Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?

[winston89]

Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#1

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:11am

I was having a PM conversation with Phantom of London about how The New York Times impacts ticket sales. We were talking about how awhile ago a bad review from the times could break a show. Of course the opposite can be said for a good review in the times. We spoke about how there are shows that opened within the last few years that got a bad review in the times and got good ticket sales. And that there have been shows that have gotten great reviews from them and have struggled at the box office.

So the question that I am asking is this. Is the Times as powerful as it once was when it comes to ticket sales? Or is it not so much anymore now that we live in the age of Broadway message boards etc.

"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear" Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll

[Luckydave14]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#2

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:20am

I don't know if it is necessarily just the NYT that impacts a show's sales, but fantastic reviews have done wonders for shows. If you remember when Jersey Boys was in previews, the sales were not that great, and I still remember seeing the whole month on TDF. When I asked my mom if she wanted to go for $33, she said no because it would be just another jukebox musical, but once those reviews came in, she was kicking herself for not getting them. Jersey Boys is still sold out, so those reviews, and word of mouth, are basically what keeps it surviving. South Pacific also had a MAJOR growth in sales mainly because of the reviews, I think. I really don't think a bad review is going to make a show close, unless it is an extreme circumstance, like Glory Days. People see shows even if they get bad reviews, but the great reviews, are what make people who would not have seen the show otherwise rush to see it.

[CapnHook]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#2

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:24am

Not at all. Sure, they still have impact, but definitely not as much as they did decades ago.

Marketers have gotten clever and can spin reviews to turn even the most negative into their favor. Anyone remember the ads for GREASE after it opened to mostly negative reviewed? They listed the quote "The one that I want!" over and over again with all the publications quoting it.

"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

[CATSNYrevival]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#3

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:57am

If the New York Times had as much power as they used to Wicked would be gone by now.

[winston89]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#4

Posted: 9/6/08 at 3:07am

Same thing can be said for Little Mermaid.

"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear" Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll

[Ed_Mottershead]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#5

Posted: 9/6/08 at 7:50am

Another thing about the Times, has anyone else noticed that the space devoted in theatre coverage seems to shrink every year? I mean, the ticket sales (for the "successful" shows) seem to be doing all right, so I don't think it means a loss of interest on the public's part.

BroadwayEd

[rosscoe(au)]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#6

Posted: 9/6/08 at 8:45am

I think people all over the world knew who Frank Rich was, the same cannot be said for Ben B.

Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist. Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino. This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more. Tazber's: Reply to Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian

[esparza 333]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#7

Posted: 9/6/08 at 8:49am

Like many have said shows like Wicked were panned by the Times but still are doing well because of word of mouth. But a rave from the times sure does give your show a boost.

Current Avatar:The sensational Aaron Tveit in the soon to be hit production of Catch Me If You Can.

[Drunk Chita Rivera]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#8

Posted: 9/6/08 at 8:55am

I think reviews on there own are not that effective. Some examples...

[Title of Show]- Great review (I think) but is doing awful

Wicked- A not so good review and selling out 5 years later.

Little Mermaid- Sucky reviews and practically selling out.

But yet these might be based on popularity.

If you can think of any others please tell me.

[Scarywarhol]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#9

Posted: 9/6/08 at 11:13am

Hell, no. Any one newspaper and their review is pretty much irrelevant in modern times...

[stupidbeans]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#10

Posted: 9/6/08 at 7:37pm

people don't listen to the new york times anymore

"And We Have A Shepherd's Pie Peppered With Actual Shepherd On Top" - Mrs. Lovett, Sweeney Todd

[winston89]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#11

Posted: 9/6/08 at 11:38pm

The New York Times is a very well known paper Stupidbeans. People actually do read it and care about what it has to say. The question that I was asking was if they care about the reviews enough to go out and buy a ticket for the show.

"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear" Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll

[Byron Abens]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#12

Posted: 9/7/08 at 12:52am

I think as more and more tourists continue to flock to Broadway the power of the Times decreases, as many of those tourists do not read it. Where the Times still has power are in the those shows that do not have the tourists as their main audience base. Many of the shows that have been mentioned that got negative reviews are those tourist friendly titles.

[philly03]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#13

Posted: 9/7/08 at 12:23pm

I don't think the NY Times, or ONE newspaper does much. Jekyll & HYDE got beaten up, used reviews from it's pre-broadway tour and other cities during the tour, and managed to run four years.

[me2]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#14

Posted: 9/7/08 at 4:47pm

As long as tickets are expensive, reviews will always play a role. At $125 a pop, people aren't able to take chances, so they depend on reviews.

Even though JEKYLL & HYDE ran despite the negative reviews, didn't turn a profit.
Broadway Mouth: 20 Great Broadway Songs of the Past 10 Years: “Painting Her Portrait”

[philly03]

re: Is The New York Times as powerful as it used to be?#15

Posted: 9/7/08 at 4:56pm

Jekyll actually did make a profit--somehow about a year after closing (the third national tour was profitable..again somehow! They used some different sets (almost all) than the Chuck Wagner Eq. tour so that's always been a mysterious). It's also one of the few shows that was a much bigger success aboard rather than here. But I get your point--didn't make the cash on Broadway.