October 16, 2007

Theatre Prices

Bruce Phillips     posted 27 Mar 2007, 10:56 PM

Thanks for the feed back everyone about why younger audiences are maybe giving Circa a miss. It mainly seems to be about price. Are people aware that under 25s can get a seat for $20, and students can get $18 tickets on standby? (an hour before the performance)  Performing Arts students I think get even cheaper tickets.  Well worth ringing and asking the box Office what is the cheapest deal.  We have a huge range of options on prices at Circa, and maybe we should advertise them better. Equity members are also $18. Wish they could be even cheaper but they are still cheaper than some of the other theatres round the country.  A $35 annual friends membership gets you $26 seats the whole year for all 15 productions, so even if you saw only 10 you’ve saved $90!

Zia          posted 27 Mar 2007, 11:22 PM

Had no idea.  If price is seen as the biggest barrier to Circa as it seems to be you could probably change the theatre overnight if you advertised these discounts properly.

Michael Wray    posted 28 Mar 2007, 11:17 AM / edited 29 Mar 2007, 04:54 PM

Bruce, it’s better than that:

A $35 annual friends membership gets you TWO $26 seats the whole year for all 15 productions, so even if you saw only 10 you’ve saved $180!

Marc      posted 29 Mar 2007, 12:26 PM

Hi Bruce, do you know what the demographics actually are for Circa Theatre? Does anyone know if this kind of research has been done for theatre in Wellington/NZ?

Paul McLaughlin               posted 29 Mar 2007, 05:59 PM / edited 29 Mar 2007, 09:13 PM

Demographics are interesting to look at, but I would doubt their veracity in terms of guiding programming would be useful; esp as the stats are NZ wide, and each theatre has its own clique of long term supporters. I think the cost issue is secondary to programming. Put on a hot show and the people, young and old, will come. Here’s a link to the Dept of Statistics info on theatre in NZ:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/CAA728EB-6788-4B8E-81A9-D68E87A863F7.htm

Bruce Phillips     posted 30 Mar 2007, 12:31 AM / edited 28 May 2007, 04:51 PM

You’re quite right Michael, I had forgotten a membership entitles you to take a friend with you at the same price. Ludicrously generous!  And Marc, we have had all sorts of demographic studies done over the years and I agree with Paul, half the time they dont really tell you much you didnt know already. The upshot really is our main audience is 30 plus, and that could be pricing as we’ve been discussing.  Also we do a wide range of productions so some will appeal to mature audiences and some to younger ones. But it is the younger ones we would love to see coming in more often, and we’re constantly working on ways to make the theatre attractive to them. Yes a Hot show will bring in all ages of course. But they’re pretty rare!!  Tonight at Two Brothers at Circa One there were teenagers and seniors so I guess that one appeals to all age groups.

Marc      posted 30 Mar 2007, 05:31 PM / edited 30 Mar 2007, 05:32 PM

Sorry Bruce, did you say hot shows are rare? I have to disagree with this. There is a great deal of new and exciting writing and tried works that haven’t been seen in NZ yet. And I have to disagree that Circa is working on ways to make theatre more attractive for younger audiences. The pieces that are programmed at Circa (Mainstage) generally bare little relevance to the lives of the younger demographic and when they do, they generally probably won’t find out about. And if they do find out about them and decide to go the cost is then usually prohibitive. Even your lowest price non preview ticket is a big risk to a regular joe who hasn’t been to theatre before. I applaud Circa for programming Fat Pig which is an edgy, cutting and exciting piece of writing. Cast with someone people want to see and advertised in an exciting way, it will be successful in drawing in the 19-35’s and give them a worthwhile theatre experience. But other museum pieces programmed this year will do little to show people theatre isn’t a dying art form. There is nothing wrong with Circa catering to it’s audience, which you have said is 30 plus, but the answer is pretty clear as to why under 30s aren’t interested.

Bruce Phillips     posted 31 Mar 2007, 08:52 AM

Good points Marc. If people flock to Fat Pig, then we will see more of this type of show. Let’s hope so. Marketing is a major issue. It costs a fortune and we are carefully testing various options with our tiny amount of funding. Its a balancing game. And on our present programming.. Remember, one person’s museum piece is another person’s classic.  However, most of the shows in Circa Two this year are cutting edge modern works never seen in NZ before. Keep an eye on them. I think you’ll be surprised.

Elizabeth Booth                 posted 1 Apr 2007, 11:13 AM / edited 28 May 2007, 04:51 PM

I disagree that $20 is inexpensive. Two things to keep in mind:

a.) the maximum amount of living costs a student can receive from the government is $190, and that a fairly typical hourly wage is around $12

b.) a Bats student ticket is $12, where both the shows and the general culture of the venue are reliably youth-friendly. There are also competing forms of entertainment such as live music and films, which are generally speaking of a comparable price range ($10-$15) and are more reliably rewarding.

In this context a $20 theatre ticket is not a lightly made purchase.

Ryan Hartigan    posted 1 Apr 2007, 01:45 PM

That’s an important point, Elizabeth. As they found with recent cheap ticket deals over in London and New York, the price point is almost insignificant for the average full rate punter, but can be disproportionately important for the student and/or fringe artist.

Having said that, there’s a real crux of the matter that a few people have alluded to, including Super Dooper and Elizabeth both. And that is what different audiences *feel* something to be worth. As Super Dooper correctly identifies, younger audiences don’t feel the points of historical connection with the venue as a matter that adds value for them, and as Elizabeth says, it’s often the issue of “reliability”, which is a complex point all of its own.

To put this idea of “worth” in perspective, I’ve gone to performances that were $10 and wanted my money back, and on other occasions, had to sell possessions to get to shows where I felt like it was all worthwhile.

I suppose what I am trying to say here is that as Angela suggested, it’s more complicated than just price alone, and that there are a few interesting ideas at play. One very important one, to me, seems to be some of the worrying polarisations in the comments in the forums. Apparently there is a yawning gulf between “hot” plays and not, between well-made work and a “a wild anything-could-happen “raw art” presentation”, between what a younger and an older audience want. Sometimes, yes. But I just don’t think that it is necessarily true. I think we sometimes MAKE it true.

I’ve seen that polarity collapsed too many times to believe it to be true. And it simply isn’t true that one day the casual theatre goer gets older and decides to go to Circa to see material they don’t consider to be as raw. I think if it was that simple, people wouldn’t be trying as hard to figure out how to attract audiences. Younger audiences who don’t feel welcome at Circa won’t come because of one “hot play”, because they see it as an occasional moment or a one off. And if they do, it certainly won’t build them a longer tie with the venue.

(BTW – As an example of varying a programme and collapsing these polarities, BATS for the last decade have played to both the experimental crowd and the audience who like polished work. It takes a while for this to get traction, with some losses along the way. But it might make a difference, eventually. The last few years of Chapman Tripp accolades, combined with the strong houses that went to those shows, would add some validity to this view.)

Charlotte Larsen               posted 2 May 2007, 05:10 PM

I think what is more important is that the play is “relevant” to the age group, not “hot”. For example, Heroes (which by the way I DID see and loved) is a play about 3 old men. Uncle Vanya (again, I saw) is a classic, old piece of scriptwriting. Are young people going to want to watch that (apart from me, and a few others, who are theatre whores?!) It’s traditionally seen as middle-class, middle age theatre. (And I’m not dissing it in any way, as I love all kinds of theatre and agree more younger audiences need to get to all kinds of theatre!) Alternatively, would the more elderly audience want to go and see a play about young kids bashing each other up violently, for example Corner of 4am and Cuba at BATS? I think we’re talking about that elusive generation gap.

Thats just my two cents worth.

Michael Smythe                posted 2 May 2007, 06:34 PM / edited 2 May 2007, 06:37 PM

Two points about older theatre goers that, I hope, will disrupt the logic of left-brain marketers looking for simplistic formulae:

1) Those of us with children and grandchildren have an interest in engaging with the views and voice of younger generations.

2) As we progress from our middle ages to our renaissance we are in the mood to revisit the ideals aspirations and agonies we grappled with before ‘real’ life took over, so we may engage with young work as participants rather than observers.

Charlotte Larsen               posted 3 May 2007, 09:43 AM

That is true, I was generalising mostly. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

I guess it’s all down to personal taste!

Moya Bannerman            posted 3 May 2007, 10:06 AM

When my niece was 15-16, her favourite TV series by far was thirtysomething.  Next best was Shortland Street.

While relevance is key it is clearly simplistic to assume people are only or even mostly interested in plays about their own age group. Some people look to theatre to take them beyond their known worlds, others come to see their worlds reflected, many want theatre to do both.

The past, present and future; the known and unknown; the real and unreal; the things we fear and the things we fantasise about … All these things can be integral to theatre people want to see.

Charlotte Larsen               posted 3 May 2007, 10:57 AM

I know a lot of people who would say that they wouldn’t go see a show because it’s simply not something they see themselves identifying themselves with. Admittedly theyre not regular theatre-goers but will go and see the occasional “good” show. My 18 year old cousin, for example, would say that a literal interpretation of Shakespeare is boring. Put him in an audience of a show with girls in bikinis and he’d go every night it was on.

I think what I’m trying to say, probably not as well as I could, is that its down to what interests that particular demographic and upbringing. The tv generation wants something different to the more mature audiences of today. It would be what you’re brought up knowing, possibly?

I for one though will continue to go to all theatre and always encourage my friends/family to do the same.

Jayvirt   posted 27 May 2007, 10:41 PM

I think a major reason people don’t go to Circa is because of the horrific publicity.  The poster/flyer image for Blackbird for instance is awful, says nothing about the play and a worse design for bringing in new audiences I can’t imagine.

lil fatty posted 28 May 2007, 09:43 PM

I could not agree more.  All the promotional material has the same ‘look’ to it, but its so generic! It can’t be adding anything to their brand by looking so dull and frumpy.  Most of the shows I’ve seen at Circa lately have been so interesting. What a pity more people aren’t enticed there.

Downstage is also guilty of some fugly design. But all the shows I’ve seen there have been boring, now I just take it as a visual warning to stay clear! Go see a movie instead.

Samuel Bradford              posted 29 May 2007, 02:38 PM

I agree. Theatre poster design in general is terrible. Posters for shows at Circa, Downstage and even BATS are usually both ugly and boring. I’ve actually been put off going to shows that I was interested in because the posters were so amateurish.

I really don’t think a photo of an actor cuts it. That’s the usual formula isn’t it?- a rehearsal photo of one or two of the actors and a banner title. When the photos are really well done- the ones for Downstage usually are- the effect is sort of boring but respectable. When the photos are average, the poster is usually horrific. I’m looking at you, Circa and BATS. The Blackbird poster is a good example of this genre.

There seems to be a very cautious attitude towards poster design. The public are not so stupid that they need a photo of an actor to realise that a play will have actors in it. What does a photo of an actor tell us? Nothing. There is so much that can be said with illustration, design and typography. Band posters utilise this much more effectively. You can usually tell when a gig is by a hip-hop or metal band by the typeface alone. A whimsical indie band might have a cartoon unicorn on their poster- there probably won’t be a unicorn on stage, but it’s an accurate reflection of what the band sounds like. It tells us more about the music than a picture of the musicians could.

I have seen some good theatre posters in Wellington, but they’re the minority, and I honestly think that many are bad enough to drive people away from a play that they would very much enjoy.

Erin Banks           posted 11 Jun 2007, 03:07 PM / edited 11 Jun 2007, 03:09 PM

Getting away from publicity and back to the price issue, how about this for an idea:

Both The Fortune Theatre in Dunedin and Centrepoint in Palmerston North run a koha performance of each production on a Tuesday night where people can come along and pay whatever they can afford to see a show.  I think The Fortune call it ‘Pay what you can’ night, with a suggested amount of $10, and Centrepoint have ‘koha night’ where punters pay whatever they like (I think they averaged around $5 a head for the recent performance of ‘The Farm’).  It certainly gets in a heap of fresh faces that in normal circumstances may not have seen the show due to the cost.  Bruce, do you think a similar model could work at Circa?

Insider007           posted 13 Jun 2007, 05:07 PM

Court Theatre Prices have just risen to $37 for an adult which may seem like a lot however look at some of the shows that are coming up!! A show with plane crashes, train chases and battle ship scenes, History Boys, Two World Premiers (The Raft and Letter to Blanchy: stir crazy) and Three New Zealand Premieres and in the Forge a World Premiere of a show which is going onto the West End next year!? Thats phenomenal! and Finally The Producers (need I say more although for this its $43 an adult)

However The Forge a new concept and area at the Court for Students to Babylon Heights in its first two weeks is only $10!!! It just pays to ring up and ask what the best deal available is- Radio Ha Ha also had this, Buy one get on free on certain nights.

At the end of the day its cheaper than Broadway by a very long shot, I know that they are A LOT bigger but I have now seen Doubt Three times, Once in New York, Once at The Court Theatre and at Circa and both the Court and Circa productions I thought were better compared to my $80US compared to $20 at either Court or Circa!

Hmm… that is just my two cents!

chesapeake        posted 13 Jun 2007, 10:18 PM

That’s your two cents – here’s my $12 – BATS Theatre

Robert Catto      posted 22 Jun 2007, 08:12 AM

> Both The Fortune Theatre in Dunedin and Centrepoint in Palmerston North run a koha performance of each production on a Tuesday night where people can come along and pay whatever they can afford to see a show. I think The Fortune call it ‘Pay what you can’ night, with a suggested amount of $10…

Now THIS is the most exciting theatre news I’ve read in a very, very long time.  Having grown up in Toronto, I’ve long appreciated (and told anyone who’d listen) the value of Pay What You Can performances, as every theatre in the city has a Sunday matinee performance with no advance sales, cash only on the day, PWYC with a suggested donation.  When I lived there, I saw 75 plays a year on $300 – I had a very serious theatre habit.  Since moving to Wellington, that has gradually dwindled to the point where I’m hard pressed to think of the last play I attended.

Regular Pay What You Can performances allow your audiences to take a gamble on any and every show, should they so choose; and, as they climb the economic ladder (whatever age they may be – note that this is not a student discount, ALL tickets are by donation) to the point where they are no longer willing to queue at noon (or earlier) for a 2:30pm show, they begin to book ahead for another performance during the week.

Assuming that the only time to develop a new audience is when they are students is nonsense, to me; people come to the arts at their own pace, and by lowering the barriers of experimentation and admission to all ages, you’re encouraging everyone into the habit of attendance, at which point you have the opportunity to convert them into full or partial subscribers for the year.  Why should that be driven by how old they are?

R

Lauren Hughes posted 14 Aug 2007, 07:11 PM

THE EDGE in Auckland have also been running Pay What You Like Nights via their Public Programmes Team for over a year. They are only available on selected productions but still a great access point for the tentative theatre goer. And PWYL can be great for the presenter as well as a punter. The koha from a full PWYL house early in a season is often just as good, if not a better, than the box office on a small paid house. And the word of mouth is better.

Michael Smythe                posted 14 Aug 2007, 07:52 PM

not to mention what this site offers – word of mouse!

Aaron Alexander              posted 15 Aug 2007, 09:04 AM

Pay What You Can performances sound like a great idea. I’d suggest any and all upcoming productions seriously consider scheduling one or two a season. Briefly, on publicity images, I have to, reluctantly, point towards Auckland for examples of interesting, effective, cutting edge, exciting posters etc. Silo and ATC regularly produce posters which seemed to have been designed as complimentary works of commercial art. They have gone to the trouble, it seems, of employing specialist poster designers, or at the very least thinking outside the box. As a result, their entire operation immediately looks funkier, more intriguing, and more appealing to the elusive ‘young people’ market. Because let’s face it, it’s not just about money. Young people in Wellington are not all students. Many have disposable income to attend band/dj gigs, stand up comedy, the movies, drinking, party pills, etc. It’s about, as some said above, perception of value, rather than just price.

If Circa really want to attract a substantially younger demographic, (and do you, really?) then I believe the key is programming and publicity, rather than price. 

Melody Nixon    posted 9 Oct 2007, 02:26 PM

Interestingly, it appears this is more than a national phenomenon. In New York theatre critics are racking their brains as to this “perennial topic of concern”.  See for example: ‘If You Discount It, Will They Come?’ : a good article in the NY Times which discusses the cost vs care factor issue.

(not sure that link will work for non-members… here’s an abstract..)

“…The graying of audiences for what might be called higher culture (let’s be objective and call it more expensive culture) has become a perennial topic of concern. It is accepted wisdom that young folks don’t go to theater much (I’m not talking about tweens going to “Wicked” on their parents’ dime), and one presumed reason for their reluctance is the price of entry. Still, hard evidence pointing to price as a serious barrier — as opposed to, say, a resounding lack of interest — has been hard to come by, because pricing trends go only in one direction.

But two years ago the Signature Theater Company, an Off Broadway company that devotes each season to a single living American playwright, convinced Time Warner to underwrite the cost of tickets: Normally $45, they were sold for $15 for every performance of every show of the regular run (extensions and house seats aside). The program was similar to the sponsored seasons that the National Theater in London inaugurated in the summer of 2003, with Travelex underwriting all the tickets at the company’s largest auditorium, the Olivier, so they cost just £10 (about $20).

The Signature program was an instant success. Perhaps most significant was the change in the demographic of audiences. After the initiative was put in place, 30 percent of audience members were 35 or under; that may not sound like such a hot number, but if you’ve been to a matinee lately, you will not question its significance. The number of attendees with annual income of less than $50,000 grew by 25 percent. A full half of the audience was new to the Signature. Statistics from my own informal eyeballing poll indicate that the audience has acquired the healthy diversity — of age and ethnicity — that you typically see only at the Public Theater’s free Shakespeare in the Park…

…Explaining his motivation for inaugurating the program, the Signature’s artistic director, James Houghton, talked about a growing sense of frustration when he mulled the usual worries about developing new audiences.

“We were in this vicious cycle where costs kept going up, so prices had to keep going up,” he said in a phone interview. “And I began to believe we were at a point where we were shutting out audiences, so that theater was gradually becoming an elitist pastime. I wanted to figure out if you could get audiences back if the economic piece of the puzzle was no longer a factor.

“What we discovered pretty quickly is that if you take that financial barrier away, there is a lot of interest in theater. I didn’t know for sure that there would be, frankly. It was an experiment, but the results have really been clear…”

Corporate subsidising of ticket prices? Hmm…

John Smythe      posted 9 Oct 2007, 05:16 PM

Very interesting – thanks Melody.

With my Writers Guild hat on, however, I must caution that such initiatives should not disadvantage playwrights, whose 10% royalty is already calculated on a subsidised ticket price (where significant production costs and other overheads are covered by state funding and sponsorship).

Playmarket and the NZ Writers Guild should talk to each other about this to establish an aligned policy. I’d be interested to know – via the NZWG’s membership of the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds – whether this has already been addressed in the UK and USA.

Ms. Katurian       posted 10 Oct 2007, 04:29 AM / edited 10 Oct 2007, 10:11 AM

Just to pop in a couple of suggestions:

1.  Price is a huge barrier to younger audience members: but not necessarily purely due to the cost as such.  The combination of theatre programming choices, and younger audience members not regarding theatre as a habitual pattern, are connected factors.  It means that it is harder to get those audience members there in the first place.  When they are, the cost is the final nail, usually punctuated by their feeling that the piece ‘wasn’t worth it’.  This, of course, is connected with the first two points.

2.   Subsidisation, low cost tickets, and a sustained attitude that the live arts are vital shapers of culture and individuals, are key reasons for why many parts of Europe and the US have had more success in building habitual theatre going cultures.  Once going to see performance is made something that you wouldn’t consider strange, it’s an easier labour to woo the audience, because they’re actively looking.  Eventually, it even saves money (advertising, for example, works very differently).

3.  Many independent theatre companies in the US have gone even further with cost cutting, and have ‘pay as you can’ nights, which have been extremely successful indeed.   The real impact of these nights falls hardest on the individual production teams, but it is seen by many, now, as a valid and worthwhile decision for growing, rather than entrenching and suffocating the audience.

Danny Mulheron              posted 15 Oct 2007, 08:59 PM / edited 16 Oct 2007, 11:34 AM

I am going to be in a minority on this one but I think we should rack the prices up significantly.  Cheap ideas are easily ignored.  sure i want big audiences but at what cost.  do we need to be 2 dollar shop arts workers, a practice we condemn in China but urge as progressive here.  Why shouldn’t actors earn enough to buy a house or live like any other suit who invests in a company that makes plastic dog vomit for more profit.  Why undervalue yourselves to this degree.  12 bucks, 20 bucks what is so expensive about 40 bucks? that is what it costs. Without major assistance driving ticket prices down there is no alternative to high prices.  And anyway high prices sometimes mean high wages.  Something theatre practitioners deserve.

It is a question of priority, audiences who are worried about the cost of the ticket who never complain to the barman or the breweries about the cost of a beer (7 bucks for christ sake) are just doing the classic passive aggressive new zealand excuse for not coming or going. there is always a way of sneaking in for nothing, (usually you just have to ask the right person)  It is just  an excuse for not coming to shit you didn’t want to see anyway.  

Why not make it harder for people to come, don’t make it easier, nothing easy is worth anything at all,  Mcdonalds is easier. Where is your resolve.  We have plenty of commitment from actors, who live on fucking nothing, why aren’t you cheapskates prepared to put your money where their mouths are.  20 bucks for a real live breathing performance is a tip not a ticket price.  I know I am being intemperate.  But it is as if you all want mates rates, I happen to think that you should pay your mates double, not half.  Right.. i lost my temper.. I will shut up now..sorry. danny

Anon     posted 15 Oct 2007, 09:52 PM

Thing is when you buy a beer you can be pretty sure it will taste good; you can be reasonably certain it isn’ t going to curdle your blood and ruin your week.

Michael Smythe                posted 15 Oct 2007, 09:57 PM

Unless you really splash out and spend megabucks on getting blotto … Are you saying, anon, that people will only pay a good price for something that is entirely predictable?

Anon     posted 16 Oct 2007, 12:13 AM

I’m saying some people can’t afford to take the risk

martyn roberts posted 16 Oct 2007, 10:01 AM / edited 16 Oct 2007, 11:35 AM

Can’t afford to take risks huh? Then go and curl up in front of Coronation Street and be careful with that hot tea love. If theatre audiences have been reduced down to a small band of god-fearing budget aware ‘pak and save’ illiterates then it is time to champion the high end gourmet fare.

I agree with Danny. How come we can pack out the st James and the Aotea theatre for night after night of ‘King Leer’ at an average of $120 per ticket with poor sightlines, bad acoustics thrown in yet the whinging masses moan about $20. And don’t start on about ‘quality’ and ‘you know what your getting’ arguments because it doesn’t wash.  Simply this – theatre is no longer a habitual part of the under 35’s entertainment radar. Cost is not a factor because this age group happily pour thousands of dollars down their throats, on their cars, on their music, films, plasma screens, cellphones, designer clothes, holidays to fiji, their online gadget toys and more. This is not a poor audience by any means.

To become habitual the production values of theatre must increase, across the board. Where are the set, lighting, sound and costume standards to go when its all about making it as cheap as possible? Where are the quality actors going to find a living if they are dependent on a good review for income (and even then no guarantee – “Shining City” anyone?). Go to theatre often and be prepared to pay for it. It is a privilege not a right.

Robert Catto      posted 16 Oct 2007, 10:25 AM

> How come we can pack out the st James and the Aotea theatre for night after night of ‘King Leer’ at an average of $120 per ticket with poor sightlines, bad accoustics thrown in yet the whinging masses moan about $20. And don’t start on about ‘quality’ and ‘you know what your getting’ arguments  because  it doesn’t wash.

Perhaps we’re coming to the heart of the problem, now – the RSC (and by the same token, the New Zealand International Arts Festival) have a successful / strong brand that gives audiences the impression that the risk of investing in a ticket is less than it is in the ‘New Zealand theatre’ brand.  So, sure, I can support the idea of making NZ Theatre a premium brand at a premium price; but the issue is communicating that to the audience.

Didn’t we pay more to see the New Zealand Actor’s Company at the Opera House, for at least two productions?  So the potential is certainly there, to bring audiences to see ‘premium’ local content – but the challenge is to find a way to create that perception, that what they’re coming to is a major must-see event on the annual calendar.   But what to do?  Larger productions, in non-traditional venues?  Spectacular spectaculars?  Royal appointments?  Or (d) all of the above?

That said – there’s still no reason that this strategy can’t also include a weekly PWYC performance as well; obviously on a successful show, those performances will pack out, and the people who can’t attend as a result will spill over into other nights if they really want to see the show.  Why cater to only one end of the market, when both are available?

Ms. Katurian       posted 16 Oct 2007, 10:40 AM / edited 16 Oct 2007, 10:42 AM

Full marks for righteous indignation folks, but no.  I think you’ll find that what ‘anon’ is referring to is not a Prufrock-type “I can’t take risks, I’m afraid”, but what you, by your own statement, Martyn, identify (as I had earlier) as the fact that theatre going is not a habitual pattern for under-35’s, and you have to make it something they want to do, without considering it strange.  And I seriously deny that raising production values, and keeping prices high or higher, will bring those people into the audience.  After all, it really worked for classical music, didn’t it?

It’s not about ‘making it as cheap as possible’, Martyn and Danny – read what people are actually arguing about.  I’m not advocating cutting prices because I think the product isn’t worth it, or because people’s art isn’t worth it (although I hate to burst the collective bubble, but a lot of the shows that do charge top dollar are far from the best, they just attract the most corporate clientele) – I also believe that live performance has a number of qualities that you just can’t find elsewhere.  It also suffers because you can’t spread its costs in the same way as other media.

For that matter, Lear and all the Opera House type productions don’t pack out with the audience we’re talking about here: the newer audience.  These shows have a brand, as Robert observes, but it’s also the same brand that sees the Opera House audiences often stay away from local work that kicks the crap out of these touring productions to the colonials, while they put on their pearls and pay homage to these pieces of overpriced  overseas fodder because it’s “good if it comes from overseas.”

Again, as Robert observes, PWYC nights, in collaboration with a full rate, when made commonplace, do NOT devalue live performance.  They build audiences.  I’m seeing it first hand.

As I said earlier, it’s not price as such, it’s a variety of factors, of which price plays an important component.  It’s not the cost of the production, but that these audiences don’t necessarily see the show as WORTH IT.  That’s where price comes into it, and is one part of the wedge.  To draw matters full circle in this posting, if live performance is content to raise prices, stick with certain product, pitch itself in a certain way, and predominantly draw on a gradually greying audience, then it is well on the way (as Philip Auslander observes) to being the classical music of the twenty-first century, and it will have collaborated in its own demise.

Robert Catto      posted 16 Oct 2007, 10:59 AM

Perhaps there are other ways to increase perceived value in an audience – like connecting with them from the start, by involving them in the creative process that leads up to the show.

‘Production diary’ blogs or podcasts (video or audio) of the creative team talking about what makes the show interesting for them, that let potential ticket buyers have a window into the process itself.  Building a relationship with people on a regular basis, which offers them a ‘money can’t buy’ experience, and creates that value – so what can you do or create (beyond the show, which obviously is unique in itself) to make your event more involving than the other entertainment options on offer?

Naturally, pre or post-show Q&A sessions also offer another opportunity for the audience to get to know the people involved – and once they do that, get to know the hopes & dreams of the individuals involved, they have an emotional investment in theatre and begin to take an interest in following the careers of the people they ‘met’ in person or online.  Making friends with your audience brings them into the fold…then they can hardly afford to miss your next show!

Simon Bennett posted 16 Oct 2007, 11:05 AM / edited 16 Oct 2007, 11:32 AM

In response to Robert Cato, the New Zealand Actors Company tried to keep ticket prices to a realistically low level. Our mandate was to try to attract new audiences to the theatre. From memory, we charged around $30 a ticket, which was less than groups like the ATC were charging. We also provided very cheap group tickets for school parties. We were playing in large venues to large audiences, which was how we managed to cover costs (on the first two productions at least!).

I agree that cost is one of the factors deterring new, younger audiences from attending live theatre. Another is the perceived unreliability of the experience. Having been burnt once, it’s hard to convince someone to fork out hard-earned dosh for an entertainment experience that might also be dodgy/tedious/poorly executed/boring. Finally, it’s about marketing and making theatre-going an acceptable and essential part of the culture. This means IMHO, introducing kids to live theatre at as early an age as possible.

Robert Catto      posted 16 Oct 2007, 11:18 AM

Hi Simon, sorry about that!  I still identify the company as a ‘premium brand’ in my head, anyway – that is to say, I would pay more to see those productions, even if I didn’t have to at the time – and I wish I could, to be honest, as I really enjoyed all three.

M. Robb               posted 16 Oct 2007, 03:38 PM

At $60-$70 for tickets plus travel plus babysitter, a DVD of an award-winning something at home rarely has a rival; we just don’t have the $. Like a lot of people we’d really love to be flush enough to go to everything and just shrug off the duds, but no chance.