Monday, February 07, 2011
Toronto’s Soulpepper theatre embraces new business model
The Globe and Mail: "What’s the biggest economic problem with the way non-profit theatres operate in North America? The inflexibility of inventory. Soulpepper Theatre Company artistic director Albert Schultz thinks he has the fix, however. Over the past 12 years, Schultz and his colleagues have built the classical company up from a two-play summer season to a year-round operation with its own Toronto venue. For its 2011 season it’s upping its productions to a whopping 17 from last year’s 12
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is a really interesting take on managing a theater. As an audience member, I've always wondered why a company doesn't continue to run a production when it's wildly popular. This seems like a lucrative way to please large portions of your audience and popularize your company. And I'm sure they're making back far more than the extra 14% they shelled out for this season. Now the question becomes, "Will more theaters start to follow this business model? And what will that mean for theatre as an art form?" If productions last longer and make more money for the company, the art becomes more accessible to a larger crowd. This could be an interesting step in both business and art.
I like the idea of shifting the schedule so that supply meets demand. Commercial theatres do this - they close early if they don't sell tickets and play indefinitely when the do. Movie theaters, too, can extend a run based on popularity.
This article has me thinking about the applicability of this approach to CMU's theatre model; we have had several shows for which it hasn't been possible for everybody to get a ticket (mostly in the Rauh), and I thought that adding a second Pig Pen performance at Playground was a great idea, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it. Perhaps adding spare time at the end of the CMU season so that any show could be extended by a few days if it made sense without going into summer would be cool, and I'm sure that shows that were delayed by the extensions wouldn't mind the extra rehearsal/build time.
I'm skeptical. Though I do like the year-long contracts for actors.
A model like this where a calendar is in flux might have some larger ramifications on other economic factors, the two primary sources for funding in regional theater: grants & subscribers.
If the calendar is fixed how does this affect grant proposals and subscriber sales? Seems like the current North American model developed in conjucture with subscribers: we need to have a set number of seats available because we have a set number of people who want to see that show. You can see the natural progression. I suppose grants could still be achieved for specific projects. But by shifiting your focus to how many potential seats we'll fill to counting how many seats you've already sold seems a bit risky.
I like this plan a lot. It's got a roadhouse like mentality approach to keeping seats filled.
However, besides just dealing with "spreadsheets" and actor time off. There are a lot of other backstage management issues that will need to be tackled as well. Sets will need to be designed for changeover. Space will be required for holding all the other shows stuff. Etc...
I would never have thought of hiring actors in this way, but reading this article has caused me to realize "hey, he's a got a point." I feel that when a person is hired for one show, they demand a much higher salary, just due to concerns over job security. What if they don't get a show next? The actors will need enough money to last the lull between shows. However, when people are contracted for extended periods of time, there is less of a battle over salary, as job security exists, and they can expect that pay check in their mailbox every two weeks. Less concern=lower cost.
I think this is a really neat business model theatre. The current model that most theatre's subscribe to does not allow response to supply and demand. We've all worked on shows that become crazy popular and build up momentum only to stop dead at the last performance. Then the opposite, shows that can hardly bring in a mediocre audience.
This model would be really neat because as the the article mentioned, this creates job security and stability for the actors involved in the shows. I can't imagine how complicated it would be to schedule the shows, actors, technicians, load ins/outs and everything it would take to make this model happen.
Post a Comment