the community just goes about their business. The producer has nowhere to turn, and no one to help hold the unethical company/person accountable.
Well, what if we all worked together to hold unethical companies accountable? What if we had a Better Business Bureau of Theater that would take complaints? What if all the producers got together and started to rate companies/people based on producer feedback?
If we had a producer’s organization, we could set up a database that could track every company/person a producer hires. It could work like this: at the conclusion of each show, a producer could rate the various companies/people who were hired on the project. If there was a problem with a ticketing company or a theater, then you could give them a low score. If your PR Rep or Marketing Rep did a great job, you could give them a high score. Over time, we would be able to see a pattern emerge: companies who are behaving ethically would likely retain higher scores, while companies that aren’t would clearly show lower ratings. Producers could then look at the ratings and steer their hiring practices toward companies that are rated highly, thereby avoiding companies that are not delivering.
The more producers that participate, the better the data would be. And securing this data is exactly how we, as producers, can hold companies, theaters, and people we contract with accountable.
When a company constantly receives a low rating then the Producer’s Organization would reach out to them and try to understand the cause. The Producer’s Organization could set some guidelines as to what we (the producers) expect from companies and people who we hire. If the company works to correct the issues, then great! The rating would naturally go up, allowing that company to start anew. If they refuse to change, however, then the members of the Producers Organization would likely avoid using that company in the future, thus limiting their business.
Let’s shine some light on the business side of theater. If we do it together, then we can illuminate a lot. In the end, I think we will find a large number of very reputable people providing excellent services in the LA theater scene– people who deserve our raving reviews, and who deserve to make a profit. We will probably see a few undeserving ones as well. And we can make sure that those companies are held accountable.
The Critic-Actor Hyphenate-Problem
Last week I talked about how we need to organize a committee to vet critics and designate the official theater critics of Los Angles (Click Here).
Today I am going to write something that I think many people agree with, but I doubt many would say publicly. A few critics in LA are also actors. In my opinion, this is a huge conflict of interest. After all, what is a producer, director, or casting director supposed to do when they do not want to cast a critic that auditions for their show? Certainly, the following thoughts must run through their mind: “If I don’t cast this person, will he/she write a bad review of my show?” Another question might be, “Do I have to attend a performance of a well-known critic when he/she performs on stage? And if I do see this person in a performance, am I expected to gush and fawn over their performance in hopes that they will do the same for me?”
Its time for our critics to be critics and only critics.
Now, I am not saying that these conflicts happen every day. Nor am I saying that a critic cannot objectively review others while also participating in the theater community in another capacity. What I am saying however, is that when a critic is also an actor, director, designer, board member, or company member, there is a possibility of “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine,” and this possibility should completely invalidate anything the critic as to say.
As I was writing this blog, I was well aware of the backlash that could befall me by the critics in Los Angeles to whom I am referring, so I decided to reach out to the American Theatre Critics Association (ATCA) and find out what their opinion is on the matter. I emailed Larry Bommer who is a member of the ATCA and sits on the ATCA’s ethics committee. I asked him if the ATCA had any thoughts about critics who are also actors. Here is his response:
It’s a good question because it’s a common conflict of interest (as in too much interest if you catch my drift).
Nobody can be taken seriously–what we call credibility and confidence–as a critic if he or she is also offering their services, whether as directors, actors, designers, publicists, or board members, to the same “market” that they critique for a living.
It is a problem of appearance as much as reality. How can you trust someone’s praise or blame of another actor or theater when you can’t be 100% sure that their own self-interested concerns aren’t entering into the judgment call? They may be currying favor or intent on payback. Their resume may be the real motivation for their pans or praise.
The core problem is that the reader should be told about this conflict–which instantly invalidates anything the writer can say–which is why he or she should not be writing reviews in the first place. It’s just too easy to conceal corruption under the guise of criticism.
So there you have it. If the ATCA thinks this situation presents the theater community with a conflict of interest, then why don’t we?
Last week, when I called for the LA Stage Alliance to create a committee to vet the critics I received some emails asking how we could ever agree on criteria to judge a critic. I say that rule number one has to be that a critic is only a critic. Perhaps rule number two should be that a critic must be a member of the ATCA. Or at the very least, the LA Stage Alliance committee should work with the ATCA to help vet the critics.
Some people emailed me and thought that the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle (LADCC) should be responsible for vetting our critics. But the LADCC doesn’t uphold my “rule number one” when some of its current and former members are simultaneously critics and actors, critics and performers, or critics and members of a local theater. Since the ATCA is clearly against this conflict of interest, shouldn’t we hold the LADCC to the same standards? Shouldn’t the LADCC set the highest standard for professional theatrical criticism? By allowing this conflict of interest to remain in play within the LA theater community, the LADCC is casting a shadow of doubt on their own legitimacy and the LADCC awards. How are we to believe that these nominations aren’t chosen based on one of the critics’ hopes that a director will cast them? Or even worse, how can we trust that a critic who hasn’t been cast in a show they wanted to be in isn’t turning around and squelching nominations? Again, I am not saying this is happening; I am saying that it could happen.
None of us should accept a theater community that perpetuates this conflict of interest. It is imperative that we work to change this situation. Again, I call on the LA Stage Alliance to create a committee to vet our critics. We must have clear criteria as to what constitutes a professional critic. Part of this criteria must be that our critics are not, under any circumstances, performers, press reps, directors, designers, board members, or hold any other position within the theater community that is in direct conflict with their ability to fairly and independently critique.
Furthermore, I call on the LADCC to institute a policy that any member must only work within the LA Theater community as a critic and/or journalist.
After all, you would not want an employee of Exxon in charge of regulating oil companies.
Organizing the Bloggers
(This is part 3 of a 3 part blog. Click here for part 1 and here for part 2)
It used to be that you knew you could trust an arts journalist/critic because he or she worked for an accredited newspaper. It was safe to assume that a newspaper would hire a competent, educated, knowledgeable writer to write theater reviews. But in the new world, as newspapers fight for their lives, theater critics are being let go left and right. Most of them are turning up on blogs or on theater websites. Some disappear forever. Meanwhile, while we lament the death of the newspaper and arts journalism, a completely new crop of internet bloggers is popping up online. If we stop and take stock, we will see that there are now more people writing about theater than ever before.
While it’s great that we have so many people writing about theater, what we end up hearing is a smorgasbord of different voices and no clear way to tell them apart. On one hand, we are still blessed with the educated opinions of reviewers who used to work for reputable newspapers. On the other hand, we have become bombarded by a group of bloggers– for the most part ordinary people who see at lot of theater and have their own web presence. There is certainly nothing wrong with citizen journalism. In fact, it’s an exciting new trend that is opening many doors for great writers. The problem is that bloggers are just another form of word of mouth– a kind of public platform for targeted gossip.
I want to be clear that we absolutely must support these bloggers. Their passion and desire to write publicly about shows they like is one of the main forces keeping theater in Los Angeles alive. We should engage with them, nourish them, and support them. After all, good word of mouth is what we all strive for with our shows.
What we should not do, however, is call bloggers critics. Our audiences deserve to know the difference between a blogger who is spreading word of mouth and a professionally trained theater critic.
In the current state of LA Theater the LA Stage Alliance is the defacto leader of the theater community. In light of this, I propose that the LA Stage Alliance form a committee, voted on by its members, whose task would be to evaluate arts journalists who review theater in LA.
Here’s how it would work: Any writer who wants to be designated as an official Los Angeles Arts Journalist/Critic would submit a selection of their work for review. The committee would then evaluate and score their work. Writers who receive a high score, would receive accreditation from the LA Stage Alliance and be designated as a LA Stage Alliance approved Arts Journalist/Critic. They could publicize their accreditation, and put an official logo on their website/blog. Basically, this approval process should be similar to the process of being hired at a newspaper.
Meanwhile, the LA Stage Alliance would need to work with the theater community to promote and market its Arts Journalist designation and to make sure that the public knows the difference between a designated Arts Journalist/Critic and a word-of-mouth blogger. Once the general patrons know the difference they will have a better understanding of how to evaluate online content. The LA Stage Alliance will also help the accredited journalist by promoting all websites by categorizing them as official Critics or blogger.
In addition, the LA Stage Alliance can put together journalistic seminars to help bloggers wishing to become accredited Arts Journalists receive the designation. We could implement partnerships with USC’s Annenberg School of Communication program, facilitating ways for journalism professors to run such seminars. Bloggers could attend and submit their work to the committee to be reviewed. With the help of these seminars, casual bloggers could soon become credible arts journalist.
It will also be necessary for theater companies and producers to use press quotes from designated journalists only. When a producer uses a quote from a random blogger on their press materials, it reflects poorly on both the show and the blogger. Additionally, it delegitimizes the entire theater community. By only using designated journalists we will help to promote them, thereby increasing the importance of the designation.
Let me be clear: the purpose of implementing this type of structure is not meant to create an elite group of writers. We should continue to encourage bloggers to get out there and make their voices heard and spread word of mouth. After all, the more publicity they help generate for our shows, the better! We have to have ways, however, of distinguishing between the many voices we hear. Treating a blogger as being the same as a professionally trained critic will only delegitimize our professional critics.
If indeed newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur, and will soon no longer be around to vet arts journalists, then its time for us to do it ourselves.
Patron Review (It’s a Good Thing)
(This is part 2 of a 3 part blog. Click here for Part 1)
We have a communication void in theater. This communication void is between artists and patrons. It’s always been there, only now with the new world of blogs, social media, chat forums, etc, the silence has become deafening. It’s time for a paradigm shift in how the theater community as a whole interacts with our patrons. In the old world, we might have a talk-back now and then, and ask our patrons to fill out marketing questionnaires. We would measure our success in ticket sales (profit success), and in the number of good reviews and awards won (artistic success). But, in the new world, we have to do more. We have to engage our audience. We have to discuss why we chose/wrote the play, what we hope to accomplish, and what it means to us. Then, we need to invite our audience to tell us what they think. And we have to respond. And we have to do it publicly, on our websites, on chat forums, on facebook, etc. Because in the new world, if we want theater to be relevant, then we must measure our success by the conversations we inspire.
We spend a lot of money in the arts trying to understand our patrons. We research every demographic possible to find out how much money they make, what zip code they live in, what shows they like to see. We hire companies to compile all this info and break it down for us so we can better market our shows. And it is true that this info is helpful when we market shows. But it doesn’t really help us understand our patrons. What questionnaires don’t offer, is a forum for us to listen.
In the theater community, we often like to think of ourselves as more than just “entertainment.” We like to think we are making a difference in some capacity. It’s why most of the people involved in the 99-seat theater scene aren’t paid, or are only paid very little. “We sacrifice our income for our art” is a common refrain heard in dressing rooms around town. For more proof, you don’t have to look much farther than the mission statements of most of our theater companies. Often, they go something like this: “Our mission is to begin a dialogue with our community by contributing a vital voice on the relevant topics of today.” If we are to stay true to our stated missions, we should be measuring our effectiveness not by box office receipts and awards, but based on our mission. If our mission is to begin a dialogue, create social change, or raise awareness of whatever issues our particular show is dealing with, then shouldn’t we be talking and more importantly listening to our patrons? After all, they sit through an entire show listening to us.
This new world of internet communication and social media will soon render the old communication models outmoded. In the old world, communication processes occurred one-way: from theater creators to the patron. But things have changed. Communication is now, across almost all industries, a two-way street: from theater creators to patrons, then from patrons back to theater creators.
Sadly, I think many people involved in creating theater in Los Angeles don’t yet understand this. All too often around Los Angeles you can hear the theater community lament the rise of the “Uneducated Los Angeles Theater Patron.” And more often than not, our creative community shuns patron feedback and patron reviews on sites like Goldstar or Theater Mania. This type of response is short-sighted and detrimental.
People want to be able to take part in something. They want to be in the know. If people are talking about a specific film or television show, then they will go see it. They want to have discussions. Our job is to not only encourage these discussions, but to start them and take part in them. We can do this by encouraging our audiences to talk to us publicly on our websites, in theater forums, on facebook, and best of all start blogs. We can find creative new ways to open up these discussions online. We need our patrons to tell us what they think, what we are doing right, and– yes– what we are doing wrong.
Most importantly, once we’ve invited our patrons to talk to us, we have to respond. We have to explain our choices, educate our audiences and allow them to educate us.
It’s no longer enough to “let art speak for itself.” It’s time for art to listen, and respond.
(Click here to go back to part 1) or (Click here to go to part 3)
Comunication Breakdown
It is certainly not news to point out that the theater community in Los Angeles (and around the country, if not the world) has bemoaned the anticipated death of the printed newspaper, because of the implications this death will have on our theater critics. Soon, experienced theater critics will be out of jobs, and arts journalism as we’ve known it will be a thing of the past.
In addition, it is not earth-shattering news that bloggers are cropping up to fill the void. The result, as we know, is that we are losing our educated critics– journalists who are trained in the art of reviewing theater, and replacing them with theater enthusiasts who think that if they see enough shows and buy themselves a web domain, it makes them experts. I think most of us agree that this is an unfortunate turn of events.
In all the discussions that I have read about this issue, however, we as a theater community seem to only focus on that which we can’t control: that the papers are laying off critics, that bloggers will review theater, and that the opinions of these less trained bloggers will dominate the critical landscape of Los Angeles theater, whether we like it or not. Well, instead of throwing my hands up in the air, I propose two ideas that, in combination with many of my other ideas, could potentially create a much-needed solution. I will roll out these ideas in my next two blogs:
Idea 1)
We, the artists, producers, creators, etc., need to speak to and listen to our patrons. Directly. Without a blogging middle-man or a self-made critic. By engaging in this dialogue, we will, in fact, be encouraging reviews by bloggers and self-made critics– only the dialogue will be from a place of integrity and education– NOT a free for all for anyone who thinks they know something about theater to adopt an authoritative voice. This dialogue is essential to the life-blood of our theater community. We must not be silent in the face of patron reviews. Rather, we must engage, and talk openly about what makes good theater good and bad theater bad. (Click here to read this post)
Idea 2)
The LA Stage Alliance must set up a Professional Theater Panel to classify professional critics as professional critics and bloggers as bloggers. Combined with a marketing effort directed at theater patrons, a critic with an authorized critic designation from the LA Stage Alliance will be understood by our patrons as someone who has been vetted by the theatre community. (Click here to read this post)
Reevaluating Your Ticketing Company
Let’s say you get hired for a new job. On your first day you head down to HR and they tell you that you will be paid every two weeks. But, your first check will not come until around your sixth week and they are going to hold some of your salary every week and pay it to you after you quit.
That sounds crazy right? So why would you accept these payment terms from your ticketing company?
I haven’t written in the past four weeks. During that time I have received several emails from people who are interested in producing theater, who haven’t done so before. One question that often came up was: what’s the best ticketing company? Since there are many theaters that currently use ticketing companies that pay on a schedule like the one described above, I figured we could all use a post about ticketing companies.
So… here is my list of things to think about when selecting (or re-evaluating) your ticketing company.
1) The most important thing to remember when picking a ticketing company is: IT’S YOUR MONEY. Since it’s your money, you should get it as quickly as possible. You shouldn’t have to wait for any of it. Some companies will give you a song and dance about accounting schedules and “blah, blah, blah,” but the bottom line is– if they can’t pay you every week in a timely manner, you need to go elsewhere.
2) Don’t be fooled by bells and whistles. Be wary of any ticketing company that offers marketing services. Most companies that offer marketing services require you to give them a “special deal” to offer their email list subscribers. This means that YOU have to cut your price (usually by at least 50%). This is not in your best interest (Read this post for more on this topic). To make matters worse, if your ticketing company is making you sell tickets at 50% off, where are you possibly going to sell full price tickets?
3) Who answers the phone sales calls? In the best scenario, a local person will answering your ticketing calls, someone who can answer specific questions for patrons. But often, ticketing companies leave nothing more than a recorded message that only frustrate and agitate patrons– and sometimes even drive them away. A live person who is out-of-state, reading from info that you provide is better than no person at all. Patrons don’t like to talk to robot operators, much less give their credit card numbers over to them. How many times do you curse the automated menu just to get to your cell phone support rep? Don’t make your patrons think of the phone company when they’re trying to buy a ticket to your show.
4) Integrate your website. Many theater companies don’t spend the money to build a website and instead, just go with a generic page supplied by a ticketing company. Don’t. Spend the $1500 and build a web page. It’s important and it makes you look legitimate. Your patrons can then buy tickets directly from your website. They prefer it, and it feels safer.
5) Be careful of theaters that make you use ticketing companies in which they have an ownership stake. It’s one thing for a theater to contract with a specific ticketing company. But it’s another thing when they own that company. You wouldn’t want your apartment’s landlord to get your paycheck, deduct the rent, and then send you what’s leftover, right? It’s none of your landlord’s business how much money you make, and it certainly isn’t their place to be taking that money directly from your employer. Don’t make that bad deal with a theater.
6) Watch out for service charges. Your ticketing company is going to charge you a fee and your patron a fee. You want to find a company that has low fees on both sides. Your patron doesn’t like the fee any more than you do.
Finally, because it’s important, I will remind you: IT’S YOUR MONEY. Don’t let someone else make money on your money. If a ticket company holds your checks for longer than a week or two, they are making interest on your money. If a ticket company tells you that it takes more than a week to process your payment, its time to get a new ticketing company.
Don’t be bullied or fooled.
The “J” Curve of Los Angeles Theater
I have a friend. She lives is a beautiful 600 square foot loft in downtown Los Angeles. Her rent is about $500 a month. The loft next door is a 700 square foot loft that rents for about $1500. Why the price difference? My friend’s loft is subsidized by the government. Each year, her income has to be roughly between $18,000 and $24,000. If she makes more than $24,000, she will have to move out of her apartment and into a market-rate apartment, which would cost about three times as much. Because of this, she can not take a raise or get a better job, unless that job or raise will jump her salary up to around $40,000 – this is what she would need to afford to move into a market rate apartment. Anything less, and she would have to move into an apartment that is not as nice as her current one, thus lowering her quality of life. So, my friend hovers at $24,000 income each year. Its not that she doesn’t want to earn more, it’s that it’s simply not in her best interest to earn more because doing so will prevent her from keeping her nice apartment.
LA Theater is stuck in this same situation. In Los Angeles, a huge gap exists between the maximum budget one can use to produce a 99 seat production, and the minimum budget one can employ for a HAT production. I call this the J-Curve of Los Angeles Theater. Using a graph to measure the maximum profit potential (week potential minus week cost) on the y axis and our budget (from small to large) on the x axis, we will see a curve that looks like a “J”. Here is our graph:
As our graph illustrates, low budget 99-seat productions offer a small profit potential, while high budget HAT contracts offer larger potential. Many theater companies start out with low budget 99-seat productions. However, these types of productions have many limitations. For one thing, musicals on this level are unable to include live musicians (unless they are all volunteers). Additionally, most of the participants including directors and designers are volunteers, which means that the production will have very little potential for high quality production values and, quite frankly, talent. This is why most theater companies that are successful try to raise their production budgets. Eventually they hit point A on our graph– which is the realm in which high budget 99-seat theater productions must stay if they want to have a reasonable chance of breaking even from week to week. But many limitations with high budget 99-seat theater productions still abound. Those who work on this level never see true livable wages, and rarely do shows on this level boast great production values. And, of course, no 99-seat theater production can run longer than 80 performances.
Once a theater company does get to point A, therefore, they have to make a choice. Either stay forever at point A, or make the enormous and risky leap to point B. If they stay forever at point A (which almost all of our theater companies in Los Angeles have chosen to do) it means that actors will never be paid higher wages, and productions will never see high production values. If they try to make the jump to point B, then this decision will come with the huge risk of the theater company falling short and landing in the bottom of our “J,” somewhere between Points A and B. Since this is the most likely outcome, a theater company would need to have stored a tremendous amount of reserve capital in order to bridge the years that it will invariably take to reach point B. With very few theaters able to amass the required capital, this transition is an extremely rare occurrence.
For independent producers like myself, in order to produce at point B or higer, we would need a show to be an extreme crowd pleaser in order to guarantee that we will be able to sell the 300-400 tickets every week needed just to break even with our weekly expenses. To keep expenses down, we use tracks instead of live musicians and look for shows with very small casts. Recouping our capitalization would require us to sell even more tickets, and for a long period of time. Add to this the fact that we don’t have a middle theater zone in which to produce—a circumstance that forces us into 99-seat theaters and limits the number of tickets we can sell on a given weekend. Because of this, the independent producer must look at LA simply as a place to develop their production—not as a money making production. It follows, that if a producer is just looking to develop, he or she would want to produce on the easiest level possible—the 99-seat contract– in order to loose as little money as possible.
How do we change this situation, and raise the level of theater in Los Angeles?
Well, in my opinion, we have to have a coordinated approach:
Step One (1) We have to allow producers to recoup some capital (if not turn a small profit) on the current 99-seat plan. Perhaps we need to look at profit sharing ideas with our actors so that they become stake holders in the 99-seat production. This would prevent a producer making money on the back of very low paid actors.
Step Two (2) We need to rework a new contract that sits somewhere in between 99-seat and HAT. A contract that will bridge the gap so that theater companies that want to expand or spend more money on productions can do so without risking total failure (by falling into the bottom of the “J”). This new contract must allow for shows to run open-ended. This will help build long running shows that will promote our theater community by allowing more people to see our better shows.
Step Three (3) With steps (1) and (2) in place, a new need will be created for theatres at the 199 seat level. Theater owners will start to build them.
Step Four (4) Successful theatre companies will start to produce in the bigger houses, and with 199 seat houses popping up, commercial producers will be able to work in venues where profit numbers make sense to investors, thereby allowing them to produce better shows and experiment with bigger shows. All of this will mean higher salaries for actors. (And sure it’s not going to be enough to live on, but $25 or $40 a show is better than $11, right? And it’s better to be in a show that has good production values, as opposed to a show that doesn’t, right? and maybe there is a way to add in 1/4 health care shares where 4 weeks on this contract equals one on a full contract. Then you would have 2 weeks toward your equity health care from an 8 week run.)
Step Five (5) will be to start it all over again to work up to the 299 level. It will be at this point that will we have a viable Off-Broadway theater scene in Los Angeles … With real money and real salaries.
The thing that we need to understand is, we are not facing an audience problem. Our audience is here. People go to the theater. The tourists are here. They will go to the theater (especially when we work with solid and well-funded marketing plans like this). The only thing preventing this new level of theater growth from occurring is, quite simply: the theater community. If we don’t fight to change our situation, then it won’t change. I think if we we’re smart as a community, and if we really work together with all of our best interests’ in mind, then we could put in place a 20-year Plan to make this vision a reality.
Of course, we can simply keep going along as we are now. But, just like my friend with the subsidized apartment, we will never have a reason to better ourselves. And a successful, happy, nationally respected future will always be out of our reach.
LA Ovation Awards
I have to take time out from my usual posts today. I have just returned for the LA Ovation Award Nominations announcement. It brings me a lot of joy to announce that Divorce! was nominated for five Ovation awards. Nominations are as follows:
Production of a Musical – Intimate Theatre (All of us!)
Book/Lyrics/Music for an Original Musical (Erin Kamler)
Director of a Musical (Rick Sparks)
Music Direction (David O)
Acting Ensemble (Greg Franklin, Matt Kaminsky, Keri-Anne Lavin, Rick Segal, Deb Snyder, Steve Staley, Leslie Stevens, Lowe Taylor, and Gabrielle Wagner)
Other than Best Production of a Musical, all awards are city-wide with no restriction on theater size (Best Production is limited to theaters under 100 seats).
I have a tremendous amount of pride for everyone involved in Divorce! Congratulations to everyone.
I would also like to say special congratulations to all of my investors. I hope all of us in the theater community, whether our shows were nominated or not, remember that artists can’t do their jobs if investors don’t invest. Let’s all be thankful to everyone who supports the arts financially and let them know how much we appreciate their commitment to theater. They don’t get awards, they don’t get interviewed, they don’t stand in front of an ovation, and they often lose money. But without them, we wouldn’t exist.
To investors everywhere… THANK YOU!!!
What could a Producer’s Organization look like?
I have been asked how, given all the different types of theater companies that exist in Los Angeles, a producer’s organization could work. I have taken this question to mean that a lot of people feel that we are too diverse of a theater community to allow for a cohesive, agreed-upon structure, and that our missions and goals don’t align. I disagree. While there are certainly some differences among us, we have many more things in common than we think.
We are all producers. Every one of us. Whether your company is small and actor-based, whether you work independently in the 99-seat world, whether you are a mid-sized non-profit with 100-499 seats or a big regional theater, your mission is to produce theater. This means that you must deal with unions, hire (even on a volunteer basis) artists and staff, sell tickets, and market shows. We all interface daily with theater venues, actors, directors, designers, writers, and material. We all vie for the same limited number of reviewers and patrons. We all have to work within budgets, and we all have something to say.
If we created a producer’s organization, it could help all of us accomplish the tasks we have in common. We could organize committees that break down these tasks according to our various specific types of theater. We could implement one committee for each of the following: the large budget 99-seat non profits, the low budget 99-seat non-profits, the actor based 99-seat houses, the independent producers, the midsize theaters, the large theaters… etc. Each committee would work on the behalf of the group of theaters within their category. The committees would then meet with the producer’s organization to make sure it is adhering to the needs of all producers and theater companies.
Imagine being able to negotiate with equity– all with one voice. We could begin a dialogue with other unions so that they finally get on board with the 99-seat contract. Each of these negotiations could receive input from the smaller committees, creating a situation in which each theater company has the weight of the entire community behind it.
Additionally, all members of the producer’s organization, no matter what their size, would benefit from the marketing efforts of a producers league. (READ THIS POST!)
A producer’s league, working as a trade organization, could work with the city to address our needs as producers. This league could seek partnerships with corporate entities (the Broadway Producer’s League in New York has a partnership with Visa. Why can’t we?) As individuals, we are hard-pressed to make these visions a reality, but as an entire community? We could create a partnership with the Los Angeles Restaurant Association to bring our two industries together to promote “dinner and a show” ideas, and many more partnerships such as these to intelligently grow the visibility of our business. There is no reason why each of us, as individuals, should continue to labor on trying to accomplish these tasks, over and over, again and again– achieving only moderate success at best.
Last, but certainly not least, we could work together to develop better rental agreements with all our local rental theaters. Better contracts that will promote long running shows instead of forcing you to close. (READ THIS POST!)
There are so many benefits in coming together. Put simply, a group is always greater than the sum of its parts.
Where will we be in 20 years?
Quick note: sorry for no posts in two weeks, I have been busy traveling to Chicago and am now back in Los Angeles. In the future my goal is to post an article every Monday. This will give me the time to write what I hope will be thoughtful posts that have something to say, instead of just everyday “filer.” Ok, now on with the show!
I recently attended a committee meeting for the Bringing Back Broadway initiative. The Committee focuses on the 12 large Broadway theaters in Downtown Los Angeles, and their goal is to revitalize the entire Broadway corridor with shops, restaurants, a street car (a light rail that runs down Broadway, connecting LA Live and the Music Center) and most importantly, filling the large theaters with NYC Broadway-caliber shows. They want so do all this in 10 years.
I think they are crazy. Not because what they want to accomplish, but because of their time line. I believe they will accomplish each of their goals, but that it will take about 20 years.
Don’t think their idea is plausible? Take a second to remember 1989 and then think about how much has changed. Don’t think there is a market? Go back and read my post on rebranding and tourists. And then remember how long Wicked ran at the Pantages. Wicked is exactly the kind of show that will run at these theaters. There will also be room for The Lion King, and every other Disney and Warner Brothers movie they want to musicalize. Add the fact that our city, county, and state politicians want this to happen, the theater owners want this to happen, and the downtown property owners want this to happen. And, just as LA Live is about to prove to us all (and just as the Music Center already has), people will come downtown to be entertained.
It will happen.
So when we end up with five to ten 2,000 seat theaters in LA hosting full scale, Broadway productions in them, what will happen to the rest of the theater scene? Will these theaters compliment us? Or destroy us? Will they be part of our scene or outsiders? Will we be involved in making them successful? Will we protest this change, or cheer for it to fail? Or will we simply ignore it?
I think we should get involved. Just as the city of Los Angeles has a 10-year plan, our theater community should also have a 10-year plan (though I think realistically they should both be 20-year plans). I think we need to participate in the efforts to open these beautiful theaters, and we need to be looking at how this will change our entire theater landscape. After all, it stands to reason that if 80,000-160,000 patrons start to attend these large theaters every week, they are going to be less likely to also go see 99-seat theater. And even if 80% of them wouldn’t ever go to a 99-seat theater anyway, that’s still 16,000-32,000 a week that would have, and now probably won’t!
What are we going to do about this?
I think its time to sit down and work together to figure out a way to build a true “middle” type of theater scene with 100-499 seat houses that are available for rent to long-running shows. These theaters will allow us to produce at a higher level of production quality. Currently, shows that would otherwise have done very well in independent 199 or 299 seat houses are more or less being forced to play in 99-seat theaters. In just the past few years we have seen Marvelous Wonderettes, Louis and Keely, Divorce! The Musical, Lovelace, and now Life Could be a Dream– all shows that could have withstood larger productions but instead were crammed into small 99-seat theaters. How many other shows could have done well if they could have been produced in a slightly bigger house and been run with real marketing budgets and production values (not to mention higher salaries for our artists)?
The shows and talent are already here. What we lack is a plan, and perhaps the will.
Isn’t it time to start planning now? Isn’t it time to come together now? 20 years from now the Broadway theaters will be open. Will we have the foresight to ride this wave by creating our own “Off-Broadway” LA Theater scene?
It’s very easy to get bogged down by our own current shows and projects. Who has time to think about extra stuff when you have a full-time job AND run a theater company? I get it– most of us don’t feel we have time to think about the future when we can barely get though today.
But the problem is, if we don’t come together, if we don’t start to work on a 20-year plan, if we don’t think about the future, then 20 years from now all the great work we’re doing could be rendered irrelevant.
3 comments