Should Bloggers Review Previews?

My esteemed blogging colleague Esther at Gratuitous Violins has an insightful post today about bloggers reviewing shows before opening night. Her post is in response to an article in on British news site The Guardian about British producer Michael Condron. At the end of the article, Condron rails against theater bloggers:

His single flash of anger is aimed at the bloggers who, in defiance of theatrical convention that comment is embargoed until press night, review a play during its previews. "It's almost invariably reactionary responses. They're the modern equivalent of the lot that used to boo the plays in the 50s and 60s. I think they're ghastly.

Here's an irony: Codron actually misuses the word "reactionary," under the false supposition that it means "in reaction to." In fact, it means "opposing political or social change." And that is, in fact, what Codron himself is doing. Well, tu quoque, Mr. Codron.

You're fighting a losing battle, dude. ("It's a new world, Golde. A new world...") The moldy Old Guard simply don't understand the new media. They rail against change, anything that doesn't fit in with their fixed ideas about how theater should operate, and in the process they fail to take advantage of potential marketing opportunities. One of the reasons that Next to Normal recently turned a profit is that the marketing team was very savvy about social media, Twitter in particular, upon which it has amassed more than one million followers. That's right, one million. How many Twitter followers did you manage to scrape up for Losing Louie, Mr. Codron?

When I get press tickets, I abide by embargoes. It's only fair. But when I pay for my ticket, I'll say what I want, where I want, when I want. And no reactionary septuagenarian is going to stop me.

Comments

[[email protected]]

I just left this on Esther's site too:
This speaks to another issue -- the loss of the preview (and try-out) period as a fix-it session with the happy collaboration of the preview audience. That ended when they started charging the same for "preview" performances as for "regular" ones, and when they usually obfuscate the distinction in their marketing.

[[email protected]]

I left this comment on Esther's blog too:

This speaks to another issue -- the loss of the preview (and try-out) period as a fix-it session with the happy collaboration of the preview audience. That ended when they started charging the same for "preview" performances as for "regular" ones, and when they usually obfuscate the distinction in their marketing.

[ccaggiano]

Two excellent points. Producers want full price, but tey expect silence in return. Sorry, bub.

And you're absolutely right about the marketing: when was the last time you saw a newspaper or banner ad that said "Now in previews! So it may not exactly be soup yet!"

[Jay]

It is a new time, but blogging has been around forever - just not in its current form. It's called word-of-mouth. David Merrick didn't stop everyone as they left the Shubert Theatre after seeing "I Can Get It for you Wholesale" and tell them they couldn't talk about the show until it opened.

And word-of-mouth, whether good or bad, is important.

I'd probably correctly guess that the majority of your readers are avid theatre-goers already, so if you wrote about a show during previews they'd know that the show could possibly change in the days or weeks ahead. On another site this might not be the case.

So yes, write about it - you may want to add a disclaimer, but there shouldn't be any reason why you shouldn't be able to.

[Gil]

"When I get press tickets, I abide by embargoes. It's only fair. But when I pay for my ticket, I'll say what I want, where I want, when I want. And no reactionary septuagenarian is going to stop me."

I don't see why people miss this. If a producer wants to invite me specifically the week before or the week after the show, I'll happily wait. But if I'm paying full price for preview performance number seven, I'm going to revue it as if it costs full price.

[NewYorkTheater]

Jonathan again:
I do want to say, though, that the downside of word-of-mouth, whether the old-fashioned kind or the new media kind, is that many people (even regular theatergoers) do not seem to realize that a show really can change, especially if (to pick some recent examples) they bring in new writers and directors.

[Esther]

Wow, thanks for calling me esteemed! The thing about buzz on blogs or Twitter is that it promotes debate and sometimes you'll find just as many people who will come to a show's defense as will pan it. But the debate is good. Better to be talked about than ignored. Next to Normal is a good example. You had a very robust debate on your blog about that musical and the way it treated the subject of mental illness. It's the type of discussion that makes me want to see a show so I can join in.

[ccaggiano]

Holla, dude.

In all honesty, lately I've been saving my reviews for opening night, but that's simply because I've been so busy that things have had to wait. But I almost always see shows in previews, and try to make sure I'm clear about that, especially when it's particularly early in the process, as it was for Sondheim on Sondheim and The Addams Family. But I think I saw enough to confidently say that the former is going to be great, and the latter is going to be meh with meh on top.

[ccaggiano]

Esther, my love, how could you ever be anything *but* esteemed?

And you're right about the dialog: if it's a worthy show, the conversation will be fruitful, even if the show is flawed. But when it's real dog, well, that's when things really get interesting, at least for me.

As Jay points out above, word-of-mouth has always been crucial for shows, but now that word-of-mouth has a more efficient delivery mechanism. And producers don't seem to mind when the word is good.

Producers of bad shows are always going to try to blame their failure on something else: bloggers, critics, the economy, a cursed theater, whatever. But, for the most part, when a show fails it's because the show sucks. And that's nobody's fault except the people who created it.

[Shonufflives]

i feel like this debate happened about ten years ago with films. in that case, bloggers attended studio screenings and responded online with their impressions. the difference here is that previews are generally paid experiences, as are out-of-town openings. just because the word of mouth is written & published, rather than spoken or in direct correspondence, doesn't diminish the consumer's impressions of the piece of theater.

i feel like comparing a preview to an open show is similar to comparing a non-profit broadway theater (roundabout, mtc) to a traditional producer. they charge about the same, there are some inherent differences, but there really isn't much distinguishing them anymore.

and i'm just annoyed that this conversion is only now happening for theater when the other performing mediums have been dealing with this for about a decade. behind the times indeed.

[ccaggiano]

Well, as my blogging colleague Ken Davenport points out, theater folk have been perilously slow to adopt new technologies and marketing options.

There's something rather insular about this debate, though. The people who really need to hear this aren't really reading the blogs, at least not as much as they should.

[Emily Peters]

it may be just me, but i feel like the community of blog readers that would stumble across "preview reviews" is pretty self-selecting. as in, if they're savvy enough to find theater blogs that they loyally follow, are they really going to let one random blog influence whether they see the show or not? b/c otherwise, buzz is buzz, and we don't see The Addam's Family having any problem with their preview ticket sales after all they've gone through this past winter with the online community. just some thoughts.