No more Tony Medallions? — Page 3

For example:

Take a show like PIPPIN. It has two lead producers Barry & Fran Weissler and Howard and Janet Kagan. They are billed on the top line of the program. They're the ones who have optioned the rights for the show and have to raise the 13 or so million for its capitalization. They're the only ones who have creative control.

They are normally dependent on other producers to bring in that 13 million in a variety of increments. In the current program you'll see the next paragraph of producers names. In that "section" those particular producers are listed as they raised a certain amount to be there. For arguments sake, lets say they have to raise 500K to get that billing. They can raise that amount in as little as 25K increments from individual investors. So Lets say Jane Doe has her name soley listed in that paragraph as a producer. She might get 25K from grandma, 50K from Uncle Arthur, 150K from her Ford dealership, and so on. Once she reaches that 500K, she is now a Producer with above the title credit, and eligible for a TONY Award credit for her troubles in gathering that amount of money. If you see Jim Johnson/Mary Parker listed in that same paragraph, thats known as a split credit, which means between the two of them, they raised 500K and are both eligible. There is also a three person split credit available .

In the 3rd paragraph on the Pippin title page, those producers most likely had to raise only 250 or 300K, but are still eligible for TONY Award credit as they are above the title as well.

It's all about how much money you can raise to get better placement on the page.

So, the Weisslers and Kagans actually GET the Award, and all those others under current rules, can purchase them for $2,500.00 if the show wins. There is nothing creative about it all, they are simply there to raise money for the lead producer. They get invited to meetings, but normally have no creative input. They do get invited to parties, and are allowed access to house seats, and other small perks.

I know one producer that got a split credit to raise 300K with his partner. The partner was able to raise 200K, and my friend only had to raise 100K. He was able to get 75K from a family member and put the other 25K in himself. He now has a TONY Award ( which he purchased) as a producer from just those two sources.

So, in short, the people giving the 25K or more to these producers are investors only, and not eligible for a TONY Award.

Hope this helps.

Updated On: 5/16/14 at 12:23 AM

Cukor-just to follow up...One can also become a producer by investing the entire required increment and there are also other ways to become a producer without raising or investing (and you may even have some input depending on what you're doing). Thus, sometimes a rights holder, theatre owner, tour producer or various other people will get credit (and points) in exchange for some consideration.

And on the other question--when you are a couple 1+1=1 but actually most substantial producers function through corporate entities, and some of them (e.g. the Dodgers) have multiple unrelated "partners."

^^^This.

---

The Pulitzer does not specifically honor everyone at a publication, though - it either honors specific journalists OR the overall publication.

The Tonys DO name EVERY producer attached to a nominated production as nominees/winners.

Before they wonder if they should be allowing awards to be sold and fretting if the Tony that Zelda Rosenbach has sitting on her mantle because she put $100k toward a play is somehow "devaluing" the award, they should consider changing THAT first.

Otherwise, why should specifically named winners of an award be given an also-ran award if they decide to pay for a physical prize of their own?

Honorary Tonys don't look any different than the competition Tonys.

At the end of the day, I just don't see how these purchased awards devalue anything. The general public doesn't know about them or who has them. The producers are already going to say "Tony-award winner producer of..." on their resume or website or whatever- because that's the truth.

This is a case of the people in charge COMPLETELY missing the forest for the trees.

This is, after all, a ceremony that once featured NON-EQUITY CRUISE SHIP PERFORMANCES.

---

Updated On: 5/16/14 at 10:08 AM

But again, whether they get the hardware or not, they're still going to tell you they produced the show. Because as things currently stand, they did.

I don't disagree with much you say other than the last paragraph and the incorrect statement that "the option to include an additional nominee goes un-utilized." (There was no such option under the rules, because the voting did not authorize the additional nominee.)

The short and possible long term affect of not rewarding those smaller producers with a statue will be to take away an incentive for future investments and or future involvement. Especially to those who have "purchased" one in the past.

Those smaller producers are not "just" investors, they also get a portion of the lead producer's share of the profits. They are in the the thick of it. They may one day be a lead producer who will need smaller producers beneath them.

Hwang is obviously a trouble maker, didn't he just admit to lying to the producer of Miss Saigon? He should leave well enough alone and tend to making the awards more legit from a nomination and voting perspective.

---

The biggest thing I have learned from this thread is that HogansHero should never be a Miller's Analogy Test tutor.

---

That offends you?

---

So much for the silly idea that this was "diminishing the brand."



NY TIMES: Price of a Tony Won’t Go Up for Prize Winners

---