This week’s interesting articles and blog posts!

July 5, 2009 • No Comments

 

 

    From the papers and websites:

     

  • Now, Sarah’s Folly – NYTimes.com – http://shar.es/Gj5o

  • Female playwrights find it’s still a man’s world — Newsday.com – http://shar.es/GvPV

  • ‘Girls Night,’ Bachelorettes plays – WSJ.com – http://shar.es/G7al

  • Summer tourism to NYC down sharply. Tourists forgoing Broadway for less pricey atttractions. http://tinyurl.com/n6zegy

  • Mayor Michael Bloomberg – A public insurance plan will help heal a broken health care system – http://shar.es/cj5u

  • How Not to be Hated on Facebook – TIME – http://shar.es/cjaT #fb

  • BackStage on the amazing Bernie Telsey http://bit.ly/EkA1b w/actors Telsey tales-note 1st one http://bit.ly/tQGlP

  • City’s Funds For Film and Television Tax Credits Run Out http://bit.ly/DeLkn

  • Critic Peter Marks says that the power of the critic "theater, like most politics, is local," http://is.gd/1lpVZ

  • Bravo, Sarah Jessica Parker launching art-themed reality series http://bit.ly/ayTQZ

  • Playbill profile of MCC Artistic Director Bernard Telsey’s double life as a casting director – http://bit.ly/11dlAF

  • Kaiser on Arts in Crisis http://bit.ly/hQfwE H

  • Nonprofits Employ Tougher Measures as Downturn Deepens http://bit.ly/18ud9h

  • Twitter Revamps Following and Followers Pages – http://bit.ly/LFlWJ

  • Male Nonprofit Executives Earn 27% More Than Female Leaders, Study Finds http://twurl.nl/hfkofm

  • Kennedy Center to Spread the Knowledge http://bit.ly/1gwGiq

  • Productive but Neurotic New York – Crain’s New York Business – http://shar.es/5W13

  • Charles Isherwood of the NYT on the NT Live Phedre http://bit.ly/lbi00

  • It’s official: T.R. Knight is headed to Broadway http://tinyurl.com/nqz2vz

  • Guthrie Theater Wraps Up Highly Successful Kushner Celebration http://tinyurl.com/mdxv5f

  • Recession Taking a Toll on Nonprofits, Bridgespan Survey Finds http://bit.ly/LMxYt

  • Facebook Could Create a Revolution, Do Good, and Make Billions – NYTimes.com http://ow.ly/fYGc

  • Variety – interesting business/creative model for the musical "Ella": http://bit.ly/OpU1z

  • Bard Stars Esparza, White Help Raise $1.3 Million for Public – Bloomberg.com – http://shar.es/74rL

  •  

     

      From the Blogs (For a daily update check What’s being talked about on the Blogroll regularly.  It is updated several times throughout the day.  Follow me on Twitter to receive a tweet whenever it is updated.)  If there is a blog I am not following and I should please let me know.  You can see the blog roll by category here.:

       

       

      • *’Bums on Seats’ * "PR folk are always asking how… from Hannah Nicklin – Blog

      • The Huffington Post says The Skylight is following… from Artsy Schmartsy

      • Be careful what you say from The Mission Paradox Blog

      • Acceptance Video for the ITBA’s Citation for Excellence from Flux Theatre Ensemble

      • On Theatre Etiquette from Theatre Bay Area Chatterbox

      • July 1, 2009 – Can we practice empathy together? from SEE Blog

      • Paneled on July 8th! from Parabasis

      • What? A Panel About Theatre Blogging? from The Playgoer

      • Ohio Theatre Update from The Playgoer

      • Here’s how to solve the arts funding crisis  from Stage: Theatre blog | guardian.co.uk

      • Have we seen the last of the looooong running musical? from PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE

      • Women Actors Make Way Less Money Than Men from Women & Hollywood

      • Valuing Cultural Diplomacy and Engagement for the arts from ARTSBLOG

      • Creative risk pays off for the Guthrie from Carolyn Jack

      • Gender Bias Gets Confusing! (But Poetic) from Parabasis

      • My last e-mail to Emily from The Hub Review

      • Microphilanthropy from Createquity.

      • Thinking Bigger with your Vision, your Board and your funding from For Impact Daily Nuggets

      • Are Nonprofits Good At Social Media? from The Agitator

      • Is Michael Kaiser a Demigod or Merely Superhuman? from Clyde Fitch Report

      • As Mayoral Control of Schools Lapses, Will Arts Education be affected from Clyde Fitch Report

      • On Quality, Value and Criticism from Flux Theatre Ensemble

      • Goodbye and Thanks from AmericanTheaterWeb

      • First Rehearsal to the Third Power from Steppenwolf Theatre Company Blog

      • Free, Says Gladwell: Such a Little Word… from Clyde Fitch Report

      • How is Tony Voter turnout? from PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE

      • Gentle Persistence from A Small Change- Fundraising Blog

      • Gender Bias in Theatre — Digging a Little Deeper from Women & Hollywood

      • The “Turn-A-Round King goes National from off-stage right

      • The 500th Post: 16 Nonprofit Marketing (and Life)… from Katya’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog

      • Truth, beauty, trust from The Artful Manager

      • Around the horn: Thriller edition from Createquity.

      • Are Audiences Lemmings or Thinking Lemmings? from Clyde Fitch Report

      • Today’s Must Read from Parabasis

      • O, malignant and ill-boding audience! from Struts and Frets: Kris Joseph

      • I’m lost, but I don’t think I am the only one from off-stage right

      • A Balancing Act from The Halcyon Blog

      • Broadway (officially) lends T.R. Knight ‘Tenor’ role from Entertainment Weekly’s Ausiello Files

      • Why Every Nonprofit Is Accountable For A Vision from SPURspectives

      • And then it’s gone… from Theatre Aficionado at Large

      • How convenient are we? from One Producer in the City

      • Women Directors Breaking Through in Theatre from Women & Hollywood

      • Is the Curtain Closing on Live Theater in America? from Culturebot

      • Jerry Lewis, Marvin Hamlisch taking ‘Nutty Professor’… from Culture Monster

      • A ‘West Side Story’ for the Twitter set from Culture Monster

      • Saving Arts Programs? There’s an .App for That. from ARTSBLOG

      • What You Do Isn’t Worth Paying For: The Message Google… from Technology in the Arts

      • What You Do IS Worth Paying For, We Just Can’t: Non-Profit… from Technology in the Arts

      • New York Arts Fund Offers Cheap Rent to Charities from Give and Take

      • Femme Fight from Blank New World

      • Rock and a Hard Place 3: What Actors Want from a poor player

      • Theatre as Case Study? from Parabasis

      • Fisking Emily Glassberg Sands from The Hub Review

      • The Impact of Giving Circles from Nonprofit Law Blog

      • Politics Of Online Ad Targeting from The Agitator

      • Considering the Creative Ecology from The Artful Manager

      • Keeping The Passion Alive While I am Away from Butts In The Seats

      • Question For My Inside The Arts Family from Butts In The Seats

      • Rehearsing opposites from Struts and Frets: Kris Joseph

      • Breaking the ’5th Wall’… from NEA New Play Development Program hosted by Arena

      • Engaging Dissent from NEA New Play Development Program hosted by Arena

      • I Want To Make Something Really Clear from Parabasis

      • A Good Post From David Dower from Parabasis

      •  An Open Letter to Roundabout from Theatre Aficionado at Large

      • Box? What Box? from Entrepreneur The Arts Blog

      • The Norman Conquests – Table Manners from Everything I Know I Learned from Musicals

      • TWITTER’S TIME HAS COME from Jane Fonda

      • Twitter Guide Book… from Mashable!

      • Theatre is about more than comfy seats | Matt Trueman from Stage: Theatre blog | guardian.co.uk

      • How to Lose Your Audience in One Easy Step from Theatre Bay Area Chatterbox

      • How Broadway Talks to its Audiences Using Social Media from Mashable!

      • Continuing the discussion on Gender Disparity in Theatre: Opening the Curtain on Playwright Gender

        June 23, 2009 • One Comment

        Last week I posted some questions about gender disparity in theatre – did it exist, was it industry-wide, etc.  The post got some really interesting comments and I encourage folks to keep adding thoughts there.  The post was inspired by conversations I had been having with friends and the invitation I got to a presentation on a study of gender equality in Playwriting.

        Yesterday I was among the 150 or so people who attended the presentation hosted 59E59 Theaters and the wonderful Primary Stages (go subscribe to their next season – with GREAT plays that all happen to be written by women).

        I was pleasantly surprised as the audience filled the theatre that there was a nice diversity to the audience (sadly I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had all been women under forty, but it wasn’t).   Of course it would be great to know who was really there as we all know many times events like this are moments for “preaching to the converted” and there are a lot of producers from the commercial and nonprofit world that I didn’t see in the room who I thought would have been interested in the event.

        First I want to congratulate Julia Jordan who has really rallied the troops over the last year to make several conversations happen about the field and for using some great personal connections – most importantly Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) to get a real study of the issue done.

        The exceedingly well spoken, entertaining, and obviously intelligent economist (yes, economist) who undertook this study is named Emily Glassberg Sands who used the study as her thesis, for Princeton, before she heads off to Harvard for her PhD.  The information she uncovered is fascinating and more importantly, she seems to have been bitten by the theatre bug and it looks like she will continue exploration in the theatre and the arts.

        Before I share my notes and quick impressions of the presentation, I want to note that I have emailed Emily for a full copy of the study as well as her PowerPoint summary from yesterday (she was nice enough to offer so of course I took her up on it.)  I look forward to reading all 170 pages of her work.  With her permission I will post her presentation as well.

        I truly hope and will be suggesting to organizations like Theatre Communications Group, ART-NY, The Broadway League, the Off-Broadway Alliance, and others that they immediately schedule a presentation by Sands for their membership, but that they actively assist her in finding funding to further her work.  Those of you who run foundations that fund theatre don’t be surprised if I suggest she call you!

        So some quick and eye-opening information from the presentation:

        Julia Jordon did a quick introduction of how all of this evolved.  She and Sarah Schulman had two “town hall meetings over the last year.  The first was attended by playwrights who expressed frustration at the discrimination or bias they felt existed in the field.  For the second, they invited several artistic directors to join in the conversation.  Essentially the artistic directors argument was that there just weren’t as many good plays by women as here where by men.

        I was struck by a comment she made that related to a similar discussion I had regarding the industry as a whole.  Basically Julia noted if there was some sort of standardized test for playwriting her rough study of the field would support the idea that women would likely do better and would have a easier time in the field.  Similarly I had been discussing that if theatre were more quantifiable like say sales – women would have it easier being on an equal playing field.

        She also noted rough figures – 31.6% of CREATIVE jobs held in the calendar year of 2008, nonprofit subscription houses, were held by women (writers/actors/choreographers/lighting/setdesigners/directors).   SAD FACT

        Julia then turned the stage over to Emily Glassberg Sands.  Now I should note through out the presentation Emily explained the methods used for the study and for validating the data.  I am sure the newspapers and magazines (see links below) will delve into that, I just will list the things that I jotted down while listening.  There was so much wonderful information, I am still digesting what it means to the field.

        I should mention by the end of the presentation, Sands proved the playwrights were right – there were perceptions in the industry that were creating biases against and discrimination against female playwrights—the “bar was set higher”; however, importantly she also proved that there were fewer “quality” scripts by women as the artistic directors has stated.  “Quality” was defined through plays getting produced and how often to remove subjectivity.

        Sands essentially did three studies – (1) analysis of the field through data on www.doolee.com to determine if there were “too few scripts from which to choose” (2) Is a script received better if written by a man – she sent same scripts with different gender names to 250 theaters (3) Is the bar set higher for female playwrights – using Broadway profits for analysis.

        Basically the answer to all three was YES.

        Analysis of the field through data on www.doolee.com to determine if there were “too few scripts from which to choose”

        • 25% of produced plays were written by women
        • the rate of attaining production was the same for men and women
        • plays with more female roles were less produced
        • women tend to write smaller shows which was the reason (compensating factor) that the rate for attaining production were the same

        Is a script received better if written by a man – she sent same 4 original scripts (donated to the study by 4 female playwrights) with different gender names to 250 theaters and had folks fill out a questionnaire (cheers to Princeton for awarding four $1000 grants to theaters to participated in the study even though the theaters didn’t know what the study was fully about).

        • the scripts “submitted by” women were perceived differently: the characters were considered less likable, the prospects for production were less likely, it was assumed the audiences would not receive them as well and the plays didn’t align with the theaters mission as much as those “submitted by” men.
        • all of the bias was directly attributed to women responding the survey.  Statistically the men who participated rated the scripts the same whether submitted by men or women. [read that again, yes it is true]

        Is the bar set higher for female playwrights – using Broadway profits for analysis using the last 10 years of new work presented on Broadway.

        • shows written by women make more money over the course of a run (18% more)!  Note that commercial producers – the stats chart was really clear about that!
        • shows by women on a weekly basis had 16% higher sales than those by men
        • the length of run of the shows was equal whether written by men or women
        • basically scripts by women face higher scrutiny by producers when it comes to keeping them open

        Some thoughts by Sands from her work:

        • the bar is higher for women playwrights so the script have to be better to get produced
        • theoretically there are better scripts available from women that haven’t been produced than men
        • women have likely been discouraged from the field by the biases or perceptions of biases

        I think it is vital to keep this conversation going and to expand it to the obvious effect it has on the industry as a whole (i.e. less female roles).  Needless to say the last week has been filled with a ton of issues for the field to think about – firing of artistic directors to save money, the disclosure of complete financial mismanagement of North Shore Music Theatre, and budgets cuts and staff reductions (Long Wharf Theatre, Center Theatre Group, Met Museum).  Of course all of these require immediate attention and warrant conversation, but we can’t lose sight of underlying long term problems like gender disparity, creating new financial models, non-profits focusing on mission, and truly serving our audiences.  Lots of work to do folks!

        Emily Sands Presentation Deck from her study

        Articles on the presentation and study:

        New York Magazine

        New York Times

        Completely forgot to post last week’s interesting articles! Sorry

        June 1, 2009 • No Comments

         

        LAByrinth Gets New Leaders http://bit.ly/wSz7O

        TIME’s The Future of Twitter – http://is.gd/KxqB

        Harvard Business School’s New "M.B.A Oath" http://tr.im/mVpb

        Quality too good to pass up – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/XQXL

        Tunesmith takes on "Minister’s Wife" Variety – I hear great things about this show. http://tinyurl.com/mj8q9x

        Hold the Interview | forimpact.org GREAT LINK to Chip and Dan Heath article – http://shar.es/XAGh

        Tips on Filling Out the Governance Section on the New Form 990 (IRS) http://bit.ly/KqeW0

        10 Ways to Think About Social Networking And The Arts (the zen of "free" as a strategy) http://bit.ly/1Dpo5

        Babes in Broadwayland: How Old Is Old Enough? http://bit.ly/ymtpi

        White House Officials Discuss Plans for Social-Innovation Office http://twurl.nl/zbxpum

        Shubert teams with NYC and Co. – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/0mLz

        Stephen Belber: ‘Is it better to write for Hollywood?’ – Los Angeles Times – http://shar.es/0nSL

        Broadway embraces web community – Entertainment News, Legit News, Media – Variety – http://shar.es/mLLj

        Conference Committee report is out on HB2649. Stripped as promised by Rep. Smith. (link at @jimonlight http://is.gd/KPrS)

        Are there too many good shows and not enough audience members?

        May 27, 2009 • No Comments

         

        At one point in early April I made a joke to my husband that the critics were only writing rave reviews – because if shows sold tickets,  producers would buy ads and therefore critics would keep their jobs.  I didn’t really think there was a conspiracy–mostly because I think critics are smart enough to know that writing good reviews for every show wouldn’t save arts journalism (but that’s another post), so could the answer be that there were a bunch of really great shows opening around New York City? 

         

        There were certainly more than enough shows opening.  Off-Broadway the non-profit theaters were at the height of their seasons and even commercial off-Broadway was showing some life with the new multi-plex theaters seeming to be almost full for the first time in a while.   The double digit closings on Broadway in January and early February opened up a lot of theaters.  Most of the closings were limited runs or long-running shows except for the wonderful Dividing the Estate which should have been allowed to stay at the Booth longer (everyone buy tickets to see it at Hartford Stage – go buy now – come back and finish reading the post after getting your tickets), but each closing announcement was quickly followed by an opening announcement.   Theater owners seemed determined to keep their spaces filled.   Producers seemed to scale back shows a bit or resorted to producing PLAYS (hooray!) to keep costs down.  It certainly wasn’t the rush on theaters that the late 90’s and early part of this decade provided but the theaters certainly weren’t going dark. 

         

        And then it happened…review after review: Ruined, Exit the King, God of Carnage, Our Town, Hair, Joe Turner’s Come and Gone, Mary Stuart, Next to Normal, The Norman Conquests (all three), Rock of Ages, Reasons to be Pretty, Waiting for Godot, West Side Story, Everyday Rapture, The Cripple of Inishmaan, and that doesn’t even name all of the shows that were getting raves – so please don’t get upset if I left your show off -  or the ones that are still to open off-Broadway (high hopes for MCC Theater’s Coraline and everyone is telling me to rush to the Public Theater’s Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson).   It was as if we entered a mini-Golden age for the theatre and so many wonderful straight plays!  They even opened a second  “Plays only” window at the TKTS Booth.

         

        So, I started what seems like an endless odyssey to see all of these wonderful shows that are out there.   Now, I am a pretty regular theater-goer, I see most of the Broadway and off-Broadway season each year and even make it to a smattering of off-off-Broadway productions.   But I am finding myself in a the theater a lot more this spring, there is just so much to see!  And you know what, the critics are right, the shows are well-deserving of their raves.  As a matter of fact, the only reviews I seem to disagree with are some of the “mixed reviews”  (come on way too tough of 9-5 it was as much fun as Rock of Ages and hello DOLLY PARTON’s songs were great and Tovah Feldshuh cannot receive enough praise for Irena’s Vow)

        So, I am going to all of this wonderful theater and loving it.  More than that, I am proud to be a part of the New York theater industry.  How can anyone not take great pride in all of the wonderful work throughout the City. 

         

        But then at intermission I start looking around at the houses, then after the show, then I start getting there early to watch the audiences come in, and I am deeply, deeply distraught that so many of these wonderful shows with all of these great reviews are playing to partial houses and in some cases partial is bring very polite.  Sure some of the musicals are doing well and I can’t even get house seats at God Of Carnage (and I have tried 4 times) but I have to think if some of these shows were in a less competitive environment they would be playing to higher percentages of houses or would they?

         

        Are there too many good shows out there and not enough audience for them?

         

        My knee-jerk response is to point to ticket prices.  They are so high.  After all the New York Times just reported how Broadway had record grosses this year.  (Note Ken Davenport over at Producer’s Perspective breaks the stats down and shows the drop-off in total audiences that matched these record grosses, so clearly higher prices play into the slight uptick).  But it would be foolish to say that ticket prices were the issue, lets not kid ourselves they are ridiculously high and the premium seats are way out of control – too many held, etc., but come on practically ever show is at the Theater Development Fund’s TKTS Booth (Follow TDF on Twitter if you don’t believe me) and there are so many other discounts out there!  Google a show and you can get a discount ticket!

         

        So is it the about stars?  This season is certainly has more big names involved  on and off stage than any other recent season.   Reasons to be Pretty doesn’t have stars, I hear it over and over.  Well they have done a great job finding a handful of stars to host talk-backs every night for the week or two and that doesn’t seem to solve the fact that this AMAZING show is playing to way too small of houses.  (again, please pause in your reading and go buy tickets to Reasons to be Pretty, really you can come back and finish the post after, I will wait just don’t get lost in their great new web videos, you can go back and look at those later). 

         

        So what is it?  And don’t anyone dare say the word “marketing.”  Frankly some of the best marketing out there is for the shows that aren’t filling up and some of the worst for the shows that are (I won’t name examples because of dear friends involved in the shows but you all have seen some of the commercials and print pieces). 

         

        Is tourism down?  Are all those “staycations” I keep reading about causing this?  I would imagine they are having some balanced effect – New Yorkers who stay home make up for the tourists?

         

        Are the audiences just diminishing?  Have lack of school programs and the value of theater sunk so low that we are now on a trend to just see audiences grow smaller and smaller?  I might think this had more validity if so much of the work out there weren’t so darn relevant and good.  But we can’t completely rule it out.

         

        Or is it perhaps that the balance of long-running shows to new shows is off-kilter.   After all the entire theater business is more or less about balance, so did all those long-running shows that closed throw the audience levels off?  I hate to say it but I think this is the largest factor.  Maybe some of the theaters should have stayed dark a little longer.  After all a couple more shows like Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, Wicked, Avenue Q or August Osage County might balance out some of the competition.  And certainly it would be great if off-Broadway production costs could be reversed so that you could have once again sustain long runs. 

         

        So the question isn’t really are there too many good shows out there, but there are too many NEW good shows out there.  What will happen next?  Can some of these shows maintain their success or survive their lower numbers and pull off a longer run?  With so many of the shows on Broadway are we setting ourselves up for next season to mirror this one?  The summer and fall already have a rich schedule from the nonprofit theatres (in New York, Chicago, San Diego, etc.) with several of the shows looking like they are possible transfers, so there will be plenty of competition to fill the theaters that do empty. 

         

        I think this means we as an industry have to do some thinking and planning and do it darn quick.  We are digging a hole that is going to be very difficult to get out of if we let it become a trend.  We have to make an environment where a good show can run. We have to make off-Broadway and off-off Broadway sustainable.  We have to reach beyond New York and make sure that theater can be sustainable, vital and relevant throughout the country.   It means dealing with production costs and ticket prices, cultivating future theater audiences, and most importantly learning from the current slate on the boards to find a balance that works.  We can’t just write it off as an anomaly or blame it on the economy (oh my that sort of rhymed), just as the nonprofit theater world must revise its business model to meet a new reality so does the commercial side of the industry.

        Pure Poetry: Joe Turner’s Come and Gone

        May 26, 2009 • No Comments

         

        I was fortunate to work on two the amazing revivals that Signature Theatre Company did during its August Wilson Season: the impeccable Seven Guitars directed by Ruben Santiago Hudson and Two Trains Running directed by an unsung hero of American Theater, Lou Bellamy.  But like many I know (and more and more I keep finding out) my favorite play of the century cycle is Joe Turner’s Come and Gone

         

        Saturday, I got the opportunity to see the Lincoln Center revival of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone directed by Bart Sher (who himself has been in the news for the recently announced slow departure from Intiman Theatre). 

         

        The production is an almost flawless presentation of a great play that seems utterly relevant today.  The characters aching search for a place in a turbulent world has left them wandering in search of something that is probably unattainable is heart-breaking, gut-wrenching and somehow uplifting all at the same time. 

         

        That search sound familiar – wandering in hope for employment, definition, love, life and happiness?

         

        I found that the production reached into my heart and held it with a tight grip for the entire performance. 

         

        Without question Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is a perfect fit for these turbulent times.  The phenomenal company of actors that bring Wilson’s poetry to life are yet another example of why a Tony Award for Best Ensemble in a Play is long overdue.  I don’t know how the Tony administration can see this show (as well as Dividing the Estate) and not see the value of such an award – maybe it would be an encouragement to producers to take the risk with shows that have more than six actors!  But I digress…

         

        The long and the short of it, Wilson was one of the greatest poets of our times as well as one of the greatest storytellers.  This is one revival that everyone should go and see.

         

        If you are reading this on Facebook, please click through to www.off-stage-right.com to be counted and keep on reading more posts.

        I wanna rock! Rock of Ages

        May 25, 2009 • No Comments

        So on Saturday, I went to see Rock of Ages.  I had very low expectations and figured at least the in seat drink service would provide enough refreshments to make it through the evening.  But from the moment I entered the Brooks Atkinson I realized I had stepped on board of a roller coaster ride unlike any I had really experienced.

        I was handed my requisite LED flashlight (to be used concert fashion during the show).  Eighties music was making the entire theater pulsate – made me realize most shows don’t use preshow music much anymore.  As soon as we were in our seats a cocktail waitress in an 80s leather-mini and fishnet hose took our cocktails order – mixed drinks!   We ordered.  A woman from mid row charged over us to get to the waitress with a quick apology, she hadn’t ever been to a Broadway show so she didn’t know how the waitress got orders for the folks in the center of the row.  While the foot she stomped on smarted I smiled politely and said, “no worries, I didn’t know either.”  Over the music I heard the cocktail waitress tell the patrons behind me that in seat drinks was the future of Broadway and next year everyone would be doing it.

        A quick look around the house revealed an audience that was younger than most.  A dozen or so sailors from Fleet week, lots of under forties couples and packs and pack of female groups obviously having a girls night out.

        The lights went down a bit, and I was worried we didn’t have our drinks yet, but the waitress assured us she would get them to us during the first number, so I sat back as the band was introduced.  The audience went nuts and the roller coaster reached the top of the first hill and began that high speed decent that creates a thrill.

        Yes, a thrill.  Now perhaps as a child of the 80s I am predisposed.  When Quiet Riot’s Cum on Feel the Noize started i remembered my mom snapping off the music in my room, telling me it was a “trashy” song, so I put on my big old headphones to listen to it.   I had this huge desire to sing along to every song and this odd feeling that it would have been accepted, in fact several audience members did.

        The plot is so simple that the show makes fun of it throughout, but it is also more or less the same plot of EVERY musical from the Golden Era, boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, rich villain tries to close club where boy works, boy loses girl, girl becomes a stripper, boy and girl reunite, rich villain has change of heart, club is saved – okay maybe the stripper part was unique.

        But despite the predictability, the camp, the interruption  to pass drinks down the row, and the over the top, well everything.  I was actually having more fun than I remember ever having in a Broadway house.   Constantine Maroulis and Amy Spangler led a cast that belted out 80s tune after 80s tune that I not only listened to throughout high school, but that I still listen to much to the dismay of my husband who has much better taste in music than I do.   For all the articles written about Idol performers being on Broadway (and how often the shows judges use the term Broadway as a criticism), I wasn’t surprised to learn this morning on the TODAY show when the cast performed that Constantine Maroulis actually started out WANTING to be a musical theatre actor, his performance was subtle and engaging – the best on the stage the performance I saw.   That’s not to say the rest of the cast wasn’t entertaining because they were really truly having fun on stage and it was infectious.

        The only downer of the night was on the projection screen at the back of the set during the intermission and post-show – an advertisement for discount tickets for future performances if you retained your stub from that evening.  A grim reminder that box office on Broadway needs all the help it can get and that this super fun show cost an outrageous 100+ bucks.  Suddenly I was yearning for a strong off-Broadway where an affordable version of the show would run for years and years, but alas we are in different times.

        All in all it was a full out right experience with a little Broadway show tucked in, and that was more than all right by me.

        Kudos to the producers for wringing out every possible marketing opportunity from the show.  I even used the LED flashlight when I got home to find my keys in my purse!

        Articles of interest from last week…

        May 17, 2009 • No Comments

         

        Micropayments for online newspaper articles being considered by the Wall Street Journal idea.http://bit.ly/snPBL

        Lincoln Center Upbeat About Face-Lift http://bit.ly/14l97t

        Twitter’s Trouble With Repeat Users – NYT article http://bit.ly/2y7Jq

        Management Tip of the Day: Say It All in 100 Words or Less http://tinyurl.com/ryuc3n

        The Case for a Best-Ensemble Tony — New York Magazine – http://tinyurl.com/qzva56

        Donors’ belt-tightening squeezes grantees (Philadelphia Inquirer) http://short.to/8qkt

        Re-Thinking Charity http://ow.ly/6eMT

        Corporate Giving Flat in 2008, Decrease Expected in 2009, Report Finds http://bit.ly/koeqw

        How the Recession May Change the City for the Better and Worse — New York Magazine – http://tinyurl.com/puntba

        Rocco Landesman, Broadway Producer, to Lead National Arts Endowment – NYTimes.com – http://tinyurl.com/pjbrhd

        Nonprofits Buying Into Franchises (Nonprofit Times) http://short.to/97vu

        What Does Your Facebook Profile Say About You? http://ow.ly/6FUu

        Female Directors a Long Road Lies Ahead – washingtonpost.com – http://tinyurl.com/pmrert

        Report : 42% of Boston Nonprofits Have Laying Off Staff (WBUR Radio) http://bit.ly/QszRx

        Can Rocco Landesman make the NEA relevant again? | Culture Monster | Los Angeles Times – http://tinyurl.com/pwftet

        If Landesman’s the Answer, What Are the Questions?:http://tinyurl.com/qw4h6r

        NYC nonprofits rethink charity galas: http://is.gd/zXzy

        Charities Rethink Glitz Quotient for Their Galas – WSJ.com – http://tinyurl.com/pmdjhg

        Is Broadway booming or busting? – http://tinyurl.com/on3hw5

        Broadway 2008-9 – Such a Great Show, Especially That Last Act – NYTimes.com – http://tinyurl.com/pjc8zm

        Ensembles, Take a Bow – A Strong Year for Teamwork on Broadway – NYTimes.com – http://tinyurl.com/qcj3ue

        If you can’t make it to the live Tony Awards in New York City – head on up to Hartford, CT

        May 16, 2009 • One Comment

        I love when a theater company creates a multi-level campaign to celebrate a success.  But, I find what is happening at Hartford Stage to be an absolute joy and a unique spin because it is actually more a celebration of the company’s talented Artistic Director’s work and partnership with one of the greatest story-tellers ever to write for the theater.

        Horton Foote’s Dividing the Estate is about to start performances on May 28.  A bit of back-story, the show has been an interesting example of collaboration at many nonprofit theaters.  The play was actually written in the 80s but Horton made some significant revisions for its New York premiere at Primary Stages (great company) directed by long-time Foote collaborator and Hartford Stage’s Artistic Director, Michael Wilson, went to Broadway with a producing team led by the incomparable Lincoln Center Theater, and now it heads to Hartford Stage.  In other words, it isn’t quite Hartford Stage’s show yet.

        Michael and the late Horton Foote have worked closely for the last several years on several projects, Dividing the Estate, a heart-wrenching revision of To Kill a Mockingbird that is rumored to be Broadway bound for the 2010 season, and the upcoming 9 play Orphans Home Cycle, that Hartford Stage commissioned to be revised as a three production event, will be produced in Hartford early this fall and then will move straight to New York’s Signature Theatre Company.

        Hartford Stage has celebrated many of it’s production in wonderful ways.  For example, Hartford Stage participated in the National Endowment for the Arts Big Reads Program for Mockingbird. This included among other events a wonderful evening during which Wilson interviewed Foote about the writing of the Oscar-winning film script.

        But now the celebration has shifted full force to the Tony-nominated Dividing the Estate – a show that has yet to even begin performances.  The company is basically helping run an outright campaign for the show by offering tickets to Tony voters who might not have made it to the far too short run of the show in New York.  Keep in mind this is a Tony Award that two other theaters would win.  And the most brilliant part – the company is hosting a Tony Awards Party at the theater for the company’s donors and audiences.  That’s right, a party for a show that the company is not even part of the producing team of.  Not only does it sound like a fun event for those who love Hartford Stage, but it gives the majority of the Dividing the Estate cast a way to be celebrated stars that evening – since the cast will be in residence in Hartford for performances.  And this cast deserves it.  A cast that is such a wonderful ensemble that they helped revive the long discussed idea of having a “best ensemble” Tony category (great article in New York Magazine about this).

        The fundraiser in me says, “great job, what a way to center an event on a show and raise some money at an reasonable price point!”

        The marketer in me says, “great cross-promotion and what a way to insert ownership over a show!”

        The theater practitioner in me says, “Wow, what a great example of how we should all support our artistic leaders and the artists who work with us.  Celebrate the work an artistic director (or any artistic staff) does no matter if the work was done at the institution they run or at other theaters.  Make sure a show that should have had a longer run does.  Celebrate the relationships with artists that make our institutions thrive.  And most importantly, involve our audiences in the celebration because without an audience it is just a rehearsal!”

        Rocco & the NEA – wait who is going to run Jujamcyn?

        May 13, 2009 • No Comments

        Of course the blogosphere is filled with talk about Rocco Landesman being appointed head of the NEA!  I think the over all feeling is – interesting choice that will shake things up a bit (in a good way).  I do feel that Rocco gets non-profits and it is good to have a theater person in there.  I am feeling very positive.

        But I am curious – no one seems to be asking so I will, who is going to run Jujamcyn’s five Broadway theaters?  And what about the long -rumored possible sale?

        I know that taking the NEA job isn’t a decision that one of the great businessmen (and gentlemen) of Broadway made lightly or without a plan.

        Internally you have three contenders – Paul Libin, Jack Viertel, and Jordon Roth.  But are there any dark horse candidates out there – maybe “resident director” Des McAnuff who has a strong history of commercial and non-profit or an out of left field choice the wonderful Roger Berlind (no idea if he is interested just have a ton of respect for him)?  Thoughts, guesses, wishes on any others?

        Or will we soon hear the theaters have been sold.  If I remember correctly a few months ago Michael Riedel’s column (NY POST) placed the current value around 30 million and rumored that Steven Roth (of Vornado Reality, Jordon’s father, and producer Daryl Roth’s husband) was a possible buyer.  He also noted that the market value was far below what the desired selling price from a few years ago.  And now is the time to buy real estate…

        I express concern for several reasons.  (1) I more or less like what Jujamcyn produces.  In my book they have had many more hits than misses.  (2) I expect a bit of surprise from Rocco – just seems likely.  (3) We have lost a lot of the elder statesman of Broadway recently and the business have evolved – is it time for the next generation of leadership to take over one of the big three? This could be an interesting moment if we see a significant generational shift and it would likely have a rippling effect.  After all when Landesman took the lead at the company in 1987 he the voice of a new generation – one of Broadway’s Young Turks producers – I think that was the nickname for Landesman, Harold Prince and a few others.

        Whatever happens, I am counting on Rocco to shake up the NEA and Broadway.

        Follow-up to this post.

        Relationships between commercial and nonprofit theatre primer

        May 6, 2009 • No Comments

        Partnerships between commercial theatre producers and nonprofits are becoming more and more common across the United States. Each season, I end up consulting on several of these agreements.  For better or for worse the number of people who call themselves commercial theatre producers and shop/buy shows to/from nonprofits has increased significantly.  The partnerships are happening nationwide.

        Whether developing new work or creating a new interpretation of a classic, I think it is imperative that nonprofits take the position that as original producers of a show they are entitled to significant participation in the future productions.  The strength of the negotiation position is usually derived from whether the nonprofit holds the right to the production and brings the project to a commercial partner or whether the commercial partner holds the rights.  The former is always more beneficial in negotiations.

        It is key for a nonprofit not to get trapped in the idea that these partnerships are just financial transactions – they are so much more than that.  Here are some basics!

        Simple definition of some key terms:

        Enhancement: An individual, group or entity pays the nonprofit a certain amount to produce the show usually based on costs beyond the traditional budget of the nonprofit’s production of a similar show. There is usually a rights exchange between partners. This money is considered earned revenue and is not a donation. The nonprofit would most likely have future participation as original producer.

        Non-recourse loan: An individual, group or entity “loans or guarantees” the funds or part of the funds to produce a show. The “loan” is repaid out of “net profits of the production.”  This framework is not used as often as enhancement.

        Production/producing partnership: a relationship between nonprofit and commercial theatre where there is no financial transaction but rights are assigned (usually from the commercial producer to nonprofit), but participation in future production is contractual.

        Producer: Raises funds for and “manages” commercial production. Participates in producer’s gross royalty and producer’s portion of the net (usually 50/50 split before deals), above the title billing.

        Investor: someone who gives money for a commercial production and is eligible for repayment of investment and a share of profits.

        Donor: someone who gives money to a nonprofit in exchange for tax deduction or donor benefits

        Participation: can include several terms on a future production including but not limited to, royalty, net participation, the right to raise funds for a production, billing, artistic approvals, consultation, etc.  Participation does not necessary equal money.

        Original producer’s royalty: Royalty varies, almost certainly includes gross participation (.5-2%) and can include net participation (2.5-10%). Level of participation usually depends on who has the rights and how “hot” the property is.

        It is a myth that original producer can only have a role in the commercial production if they make a financial contribution. Defining future participation is key to any production agreement.  Three most important factors to a nonprofit for any partnership in a commercial production –  billing, who has the decision to close the show, and financial participation.  Other important issues are approvals and expense/marketing decisions.

        Billing is highly contested now. Most producers will now not agree to above the title billing without financial contribution to capitalization. The status of the theatre would certainly affect the deal they can make.

        The most important, difficult, and controversial decision in any production is when to close the show.  This is the decision that can ruin relationships between partners.  The factors are not as cut and dry as how well is the show selling.  There are many things to consider: sales, awards, artist relationships, investor relationships, subsidiary rights, and additional productions such as tours.  More often than not these factors are at odds with one another.

        I encourage every nonprofit entering into an enhancement deal to make sure that they are allowed to serve as actual partners on a future production.  There are two basic models for acting as a Producer/investor in a commercial project if you are nonprofit theater – many organizations use both:

        1. Form a for-profit subsidiary and raise funds or invest organizational funds (something I would advocate against).  In this model, the nonprofit would act as any other commercial producer or associate producer would with appropriate financial participation and role in production decisions. Risk – IRS could determine income as taxable (unrelated business income), although many precedents against.

        2. Raise or invest organization funds as the organizations itself. In this model, the nonprofit would act as any other commercial producer or associate producer would with appropriate financial participation. Risk – non-profits and for-profit can not be on same level in LLC structure, so in this model the role in production decisions would have to be legally defined. It also must be very clear that investors are working with the LLC or other corporate structure they are not donors to the organization.

        Risk in either model is that the nonprofit could be asked to waive original producer’s royalty and participation, which I would fight. It is an easier fight under the first model, but the second model (my favorite) is becoming more and more preferred by many non-profits.  I don’t think an organization should consider an enhancement agreement without the right to raise a significant portion of the capitalization.  It is a right to do it, that can always be waived.  But it is very important to have a choice as to whether to participate as a producer and participate in the producers financial portion of the commercial venture.

        NOTE: There is no way for a commercial investment or enhancement to count as a donation.  If there is an exchange of rights, billing, repayment of the investment, or other benefit it is not a donation.  This is often confusing in the second instance above or with enhancement agreements.  You must know if the commercial corporation or partnership that is going to be formed is going to account for the enhancement in it’s capitalization – if it is it cannot be counted as a donation in any way.  Without question how funds are designated enhancement (which is earned revenue) or donations needs to be established up front and in writing and can’t be switched back and forth based on how a show does.

        An issue a nonprofit should address before working with a commercial producer or transferring a show is whether Board of Trustees/Directors membership can be investors or producers in commercial productions:  If the nonprofit theatre does not benefit in financial participation (for example it is not the organization’s show or the organization doesn’t participate beyond original producer’s credit), its role in the production or in billing, investment in any commercial production is considered a potential conflict of interest that must be disclosed, but is not normally consider a problem. If the organization is producer or as associate producer how board members who are commercial producer or want to invest in a commercial production might be a part of a production: (1) Enhancement of a production; (2) separate investment in production in which theatre is participating in (beyond original producer’s credit); (3) the Board member can serve only as supporting investors or partners in a production not competitors (in other words any funds from board members count towards money raised by the organization as part of their producer’s participation as seen in model two above).  Most theatres restrict the first two significantly.  Obviously the third is the most ideal for the nonprofit theatre.  Any participation in a commercial venture would require Board member to withdraw themselves from all votes and decisions regarding production or in some cases, a board will require a leave or absence.

        Should note in terms of moving forward, a board traditionally would vote on the participation in the project but like all producing efforts the commercial participation in decisions and day to day operations would be limited to leadership staff.

        Also it is important to say that this primer is exactly that.  If your organization doesn’t have a strong history with these types of deals or a strong negotiator – hire one.  These deals can have a tremendous impact on an organization and you don’t want to be negotiating after the fact or regretting the deal you signed.  These contract are among the most complicated that a nonprofit can enter into and can if done incorrectly threaten the nonprofit status of an organization.  Make sure you negotiate smart and thoroughly.

        If you are a commercial producer, rather than thinking you should just negotiate the opposite of all of the above, I encourage you to consider all that the nonprofit adds to the production and the fact that a good negotiation means that everyone walks away feeling good about the partnership.  Nonprofits also have board members and donors who may be part of your future investor pool – this is more common than most people realize.  It is also important to remember that theater folks tend to talk about relationships good and bad.  I have certainly heard about deals that haven’t worked out well or other stories about how great a partner someone has been.  Word travels fast in our community.  And as more and more of these deals happen and as expenses keep rising the commercial world needs the nonprofit world for a lot of project development.  This is one of the few situations where everyone can win if everyone works together with goodwill.

        If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).