Riedel on Investors demanding answers from The Great Comet- Page 3

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 10:58pm

ob·scure

?b?skyo?or/

adjective

1. 1.
   
   not discovered or known about; uncertain.
   
   "his origins and parentage are obscure"
   
   synonyms:unclear, uncertain, unknown, in doubt, doubtful, dubious, mysterious, hazy, vague,indeterminate, concealed, hidden

in which case COMET was indeed "obscure".  

Not gonna play semantic tap dancing with you, sorry. It was an oddball work that never should have gone uptown with the inept prep work it got. No, the audit wont find anything untoward: the investors took a risk, and it didnt pay off. Tant mieux. Stuff happens. 

But I still maintain this show was closed prematurely because of a bunch of people who made something into an ISSUE when it wasnt at all. They did the show zero favours and then tried to pin it on the producers.

YRMV.

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:28pm

HogansHero, sorry to distract from your ranting a bit, but I strongly disagree with you. I think the marketing for the show was wonderful-- allowing it to make the transition from "edgy" downtown to Bway spectacle. I noticed a lot of the problem with people I know who went to see it wasn't getting them to buy a ticket, it was getting them to recommend it to their friends afterwards. Same as with the tent... but not as divisive a reaction because it was "downtown". As we've seen with many shows that have transferred from downtown to Bway and flopped, downtown buzz is only a starting off point- it means nothing if the Bway market doesn't accept it.  But even the downtown run of the show was not as much of a "smash" as you make it seem-- as noted above, it lost a lot of money as well. The common pattern to the reason why this show keeps failing seems, at least to me, to be that the audiences are left cold by the material of the show itself. Perhaps that will change with international audiences? It remains to be seen.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:42pm

SeanMartin said: "Harold Prince moved CANDIDE from an immersive experience to a proscenium stage, and no one missed a thing. COMET doesnt *have* to be done that way: the show will work as a traditional proscenium presentation as well."

 

Actually Hal Princes immersive "Candide" in the 70s is still one of my favorite evenings in the theatre. It was pure joy. His Candide at NYCO and Broadway where he used a proscenium can't even compare. So - you're wrong. My feeling, The Great Comet would be the same.
 

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:48pm

Sean, you seem to be tap dancing with quite a few people while I'm over here reading. I haven't quarreled with your various points about why COMET failed to recoup. I've simply said it is incorrect to label the source material "obscure".

WAR AND PEACE is readily available and well known as an international classic. Those who wanted to read the source material could easily find it. To those who didn't care to read, but who appreciated the snob appeal of an AP World Lit syllabus, COMET had the necessary parentage. Obviously, there weren't enough of either to keep the show running. But that doesn't make Tolstoy "obscure".

P.S. Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA was a hit, Oscar-nominated film during the run of COMET. Wonder how that obscurity got to the big screen...

Updated On: 9/22/17 at 11:48 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 12:46am

@PaulWom, what rant? But whatever...

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I'll just say that (with regard to the Broadway production) I am yet to meet a person who makes a loving doing this stuff who agrees with you. My sense of the consensus is that the decision was made to market this as the Groban Show, and that obscured any hope of marketing it as a spectacle. If you go back and look at the marketing you'll see that "you gotta see this spectacle" excitement was not a piece of it, notwithstanding the enormous amount of money spent/wasted on the spectacle. Instead is was marketed to Groban fans and the core audience didn't get that so they checked out. Now regarding the downtown WOM, you simply have no idea what you are talking about and (maybe this is not new, I can't recall) simply just want to let everyone know you don't like the show. Is that what this is about? 

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 12:53am

Sell it to HBO.

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 1:08am

HogansHero, the rant I was referring to was your tirade about the producers. We all get that you don't like them- it's a bit like a broken record. I just found it amusing the things you were discussing, like a) marketing the show "against them" (whatever that means) and b) your implying that their involvement is the central reason this show did not succeed ("robbing (the people who made this show) of their glory".) which to me indicates a fundamental Lack of understanding of how musicals succeed or flop, and how marketing/ creative producing cannot save a show that audiences have decided they don't like.. but I digress .

This article , for instance, indicates  that they did, in fact, push immersive nature of the show itself. Every Tv appearance I saw pushed the immersive angle as well, and the word of mouth on the overall experience was everywhere. I'd also argue that the presence of many non-Groban ads (especially on TV) indicates that they were not pushing this show solely as the Josh Hroban show. 

http://www.amanewyork.org/resources/brilliance-in-marketing/marketing-hit-broadway-shows/

"One of the biggest challenges in marketing the Great Comet is that the experience inside the theatre happens all around you it’s a show that’s totally immersive and, unlike any other show on Broadway. So from the beginning the producers of the show and the theater owners the Shubert organization and SpotCo, the ad agency, came together to talk about how exactly are we going to communicate this unique seating chart to the world. A lot of people don’t like the idea of sitting on stage that can be a little scary to people, but it really is such a key part of this experience, so we took a lot of time and effort figuring out how to name all of the sections, coming up with charts and graphs to explain exactly how the seating and what pieces of the show you would experience best from which seats. And you know over time word got out that you know this is an unique experience that just has to be seen to be believed and the way that we communicated the seating areas was really a big part of giving people permission to go in there and be a part of this experience."

 

For the record, I love the show... but that doesn't blind me to the fact that many people did not, and that word of mouth trumps all marketing-- which, I think, is an important thing to understand for the future of theater, and something that happens very frequently on Bway (especially with quirky downtown transfers). And as for downtown... do you have any financial information that shows that the downtown run was a financial hit? 

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 01:08 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 1:53am

The article, written in September and sourced with the person who made a lot of money doing the marketing, does not strike me as anything but fluff. Bottom line: the marketing failed. I don't like or dislike the producers, but I disrespect them. And again I don't know anyone in this business who does not blame them for the failure. No matter how much you think the Casal folks hurt the show, the bottom line, again, is that the problem would not have arisen without harebrained producing. And finally, once again, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how difficult it might be to support factually.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 2:03am

A filmed version for HBO would be MAGICAL.

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 2:05am

HogansHero, it is not so much that I care about putting the blame on the Casal folks, or the producers (this argument has been played out to death) but you have failed to provide any evidence that goes against my theory that the main reason this show flopped is because Bway audiences saw it, and Bway audiences did not like it-- and no amount of clever marketing or producing can overcome that. Does that make it a bad show? Of course not. That's just show business 

Your point about them not marketing the spectacle of the show is just ridiculous. Again, look at their YouTube channel for some of their TV ads. I saw advertisements all over the city that clearly promoted how big and spectacular it was. But this gets back to my point- I think that marketing did work initially, except when audiences came to see the show, they simply did not like it. In fact, if the message  people are coming away from all of this with is "the show would've been a massive success IF ONLY it had been marketed differently" , that is very troubling , because it ignores the reality of how Bway audiences are rarely ready to accept very radical changes in the kind of theater they consume, especially in the experimental variety. Sometimes they are, and that's great, but other times they are not. Comet was never a  "Frozen"- it was always a big risk, and the thing about big risks is that sometimes they don't work out... that's why it's so exciting when one does work out, like Hamilton.
 

 And once again, you have not provided any evidence that the downtown runs of the show were financial successes.

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 02:05 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 9:20am

Believe whatever you want to believe. I'll go with the pros and what I know.

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 09:20 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 11:06am

Hogan - as I am with you, I'm curious what you think would have been an effective Ad campaign for COMET. You've mentioned a few things sporadically, so forgive me if what I'm asking is redundant.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 12:19pm

@Alice,

It's never one thing, of course, and I hate 20/20 hindsight, plus I am not convinced anything would truly have been effective because of the many false producing steps that have been rehearsed here ad infinitum, but I think at the core of the campaign would be 2 things: communicating the "coolness" of the earlier productions (enthusiastic interviews, etc.) and overcoming the "I don't want to sit through War and Peace" barrier (finding that "moment" that conveys excitement, shows off a hint of the songs, creates an icon, give the show a sense of humor and enjoyment). Instead we got Groban (not helping on the cool front), that fiasco with Ars Nova (that made the whole enterprise less cool) and a failure to confront the Tolstoy thing (some people have been mentioning Les Miz above-that's a template. I like Spotco, but I think this needed something more outside the box than it got. Ask me again tomorrow; I may have a different answer.

[Up In One]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 12:53pm

South Fl Marc said: "SeanMartin said: "Harold Prince moved CANDIDE from an immersive experience to a proscenium stage, and no one missed a thing. COMET doesnt *have* to be done that way: the show will work as a traditional proscenium presentation as well."



Actually Hal Princes immersive "Candide" in the 70s is still one of my favorite evenings in the theatre. It was pure joy. His Candide at NYCO and Broadway where he used a proscenium can't even compare. So - you're wrong. My feeling, The Great Comet would be the same.


"

I'm with you Prince's 70's Candide was a phenomenal experience (the proscenium Candides that followed were barely related new stagings) that not only created a new space from the traditional Broadway theater set up (they extended the mezzanine out over the orchestra and stage space) but it then created a magical  theatricality within the space. Comet seemed to settle on creating a very interesting space - but once in it there wasn't much variation. They needed to do a little more than just expand the tent idea to a larger venue.  I also agree that the tent was the best physical incarnation the show had - the intimacy - the cheesiness - the food and drink - it all worked perfectly. The Broadway version highlighted the material more - where off Bway the material and immersive values ran neck and neck. If you didn't like the play the event, the proximity to the performers, the drink, the being in on the joke - carried you. On Broadway all of that was replaced by being able to possibly get up close and personal to Josh Grobin.  Not being a fan of the piece I was excited to see if they could match Prince's creativity with the created space - but instead it was just a kneaded out and in my mind lesser experience. But I am sure for those who loved the piece it was an elevation and for those who came fro Grobin they could care less either way. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 1:09pm

@Hogan

 

I definitely agree that the marketing lacked a sense of humour - it seemed to be selling the show as decedent (which it is) and high energy (which it is also) but it does seem the chance to capitalize on the show's whimsy and self-deferential fun was missed. I had a friend who opted not to see it because she said the show just looked 'exhausting.'  Playing up the production's humour might have helped balance that; especially since Groban's usual perceived musical image is rather serious.

[Up In One]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 1:14pm

HogansHero said: "@bear88 re #2, see below re marketing. re #5, perhaps I was not clear but I am referring to completely divorcing the Kagans from it, and even perhaps marketing it against them. Now see below re marketing.

The show has been mis-marketed ever since it left downtown, in just about every way imaginable. From failing the basic job of telling people why they need to see it, and making it into a star vehicle (that could never do what a star vehicle needs to do, but that's another song) that occluded that job, to literally a thousand small things. What it would take to succeed now is a rethink from the ground up. But what I am sure of is that the show would not need or want a star, and that it could again become what it was downtown-must see theatre. And when THAT tours, the good people who made this show will get the glory the Kagans robbed them of.

P.S. I agree the audit is highly unlikely to find anything actionable."

The only thing an audit might show is the difference between the running costs suggested in the offering documents vs the actual. Grobin's slice of the pie was probably not in the offering docs.  They went in thinking they were going to be a smash and that Grobin would raise them to a $2M+ a week Hamilton status - imagine how much they could get for all those on stage seats, tables and banquettes. When Grobin left they would have built a following and settled into a healthy $1M+ a week status. Instead Grobin only took them to the $1M+ area and his cut of the pie ate up the difference between healthy and barely getting by. Marketing was always going to be tuff for Comet - they had already exhausted the in-crowd, the New Yorkers who fill the seats in the first year, through the previous incarnations. They needed to get right to the secondary markets - the bridge and tunnel and tourist trade but that was eaten up by the Josh Grobin Show idea and anything short of Josh would be read as a lesser show.  I also think they should never have had all the previous production encumbrances in the budget. A lower capitalization without Josh's salary would have given it a a better shot at success and the marketing team would have been forced to sell the show as is rather than go for the low hanging Josh fruit.  Based on the outcome they really didn't need Josh they could have tried it on their own and lost just as much money - or succeed and still been running. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 1:37pm

@Up in One, I basically agree, except I am pretty sure the Groban deal was in the papers since Groban was being sold to investors.

[schubox]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 6:17pm

Yeah going to agree with Hogan here. The whole thing was a mess on the producers end. While people here may have seen Groban as just icing on the cake, I don't think the rest of the world saw it that way. There were better ways to market the show that wouldn't have relied on having someone like Groban in it. And while I still put some blame on all the twitter controversy, looking back it seems like it just highlighted and accelerated a process the producers put in motion long ago. Still doesn't mean I don't severely dislik Cassal & Co for robbing me of a chance to see Patinkin in this and perhaps have the show live a little while longer.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 9:05pm

Your implication is that subscribers would be forced into buying a ticket for it as part of their subscription if they want to see the big hits badly enough. What's the motivation for the local theater companies to do that and risk having their subscribers grumbling over a show that without a big star is a questionable draw when they can include a different show that would be likely be more popular?

Subscribers to the Broadway tours in the larger markets make up the majority of ticket sales for the tours.  And the subscribers of the best seats are fiercely loyal, renewing every year simply because they want to hold on to their seats, regardless the shows.  And the Best Musical nominees are ALWAYS big draws because for most markets, it's the only chance the subscribers, who are Broadway enthusiasts, get to see the nominated shows.  If Great Comet tours, it will more likely be a draw for subscribers in the larger markets than a detractor.  

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 10:24pm

The subscription papers investors in a Broadway musical are given to sign include both a show's capitalization costs and its list of weekly running costs (down to almost exact dollar amounts). There is virtually no room to be surprised. The entire business of Broadway is carefully monitored by the SEC to prevent fraud. The subscription papers also basically say on every single page that investing in a Broadway show is 'high risk' and likely the investor will lose 100 percent of their investment.

So, really - in truth, the only thing a disgruntled investor can complain about is: how a show is marketed, how it generates publicity (and the kind of publicity it generates) and decisions about casting that affect ticket sales.

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 10:24 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 10:42pm

@Alice, actually, the offering papers do not hold the producer to the numbers (and they rarely are followed that precisely) and the SEC does not actually "carefully monitor" the papers. There can (and has in limited cases) been fraud, but the scheme the SEC follows in this type of arrangement is mostly self-enforcing. That said, an audit is only likely going to show one of 2 actionable things-fraud a la Drabinsky (cooking the books) or self-dealing that cannot be justified (such as paying the producer additional monies under obscure line items that do not correlate to commercially reasonable expenses. Beyond that, it is only going to show incompetence or poor judgment-the sort of thing that the person undertaking it might want to publicize for revenge. (And I suspect that may be what's at play here.)

@Up in One, got your message, could not reply because you are not set to not receive private messages but that's good to know. I had been offered the offering papers at the time but never took them because I was not interested.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 11:39pm

GavestonPS said: "P.S. Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA was a hit, Oscar-nominated film during the run of COMET. Wonder how that obscurity got to the big screen..."

Despite both being written by Tolstoy, I don't really think you can compare the popularity (or, in this case, "obscurity" ) of these two novels. Anna Karenina has always been more mainstream and popular than War and Peace. It has dozens of film and TV adaptations, operas, plays, etc. It was even a pick for Oprah's Book Club in 2004. Plus, even with over 800 pages, it's much shorter and more accessible than War and Peace.

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 11:39 PM

[RndmAnswrs4RndmQstns]

Posted: 9/24/17 at 2:11am

Funny, I knew the name War and Peace more than Anna Karenina. Probably just me, though.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/24/17 at 2:55am

RndmAnswrs4RndmQstns said: "Funny, I knew the name War and Peace more than Anna Karenina. Probably just me, though."

No, you are exactly right: WAR AND PEACE is the better known title.

perfectliar is also right: ANNA KARENINA is more widely read, and, probably not coincidentally, since WAR AND PEACE is almost twice as long. (But "In for a penny, in for a pound," I say.)

4,789,238 angels will fit on the head of a pin.

I hope nobody will allow GREAT COMET to discourage him or her from reading WAR AND PEACE or ANNA KARENINA. They are both deeply felt masterpieces and great yarns. Just do as the opera advises and check the list of characters before you dive in.

[bear88]

Posted: 9/25/17 at 4:05am

HogansHero said: "@Alice,

It's never one thing, of course, and I hate 20/20 hindsight, plus I am not convinced anything would truly have been effective because of the many false producing steps that have been rehearsed here ad infinitum, but I think at the core of the campaign would be 2 things: communicating the "coolness" of the earlier productions (enthusiastic interviews, etc.) and overcoming the "I don't want to sit through War and Peace" barrier (finding that "moment" that conveys excitement, shows off a hint of the songs, creates an icon, give the show a sense of humor and enjoyment). Instead we got Groban (not helping on the cool front), that fiasco with Ars Nova (that made the whole enterprise less cool) and a failure to confront the Tolstoy thing (some people have been mentioning Les Miz above-that's a template. I like Spotco, but I think this needed something more outside the box than it got. Ask me again tomorrow; I may have a different answer. "

I was glancing at one old YouTube ad which showed a little spectacle but, despite highlighting favorable reviews, was dominated by a ponderous announcer reading them. It certainly didn't convey a sense of fun at all. And there's no sound, just this baritone-voiced guy making the show sound boring even as one of the reviews he read compared it to Hamilton.

The challenge for the producer was to turn Great Comet into a must-see event, even for people who had seen it before. Overcoming resistance to War and Peace was an issue. It's a famously daunting novel, if only for its length. Highlighting the show's freshness and fun seemed critical. And they had plenty of things to work with. One later promotional clip - from April - was a shortened version of the "Prologue," and it managed - with rapid-fire clips, to convey a sense of excitement. Strikingly, Josh Groban is seen only in profile, at the end of "Pierre," but there is lots of footage of the rest of the cast. If I hadn't seen it, this clip would have made me want to go. It looks like a really cool spectacle, the sort of show that a younger person would want to see.

Great Comet had its off-putting qualities (a quick scroll through other threads gives a reminder), but it also had some really beautiful songs and eye-catching spectacle. It did well in the Tonys performance because that sense of fun shined through.

I can't help but think the hiring of Josh Groban was a mistake, even though I thought he was wonderful in the show (and apparently well-liked by everyone involved). Hiring Groban, the least cool pop sensation around, sent a signal. This was a star vehicle now, aiming for Groban's older, decidedly unhip fanbase. But that plan seemed doomed to failure for several reasons. First, Groban's part was not large enough to satisfy people coming to see him, until the last 25 minutes. And Great Comet was still going to be its unconventional self, with an African-American unknown playing a Russian countess and a bunch of other unknowns from the shows' previous incarnations featured in major roles. Second, as noted, hiring a star on Broadway means everyone expects another star to replace him - setting up the fiasco to come. 

Great Comet needed to sell itself as can't-miss theater, but it's hard to do that when you're telling people to come to see Josh Groban in his Broadway debut too. And Groban failed to do what Bette Midler did in Hello, Dolly. He didn't sell enough tickets. He did well, especially given his smaller role and lower star power, but this should have been a foreseeable problem. 

PaulWom makes a reasonable point that the show itself may have been the problem, that while it had strong supporters, it alienated plenty of people who did see it, leading to mixed word-of-mouth. Dave Malloy kind of conceded this point during the Onaodowan fiasco, saying Great Comet is a "weird" show that apparently needs a star.

But I'm not sure Malloy is right. Great Comet never was sold as an event show, as Hamilton was done so brilliantly despite off-putting elements like a rap-heavy score. Kagan and folks promoting Comet tried to split the difference, while running up huge costs that required it to be the event show the producers never had the guts to sell it as - without Groban as an undoubtedly expensive security blanket. (I must emphasize again that I thought Groban was great. I got the Broadway version of cast recording in part because of him.)

It's quite possible, of course, that nothing would have worked on Broadway. Most shows fail, commercially if not artistically. But it seems hard to produce a musical that requires everything, literally everything, to go right for it to have a chance to break even.