NYT: The Loss of Subscribers Who Went to Everything

[JasonC3]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 6:26am

Not anything particularly new in this article (gift link), but a good overview of what theaters are facing and how some are responding.

"The nonprofit theater world’s industrywide crisis, which has led to closings, layoffs and a reduction in the number of shows being staged, is being exacerbated by a steep drop in the number of people who buy theater subscriptions, in which they pay upfront to see most or all of a season’s shows. The once-lucrative subscription model had been waning for years, but it has fallen off a cliff since the pandemic struck."

 

[Voter]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 8:14am

Begs the question; does an endorsement from NYT or favorable review mean much outside certain demographics? As a younger person, I know Adam Feldman’s reviews (often with a grain of salt depending on the show), but most often go to DID THEY LIKE IT for my in depth reading

[SeanD2]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 9:41am

I think a big issue is that a lot of regional theaters have lost their identity over the past several years. Troupes that were dedicated to the classics have started shifting the definition of what that means. A perfect example is the Shakespeare Theatre Company in DC.

Ten years ago their season consisted of three Shakespeare plays (Henry IV Parts 1 & 2 and Measure for Measure), a Noel Coward (Private Lives), an Oscar Wilde (Importance of Being Earnest), and a musical (Funny Thing...Forum). 

This season is one Shakespeare (As You Like It), one riff on Shakespeare (Macbeth in Stride), one "new" play (The Lehman Trilogy), and two musicals (Evita and The Matchbox Magic Flute).

 

And this will be controversial, but historically a lot of subscribers have been older white people and in an attempt to diversify programming the last few years and bring in new audiences many theaters have turned off their most loyal subscribers. Again look at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. If you historically subscribed for Shakespearean productions and one of the two Shakespeare-associated productions for this season was being described as "the fatalistic arc of Lady Macbeth uplifts contemporary thoughts on Black female power, femininity, rage, and desire" is that what you're going to want to see?

Radically altering programming at the same time your core audience's theater habit was forcefully changed due to the pandemic was not a wise idea.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:00am

SeanD2,

You make some good points. This makes me think of our two major festivals in Canada: Stratford and Shaw Festivals.

The Stratford Festival (in my opinion) started out to give us the classics of Shakespeare, and other prolific playwrights of the times. Then they started to come into the 20th century. They began doing a musical here and there, but mostly Gilbert and Sullivan. Then transitioned into the classic musicals (Oklahoma, Carousel, My Fair Lady, etc.). Things started to get stale to a degree in the late 90's early-mid 2000's, and then they began to have tentpole shows, lavish musicals, a famous Canadian actor in King Lear, or The Tempest, and then have smaller shows that would be less common, Canadian playwrights, etc. The last few seasons, the musicals have been "contemporary" (Billy Elliot, Rent, Chicago, Spamalot, Rocky Horror, etc.), adaptions of children's literature, Canadian content, etc. while still having Shakespeare to appease the older folks.

Shaw still does their selections of Shaw obviously, but they are seeming to produce more and more shows that rarely get done, or (personally) I have never heard of. For me, the delight is their musical selections, which have been shows that aren't getting done by theatre companies often: Grand Hotel, Sweet Charity, Me and My Girl, Assassins, Mack and Mabel, Wonderful Town, Damn Yankees.

Canadian Stage or (CanStage) in Toronto is also an interesting place as well. They get some unique theatre, that isn't for me, but you can always count on them to do productions of whatever the popular plays/Tony nominated plays on Broadway were. For example: I saw Doubt, and Frost/Nixon in one season. They did The Humans shortly after Broadway, and this year we have The Lehman Trilogy, The Inheritance, and a new production of Topdog/Underdog.

[SeanD2]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:30am

I think co-programming the "riskier" works could also do wonders for the theaters and boost subscriptions. Again, take the Shakespeare Theatre Company's current season as an example, What if they programmed Macbeth in Stride immediately prior to or following a full production of Macbeth (which I know they have coming next season) so that audiences could see the interplay of these works and how they inform each other? 

A theater's season should be in dialogue with itself and present a compelling case to see everything and not just five or six random shows that were recently in NYC or have name recognition. 

ETA: Heck a season that went from King Lear to Evita to Macbeth to Macbeth In Stride to What the Constitution Means to Me to Taming of the Shrew could be a fascinating season under a theme of the role of women

Updated On: 8/30/23 at 10:30 AM

[George in DC]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:44am

SeanD2 said: "I think a big issue is that a lot of regional theaters have lost their identity over the past several years. Troupes that were dedicated to the classics have started shifting the definition of what that means. A perfect example is the Shakespeare Theatre Company in DC.

Ten years ago their season consisted of three Shakespeare plays (Henry IV Parts 1 & 2 and Measure for Measure), a Noel Coward (Private Lives), an Oscar Wilde (Importance of Being Earnest), and a musical (Funny Thing...Forum).

This season is one Shakespeare (As You Like It), one riff on Shakespeare (Macbeth in Stride), one "new" play (The Lehman Trilogy), and two musicals (Evita and The Matchbox Magic Flute).



And this will be controversial, but historically a lot of subscribers have been older white people and in an attempt to diversify programming the last few years and bring in new audiences many theaters have turned off their most loyal subscribers. Again look at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. If you historically subscribed for Shakespearean productions and one of the two Shakespeare-associated productions for this season was being described as "the fatalistic arc of Lady Macbeth uplifts contemporary thoughts on Black female power, femininity, rage, and desire" is that what you're going to want to see?

Radically altering programming at the same time your core audience's theater habit was forcefully changed due to the pandemic was not a wise idea."

 

Not that it matters but Shakespeare Theatre in fact is doing 2 Shakespeare plays this year. You forgot Macbeth which will star Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma.  and is being performed at a venue to be named.  This also explains why they are doing wwhat you called a "riif on Shakespeare (Macbeth in Stride)"

 

Also the changes in Shakespeare Theatre has more to do with the fact they have a new artistic director, As a long time Shakespeare Theatre subscriber, I am more than thrilled by what Simon Godwin  has done so far.

 

[SeanD2]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:49am

George in DC said: 


Not that it matters but Shakespeare Theatre in fact is doing 2 Shakespeare plays this year. You forgot Macbeth which will star Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma. and is being performed at a venue to be named. This also explains why they are doing wwhat you called a "riif on Shakespeare (Macbeth in Stride)"



Also the changes in Shakespeare Theatre has more to do with the fact they have a new artistic director, As a long time Shakespeare Theatre subscriber, I am more than thrilled by what Simon Godwin has done so far.

"

My mistake, I thought the Ralph Feinnes Macbeth was scheduled for next season not the current one.

[George in DC]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 11:00am

SeanD2 said:

"

My mistake, I thought the Ralph Feinnes Macbeth was scheduled for next season not the current one."

It's the play I'm looking most forward to. We not only get Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma in roles they should be wonderful in, but Simon Godwin is directing. Quite frankly nobody directs Shakespeare better.  The  two productions last year he directed here, "Much Ado" and King Lear" were brilliant.

I have to say I am also intrigued to see Mary Zimmermans reinterpretation of "The Magic Flute". It should be imaginative and intriguing.

[Leisie93]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 8:32pm

It could also be partly because millennials are struggling to afford healthcare, housing, student debt repayment, etc.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 8:39pm

I think it is a generational thing. I don't know many millennials or younger that go to the theater. I go all the time, but I don't buy a subscription. And that's partly due to not being interested in every show. Which goes back to programming. I get that there was a shift in culture, but not every show needs to be that or be so heavy handed. Sometimes people just want a nice fun night out. I think that's why a lot of the more culturally pointed pieces failed on Broadway. People want fluff right now. The world is on fire. We just want to laugh and dance to Michael Jackson.

[George in DC]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:23pm

RippedMan said: "We just want to laugh and dance to Michael Jackson."

 

No we don't.

 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:30pm

To piggy-back on what other posters have said here, I think that we are at the perfect storm of a generational shift (the Baby Boomers are dying and Gen Z is becoming the target audience) and the digital age - an age in which, frankly, I think less people are going to go to the theatre because why do that when you can watch a movie on your phone while sitting on the toilet?

In this regard, I think that it is only going to get harder and harder to sell a play and justify that it needs to be a play that you have to leave your home at pay a lot of money to see, and not a movie you can watch at home. Musicals, farces, and other shows that rely heavily on physicality and theatricality will do fine. People sitting around a living room set talking, not so much.

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/30/23 at 10:32pm

Peak TV changed everything too. The rise of premium television as maybe the ultimate actor and writer medium has made the dramatic small-cast theatrical production not obsolete, but less urgent. It’s a parallel to the way the rise of the Must See TV sitcom era ended the urgency of light Broadway comedies; just as Neil Simon helped inspire the wave of quick witty shows that made him obsolete, Tracy Letts and the like contributed to the artistic scene that today gives us tour de force miniseries like Mare of Easttown or Succession.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/31/23 at 12:02am

There's little incentive for me to book tickets in advance or purchase a set of tickets together if I'm not getting a discount. 'Hey, don't you want to give us $250 for a membership so you can have guaranteed access to $60 tickets to our 4 shows this season' seems like a bad offer to me. (Especially if I suspect some of those shows are going to have to paper to fill the theater.) Also, since I'm not traveling and staying for a week, I don't know when I want to see most open-run shows. 

I'm taking advantage of the youth discounts while I can. I'll book in advance for the opera for Carnegie Hall because there's a slight discount for a multi-show subscription and there aren't that many dates to choose from. I'd probably have subscribed to Encores this year if I wasn't going to be on vacation. There is also the programming issue. I was considering MCC this year but since I'm probably going to miss at least 2 of the shows, I'll take my chances with single tickets. I can't think of another off-Broadway theater that has announced a particularly exciting line up. It's possible I haven't heard... which is then a marketing issue. 

[Kad]

Posted: 8/31/23 at 3:56pm

This is absolutely a generational thing. I worked at a major nonprofit now over a decade ago and they were fully aware their subscription numbers were dropping and would keep dropping. And their solution was to remount a successful production with a big name. It was a temporary fix at best. 
 

I’m a millennial and I know nobody who has a subscription to any of the major nonprofits in the city. We can’t afford them and, frankly, most of the programming isn’t worthwhile. 

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 8/31/23 at 5:49pm

I am probably the rare exception to the millennial of being a subscriber. I only have one subscription to a nonprofit New York City based theater. And the only reason I have it is because all the shows in the season or some thing that I am interested in seeing, and they actually have all the dates for when their shows will be played so that I know that I’m able to see it. 

I would never buy a subscription where a show runs during the summer, because I know I will not be here to see it.
 

Updated On: 8/31/23 at 05:49 PM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 8/31/23 at 5:56pm

I've seen a few cities where several different arts institutions band together for a "sampler subscription," one show per venue.  It often includes theater, opera, dance, classical or jazz, et al.  Sometimes it has age restrictions.

I like the idea of trying to get people to experience the full range of what might be offered in a city by making it a bit more economical for them to do so.

Obviously the hope is that if they try your venue once and enjoy it that you might get them back as a single ticket purchase for future productions.

[Timon3]

Posted: 9/1/23 at 12:32pm

I understand that people with deep pockets like to be seen as 'donors to the arts' which is a good thing.

But people like me with shallower pockets prefer to be more nimble and just pay what I want to see, why would I want to pay for a package, when only 3 productions might interest me and when I know I can just buy a single ticket with ease.

I know that the popularity with Hamilton was used as a vehicle to sell packages, Well Hamilton certainly did sell out, but know it has just one tour on the road down from three.

[Melissa25]

Posted: 9/3/23 at 2:32am

And City Center is NOT selling subscriptions for the newly announced week two of Encores! this season.  Go figure.

[Wick3]

Posted: 9/3/23 at 2:24pm

Ultimately I think it boils down to programming. I recall people on here bought a subscription to NYTW just so they have access to get tickets to Merrily We Roll along while it was off-Broadway late last year.

[BETTY22]

Posted: 9/3/23 at 3:15pm

This is heartbreaking. 

I understand the need to bring in a new, younger audience tomorrow - but at the same time you can’t alienate the folks who are the base today. 
 

Sometimes I fear we are moving too fast and not paying enough attention to the audience we have today. 
 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/3/23 at 7:26pm

Steppenwolf here in Chicago just laid off some of its staff. And they had a pretty solid season minus "Describe The Night" which is an awful play and not sure why they picked it. But the new seasons looks somewhat promising. 

[Theater3232]

Posted: 9/4/23 at 2:59pm

I'd think the nonprofits would understand which types of shows have performed well since the pandemic started and which haven't. If they want to sell large blocks of tickets, they have to appeal to a mass audience, not a niche audience.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/4/23 at 3:48pm

What it boils down to is that many of the NFP artistic directors and their staffs listened to the loud and vocal minority (mostly those on social media who don't buy tickets anyway) and believed that the world had changed overnight and therefore their programming had to reflect those changes.  They programmed their seasons in order to try and appease the "social justice warriors" but instead wound up alienating their core audience --- who had no problem with staying home and dropping their subscriptions.  It's like if tomorrow McDonalds switched to a vegan gluten-free menu and expected their customer base to just change their eating habits.  

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 9/4/23 at 3:48pm

It's very sad. It feels like the non-profit theater model in the US is collapsing. Like everything else today, there is no single problem to blame. But in terms of solutions, the best that I've seen so far to both maintain and create new audiences is "pay-what-you-wish" nights. It sounds like a counter intuitive business model but many successful business (and global exporting countries) have operated at a loss for years until their customer base was strong. Perhaps the deep pockets of the "DeVos Institute" could prepare a study of how free ticket nights can build audiences.