When Good PR Happens to Bad Shows, continued

I'm grateful for all the comments to Friday's post reflecting on the widening gap between press buzz and quality in certain Off-Off productions I've been seeing.

So provocative are they I will try to address them one by one...

YS--I agree that word of mouth ultimately trumps all bought and paid for chatter. Professional producers learn that very quickly. Which is why you can't fool all the audience all the time.

Parabasis--I think we have very different definitions of "Payola." A newspaper printing a review by a professional critic who was invited by the production to attend press night is not Payola by any widely used definition. Payola is when those behind the "product" (like a CD, to use the industry from whence the term originates) pay media outlets in either cash or goods (i.e. free stuff) in clear expectation of positive media exposure.

Indeed I did write previously about "payola" issues in theatre blogdom...but I was explicitly taking off from the case of a fansite raving about "Drowsy Chaperone" after getting free tix. I don't think that situation is analgous either to those of us bloggers who try to do honest "criticism", or to print outlets who simply "review shows."

The key distinction between Payola and just free tickets is: a) are you free to write what you want, and b) how locked in you are to having to give exposure to the product at all. Yes, b) can be a shady grey area, I admit. The bigger the show is (and the producers and pr folk are) the greater price you'll pay for taking their tickets and not printing a review. Still--that's a long way from play this track on your radio show, say it's "rad", and we'll pay you $$$. (Or as it's known in its political form: the Armstrong Williams scenario.).

In short the issues are quid pro quo, and who's paying who. Now some might say theatre criticism is still compromised by the free tix and can only be objective if they're paid for. I'm proud to say I still buy many of my tickets myself to what I write about here. But obviously if I were full time, that would bankrupt me! (Especially if I were to buy seats that actually allowed me to appreciate the show!) So I have no problem in principle, say, of a newspaper itself buying the tix. But I don't imagine that would increase the number of shows reviewed.

(FYI, here's the Wikipedia definition of Payola.)

JW--Personally I see no problem with "heteronormative eye candy"! If only "Linnea" offered some actually pleasing version of it.

Which also was my problem with the "Tryst" ads. From what I gathered from the response, it was a bit of a "bait & switch." Erotic stimulation is one of the most basic stimulations theatre can provide. But when its cheaply invoked just to cover up a square and fumbling script or production, it's laughable.... So, no, I don't think the two points are analogous.

And besides, I see nothing wrong with some graphics (any graphics) on this blog to offer something more eye catching than my ranting black-on-grey prose.

Aaron--If by "ill-produced" you mean simply low-budget, then I'm not saying they shouldn't be reviewed for that reason. As simple and naive as it sounds, I just wish that "good" shows would get reviewed more (and more exposure) than "bad" shows. (And, yes for now I guess I just mean "good" and "bad" in the reviewer's opinion. But I swear the shows I'm talking about there would be a fair consensus about as to professional standards, at least. Even Martin Denton, for instance, panned "Billboard"!) My futile complaint was simply against the "bad" shows that somehow masquerade as "good" thanks only to savvy pr and expensive posters. My complaint is not that they shouldn't exist, but that media outlets should just not be susceptible in falling for the tricks.

Then again, as David Cote admirably concedes, the outlets aren't stupid, they're often just "playing the game." It's a dance between the pr and the press, where both parties know the product may not always be up to par.

On the other hand, I actually agree with what Aaron says about there being some obligation to cover what's "on the radar" if for no other reason that if it's out there, people may be buying tickets! In other words, "Tryst" may win by buying all that attention. But if you're a critic and you feel a responsibility to the public, then it's a good thing if you review it and tell people "save your money and order-in Adult Spice on cable if you want that kind of stimulation." Or better yet--go see this other really good play you haven't seen posters for.

Cashmere-- "Stenography" is exactly what drives me up a wall, and the fault we have to watch out for. I see it most in the "features" and "profiles" that preceede a big opening.

Alison-- I very much like the "canary in the mineshaft" analogy for critics. And if there were truly unlimited space, then I would think it fair to review all shows no matter how dubious.... But alas, that seems less and less possible, especially in NYC given the vast number of productions plus the shrinking arts coverage.

So how are the selections to be made, eh?

David's points about the value of professionalism press rep's can provide is not negligable. He also made the good point to me personally that, as a critic, it's a very good thing to have a reliable contact that reserves your seat and gets you the info you need. A lot of ragtag companies have trouble doing that on their own.

Before you write off this concern as snobbery, consider what it's like when you're seeing (for your job) several shows a week....And forget about when the limo isn't even on time!

LASTLY... I'll leave you with this. Instead of picking on little Off-B'way fare, let me suggest that I don't even think the NYT should have covered In My Life. Or the Suzanne Sommers one-woman freakshow. The only thing that separates them from community theatre is about 4 or 5 decimal points.