Do shows see each other as competitors?

[Fiyero13]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 10:12am

I often see cast and creatives pitch other shows and encourage people to see other shows on IG and twitter.  I mean aren't they competition.  If they see another show and not theirs that's a seat that is not sold.



I mean in my line of work, I would never encourage people to do business with my competition. I'm not saying that they should not be cordial or friendly about it. Just the open endorsement confuses me.

Updated On: 10/11/18 at 10:12 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 10:15am

Well that's certainly a depressingly capitalist way to look at it, sure.

[Lot666]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 10:41am

I think most Broadway performers (rightly) consider themselves artists and they therefore enjoy experiencing and talking about the art created by their peers, particularly if they think it's good. There aren't many Trumps on Broadway.

[Huss417]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 10:53am

What is your line of work are you in Fiyero13? My company if we weren't able to serve the clients needs we would look to see if another company can. Also some businesses work in tandem and them split a commission. 

I guess the gathering of small business owners monthly get togethers wouldn't work for you. :)

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 11:00am

Fiyero13 said: "I mean in my line of work, I would never encourage people to do business with my competition."

But it isn't a commodity business. They are selling different things. And people want to see different things at different times for different reasons. So, encouraging people to explore theater as an ongoing pursuit helps everyone in the long run.

There is no guarantee that if I didn't see one show tonight, I would otherwise have ended up at another.

 

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 11:15am

Some producers see other shows as competition, in terms of securing a theatre, securing talent, and ticket sales/Tony Awards/media attention. I think the smartest people understand that Broadway is an ecosystem in which many things can succeed at once, and sometimes you've got a hit and sometimes you don't, but there are still a few with an axe to grind. At the end of the day, most people are going to be professional acquaintances or better...it's a SMALL industry and everyone's connected, so you might as well get along. And there's always going to be overlap between co-producers, the 4 advertising agencies, creative staff, etc.

For actors and creative teams of other shows, I would expect even more friendliness and professionalism. When there is animosity, it feels unusual (Andy Mientus' shady tweet about My Fair Lady, for example). Nobody wants to burn a bridge because you never know who you'll be working with someday.

Friction within shows is a whole different topic (some of the OBC Hamilton folks, Oak in Comet, etc).

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 11:16am

This is another one of those threads in which the header suggests one question and then the body asks another. "Shows" definitely see each other as competition, both in commercial and non-profit areas. But artists generally don't, at least until they are in a head to head award context.

And following up on the commodity comment, a commercial show, except for Disney, is a singular enterprise. It has only one thing to sell. So except for a few crazies, repeat customers are not anticipated, and that is especially true for tourist oriented shows. The competition is heavy for that business.

 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 11:45am

I've heard (or read) people arguing that very successful shows (a la Hamilton, Wicked, Lion King, etc.) raise the profile of live theatre to the general public, which can then increase demand for tourists to go see a broadway show when they are in NYC.  If those shows are sold out, sometimes that desire to see a show can lead to buying tickets to shows that are still available,  So that point of view sees any shows that raise the profile of Broadway/NYC theatre overall as potentially benefiting other shows that did not cause the publicity that the big hits have, but could benefit from that publicity in a sort of "spillover" effect.  I don't have enough knowledge to know if their sales would have been higher or lower without the big hit next door selling out and generating publicity, but it sounds like at least a possibility that it could be helpful.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 12:08pm

adam.peterson44, there is some truth in that. If people can't get into Hamilton, they might choose Head Over Heels. And it's been said that it's easier to "convert" ticketbuyers after they seen one show, so if someone has fun at Show A, they might be inclined to also see Show B. I still think that one of the reasons for Band's Visit's early success is that people couldn't get tickets to the 3 big hits from the past 2 years (Hamilton, Evan Hansen, Come From Away) and it was the only "serious" new musical on Broadway.

At the same time, if people are paying $700 a ticket for a family of 4, plus hotel/parking/sightseeing/dining, they might not go back to Broadway for a few years because they just spent so much on Harry Potter or Hamilton.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 12:40pm

Yes, if people do get in to see the big hit and it costs tons of money, there is a risk that they could think all Broadway shows cost that much, and then treat it as a rare special occasion outing rather than a regular/frequent one.

Then there is another category - the "theatre tourist" who comes to Broadway to see a bunch of shows *because* they can come to one location and see more musicals in a 5-day long weekend trip (wed-sun) than they can see in their hometown over a year or two, even if their hometown has lots of theatre. 

For example, in Toronto you could see a play or 2 every week, but only about 6-12 musicals per year within public transit distance, with rarely more than 2 or 3 showing at the same time.  And only about half of those are professional-level, with another half being community/amateur theatre.  But during a 5-day trip to NYC, it is possible to cram in 14 or 15 musicals (using sat. 5pm slots, thurs matinees, late shows, etc., plus some 54Below concerts afterward). 

Several friends and i do this about 2 or 3 times/year, and probably buy more tickets in NYC than in our hometown as a result of all the "competition".  But we don't travel to other places with less competition because their musical offerings are just as spread out as the ones at home.  Plus the local subscription house here also organizes 3-day trips to NYC (with huge mark-ups on hotels and travel, so i don't go on those trips).  But presumably there are groups of people who do those shorter theatre-focused trips to NYC as well. 

So the competition itself results in tourists and ticket sales that would not happen if the variety and large number of simultaneous shows to choose from weren't there. And each of those tourists, although maybe only spending 10-15 days in NYC/year, ends up buying 30-45 tickets during that time (all of which is still a lot cheaper than living in NYC would be!).

 

[Fiyero13]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 12:50pm

adam.peterson44 said: "Yes, if people do get in to see the big hit and it costs tons of money, there is a risk that they could think all Broadway shows cost that much, and then treat it as a rare special occasion outing rather than a regular/frequent one.

Then there is another category - the "theatre tourist" who comes to Broadway to see a bunch of shows *because* they can come to one location and see more musicals in a 5-day long weekend trip (wed-sun) than they can see in their hometown over a year or two, even if their hometown has lots of theatre.

For example, in Toronto you could see a play or 2 every week, but only about 6-12 musicals per year within public transit distance, with rarely more than 2 or 3 showing at the same time. And only about half of those are professional-level, with another half being community/amateur theatre. But during a 5-day trip to NYC, it is possible to cram in 14 or 15 musicals (using sat. 5pm slots, thurs matinees, late shows, etc., plus some 54Below concerts afterward).

Several friends and i do this about 2 or 3 times/year, and probably buy more tickets in NYC than in our hometown as a result of all the "competition". But we don't travel to other places with less competition because their musical offerings are just as spread out as the ones at home. Plus the local subscription house here also organizes 3-day trips to NYC (with huge mark-ups on hotels and travel, so i don't go on those trips). But presumably there are groups of people who do those shorter theatre-focused trips to NYC as well.

So the competition itself results in tourists and ticket sales that would not happen if the variety and large number of simultaneous shows to choose from weren't there. And each of those tourists, although maybe only spending 10-15 days in NYC/year, ends up buying 30-45 tickets during that time (all of which is still a lot cheaper than living in NYC would be!).

So you're saying healthy offerings of theater actually help individual shows out.

Interesting, someone should do a research project on this, and all they would need is the broadway weekly gross reports
"

 

[MyLife]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 2:07pm

In many cases, buying a Broadway ticket is not like buying a car. You can go to more than one....

[Fiyero13]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 2:34pm

MyLife said: "In many cases, buying a Broadway ticket is not like buying a car. You can go to more than one...."

True, however buying a broadway ticket is like going to the movies, which is greatly affected by competition, just ask anyone who competes against a marvel movie

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 2:54pm

Fiyero13 said: "going to the movies, which is greatly affected by competition, just ask anyone who competes against a marvel movie"

You mean the only movie of the two that I will attend? Again, it is all about choice, and few shows or movies have short enough runs to preclude you to see both if you're conflicted.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 3:31pm

Fiyero13 said: "So you're saying healthy offerings of theater actually help individual shows out."

I didn't pose the thought originally, but ABSOLUTELY! It's what makes Broadway a brand. There's room for lots of different types of shows. If you broke down the individuals who bought tickets during the same week to Hamilton, My Fair Lady, The Ferryman, and Mean Girls, there would be some overlap but not a ton.

Re: the movies: Counterprogramming is actually a thing! Making sure there's something for everyone, since not everyone is going to be interested in seeing the latest superhero movie or the SuperBowl or whatever. Last weekend was a perfect example: Venom vs A Star is Born. If it was Venom vs Deadpool or A Star is Born vs Mamma Mia, then both titles might have suffered a bit. Similar to how Carousel's grosses MIGHT have been a little better if it hadn't opened in the same month as My Fair Lady.

[Shh_413]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 3:32pm

The difference is that even though it's much easier to watch a movie, less and less people are going to movies nowadays but the supply of movies is increasing. Even if the movie is good, it doesn't seem to affect the box office as much, and producers are unwilling to change formulas. The number of audiences is dwindling because they don't feel the need to go to a cinema anymore and it's too expensive now. Therefore, the marketing of Marvel/Disney movies begins to look like, "Hey! Let us be the one movie you're gonna watch this month in a cinema and we'll make it worth your while."

For theatre, people are less exposed than they were in the past to the concept of live performance due to a combination of geographic and financial constraints. You have to convince someone to watch good shows to get them exposed to the idea of theatre. It's an investment to an artform that gets minimal exposure because liking movies is seen differently by the public to liking theatre, which is seen as more elitist. That's why news articles that feature Hamilton or DEH highlight the ways that they're "different" or "can affect lives".

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/18 at 9:22pm

this discussion is threatening to come off the rails at a few points. First, while it is of course true that good and high profile shows enhance the brand, that doesn't even remotely address the question presented regarding competitiveness. Hamilton enhances the brand without any effort from the folks at Head Over Heels. Shows compete. Period. The paid touts at TKTS are not there to say nice things about someone else's show. Everyone is trying to sell their own tickets and convince each buyer to make that choice. That's competition. And the comparison to movies is inapt. Theatre is ephemeral; movies are not. A theatre producer who goes to bed with the tickets from empty seats does not wake up with something to sell. Even if going to the movies is too expensive and folks stay home, that is just the beginning of the process of selling a movie. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/12/18 at 1:59am

Hogan, I agree with your posts here, but I also think "a rising tide floats all boats".

My experience is that if I love a show, I immediately want to see another one. If I sit through a dud--especially a lazy dud--I'm not in a hurry to spend that kind of money again. So if you want my dollars, recommending somebody else's great show isn't the worst idea.

Of course, I have never paid $400 for any ticket and can't imagine doing so.

[Rainah]

Posted: 10/12/18 at 11:49am

My experience producing content in similar situations is that it really depends on the individual. I have been at theatre festivals where I've said "oh you're the competition!" In a joking way and got a blank look and "I mean if you want to think about it that way..." in return. There are definately people who see it as "I am going to do my thing, and succeed or not, regardless of whatever else."

I am an A type personality. It seems foolish to me not to consider how other shows will influence yours, in positive and negative ways. But part of that is also how you REACT to your competition. No one wants to be the show of self interested jerks. I try and find ways of supporting other shows whenever possible, provided I don't believe it will hurt mine.

Actors from one show seeing another and posting about it on social media is barely a drop in the bucket.It won't affect much but the goodwill is huge.

Or you can go the GGTLAM route...

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/12/18 at 12:03pm

I'm not sure why this is even a question. OF COURSE they see each other as competitors. And like any other business, their level of friendliness or animosity towards each other depends on the individuals involved. Two separate producers may love each other's shows, and may say as much. But at the end of the day,if you can only see one show, they want you to see their own.

Much of what you see on social media is from actors and creatives promoting the work of their friends or people whom they admire, mostly under the presumption that you are already supporting their own projects, and supporting the competition is not taking away from them.

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 10/13/18 at 1:12am

Most of the time when I see compliments about other shows, there is a backstage picture, or I can make an easy Six Degrees of Separation assumption that the complimenter knows cast or creatives in the show she/he is talking about. 

Plus, there's a finite number of tickets available during a given time. It's not like they're complimenting eggs or hamburgers or dish soap where people have countless choices and buying one product over another could definitely hurt sales for a brand. 

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 10/13/18 at 5:11pm

I think a cast member might wish to be in a show that was more successful, like a waiter waiting for customers and looking longingly at the full house opposite.

Every show is in competition with each other no matter whether it be play or musical or opera or ballet.

It is the public that decides where their money goes--again with the restaurant idea--I look down the menu, decide on the steak, and all the other choices remain untouched by me; chosen, or not, by others or thrown out or taken off the menu if not popular.

So, Yes.

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 10/15/18 at 6:45am

Only on the softball field