Digital Lotteries...the new thing? — Page 2

Because I live a few hours outside the city I infinitely prefer rush to lottery because i can't afford (with time not money) a lottery, even a digital one. That being said, I'd rather have a digital lottery than an in person one, it's definitely more accessible and I think that's a good thing, for others. I just hope that shows continue to offer rush instead of/in addition to lottery.

I get the concept from a marketing perspective, but what bothers me is the potentiality of unpurchased tickets from the lottery allocation. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've entered the Shakespeare in the Park lotto on a whim and then didn't retrieve the tickets they won. Granted with Shakespeare in the Park those tickets just get released to the standby line and others can get in, so that works out. There is now a possibility though for patrons to win the lottery, not claim their tickets, and then those tickets end up back into the general ticket inventory at face value.

On the flip side of this though, there was a feature of the Something Rotten digital lottery today that I did like. I didn't win the lottery, but was informed that there were lottery loser seats available for purchase at the Box Office for $49 or via Telecharge ($49 plus fees obviously). It was nice to know that I could still get in relatively cheaply if I wanted and was able to look at all of the locations that were available at the lottery loser price with Telecharge's SYOS system.

No system is going to be perfect.

Frogs, that's great to know re: Something Rotten!

Not sure about on tour, but on Broadway, Mormon's twitter lottery is interesting in that if you win, you have to pick up the tickets at the O'Neill by 4 p.m. So they'd know by the time they do the in-person lotto what's left, though I don't think they usually have an overlap of seats allocated to both twitter lotto and in-person lotto. (A friend won twitter lotto on Broadway and they gave her tickets front row center once, though, which is an in-person lottery seat, usually.)

---

I love this idea. Rush and lottery crowds are annoying and make it hard for the box office staff to do their job. Praise Jesus if this becomes a reality for all shows. Especially with popular shows with rabid fans who are there everyday and irritating as ****, I really love this idea.

---

The downside to digital lottery rather than in-person, in terms of business, is that I imagine there will be less people who have lost deciding, "What the heck, I'm here anyway, I guess I can shell out $30 more and buy a ticket."

Something Rotten appears to be offering a discount code for that night's performance to its lottery losers, though, so producers are clearly trying to go after that angle. But as far as I know, they're the only digital lottery to do that right now.

---

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 10:40 AM

I'm guessing that as far as the virtual lotto goes, you probably are very limited as to how many times you win on the virtual one (and since theoretically a lot more people can enter, I'd imagine the chances of someone doing that are statistically near impossible).

I'd imagine so, but don't know. (On the other board someone said they only do a pair for On the Town, which I found hard to believe. They state bluntly for Hamilton that it's a single pair. I thought On the Town probably had more than one winner, but I don't know.)

I like the idea. I dont think that there is anything particularly special about doing the lottery in person. The times I have tried, it has always been so stressful and nerve-racking. It's great that you dont have to leave home and waste 1/2 hour of your day to not win tickets.

---

I'm pretty sure all the shows with digital lotteries other than Hamilton have multiple pairs. Hamilton seems more like the exception.

I believe ON THE TOWN has a minimum of twenty tickets. The digital Hamilton lottery only has one winner because it's a promotional move on the part of TodayTix. The Public has a separate, in-person lottery.

I have mixed feelings about this, and I guess it really comes down to how you view rushes/lotteries philosophically. Rushes seem more oriented towards rewarding dedicated fans, students, and others who may not be able to see the show at full price but can "pay" with their time and effort. Lotteries are a little dicier since they require much less of the aforementioned commitment. They draw a bigger crowd and thus more attention to the show, and as other posters have noted, incite even losers to buy tickets. Shows like Matilda and Aladdin have switched to lottery systems when they became such hot tickets that their rush lines were uncontrollably chaotic. Similarly, flops from Annie to The Last Ship have confidently opened with lotteries only to draw smaller and smaller crowds (a little embarrassing).

I'm inclined to believe that these sorts of cheap ticket options should reward dedicated and committed theatregoers first and foremost, exchanging the fiscal cost of a ticket for the cost of waiting in line. I understand as well why shows switch to lotteries. But the digital lottery trend is a bit troubling, as it takes any commitment or effort out of the equation, diluting the entry pool and making it MUCH harder for ANYONE to win. This may sound like snobbery, but it does bother me that digital lotteries (when they replace rush completely) deprive dedicated fans and younger theatregoers of the chance they once had to see a show.

I'm not entitled enough to believe that any producer is REQUIRED to provide a rush, a lottery, or even a digital lottery to allow for cheap tickets - however, it seems fair that any show with a digital lottery ALSO include a rush option as well, allowing for both sets of potential theatregoers to have their shot.

---

In case anyone cares, I won the Gigi digital lottery for this evening. The tickets were front mezzanine, second row center. Excellent seats, and a nice surprise!

I had never thought of it that way before, PiraguaGuy2, but I agree. Those most in need of the discounts will be the ones most willing to make the extra effort.