off-stage right

William Hanney seems to be on a mission to convert failed nonprofit producing theatre companies into working ventures.

He came to my attention during the on-going negotiations in Stratford, CT regarding the old Shakespeare theatre building there.  I should note that is still a project in process and has run into some serious backlash from local officials.  Now it seems he is buying North Shore Music Theatre’s space that was foreclosed on.

I have been following the North Shore mess because its demise is a case study in how not to respond to a crisis.  My first round of frustration was expressed in my post North Shore Music Theatre was disaster waiting to happen and the fall-out gives a bad name to theater everywhere. I thought and still feel that someone should take responsibility.

According to the local paper’s (The Salem News) article:

Hanney owns Theatre by the Sea in Matunuck, R.I., as well as Entertainment Cinemas, a chain of 10 movie theaters in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut. He said he is confident he can return musical theater to the Dunham Road location by running a leaner operation than North Shore Music Theatre, which went out of business in June due to financial problems and was taken over by Citizens Bank.

The Boston Globe reports:

Hanney has made a habit of buying closed or distressed properties and quickly reviving them.

Those purchases include Theatre By the Sea, a summer-stock house in Matunuck, R.I.; Fresh Pond Cinema in Cambridge; and Falmouth Cinema Pub.

Like North Shore, Theatre By the Sea produces musicals, though on a far smaller scale and not year-round. Its upcoming season includes “A Chorus Line,’’ “Little Shop of Horrors,’’ and “Hello, Dolly!’’ There is also a restaurant on site….

He didn’t give positive reviews to the organization’s business structure.

“It was just so top-heavy,’’ he said. “It just had too many people. It was unnecessary. We do [theater] every single year at Theatre By the Sea. We get great reviews and we make money every single year. We run a very successful 200-seat restaurant, which also makes money.’’But Theatre By the Sea is a much smaller operation, with 500 seats to North Shore’s 1,500.

That doesn’t concern former artistic director Jon Kimbell, who has met with Hanney several times leading up to the sale.

I don’t know Hanney or Theatre by the Sea, so I can’t really comment on the likelihood of his success with North Shore.  Looking at Theatre by the Sea’s website I sure looks like generic “summer” theatre fare (and I mean this is that frothy musicals done not so great with a TV star from the seventies or eighties like the guy who played Carmine on Laverne and Shirley.  It seems like Hanney is lining himself up to recreate something along the old straw hat circuit that Jim Mackenzie successfully produced for years on the east coast, but Hanney seems to not have the stars that Mackenzie had instead it seems more often or not it is someone who has done a show or two in NYC and is billed as a New York actor.

My question is do we really need more theatres like this?  Are there really enough audiences over 60 to fill these theatres.  Sure most people may think there isn’t much harm in this type of producing and certainly there is a place for it, but too much of it simply dumbs down theatre and turns off future audiences.

First and foremost, Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s difficult not to think of all of the things I have to be grateful for.  They far out weigh any of the things in my life that I find challenging.

But it got me thinking.  This has been a really challenging year for the theatre industry.  We are still facing an uphill battle as we go into the new year, but we have so much as an industry to be thankful for:

1.  Several nonprofits theatres are not only thriving but producing some of the best and most ambitious work out in years.  Take Hartford Stage and Signature Theatre’s ambitious undertaking of Horton Foote’s nine play The Orphans’ Home Cycle or the Guthrie’s Kushner Festival.  Chicago’s theatre scene is thriving.  Seattle’s scene seems to be undergoing a renaissance.  From coast to coast many theatres are refocusing on mission and on creating great art.  They are facing the financial challenges, re-engaging audiences, and finding a way to continue bringing theatre to audiences of every age group and ethnicity.

2.  Rocco leading the NEA is certainly something to celebrate.  His first interview stirred up some controversy, but since then his batting average has been near perfect.  Rocco Landesman is without question the most exciting thing to ever happen to the NEA.  His recent speech at the Grantmakers for the Arts Conference outlined his initial agenda and is well worth the read.  The Arts Work  blog is also a must read.

3.  The Obama administration in particular Michelle Obama has proven to have an interest and understanding of the arts.  For the first time in a long time we have a leader who can appreciate the value of the arts.

4.  Bloggers are sparking fabulous conversations about the arts.  With newspaper coverage dwindling the real discussion about the arts is happen in the blogosphere.  Independent bloggers like Leonard Jacobs at The Clyde Fitch Report, Isaac Butler at Parabasis are delving into key issues we are facing.  One could get a graduate degree by reading Ian David Moss’ Create Equity.  There are far too many other great folks out there to list (check out the blogroll) – which is why I started posting my favorite posts each week.  I get most of my news from Broadwaystars.com (you know you do too).

5. Social Networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are changing the way we reach our audiences.  Commercial and nonprofit theatre has been embracing this new form of communication.   The arts also have a real opportunity to lead the way in utilizing social networking platforms.  Twitter has had a huge impact on my day to day work.  Art is even being created via facebook (Fatebook) and Twitter (Next to Normal’s new song).

6.  No other TV show has ever had the potential impact that Glee has.  The starts of musical theatre are front and center and gaining more and more fame.  The show celebrates show tunes, performance, all of the positive effects of the arts.  It makes being in the arts cool!

7.  This one will probably generate a bit of disagreement but we have to be thankful for stars on Broadway and off-Broadway.  Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, James Gandolfini, Marcia Gay Harden, Hope Davis and Jeff Daniels not only broke box office records, but collectively they were responsible for keeping the straight play on Broadway this fall.  Lots of folks complain producers only wanting shows with stars, but if you look at the list of producers on these shows, you will find that they are the same producers who are on shows like The Norman Conquests and Mary Stuart.  If investors weren’t making money on star vehicles they wouldn’t be as likely to take a leap of faith on more risky propositions. 

So today I got a little angry hearing for the umpteenth time about some theatre complaining about not getting the audience they wanted to get.  Okay a little angry is an understatement.

Does it really need to be said AGAIN that the first place to look if you aren’t getting the audience you want is at the work you are producing?  Why do we keep blaming the audiences first?

This particular theatre was producing a very traditional season – a classic (and old musical) that from their production history and choice of director will undoubtedly be produced at a decent level but with absolutely no surprises; three “classic” plays again no innovation expected but I am sure they will be more or less solid productions and a play that was off-Broadway recently that will be done at 100s of theatres this year.  Sadly, dear readers you can’t guess which theatre I am talking about because this describes the season of many of the professional theatres in this country.

And for some reason this theatre is surprised that they are getting the average audience – upper middle class, white, and well-educated?

How in the world can they be surprised?  Year after year their season looks the same – just the titles change.  How can you grow your audience if you don’t grow your work? 

In the last month hot topics in the blogosphere have been getting younger audiences and diversity.  Lots of folks are saying exactly what I am saying in this post – so how come it isn’t getting through to the theatre leadership?  Of course there is a lot of work to be done about getting folks to experience the arts at an earlier age and tons of work to be done relating to audiences of different ethnicities and cultures – but before you can do any of that you have to start with the work itself.

Right now Glee is probably doing more to promote theatre than most of the theatres in the country at least musical theatre but here’s hoping Rachel and Finn give a go at the school’s production of an inspired take on Romeo and Juliet or better yet a student production of some fabulous new work – if they do maybe in one episode they can save theatre for us all! 

Recently I witnessed a major CEO speaking at a relatively informal event.  This CEO had been making all the rounds trying to reposition a well-known brand.  While speaking with this small group, a compliment was paid to the CEO.  The knee-jerk response from the CEO was to blurt out the well practiced messaging that had been said over and over in the last month.

The problem was that the compliment that was paid was reflective of the actual brand not of the new planning or the marketing message.  And it ended up that that person who paid the compliment was insulted by the CEO’s response.  This resulted in a very uncomfortable situation.  I have been thinking about this a lot.  Certainly the CEO didn’t mean to insult the audience at hand?  So if it wasn’t deliberate was it simply that the CEO simply wasn’t really listening because the focus was on the message?

Now this got me thinking about messaging.  Messaging reached far beyond marketing at a nonprofit.  Our existence depends on clear consistent messaging – doesn’t it?  At nonprofits we spend a lot of time making sure everyone is on message.  There are a lot of folks who represent the organization, leadership, staff, board, and volunteers and it is vital that everyone sings from the same songbook as the saying goes.  A lot depends on our message to our communities.

But can all this messaging get in the way of listening? 

If our answers are too practiced, too canned, too automatic are we really paying attention to the people we are interacting with?  In an effort to get everyone on the same page have we lost the opportunity for dialogue? 

A central message is vital, but perhaps it is better to ask if the mission and core values are concise and clear enough that they “live” inside of each person and therefore you have time to focus on the conversation not on memorizing your message.

Rocco’s address last month at the Grantmakers in the Arts conference got a lot of attention.  Here is the entire text.  Good read.

I actually use Twitter a lot in my day to day life, mostly for work.  Whether I am tweeting about a show I am working on and therefore promoting, looking for topics to blog about or just reading tweets to take a break from a more trying task, I find it to be the most useful of the social networking platforms.  My name is Jodi, and I am a proud Twitter addict.  So why do I love Twitter so much?

1. It is a great way to keep up with the latest news about my industry – theatre and the arts.  Over the last year Twitter has become one of my top news sources for work (and often for other topics as well).  Of course daily digests like Tom Cott’s You’ve Cott Mail and Arts Journal are still a must and without question, I check Broadway Stars periodically throughout each day, but I find that Twitter delivers the top headlines from the major newspapers and all the blogs.  more often than not if I miss an interesting article or posting someone re-Tweets it and brings it to my attention.  When it comes to events – like Presidential addresses , awards shows, or Industry conferences – how you experience the event is completely changed.  Back in June I wrote a post about how the entire experience of the Theatre Communications Group annual conference and the Tony Awards changed completely (for the better because of Twitter).

2. I have had some wonderful conversations on Twitter.  Certainly the most lively one surrounded Rocco Landesman’s “Peoria-Gate.” But even the quick small exchanges about what someone thought of a show – especially one of mine – have been delightful and insightful.  These conversations have even led to expanded relationships.  For example one follower sent me a direct message asking if I would share some of my career advice which resulted in a great hour long dialogue on the phone.  Another follower who I had several conversations is now a regular lunch date when he is in New York seeing theatre.  Another is helping me redesign my blog’s look (stay tuned for more on that).  These are all folks I would never have met without Twitter.

3.  It is a great way to share all of those little things that are interesting but don’t warrant a press release or would otherwise never be put out into the world.  Sure some folks think we are over-sharing and some folks are, but when it comes to shows or nonprofit theatre, I love hearing the inside scoop. 

4.  It’s fun.  In addition to my work-related tweets, the folks I follow provide delicious commentary on my favorite TV shows, insider info on shows, and lots of witty insight.

5.  You can walk away from it for a few days and when you come back it’s like you never left.  Twitter doesn’t take too much commitment.  If you are really busy and can’t check it for several days, it will still be there when you get back.   you may miss a few interesting tweets, but if you want you can search a topic and see what you missed or you can just join in mid-stream.

For those of you who don’t get the point or find it all overwhelming, I suggest giving it a try for a while.  It took me a few weeks to fall in love with it.  You can check out my tweets by clicking on the tab at the left of this post, if you find them interesting – please follow me.  For several more postings on twitter just follow this link.

Over at marketing guru Seth’s Blog a few days, I read the below and it has stuck in my mind for a while.

The platform vs. the eyeballs

This might be the most subtle yet important shift that marketers face as they deal with the reality of new media. Marketers aren’t renters, now they own.

For generations, marketers were trained to buy (actually rent) eyeballs.

A media company assembled a large amount of attention. A TV network or a magazine or even a billboard company found a place you can put an ad, and they sold you a shot at reaching their audience.

You, the marketer, don’t care about the long-term value of this audience. It’s like a rental car. You want it to be clean and shiny when you get it, you want to avoid getting in trouble when you return it, but hey, it’s a rental.

And so when we buy ads, we ask, "how big an audience" and then we design an ad with our brand in mind, not with the well-being of the media company or its audience in mind. And if we get a .1% or even a 1% response rate, we celebrate.

A trade show booth is an example of eyeball thinking. The trade show organizer assembles attendees and your job at the booth is to grab as many as you can.

Old media was not the same as old branding. Media companies built audiences and then brands rented those audiences.

Suddenly the new media comes along and the rules are different. You’re not renting an audience, you’re building one. You’re not exhibiting at a trade show, you’re starting your own trade show.

If you still ask, "how much traffic is there," or "what’s the CPM?" you’re not getting it. Are you buying momentary attention or are you investing in a long term asset?

Now, when you buy something (that thing you used to call ‘media’), you’re not paying for eyeballs, you’re paying for a platform. A platform you can use to build your own audience, one that you can nurture, educate and ultimately convert. You’ll take care of this audience differently, measure them differently and have a different sales cycle. This isn’t natural, but it works.

The rest of the post addresses shifting from capturing immediate, short-term attention to building an audience for a platform and the “expense” of doing so, but what stuck with me and kept gnawing at my at my brain is this – if new media and expanding marketing platforms are all about building audiences, loyalty and extended communication methods, why aren’t the arts leading the way with this technology? 

Arts institutions have been doing nothing but building audiences for years.

This reminds me of all the branding discussions that ever organization was having a few years ago.  I was completely frustrated by all of the consultants who were telling arts organizations to work on their brands as institutions and offering very expensive services to help do so – institutional branding is intuitive to an arts organization as is audience development, if they aren’t being done well it is a due to leadership failure/lack of focus/poor allocation of resources.  All arts institutions have a brand and all arts institutions income (earned and contributed) is based in audience development.  The quality of these can depend on a lot of things – and that is a different post (and goodness knows I have spent a lot of the blog talking about those relationships that build loyalty, institutional awareness and yes, brand).  For the sake of this post let’s say you accept that statement as an inherent characteristics of an arts organizations.  if that is the case, than why aren’t the arts leading the way in new media?

We have an abundance of creativity in our institutions.  We have a large contingent of young staff members and volunteers to whom this technology is integral to their communication and day to day lives. Most importantly, we have been thinking about and working on audience development for ages, we don’t have to change our way of thinking in any way!  We just have to play with the new technology and use it as a creative tool for expanding our marketing efforts.

I have written dozens of posts about the great initiatives organizations have been taking.  I have tweeted hundreds of articles on the subject.  So why aren’t we the leading innovators in new media?

• Is it that we are doing a lot of the work and not getting credit?
• Is it that we are afraid of change so we haven’t channeled our creative resources to this new form?
• Is it about lack of budget or human resources?
• Is it that the leaders of major institutions are slightly older and not utilizing the technology the way their younger staff members, artists, and volunteers are?
• Are we so insecure in our own value that we look to other industries for ideas rather than exploring the Wild West of new media ourselves?

The creative process has been utilized in business theory for years.  The definition of learning organizations could be the definition of the process of creating new work in many arts organization.  Ensemble companies, directors and actors have created wonderful workshops for commercial business that use the skills of artists to make better leaders and business people, but it took a long time for folks to realize this and to take credit for it. 

Let’s not let old school practices, our own fear or insecurities, or lack of respect of the arts as a business from the corporate world hold us back in exploring and leading the way with this new technology and taking the credit for it.  Let’s be bold in our ideas and take pride in our work.

New media is about communication and relationships – this is what the arts are about.

So I am hoping that some day soon, I open my favorite magazine, Harvard Business Review, and I find a case study or article about how other industries can learn from the arts and how arts organizations have blazed a new trail in the use of new media.  Let’s go for it.

In addition to a fabulous production of Morris Panych’s Vigil (playing at the DR2 in Union Square – get tickets while you can right here), I have been spending day and night with the lovely ladies working on Nora and Delia Ephron’s Love Loss and What I Wore – on the show, I am “wearing a couple of hats” as they saying goes, but as part of the general management team I am at each performance and in all of the rehearsals and it has been one of the most fun and exciting shows I have had the pleasure of working on. The show has been fabulously received – links to the full reviews on the show’s sight but a few quotes below.   Each performance is a sell out, we have set box office records at the theatre, and we have extended through March of 2010.  It has been wonderful to be a part of both shows and the revitalized off-Broadway scene.

Love Loss is this collection of stories is based on the best-selling book by Ilene Beckerman, as well as on the recollections of the Ephrons’ friends. Like the popular book, Love, Loss, and What I Wore uses clothing and accessories and the memories they trigger to tell funny and often poignant stories that all women can relate to. The production will continue to be performed by a rotating cast of five all-star actors, who will perform in four-week cycles

Check out the full reviews but as promised a few quotes:

“THIS ONE SHOW THRILLS ALL!”
NY Daily News

 

“A GREAT SHOW IS ALWAYS IN FASHION!” NY1

 

“FUNNY AND POIGNANT!”
A.P.

 

“PITCH-PERFECT!”
AM New York

 

“AMUSING AND TOUCHING!”
Bergen Record

 

“GET TICKETS! YOU WILL HAVE SUCH A GOOD TIME!”
Joan Hamburg, WOR

Make sure you come as see one of the many talented casts – I am willing to bet you will want to see more than one.  The first cast which finished performances tomorrow includes Samantha Bee, Tyne Daly, Katie Finnegan, Natasha Lyonne and Rosie O’Donnell.  Monday we start rehearsals with Mary Birdsong, Lisa Joyce, Jane Lynch, Mary Louise Wilson, and Tyne Daly will be returning but in a different part.  Four weeks later we have Kristin Chenoweth, Lucy Devito, Capathia Jenkins, Rhea Perlman and Rita Wilson.  To be able to work so closely with such amazing actors is astounding – not to mention two of the most talented writers on the planet – Nora and Delia Ephron.  The entire team that producer Daryl Roth has put together makes going to work each day a joy.  And I truly love it.

I am also proud to be a part of a production and creative team that is filled with and led women.  There are only 6 men on the main team – partnered with 24 women working on the show.  Considering all the recent talk about women in theatre (and the fact that the majority of theatre audiences are female), it is pretty fabulous that a show about women is being driven by women.  Theatre for women by women – but boys don’t worry you will laugh a lot and learn a lot, in a good way!

So come check out Love Loss and What I Wore at the Westside get tickets at www.telecharge.com – and please find me at the show and say hello!

During my years in nonprofit theatre I ventured into the commercial/for profit theatre world fairly often with successful shows that transferred into commercial runs.  However this fall I took a full leap into commercial producing and general management by working on two fantastic shows.

This new adventure began because of my cherished friendship with someone who I believe to be the best commercial producer in the business today, Daryl Roth.

Daryl and I first worked together on Maggie Edson’s Wit and then continued working together on and off in different ways for the last 10 years.  Her taste in projects is impeccable.  Her treatment of everyone on a production from the running crew to the stars to the creative team is legendary.  For years she has offered advice and guidance that is always spot on and I have always considered myself lucky to know and work with her.  Needless to say when starting a new venture there is nothing better than working with someone you trust, respect, and know you can learn from.

I have always argued that there aren’t that many differences between commercial and nonprofit theatre and the last two months have more or less proven that to be true.  Of course as I said I have dabbled in the for-profit, with several shows where the theatres I worked for were full producers, investors, or  participated as original producers of a show.  I have dealt with countless developmental projects and enhancement projects (check out this handy guide to enhancement).  So I was arguing that the two were similar from a point of knowledge and the last two months spent fully in the commercial world have just given me more ammunition for my arguments.

What I find funny is that many folks who work in nonprofit theatre see the for-profit landscape as more complicated and more challenging and many in the for-profit world often look down at the nonprofit universe as less important or less business-like or just plain less skilled.  Not surprisingly these folks (on both sides) are just plain wrong.

The line between the for-profit theatre and the nonprofit theatre has been blurred for a very long time and frankly in many ways it has almost disappeared.  This has resulted in some good things and some bad things – like any change does.  In New York folks have moved back and forth between the two for years and increasingly across the country this is becoming more common.

So what are the differences?

First and most obvious is the legal structure – and now is a good idea to note that nonprofit doesn’t actually have to do with whether a profit is made.  Simply put, a commercial production/entity has investors who put money into the project any and all profits of said venture are distributed amongst the producers and investors – and now is a good time to note that a producer doesn’t legally have to put money in a show they are responsible for raising the money although more often than not they do put some investment into a show because sharing the risk with your investors helps you raise money.  In a nonprofit corporate all profits of any venture are put back into the nonprofit corporation, again simply put, no individual benefits financially from the profits.  This means you have to deal with annual audits and different tax structures.  Of course this applies to all commercial and nonprofit businesses.

The second factor that differentiates the two and is more specific to theatre is that in a nonprofit theatre you have some sort of “institution that is governed by a board” (and I use the loosest definition of “institution” as possible here) that you have to manage and run.  Whether this involves staff, volunteers, a building or what not you have to deal with it.  The nonprofit theatre’s “institution” always comes with a Board of Directors/Trustees because the IRS requires this as part of the legal formation of a nonprofit.  A for-profit entity in the theatre world can be one person or it can be have many folks in the leadership structure (usually an Limited Liability Corporation).  There is no board although there are managing leaders for the corporation.  An “institution” also has to deal with long-term audience development and community relations because theoretically it wants to exist for a long time.  A commercial show is a one shot deal, although they cultivate audiences it isn’t on the same long-term basis.  Although I should note some producers have built up enough of a “brand” that they can and have managed to cultivate an audience following of their work.  As an institution you also tend to have more regular staff or volunteers whereas a commercial producers may have folks they regularly work with on occasion they don’t have full time marketing departments, production personnel, etc.on the payroll for multiple shows – although this is slowly evolving as well.

The third key difference is that investors in commercial productions sometimes are paid back their investment in part or in whole and share in the company’s profits (and losses).  Nonprofits can solicit tax deductible contributions from donors.

And that is about it for differences.  When it comes to getting a show up and running the process is almost exactly the same.  What I have confirmed over the last two months is that producing a show is just that.  The same concerns and problems that come up with nonprofit shows come up with commercial productions.  The same highs and lows of audience and reviewer response exist in both.  And the same love and commitment to the art-form thrives in both worlds.

So which am I going to stick with?  I think I will be right there on that blurry line as it disappears.  I love what I am doing right now.   I have two shows running and one in development.  I am still consulting with nonprofits and loving working with them.  There are even more worlds that I have dabbled in and could further explore – other art forms – dance, film, music, and – yes I am calling it an art form – television.  The greatest gift of the current times is the crisis-i-tunity we are are all in.  It is a time to explore who and what we are and what we do.  And now more than ever it is a time for art and pop culture to create work that is challenging, entertaining and thought-provoking and I don’t need a label from the IRS to do that.

For the last two months, I have been very busy with two shows opening off-Broadway and another in pre-production, so I have fallen behind in my blogging and in my reading (which is of course what inspires most of my blogging).

You can read about Morris Panych’s Vigil that is playing at the DR2 in Union Square here.

I am grateful that folks have kept checking back and have been emailing me asking when I would pick up posting again!  I want to thank all those that wrote me for your kind words and encouragement.  It was great to hear your thoughts and to know that you appreciated the blog.

I have also been catching up on my reading so this week there will be a long list of interesting articles and news from the last month and regular updates to the What’s being discussed in the blogosphere section (added to that last night so check it out)

I promise from here on out to get back in the groove and promise that in the coming months there will be some exciting developments for Off-Stage Right. 

Thanks for sticking with me!