One Wicked Sing-A-Long Debate

by:

Joe Patti

For the record, I am not on the side of singing along with the movie in the theater.

That said, I think it is to the theater world’s credit that there is a notable debate raging about whether people should be allowed to sing along during screenings of the movie based on the Broadway musical Wicked.

The movie is very much based on the musical since it is only part 1, though it isn’t advertised as such, and even as Part 1 has a longer running time than the original musical. According to some reviewers the movie doesn’t seem to drag even though it is being stretched out.

Part 2 will apparently contain new songs by composer Stephen Schwartz which may mitigate concerns about people singing along to some degree when that movie comes out.

One of the obvious solutions to the sing-a-long issue is for movie theaters to offer audience participation screenings and no audience participation screenings. After all the same issue came up about a year ago with the Taylor Swift concert movie where some fans felt like there was too much audience participation while others were upset that the next screening over seemed to be creating a more communal experience than they were having. If theater were paying attention the last time, they could proactively address those concerns for Wicked.

I should probably amend that first sentence of this post to say I am not on the side of a sing-a-long when I am not expecting that experience. I have definitely tried to license the sing-a-long version of Song of Music and have hosted a number of screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where participation is expected.

As I said, I think it is great that the debate is occurring with Wicked because it will likely raise awareness about the Broadway show and perhaps generate curiosity about other Broadway shows.

Though stretching the story out across two movies creates a tenuous situation. If the extended version is boring and drags, that could reflect badly on the original show. (I’m looking at you movie adaptation of The Hobbit) If it is well received, it could create expectations that a Broadway show half the length (at least) can’t meet.

AI May Not Be The Best Tool For Writing Personnel Reviews

by:

Joe Patti

We are constantly told about the hazards of inputting sensitive personal data into unsecure websites. That is pretty much what you are doing when you provide information to an AI bot and ask them to create something for you. For this reason there are some significant concerns associated with using AI to write annual reviews and evaluations. Anything you provide the AI is being used to train the AI to do a better job and has the possibility of being retrieved by third parties.

I recently had a post on ArtsHacker discussing these issues in greater detail. In that post I note using AI for annual reviews is a viable option as long as you steer clear of identifiable information like names, don’t reference things like medical conditions, or use discriminatory language related to protected classes like age, race, national origin, etc.

Dangers Of Using AI For Annual Reviews

 

Ephemera Becomes Increasingly Ephemeral

by:

Joe Patti

Via Arts and Letters Daily is an article by Bailey Sincox about how theater tickets and programs, long regarded as ephemera are becoming increasingly ephemeral thanks to technology.

Tickets and programs had a life measured in terms of the dates of performance. Once the date had passed and the show run completed, tickets and programs had no value. Except in terms of a remembrance of time spent and a record of who contributed to the creation of the show. As Sincox writes, saving those tickets and programs as memorabilia has been practiced for 400-500 years.

But the move to digital delivery on tickets means there isn’t anything to save unless you specifically request to pick up tickets at will call or choose to print at home. Sincox notes that some ticketing services like TodayTix don’t deliver tickets to their app on your phone until 24 hours prior to the show time and then disappear at midnight of the show day.

As for programs, Covid saw an elimination in their use and the post-pandemic period has seen their diminished use as venues trend away from them. Even the vaunted Playbill program one gets at Broadway shows and other venues across the US was impacted as never before in its history:

Playbill’s presses ceased operations between March 2020 and August 2021 for the first time since the magazine’s 1884 founding. As Playbill’s editors reminded readers in the first postvaccine issue, the magazine had not stopped for two world wars, for Y2K, or for anything in between….After August 2021, many theaters made Playbill accessible via QR codes scanned in the lobby, much like the now-ubiquitous virtual restaurant menu

All this being said, Sincox observes near the end of the article that delivery of tickets and program content virtually still has its shortcomings. As a venue manager, I can attest that her struggles in retrieving her tickets on her phone is a common occurrence across the nation, if not the world. In the end, a good many attendees depend on the availability of the ticket office to print hard copies of their tickets so that they and their friends may share an enjoyable experience.

On The Myopic Focus On Product Over Customer

by:

Joe Patti

Seth Godin recently wrote about how, as an MBA student at Stanford, he went into an interview with the CEO of Activision waving a Harvard Business Review (HBR) article and claiming Activision was in danger of succumbing to the Marketing myopia described in the article. Godin says he was just about to be thrown out of the CEO’s office when someone came in waving a report that Activision had 9 of the top 10 video games on sale at the time.

By the time the CEO came back to his office, he forgot why he was angry with Godin and offered him the job. But Godin said the time he spent cooling his heels convinced him he was right about Activision being too focused on making games for the Atari console.

Godin tells this story as an introduction to a HBR piece he wrote about strategy myopia His main point is that strategy deals with uncomfortable uncertainty based on questions about what the future may hold based on how technology, society, and other factors are unfolding. The tactics and plans a company embrace need to derive from the strategy, which again, holds no concrete promises.

In part this myopia comes from what we expect from a new strategy. Strategy is not a plan. A plan might come with a guarantee: “If we do this, we win.” A strategy, on the other hand, comes with the motto: “This might not work.” Strategy is a philosophy of becoming, a chance to create the conditions to enable the change we seek to make in the world.

When the boss demands a strategy that comes with certainty and proof, we’re likely to settle for a collection of chores, tasks, and tactics, which is not the same as an elegant, resilient strategy. To do strategy right, we need to lean into possibility.

What really caught my attention was a passage that echoes the on going conversation about arts marketing being focused on the product being sold rather than the audience/consumer. (my emphasis)

Strategy myopia occurs when we fail to identify who we seek to serve, and focus on what we seek to produce instead. Empathy gives us a strategic advantage.

A tactical, short-term focus is based on the past. We can try to defend the machines and processes already in place, working to maximize the assets we’ve got. Or we can visualize the customer and serve their needs as the world changes.

[…]

Empathy begins with the humility to acknowledge that you don’t know what others know, want what they want, or believe what they believe … and that’s okay. If we’re not prepared to move to where our customers are hoping to go, it’s unlikely that they’ll care enough to adopt what we care about.