Misleading Critics Choice Ad

[Mike66]

Today I saw something that I don't remember ever seeing again.

In the NY Times there is a full page ad for SIGNIFICANT OTHER and it has the Times' "critics choice" logo prominently displayed -- it's the largest thing in the whole ad, and the blurb from the Times is at the top of the ad.  But Brantley DIDNT give it his thumbs up. 

If you look really really carefully, there is a tiny little small print next to it that says "2015/2017" on its side.  Which, I guess means that when it was off Broadway in an earlier production, someone at the Times (Isherwood?) gave it the CC.

But I'd think that (a) everyone in the industry would "play fair" on this -- this production didn't get that rating from the Times and (b) since the ad is running in the Times, wouldn't they refuse to print it? 

I'm totally flummoxed.  Anybody ever see this before?

[little_sally]

I noticed that too but they're not being misleading; Isherwood did give them a Critic's Pick. Beside, they're hardly the first show to manipulate reviews in advertising. 

[HogansHero]

First of all, they are desperate and desperate times/desperate measures.and all. 

Secondly, it is a transfer, not a different production so they are not out of line or misleading. Would you feel the same if a show was advertised itself as the "Drama Desk winning production" even if it didn't win the Tony? The fact is, it was a critic's pick.

Finally, in the scheme of things, there are MUCH sketchier ads for shows. Let them try to sell a few tickets. 

 

[Mike66]

little_sally said: "I noticed that too but they're not being misleading; Isherwood did give them a Critic's Pick. Beside, they're hardly the first show to manipulate reviews in advertising. 

 

"

Yes, but...

Isherwood didn't review THIS production.  I didn't see the producers of the current "Glass Menagerie" talking about how wonderful it was in 1944.....

I'm more surprised that the Times would allow it, than the producers would try to get away with it.

As lots of people have said, for better or for worse, Brantley's opinion can make or break a show -- you'd think the Times would make a point of protecting the franchise.

 

[dramamama611]

It doesn't say Brantley's  name any where, doe it?  Your insistence that it wasn't for THIS priduction...but it was. This is a transfer of the off bway production,  with (likely) minimal differences.

 

Shows brag about being the most nominated show, counting all the awards show noms...knowing damn well people will assume TONY Award noms

 

It might be a shade of gray, but it's not lying.

[BroadwayConcierge]

It would be a stretch—and a lie—if a revival production used the Critics’ Pick seal that a show received in its original run. This isn’t the case here, though. They’re retooling the seal they received from basically the very same production that transferred to Broadway. It’s a gray area for sure, but this isn’t that big a deal. Plus, I love this show and I'm very sad that they're struggling, so I say let 'em.

[Mike66]

BroadwayConcierge said: "It would be a stretch—and a lie—if a revival production used the Critics’ Pick seal that a show received in its original run. This isn’t the case here, though. They’re retooling the seal they received from basically the very same production that transferred to Broadway. It’s a gray area for sure, but this isn’t that big a deal. Plus, I love this show and I'm very sad that they're struggling, so I say let 'em.

 

"I;ve never said a single snarky thing on these Boards -- but I'll break that streak --

I can see if folks think it's OK.  I disagree, but I see and respect your point

 -- but to say that because you like the production that its ok to do it is really disappointing to hear. 

When did the end start to justify the means? 

I guess the idiot in Washington isn't the only person who thinks that facts are "relative."

 

[little_sally]

Mike66 said: "little_sally said: "I noticed that too but they're not being misleading; Isherwood did give them a Critic's Pick. Beside, they're hardly the first show to manipulate reviews in advertising. 

Yes, but...

Isherwood didn't review THIS production.  I didn't see the producers of the current "Glass Menagerie" talking about how wonderful it was in 1944.....

I'm more surprised that the Times would allow it, than the producers would try to get away with it.

As lots of people have said, for better or for worse, Brantley's opinion can make or break a show -- you'd think the Times would make a point of protecting the franchise.

 Well, there were quotes from the 1944 reviews of The Glass Menagerie outside of the Belasco. I'm sure they've been replaced by now. Scott Rudin is doing the same with Hello, Dolly.

 

[willep]

The fact is this is the same production that got a critic's pick from a NYT critic, just a different venue. It's like saying a touring production can't advertise off a review from a previous city.

[HogansHero]

ok Mike66, so you now know that it is the same production, not a different production, and yet you persist in a position that is based on a faulty premise. Who deserved the comparisons to Washington now?

[dramamama611]

;Another way to consider it:  shows use original quotes for a show even though the entire cast has been replaced....it's not THOSE actors that rec'd the accolades, but it still "counts".  So does this.

 

Nothing immoral here.  At all.

[Mike66]

HogansHero said: "ok Mike66, so you now know that it is the same production, not a different production, and yet you persist in a position that is based on a faulty premise. Who deserved the comparisons to Washington now?

 

Sorry.  I don't agree that its the same production.  If it was the same production then there wouldn't be previews, there wouldn't a separate reviews. Every one of you who sees something off broadway and then sees it when it transfers onto Broadway talk about "what's been changed."  (I'll defer to that -- I've never seen a show off broadway and then seen it on broadway -- so I don't have a data trail)

I respect those of you who have that opinion.  And I don't choose to argue about it (wise man once said-- no one had his mind changed by being yelled at).  But my opinion is still the same as when I posted. 

I continue to think that the producers are trying to mislead the public, and I don't think the Times should let them do it.

That's my opinion.  I understand (and respect) that it's not everyones.  I confess to being surprised by the pushback -- but that's why I asked.

(But saying that it's ok because I want this show to succeed is still unattractive to me)

thanks

m

 

[HogansHero]

well, Mike66, as long as you don't mind making up things when you don't like the extant facts, then everything you say is true. Sound familiar?

It IS the same production. That is not an opinion. You can throw around the word respect but you are not respecting facts. 

You are certainly free to get exercised about how people spin and pitch their shows or anything else. This one just strikes me as an odd cause. Why not go after "The Greatest Show on Earth" while you still can?