You Say You Want a Revolution?

Comment

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on April 16, 2011 at 6:58pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Scott. I agree that the suggestions you made have been very important. Others have made similar suggestions to me.

I remain a bit confused about your argument against social media, which continues to seem thin to me: in fact, you seem to be making my point for me in one instance: "using social media is becoming necessary to communicate with the target audience."

I do not disagree, of course, that many theaters are in serious financial trouble; the news today that the Intiman Theatre in Seattle is cancelling the rest of its 2011 season even after its early success raising emergency capital is disheartening, and it's only one story.

What I am positing -- and I really will stop here, since I keep running up against the "can't reveal my TED talk" wall -- is that social media are PART of the way we are going to transform our way through this rough patch. Millennial theatergoers trust the recommendations of their friends about which cultural events to attend, and that's what social media is all about. It's not one-way "look at what we're doing" marketing; it's real, authentic, difficult, pervasive, sticky, and effective. It's the future.

You may be a cynic about audience participation and interactivity, but I can assure that it, too, is the way of the future. We older fuddy-duddies want to sit back and be TOLD a story, but young people -- people who have never lived even one moment of their lives without the internet, whose cultural brains have literally been wired around the concept of interactivity and personalization -- will not watch that kind of work. They will, however, still see theater: so those of us who will adapt will survive. The rest of us? Doomed like the dodo.

Comment by Scott Bloom on April 16, 2011 at 8:43am

Okay, I've looked at both these studies and they suggest what I've just said - that using social media is becoming necessary to communicate with the target audience, but that it only reaches those who would be inclined to go anyway. According to LaPlacaCohen the most frequent theatre goers are cutting down on the number of shows they see every month, maybe not as quickly as in previous studies, but still cutting down. To me that still says fewer tickets sold.

In my official capacities on the board of the AACT I'm frequently in touch with people who do theatre all over the country, and many have said that they're in serious financial trouble. A lot of it has to do with lack of grant money and smaller and less donations from people who used to give, but they're also seeing fewer subscribers and fewer patrons. Many things happen when the money slows down, such as producing less shows, taking less chances on the types of shows selected, etc. That can't possibly be good for theatre, can it?

Quality is the goal, of course, especially for those of us who are advocates, but I still contend that without the number of patrons, less shows will be produced by less theatre companies, which means fewer opportunities for playwrights and directors and actors.

I'm also a bit of a cynic when it comes to interactive experience and audience participation. Way too many people out there think they're artists, and now that they have just as much opportunity to be seen the artistic landscape is muddier than ever. Who is going to sort through all this? And with viral popularity rather than training and craftsmanship becoming the norm, who is educating the audience or the artists themselves? Do you really think American Idol is discovering the best new artists?

Yeah, the tools at our disposal are amazing, and yes we have to learn to use them to be effective in getting our message out. But I see a rash of things out there that are potentially just as bad for theatre as there are that are good. To me the social media revolution is extremely important to understand, and there's no question that it is helping shape our lives in many ways. But I don't necessarily think that has anything to do with the way theatre is produced, just the way people know about it and maybe discern which shows they might attend.

Maybe I can suggest, though, that a technology offshoot that has come about recently is doing a lot to change how theatre is being done from the inside. Inexpensive computer equipment and the proliferation of freeware and open source versions of theatre software is making it possible for even the smallest theatre companies to do things on stage that just a few years ago were the domain of only the biggest production budgets. The ability to program lights and sound wirelessly on your cell phone or iPad while you walk the stage. LED lighting, while still expensive to purchase, is vastly reducing the cost of power usage. How about online ticket sales, which is now cheap and easy for every theatre group to use? A lot of this is possible because of the programming going on behind the scenes of social media sites, most of which is open source, by the way, and also the proliferation of "apps" development for the devices people use to communicate. That's the real revolution, in my opinion.

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on April 15, 2011 at 12:19pm

Scott: this additional research came to my inbox today, courtesy of the brilliant Thomas Cott:

http://www.laplacacohen.com/studies/research/LaPlacaCohen_CultureTr...

The key data: "Social media influence is definitely being felt: Four out of ten of respondents sometimes, often, or frequently act on recommendations for cultural events received through social media. The most frequent cultural attendees regularly utilize Facebook (75%), YouTube (70%), and blogs (51%) on at least a weekly, if not daily basis."

Just FYI.

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on April 14, 2011 at 10:57am

Scott, I don't discount your experience. The studies I have seen (here's one: http://www.devonvsmith.com/2010/01/theatre-social-media-2009/) run counter to what you've suggested, however.

I also think it's important to distinguish between quantitiy and quality. Fewer butts in seats, but more powerful experiences for those who are there? Still valuable. Not saying that's what's happening, but it might be.

Also: I think the social media revolution is real and lasting and more powerful than any of us understand. Again, that's going to be the subject of my TED talk, though, so I'll not comment any more.

Finally: I ask you to suggest alternatives. What would you suggest is the most powerful revolutional technological development?

Comment by Scott Bloom on April 14, 2011 at 9:53am

Speaking for the people who practice traditional theatre, meaning community and small professional theatres, successfully getting a message out is meaningless unless people come to the theatre, and since their very survival depends on putting bodies in the seats, then yes, that would be the only real measure of success. And no, I don't thing Facebook and Twitter have done a very good job at adding to the numbers of patrons, any more than having their own website has. Necessary and essential to communicate with the people who would come anyway, but not really adding to the numbers.

If you want to look at artistic success, then by all means, look at interaction and experimentation and all the great new ways of communicating with an audience and other artists. My question is: who but the individual artist is going to be able to continue doing theatre at all unless any of this starts bringing in money, and there's been no indication, (at least to me,) that the "social networking revolution" is going to save us when the patrons stop showing up at the box office.

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on April 13, 2011 at 11:27am

Stephen, my friend, I could not agree more... and you have done a nice job of setting up my TED talk, which I would happily deliver here, electronically, if I wouldn't be spoiling the surprise.

It's hard to parse which changes technology is leading and which it is simply responding to; I do agree, though, that what's happening in large part is that audiences are expecting and demanding a more personal, intimate relationship with artists and art. Twitter is emblematic of that shift.

Comment by Stephen Spotswood on April 13, 2011 at 11:25am

Is it possible that Twitter is one facet of a larger cultural revolution? Interactive technology (of which the Internet plays a large part) has helped teach everyone how NOT to be a passive participant in their arts and entertainment. We expect to be able to have access and communication and, in many cases, become an active participant in art. Yes, Twitter and other social networking tools have provided us new and sometimes more immediate ways to communicate with other artists and with our audience. However, the technological/cultural revolution that spawned Twitter has shifted the relationship between the audience and the art/entertainment that is moving away from simple consumption and passive participation.

Clay Shirky touches on it in this Web 2.0 talk (and does a much better job of explaining it than me): http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5885

Comment by Alicia Grega on April 13, 2011 at 9:43am

I would say Twitter is not putting more bodies in seats in Scranton, PA. But it is connecting me to you who are likewise concerned about putting more bodies in seats. This dialogue, in turns, sharpens my strategic thinking and savvy, if you will. And I should like to think this will make me more effective and efficient in reaching the goal of putting more bodies in seats.

Comment by Ann Sachs on April 13, 2011 at 8:27am

Scott Bloom: Bodies in seats is one measure of success. I suggest you look at Next To Normal as a Theatre-Twitter case study.

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on April 13, 2011 at 7:51am

Yes, of course it has.

Why is that your only measure of success?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page