Lempicka false advertising — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 2:07pm

Mickey3309 said: "Sorry to get stuck on semanticsbut, jeez…. Despicable??? Poor form, shady - sure…but given the prevalence of shifty cut & paste jobs and Lempicka’sappearing pretty inconsequential, as many have noted, I feel like the disdain folks already have for this show might be inflating some of the reactions here."

Point taken… I should have said ‘desperate’ or ‘a little sleazy ‘.

#27

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 3:01pm

For a show that is already struggling very badly at the box office, I think putting money into a such a big advertisement in the Times that highlights that it was poorly reviewed at all probably isn't a wise move.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

#28

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 5:52pm

For me, the thing that I find most frustrating about this ad is not the cherry-picking of quotes, but the fact that the Brantley quote is from a production where the show was SIGNIFICANTLY different. To me, it’s beyond dishonest to attribute the Brantley review to what the current production is, because it really feels like a significantly different show. Not that the Williamstown production was perfect, but I fully believe that if that version of the show was the one currently playing on Broadway, “Lempicka” would have done much better with critics (and audiences).

As I said in another thread, all this ad says to me is that they had a good show and made it worse. Which, in my opinion, is absolutely true.

#29

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 8:55pm

Looking forward to the NYT article about this. You would think they would take some sort of responsibility for running an ad that is blatantly false.

houseleft

#30

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 9:35pm

TimeToStartLivin said: "Looking forward to the NYT article about this. You would think they would takesome sort of responsibility for running an ad that is blatantly false."

It’s a paid ad so not sure what control they have over advertiser’s content. LEMPICKA paid for that ad.

#31

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 10:02pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "TimeToStartLivin said: "Looking forward to the NYT article about this. You would think they would takesome sort of responsibility for running an ad that is blatantly false."

It’s a paid ad so not sure what control they have over advertiser’s content. LEMPICKA paid for that ad."

Correct, though I will say there was almost assuredly a conversation amongst the producers/advertiser about whether or not they should run it. There's always a conversation about running NYT quotes in the NYT.

On that same note, critics can AND DO contact producers (or their press teams) about misrepresenting their meaning in pull quotes and request/demand they change them and shows typically comply. This makes me wonder if these two critics consider this to be fine - certainly they're aware of it by now.

Updated On: 4/21/24 at 10:02 PM

#32

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/21/24 at 10:13pm

TimeToStartLivin said: "Looking forward to the NYT article about this. You would think they would takesome sort of responsibility for running an ad that is blatantly false."

Except it's not blatantly false. It's questionable at worst. The department that sells the ads is hardly in the business of fact checking.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

#33

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/22/24 at 6:11am

The New York Times would have pulled the ad themselves had the writers complained they were misrepresented. The thing is, their feelings about the show WEREN’T misrepresented by these two quotes. They are indeed of the spirit of their full reviews. And this is hardly the first production on Broadway (there are typically several per season) that uses a quote from a past production of the show. It’s obviously a questionable Hail Mary “what do we have to lose” move, but making a move like this, the producers already know the writing on the wall. They often do things like this to appease co-producers/investors so they don’t burn bridges for when they go to them with their hands open for their next show (or are in business on other productions at the same time together). The co-producer meeting after openings is what the agencies loathe the most because Earl and Susie Q co-producer may bring up a cockamamie idea to save the show that the agencies then have to make happen when they’re already trying to get through the work. This seems squarely on the nose for one of those ideas.

#34

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/22/24 at 8:55am

I wouldn't give co-producers TOO much credit for bad ideas. Bad ideas like this one can just as easily come directly from the minds of lead producers (and in that case the agency can't ignore the lead producer's idea) :)

#35

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/22/24 at 11:57am

I find it hilarious that those criticizing some of the pro-Lempicka reactions to the reviews are now having such a similar overreaction to this ad.

"I shall stay until the wind changes."

#36

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/23/24 at 11:40am

I’m pretty sure he has NO idea they’re using him on their ads:

Lempicka false advertising

#37

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/23/24 at 11:55am

Of course, when I see a show quoting a tier-2 9albeit talented) movie actor over any critic, I immediately conclude that the show must have gotten rotten reviews. Clearly, the producers are in the camp of throwing lots of money away trying to make a dead horse come back to life. History has shown that it is not going to happen, and they are just going to lose more money.

#38

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/23/24 at 12:28pm

There are multiple schools of thought re: when to close a show, and there's no one "correct" answer.

If you post closing the week that the show opens, it looks like you're giving up and sometimes can have repercussions on the producers being viewed as not-artist-friendly in the eyes of agents and the industry.
If you keep running too long, that's just throwing money into a burning hole, and putting up a Priority Loan can hurt the original investors.
Some producers still believe in running through the Tony nominations, if the funds are there to sustain it through the first weekend of May. Running through the Tonys itself would be foolish and might lose them more money, and they'd have to fund a little campaign. I doubt it gets a Best Musical nomination or any other major categories, but this is a weird season and there are many unknowns.

Updated On: 4/23/24 at 12:28 PM

#39

Lempicka false advertising

Posted: 4/23/24 at 12:40pm

Looking at the grosses from the past couple of weeks, there is sadly no way Lempicka is not going to post a closing notice immediately after the Tony nominations are announced a week from today. The grosses have been in the $300K's, which is absolutely abysmal, especially for a musical: Broadway Grosses.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95