The Public's Hard Sell

OK, I'm really, really trying hard not to sound like a conspiracy theorist on this. But bear with me.

Just yesterday I reported on the Times running a detailed article Sunday on what it's like to wait on line for Mother Courage tickets. Then, minutes, after I posted that, I heard the Times radio station digest the story, highlighting the frantic bidding for scalped tickets for CraigsList.

So imagine the eerie feeling I had opening my inbox this morning, when I get a message from the Times' "TicketWatch"--a recent internet advertising service by the paper, often offering ticket discounts via email--promoting what else but the Public's $150 Summer Sponsorships!

So whether coordinated or not, the message to NY Times readers, WQXR listeners, and TicketWatch subscribers (the perfect nexus of the well-to-do NYC cultural audience) is clearly: "You've heard about the massive lines. And the scalping. Now here's how you really get a ticket, and write it off!"

I understood that the Public was ramping up its promotion of the sponsorships this year. And it's appeared in some print ads for the Delacorte shows. But this email blast is the most aggressive I've seen. I was also surprised because the Public press office told me, when I asked how the sponsorships were selling that they had almost none left. That was two weeks ago.

It's possible then that the purpose of this campaign at this late date (the show end September 3) is not so much to raise money for this year as to plant this in the minds of those who can afford it for next year. In other words, this is becoming a fixture. And--to judge from the ad and from the fact yesterday's article didn't mention them--people still don't generally know about these sponsorships. Just what will happen when the demand for these gets high? Especially if the Public ratches up the star quotient and keeps raising the buzz profile of the productions even more. And, at this point, the have every incentive to do so. And so on, and so on.

On the one hand, you certainly can't accuse them of keeping this a secret. The transparency is there. But still, I still think there's a lot to question on the principles of the whole enterprise, even though I seem to still be out on a limb on this one.

Think about this, for instance: the drive to sell more sponsorships is a drive to raise more money for the shows. In other words, to raise the budget. Yes, the cost of doing any large cast professional show in NYC is getting higher and higher. But it's clear from watching the last few years of shows that we have more high-salaried stars on stage and more toys for directors to play with. (Both elements came together most memorably watching a miscast Julia Stilles negotiate her way down Brian Kulick's inexplicable "Twelfth Night" waterslide.)

Yes, good actors sometimes are famous and need to be paid well. Yes, I'm for directorial freedom. But have we forgotten the simple fact that Shakespeare's original outdoor theatre had no scenery? Has the irony totally escaped us of, in the present case, a fundraising frenzy over a work by the man who is one of the heroes of "poor theatre"? (Not to mention a dire foe of capitalism.) The Public has taken it as a given that the budget for the Delacorte shows must keep rising because of a programming decision--an artistic decision--to produce lavish commercial-worthy shows there. If they remembered Joe Papp's initial spirit of doing Shakespeare in the Park out of a truck, maybe they wouldn't have to hawk so many $150 "indulgences" by luring the wealthy with the promise of not having to sweat in line with the rest of us, and then an extra 200 or so people might be able to get in each night for free.

By the way, the show itself officially opens tonight. Which makes this confluence of marketing and hype building no coincidence. Funny how the reviews will matter now. In the past, the Public stood to make no profit anyway, so they had no financial impact. But you can bet that folks contemplating putting down $150 a seat will check them out. Fingers are crossed, no doubt, in the development office over there. (Worth pointing out here the price is only $100 for those who subscribe to the whole season.)

Meanwhile, here's the text of the TicketWatch ad. For space, I edited out some things like the credits, cast list, etc.

TicketWatch: Don't Miss Meryl Streep and Kevin Kline in Mother Courage!

HELP CONTINUE THE PUBLIC THEATER'S TRADITION OF FREE SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK!

Become a Summer Sponsor Today!*

Each Summer Sponsorship is a 100% tax-deductible donation to The Public Theater's Shakespeare in The Park and entitles you to one reserved seat to Mother Courage and Her Children!

MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN

By Bertolt Brecht
Translated by Tony Kushner
Original music by Jeanine Tesori
Directed by George C. Wolfe
FEATURING: Raul Aranas[etc. ...]

In Brecht's seminal work we follow Mother Courage over a period of 12 years as one by one her children Kattrin, Eilif and Swiss Cheese are taken away by a vicious war. As Mother Courage seeks to profit from the war that is killing her children, she questions the roles of honesty, virtue and family in the face of a bitter struggle for survival.

NOW PLAYING THRU SEPTEMBER 3!
Tues - Sun at 8 at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park

3 EASY WAYS TO BECOME A SUMMER SPONSOR: BY PHONE: Call the box office at 212-260-2400

ONLINE: Order online by clicking here

IN PERSON: Visit The Public Theater box office, 425 Lafayette Street. Box office hours: Tues-Sat 1-7:30pm, Sun & Mon 1-6pm

Summer Sponsors provide support for one of New York's most beloved summer
traditions and help keep Shakespeare in the Park free for new generations. Summer Sponsors may reserve seats for select performances of Shakespeare in the Park for a contribution of $150 per seat. These reserved seats are available only as long as supplies last to assure that the highest number of free seats are available for the general public on the day of the show.

*Certain black out dates apply. Summer Sponsorships are subject to availability. For information on FREE tickets, visit publictheater.org

ABOUT TICKETWATCH TicketWatch is an insider advertising e-mail providing special offers to the hottest shows on Broadway and beyond. Buy your event tickets online and look up venue information and seating maps with Theater Directory from NYTimes.com.

HOW TO ADVERTISEFor information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please visit our online media kit at: http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue NewYork, NY 10018

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

I'm sure part of the rationale for the program is that people now spend upwards of $100 for theatre tickets all the time. Not only for Broadway, but for the Public's summer rival, as it were, the Lincoln Center Festival, which has become the totally unabashed rich arts snob destination, charging $100 and up for the Synge and Mnouchkine marathons this year and last respectively. Wealthy people (and even me!) increasingly demonstrate the willingness to pay that much for what they perceive as a special event. So from the development/marketing end, this is a no-brainer for the Public. But it still disturbs me this is exactly the same mentality with which Broadway producers justified the $00+ "Premium" tickets--which many agreed was a problem! In short: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

My advice: Go for the $45 tix on CraigsList. If you can still find some.

NYT on "The Line"

"Nothing is free in New York. Not even free theater."

They said it. Otherwise, just another portrait of the Mother Courage line as wacky adventure, in the Sunday Times metro section. (But on the theatre page online.)

Interesting info on the current CraigsList trade in tickets. But no mention of the more legit black market-esque "Sponsor" deal offered by the Public itself.

UPDATE: This story just got picked up by the Times radio station, WQXR, on their 7pm headlines. Funny, all they mentioned was the Craigslist sales! (Expect massive trolling going on there tonight...)

A prediction is suddenly coming to me--the scalping will become the story of Mother Courage this summer, and the Public will, for the first time, have to address it. I'm sure it's always happened, but the 2001 "Seagull" was before the age of CraigsList. If there's some outcry against the unfairness of being beaten out on line by scalpers, the Public will have to respond and possibly change some policies, no?

Delacorte follow-up

Much thanks to the spirited comments on my complaints over the theory and practice of the Public's Free Shakespeare in the Park. I suppose I should offer some more constructive criticism, rather than just taking down what the Public does. And I also might as well state the "glass-half-full" sentiment that it is (in the abstract, at least) a good thing that over 30,000 people will see a major production of "Mother Courage" for free this summer. I readily acknowledge that fact.

But it is worth continuing to question how the Public handles this great responsibility the city has given it, in leasing to them the Delacorte Theatre in Central Park. Since this arrangement apparently necessitates that 75% of the tickets are distributed at no charge to the general population, then charging anything--even a more ultimately democratic $15 for everyone--is probably not a realistic alternative, at least not without a complete renegotiation of the lease. Still, for those of us unsatisfied with how the ticket distribution currently works, there's plenty of room for thought experiments and other tinkering suggestions.

Reader "Cashmere," for instance, suggested the following:

Why wouldn't it make sense for The Public to go to TicketWeb, TicketCentral and the other local ticketing companies and let them bid on the opportunity to handle ticketing for the Delacorte shows? The Public could include the following caveats (among others):

A) Tickets need to be available by phone; over the internet; and in-person in all five boroughs.

B) The service charge per ticket would have to be $1 or less, payable by cash or credit card.

C) Some sort of non-transferability screening process would have to be
implemented to avoid scalping.

As an enticement, The Public could offer to put the logo of the ticketing vendor on all the Shakespeare in the Park posters.Wouldn't one of these companies bite--if only for the press/publicity value? If they did, the upshot would be $1 tickets, without the lines.

I personally like the idea of "mixing & matching" more, offering a variety of ways of getting tickets. Some handed out "day of," some reservable over phone/online, some by lottery. I mean, with 1880 seats a night, seems like there's room for diverse approaches.

(Of course, one objection I anticipate to "reservations" is that people notoriously don't show up for them if it didn't cost them anything. From the Public's view, one good thing about the present system is that the odds of someone not showing up to the show that night after waiting twelve hours in line are very slim. It certainly does require commitment.)

I'm grateful to "Y.S." for reminding us what true "Shakespeare in the Park" is supposed to be like:

Commonwealth Shakespeare Company here in Boston draws thousands to its free performances on the Common, with nary a "star" name on the bill in its entire history. The best part is that no ticket is needed at all.

Yes, we all like to camp out in the park for a free performance. But we like to spontaneously congregate, settle in for a nice picnic dinner at 6pm, not am. The whole appeal of such a summer play concert is the informality, and the feeling of welcomeness. While--as I said earlier--the Public staff is as hospitable as they can be under the circumstances, those lining up at the Delacorte are quite frankly herded. Fine, escorted. If you're there overnight, for instance, did you know you're kicked out of the park at midnight, when Central Park officially closes, and then woken up at dawn to be walked back in? (So if you were planning on a nice rustic camping trip on the green, get ready to sleep on the sidewalk of Central Park West.) Then if you're lucky to get your ticket at 1pm, you then still have seven hours before the show starts, just enough time to catch a nap and a proper meal, to be well rested for a 3 1/2 hour Brecht play.

Here's another proposal: what if they handed out tickets at 5pm, not 1pm. Sure, some would still camp out overnight, but not as many. That would shift the line later, so you'd still have a shot if you showed up in daylight. As for missing a full day of work--well, the 1:00 schedule doesn't help much with that unless your job is an afternoon waiter shift, and a short one.... Or, fine, hand out the tickets at 9am, so people can go back to work. This question of timing should be an easy one to address and could make a real difference, at least for the more popular shows.

It should be said there is one population for whom the current system works fine--unemployed theatre artists! (Or those waiting tables.) And, no doubt, they make up most of the line. The Public is serving this constituency well, at least, and that's great.

But here again we see how the current system is tailored to everyone but the middle class. And forgive me for coming to the defense of those poor bourgeois, but shouldn't they be an important segment of the theatre audience, too? Not just the super "bo-bo" sponsors, but just folks with jobs (and kids) who happen to love the theatre, and can't afford to shell out $150 a pop.

Look, maybe nothing we say here will get the Public to change, and there are far worse things than 30,000 seeing Mother Courage for free. But I do think it's valuable to have some alternative voices heard amidst all the romanticizing about the Delacorte experience--mostly by people who don't have that experience first hand. (After all, if you're in the press and you're writing about this, chances are you have press tickets.) Has Oskar Eustis, for instance, waited on line himself lately?... So I'm happy to provide a forum for those who have a different perspective.

Commenter "D.B." claims I'm overreacting to basically an inconvenience, which is worth the sacrifice for a greater cause:

If we're concerned about the future of theater and its ability to develop an audience, shouldn't we be more concerned about that?

But I guess what keeps me kvetching is...is this developing new audiences? Where are all these working class audiences of color at the Delacorte? I find myself surrounded there by all the same white folks I see at every play. (Usually just less informed.) Granted, they do trend younger. But are they also following up by buying tickets to other shows? Or is Shakespeare in the Park for them just another yearly ritual stunt? All I'll say is the audiences these days over at the Signature, where it's $15 a ticket across the board, are a much more diverse mix.

DB also argues:

...scraping together $200 for a pair of tickets to a Broadway show (or $120 for a pair of tickets to an off-Broadway play) is beyond what many people can do, and favors--as does almost every cultural event in New York--people who have money over people who have time.

We agree on that: those of us waiting on line are indeed paying, paying with our time. And as that time increases over the next week from a mere five hours to twelve, I think we're right to ask what our time is worth.

(Especially if the performance itself does not deliver. But that's for another time...)

Shakespeare in the Park: By The Numbers

In the midst of my ranting about the inequities and mixed messages of the Public Theatre's "Free Shakespeare in the Park" policies, I emailed their press office with the following questions:
1) How many seats are in the Delacorte Theatre?
2) How many seats per performance are given away for free at 1pm each day, as opposed to how many given to individual and corporate "Sponsors"?
3) On your website (http://www.publictheater.org/shakespeare/tickets.php) you say: "To help underwrite production expenses and to make it possible for those who cannot wait in line to attend the theater, a specific (but limited) number of seats in alternate rows are made available to contributors for each performance." Can you clarify who are the people you are referring to who "cannot wait in line"?

Earlier this week (after yet another rant) I received a response from Public press rep Sam Neuman, and I had a brief follow-up phone call with him where he answered the questions and made the Public's case. So here is that case.

The Delacorte has 1880 seats. Which is larger than I guessed--larger than most Broadway houses. The City of New York (as a provision of its support for the program) demands that at least 75% (so, 1410) of those be made available for free to the public each performance. So that leaves the large-P Public 25% (470 tickets) each night to do with as it pleases. According to Neuman, the theatre does not always hold onto all of those, and so gives some of those away as well.

So, the main point is, there is indeed a cap on how many "Sponsor" tickets can be sold. According to the June 12 NY Sun piece I previously linked to, that number is 6,000 over the entire summer, out of a total of 90,240 available tickets. (For those of you playing at home, that's 48 performances--2 productions, each with 4-week runs of 6 shows a week--times 1880 seats.) Put like that, the Sponsors don't seem to cutting that much into the total available tickets.

The number of Sponsor tickets reserved for each night is different so it's hard to generalize about the effect day to day. But the average of 6,000 spread over 48 performances would be 125 seats a night. So that means some nights there are less. Some more. I could still maintain that if you're a hundred people too far back in line one day, you know who to thank.

Neuman also clarified that the Public has other needs for those 470 seats, such as press and actor/artist comps. And, of course, some are set aside for other categories of donors and corporate support. According to the Sun's Kate Taylor:

Through another program dubbed Delacorte Investors, companies can donate money to reserve blocks of seats and, for an additional donation of $15,000 or more, entertain in the backstage area before the show. This year, the major sponsors including Google Book Search, Barnes & Noble, CBS Outdoor, and Time Warner Cable.

I noticed what must have been such an "entertainment area" on may way to my seat at second preview, a little outdoor reception set-up of white folding chairs. (What would Brecht say about "culinary theatre" now!)

It's interesting (and I guess helpful) that the Mother Courage page on the Public's website has taken the step of alerting people to nights that will be particularly donor-heavy:

Please note that there will be limited ticket distribution for the following performances: August 15, August 21, August 31 and September 3. For information about the special benefit performance and welcome evening for new partners, please click here.

When you do click "here" you get basically an invitation to attend the August 15th show by joining at the $1500, $1000, or $500 levels. I'm not sure whether "limited ticket distribution" in this case means fewer than the stipulated 75%, and that even more seats are "special" at these performances than usual. At least they're warning us. (And that's especially important for September 3, since that's the closing night!)

In fact--I'd prefer it if the Public packed all their sponsors and donors into a few pre-selected nights and gave away no tickets to those, so the rest of us could stay home. Let them do their fundraising (donor "cultivation"), but do it in a few gala benefit nights. I have no problem with that. Especially if it means more free tickets for the days when people are waiting in line.

Finally, as to my question of "who are the people you are referring to who 'cannot wait in line'?"... I asked Neuman if perhaps this referred to the infirm or handicapped. To his credit, he admitted surprise and embarassment over the language, which does indeed refer to the Sponsors. Perhaps they'll change the wording now. (How about "those who cannot send their personal assistants to wait in line for them"?) Still, that the outlook of the culture of fundraising found its way in there so nakedly is revealing.

As for the actual infirm, Neuman pointed out that they do indeed have separate, shorter, lines for the elderly and disabled. But how about considering some pre-ordering for those populations? And how about school children in summer school?

I also asked how long this whole Sponsor program has been around, since I've only noticed it this year. I always assumed big donors got in, maybe even premium subscribers. But I don't remember such an obvious, easy quid-pro-quo of money for tickets. The Public claims such offers go back to the Papp years, but there's definitely been an increase. According to the Sun:
Papp laid the foundations for this form of support; a program called Summer Sponsors offered individuals the opportunity to donate $150 for a reserved seat. When Ms. Manus took over as executive director in 2002, she sought to emphasize the program as a means of rebuilding attracting donors.

"We realized that, with the loss of certain corporate support, we need to ramp this up," Ms. Manus [executive director Mara Manus] said. "Within two years of really aggressively marketing it, we now have reached the point where last year we sold out, and this year we're going to sell out."

I imagine in the past this was more word-of-mouth amongst rich people. But the new "aggressive" approach means it's in the print-ads for the shows, and also this convenient online order form. More democratic? I suppose. For those with $150 to spare, I guess.

In sum, I appreciate Neuman and the Public's response. And I believe Eustis & co. are sincere in doing all this creative fundraising in service of the New York Shakespeare Festival's historic mandate. So what's my beef? It is better all this is out in the open and transparent. And I know I should not reflexively assume fundraising is evil. Without further government endowment, someone has to pick up the tab for proessional theatre. As Manus says, "25% pay for 75% to attend for free."

But I also think this all needs to be taken into account whenever Eustis or anyone else waxes about how wonderful and democratic the event is. There clearly is special treatment for a large number of those who are privileged, much larger than I ever imagined. 25% is still a small portion, they'd say. But, remember, that's one out of four. (Or, allowing for the actor comps, let's say one out of five.) And would we be surprised if the Public finds a way to renegotiate that agreement with the city one day to increase that portion to 1/3rd?

The prevailing image of the Delacorte shows, though, remains a charitable summer ritual. (Cf. this rosy Playbill.com dispatch from the front lines of the front of the line at Astor Place.) Sure it's fun to have a picnic with fellow theatre lovers. But when you have to get there at 6am, or earlier, when it's on the hard pavement of Astor Place (or of Central Park West when they kick you out of the park at night)...it's no picnic. Not to mention, missing a day of work, or of your life.

I know I sound like a crank who had a bad experience in line. I actually didn't. As always, the Public staff are courteous and first-rate at the crowd control. They set a very orderly atmosphere and work very early and long hours. Aside from some annoyingly loud Go Fish players next to me, the patrons were pleasant company. And I got my two tickets after a mere five hours. And, as verteran concertgoers and Star Wars fans will tell me, they routinely wait in line for longer, and still have to pay!

But let's be real. If I had $300 I would have bought them, without any regret over missing the "sense of community" at all. And if I had $1000 I could have gotten my "community," too at my 6:00 "Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres" pre-show reception. I'm sorry, but to pass that on the way in after getting no sleep to wait outside on a hot New York summer day, is to be reminded of all the class-stratification that is killing our theatre.

Two last thoughts.

One, I feel like this is the nonprofit version of Broadway's "Premium" tickets--the $450 house seats producers started marketing to compete with scalpers. We all gasped at first, but it's now a longstanding success. They found plenty of takers! Even though that's in the commercial sphere and for commercial product, people were right to protest that move. Why not this.

Yes, I know the answer is that this is a "donation," and to a good cause at that. Not to line Oskar Eustis' pockets. But at some point we have to ask, what is the cause any more? Today it's 25% pay for 75%. Tomorrow, one half will pay for the have-nots.

Two, let's face something. This is only a problem when Meryl Streep is involved! The last time the lines were this bad was for The Seagull. (Anyone who camped out for Julia Styles in Twelfth Night I don't feel sorry for.) The lesson is not Meryl Streep should stay home, of course. But it's worth reflecting on how the "celebrity" factor only brings out the most undemocratic aspects of this. I know Eustis defends the casting of "great actors" fame notwithstanding. And he's right. Streep, Kevin Kline, Liev Schreiber... they all should be on our stages. But I would respect the enterprise more if the lure of free tickets was employed in a better cause. People will always be glad to pay to see big names. (As someone commented here, this "Mother Courage" should be having a nice long run at a theatre big with an affordable balcony section of good visibility.) But they don't pay to see young talented actors they've never heard of. That's who Shakespeare in the Park should be showcasing.

If the need for fundraising is so great, doesn't that have something to do with the reliance on celebrity casting and giving A-list directors all the bells and whistles they want? If you cut the costs, cut the fundraising, and focus on the art, I bet people would still come for free. That would be a true community event. Instead of the import of Hollywood buzz. The Public is thrilled to see people camping out around the block not so much for the good time in store for those theatre lovers, but because it raises the profile of the theatre. Which leads to more fundraising. Which enables more celebrities doing Shakespeare in the Park. Which leads to even longer lines. Which prompts more people to buy those Sponsorships so they don't have to wait in line. And so on...

All I can say is, try it yourself. Go to Mother Courage and tell me how you think it's exemplifying the Public's stated "philosophy of inclusion."