PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE Ken Davenport, Broadway Producer, Off-Broadway, Theater

Favorite Quotes Vol. XXIII: Only in New York. Kids.

Here's some fun for a Friday:

I was getting my hair cut yesterday, and I found myself in the chair next to a talkative tween.

At one point, I was staring down at my iPhone, cursing AT&T, wondering how in the heck I could not have any service in the middle of Manhattan, when the tween screamed.  

We're talking a Halloween is coming, blood curdling, "I See Dead People" scream.

Everyone in the salon turned to look at her just in time to see her start to cry.  And cry. Her eyes were like sprinklers, and someone had obviously pulled the tween alarm. 

"What's the matter?" said the stylist.

The tween was staring straight in the mirror.  For the first time, she caught a glimpse of her new haircut.

"It's too short!  What happened to my hair?  I hate it!!!"

The rest of us in the salon smirked.  It was sort of sweet (sort of).  Here was a kid that thought she got a bad haircut and wasn't afraid to tell the stylist exactly how she felt.

The stylist tried to calm her, as did everyone else in the place.

"It looks great, hon.  You look so pretty.  It's not too short.  It's so stylish!  You're adorable!"

"No, no, you don't understand, " said the tween.  "I'm going to have to get a whole new headshot now!"

Now there's something I'd never hear if I were getting my haircut in Sturbridge! 

Netflix for theater. It's here.

Ok. It's not here here.  It's over there here.  Like in the UK.  

The Brits beat us to the screen this week when www.DigitalTheatre.com went online with a few titles of taped theatrical productions that can be viewed in the privacy of your own home.

DigitalTheatre's plan is to create a "library of diverse and acclaimed productions from some of the finest theatre talent around."  

They've got a production of Far From The Madding Crowd up right now available for 8.99 GBP (or about $15 bucks) and are promising more in the future.  

Here are a couple of statements from the contributing theatres:

We’re always looking for ways to bring our work to the largest possible number of people. And the potential of digital technology to connect with a worldwide audience is genuinely exciting.

    - Dominic Cooke, Royal Court

There needs to be a revolutionising of the capture of live theatre, and we are enjoying the pursuit of that ambition with Digital Theatre.

    - Michael Boyd, Royal Shakespeare Company.

These guys have got it right.  A video revolution is coming.  It has to be.  Our attendance is waning.  A new audience isn't being born.  It's getting harder to pull people away from screens and get them into a theater. 

So perhaps we use what has been our greatest fear (those screens) and turn it into an asset.  

PBS has done it in the past. And seeing Into The Woods and Sweeney on TV certainly didn't deter me from seeing those shows live when they came back to Broadway.

The Met has been successful in putting operas in movie theaters around the country.  My 80-year-old Dad loves them, and now he wants to come to NYC to see an opera more than ever.

- Legally Blonde didn't lose all of its business here in NYC after a couple of plays on MTV.  And the tour is doing quite well . . . hmmmm.

- The Rent final performance DVD was pretty dang cool (I bought it), and even better than the movie in my opinion.

Of all of the options out there now, I think the Rent model is what could work the best.  Take a show that is closing, memorialize it, market it and use it to get people excited about another show live. 

It's like distributing a DVD after the movie has left the theaters.  

The unions would have to play ball to make this financially feasible, but if the show is closing, shouldn't they be more inclined to do it?  If all of the employees who worked on the show while it was being taped got a piece of future sales?  It's found money for the employees (and the union benefit funds), and since the show would be closing, there shouldn't be any fear that the Producers would be benefiting from the taped production as a promotional tool for Broadway (there is a question about using it to promote sub rights and tours, but certainly a profit participation for the union employees could make up for it).

The Digital Theatre folks are on to something.  And we better get on it as well, and stop guarding what we do like it's the Queen.  

Because this could be one of the few ways we have left to get what we do out to the masses.  

What happens when two competitors combine forces.

There are few industries like ours where our greatest friends can be our fiercest competitors.  It makes for some awkward opening night parties.

But look at what's happening just a train ride away!

Where else but in the City of Brotherly Love have two competitors found a way to work together and help each other get through these tricky economic times.

The Philadelphia Theatre Company and The Wilma Theater activated their wonder-twin powers yesterday when they announced a "Best Of Broad Street" subscription package (the theatres are across the street from each other) that allows Philadelphians to create a season subscription by choosing two plays from one theatre and two plays from the other.  

There used to be a time when people would subscribe to a season for one play/musical/event.  Sort of like going out to dinner, ordering a steak and taking whatever vegetables come along with it.  

Not so anymore. People are pickier than ever, and if the whole meal isn't appetizing, they're staying at home and having cereal.

Kudos to the boards of these two forward-thinking institutions for crossing the street and meeting on the median.  

Nobody puts Baby Wants Candy in a corner.

If you've never seen a fully improvised musical by a cracker-jack improvisational team, then you're missing out on one of the greatest achievements of mankind.  

Putting a man on the moon, splitting the atom, and creating an hour-long musical based on one random title suggested by an audience; these are the things that separate us from the animals.  

We all know creating a great musical can take years and years of development (and frankly, sometimes creating a crappy musical takes years and years of development).  So for those of us who have been in the business of creating a musical from scratch, there is nothing more fun than watching a musical come together right before your eyes . . . especially when the writers/actors/lyricists are Baby Wants Candy.

Baby Wants Candy is an improv team out of Chicago that specializes in this unique art form.  Lucky for you, they're at the Barrow Street Theatre on Saturdays for the next month or so.  And doubly-lucky for you, this engagement features this guy.  

I went on Saturday.  Did I like it?

Let's just say this:  I've lived in NYC for 18 years now.  I've seen a lot of readings of new musicals.  What I saw on Saturday was a lot more fun than so many of the shows I've seen. And they had scripts!

Check it out.  You'll laugh.  And maybe you'll be inspired to write.  Because if they can write something in one hour, certainly all of us can finish what we're working on in one month, right?

If you want to save some money on tickets for BWC, check out the discount area on www.BestOfOffBroadway.com.  

Broadway Grosses w/e 10/25/09

Show Name	GrossGross	TotalAttn	%Cap	Avg Pd Adm
A STEADY RAIN	$1,213,983	8,676	101.26%	$139.92
AFTER MISS JULIE	$216,363	4,968	83.92%	$43.55
BILLY ELLIOT: THE MUSICAL	$1,429,330	11,372	100.04%	$125.69
BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS	$124,720	5,849	60.88%	$21.32
BURN THE FLOOR	$301,345	5,327	63.78%	$56.57
BYE BYE BIRDIE	$638,124	8,137	99.13%	$78.42
CHICAGO	$615,447	7,624	88.24%	$80.72
FELA!	$219,116	5,037	81.50%	$43.50
FINIAN'S RAINBOW	$345,067	9,170	77.01%	$37.63
GOD OF CARNAGE	$900,914	7,715	102.24%	$116.77
HAIR	$855,348	9,631	85.26%	$88.81
HAMLET	$863,934	8,306	88.44%	$104.01
IN THE HEIGHTS	$724,508	8,793	80.52%	$82.40
IN THE NEXT ROOM OR THE VIBRATOR PLAY	$56,201	1,710	46.37%	$32.87
JERSEY BOYS	$1,175,433	9,898	101.25%	$118.75
MAMMA MIA!	$980,401	11,326	94.51%	$86.56
MARY POPPINS	$701,021	10,012	69.64%	$70.02
MEMPHIS	$528,902	9,814	83.45%	$53.89
NEXT TO NORMAL	$420,824	5,341	86.48%	$78.79
OLEANNA	$265,077	4,309	66.99%	$61.52
RAGTIME	$270,161	5,609	79.06%	$48.17
ROCK OF AGES	$601,568	6,960	87.26%	$86.43
SHREK THE MUSICAL	$497,813	8,428	60.79%	$59.07
SOUTH PACIFIC	$784,183	7,653	91.89%	$102.47
SUPERIOR DONUTS	$333,005	5,216	65.79%	$63.84
THE 39 STEPS	$209,952	3,109	65.98%	$67.53
THE LION KING	$1,291,847	12,719	96.12%	$101.57
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA	$808,695	10,759	83.27%	$75.16
THE ROYAL FAMILY	$257,220	4,496	86.46%	$57.21
WEST SIDE STORY	$1,107,211	11,842	87.23%	$93.50
WICKED	$1,525,772	14,431	99.72%	$105.73
WISHFUL DRINKING	$391,253	6,404	79.73%	$61.10
TOTAL	$20,654,736	250,641	82.63%	$76.36

What Broadway Producers and Publicists can learn from The Balloon Boy.

What a big balloon bozo.

I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of creative "stunts" designed to get your "product" attention.  In a cluttered marketing environment (like, I don't know, Broadway?) the right story can get you more attention than you could ever afford.

I've done a few in my day, from allowing virgins to get in free, to being the first musical to endorse a political candidate, and so on.  Some worked. Some didn't.  And with some, we were betrayed by hypocritical politicians who claimed they were for the little guy (when the truth was they were only for their own "little guy").

Regardless of the wackiness of some of the things I've done, or some of the things others have done successfully, they were always based in truth, and exaggerated for fun from there.  

And no one got hurt in the process by the exaggeration.

Unlike the insanity of the parents of the Balloon Boy.

One of the most famous Broadway stunts is the David Merrick Subways Are For Sleeping poster campaign, where he found individuals with the same names as the biggest critics in town to give him great quotes about the show, and he put these quotes all over the poster.  See photo.

Fun, right?  And truthful.  (The ad also had pictures of the "critics" so he couldn't be accused of trying to overtly mislead the public - of course no one knew what those guys looked liked in those days anyway).  

Was Merrick pushing it?  Yes, but the campaign was also a subtle comment on the value we put in a name, therefore brilliant.  

The crazy part is that Merrick got even more press from getting caught than he got from the campaign itself (he admitted that he had come up with this idea years before but he couldn't find anyone with the same name as Times critic, Brooks Atkinson.  When Atkinson retired in 1961, Merrick was good to go).

And that's the barometer of whether a stunt is worth doing.

Ask yourself . . . if I get "caught," will I benefit even more?  If someone busts me, will I look like a balloon boy boob, or an inventive entrepreneur.

If you're even close to looking like a BBB, then go back to the drawing board.

Start with the truth and use your creativity to take you to heights higher than any BS balloon could take you.

Breaking news: I just bought a copy of the New York Times.

I wanted to get a print copy of yesterday's Avenue Q review so that our street team sellers could use it to show potential customers how timely the show is.

It cost me $2.

I literally said to the Newsstand Man, "Well, I'm never going to buy another copy of this paper again."

According to HuffPo, the price of the paper has doubled in less than 2 years in an effort to make up some of the difference in the loss of advertising revenue and loss of readers.

Let me state the obvious:

Raising your prices to make up for a shortage in customers and/or an increase in expenses is never wise.

You want to raise your prices?  You better increase your value.

This message goes out to the NY Times . . . and to our industry as well.

Slowly but surely, we've been doing the same thing.  Grosses going up.  Attendance going down.

Let's just pray that we don't reach a point where a former loyal customer says, "Well, I'm never going to buy another ticket again."

- - - - -

Producer's Perspective Trivia:  Can you tell me why this picture is relevant to this entry?  

A sad day for Shrek.

Yesterday, Shrek confirmed what had been circulating the street all week: the ogre will be leaving Broadway and heading back to the swamp on January 3, 2010.

How could one of the most powerful entertainment brands of the last twenty years not survive on the Great White Way?  Too expensive?  Maybe.  Too much Hollywood influence?  Who knows.  

I believe the closing of Shrek represents the end of an era; an era which attempted to capitalize on kids first, and put adults second.  

Over the past year and a half, we've seen the premature closings of shows like Shrek, Little Mermaid, and even my own, 13.

All seemingly fantastic sells . . . except for the fact that they happened to be plopped right in the midst of one of the most difficult economic climates in our history.  And no demographic was hurt more than families of four from the suburbs.

When family folk was trying to decide on a show to see, here's what happened:

- Shows that just the kids might want to see went out the window.

- Shows that appealed to both kids and adults went bye-bye as well (Grease, Legally Blonde, Hairspray, etc.).

What's left on Broadway now is more adult fare . . .because the parents that are still going to the theater are leaving their kids at home (another reason why plays are doing so well).

Why do you think Disney doesn't have anything in the immediate pipeline?

I don't think you'll see another animated feature making its way here anytime soon, do you?

Another day. Another dream crushed.

Sigh.

I already told you earlier this week how I used to dream about reviving Carrie.  Well, whenever my mind wandered away from that horror-hottie, I dreamed about producing another musical:

A musical that could appeal to children and adults alike.  A musical that had great tunes already, but also could benefit from a supplemental score.  A musical that would be visually spectacular.

A musical of . . . Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Admittedly, I'm not the only one that has thought of this idea.  I think anyone who has ever dreamed of being a Creative Producer has imagined how the Oompa-Loompas would look live at some point in their career.  One of my favorite readers told me that she was in discussions with the estate for a while (I couldn't even get them to return my phone calls).

It looks like Willy is finally going to happen, and Sam Mendes is going to be the guy to do it.  Click here for more details.

Am I really disappointed?

No.  

You know why?  

1. Sam is the perfect guy for the job.

2. When I came up with the idea of Willy Wonka, I wasn't ready for it.  

Would it really have been possible for me to grab the rights to that material in between my acting classes at Tisch?  If you were the estate of Roald Dahl, would you have given the rights to me, no matter how much passion and creativity I had?  

Of course not.

Was it worth my time to work on Willy Wonka back then?  Probably not. I would have been better served working on something that I could accomplish more easily like a reading of a new play or musical that would have actually had a greater chance of happening and becoming MY Willy (uh, that sounded awkward).  

Starting small is often the best way to become big.

You don't wake up one morning and say "I'm going to run for President," and expect to win.  You go slow. You start off by being a community organizer, and then a senator, and so on. 

I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot for the stars, just remember that success is a staircase, best taken one step at a time.

The 50 Most Powerful People on Broadway

Patrick Lee, a fellow blogger and member of the ITBA, as well as the guy in NYC who sees more theater than anyone I know, published a byline this AM on BroadwaySpace titled, "The 50 Most Powerful People on Broadway."

Fun!

Patrick spoke to a bunch of Bway insiders, in order to determine who really is pulling the curtain on The Great White Way.

Click here to read the article.  It's fascinating!

The old theater mags, like TheaterWeek and InTheater, used to publish lists like these annually.  They were my favorite columns of the year.  It was always fun seeing who had the juice.

But you know what's even more fun?  

Taking a look at the list one year later, and seeing just who rose in the ranks, who fell, who appeared, and who disappeared completely.

Maybe we can get Patrick to do it again next year.