Sunday, April 11, 2010
How do you measure theatre success?
guardian.co.uk: "A group of the UK theatre world's leading industry bodies – The Society of London Theatre, Theatrical Management Association and Independent Theatre Council – have recently come up with what they believe is a completely new way of measuring the effectiveness (or otherwise) of a theatre production." via ArtsJournal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't know that there can be a single measure of the success of a theatrical performance. I do agree that audience response is a major portion of this evaluation, but am skeptical that it is the only one. A work needs to be evaluated on several other criteria (from least important to most): financial success, critical response, and artistic innovation. Is a show successful without moving the industry forward with either an interpretation, approach or design? Can a show be a success when critics hate it? I argue that, although these may sometimes be contradictory, it is the net result that will indicate overall success. Now, all we need is a way to calculate and quantify these unquantifiable things.
I know there cannot be a single measure of success in the theater industry. There are a multitude of measurements that can rate success. Several of these measurements for example are profit, story, run, audience approval, critic approval, and tcket sales. Throughout the years different scales of success have immerged, and this is because it is reflective of the times and the goals and views of the people and soiety of the period.
I think that there cant be a single measure. There are so many different variables. I do agree that the audience emotion and overall opinion of a show should play a big factor. With that being said how much the show is pulling in matters a lot too. i hate it when good theater gets over looked because of finances.
It shocks me that "spring awakening" didn't last long in compared to "We will rock you".
I definitely agree with this newer way of measuring a production's success. I think it would be hard to judge over a long period of time how an audience is reacting to a new show. Just because tickets are being sold, doesn't necessarily mean that people are loving the show, it could just mean that a lot of people are going to see the show for the first time. I think this way of asking audience members for their opinions is a much more efficient way of discovering the specific elements of the show that the audience liked or disliked, therefore gaining a more accurate impression of the show's success and the probability that it will continue to draw in audiences in such an economic climate as this.
I agree with Chris that there really can't be one single way of measuring a show's success. For instance, if a show inspires a tremendous emotional influence in its audience, but still does horribly in the box office, it is still considered to be unsuccessful and will most likely close, despite its influence. Perhaps a combination of the survey method and the box office sales would be more helpful in determining a show's success, but I also feel that for the most part, success in one area will also lead to positive feedback in another.
How theatre's success should be measured is a very interesting topic. I think that this evaluation for audience members to fill out is a great step in the right direction, but I don't think that it can be the only way that a show's success should be gauged. I think that this, along with reviews, ticket sales, and awards received will give producers a good feel for the success of a show. But, something we all have to remember is that in most cases what truly matters is the ticket sales. If ticket sales are down, no matter how much people liked the show according to these evaluations, it is not going to last, because this is an expensive business.
I am not sure either if this system provides any definite answers. The thing is that most people do not enjoy filling out surveys so I have a hard time believing that someone would stay after a show to do this and especially if the person thought it was a terrible show. In that case audience members could have left during intermission or just want to get out of the theatre as soon as possible. What if the only people that fill out the surveys are the ones that liked the show? Then the data is completely off. Another thing is it doesn't say if they show the actors this data because no actor should read reviews or see an audience members bad report on their character based on these responses. It could throw off the show. I don't think that there is a way to measure theatre success because that is saying whose opinion is the "right" opinion.
I think all the ways of measuring success this article mentioned are valid for different reasons. Different people in theater are going to see success differently. The box office and financial side will measure it by ticket sales and the show's gross, while the creative team and actors will probably go off reviews and audience reaction. When it comes down to it though, the main reason for measuring success is going to be financial. Is this show popular/successful enough to continue funding? Has this producer put on successful shows? (ie has this producer made money on shows?) Unfortunately, how good a show actually is doesn't always directly relate to it's financial success. Not to mention that a show being 'good' or 'bad' is completely subjective. Theater is one of the arts, and as such, is hard to quantify in terms of success.
I am a bigger fan of this new system described as a way to measure success than simply recording box office figures because this new way seems to measure artistic success more than commercial success. It is definitely a challenge to come up with a perfect formula that can be applied to every show, but I think that this particular new system could definitely help artists gauge how effective their work is.
I do not believe that there is one way to measure success, nor is any production complexly successful or not. Of all of the methods, I believe that while box office sales are the most quantifiable, they are a very limited measure of the actual “success”. Audience response, while a very important measure, is very hard to collect candidly and accurately, as everyone has a different view on theatre, so the creation of an even evaluation field is extremely difficult. Additionally, while critics play a very important role in the “success” of the production, I believe that just because a critic does or does not put their stamp of approval on a show, does not necessarily represent a “successful” show.
This is such a difficult question to ask. Yes, you could give a questionnaire out to audience members, but who says that they will all accurately respond? Won't those who feel most passionate it about it respond more than those who were slightly more indifferent about the material?
Additionally, I don't think a "graph" is the best way to represent a piece's success. Art is something that cannot be measured quantitatively. I think written feedback from the audience could be helpful, but a little cumbersome at times.
While I think the process brought about to measure theater success in the article is an interesting one and a different way to look at a production, I agree with most of the comments that there isn't one way to measure success in the theater industry. You can have critical success, but not sell many tickets and fail to make a profit, or vice versa. It's an interesting idea to consider, a quantifiable way to measure theater success, but I don't think there is or ever will be a distinct way to measure to theater success simply because if it was easy enough to boil down to a simple formula, well, it would be a much easier profession to pursue.
Post a Comment