A decade later, those prices have increased. Charleston Stage's marketing director Beth Curley says that adult, general admission tickets to plays start at $30, and the highest price for a musical ticket can cost upwards of $65. What hasn't changed in the past 10 years, though, is Charleston Stage's Pay What You Will nights (now called PNC Pay As You Please), preview shows that ask guests to donate a minimum of $10 and more if they so desire.
13 comments:
I think that the "Pay what you will" might not benefit theatre companies financially, but can benefit them and their community in several other ways. First off, as the article mentions, these nights provide a different demographic of people with the experience of live theatre. Young people or families that can't afford to pay for a regular ticket get the chance to join the theatre community. Isn't that one of the main goals our community has today? Diversity! A theatre company might think that they are loosing money with these nights, but I disagree. As the article confirms, these nights open the door for the curious and shows them why they should come back. Personally I think this a very good strategy. For example, my mom is a groupon lover (groupon is a company that offers coupons for a variety of different places and experiences) and now most of the places that we go to eat or go to have fun with friends, are connections we have made through the company. Even if it is an experience that wasn't necessarily the most affordable, we would go back every so often because we knew that we were going to enjoy the experience and that it would be worth the money. I think that the Pay What You Will nights serve the exact same purpose.Also mentioned in the article is the fact that these audiences can serve as a test audience during previews, thus benefiting the show itself and not just the community.
I feel nothing but respect for these PWYW theaters. To put it in a nutshell, by implementing so many different deals, these companies have traded their own financial stability for a greater accessibility within their respective communities. As mentioned, some ticket pricings, such as those for Hamilton, are too high for comfort. Ridiculously-priced plays and even the recent Epi-Pen debate go a long way towards answering the question of what certain businesses will do in order to make a profit. It's companies like these PWYW ones that choose to focus instead on promoting their passions and making sure that price does not bar a person from enjoying a night out. Fortunately, it even seems as though having a PWYW attitude is benefiting theater companies because of its effect on community involvement and interest in theater. Although, Conway's double-edged sword comment is one that holds a lot of substance. Hopefully, these PWYW swords do not come back to bite.
While I understand Conway's points about maintaining the value of theatre, I completely believe that PWYW shows are a great idea. I think they help the young and curious see shows that they otherwise would not have experienced, and ignite their interest to participate in an art form which often benefits from the viewpoints of contemporaries. No or low pay can remove the pretension that is often coupled with theatre. I don't believe people should wear flip flops to Broadway, but in my experience young people don't participate in local and community theatre because of its effort to appear serious and sophisticated. I'm also curious what type of revenue PWYW nights generate. When I've done fundraising in the past, we would often make more money by asking people for a donation of their choosing than by setting a price for them. Either way, PWYW for large productions or even just small evening showcases is a good idea.
I really appreciate the idea of Pay-What-You-Will nights. At the end of the day- theatre is simply just not as accessible as other forms of art. You can quite easily go to the movie theatre and expect to see something that was perfectly crafted to be entertaining for the masses, whereas in theatre, that may not be the truth. Unless, of course, you happen to be seeing the latest, hottest, disney production on Broadway in which case the ticket prices make it inaccessible in the first place.
I will say the most frustrating part of the article was the idea presented that pay-what-you-will nights devalue the art. I take issue with this simply because many other businesses that run their model off of arts based content take this approach. For example, for most groups who attend the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, attendance is always pay-what-you-will. There are posted suggested donations, however, I don't think anyone would argue that the quality of art at the Met is devalued simply because donations are suggested rather than required for admission.
I really have always enjoyed the “Pay What You Will” policy, and the first time I heard of it wasn’t actually in a theatrical context – it was when the PWYW Panera Bread opened up next to Government Center back in Boston. I feel that putting PWYW in a food context makes the issue much less controversial. If a family cannot afford to feed themselves in the normative economic manners of a higher salary family, they are able to go to this Panera location and pay what they physically can and still be able to feed their kids a nutritious meal.
Entertainment is where the PWYW ideology seems to be getting blurred between Conway and Curley. Conway appears to have a strictly revenue-conscious concern over the special deal, while Curley sees it as a way to really open the doors to the whole community. It is true that ticket prices have grown considerably over the past few years and that many people cannot afford to make a regular habit of going to the theatre – but if every production had a PWYW series, many more people would be able to be exposed to the art form, and that’s really what it is about.
In a world were more and more theater companies care about money than the arts, its nice to see theaters having PWYW nights. Having PWYW nights helps the show profoundly. First you get to see peoples reaction to the show if you do it during preview nights. Also you will get people talking about the show, and word of mouth is extremely important in todays world of ticket sales.
Another way it helps is that it exposes theater to people who normally can not afford theater to go and see theater. With PWYW night's people with lower incomes can come and watch theater for an amazingly cheap price. In my opinon more producers need to do this with there shows.
I really like the idea behind pay what you will policies. I don’t know how much adopting a policy like this would help with some of the things claimed in the article (how to dress, approaching the box office, and how to behave). But it definitely brings in more people, many of whom probably wouldn’t be there otherwise. I think that’s what’s really at the heart of the idea, making theater more accessible to everyone. That aside, I think the point made by Conway at the end of the article is interesting, he didn’t necessarily make it in the best way and the author of the article didn’t really help him much but its worth thinking about whether or not there’s a cost to having pay what you will nights. Maybe there isn’t, maybe there is but its worth paying or minor and the increased publicity from getting new people in the theater is a worth while trade off. However, I doubt it’s as dire a price as he was hinting at in the article.
I think Pay What You Will Policies are a really great way to make the arts more accessible to the entire community. I honestly love to see any example of charitable thinking in 2016, since I feel that the driving force for just about everything is "Yes, fine, but how can we make more MONEY?" Obviously theatre is still a business and businesses need to succeed financially to stay afloat, but instances like these make me really happy because in my heart, theatre is meant for absolutely everyone to enjoy and learn from.
So, fun story I guess. My first encounter with this was last year when I was living in New York. I went to visit The Met and was totally surprised when the woman at the counter told me I could pay her anything. "Give me a quarter if you want," she told me. My first thought was that I would be a total jerk if I paid less than the suggested admission price, so I awkwardly asked her, "Well...but the money goes to, like, making the museum better right? And running the museum?" and that was then my excuse for paying the full (student) amount. When I think of it now, I imagine that is somewhat the point. Those who are able to pay the full amount, do, and those who are not, don't. Somewhere between those who pay full price, those who pay a quarter, and all the donations the museum surely receives, they get the money they need to run and improve the museum. Obviously the difference is that I could spare the money in that moment and some people can't, so I love that admission is open to anyone willing to make a .25 donation.
As a student I am always more inclined to attend a pay what you can night because the reduced student price isn't actually in line with my budget (at best it's a 10% to 20% discount). There is no doubt that pay what you can nights bring in new theatre goers and folks who otherwise would not be able to attend. So I'm curious if the pay what you can nights are effective in getting those individuals to come back and see productions at a normal price? Or if they only come back on other pay what you can evenings?
One thing the article never seems to address is whether the pay what you can nights are financially successful. I can only imagine that they have to be. After all, if a theatre is taking advantage of this type of attendance incentive it says one of two things to me- either the theatre is looking to get more butts in the seats or they are doing it as a charity/outreach program. In the event of the latter I am inclined to believe that the theatre is well off and had no trouble making ends meet (at least not on the scale of a smaller or less attended regional theatre). In the event of the former it would seem that selling out the house at a an overall lower average price (aka pay what you can night) versus only selling a portion of the house at a much higher price would equal out to be roughly the same ticket revenue. And in the likely event that this is true, it seems like the line of whether to continue (or even add more) pay what you can nights has more to do with the crowd you want in your theatre and the crowd you do not want in your theatre.
This summer I worked at a theater where a few nights of preview week were "pay what you can" nights. I personally love the idea that companies are able to make theatre more accessible. Though financially it may not be so great for some of those nights, the fact that more people could enjoy a play or musical and be able to afford it, is amazing. I agree with some other comments refuting the idea that "pay what you will" devalues the art. I don't think that there is a decrease in value at all. If anything, I believe that appreciation and celebration for the art is more important than if a certain production makes a lot of money. It's also not like there is a PWYW night every night. It definitely makes the company get noticed in the community and makes it a place where people who probably couldn't afford the full price ticket could enjoy a night of theatre.
I actually agree with both sides of this argument. I, as a student, have only been able to go see many shows because of reduced or PWYW events at theatres both in my hometown and on Broadway. Those reduced prices have allowed me to see shows I definitely would not have been able to see at full price. I do also agree that PWYW events bring in more people that might not usually go to the theatre. Whether it's because of lack of funds or simply uncertainty, removing the monetary pressure on these people makes the theatre less intimidating and more accessible.
On the other hand, I do think that these types of things can bring people to the theatre that will not enjoy or experience it in the way it was intended, and could potentially hurt their future views and expectations. When the cost of something goes down, people have a tendency to see it as lesser, consciously or not, because to them it physically has been devalued. I think it's good to give people an opportunity to be proven wrong, but I don't think that's possible in every case.
As Ben mentioned, the article doesn't address the financial outcome of the Pay What You Can productions, so I don't know if they result in a profit or a loss. But even if they are a loss, I think it is the responsibility of any theatre to have Pay What You Can performances if they can afford it. Every theatre is a community endeavor, whether its codified into its mission or not and you must, must find a way to share your work with members of the community that can't afford a $20-$30 ticket.
The "devaluing art" statement in this article is questionable to me because 1) there is still an entire run of performances happening at full price 2) when you say tickets less than $20-$30 is devaluing art, but then there are people who can't afford that ticket, you are telling some people that the art is more valuable than their potential experience with the art or that, somehow, the art belongs to a higher economic class. Both of those things are potentially detrimental to the spirit of the theatre.
I personally think this is a great idea. Since the show opened, I have been astounded at what people pay for tickets to Hamilton. Is it a one of a kind fantastic show? Of course. But I would never pay 800 dollars for a ticket to it, no matter where the seat was. That's absurd, and that money could go to so many better places. I could see about 8 other shows with that money. In the same faction, I think a pay what you can day makes sense. It gets those to the theatre who normally could not afford to--families, students, and people on low incomes. And like the article said, these people come back and pay, either save up to go or come back every time there's a discount ticket day. Theatre should be accessible to these people--it, like anything else is an art form and everyone deserves to have a chance to appreciate it.
Post a Comment