2012 Broadway Flea Market Thread- Page 8

[broadway_show_fan]

Posted: 9/25/12 at 11:37pm

to make it a little clearer, I believe Tom Viola himself (director of BC/EFA) said that they could offer it to both people, HOWEVER there was a stipulation. Apparently, Ms. Lansbury was willing to extend the offer to 2 pairs of people, but the stipulation was that there would be only ONE lunch date. Tom went out of his way to say that they would make sure it was a mutually agreed upon date for Angela and her +1 and both winners and their +1s. But, this was very clearly Angela's rule. Yes, they kind of had to convince the original top bidder to agree ("Is this ok with you?" [original winner makes a slight 'eh' face and the 'so-so' hand gesture, but consents). However, they agreed knowing that they were sacrificing a little in order to both partake and for a greater donation to BC/EFA.

[Far From Home]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 12:05am

^
I don't think the winner wanted to share, but they kind of had him over a barrel. It meant extra money for a good cause, so he really could't do anything but agree.










Updated On: 9/26/12 at 12:05 AM

[grumpyoptimist]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 4:16am

Not even close to the same level of money, but this happened with the "Andrea McArdle sings Tomorrow Live On Stage" auction, with a twist. At one point they paused the bidding and asked the bidders if they would share at that price, one of the bidders (pretty sure it was the eventual winner) said "No" so they reopened the bidding.

[Far From Home]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 4:54am

The same thing happened with the Barbra Streisand concert. One person won it for $20,000 and they told the underbidder that they could go too if they wanted to match the $20,000 winning price, which they did (I don't even think they asked the winner if it was OK with them). Of course, a meet and greet with Barbra Streisand will probably consist of a minute or two to say "enjoyed the show" to her, before she's whisked away. In other words neither couple will have much time to say anything. But a lunch where you're sitting down with a person for about an hour would be a little different. If one of the couples happens to be aggressive and pushy, they'll keep asking questions and the second more polite couple won't be able to get a word in edgewise, and will be wondering why they didn't just pick up some takeout and eat it at home watching an Angela Lansbury movie.

[mikem]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 8:38am

The Memphis mystery bags had a bunch of junk in them -- keychains and stuff like that, some stuff that I guess was hanging backstage. There was a lot of stuff, but not really worth $10 or very interesting stuff. But the worker at the table was really good about it, and threw in a free T-shirt with every bag (I don't think that was in the original plan but I think she could tell people were disappointed), so people left satisfied.

I was standing really close to the Streisand winner, and you're right that it seemed they never really asked her if it was okay to share, but she seemed fine with it.

I agree that the Lansbury lunch was different, because the actual winner clearly didn't like it and couldn't really get out of it. I wonder if they'll call him up later and make it up to him in some way. I hope they don't sour their relationship with a contributor.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 9:27am

I'm so against the "sharing of the prizes" that they've decided to do every year now. You can pretty much guarantee that it'll happen for the big ticket "experience" auctions. If it's something like a trip to Disney or tickets to 30 broadway shows, that's different but when you essential guilt someone into spending 20,000 and sharing that experience with a stranger, even though it's for charity, it kind of makes you come off as a douche.

And please tell me why Angie can't have two lunches. Its something she does everyday already, right?

[dreaming]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 9:46am

I think the Streisand experience is an acceptable example of 'sharing'. The Lansbury lunch is not. Now, I am a huge supporter of BC/EFA, and am delighted they were able to get more money for their cause. However, why couldn't they have worked it out with Ms. Lansbury to have two separate lunches? If I paid that kind of money, I'd hardly want to share the experience with two strangers. (And I suspect the person who was the runner up as well as the original bidder, felt that way, too.)

I hope they work something out. (Also-try coordinating all those people's schedules.)

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 9:50am

Yes, this unexpected, guilt-tripping "do you mind sharing" strikes me as shoddy. Not straight shooting. Someone bids on one thing in good faith, and then finds out it's not what he thought he was bidding on. Not right.

Now, one can say, well, why not just go along with it for charity? For the simple reason that it's not what the bidder thought he was bidding on.

Why not ask the second highest bidder to contribute the second highest bid for a last-second runner-up prize of an autographed photo of Angela? After all, it's all for charity.

[Amalia Balash]

Posted: 9/26/12 at 10:27am

I'm all for allowing the underbidder to match the winning bid and get the same "unique" experience, but in the Lansbury lunch case that would be two separate lunches, not sharing the same lunch. Lunch with four people is a different experience than lunch with six. Giving two bidders the chance for walk-ons at two different performances if the show was willing wouldn't bother me as that's twice the money for BCEFA and each bidder gets a unique experience.

In the case of the Lansbury lunch, if the original description had been for two seats at a group lunch and then two bidders each won, that wouldn't bother me. The bidders would have known what they were bidding on and there wouldn't have been any public guilting the winning bidder into accepting the different experience.