Brighton Beach - Did the Times get Exclusivity in Advertising?

[musicalman2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 9:09am

I just read Riedel's column where he is reporting that the Times cut a deal with BBM producers in exchange for exclusivity in advertising. If true, this would seem like a collossally bad move by producers. Can anyone confirm this?


Article on Brighton Beach and Times exclusivity Updated On: 11/4/09 at 09:09 AM

[NakedMaid]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 9:23am

Yes,
This is very true. And obviously it was the ultimate downfall of the show. I never once saw an ad for the plays anywhere. Not here or on playbill. And God knows no one ever passes by the nederlander on 41st. So the theatre itself wasn't even an Ad.

But, the real question is - what kind of producer AGREES to this form of advertising?! Sure it may have saved money up front but look at how much money they lost. No one saw that coming?!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 9:32am

This show never had a chance in hell, it sounds like.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 9:43am

This is terrible for the Times. Patrick Healy's lengthy article about the closing didn't mention the advertizing exclusivity. Was the omission out of ignorance or edict from an editor? Either way it looks bad.

The blow to the advertising department is worse. The message is that the Times doesn't sell tickets. Full page ads are for vanity alone.

I can't believe that the Times didn't think of the inherent risk in demanding this type of deal.

[AC126748]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 9:54am

If this is true, then the producers have nobody to blame but themselves for the production's failure. It just goes to show how inept and out of touch they were.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:12am

Agreed. Dumb move.

[CyCoSpAz2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:24am

Here, I'll bring the producers up to speed with this century:

[mina3]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:35am

It's true. The Times offered an extremely good deal, and the producers felt their audience was likely to come from the "NY Times demographic" (whatever that means nowadays), so they took a gamble.

I wish the show had gotten more visibility - the night I saw it, sitting behind me was a group of about eight middle-aged women, stereotypical tourists from somewhere southern who had bought their tickets through TKTS (I overheard a lot), and they LOVED the show. I think it could easily have drawn an audience from this type of visitor to NYC, but how often do tourists really pick up the Times? Sigh.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:57am

>And God knows no one ever passes by the nederlander on 41st. So the theatre itself wasn't even an Ad.<

Completely untrue. Stand by that theatre someday. Between the Times Square subway entrance, Red Lobster, Ruby Tuesdays, Office Depot, the boutique hotel next door, the Times Square Hilton, the 41st Street exits to Mary Poppins and McDonalds, New York Sports Club, Montenapo Restaurant, the new New York Times building and the Times Center and most importantly, commuters going to and leaving from the Port Authority, 41st Street has a ton of street traffic. Far more than on the streets in the upper 40s and lower 50s.

While it's not in the heart of things like the theatres on 44th and 45th Streets near Shubert Alley, the Nederlander is no longer cut off from the rest of the Broadway theatres as it was in the 1970s and 1980s when it was terrifying to cross 42nd Street to get to it. Certain oldsters in the theatre community still remember when there was a stigma about going to the Nederlander, but in spite of two flops there this year, I don't think that will continue to be so.

And given the single balcony, the mostly great sight lines and acoustics and the fact that it has been beautifully restored, were I a producer, I'd book the Nederlander before taking one of the two balcony Shubert playhouses like the Lyceum, Cort, Longacre and Belasco. Profit margin would be much higher when you don't have the financial liability of 200-300 seats to sell in a second balcony.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:59am

From what I can siphon off from all of this, I'd put the blame squarely with the producers. It is OUTRAGEOUS that this show wasn't being pushed through the coventional channels. And adding fuel to the fire is that the Times didn't particularly like it, while the others generally had good things to say. I'm not a Neil Simon fan/defender, but the producers really blew it on this one. In today's cutthroat world, you don't leave any stone unturned when pitching your show. Where were the interviews? Where were the articles? Where was the television coverage? Why wasn't it being touted on the internet? Why wasn't the cast being encouraged to pitch the show when or wherever possible? Why wasn't the show being pitched on the TKS line? Where, for God's sake, were the window cards that other shows plaster all over the place?

Updated On: 11/4/09 at 11:59 AM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:07pm

If you go to the Twitter page for The Neil Simon Plays (still up), you can find interviews and major features that ran in The New York Times, New York Post, Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Newsday, Bergen Record, Washington Post, Elle Magazine, New York Magazine, Playbill.com, Broadway.com etc. The show did not suffer for lack of coverage.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:53pm

Oh it got coverage but the way the article reads, The Times precluded any other advertising of the show until opening night. Why would the Times even make such a deal? The Times would only benefit if the show became a long running hit and the producers bought more ads, even at a discounted rate it would provide a steady revenue stream. Whoever brokered this deal for The Times should be fired.

Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!

I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com