Ken Davenport - Opinions from a Broadway Producer

Who will say, "It's an honor just to be nominated" this year? Guess right and win.

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!

Theater things that don't make sense: Vol. 1

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.

Advice From An Expert: Vol I. The Swami Speaks!

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 . . .

Cry-Baby opened last night. So, did HE like it?

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

Degrees-R-Us.

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.

Schadenfreude is not just a song from Avenue Q.

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.

3, 2, 1 . . . launch (hey, did anyone check the weather?)

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.

I'm all a Twitter.

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.  :-)

Overheard at the Broadway League conference: Day 3

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.

Overheard at the Broadway League conference: Day 2

Day 2's comment comes from the creative conversation with the three women of Cat On A Hot Tin Roof:  Anika Noni Rose, Director Debbie Allen, and everyone's favorite Cosby mom and Tony Award speech-giver, Phylicia Rashad.

The quote?  From Mrs. Cosby herself . . .

"Directors do not control me."

Now, you can imagine the "oooohs" this remark drew from the crowd, especially with her director/sister only two seats away.

But Phylicia Rashad settled us quickly and explained what she meant.

"Directors do not control me . . . but I do take direction."

What Phyl was trying to say was that while a director can tell her exactly where she wants her to go, and the director can poke, prod and give suggestions to help get her there, a director ultimately has no say in the exact techniques that she uses.  And frankly the director shouldn't care, as long as the performance ends up where the director wants it (in fact, I'm a big believer in secrets - actors shouldn't reveal what works for them).

Here's an analogy.  You're having a birthday party at 9:00 PM at the local Chuck E. Cheese.  You tell your best friend that it's imperative that they are there at 9:00 PM for the cake and ice cream.  You can give your friend directions, buy him a GPS, or send him a google map if you want.  But ultimately, your friend is going to figure out how to get their on his own, by the route that works best for him.

And as long as he gets there at 9 . . . you should care less.

Now, if he gets there at 9:10, but brings you the best present (aka performance) ever, what do you do?

You compromise, because it's not your ego, and it's not your actor's ego that's most important. 

It's the audience.