Replacing the Pillar

I'll tell you a secret . . .

The declining subscription numbers and aging audiences that are the status quo in the theatre world (and dance, opera, etc.) scares the hell out of a lot of people in the field.

What scares them is not the problem.  It's a problem the more observant ones in the field predicted a decade ago.

What scares them is the solution.

Because the solution, whatever it may be for the individual orgs, is almost certainly going to be painful.

Look at the subscription model for example.  For almost every major arts institution that has been built over the past 50 years the subscription model was a pillar of that growth

And when a pillar of your growth is on a slow spiral of collapse, things get a bit weird.

So to avoid the pain that would inevitably come with any serious, long term solution to the problem they do a fatally flawed thing.

They wait for somebody else to reveal the perfect solution in the hopes that they can copy it.

They want someone to take the risk and then hope they can swoop in and show they bosses the solution they "know" will work.

But that's the problem when it comes to alternative models to funding the arts . . . in the beginning, they all suck compared to the status quo.

Or to quote my man Seth "If you need the status quo to be better then the alternative from the start, you'll never begin."

That creates a situation I hear a lot of arts marketing directors are faced with, i.e. their bosses want them to create a new subscription model . . . but don't want to lose any money in the process!

So they want the reward without the pain.

The washboard abs without the sit ups.

This never works.

The smart orgs (of any size) will figure this out, take the pain and move on to the other side of it.

The other ones will wish they had.

Comments

[RLewis]

I'm not a fan of the subscription model, but aren't the Baby Boomers about to retire and thus creating the largest amount of older audiences ever? How is the same old system not about to experience a major infusion of possible ticket buyers?

[Ed]

Why I don't subscribe.

Reading this article made me think about my own behavior as a theatre consumer. Admittedly, my behavior may be skewed- I'm a practitioner/industry member as well. But here's a description of my own behavior and some of the ideas that that suggests.

I'm a gay male in his mid 20's. I go to the theatre at least once a week, and usually many more times a week than that- I'm devoted to the art form, and feel like I grow as an artist by observing the work of others. Looking back at the past year or so, the only weeks I haven't gone to the theatre at least once, I've been in tech week for something of my own, sick, or out of town. I guess there's some sort of weird golden rule-type optimism at work as well; I guess on some level I hope that all these artists I'm supporting will get off their butts and support my work when I put it up. So far, that usually doesn't happen (selfish bastards) but I live in hope.

In order to feed my theatre habit, there's a limit to how much I can pay for any particular ticket. Frankly, there's also a limit to how high a ticket price I actually think is fair value. But I very rarely actually try to get a comp for something- far more often I'll volunteer to usher (i.e., work a little in exchange for admission) or pay an industry discount price- usually around $10 or $15. I tend not to pay full price for something if the full price ticket exceeds $25. In fact, I can't remember the last time I paid more than $25 to see anything- if there aren't any discounts and a single ticket is in the 30s, 40s or (god help them) 50s to 60s range, I don't go. The only exception to that would be if it was clear from word of mouth and the press that this was an absolutely MUST NOT MISS event that I was also compelled to attend for personal reasons. For example- Caroline or Change. If the only way I could have seen that was to buy a full price ticket, I still would have.

So think about that- I am someone who is DEVOTED to live theatre, and considers its survival to be of paramount importance to me personally and to society as a whole. And even *I* balk at paying more than thirty bucks for a ticket. What does that indicate about people of my generation that care less about theatre than I do? To whom going to a bar to see a band, or to see a movie (both of which are often cheaper than seeing a theatre production) is a perfectly acceptable substitute? Everyone considers the House to be a company that has shown remarkable success in reaching younger audiences- one reason is that (until recently) their top ticket price was always under $20. What should that say to larger companies that are seeing a drop off in audience? YOUR TICKET PRICES ARE TOO HIGH. I used to watch with sadistic glee as movie theatres kept adjusting their ticket prices upward- "Soon!" I'd think to myself. "Soon the cinema fools will charge more than small theatres do, and the off-Loop theatre scene will skyrocket!" Instead, theatres took the rise in movie prices as a cue to adjust their own ticket price upward. When even someone who loves this art form will check his wallet and then decide to catch a movie instead, you're overpriced. Your only choices for survival are to 1) reduce your prices or 2) make every show you have an absolutely life-changing, must see event that people will pony up the cash for because of how incredible an experience it is. Good luck with #2- if you're doing what you should be doing, your organization should be doing work like that frequently, but not every show can be a hit.

I can't think of any company in town to whom I would willingly subscribe- because as a consumer I crave the freedom to choose, not just on a company-by-company, but also on a show-by-show basis what I see. Not even Court (sorry, Adam) does an ENTIRE season of shows I'm interested in. Though to be fair Court has a higher percentage of shows I give a damn about than some of the other larger institutions- bluntly, the Goodman is lucky if they do even one show a season I really want to see. This is the first season since I came to Chicago (circa 1999) that Victory Gardens has done anything I was actually enthusiastic about. Steppenwolf and Chicago Shakespeare manage higher percentages. There's always a couple that make me roll my eyes. More tempting to me are passes (like that Rogers Park group pass) that combine the shows of several different theatre companies, maximizing the different types of theatre and venues I have access to.

Does any theatre in town do some sort of "excerpts" evening- free to subscribers, several months before the start of the season, a performance of little snippets of the coming plays on the docket (even if it's only a reading, or one song if it's a musical, or a design presentation, whatever). I'm thinking along the lines of the free Snow-Queen preview event that Victory Gardens just offered, except for the entire season. If people have a better idea of what they're getting into if they buy a season subscription, they might be more willing to take the plunge.

Other ideas that are floating around- and I don't know if these are good ideas or bad ideas- I've wondered if the 'small individual donor' model that gave so much success to Obama can be applied to theatre companies as well. Is one possible answer to give donors a say in the theatre's programming? I.e., to make it a more democratic model. For example, a mailing during season selection that says, "here's a ballot of shows we're considering. One of the perks of sending a donation above $50 is the right to vote on which shows we do. Our next season will consist of the three (or five, or two) plays that receive the most votes." The key would be to make sure all of the options are pieces the company is genuinely enthusiastic about and would serve the company's mission, but otherwise, where's the harm?

As far as encouraging individual donations, I know one tactic I've long admired that companies such as Lifeline employ is to translate a dollar amount into a concrete thing that the donation will fund- i.e., a tag for $x that is labeled "pay one actor's salary in our production of _____." The subscription and donation process should make the audience feel even more a part of the process- that what they do has a concrete benefit that goes beyond more black ink on the balance sheet. Otherwise, even if I have to pay a non-subscriber price for an individual event, it's still a better deal than subscribing and being stuck with tickets to four other shows I'll hate.

As you've said before, Adam, successful marketing for the theatre is about communicating with and building relationships with patrons- making them feel like they have a personal stake in the theatre. Maybe the key is to make that personal stake more concrete and less illusory?

I'm not sure. Ah well, enough rambling for now.

[Adam Thurman]

RL,

I think you're right about the opportunity that the boomer generation provides but many of them are going to be looking for a "subscription" model that is different from the ones most theatres have.

The pain comes when you are making changes to accomodate this group (your future susbcribers) that causes you to lose some of your current subscribers.

It's a necessary transition, but one some groups aren't willing to make.

[Ed]

RLewis,
Your logic would be great if the Baby Boomers hadn't just all had their retirement funds decimated in the open market. Instead, we've got a bunch of old broke people who are too scared to buy anything but necessities.

[Adam Thurman]

Ed,

Much of what you said in your comments merit a post of their own . . . and I may just blatently steal your "vote" idea. But I do want to spend a minute on ticket prices.

------------

Professional theatre is an expensive medium. If I were to show you the running cost for "Caroline, or Change" it would probably shock the hell out of you. I know it shocked me.

And because of the way live theatre is created, year by year it will almost always become more expensive, not less. So there is reason a lot of theatres have to charge fairly substantial ticket prices.

What I think all nonprofit theatres are obligated to do is create multiple pricing levels that fit as many people as possible.

Let's go back to Caroline as an example:

If you were on our mailing list, received our postcard and then used the discount offer on the card to buy a preview night performance you saw Caroline for about $30.

If you were a student with a college ID you saw it for $25

If you decided to wait until reviews came out, then you probably paid $55 or $60 because all the discounted opportunities were gone.

So basically our pricing model (which isn't perfect by any stretch) is designed to reward loyal customers and people who make their buying decisions early. We subsidize that discount off the back of people who wait until the last minute.

Now that's Caroline. Do I think the prices to see Radio Macbeth should be comparable to Caroline?

Honestly . . . no. That's why we have been doing some discounting in the short term and I'm looking to do some more flexible single ticket pricing in the long term.

But my broader point is that because of the expense associated with theatre, most theatres have to have a high ticket price. They just SHOULD have numerous ways for consumers to avoid paying that high price.

[Ed]

I'm part of a theatre company, and have seen our budgets for the past couple of seasons- I'm excruciatingly aware of the high cost of making theatre. But I feel like there has to be a happy medium somewhere that isn't being found yet. One business model I found very interesting was the one used by Quest Theatre Ensemble- are you familiar with them? They don't ever charge admission for their shows, though they pass the hat before and after. Supposedly they get enough from individual donations to make it worth their while, even though no one is required to pay. Maybe this only works on a small scale, but is there a way to translate that into the needs of a larger organization? I've been trying to convince members of my company that we need to drastically reduce our ticket prices- right now we charge $20 a head, and if I had my druthers we'd be experimenting with a run of a show where we're only charging something like $5. But we're dealing with much smaller numbers, and my desire to have prices that low is a reaction on my part to a pretty drastic lack of attendance we've seen at some performances- i.e., I'd rather only charge $5 a head and sell out a 60 seat space on a Thursday than have to cancel the performance because only three $20-paying customers showed up. (Boy, THAT was an ego-boost.)

[Adam Thurman]

Ed,

I had head about the Quest thing, like you mentioned I don't know if the model is scalable . . . but it is worth nothing.

As for your theatre, you can understand that my heart skipped a beat when I heard $5 tickets right? :)

I guess my question would be do you have any tangible evidence that price is a real barrier to attendance? I know it may seem like $20 is too high because of low attendance . . . but lowering the price to $5 doesn't automatically mean more attendance.

Is there some way you could experiment with the $5 pricing model without changing the whole thing?

[Ed]

Maybe dedicate one performance- a "Strapped for Cash" Thurdsay or something like that? Your argument is the counterargument I usually receive- i.e., if we're only going to get three people anyway, they might as well pay $20 and not $5. But I do think that the $20 price does deter people from coming that would be willing to give a show (or a company) a try for only $5. Hell, I'll try just about *anything* that only costs five bucks. Part of it is my background though- where I went to school, every theatre and performance event on campus (and there were many) only cost five bucks for students. On the other hand, most if not all of those events were heavily, heavily subsidized by the university. Could be just a pipe dream of mine that's financially impossible once you get off campus and start making art in the real world.