Theater tickets shouldn't come with a return policy.

Or should they?

""El Grito del Bronx," which closed last weekend, was the pilot project of a unusual new endeavor from the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation, wherein the funder decided to cover the cost of Collaboration offering a money-back guarantee.

Let us stipulate that the Driehaus Foundation is a vital and well-informed part of the Chicago theater. Many of the shows I currently recommend are produced by theaters that benefit from Driehaus largesse. Without Driehaus funding and its quiet management help, the off-Loop scene would be much the poorer.

But I hope the money-back guarantee dies a quick death, never to return. It's not that I'm opposed to money-back guarantees in general, I recently took Home Depot up on a similar offer. But a piece of art is not a light fixture."

The Chicago Tribune's Chris Jones offers some food for thought. I wondered what you all think.

The Theater Loop

Updated On: 8/11/09 at 07:20 PM

I was all set to reply saying "Of course you should be able to get your money back if the show closed," but that's not what the article is actually talking about. Rather that if you don't like the show they'll give you your money back!? Yeah, I don't like that idea. Even if I hated a show, I would never even dream of asking for a refund. I still used the services of the theatre/actors/etc. It would be the same as going to a restaurant, having an entire meal, and then at the end complaining and asking for a refund, so basically you get it for free.

---

There is also that stupid policy that if an understudy is on for an actor who's name appears above the title on the poster and in the Playbill. Just because someone is an understudy does not mean they will not be as good as the lead.

DUST, the off-Broadway with Hunter Foster last winter, offered a money-back guarantee.

No idea what effect it had, just putting it out there.

---

Laziness trumps greed. The vast majority of people aren't going to take the time to send in their ticket to get their money back.

---

Changed my mind- 74%. 1% should go to the one usher that actually cared that some idiot was sitting ON THE STAGE before the show started (his defense: I know the writer).

---

Adamgreer, funny enough I was watching a bunch of old LIttle Rascals that my family has on VHS tonight, and one of them was the one that you were talking about.

---

I think that columnist doesn't understand the concept behind the money-back guarantee (and it doesn't sound like the actor making the announcement understands it either). The money-back guarantee concept is a business decision. It is not a reflection on the art, and offering it does not mean that you do not think you are putting out a good product. In fact, it only makes economic sense if you have a good product. It is a means to allow potentially hesitant audience members to feel comfortable taking a chance on an unknown product.

Trader Joe's does the same thing -- you can get a refund on anything they sell, even if you've already eaten it. They do this because most of the stuff they sell is house-brand, and their customers have not tried the stuff before. So giving the guarantee eases people's mind about trying something new.

There is always the potential for abuse, but again that makes it a questionable business decision rather than a reflection on the play itself or theater. And as is described in the article, most people do not abuse the option.

At least one movie has had a money-back guarantee policy.

---

Eh, if it's a company putting on an experimental work, or a director/playwright just trying to get their ideas out there, attaching the refund to some kind of survey about what was working, really asking the people for input, what they didn't like about it, ect. might be beneficial. Plus, it would be a hassle for people who didn't really feel passionately about getting that refund.