Yero said:
"But they gambled by inviting voters before they knew whether they were nominated..." As Elphaba has already noted, they didn't "gamble". They were required by Tony rules to extend an invitation to at least 8 performances prior to nominations being announced. So yes, technically, they could have extended an invite for only those eight performances, then waited to see if they were nominated, and then extended their invitation to additional weeks or simply not re-issue the invite (if they were shut out). But in point of practical fact, that's rarely, if ever, going to happen (unless the majority of shows start doing it). From the show's point of view, they don't want to send a message that they are THAT worried about nominations. And vis a vis the voters, it's much more customer service-friendly to give them a wider selection of performances from the start.
With that said, the Tony invite lettter is not a binding contract. The shows aren't inviting the voters just to be nice. They're being invited because they are required to do so to be eligible for awards. If they're no longer eligible for an award, there's just no reason for them to give away free tickets.
Noel&Cole said:
"Tony Voters are not freeloaders. They pay approximately $3,500 a year as membership to get that voter status. Yes-- $3,500 a year for tickets to every show is a good deal. (assuming you'd buy 2 tickets to every show that opens). But it's not free. It's not free at all. So they do pay. they just get a good package deal. That's not incorrect, but it does misrepresent the nature of the payment. The payment is made to be a full member of the League and with full membership in the League comes Tony voter status. The two go hand in hand, but it's not like a League Member isn't getting his/her money's worth if they don't get invited to every single show -- they're not promised that and it's not a reasonable expectation. Indeed, some shows (Hugh Jackman comes to mind from last year) have never invited Tony voters at all.
I think it also bears repeating that if it's THAT important to a voter to see every show (that wants to be Tony eligible), they should see the show BEFORE nominations are announced, since the shows are required to invite them to a choice of at least eight performances pre-nominations. However, if nothing else, this will be a lesson to the die-hard voters that if they book for a performance post-nomination announcement, they're taking a calculated risk and if a show happens to be shut out like "Macbeth" and "I'll Eat You Last", they may lose their chance to see it for free.
The one other comment that struck me as a bit odd is the one about backlash to the producers. I would note two things: 1) for as many people who might be upset by the move (and it's likely only a handful who has actually booked and whose confirmed tickets were canceled), I think an equal or greater number applaud/admire the producers for protecting the potential revenue. That's what producers are supposed to do: put the needs of their investors first, even if it might generate some ill-will for themselves in the industry; 2) in the days of solo producers, it might have come back to bite someone more. But these days, when so many people share credits on so many shows, I don't see consequences of this for anyone. Especially on the Bette Midler show, where among the producers are the Shuberts AND the Nederlanders, I don't think any of them have anything to fear down the road.
"No matter how much you want the part, never let 'em see you sweat." -- Old Dry Idea commercial
