The March 2nd post on the Canadian Centre for Theatre Creation’s blog was written by Heather Inglis, artistic director of Theatre YES, whose production of David Mamet’s Race is in the middle of its Canadian debut run in Edmonton.
In the post, Heather shares her bewilderment that, despite the media and advertising promotion, positive reviews, and extensive word-of-mouth networking in support of the show, the run has been characterized by what she describes as “unspeakably small houses”. As a board member of Theatre YES, I also ponder this question.
When I walked into Catalyst Theatre where Theatre YES’ 2011 run of
Race is underway, just seeing the set surprised me a little. It gave me the impression of production values higher than those that I associate with “independent theatre”.
Race takes place in the office of a New York law firm which is handling the defence of a wealthy white man accused of raping a black woman. To my eye, the set looked like the company had deconstructed an office in a lower rent part of Manhatten and reconstructed it within the four walls of Catalyst Theatre. It looked to me as though real people really worked there.
Then there is the show itself: strong performances; smooth technical execution; fast-paced story-telling (the show ran on Broadway after all). The hour and a half show blew by without my ever wondering what time it was, or noticing that, yes, I am sitting on one of those hard, stackable chairs that that you often sit in while watching “independent theatre”.
Race is a top-quality production. Even Edmonton Journal theatre critic, Liz Nicholls, who has occasionally given us the impression of having something personal against the company, wrote that “it’s an enlivening evening that Inglis and co. have brought us.”
So, why the “unspeakably small houses”?
I love Google+. My Google+ Stream has brought the richness of the Intenet into my attention in a completely new way and I love it. Earlier this month I read about Joshua Bell, a busker who was playing the violin in a busy Washington D.C. subway station for 45 minutes on January 12, 2007 and earned a total of $32.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhwYou might already know this, but Joshua Bell isn’t actually a busker. He’s a Grammy-award winning violinist who plays the most difficult classical music ever written on a 300-year old, $3.5 million Stradivarius. And two days before his $32 subway station gig, he played to a sold-out, $100 a seat concert house in Boston.
What this suggests to me is that audience attention must have less to do with the substance and quality of the performance than I had previously considered, and very much more (and in the Joshua Bell’s example
everything) to do with the context that the work is performed in.
Everything I understand about ‘branding’ I learned from Ze Frank. Indeed, I currently believe that everything I need to know is contained in the podcast linked-to below:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/08/082906.htmlwherein Ze Frank remarks that the connection between a brand and a consumer is the relationship he names
emotional aftertaste, and “...for a brand to be successful, its emotional aftertaste has to be stronger than the more general brands that are associated with it. Your grandma, unless your grandma is Grandma Moses, isn't as strong as the general brand "grandma." But "grandma" is a stronger brand than the more general brand ‘old people.’”
As a member of the pool of people known as “Edmontonians”, I am conditioned to believe certain things about myself and my fellow citizens collectively, one of which is that we have an enviable theatre community for a city of our size. What gives me this impression? Two brands: The Citadel and The Fringe. “The Fringe” is strongly associated with the more general brand, “independent theatre”. Perhaps they are even synonymous, and if this is the case, what context does this create for a company like Theatre YES and its shows?
I met up with Beatrice Adams and Scott Simon last night at the Sherlock Holme’s Pub last night and may have persuaded them to go see
Race. Scott especially like the graphic design of the poster, and took special note that it is a Mamet play. The Fringe came up in the course of conversation and Beatrice reported that she has been going to the Fringe loyally for almost 20 years. In that period, she has seen two shows.
I introduced the topic of
Race’s small audiences, what I’ve been thinking about branding, and our conversation led me to this hypothesis:
1. There are two dominant brands of theatre in Edmonton: The Citadel and The Fringe.
2. The Fringe brand means: beer gardens, green onion cakes, Midway rides, arts and crafts, and “probability-bad” theatre. (By “probability-bad” I mean that the ratio of good shows to the total number of shows makes it most likely that you will see a bad show.)
3. The Fringe is a stronger brand than the more general brand ‘independent theatre’.
4. Independent theatre = “probability-bad” theatre minus the beer gardens, green onion cakes, Midway rides, and arts and crafts.
5. The Theatre YES brand, which should be associated with top quality shows, needs a better strategy to overcome the more general brand “independent theatre”, and the stronger brand “The Fringe”.