British Theatre Guide Blog

Earlier this week I was contacted by a BBC Radio station and asked if the credit crunch is affecting theatre.  I had to admit that I didn’t know.  I had heard things but they were - at least - secondhand so I didn’t feel justified in making more than the vaguest of comments.  However I did decide to investigate further.

I have heard it said that the number of West End shows which have announced closure recently is proof that the crunch is having an effect (and certainly the media seem to be taking this line), but shows are always closing for one reason or another and sometimes it does seem to happen in clumps.  And when we look at those which have closed or are about to close, we see that some have reached the end of their planned runs, others have been panned by the critics and one was unable to persuade its cast to take a cut in pay when moving to a smaller venue.  Hardly evidence of a major downturn.

In fact, SOLT and those producers who have commented have been very bullish.  Nica Burns of Nimax Theatres was a little cautious, suggesting that theatre is bound to be affected in the coming months but insisting that the autumn season has been good.

I decided to take a sample of North East theatres - a 1,300-seater receiving house, a 400-seater receiving house and a producing/receiving house with two auditoria.

Philip Bernays of Newcastle’s Theatre Royal said, “We are currently on target in terms of audience figures and Box Office income, but we are reaching these targets slightly later than we usually do as people are booking later.

“We are generally not putting prices up in 2009 as we recognise that people are being cautious with the amount of money they have to spend, and are concerned that, from the Spring when there may well be a squeeze on pay rises, the situation will get tougher. Of course, not putting up prices whilst our own costs rise is also going to create pressure on our budgets.”

Peter Darrant of the Customs House in South Shields agreed.  He said that last minute booking had increased greatly and walk-ups (people paying at the box office on the night rather than booking in advance) were up 100%.  A children’s show this week had 60 walk-ups for one performance and 54 for another - a most unusual situation.  In fact, advance booking patterns have changed.  For example, a recent mail-out three days before one show brought in 100 bookings rather than the usual ten.

Group bookings, too, are down, as are school bookings for the panto, but - and this is the significant thing - actual attendance is up.  He believes that people are less willing to commit to spending in advance, but are still turning up.

 The Customs House, he believes, is lucky in that the bulk of its audience tends to be retired people - “Kids gone, income secure, mortgage paid” - but still he thinks all theatres are going to have to change their marketing strategies to deal with the new situation.  And, of course, things will change once the recession begins to bite.

Northern Stage reports no change in booking patterns.  In fact, their spring production of Look Back in Anger is selling well, as are the two children’s Christmas shows.

The theatre’s spokesman suggested perhaps the credit crunch and impending recession had not hit the north as badly as the south (and, in particular, the south east) - yet.  He expects Northern Stage to feel the effects in the new year.

The situation in this part of the country, then, is not too bad, but theatres are bracing themselves for a downturn but, instead of throwing up their hands in despair, they are, as Peter Darrant said, preparing to adapt their marketing strategies to the changing conditions.

A report in The Stage tells us that ATG has cancelled a musical - Houdini the Musical - that had been booked into the Regent Theatre, Stoke, because the actors were not being paid but employed on the basis that, if the show had a life beyond the Stoke run, they would receive a full wage for that.  The TMA agreed that the arrangement was unacceptable and Equity pointed out that the whole affair could fall foul of employment legislation.

It seemed absolutely right and I found myself nodding in agreement.  However I decided to do a bit more checking and discovered that the company behind the production is, in fact, run by very young actors, not long out of drama school, and, they say, this is the only way they could do this new musical on which they are so keen.

Then I began to think.  On Friday evening I went to see a new play written by a friend of mine in a new venue.  It had a cast of six (playing 19 parts between them) and it ran for one night.  How did they get funding? I asked.  They didn’t: they did it because it was something they wanted to do and they knew that this would be the only way they would get to do it. Hopefully it will have a life beyond the one night and they will have some profit to share, but that’s unknown.

 I chatted to the writer, who was also one of the actors, and she told me they were sick of waiting around for auditions but there’s not very much original theatre being produced in the region and applying for Arts Council grants means having to jump through so many hoops to fit into the “priorities”, the forms are complex and time-consuming to complete and there is certainly no guarantee at the end of the day that any money will be forthcoming.  So they decided to go it alone on a profit-share basis.

They are not alone.  That’s how we did A Cold Coming last year and very recently a group of NE actors have got together to form a group to put on their own work on the same basis.

These people I’m talking about are all professional actors, directors and writers, some with decades of experience, but they feel that their only chance of working, given that the number of plays produced in one year in the region is in single figures, is to do it themselves. 

It’s a dreadful situation.  There is TIE work around and corporate work, but real theatre? the sort of work we came into the business to do?  Forget it! 

Or do it yourself.

At a time of global financial meltdown, it is good to see the Royal Shakespeare Company taking a stand against the sort of unbridled greed which is the root cause of our financial woes.  The company has been contacting people who have advertised tickets for the sold-out Hamlet on Internet sites, warning them that selling on these tickets will render them void and that the buyer will be refused admission.

That may seem, at first sight, to be harsh, but when we consider that tickets are being offered for as much as £300, it makes perfect sense.  If the original purchaser has a genuine reason for not being able to attend the performance for which (s)he has booked, the tickets can be returned to the box-office for resale and so no one loses and someone else gets the opportunity to see the show.  And if, as I suspect, some of those who are advertising bought tickets for the express prupose of selling them on at a huge profit, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Needless to say the secondary sales market professionals are up in arms.  According to a report in The Stage, Joe Cohen of secondary ticket agent Seatwave has accused the RSC of being out of touch with reality. “Clearly,” he said, “they have got a situation where there is a very high demand for tickets to these events and a limited capacity. In every circumstance, that will create a secondary market. Whether you like it or not, that is going to happen.”

Of course it is: there always have been and there will always be people who will seek to profit from others, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be made easy for them.  Mr Cohen boasts that Seatwave does not mention seat numbers, so there is no way for the RSC to track down tickets sold through the site, and therefore his customers can continue to demand high prices and his company to take, in addition, fees as high as £50 per transaction.

The RSC’s action cannot but be minimally effective, but at least they are trying.

While what Seatwave does is not illegal, for Mr Cohen to justfy what they are doing as using “the forces of a free market” smacks to me of the same philosophy which has brought us to the pretty financial pass in which we find ourselves.

He says that  theatres have “an antiquated view of reality” because of their opposition to the profit-seeking secondary ticket market: I would love to think that recent events have shown that it is his view that is antiquated. Exploitation is always wrong, in no matter what field,  and it would be good to see the law reflecting that by making re-selling tickets except at face value, plus any agent’s charges and the cost of posting the sold-on tickets to the purchaser, illegal.  It is the consumer who would be protected, not the theatres, and well done the RSC for standing up for theatregoers against the touts and profit-seekers.