I celebrated my birthday with a visit to London to see the Velasquez exhibition at the National Gallery and Monty Python's Spamalot at the Palace Theatre.
It was a most astonishing experience to see faces dead for hundreds of years staring at you as if they were alive. Velasquez had extraordinary skill at capturing expressions and painting them with just enough but not too much detail, so that you engage with the painting and fill in the rest. Whether it's the mesmerising portrait of Pope Benedict as frightening as a cornered rat or the immense sadness in the eyes of Kingh Philip IV, it was hard to break off one's gaze.
Spamalot on the other hand was a laugh from start to finish- a very funny spoof on stage musicals combined with the familiar Python comedy about class. Tim Curry is superb as King Arthur, darting between naive enthusiasm and lugubrious resignation.
On my deathbed I may look back and think of all the time I have wasted, but I could never include the time spent in art galleries or theatres.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
A Change Of Image For Panto
I'm quietly pleased to see the extensive positive coverage of this year's pantomimes. Stars from the US- Patrick Duffy and Henry Winkler- are welcomed and Mark (Shopping And Fucking) Ravenhill is writing a family panto.
In my early days at The Mayflower, the great panto producer Paul Elliott managed to sign up Dudley Moore to star in our panto. The day it was announced, the nationals reacted with a unanimous conclusion that Dudley's career had reached rock bottom. Even The Guardian, with its regional origins, rdiculed him for being reduced to appearing in the 'seaside town' of Southampton. (Whereas in fact, Southampton is a prospering city with one of the most successful pantos in the country- and no beach.)
How times have changed. Now that top theatrical names like Ian McKellen, Simon Callow and Nigel Havers have chosen to appear in panto, suddenly the media are finding new respect for this great British tradition. It's taken a long time but the hard work Paul Elliott put into his vision of a kind of pantomime that took itself seriously as theatre has finally paid off.
In my early days at The Mayflower, the great panto producer Paul Elliott managed to sign up Dudley Moore to star in our panto. The day it was announced, the nationals reacted with a unanimous conclusion that Dudley's career had reached rock bottom. Even The Guardian, with its regional origins, rdiculed him for being reduced to appearing in the 'seaside town' of Southampton. (Whereas in fact, Southampton is a prospering city with one of the most successful pantos in the country- and no beach.)
How times have changed. Now that top theatrical names like Ian McKellen, Simon Callow and Nigel Havers have chosen to appear in panto, suddenly the media are finding new respect for this great British tradition. It's taken a long time but the hard work Paul Elliott put into his vision of a kind of pantomime that took itself seriously as theatre has finally paid off.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
It's Not Just Marketing, It's M&S Marketing
Marks and Spencer’s recent financial success is a result of classic good marketing. First point to make though is, no matter how good the marketing, you won’t get very far unless you can deliver a good product. M&S, already excellent at food, have done a great job at improving the quality of their clothing.
Their advertising campaign exploited this very well. On the food side, the slogan ‘it’s not just food, it’s M&S food’ hits the button, and the advertisements make the food look positively sexy. On the clothing front, the use of Twiggy, Erin O’Connor and other top models in stylish advertisements makes M&S instantly fashionable- and appealing to a wide age range. The campaign is said to have driven an extra 18 million people to the stores.
Then there’s the Offer. Let’s not underestimate the power of the ‘3 for the Price of 2’, ‘Buy one get one half price’ offers and the introduction of many good quality products at low prices.
Finally there’s the spend. We love the idea of the underdog triumphing but the truth is, the biggest army nearly always wins the war. With the second biggest advertising spend of any retailer- over £60 million and a third up on the previous year- M&S were bound to make an impact.
Their advertising campaign exploited this very well. On the food side, the slogan ‘it’s not just food, it’s M&S food’ hits the button, and the advertisements make the food look positively sexy. On the clothing front, the use of Twiggy, Erin O’Connor and other top models in stylish advertisements makes M&S instantly fashionable- and appealing to a wide age range. The campaign is said to have driven an extra 18 million people to the stores.
Then there’s the Offer. Let’s not underestimate the power of the ‘3 for the Price of 2’, ‘Buy one get one half price’ offers and the introduction of many good quality products at low prices.
Finally there’s the spend. We love the idea of the underdog triumphing but the truth is, the biggest army nearly always wins the war. With the second biggest advertising spend of any retailer- over £60 million and a third up on the previous year- M&S were bound to make an impact.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Who Should The Customer Trust: Jaded Hacks or Ordinary Punters?
People who market theatre shows are too worried about the professional critics. They fret about bad reviews and pounce on good ones for often meaningless quotes. I think they give far more weight to the critics than a typical theatre-goer does.
Many factors affect someone's decision to buy a ticket. A bad review could put them off but, in my experience, if they like the subject, the star or the author, this will be much more influential. Then there's word-of-mouth. Whose reviews would you rely on more when making your decision to go to see a show- professional theatre critics or members of the paying audience? I disagree with Ian Shuttleworth who writes in Theatre Record in favour of the critics.
A paid reviewer himself, he defends his peers against what he imagines are the key criticisms of critics, namely “reviewers offer a distorted view of the plays they write about: we get in free, so we're not beholden to the show, and we're paid to write about what we think rather than how everybody else in the audience seemed to respond.” His response is basically “damned right”.
Actually my concern about professional critics is that, because they get in free, they lose the sense of what going to the theatre is like for “ordinary punters”, as Mr Shuttleworth describes us. For us, the experience starts with choosing a show maybe once a month, based on what we like (genre, actors, writers and so on) and on recommendations. We then go through a sometimes difficult process of buying tickets and journeying and then buying a programme and maybe a meal. All of this is a big investment. Consequently we are predisposed to enjoy the show and if we don’t we will feel the disappointment more acutely.
Mr Shuttleworth says this is why the audience is not to be trusted as much as the professionals. To me, it’s symptomatic that his experience is that “far more often you'll see stuff that's not especially distinguished one way or the other.” On the contrary, I find that the shows I see are generally be good to excellent, which I don’t find surprising given the process they and I go through before reaching the theatre. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have thoroughly enjoyed shows about which I have read lukewarm reviews.
Compared with a regular ticket-buying theatre-goer, the professional critic is a hack who sits through whatever he or she is paid to see, a frothy musical for example even if they would never dream of paying to see such as show. And they see numerous shows each week. “Jaded” may not be a fair word to describe a group of people who clearly love theatre but they are bound to develop a more critical standard than the rest of us and condemn many fine shows to being “average” in their terms.
Professional critics are important. Their experience and knowledge give us insights that are helpful in understanding a play and, when they are enthusiastic, their command of language makes them very persuasive. But I do give more weight to what members of the audience think because their reaction is likely to be closer to my own and therefore more helpful to me. My advice to theatre marketers: Ignore the jaded hacks and encourage audience power.
Many factors affect someone's decision to buy a ticket. A bad review could put them off but, in my experience, if they like the subject, the star or the author, this will be much more influential. Then there's word-of-mouth. Whose reviews would you rely on more when making your decision to go to see a show- professional theatre critics or members of the paying audience? I disagree with Ian Shuttleworth who writes in Theatre Record in favour of the critics.
A paid reviewer himself, he defends his peers against what he imagines are the key criticisms of critics, namely “reviewers offer a distorted view of the plays they write about: we get in free, so we're not beholden to the show, and we're paid to write about what we think rather than how everybody else in the audience seemed to respond.” His response is basically “damned right”.
Actually my concern about professional critics is that, because they get in free, they lose the sense of what going to the theatre is like for “ordinary punters”, as Mr Shuttleworth describes us. For us, the experience starts with choosing a show maybe once a month, based on what we like (genre, actors, writers and so on) and on recommendations. We then go through a sometimes difficult process of buying tickets and journeying and then buying a programme and maybe a meal. All of this is a big investment. Consequently we are predisposed to enjoy the show and if we don’t we will feel the disappointment more acutely.
Mr Shuttleworth says this is why the audience is not to be trusted as much as the professionals. To me, it’s symptomatic that his experience is that “far more often you'll see stuff that's not especially distinguished one way or the other.” On the contrary, I find that the shows I see are generally be good to excellent, which I don’t find surprising given the process they and I go through before reaching the theatre. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have thoroughly enjoyed shows about which I have read lukewarm reviews.
Compared with a regular ticket-buying theatre-goer, the professional critic is a hack who sits through whatever he or she is paid to see, a frothy musical for example even if they would never dream of paying to see such as show. And they see numerous shows each week. “Jaded” may not be a fair word to describe a group of people who clearly love theatre but they are bound to develop a more critical standard than the rest of us and condemn many fine shows to being “average” in their terms.
Professional critics are important. Their experience and knowledge give us insights that are helpful in understanding a play and, when they are enthusiastic, their command of language makes them very persuasive. But I do give more weight to what members of the audience think because their reaction is likely to be closer to my own and therefore more helpful to me. My advice to theatre marketers: Ignore the jaded hacks and encourage audience power.
Poor Customer Service From Theatres
Why don’t theatres offer refunds? I took a chair back to Staples six months after I bought it. They refunded without question. Even the traders on Southampton’s Friday street market (one of my clients) give refunds.
Theatres are unique in my experience at taking your money months in advance and refusing to offer the basic customer service of a refund if you change your mind. I worked in theatre for many years and still provide marketing consultancy to the industry, so I understand that there are reasons why it is difficult. On the other hand, since I have been working with other kinds of businesses, I realise that everyone has difficulties in giving refunds.
Theatres argue that someone may ask for a refund because the price has gone down. Yet when Marks and Spencer refund you the full price on a jumper six months after purchase, there’s every chance they will only be able to sell it at the sale price. And, just as you probably won’t be able to get your size at the lower price, so you won’t be able to get as good a seat. As a compromise, theatres could offer to refund at the current rather than the original price.
Theatres say their finances are such that they can’t risk being left with a lot of unsold tickets. I wonder how many tickets they imagine will be returned. Have they so little confidence in their shows that they worry the word-of-mouth will be so bad that tickets will be returned in droves? Shops are often stuck with returned items that are unsaleable. But shops offer refunds because it encourages people to buy if they know the item can be brought back. I believe theatres would find their extra sales gained far outnumber the loss from refunds.
What it comes down to is customer service. It seems every field of business has learned to treat the customer as King except the live entertainment industry. Put aside the rare occasion when someone might want a refund on a whim, most people need a refund because they were expected to buy their tickets months in advance and then something unanticipated crops up nearer the time- illness, a family crisis, an unavoidable meeting, whatever. Can it possibly be sensible business practice to punish your customer for something that’s not their fault?
The industry does have a nerve complaining about people selling tickets at a profit on ebay or via touts when they provide no means to sell them back to the venue.
As a halfway house, perhaps theatres could at least offer a sliding scale of refunds as the date of the event approaches, similar to holiday companies. Or maybe a significant charge to offset the anticipated losses. Many local theatres do at least offer exchanges and, slowly but surely, ticket agents are bringing in exchange websites.
Of course, theatre ticketing is complicated by the fact that to offer refunds may require the agreement of a visiting promoter. Theatres that produce their own shows don’t have this problem and now's the time for receiving venues to start negotiating.
Theatres are unique in my experience at taking your money months in advance and refusing to offer the basic customer service of a refund if you change your mind. I worked in theatre for many years and still provide marketing consultancy to the industry, so I understand that there are reasons why it is difficult. On the other hand, since I have been working with other kinds of businesses, I realise that everyone has difficulties in giving refunds.
Theatres argue that someone may ask for a refund because the price has gone down. Yet when Marks and Spencer refund you the full price on a jumper six months after purchase, there’s every chance they will only be able to sell it at the sale price. And, just as you probably won’t be able to get your size at the lower price, so you won’t be able to get as good a seat. As a compromise, theatres could offer to refund at the current rather than the original price.
Theatres say their finances are such that they can’t risk being left with a lot of unsold tickets. I wonder how many tickets they imagine will be returned. Have they so little confidence in their shows that they worry the word-of-mouth will be so bad that tickets will be returned in droves? Shops are often stuck with returned items that are unsaleable. But shops offer refunds because it encourages people to buy if they know the item can be brought back. I believe theatres would find their extra sales gained far outnumber the loss from refunds.
What it comes down to is customer service. It seems every field of business has learned to treat the customer as King except the live entertainment industry. Put aside the rare occasion when someone might want a refund on a whim, most people need a refund because they were expected to buy their tickets months in advance and then something unanticipated crops up nearer the time- illness, a family crisis, an unavoidable meeting, whatever. Can it possibly be sensible business practice to punish your customer for something that’s not their fault?
The industry does have a nerve complaining about people selling tickets at a profit on ebay or via touts when they provide no means to sell them back to the venue.
As a halfway house, perhaps theatres could at least offer a sliding scale of refunds as the date of the event approaches, similar to holiday companies. Or maybe a significant charge to offset the anticipated losses. Many local theatres do at least offer exchanges and, slowly but surely, ticket agents are bringing in exchange websites.
Of course, theatre ticketing is complicated by the fact that to offer refunds may require the agreement of a visiting promoter. Theatres that produce their own shows don’t have this problem and now's the time for receiving venues to start negotiating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)