April 19, 2015

Theatreview’s management of conflicts of interest

Penelope Hailstone         posted 15 Apr 2015, 10:44 AM

I would expect that a CNZ funded organisation would have appropriate measures in place to avoid any perceived unfairness that may arise from conflicts of interest. However, on the surface, it appears that the editor has used his position to a decided advantage by not only publishing content from the theatreview inbox praising the production he is involved in, but also commissioning a second review after the first review was less than complimentary. If this is standard theatreview practice then the option to have a second review when the practitioner disagrees with the content of the first should be advertised to all. In light of these surface-level observations, I am interested to know what steps the editor did take to ensure his conflict of interest surrounding the review of Where There’s A Will was managed appropriately.

John Smythe      posted 15 Apr 2015, 12:11 PM / edited 16 Apr 2015, 10:34 AM

The first review was sent to Theatreview’s associate editor in Auckland, who edited and published it. The second occurred when a reviewer who no longer had a place to publish accepted my invitation to guest review on Theatreview.  All reviews are voluntary so no funds were misappropriated in this case. We see this site as contributing to a conversation but the loss of The Listener and Capital Times has reduced the voices available. Three other reviewers accepted comps and have not yet published. Two use pseudonyms (or not their actual full names) so do not appear on Theatreview and the other does compilations that cannot easily be separated as would be needed to run on this site.

Theatreview also reviews productions more than once when they travel and I and others have given shows second reviews when they have developed further. Links to all reviews on each show’s review page allow all reviews to be canvassed and compared. When practitioners or punters disagree with reviews they are free to say so via the Comments and I availed myself of that in this case. The review in question could well have been posted as a comment but given Elspeth is a reviewer of note, I accorded her the respect of publishing it as a review. 

William O’Neil   posted 16 Apr 2015, 02:30 PM

So, John, you disagree that there was a conflict of interest here?

John Smythe      posted 16 Apr 2015, 03:02 PM

A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

I can see how there can be a perception that I exercised editorial authority in my own favour – although all critics have of course remained free to say as they please. Had I changed or in any way censored any review there would have been a case to answer.

William O’Neil   posted 16 Apr 2015, 05:13 PM

This is what it looks like to me:

I think you have a clear financial and emotional conflict of interest with respect to reviews of a show you wrote and acted in appearing in a positive light on a website you are synonymous with.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that positive reviews on Theatreview have a direct and noticeable impact on box office for the show in question. Whether you actively commissioned the subsequent reviews or merely spruiked for them, the fact that one was afforded “full review” status could be seen to have an impact on the way that your play was received by theatre-going public. In this case, is it not fair to assume that there will be a correlation to the success of your play at the box office, and subsequently a higher payout for you personally? Not to mention the fact that how a play is received is a measurement of success of you as a writer, and so you could also be seen to have attempted to influence your own standing professionally?

Can you provide other examples of glowing reviews of a show being “Discovered in the Theatreview inbox” by the “Editor” user account and furnished as a comment, after a practitioner has taken issue with the substance of the published review?

Positive reviews are also commonly used as support for funding applications, or decisions to tour a show. Reviews from theatreview are, by virtue of this website’s standing in the community, often given high regard. Can you see how your actions could be perceived to be influencing the potential future of the show in question?

I think that it is misleading to say that you merely “availed [yourself]” of the ability to leave a comment on a review on your own website. You hold an obvious position of power here that puts you above the status of a ‘mere’ practitioner and in my opinion you should have recused yourself entirely.

Like Penelope, I am particularly surprised that a website that publishes theatre reviews, managed by someone who writes plays, does not have any public guidelines for how conflicts of interest are managed.

nik smythe          posted 16 Apr 2015, 05:59 PM

I feel its worth noting that John has simply given this work the same rigorous and comprehensive treatment he would any other.  While it could be seen as dubious practice to give his own work an extra boost not afforded to others, it would be needlessly modest to allow himself less. 

Many many plays on this site have multiple reviews, often expressing highly contrasting opinions.  As far as I’m aware John has never censored anyone’s divergent comments although he does reserve the right should remarks become unreasonably abusive (even then when this has happened, the veto has yet to be invoked I believe).

That said, I agree a formalised conflict of interest policy would be a good thing to have if we don’t already.

John Smythe      posted 17 Apr 2015, 11:14 AM / edited 17 Apr 2015, 11:17 AM

Thank you for sharing what it looks like to you, William. I wish I could understand sufficiently to respond productively, in the spirit of Theatreview’s major objective, to be “Contributing constructively to the continuing conversation…” (clearly visible at the top of our homepage). But then your claim I “should have recused [my]self entirely” from the conversation about WHERE THERE’S A WILL suggests I alone should be denied the rights everyone else has here, should they choose to exercise them. 

They key question here, I think, is whether anything has occurred that wilfully misrepresents the nature of the play and production to the extent that people are being conned into going.  Let me say very clearly that if anyone feels they have been misled by anything I have said or allowed to be said on Theatreview, I will personally refund the price of their ticket. Email john@theatreview.org.nz 

On the question of money, may I add that – as with a vast number of playwrights who form co-ops to get their plays produced – it has cost me money to get this on which I may or may not recoup from royalties and my cut of the co-op. Every member of the co-op –director, designer, actors, producer, stage management – has brought extraordinary talent and commitment to this project, adding immeasurable value to the original material, and all deserve to be rewarded at a level way beyond the potential of a nine-show season at Bats prices.  I do not think you can claim corruption in that regard.

As is common practice in this industry, I readily confess to cherry-picking affirmative quotes from reviews and comments and posting them on social media to help promote the show. Did I include “this is an enormous, even tremendous, act of bravery” or anything about how vulnerable I was making myself, as a reviewer stepping up as a writer and actor? No, because despite all that being the honestly held view of a reviewer (readily available for all to read), it is nowhere near “the key point of this show”. If it had been why should I have expected anyone to be interested in being part of it, let alone coming to see it.

I identify first and foremost as a writer and actor seeking to explore the human condition through theatre and bring my knowledge and some of those skills to my work as a critic (for which I, along with all the others on Theatreview, am not paid; we are only publicly funded for editorial management, at about a third of what the work is worth).

Nor did I include “It’s insular” because, quite simply, it’s not. Like millions of plays its cultural rootedness is what allows its universality to flourish. It is an objective fact that the themes that emerge are timeless and universal – and that is why the most common comment we get from audience members is, “I was moved.” But I am not complacent. My objective in this premiere season is to embrace all constructive feedback and produce a final draft in the process.

You seem to have confused an effusive message, posted as a comment, with a review written by an experienced reviewer whose integrity in expressing her honestly held views is surely beyond reproach. Over the years countless people have used the Comments facility to support a show they like and sometimes messages emailed to practitioners have been reposted a Comments.  When such messages are emailed direct to me I suggest they use the Comments facility or repost it myself with their agreement, usually overwriting ‘Editor’ with their name. In the case of Florence’s message it seemed appropriate to pass it on as the Editor.

Finally, as of today, as we enter our 10th year, Theatreview has published 8,031 performing arts reviews. This year so far we have published 357 reviews (in 14 weeks: an average of more that 25 a week).  This the first time a play of mine has been reviewed. Each review, comment and forum posting contributes to the continuing conversation. We do not see it as productive to either prescribe or proscribe in the process.

Aaron Alexander              posted 17 Apr 2015, 11:54 AM

To be of concern a conflict of interest needs to be hidden. That’s why they are required to be *declared*. Everybody who reads the reviews knows John’s invlovement with the site and the play, his motivations or otherwise are a transparent context for anyone who cares to factor in to their reading of what’s posted.

And, by the way, on many occasions practitioners who’ve been less than satisfied with reviews on Theatreview have posted links to reviews more to their liking from other blogs or publications.

Charlotte Simmonds       posted 17 Apr 2015, 02:46 PM

Hi John,

If there are no prescriptions or proscriptions in place here, would you feel comfortable with me sharing the exchange of emails we had by way of a contribution to the continuing conversation? (Whether it would be constructive or not, I don’t know.) Or perhaps even with me sharing just my replies to your emails?

I was also not aware that the play I was reviewing was not yet a finished product. I didn’t realise you had not yet produced a final script, let alone a final draft. I’m very sorry about that.

Charlotte

John Smythe      posted 17 Apr 2015, 04:50 PM / edited 17 Apr 2015, 11:04 PM

Hey Charlotte – when is a play ever finished? It would be a strange beast indeed that received no further tweaks, at least, after its opening season. Regarding emails, I don’t see what would be gained. We choose what to say privately and what to say publicly and that’s fair enough I reckon. Besides I honestly think this has become a tedious topic. Happy, as ever, to discuss things over a coffee.

Charlotte Simmonds       posted 19 Apr 2015, 08:02 AM

Hi John,

Perhaps it would merely be in the interests of providing increased transparency for a government-supported site, particularly since an exchange that begins with me being invited to view a play a second time, questions my ability to review and concludes with me having my reviewing options on Theatreview limited does show that the roles of invested practitioner and impartial editor have been somewhat conflated.

As I have the copyright on my own work, I may still provide the emails I wrote in response, but only if the topic continues to be of interest to others.

Charlotte

Corin Havers       posted 19 Apr 2015, 11:14 PM

Thank you William and Penelope for your valiant attempts to corral John Smythe. William’s exhaustive explanation was deeply satisfying and something I would never have had the patience to attempt myself. For this relief much thanks. Mr Smythe’s stubborn refusal to own up to his shabby behaviour is exasperating, and his attempts to bluster and nitpick his way out of it frankly embarrassing – but all is bearable now I know there are at least a few other people who feel the same.