The New York Times: “I’m a cellist, and I have played in orchestras my entire life,” Blake-Anthony Johnson, the president and chief executive of the Chicago Sinfonietta, said recently. “I used to ask the other musicians, ‘What is the most you would pay for your ideal concert?’ And it was nowhere near what our patrons actually pay.”
10 comments:
This is a very interesting challenge to find what is both accessible but also keeps your doors open as an arts organization. I think the first step is to have your organization be independently wealthy, but if that’s not an option, donations are the next step. I have a friend who just obtained a two year contract with the Pittsburgh symphony orchestra. He was telling me that many of the performers make well over $100,000 a year and he (as an entry level player) is making $60,000 a year. In order to go see him I purchased a pretty good ticket that was only $20. That doesn’t even cover one hour of one person's time so they must be heavily reliant on donations. The article mentioned that ticket prices have been increasing at a rate higher than people’s disposable incomes have been. I’m guessing this is because arts organizations (many times) do their absolute best to pay people a living wage.
I love live music. It brings me so much joy and fills my soul almost as much as theatre and film does. However, I’ve only ever been to one concert in my lifetime. It’s because there’s a price barrier for me. There are a lot of performing art companies that are starting to reflect on their prices, and even adopting a choose what you pay approach and I think that’s awesome. From a business perspective, it is hard to try and not rely on tickets to bring in revenue. You also must make sure that your employees are being paid, but they won’t even be paid if people can’t afford to come see your shows. I love the approach that tickets don’t matter to a company, and they’d rather be a part of the community even if you aren’t giving us money. Yet again, art should be easily accessible to the community.
The picture used in this article is interesting, the pixel effect on top of the unrealistic light reflecting off the musicians’ shirt, unnatural structure of the human figure, simple background and the items that the Orchestra Conductor are holding created this weird and plastic picture that seems to be structured by an unskilled artist who made this as a form of practice. This also corresponds to what is being talked about in this article. He talks about higher the ticket price means higher quality music and when the music does not meet their expectation audience would be disappointed in what has been presented. This is interesting and if lowering the price would be a good way to attract more audience, especially new audience into watching productions and performances. At the same time, they would need to make enough money to be able to keep the company running and be able to pay their workers.
So, this article talks about a really interesting topic that has definitely been on my mind recently. Tickets to different events, performances, etc is a huge part of people’s ability to access a broad range of creative work. This, I imagine, is a pretty simple concept to grasp. However, changing ticketing systems and prices to lower the cost of attending is a rather complex thing for a theater or organization to do. I liked the idea of smaller or midsize organizations shifting their budget away from ticket sales. That way, the ticket revenue can be used for creative projects instead of keeping the doors open. But, of course, this means an entire restructuring of their budget and a lot more emphasis on donations every year (which isn’t always a steady source of income). Reducing prices (like a pay-what-you-want system or something like that) especially in local theaters could make art so much more accessible for people regardless of their income or financial situation. I’d be interested to see if Broadway ever does something like this… unlikely, but I wish they would.
It's always hard to try and balance what one charges for a show in relation to the years upon years of talent at display on stage. Ticket prices have certainly gotten exorbitantly expensive in recent years but I think anyone that actually works in the performing arts still has it in them to scratch their head every now and then and wonder how in the hell organizations are able to stay open. But the reality, as many have mentioned, is that it definitely comes down to wealthy patrons for a lot of larger spaces in cities. Centerstage in Baltimore, MD is a perfect example. In their programs for shows they have a donors section and organize the donors by bracket of donation. Even if you considered every donation at the lowest possible dollar amount that they could have donated, the number you get is certainly larger than the money they bring in from ticket sales. On one hand, the ticket sales should be covering the costs of the years of talent on stage. But on the other that really doesn't seem realistic for a mid-sized LORT space.
This conversation should be the expectation in all theater - and beyond, into all entertainment. I believe that the bare minimum of places that seek to entertain and inspire should be that they are accessible to any and all who want to enjoy the entertainment. This begins with removing socioeconomic boundaries. Many theaters preach that they are inviting and want all to enjoy their programming, but have increasingly higher and higher ticket prices. Removing economic barriers should be a baseline for any theater aiming to create a more just community, as economic barriers also affect many other marginalized groups. I appreciate the notion that theaters should “want to be a part of your life regardless of whether you’re giving us money.” Theaters, and all entertainment platforms, should continue to strive to be “radically accessible.”
One of my biggest frustrations with larger theatres has always been the ticket prices. There have been many times in my life where I’ve been really excited to go see a show… until I look at the pricing of my ticket order. I think that one of the saddest things about commercial theatres are that they have to make a profit. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely understand why. Even with ticket prices being as high as they are, many theatrical professionals are still underpaid. I think it’s really interesting that the article mentions that European shows can lower ticket prices by a lot because they are funded partially by arts grants and as such can focus more on creating a good and original performance experience and not just one that turns a profit. I love bringing theatre to those who haven’t gotten a chance to enjoy it yet, and with different ways of pricing tickets, it finally gives people who want to see these shows a chance to.
Considering only 15% of a production’s funding comes back in ticket sales I don’t know why theatres don’t experiment more with choosing what you pay or lower ticket prices in general. Professional theater can be very exclusionary with it’s high cost tickets as a class barrier. As the article also points out it can be turn off for anyone trying out going to the theatre for the first time. The pay what you can system is a great idea but I can also see how it could never become a widespread installment. It’s hard with ticket prices being so high in the first place but then also how they fluctuate depending on where in the house you are seated, the date at which you purchase as the article mentions, and also the caliber of the show. While highschool and community theatre can be very accessible to the general public, areas for example such as Broadway are very exclusionary in their price, location in Times Square, time because not everyone has free time to go see a show at night, and even subject material.
I think that this article is addressing some really important topics that are often overlooked. As a student myself I have a desire to be involved in many live music organizations and try and support them the best I can but financially that’s just not possible for me. I think that some of these Performance spaces need to think about how if they allow people to pay what they can people be more likely to come back and you’re going to get a larger amount of returning customers. I know if I was able to pay what I can I would go to as many performances that I had time for and they would begin to become a lifelong customer. That is what many of these organizations are looking for people who want to keep coming back here really enjoy the ambience enjoy the music have a passion for what they’re seeing but the only way to get people excited about that nowadays is to make it accessible for them. Not everybody is going to go out and pursue live music as an orchestra or a symphony, but if they see that it’s a pay as you can it opens those doors to so many more people you’ll have an influx of a younger audience who has not really been exposed to this before. intern this will allow these types of performances to have their audiences filled again.
I think pay-what-you-can should be incorporated into so many industries, especially those in entertainment. For example, I like that city theatre has a model that allows time for a pay-what-you-can method at the beginning of a show's run and a more standardized ticket price for the rest of the show's run. I think this is a great way to welcome newcomers into the theatre, as mentioned in the article, while also maintaining the profit needed from regular guests to keep the space open. The one improvement I could think of to this system is also having a few days towards the end of the show's run at a lower price for new guests to hear about performances through word of mouth before buying tickets at the start of the run. If other industries adopted this system, I'm sure new economic systems would get put in place to sustain the system while also making sure these places stay open and profitable, which would, in turn, make art more accessible as well.
Post a Comment