I am stuck at home with the flu this weekend and needed a project... : )
October 25, 2009 - Ok, I'm done.
1 hour ago
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Interesting...
Still intrigued by Mr. Ken Davenport’s Audience Study Blog Click here
As an Usher at the Hilton Theatre during the run of Young Frankenstein I learned a lot about this subject from daily interaction with the patrons. I remember this one time a woman was so upset about Rodger Bart being out that she walked up waving the notice and screamed that the paper in her hand was a problem. Then she demanded to know why he wasn't going to be on stage that night. Which we were not allowed to tell even if we did know; if they were sick sometimes I would bend that rule but it depended on how I thought the person would react.
I never realized just how much patrons cared about the subject until almost every time there was an understudy on patrons would ask me, "Is Sutton Foster's Understudy any good? I paid a lot of money for these seats.” Which for that show some groups paid about $450.00 per ticket.
For Young Frankenstein we were lucky that all of the understudies were very talented (except for one of Igor’s but Christopher Fitzgerald was hardly ever out). Rodger Bart’s understudy Jon Patrick Walker was the best!
I think that audience members are very sensitive to what they paid for. For many patrons going to the theatre is a special event with family and friends. In my opinion the problem is the psychology behind when you plan something and things don't go exactly the way you imagined, it's in our nature to get disappointed. Therefore I think the main perception that needs to be changed is at the point of sales. Personally I think in an ideal world the audiences would be built around the show concepts. People should be paying to see the show not the stars in the show.
I think it would help if audience members were more informed about policies and procedures (i.e. If the actor's name is above the Title and they are out you can get your money back), of course within reason. I found once I explained to an audience member certain things that they were much more content and willing to accept the situation. An uninformed audience is one most likely to get fed up and tell their distant cousins about it. That's why I love that telecharge.com will sometimes let you know if a big name star will be on vacation before you purchase the tickets. Also for day of information we now have www.broadwayunderstudies.com (there is also a West End version).
Something to ponder: What would be some good ways to keep an audience informed though?
Ticketmaster or Telecharge sending out a mass e-mail if there are any changes 24 hours before the show?
Making the fine print larger?
Broadway for Dummies book? (I wonder if they have one already) Broadway 101 pamphlets?
Promoting the informative sites like broadwayunderstudy.com?
As an Usher at the Hilton Theatre during the run of Young Frankenstein I learned a lot about this subject from daily interaction with the patrons. I remember this one time a woman was so upset about Rodger Bart being out that she walked up waving the notice and screamed that the paper in her hand was a problem. Then she demanded to know why he wasn't going to be on stage that night. Which we were not allowed to tell even if we did know; if they were sick sometimes I would bend that rule but it depended on how I thought the person would react.
I never realized just how much patrons cared about the subject until almost every time there was an understudy on patrons would ask me, "Is Sutton Foster's Understudy any good? I paid a lot of money for these seats.” Which for that show some groups paid about $450.00 per ticket.
For Young Frankenstein we were lucky that all of the understudies were very talented (except for one of Igor’s but Christopher Fitzgerald was hardly ever out). Rodger Bart’s understudy Jon Patrick Walker was the best!
I think that audience members are very sensitive to what they paid for. For many patrons going to the theatre is a special event with family and friends. In my opinion the problem is the psychology behind when you plan something and things don't go exactly the way you imagined, it's in our nature to get disappointed. Therefore I think the main perception that needs to be changed is at the point of sales. Personally I think in an ideal world the audiences would be built around the show concepts. People should be paying to see the show not the stars in the show.
I think it would help if audience members were more informed about policies and procedures (i.e. If the actor's name is above the Title and they are out you can get your money back), of course within reason. I found once I explained to an audience member certain things that they were much more content and willing to accept the situation. An uninformed audience is one most likely to get fed up and tell their distant cousins about it. That's why I love that telecharge.com will sometimes let you know if a big name star will be on vacation before you purchase the tickets. Also for day of information we now have www.broadwayunderstudies.com (there is also a West End version).
Something to ponder: What would be some good ways to keep an audience informed though?
Ticketmaster or Telecharge sending out a mass e-mail if there are any changes 24 hours before the show?
Making the fine print larger?
Broadway for Dummies book? (I wonder if they have one already) Broadway 101 pamphlets?
Promoting the informative sites like broadwayunderstudy.com?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Original Material on Broadway
Inspired by my good friend Ant Mennuti I decided that this update should be about my theories the lack of original material on Broadway. Some people may ask why not take a recognizable product and present it back to the audience in a different art form. They argue that taking a popular movie and making it into a show that tweaks the story makes it original material. Nope, friends the dictionary defines original as the following...
1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2. new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4. capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.
6. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made: The original document is in Washington.
There is no mention of remakes or reinvents to be found...I think that people are ready and want to see something original on stage. My mother always talks about getting to see the original productions of shows being revived today and they hold a special place in her memories.
Here are two of my theories…I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject these are just my thoughts…
Theory # 1 – You already have an audience for the material.
It’s logical to think that when you take a preexisting story you will have an audience that comes with it. Which then creates word of mouth because once that audience finds out there is something new coming out using their favorite story they’ll start talking about it. Questions such as, “I wonder how [insert actor here] will do as Elizabeth Bennet?” will be asked and the ever so popular statement, “They better not ruin my favorite story.” will be heard. I have to admit to being one of these types of audience members myself. When I heard that Pride and Prejudice was becoming a Musical I asked/spoke the statements above to anyone who would listen. Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, and the BBC Film version is my favorite movie. It could be a really great musical if it is done right. I have an idea in my head about how the show could work, but that is for another post entirely.
Theory # 2 – Producer’s are the Audience members themselves – having an attachment to the material can be deadly in this business.
I remember whenever I Stage Managed or Teched a show in college that I loved whatever show I was working on. Alas… after a performance when I had asked my friends what they thought I would get really offended and not understand why they didn’t like some of them. Now that I look back I liked some pretty crappy shows which shall remain nameless. So I agree with the point that one should never so close to the material that they become blinded by their love of it.
1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2. new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4. capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.
6. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made: The original document is in Washington.
There is no mention of remakes or reinvents to be found...I think that people are ready and want to see something original on stage. My mother always talks about getting to see the original productions of shows being revived today and they hold a special place in her memories.
Here are two of my theories…I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject these are just my thoughts…
Theory # 1 – You already have an audience for the material.
It’s logical to think that when you take a preexisting story you will have an audience that comes with it. Which then creates word of mouth because once that audience finds out there is something new coming out using their favorite story they’ll start talking about it. Questions such as, “I wonder how [insert actor here] will do as Elizabeth Bennet?” will be asked and the ever so popular statement, “They better not ruin my favorite story.” will be heard. I have to admit to being one of these types of audience members myself. When I heard that Pride and Prejudice was becoming a Musical I asked/spoke the statements above to anyone who would listen. Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, and the BBC Film version is my favorite movie. It could be a really great musical if it is done right. I have an idea in my head about how the show could work, but that is for another post entirely.
Theory # 2 – Producer’s are the Audience members themselves – having an attachment to the material can be deadly in this business.
I remember whenever I Stage Managed or Teched a show in college that I loved whatever show I was working on. Alas… after a performance when I had asked my friends what they thought I would get really offended and not understand why they didn’t like some of them. Now that I look back I liked some pretty crappy shows which shall remain nameless. So I agree with the point that one should never so close to the material that they become blinded by their love of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
