"Well if you can't judge a book by its cover, I don't see how you can judge a play by its birch trees. You do realize, do you not, that the folks who design what goes on the outside of the theatre have nothing to do with what is designed inside?"
Hogan - first of all, I'm a long-time reader, first time responder, and I always admire your insight and explanations on theatre from the production and money side. May I respectfully suggest that the reason "You can't judge a book by its cover" is an expression is that people do it all the time? There's a lot of effort and money put into designing book covers, because it is a sales tool. And publishers know the effort and money often pays off. The same must be true, too, with the poster work and the marquees of all these Broadway theatres. The ads and poster work (and all the signage at the St. James) for "Something Rotten" made me want to see that show before I'd heard any word of mouth from friends - to use one recent example. ("Now in previews. See it before it's ready!") I successfully fool myself into thinking I'm pretty savvy, but I think I judge books (and lots of other things) by their covers every day.
Updated On: 7/9/15 at 03:22 AM
Echo, welcome to the "responder" side.
Yes, people respond to what they see outside theatres or on book covers. But I would suggest that the purpose of both is to attract your attention. I do not think you became interested in seeing SR because you thought the artwork was pretty, but because it attracted your attention and conveyed something that then made you interested in seeing the show. That something might be fully conveyed by the artwork, as when it draws your attention to AL PACINO or simply DENZEL as on his last marquee, or to the enormous face of Tom Hanks on his marquee) or to something that looks like fun on the SR artwork.
The function of front of house or other "street" artwork is (as I said) to get your attention, make you remember it and hopefully to prompt a buy. The bone of contention here is that Ripped (and others) do not respond to emphatic text. The calculation of the marketers is that many people will. (Ripped also tells us that he has no interest in seeing Pacino, and that seeing Pacino on the marquee would only appeal to Pacino fans. That tells us 2 important things-that he is not the target audience for the show, and that the calculation is that there are enough Pacino fans out there to sell a bunch of tickets.) Psychologists tell us that different people respond to different things-some respond to words, some to pictures, and some even to certain colors. Here again, marketers are expressing a calculated belief that their audience is made up of people who respond to text.
The bone of Ripped's contention is that the marketers guessed wrong. He could be right; they do make mistakes and sometimes shows suffer because of it. (Other times, shows succeed in spite of bad marketing ideas.) But it is wrong to think that someone was just being lazy by designing these text-only marquees.
One final point. I also pick up books because the cover gets my attention. (I do the same with bottles of wine, for which there is a lot of data showing that people do actually buy pretty labels.) But I also don't buy it without flipping it open, reading the dust jacket, and even reading the first bits of the book itself. Quite often, I put it back on the shelf after I do this and I suspect you do the same. That tells me that the cover did what it was supposed to-get my attention. But something more is needed to translate that into a sale. Now that too is not always the case. Sometimes people buy books just because it has a given author's name on it, and they know they want to read that author's new book regardless of anything else. I would suggest the same is behind the PACINO marquee-some people will go to see him in anything, even if it is just reading the proverbial telephone book (and China Doll and Gin Game both have elements of that to me, but that's another matter)...
"Here again, marketers are expressing a calculated belief that their audience is made up of people who respond to text.
The bone of Ripped's contention is that the marketers guessed wrong. He could be right; they do make mistakes and sometimes shows suffer because of it. (Other times, shows succeed in spite of bad marketing ideas.) But it is wrong to think that someone was just being lazy by designing these text-only marquees."
I see your point, and I think you've put it exactly right. Like Ripped, my reaction to the Gin Game marquee was - that CAN'T be a good way to get business! But your point is, actually, somebody thinks it is.
And if I then think, "well, *I* might be interested in seeing The Gin Game with those two stars, and that marquee doesn't appeal to me, I suppose the point is: they've already got me where they want me. I'm already interested, just based on the title and the stars.
Of course, thanks to the cost of most Broadway tickets, there's a long distance between "might be interested" and actually going. I'll still say - just my opinion - a welcoming, heartwarming, "come on in and sit a spell" approach to marketing this play feels like a better approach to me (me, who has no experience in marketing or producing Broadway shows).
On the other hand, since I've now given more thought to his marquee than any marquee in the history of theatre (LOL), it also occurs to me maybe this stark, dark marketing reflects where the production itself is actually headed, and maybe that will turn out to be an exciting new approach to the play, and maybe in the end *that* will get me in the door.
How do you know those are the final marquees? If the box offices are open they will put temp plastic up so people know the show is on sale. Maybe they are final or maybe they haven't gotten the actors together to photograph the front of house shots yet or final art approved.
"maybe in the end *that* will get me in the door."
Good luck with that. ![]()
"they will put temp plastic up"
These are not temp plastic, except in the sense that they will come down when the show closes. They are strikingly similar in concept to the work Serino/Coyne did on Raisin's marquee.
Incidentally, if you look at the poster art for China Doll, it would be much less effective on the marquee.
Updated On: 7/10/15 at 09:48 AM
For those small marquees, they absolutely make sense for the reasons HogansHero explained. Those images in the photos are small spaces and they need to maximize the use of those small spaces to be seen from a distance. Full artwork on a small frame marquee would be way too difficult to read. And I doubt those are the only artwork or images on the exterior of the theatre.
Incidentally, that China Doll one absolutely grabs my attention, even thought I loathe Mamet plays. When I see it, I'm attracted to the font and color and immediately think, "Al Pacino in a play called 'China Doll'?" Instantly intrigued. Yeah, I'd buy a ticket. First preview is on my birthday, so...
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/15
Have you guys seen that they've now replaced the Gin Game marquee? It now has their pictures on it.
It is... Not good.
Sorry I didn't take a photo.
I only need the marquee to confirm where I need to enter for a ticket I already purchased.
The only time a marquee intrigued me ended up being the fake one for the show featured in Birdman, since I walked by it and was like, WHO?! Why are they trying to sell me on how great this actor is and I've never heard of him before? And, that art department was very detailed. Even the newspaper articles had text about all the movies he was in before and everything... but that is the only time I ever was intrigued by a marquee.
I love design and I love the way the front of house looks for a show. I like when thought and planning go into it. I loved when the doors of the Golden had that Connecticut type look to it for "A Delicate Balance." I like how they transformed the Booth for "The Elephant Man." It just excites me to see the show within. I get all the reason you're explaining, but still, to me, that doesn't justify a thoughtless marquee. Sure, people are seeing "China Doll" for Pacino and, maybe, Mamet. So why show anything different? But, to me, it just shows that if they didn't put much thought into that, then maybe the rest of the production is going to be as lifeless. Same with "The Gin Game." And, have we see the marquee for Therese Raquin at Roundabout? It's basically clip-art with their headshots. It's awful. HARD PASS.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/30/15
"Well that's all well and good, but people who make their living selling tickets have discovered over time that what impacts sales (the selling point) in a mega star driven property is the star's name(s), designed in a way that draws the human eye to it."
The thing is, I'm not even sure the marquees would attract my attention if I were just trying to find the theatre, especially given the choice of red and blue respectively on those dark backgrounds. But yeah, I wasn't going to see either of these shows anyway. It just seems like an odd choice.
"And, have we see the marquee for Therese Raquin at Roundabout? It's basically clip-art with their headshots. It's awful. HARD PASS."
I already have my ticket but yes, I saw it today. I hope they're not wasting too much money getting someone to design these marquees and promotional materials.
Walked by the Sylvia marquee today. Terrible. The font for the actual show is way too small and there's no way you can read those names of the celebs unless you're standing right in front of the theatre. There's just nothing too exciting about it. Maybe it will change.
Videos