Not always.

I consider myself very lucky to have worked on the last Gypsy revival starring the beautiful Bernadette Peters.  It was directed by the cool Sam Mendes, and produced by the gentlemanly Robert Fox (Boy From Oz, Pillowman, The Hours, Atonement).  It was a first class revival, with first class people, and I loved it.

Unfortunately, it closed after a year and a half.  We got great notices and people loved the show, but for whatever reason, we failed to become a must-see (Nine won the Tony that year).

A few years later, here comes Arthur Laurents and Patti Lupone in another revival about the celebrated stripper, and people are buying so many tickets you'd think the show hadn't been revived four times, had two movies and been seen in every dinner theater around the country . . . twice.

After seeing Gypsy so many times during my tenure, I thought I would have been bored watching the new production.  But I was wasn't.  It's a great production of a great show with great performances.

Here's what's I noticed:  The set was smaller in this production.  The ensemble didn't have as many costumes.  There definitely weren't as many vari-lites in the air.  And, what the . . . they didn't even use a real dog or a real lamb!

And yet this production is set to out-perform ours.  Doesn't seem fair, does it?

There are probably a zillion reasons why (please feel free to comment your thoughts), including many that we couldn't control.  But having two productions of the same show done in different styles this close to each other is a great test case.

It once again proves that a show's success isn't based on whether or not you build custom made boots or you get them off the rack, or whether you get the super-premium lighting package or just the basics.  Or even whether or not Momma Rose had a real dog in the first scene.

Do you think those are the sort of things people talk about when leaving your theater?

Should we have done anything different on the previous production?  Nope.  It was a stunning stylistic choice and unfortunately it just wasn't as successful as we had hoped.

But it does demonstrate that spending more doesn't always make you more.  In fact, you can afford to spend less, if you're confident you're giving them more elsewhere. 

This also works in the reverse.

Why do you think Wicked is the biggest spectacle we've seen in awhile?

Early in my career, I worked for one of the most powerful commercial theater companies in the world.

I also worked for one of the weakest commercial theater companies in the world.

Ironically, they were one and the same:  Livent - the producers of Show Boat, Ragtime, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Fosse, Barrymore, etc.

In just over a year, we went from opening our own theater on 42nd St., to having our paychecks stamped Debtor In Possession.

I was reminded of Livent when I read this article that announced that the trial of Garth Drabinksy, my former Tony Soprano, had begun. 

The allegations and the indictments on both side of the border are pretty serious (if Garth stepped into Buffalo he'd be arrested).  I won't get into too many details about what I know, because frankly, I don't want any of those Mounties thinking they should call me to testify. 

But let's just put it this way.  During the big horse race of Lion King versus Ragtime, there was a lot of concern about whether we were out-grossing the animals on Pride Rock.  Frankly, from what I recall, a lot of the Ragtime grosses that were published around that time were just like the best friend I had when I was five.  Made up.

That's not the point of this post.

The point is, after everything that has happened, Garth is still at it.  He's produced television.  A theater piece won awards last year.  For the love of God, he's a consultant!

You should print out that article and hang it by your desk.  If Garth can bring down a company, face jail time, not be allowed in the US and still soldier on?  Then surely a bad review or a lost investment is not going to stop you, is it? 

Garth called me about a year after Livent went tummy-up.  He said, "Kenny, there will never be anything like the shows that I did on Broadway ever again."

I told him he was right.  Because he was.  His passion and super-ego produced some of the most beautiful shows we've ever seen by some of Broadway's greatest artists.  The problem was that the industry couldn't support shows like Show Boat or Ragtime the way he built them.  He built mansions on cliffs.  And the cliffs couldn't hold them up.

Criminal charges aside . . . is it crazy that I miss the guy?  I'd probably still get him his double whipped latte if he asked me . . .

Conventional marketing wisdom says it takes five impressions before a consumer is primed for purchase.

The same is true when you're a producer and your job is to get people to join your team, whether they are a director, a writer, an investor, or an intern.

Translation?  Getting anyone to do anything is all about follow-up.

A talented up-and-comer was asking me for some advice yesterday and she told me how she wanted a director to read her script, but was dismayed because she had sent the director an email and hadn't heard back.

She sent just one email.  And was praying for a positive response.  That's like placing a 1/4 ad in Time Out and expecting to sell out for weeks.

It's easy for us to take this kind of lack of response as a personal slight, but it's not.  The director is a consumer just like everyone else, and you've got something to sell.  If companies like Apple or Altar Boyz gave up after one impression, no one would sell sell a thing.

Does this mean that you should send four more emails?  No.  Think of asking for anything just like a media plan:  Vary your media.  Email (online marketing) didn't work?  Try another form of direct response, like a phone call (telemarketing).  Or go to a party where you know the person will be and make sure he/she sees you (billboard).  Have a mutual friend mention you to him/her (word-of-mouth).

But don't just give up and think no one wants your product. 

Instead, think of every impression you make as getting closer and closer to your goal. 

And the best thing about follow-up impressions?  Unlike 1/4 page Time Out ads, they are free.

Oh, and they actually work.

We all know the odds:  4 out of 5 Broadway shows don't return their investments.  So for those of us nutty enough to want to do it, how do we choose the right project? 

What do we look for when putting our record and reputation on the line?  A good score?  A reasonable economic model?  Passionate creative team?  Producing partners you admire?  A show you can say you're proud to be a part of even if He doesn't like it?

Yes.

But that's not all.

For me, there has to be all of those things . . . and something else.  Something unique, something remarkable, something purple.  Something that can cut through the noise of the other 30+ Broadway shows screaming for attention in the 12 block stretch that is Broadway. 

Something that advertises and markets itself, so you don't have to. 

And that's why I just recently signed on to be a Producer of 13, the new Broadway musical by Jason Robert Brown and Dan Elish and spearheaded by one of the most prolific and respected producers on Broadway (and on television), Robert Boyett.

So what does 13 have that made me call Bob to see if he was looking for partner like me?  Yes, it has all of the above in super-spades (wait until you hear this score), but it also has this . . . a cast of 13 teenagers.  No adults. 

And a band of teenagers.  No adults.

Now that's something that gets attention, don't you think?  It's the special little spark that makes us stand out from the crowd without having to buy our place in the front with full page ads, stars that cost $35k/week, etc.

Producing a hit, like having a successful marriage, is super hard.  You wouldn't marry someone that just looked good on paper would you?  You'd wait until you met someone with something really special before making that huge commitment.  Something that others didn't seem to have.  Something that made this person stand out from the crowd.

That special spark is no guarantee that you'll be married for 50 years or that you'll run for 50 years.  But add it to everything else and I'd bet on it.

Oh wait.  I am.

A game I like to play . . . look at the longest running shows on Broadway or any big hits.  Find their SS (special spark)?   What did Cats have?  Annie?  Mamma Mia?  The Producers?   Find it in these shows . . . then find it in your own before you get down on one knee.

Stay tuned, readers . . . lots of Producer Perspective ahead as 13 readies to bow on Broadway in September.

Another good question from a reader who caught my "twitter" today about reviewing the operating agreement for the documentary that I'm shooting.

People used to ask me if I would ever do film.  My answer was always the same:  "I won't do film until I run across a project that tells me I must do it as a film."

Not everything should be a play or a musical.  Whenever I'm contemplating doing a show, I ask myself (and you should ask yourself), "What will make this project so unique that it becomes more special on stage than in any other medium (book, film, etc.)?"   If there's another medium that would be even more effective, you have to consider that. 

Theater is a non-realistic art form.  Film is a very realistic art-form.  In film, if you're on a street, you show the actual street.  In theater, if you're on a street, you show a semblance of a street.  It's what you do with the lack-of-a-street that makes the stage special.

Back to the doc . . .

3 years ago I came across a band called Red Wanting Blue, one of the top unsigned bands in the country.  12 years, 8 albums, thousands of fans . . . but still no record deal.  Yet they keep going, and going, refusing to give up.  And let me tell you, if you think the life of an actor is hard, it ain't nothing compared to the lives of 4 guys climbing the ladder of the music industry (just wait until you see this footage).

On top of all of this, their music is amazing.  And commercial.  And one day, in the middle of pitching them the idea of writing a musical about a band just like them, I found myself saying, "Think about writing something similar to your story.  What I want is your story."  And then I realized, I really did want their story, up close and personal, as they change tires in negative 45 degree weather in Montana and pee in jars to save time in the back of their freezing cold van as they tour the country reaching for the brass ring of a record deal.

So we're filming it. 

This Sunday, the band is headlining at The Mercury Lounge in New York City.  I'll be rockin' out in the audience myself this weekend, so come . . . and you'll get a chance to see some of the most passionate people I've ever met. 

Oh, and I'll buy you a drink.

Click here for more info.

The nominations are pouring in!  The Outer Critics, The Drama Desks, The East Lansing Twitterers of America Club, and on May 13th (insert dramatic music here), The Tony Awards!

Nominations and awards are important.  After a focus group on Altar Boyz, we learned that the #1 compelling piece of information that we could tell people to get them interested in buying tickets was that we were the "winner" of the Outer Critics Circle Award for Best Off-Broadway Musical.  It didn't matter that they didn't know what the Outer Critics Circle was . . . they just knew that we won something.  And that something piqued their interest.

So the people that get nominated, especially for the "Big 3" (Best Musical, Best Play and Best Revival of a Musical - the only awards that can have considerable impact on a box office), are one step closer to having another tool in their marketing toolbox.

Who will it be?

The real interesting category is Best Musical.  The fight for the Big One is almost as unprecedented as our upcoming presidential election!  As I've mentioned before, this is an extremely competitive year, with 8 new musicals duking it out for 4 spots.  That's means a lot of producers are going to have nothing to do on June 15th. 

Here are my picks, in order of how sure I am:

1. In The Heights
2. Passing Strange
3. A Catered Affair

   and

4. Young Frankenstein

It's the 4th spot that's the wild card.  There are a lot of middlin' musicals out there this year.  Will Disney finally get a break?  Is everyone over Mel Brooks and his cockiness?  Will the critically revered but box office beleaguered Xanadu triumph?  What about Glory Days?  And don't count out Diet Hairspray aka Cry Baby.

What do you think?  Am I right?  Wrong?

Here's my challenge to you.  If you disagree with me, go ahead and make your differing prediction in the comment section.  If you're get all four nominations right and I'm wrong?  Free $10 Starbucks gift certificate.  To every one of you who gets it right.

But you must make your prediction by Thursday at 6 PM, and only one prediction per person!

Today we start a new series identifying some things that are just plain odd. 

Not right or wrong, just odd or out-of-balance. 

Many of these things are a result of how the business was born, how it's structured, and who has the power.  Many are archaic "industry standards" (I hate that phrase, BTW.  How can anything be standard in an industry with a failure rate as high as ours?  Obviously the standards suck, so why keep using them?)

Many of these things may never change . . . unless enough of us Producers start jumping up and down all at once and start demanding it.

You guys game?  I thought so. 

Ok, here we go . . . volume #1.

Did you know that if you produce a show in any Broadway or Off-Broadway theatre in New York City or any major touring house across the country and want to sell merchandise (t-shirts, CDs, etc.), you will be forced to a pay a commission to the theater owner?  (10%, 15%, even higher in some markets!)

Now, did you know, that in the same contract, you will be told that the theater owner has the right, whether you like it or not, to sell drinks, concessions, etc.. and you get no participation in that, even though it's your audience buying the $4 Kit Kat and $5 bottled water. 

Either give us a piece, or allow us to sell it.  Producers have so few ancillary revenue streams.  If we had more, our risk would be reduced.

Why do you think Steve Wynn can spend $100 million on a show in Las Vegas?  Because he has additional revenue streams that help support it:  hotel rooms, restaurants, souvenirs, and oh, I don't know, gambling?

We may never get a piece of the bar, but we should never stop searching for additional ways our content can make us money.

I'm lucky enough to have some pretty cool and influential readers of The Producers Perspective out there, so we're going to start a new series that highlights some of their comments and suggestions about issues we discuss here.

The first refers to a post that I wrote at the start of the Broadway League conference regarding the show that sold the most premium seats.  I quoted Brian Mahoney, "The Swami of Statistics", who wrote in recently and wanted me to make sure I made everyone aware that when he referenced Phantom as being the top premium ticket seller, he was comparing premium ticket sales for shows in Shubert Houses only. 

Since I had The Swamster on the e-horn, I asked him for a few words of wisdom regarding seating and pricing to share with all of you.  Here's what he came up with, and I couldn't agree more:

All seats are not created equal.  The public knows this and so do we.  What
applies to real estate applies to selling tickets: Location!  Location! 
Location!  We should remember this when establishing the parameters for
discounts and not discount the first class section.   We should look at a
theatre as if we were running an oceanfront resort: you discount the garden view
rooms not the ocean front and ocean view rooms.  People who pay full price
should get better seats than those buying at a discount.

Some killer analogies in there.  There is so much for us to learn from the travel industry.  My tip of the day?  Sign up for all the travel discount sites you can . . . watch and learn how they get rid of their perishable inventory and maximize their revenue.

Thanks to Brian!  Until the next expert speaks . . .

Only one way to find out:  www.DidHeLikeIt.com

According to census data, the percentage of the American population with college degrees keeps rising, with 28% of all workers over the age of 25 reporting having completed their undergraduate education. 

According to Broadway League statistics, 76% of our audience has completed college.

Here's my bullish thought of the day:

If college degrees are rising, and people with college degrees go see theater more than others, isn't there a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of our audience instead of the decline?

And if there is such a overwhelming correlation between higher education and attendance at the theater, perhaps our audience developmental programs should focus on colleges and universities around the country.

Here's what I do for the next survey.  I'd find out if there are certain schools sending more people to Broadway shows than others.  If we found a few, I'd develop partnerships with those institutions to continue to expand on what we know is working already.

I call this sort of technique fan-the-flame marketing.  You find out where the spark of your audience is.  Then you go blow on it, until it turns into a roaring fire.

When you open on the big Broadwaay, you get one shot.  And it's imperative that you know what's happening around you before you pull that touchy trigger.

Look at this quote from Variety about an industry that's much smarter than we are (partly because they have more resources, I will admit, but mostly because they care more about research).

TV network execs who pay attention to the numbers know that young male
viewership can dip in the first few days after a blockbuster videogame
launches. And home-entertainment honchos avoid releasing big titles
aimed at that demo in the same time period.

The current Broadway season is one of the most competitive I've seen since I moved to New York, with 8 new musicals competing for only 4 Best Musical nominations (anyone else remember 1995, When Sunset Boulevard won by pseudo-default, because the only other musical nominated was Smokey Joe's Cafe?).

Not this year.

What's interesting to me is that up until a month or so ago, there were only 7 potential nominees. 

And then, a small show from out of town, with decent but not stellar reviews, no stars, and a minimal advertising budget compared to its behemothic peers, announced that it was going to beat the Tony deadline and open this season.  Look out Little Mermaid, Young Frankenstein, In The Heights, Passing Strange, Cry Baby, Xanadu and A Catered Affair, there's a new show in town!  Are you scared?  (I bet most of you don't even know what it is, or it will take you some time to come up with it . . . and that feeling you're having is what we call a lack of awareness in the market.)

It sounds like David versus Goliath, right?  But it's not.  It's David versus SEVEN Goliaths, and I don't think they make a sling shot big enough.

These eight shows are not only competing for just four nomination slots and the television appearance that comes with it, but they're also competing for press, critics, and more importantly, ticket buyers.  Just because there are more shows, doesn't mean there are more audiences to go around.  Like too many puppies born in a litter, a few of them can't feed, and end up runts . . . or worse.

I'm rooting for the underdog here.  I hope something great comes out of this late entry, because I think the team is talented and I do know the players. 

But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if they would have looked at what else was happening in the market like our TV execs above, waited 8 weeks and opened next season. 

They could have been the first to feed, instead of the last.

It's also the feeling you get when you read an article buried in the media section of the New York Times announcing that The New York Times Company posted a loss for the first quarter of 2007 . . . compared with a profit $23.9 million in the year before.

Holy profit-drop, Batman!

I'd feel bad for them, if it wasn't for the fact that they hold the theater industry hostage with their exorbitant rates (earning them $23.7 million in three months last year!) and fascist policies, most of which aren't written down (they don't allow shows to share ads even if they are in the same theater, etc.). 

Another company announced their 1st quarter results this week as well.  Their profit jumped 31%.

Which company?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with schmoogle.

I wonder where the future of advertising lies.

Twitter is starting to tip.

I've heard it more times this week from friends than I have in the last six months. 

So I signed up, and will be twitting often.  What that means is when you're on this page, you'll be able to see what I'm up to by looking in the WHAT I AM DOING section in the upper right hand corner of this page.  I can twit by text, web, phone from anywhere . . . and I will. 

The relevance of Twitter to modern day producers of any sort of content is the demonstration that once again, content that is changing constantly . . . and content that is brief . . . is becoming even more valuable. 

Check it out . . . and spend some time thinking how to harness Twitter for your shows.

Oh, and here's a great quote about Twitter from the New York Times, after they raised millions (a lot more than a Broadway show, I'm sure) to launch the company. 

Its co-founder says that the company was not currently focused on making money and that no one in the company was even working on how to do so.  "At the moment, we're focused on growing our network and our user experience," he (Biz Stone, co-founder) said.  "When you have a lot of traffic, there's always a clean business model."

Boy did that make me feel a heck of a lot better about a lot of things that I'm doing.  Doesn't it make you feel better?

As that freaky voice said, "If you build it, they will come."  It doesn't matter if you're writing a show or building a web-based business.

- - -

Click on the "follow me on Twitter" link. I promise some fun updates on the day-to-day of what I do.  When I'm in a boring meeting or a boring show, or when something awesome is happening, you'll be the first to know.  Even before my Mom.  :-)

The third and final day of the conference yielded this goodie:

David Stone, producer of Wicked, brought up the recent sale of the theatrical division of Live Nation, which included the majority of their theaters as well as the Broadway Across America brand subscription series in those respective markets.

David suggested that the corporate structure and pursuit of Wall Street type goals (annual growth rates, etc.) by companies like Live Nation was antithetical to our industry. 

David's right.  As the article linked above suggests, Live Nation ignored the "boring" (as they referred to it) assets of the live theater and focused on concerts and such.  I agree we're in much better hands with John Gore controlling 42 Broadway markets across the country.  He actually likes the theater, not just big bottom lines.  Those are the best Producers.

But does that mean every corporate structure fails on Broadway?

Something tells me that the big ol' mouse that had 3 of the top 5 grossing shows last week (again) would have something to say about that.

Corporations have it tough.  But the quality ones that care can pull it off.

The third and final day of the conference yielded this goodie:

David Stone, producer of Wicked, brought up the recent sale of the theatrical division of Live Nation, which included the majority of their theaters as well as the Broadway Across America brand subscription series in those respective markets.

David suggested that the corporate structure and pursuit of Wall Street type goals (annual growth rates, etc.) by companies like Live Nation was antithetical to our industry. 

David's right.  As the article linked above suggests, Live Nation ignored the "boring" (as they referred to it) assets of the live theater and focused on concerts and such.  I agree we're in much better hands with John Gore controlling 42 Broadway markets across the country.  He actually likes the theater, not just big bottom lines.  Those are the best Producers.

But does that mean every corporate structure fails on Broadway?

Something tells me that the big ol' mouse that had 3 of the top 5 grossing shows last week (again) would have something to say about that.

Corporations have it tough.  But the quality ones that care can pull it off.