StageGrade
StageGrade
mjohnson2
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/13
#1StageGrade
Posted: 6/12/14 at 11:38pm
Hello all,
does anybody know what happened to StageGrade's website? All of the spring shows have been taken down. I think there is another aggregator for theatre in New York, but I can't remember it. Does anybody else know the name of it?
Anything regarding shows stated by this account is an attempt to convey opinion and not fact.
WiCkEDrOcKS
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/13/04
#2StageGrade
Posted: 6/13/14 at 12:50pmI've been wondering what happened to this site as of late. For a while, the entire domain was unavailable. I thought maybe they were redesigning it, but it looks like it may have crashed or been hacked as a lot of content has disappeared. I hope they fix it soon, I love this site. Updated On: 6/13/14 at 12:50 PM
Someday
Featured Actor Joined: 4/4/06
#2StageGrade
Posted: 7/30/14 at 1:10pmMiss this site. Anyone know what the status is? The last tweet from @stagegrade, on June 9, 2014, says, "We are working on it, but can't say exactly when it might be back. We'll keep you posted." Hoping the site's not gone for good, because it was a great idea and very useful!
#3StageGrade
Posted: 7/30/14 at 4:25pmDoug Rand registered the URL. Does this ring a bell to anyone?
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#4StageGrade
Posted: 11/28/14 at 11:49pmOh, wow. http://thewickedstage.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-happened-to-stagegrade.html
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#5StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 1:43amHow underhanded. Who knew that Ken Davenport was the Rupert Murdoch of Broadway. (New York Magazine, then owned by Murdoch, bought its competitor Cue with the idea they were going to "merge" but Cue just disappeared.)
FishermanBob
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/9/12
#6StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 4:03pm
Why is it underhanded? Companies buy out their competitors to eliminate competition all the time. The real dumb move was when, if I read it correctly in Step 2, the 2 guys who created it not only got an investment but apparently for this investment, gave the investor controlling interest in the venture so as indicated if they got tired of being involved with it, they could sell it to anyone they want which apparently is what they did. If it's your passion project, you may want to bring on investors for a minority % of the business but you never, ever give up controlling interest. If you do, you lose the right to complain when those who now control it do with it what they want.
Updated On: 11/29/14 at 04:03 PM
#7StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 6:06pm/. Yep Welcome to the real world.
CZJ at opening night party for A Little Night Music, Dec 13, 2009.
#8StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 8:28pm
It's underhanded because, as the founders explain it, Ken Davenport presented himself as a white knight who would save Stagegrade, NOT as somebody buying out a competitor.
Was it naive of them to believe this? I suppose so. You sound as if you're too smart a businessman to have made the mistakes they made. But I admire the two theater artists and journalists who had the foresight and stamina to create what was a very good aggregation site -- far better than what Mr. Davenport the savvy (ruthless?) businessman has left us with.
#9StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:00pm
If you sell your entire site off to someone else, to the point where you have no access or right to it anymore, what the new owner chooses to do with it after that point is no longer your concern.
It is hardly ruthless to offer someone money and they accept it. Once you cash that check, the fate of Stagegrade is entirely out of your hands. And they don't seem to be disputing the proper ownership of the site is not theirs.
It is equally not underhanded to do whatever you want with something you own. Maybe he intended to fix it at one point, but then he didn't. His site, his choice.
#10StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:18pm
With all due respect, you literally don't know what you're talking about. Fact: No cash changed hands. They "sold" the site for zero dollars. The founders of StageGrade were not only not typical businessmen; they were not businessmen at all. They just wanted their (very good) site to live.
Now, maybe you're right about Mr. Davenport's initial intentions. I hope you're right. But it sure doesn't look that way
FishermanBob
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/9/12
#11StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:34pm
"It's underhanded because, as the founders explain it, Ken Davenport presented himself as a white knight who would save Stagegrade, NOT as somebody buying out a competitor.
Was it naive of them to believe this? I suppose so."
I guess the point I'm trying to make Jonathan, is that instead of presenting himself as a white knight, Ken could have said to the two founders "I am the living embodiment of Satan" and it wouldn't have made a difference cause by the time Ken got involved and was in negotiations to buy it, it was no longer the founders' business to control or to exercise any judgment about to whom it was sold. That's clear from the comment that the partner, not them, decided to look for a buyer, If I read the chronology correctly, it was actually Playscripts who sold the company to Davenport, not the founders and Playscripts is the only one with any standing to complain they were mislead about what his intent was. The Founders can complain that they were mislead but Davenport had no obligation to even say hello to them.
Having said all this doesn't take away from the fact that I agree with you, StageGrade was a well done site and it's a shame it's not around anymore
#12StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:34pm
Well, I am going off of the link above, which says "Company partner, no longer up for hosting the site, decides to look for a buyer. Sells it to a theatrical producer/entrepreneur who ostensibly sees, and can help realize, its potential as a money-making business."
It's not outlandish to read the word "sells" and assume money changed hands. Not to mention, it only makes it proof they were out of their element if they made no money and lost the site in the process.
FishermanBob
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/9/12
#13StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:39pm
"Fact: No cash changed hands. They "sold" the site for zero dollars."
How is this even possible? Who sells something for nothing? Whether the founders pocketed the money or used it to expand the site and do things they couldn't have done without an investment, it's pretty clear from their own statement "with help and investment from existing company (Playscripts) in related theatrical field." that an investment was made and money had to have changed hands.
Even taking the most unlikely scenario that they just gave it to Playscripts with the promise that Playscripts would feed it, love it and raise it as their own, Davenport made no such promise to the founders at the point the founders gave it to Playscripts, so the founders issue is with the judgment Playscripts exercised with regard to whom they sold it to, not what the buyer eventually decided to do with it.
Updated On: 11/29/14 at 09:39 PM
#14StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 9:53pm
The two of you are focusing on the business end of things, and I have no problem with your doing so, but it's just not my interest nor my expertise. (I only know about the zero-dollar sale because one of the principals told me this directly.) You're also focusing on the founders and their rights; again, you can focus on whatever you want.
But I made my initial comment on this thread because my focus is on Ken Davenport and what appears to be his disappointing behavior in all this. What I know is -- there was a good site; under Mr. Davenport's stewardship, it disappeared.
#15StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 10:02pmIt is hard to know whether what he did was "underhanded" without knowing the other details. Did he make and break promises? Did he tell them one thing and do another? Did he plan to roll this functionality into his other site and just never followed through? Not sure how you can arrive at his disappointing behavior if we don't know any of what went down... aside from there was a site, there wasn't a site, so he sucks. If that is the sole point you want to argue, without much to back it up, I guess you're free to do so...
#16StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 10:11pm
Well, we have these statements from the blog post that LizzieCurry linked to (and that sparked this conversation):
1. Mr. Davenport "ostensibly sees, and can help realize, its potential as a money-making business."
2. "Site’s new owner seems oddly uninterested in fixing it, or in selling it back for non-extortionate terms."
FishermanBob
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/9/12
#17StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 10:56pmHave you talked to Davenport to get his side of the story? Have you talked to Playscripts to see what they were told by Davenport? Are what the two founders thought in their minds Davenport "ostensibly saw" any real grounds on which to conclude he acted in an underhanded manner? On your twitter, you call yourself a journalist. Isn't the first rule of journalism to get both sides of the story before drawing conclusions? Have you done that? What you know is that the website no longer exists and that's unfortunate. You and I don't disagree on that point. But you don't really know anything else for sure and to basically call out Davenport for acting unethically in this matter without having confirming information and/or ignoring the information you do have because it's not of interest to you seems incredibly unfair.
#18StageGrade
Posted: 11/29/14 at 11:02pmBoth of your points are true. It is the conclusions you are drawing that occurred in between them that I'm questioning.
#19StageGrade
Posted: 11/30/14 at 12:15am
When somebody starts with the ad hominem attacks and pedantic, condescending tone, it's clearly time to cut the conversation short.
I'll say a few last things and won't respond further.
1. I in fact, did several times try to communicate with Mr. Davenport about StageGrade, informally just as a user of the site, (not to do an article or anything), but in any case was met with silence. (Given this fact, perhaps I could turn the tables and ask you the same basic question you asked me: Did you do any research before you stated your assumptions with such confidence?)
2. One of StageGrade's founders has now published a blog post about the matter, providing a blunt if brief assessment (See the two items in my previous post on this thread.) He's a person who is widely published in such places as the NY Times, and somebody whose word I generally trust. If Mr Davenport wants to give his side, he's free to do so on his blog. ( I suspect he won't.) Until he does, this is what we have to go on, and it's enough for me to form the preliminary view I've stated.
While your take on this is interesting to me (genuinely), it's speculation, and thus not (yet?) persuasive.
#20StageGrade
Posted: 11/30/14 at 12:36am
"Given this fact, perhaps I could turn the tables and ask you the same basic question you asked me: Did you do any research before you stated your assumptions with such confidence?"
FishermanBob hasn't made any assumptions aside from saying he doesn't know what happened, and therefore isn't making any conclusions beyond not knowing. Beyond that he just reiterated the points of the blog post without trying to work backwards from the conclusion that Davenport was evil.
Tom5
Broadway Star Joined: 9/23/11
#21StageGrade
Posted: 11/30/14 at 8:47amIs there a law that says a new and more profitable theatre ranking website can't be started? Many of the reviews for old plays could also be retrieved and included. Everyone is eligible to do it. Free suggestions: Theatre-Meter, Theatre-Rama, Ripe Bananas.
#22StageGrade
Posted: 4/28/15 at 1:21am
It is sad that the website doesn't exist anymore as I liked it much better than DidHelikeIt.com but is there another website somewhere (or on Facebook) that's almost like StageGrade?
