Time isn’t a jet plane; it’s an elastic band.
The experience of our time in Winnipeg went very slow — like the slow deliberate stretch of an elastic band — and then it snapped to a quick and unexpected finish. After spending several days feeling like we had been out west for a very long time, all of a sudden, it felt like we had barely arrived and were already heading home.
From a performance perspective, we did very well. Ray and I were very sharp and at the top of our game. More than a few people commented on our crisp comic timing and our rapport on stage. Dave brought his A-game for his supporting role and he stole more than a scene or two. I’m sure that the vast majority of the people who made it to the show had a great time.
From a numbers perspective, however, we didn’t do nearly as well as we had hoped. The final numbers aren’t in but breaking-even seems unlikely.
A big part of the problem, of course, is the cost of air travel. Due to work commitments, driving wasn’t an option this year. Air travel was an extra cost that could not be avoided.
We knew this going in, however, and we expected to pull enough punters to justify the cost and to make a profit. We had sold out a 175 seat venue in Edmonton three times last summer and we posted strong numbers for every other show. It seemed plausible to estimate that we’d post comparable numbers in Winnipeg and make a profit.
One important factor for our lower numbers, I think, is the nature of the Winnipeg Fringe audiences.
I suspect most of the Winnipeg Fringe ticket sales are driven by a hardcore group of Fringers who watch many many shows. Very often, these hardcore Fringers have their schedules carefully planned before the first poster is up or the first flier is handed out. They may tweak a schedule for an unexpected hit but they are unlikely to revamp it for an unknown show by an untested production company.
Additionally, there is a second group of more casual Fringers who live and die by star reviews. With so many quality shows to choose from, any show which can’t boast four or five stars is going to have a hard time corralling more than a few of those star-chasing Fringers. Even a four star review is no guarantee.
And from this perspective, we actually did pretty well.
For Winnipeg Fringe audiences, G-Men Defectives was a brand new show from a brand new production company that wasn’t reviewed by anyone local until late in the game. This implies that the vast majority of people came to our show thanks only to our street-level publicity efforts and the word of mouth support. Eventually, they even came out despite less than ideal star ratings.
And that’s a job well done.
More to the point, for a goodly number of people, the creative team and the company is now a known entity in Winnipeg and is now known for bringing a quality product. So the next time out, a few more of those hard core Fringers might build our show into their schedule before a single poster is up or a single flier handed out.
And there is an important lesson here for theatre marketers (all marketers, really). Successful marketing involves building a relationship of trust over time. Overnight sensations are the exception and not the norm. And more likely than not, a little digging will reveal a long hard stretch of effort before the sudden snap of success seems to happen overnight.
Mike Levin
July 28, 2010
Was it the white laces? Another Fringe, another lesson. Sounds good regardless. Look froward to seeing you again soon.
Brian M. Carroll
August 1, 2010
Sterling,
The Winnipeg Fringer sees an average (mean) of 11 shows. The distribution is skewed, so the median is lower than 11. Thus the majority see less than 11 shows. The under-11 crowd are mostly star chasers. They are the majority. You see them most on the last Friday and Saturday nights, also known as Five Star Feeding Frenzy.
The hardcore see well over 11, but they are the minority. Barb and I saw 54 shows, so we’re somewhere in the middle of the pack. Some of them map out the Fringe like a military campaign, as you’ve noted. Others like us figure it out one day at a time. It means that we’re more adaptable to the buzz on the street, and surprise reviews. In every queue we ask what people have seen that they liked. We also can have wonderful surprises when we “fill in a time slot”. That’s how we stumbled on “The History of the Lost and Found”.
Yes the hardcore influences the buzz on the street, but that influence drops as the reviews come out. Ticket sales this year broke 86,000. This translates to 86,000/11=7800 actual bodies seeing shows. Barb and I might have talked to say 100 of them. Kevin Prokosh, Morley Walker and Joff Schmidt have a lot bigger reach. For example, we know for a fact that our influence sent one person to the first performance of CSLS, which then resulted in 8 at the second performance (or about 1/2 the audience that night). Then CBC and Morley Walker at the FP gave them 5 stars and they sold out that night and every night thereafter.
There are now more big venues at the Winnipeg Fringe. MTYP at the Forks can seat more than 300. Mainstage has expanded to over 300. PTE Mainstage does similarly. Average attendance was about 86,000/153=560 per company. Those bigger venues can suck up that many in two performances.
And the BYOVs hit a record number this year. All that spreads the audience more thinly across the venues. The competition is HUGE.
What that means is that lots of folks have to hustle around the queues. Frankly, Sterling, we didn’t see your suits out there as often as the kids from New York (The Only Friends We Have) or Jem Rolls or Keir Cutler, or Emily or the famous Kelly (PFK Productions).
But your point about building trust over time is well taken. As we told the couple from (7×1) Samurai and the kids from New York, Winnipegers have long memories. If they liked your show N years ago, they’ll try you out again next time, and closer to the beginning of the Fringe.
Brian
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
Hi Brian! Thanks for the detailed and useful response.
It speaks to the size of the Winnipeg Fringe that it took so long for Ray and I to run into you at the Fringe. I was reading your tweets long before, we actually ran into each other. Yea! for social media.
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
Oops & p.s.: Brian, I have a post brewing inspired by one of your #wpgfringe2010 tweets. Stay tuned!
Von Allan
August 1, 2010
Hi Brian,
You wrote, “The Winnipeg Fringer sees an average (mean) of 11 shows.”
Where are you getting that number? I’ve looked online (albeit fairly quickly) and I can’t find any data to support that. I can only find some information on tickets sold (http://www.winnipegfringe.com/); it jives with 86,000 tickets you mention, but I can’t see anything on actual attendance. I wish the Winnipeg Fringe would post something similar to what the Minnesota Fringe Festival announced last year (http://blog.fringefestival.org/2009/08/10/the-final-numbers-biggest-fringe-yet/) (i.e.: “Preliminary numbers show 46,189 tickets were issued to an estimated 15,100 patrons of the 2009 festival. Gross box office revenue was over $330,000 from 162 different productions at 22 venues in Minneapolis and St. Paul. In 2008, a total of 40,926 tickets were issued, generating $297,374. The previous festival attendance record was set in 2006 with 44,692 tickets issued with gross box office of $338,181″)
Far more critically, though, I’m also very curious to know if any of the numbers are audited. 86,000 sounds like a lot, but if the number itself isn’t audited then that could be a much higher tally than it ever should be. I’m a bit dubious about those Minnesota Fringe numbers for the same reason. If they’re not audited, it’s a claim and not real data.
I may sound suspicious, but here’s a great example of fudging that makes me doubt a lot of what gets claimed ticket-wise when no audit is in place. When the WWF held it’s massive Wrestlemania III spectacular way back in 1987, they claimed that they set an indoor attendance record with 93,173 people at the Pontiac Silverdome. However, that number is most likely closer to 78,000 (http://www.wrestleview.com/news/1064694768.shtml). And, of course, I’ve had my own experiences with this, though from a slightly different point of view (http://www.vonallan.com/2010/05/guerillas-in-mist-or-just-how-effective.html).
I generally feel that if the numbers can’t be backed by an independent audit, they’re not useful to the discussion at all. If, for example, only 66,000 tickets were sold rather than 86,000 claim and if the average attendance is lower, than the actual attendance could be quite a bit smaller. Or, from the opposite end, quite a bit bigger. Without independently audited numbers, though, how would we ever know?
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
Wow! Thanks Von. Great observations. I have no idea if CAF Festivals are obligated to release audited attendance numbers. It would certainly help all involved if they did. As you rightly point out, without independently verified numbers, we are well into the shadowy land of speculation and — possibly — even misrepresentation.
Brian M. Carroll
August 1, 2010
Von,
The 86,717 number is based on tickets sales per performance. These are the same numbers that are used to pass on ticket revenues to the performers. At the Winnipeg Fringe (as opposed to at least one Fringe that shall remain nameless) 100% of ticket revenues go to the performers (with the exception of the extra Best of Venue performances).
The Winnipeg Fringe is run by the Manitoba Theatre Centre (MTC), which is an audited organization. If you want any more detail than that, take it up with MTC. I’m just a humble Frequent Fringer who first attended the Winnipeg Fringe in 1990, and has attended all but 2 since 1995.
As for the 11 performances per attendee, that was published in print (but not online) by the Winnipeg Free Press. The Winnipeg Fringe conducts surveys of Fringe attendees (from lineups, outdoor stage, venue exits). The questions change each year. A few years ago they asked how many shows people were (or were planning to) attend. That was released to the media, and reported by the Winnipeg Free Press. I’ve seen it reported only once, so I have no idea whether it has changed over time.
Personally I’m not very interested in the tickets sold versus attendance question. The Winnipeg Fringe reports tickets sold, cause that’s directly related to the cash that the performers take away from the Festival. And that determines whether the performers eat or not. Attendance is probably higher, thanks to comps (volunteers, media, invited free guests).
Brian
Von Allan
August 1, 2010
I’m pretty interested in whether the artists eat or not, too; I damn well better be since I’m an artist myself. But (and it’s a big but), the reason I think the attendance figures are important is this: if the ticket revenue is the only thing being reported, it can skew the perception of the health of the festival. If the overall attendance drops but those attending happen to purchase more tickets, everything might appear to be fine in terms of ticket sales. However, if this year’s attendance is 7800 but last year’s was 8100 and the previous year was 8400, then there’s a problem.
This is critically important when making future plans, especially since downward attendance trends can lead to sudden drops in revenue in a bloody big hurry. To put it another way: I don’t want to just eat now. I want to make sure that I can eat again if I perform at the festival next year. Being transparent in the data, especially as it relates to how people plan their lives, is necessary.
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
Thank you as well Von for keeping this very useful conversation alive. Your observation is, I think, important!
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
Brian, thanks so much for keeping the conversation going.
Your point about “eating or not eating” makes me think it would be helpful if the Fringes also published how much revenue is going to how many shows (without naming names of course). If — hypothetically speaking — all the ticket sales go to a very small percentage of the shows, that would be very useful information for touring companies. A company might choose instead to target festivals where more money goes to more shows more often.
Brian M. Carroll
August 2, 2010
Sterling, Von,
The best answer that I can give to your questions is:
Mu.
In Zen Buddhism, when a student asks a simple yes/no question about Zen, sometimes the teacher answers: mu. Mu means that the student has asked the wrong question in order to learn about Zen.
Sorry, Gentlemen, but you’re asking the wrong questions.
If you want to get more paid bums in seats in Winnipeg then put together a better show that will appeal to ‘Peggers. Yes, you’ll still have to work your buns off selling the show on the streets, but you need better ammunition.
Sterling, can you honestly say that G-Men Defectives is as good a show as (7×1) Samurai, or Die Roten Punkte, or Spiral Dive III or Countries Shaped Like Stars (CSLS), or Gilgamesh? ‘Cause those are some of the heavy hitters that were sucking audience away from your time slots at your venue.
As Jonno Katz puts it: every Fringe is different in that different shows will have different appeal to the audiences in each city. Ottawa audiences don’t dig Spiral Dive, Jake’s Gift, and Jem Rolls’ poetry. I don’t mean merely that they don’t like them. I’m using the original Beat meaning: if you dig something, you not only like it, you also understand it because it reaches deep into your very soul. But Winnipeg audiences dig them and those shows sell out there.
Similarly some Edmonton shows don’t make it in Winnipeg. Edmonton loves comedy. Winnipeg also loves drama and literature. They want some meat with their potatoes. And it works the other way. Molly (extracted from James Joyce’s Ulysses) is a good fit for Winnipeg, but Joyce scares off Edmontonians.
Emily Pearlman didn’t succeed with CSLC this time in Winnipeg because she’d been there before. She succeeded by putting on a much better show than Swimming Lessons with Paisley Kite (SLPK). I know because I wrote the CBC Manitoba review of SLPK (in consultation with another reviewer). Plus, the relationship in CSLS appeals to Winnipeg audiences in a way that the mere cleverness of SLPK didn’t.
Let me elucidate further on the Winnipeg/Ottawa difference. How shall I put this diplomatically, Sterling?
Five 20-year-olds from Winnipeg whipped your sorry Ottawa asses with a show called Gilgamesh (which got a best of venue).
I first saw Struts and Frets Players three years ago when they put on Perseus. Five 17-year-old graduates of Manitoba Theatre for Young People wrote their own version of the Perseus myth and blew us away. We got to see them before they got the 5 star Free Press review that turned their show into a sellout. I ran into them on the street and asked them how they knew they could put together a successful Winnipeg Fringe show. They told me that: “Nobody said we couldn’t”. And then added: “And we’d have gone ahead anyway even if someone had.” I then congratulated them on their effective set, props and costumes, especially since it seemed that they did it with a budget of under $50. They said that they had to make do with a lot less money than that.
They didn’t do any market analysis or trend analysis or audits. They used a whole pile of talent and put together a FUCKING FANTASTIC SHOW. And they sussed what would appeal to the Winnipeg audience.
Their second show two years ago sold out with 4 star reviews. This year, Gilgamesh sold out and got a Best of Venue.
They still operate on more talent than money. For instance, Gilgamesh had a great fight scene. When asked who was their fight director, they said they couldn’t afford one. So they just worked it all out themselves. None of them has trained with a fight director.
Yes they now have a reputation, having built up a rapport with their audience.
But three years ago, they were unknown and flew with a whole lot of talent and a 2-figure budget. And blew Winnipeg away.
Mu.
Brian
sterlinglynch
August 2, 2010
Thanks for the very detailed reply Brian! Really useful!
I think there is much that we all agree upon.
First, we all agree that the key ingredient to success in the arts (and any industry) is to start with a great product and to believe in it. Second, we all also agree that after all the hard work of making a great product, there also remains the hard work of selling it to the punters. I suspect we also all agree that lots of great products in the arts (and in other industries) don’t succeed in the sales department despite being great. And because we all care about the arts, I think we all want to figure out a way to make sure great products in the arts get as much sales as possible. You and I Brian have a particular interest in theatre and Fringe theatre that Von does not necessarily share but his knowledge of what succeeds in the arts (especially the literary arts) is really helpful to us in this discussion.
What confuses me somewhat is your claim that analyzing hard audited data is the wrong question. Ultimately, it is in those numbers that we can best make sense of why some great shows succeed and others don’t. It can also help us understand why some great shows didn’t get the audiences for which they hoped in Winnipeg. I know that some of the very well-reviewed shows didn’t sell out every night or even have consistently large audiences. Why is that? The answer lies within those numbers, if properly analyzed. And I’m sure someone in the Fringe offices is looking at those numbers carefully. As a Fringe performer, it is also essential for me think about those numbers when planning a tour.
Which brings us back to Von’s important and crucial observation: Audited numbers are much more valuable for that kind of analysis. It’s very possible that the CAF already distributes audited numbers. If not, they will all do us a great service by making them available.
Now as a devoted and loyal supporter of the Fringe, you don’t really need to think about the audited numbers. I understand and respect that. I also think the most successful artists and arts organization will think about those numbers very carefully. And I suspect the most successful already do.
Thanks again for the valuable discussion. It has certainly clarified a few things and it has given me a few more ideas to pursue.
Brian M. Carroll
August 3, 2010
Sterling,
Some considered responses:
“Ultimately, it is in those numbers that we can best make sense of why some great shows succeed and others don’t.”
As an old datahead, this looks like a testable hypothesis to me. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. If you’re considering a statistical analysis, then you and Von are correct to ask for audited numbers. I would expect CAFF members to be interested in assisting you.
“I’m sure someone in the Fringe offices is looking at those numbers carefully.”
But a word of caution. Not everything is in the revenue data. For example, through surveys, the Winnipeg Fringe determined that 15% of their audience is from out of town. Yes, that’s right, people come from Vancouver, New York, Ottawa, Calgary, Atikokan, Minnedosa, Brandon, Portage la Prairie, etc. to attend the Winnipeg Fringe as audience members. Given the big cash take at the door, this is information that has to be determined by surveys. Audited revenue data isn’t sufficient. The Winnipeg Fringe uses this information to convince businesses to cater to Fringe clients. For example the Fairmount downtown offers a Fringe rate for staying at their hotel.
Yes, the Winnipeg Fringe looks at their ticket data. But they also look at survey data for additional information.
” I know that some of the very well-reviewed shows didn’t sell out every night or even have consistently large audiences. Why is that?”
As we agree, review ratings definitely have an impact, but they are not the whole story. But my contention is that “buzz on the street” makes up a significant effect that won’t be captured in ticket receipts. For example, you’ll sometimes hear Fringers in the lines saying “That wasn’t an N star show!”
As for attendance being less than ticket sales, I know that is an Ottawa phenomenon that I’ve seen with Third Wall Theatre events and my community choir. I have seen no evidence of that at the Winnipeg Fringe. People in Winnipeg don’t buy tickets out of charity. They attend. Only the No Latecomers, No Exceptions rule keeps them out, and they learn PDQ not to come late again.
Good luck with the analysis. I would be delighted if it yields some new statistically significant results that either counter common intuition, or quantify the impacts of factors we believe are true.
Brian
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
Thanks Brian. Excellent additional thoughts!
Evan Thornton
August 1, 2010
Perhaps anywhere close to breaking-even is a success for the first year at the Winnipeg Fringe, especially as you were learning to market it in a year which saw so much of the public space of the WF torn up and hard to move around freely. Old Market Square and environs had a markedly less “cohesive” feel to it and it seemed harder for flyering performers to really figure out a good circuit this year; there was something a bit disorienting about the public space for me, even right to the end.
From reading the CAFF survey for 2009, I’d say most acts lose money in Winnipeg simply because the Fringe is so huge and the paid attendance, even though cumulatively huge, is spread thinly; also the ticket price is so low. But a huge fringe with affordable prices are the same factors that allow for certain shows to really take off.
In a way it’s too bad that Ray is thinking of retiring the concept; I have to think the G-Men brand is stronger than even now and those characters could successfully take on new scripts in the future. With two anchors like Wpg and Edmonton now knowing what G-Men are about, and your small but nimble cast, you could have the perfect Fringe machine for future summers.
sterlinglynch
August 1, 2010
I agree. I also found the public space a little fractured and disorientating, as compared to Edmonton.
We were unable to find a spot where lots of people genuinely interested in Fringe Theatre congregated (as opposed to just getting pissed and watching free acts on the outdoor stage). As a result, there was a lot more down time between lines.
In Edmonton, we had four good spots (beyond line-ups) we could hunt for “qualified” punters — people who were actively demonstrating a genuine interest in the Fringe (looking at posters, carrying programs, etc).
In fact, Edmonton had the neat idea of trying to get people on the grounds to wear stickers for making a donation at the gate. If we saw someone wearing one of the stickers we pounced, because we knew they already knew a fest was happening and, in most instances, they had already donated to the Festival. I say most because some volunteers often gave the stickers away.
In fact, the sense of critical mass was substantial enough that Global News Edmonton regularly broadcast short segments and throws from the grounds and, as a result, we ended up in two throws over and above our review.
Ultimately, I think your observation that “big numbers spread thin tend to lead to a few shows that do very well and many that don’t do so well” makes a lot of sense. With an extra star or two or a few more hours working the lines, we might very well have been one of the big shows. But it certainly didn’t help our cause that our final late show was up against a big free concert on the main stage. All things considered, had I not been performing, I probably would have watched that instead of going to theatre too.
I hope Ray changes his mind and he and his co-writer, Matt Domville, get to work on something new!
Keir Cutler
August 2, 2010
Fascinating discussion here! I would like to toss my two cents in as someone who has been performing at fringe festivals for more than a decade.
There is no sure thing, or constant measurement. I never know how well I will do at any particular fringe festival. I often try to guess, but I am often wrong, sometimes dead wrong. It amazes me how often I will say to myself, “At this fringe I will make a lot of money and at that one I will make very little;” only to have the exact opposite occur.
The most unfortunate element of performing on the fringe circuit is the star rating system. It amazes me how many people attend shows entirely based on how many stars a show got from a particular paper or website. In Edmonton every year, I see people walk up to the box office, take out the Journal’s ratings and say, “Give me any play that has four stars or better from this list!” How absurd! And if there is a show with 3 and a half stars, which happens to be a perfect fit for this person, they will never see it. The star rating is seen as sacrosanct by so many. Even though there is absolutely no consistency from one reviewer to the next. (One would think the reviewers themselves would insist on dropping the star ratings as the vast majority of fringe-goers appear never to read a word of the review that goes with the rating. Why even bother to write the review???)
The most wonderful element of performing on the fringe circuit is the artistic fulfillment. Unlike most professional actors, we choose our projects! I have done eight different solo shows on the fringe circuit, and all eight were on ideas than happened to fascinate me. In addition, by touring, I have been able to develop these shows, in some cases over a period of years. I am in my eleventh year of performing “Teaching Shakespeare!”
It is helpful to know the average box office take per group at any particular fringe. Most groups will do better in Winnipeg or Edmonton, than they will do in Montreal, or Ottawa or Saskatoon. But there is no way of budgeting for this, since we are only talking about averages. You would have to know your star rating in advance to know what your potential take at any fringe might be!
The fringe circuit in Canada is an extraordinary thing that exists nowhere else in the world. A theatre group or performer can travel right across the country doing shows in most of the major cities. It is an opportunity for artists to work with complete freedom of expression. It is nice to make a profit, and certainly it is sad when any theatre group loses money. Nevertheless, there is no sure thing! If one focuses too much on money, why would anyone ever do a show with more than one person? Two actors in a show immediately cuts profits in half and doubles most costs.
The best advice to anyone attempting a fringe show is prepare, prepare, prepare! Do lots of readings of your script to lots of different people long before your opening night, be open to feedback, and try to be off-book with a new show at least a month before opening night. In 1999 when I did my first fringe, I was off-book three months before I opened! I am convinced that any success that I have had over the years has come primarily from my preparation.
That said, theatre is always a gamble. The nice thing about a fringe festival is the costs are kept very low. For 5 to 7 hundred dollars, a theatre group receives several thousand dollars worth of goods and services!
sterlinglynch
August 2, 2010
Hi Keir!
Thanks so much for reading and contributing. Given your experience, your two cents is a very valuable contribution. I agree, a Fringe tour will always be a gamble. For me, that’s part of the fun really. My hope is that these kinds of discussions will help us minimize the risk and maximize the return on investment. I think your comments will help a lot of touring folks do just that!
Brian M. Carroll
August 3, 2010
Keir,
Thanks for your well considered comments. I’ve heard you expound on many of these points before, and I’m so pleased to see that you have taken the time to put them in writing.
With respect to one point: namely star ratings. The Ottawa Citizen, CBC Ottawa and FullyFringed.ca don’t use star ratings. I know that this is deliberate choice for both the Ottawa Citizen and FullyFringed.ca.
I have found no example of media in a Fringe city that have switched back from a star system. (I’d be delighted to hear of such an example.) Therefore I have stated to my editor, Evan Thornton, at FullyFringed.ca the thesis that we should never switch to a star system because we will never be able to switch back. I believe Evan agrees with me.
As a reviewer, I prefer that people read my words (250-500 per review).
Brian
David Jordan
August 3, 2010
Wow, great discussion here. I am the Executive Director in Vancouver. Perhaps we can get some other CAFF producers to chime in. From a Vancouver perspective, we have no problem letting prospective artists know the figures we can generate. One rough estimate that we freely offer is this (from our website)
The average artist payout is approximately $2,500. Some artists with very successful shows make upwards of $10,000, while others bring in only $100.
I’m not sure it really helps though given the vast disparity between the top and bottom as has been previously noted. One could parse the numbers froma Fringe forever and not come up with a formula for success. In a Fringe festival there is absolutley no way of guaranteeing revenues – some sink, some swim. As has already been discussed, sometimes sinking is not related to artistic merit but to other factors such as audience relationships, regional taste, and the culture of media. Certainly there is no certainty and it is those artists who persevere who succeed. I defer to Keir and his touring colleagues for touring advice!
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
David! Thanks so much for reading and commenting. It’s very much appreciated.
I think the numbers you quote are a very useful starting point. I suspect if we started digging into a little more detail and then looked for trends across years, patterns would emerge. You’re right, of course, there are no guarantees. But I’m pretty sure some fine toothed analysis will help reduce the risk.
Natalie Joy
August 3, 2010
Natalie Joy here, Executive Producer of the Ottawa Fringe. While I agree that from a marketing standpoint it would be great to know exactly how many individuals attend our Fringe, it’s virtually impossible to find out for sure. I would like to know how to target my marketing tactics, whether towards the seasoned Fringer or to the person who knows nothing about us, but I really only have word-of-mouth, our patron surveys and my gut instincts to go on with regards to that. With door sales and pass sales and internet sales, it’s difficult to track exactly how many people are passing through our doors. (Meaning did we really have 10,000 bodies see shows, or 5,000 bodies seeing two shows each?)
Like most Fringes across Canada, we are transparent with our ticket sales information. I don’t have the spreadsheet in front of me, but we had around 12,500 tickets distributed this year, with approx 2000 being VIPS , Media or comps. Artists are always able to inquire with us about the average artist payout.
After touring for many years myself and now in my third year working for a Fringe, I have yet to get even close to understanding a formula that works to predict attendence.
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
Natalie Joy! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I’m pleased to hear you say that most Fringes are willing to share these kinds of numbers. Yes, absolutely. A person perfect number is impossible. By using a number of different sampling methods, a pretty good number could be generated.
I wonder has anyone tried tracking the patrons with pin sales? Everyone needs a pin to see a show. When a pin is sold, ask “new” or “replacement” and track that. Alternatively, you could use the survey to come up with an estimate of how many replacement pins were sold and then adjust the overall pins sales to reflect based on that estimate. It won’t be perfect of course but it could help zero in on a useful approximation. It might also help corroborate other estimates.
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
In “This Week @Aquabooks”, Kelly Hughes had a few thoughts about this year’s fringe and attendance numbers. I asked his permission to copy and paste them here:
“The 2010 Winnipeg Fringe Theatre Festival came and went, and I have a few thoughts about it. If you don’t know, Winnipeg is the fourth-largest Fringe in the world (just a hair behind Edmonton). Attendance for this year’s fest again broke records. But at 155 different productions, the question, Is it too big?, always surfaces. I posed that very question to Winnipeg Fringe Exec Director Chuck McEwen when he was on KHL! in January. No, he answered. Every year more and more people see Fringe shows. The Winnipeg Fringe is a success. That’s according to Chuck. But here’s the asterisk. While attendance is still on the rise, only the big shows are benefiting.
Let me back up a bit. The addition of MTYP to the roster of permanent venues a couple of years ago was considered a big coup. The Winnipeg Fringe now has more big venues (seven of them seat 200+) than any North American Fringe. The creation of an advance ticketing system is also a factor. Shows like this year’s hit The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee were sold out of advance tickets (half the house) days before. Over 3500 people saw this show here, accounting for about 4% of total sales for the whole festival. Now I’m not knocking success, and the cast did a wonderful job (including EAT! server Dorothy Carroll). But it was originally a Broadway musical. It’s not very….Fringe-y. Traditionally, Fringe plays have been riskier pieces that you wouldn’t see anywhere else, or one-man shows that can travel lightly from city to city. People would go over to Old Market Square and look at sandwich boards and handbills and people in costumes to decide what to see. Now they just look online to see which shows are already half sold out. And these big productions will breed like Tribbles as people figure out they can make money with a big cast and a safe show. Because the Winnipeg Fringe isn’t curated, it’s market-driven. Give the people what they want.
Is the one-man show dead? Certainly lots of Fringe veterans like Nile Séguin, Paul Hutcheson, Jem Rolls and others played to some of their smallest Winnipeg Fringe audiences ever this year. In a year when the Fringe is again breaking records. Only time will tell if the Fringe will remain on the fringe and the cutting edge, or if it will turn into some kind of summer stock tryout for Off Off Broadway.”
David Jordan
August 3, 2010
Interesting observations. Venue size is a factor in attendance – more capacity, but it’s not a causal relationship. You could do a very unpopular show in a large venue. Strangely Spiral Dive was unpopular in Vancouver and they were in our largest venue.
Producers cannot limit commercially successful Broadway type shows out of the Fringe. We would have to jury the festival and that would be antithetical to the Fringe. I think what we can do is make sure there is a wide variety of venue sizes, tending towards the smalll size. The other thing we do is limit the upper ticket price. The thing that keeps Winnipeg and Edmonton from becoming Edinburgh is that no matter how successful you are, there is never any profit to be made. The people involved could get paid decently when things go well, but the type of profit that would attract producers is not possible. So generally, the Canadian Fringe is still dominated by the indpendent self producer. Even the Spelling Bee gang is (i’m hazarding a guess) a collective of individuals “doing it for themselves. ” Because they wouldn’t have the opportuntiy otherwise. I think that is central to the Fringe experience no matter your audience size.
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
I think the 4% figure is pretty remarkable. And while it’s too early to say there is a trend here, if Winnipeg becomes the Fringe with BIG shows, the smaller shows will need to change their marketing strategy and tactics. And for the most part, on first blush, this potential trend seems like an opportunity. Knowing where and when 300 hundred mostly newish Fringe eyes are waiting patiently in line each day is useful knowledge. Of course, converting those prospects may be a challenge, given the distances involved.
David Jordan
August 3, 2010
oh yes, Sterling a respnse to your thanking me on the starting point numbers: No one wants to see anyone fail and I think all producers would be interested in helping you reduce the risk (without sounding like we’re endorsing Trojan condoms). I think this is why we are here, to allow artists the opportunity to take a chance. If the risk is financial you should know approximately what that is. After that the risks are more serious…Like getting tangled up in a lifetime of theatre!
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
Lol! Maybe they are a potential sponsor for a CAF market analysis research project. Trojan: reducing the risk for artists, again and again and again!
David Jordan
August 3, 2010
In response to the question about pin sales, we do sell memberships (our pin equivalent) so we know tht roughly 10,000 people see roughly 16,000 sold tickets (then there are comps and Pick of the Fringe wich take us up to around 22,000) which makes Vancouver’s Fringe audience veryy picky, seeing an average of 1.6 shows each. What that has told us is that we have huge room to increase the number each patron sees. However I would hazard a guess that Winnipeg’s survey is wildly skewed. People always skew higher when they are asked their “intent to see” rather than how many shows they actually saw. Also, the other skew is that people who fill out surveys, unless done by a professional survey company are the most enthusiastic patrons. !! shows per patron is pretty high! However, having a loyal fan base is a great position to be in, which seems to be the situation in Winnipeg.
Brian M. Carroll
August 3, 2010
David,
When the Winnipeg Fringe has surveyed the audience about shows seen/to be seen, it’s been near the end of the Fringe. By that time the answers included mostly shows seen.
What wildly skews the mean for the Winnipeg Fringe is the hardcore, some of whom see around 80 shows. I know one person who personally saw and reviewed 80 shows for CBC Manitoba one year. There’s one Winnipeg Fringer who has passed a lifetime total of 1000. This year my wife and I saw 53 shows indoors, 1 outdoors, and the midnight cabaret. We are mere pikers. Many of the hardcore see more than we do.
Having 153 shows to choose from helps. At the Ottawa Fringe there were only 60 shows to choose from and we saw over 25.
Brian
David Jordan
August 3, 2010
Brian, that’s amazing. It gives us something to shoot for out here! I will not rest until we have a Frequent Fringer with 1000 shows attended! I would LOVE to know how many unique patrons Winnipeg has. I attended this year and I was blown away by the enthusiasm in the city for the Fringe.
Brian M. Carroll
March 23, 2011
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present Robert Walter Schuppel: http://schuppel.homeip.net/theatre/fringecount.php
Sterling Lynch
March 23, 2011
Holy smokes! What a list!
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
1.6! That does seems curiously low. Also, it also seems like a great opportunity for growth too.
How does the membership work?
David Jordan
August 4, 2010
I know it does seem curiously low, but unless there’s a massive amount of people buying more than one membership, it is fairly accurate. Everyone need a membership for entrance like a pin. About 3500 people “activate” their membership by filling in their contact info.
nancykenny
August 3, 2010
This is a fascinating conversation. As someone who is in the thick of things at the Calgary Fringe, I have many things I would like to say. However, I’m going to wait until the end of the festival to collect my thoughts.
sterlinglynch
August 3, 2010
I look forward to it Nancy!
Edgar Governo
August 5, 2010
This is a fascinating conversation! Thanks for getting the dialogue going…
You might’ve seen my tweets under the #WpgFringe2010 hashtag about shows like The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, which echo what Kelly Hughes had to say. I’m also concerned about performers at the Winnipeg Fringe going the “safe” route and choosing more surefire hits instead of taking more artistic chances, since the latter are what the Fringe is all about. (Musicals tend to be hits in Winnipeg, and we had two Broadway exports this year, but “Tony Award winners at low prices” doesn’t exactly sound like a Fringe axiom.)
It sounds like by the standards of most Fringes, I’m still pretty hardcore, averaging around 25-30 shows a year. I’ve loved the Winnipeg Fringe for many years and been involved with it in varying capacities, but I also had an American visitor this year who had a negative experience with it–she enjoyed the shows themselves (we saw your show together, Sterling), but disliked many of the other elements (flyering, outdoor performances, and so on) that I also feel are fundamental to the Fringe experience.
Between those two viewpoint extremes, I’m not sure what the best overall marketing strategy would be. There are people like me out there just waiting to get into it all full-throttle, if only they knew about it; but from a purely box-office standpoint, there are also people like my American friend, who don’t want the atmosphere but will still pay for tickets.
sterlinglynch
August 5, 2010
Hi Edgar! Thanks so much for reading and sharing your experience! Thanks also for finding the time to see G-Men!
The contrast you draw between the two kinds of viewers is very useful. It also dovetails with an idea Evan tossed out in conversation, when we were discussing the lines.
He hypothesized there may be a large segment of viewers who don’t want to dilly-dally in lines. They buy their tickets and turn up when the door is already open. In point of fact, it occurs to me now, Evan himself never stands in line. In contrast, there may be a much smaller segment of people who want to wait in line — especially if there is a chance they will get harassed by a street side pitch!
And this may serve to explain my perception that we were quickly hitting the same people over and over again. There is probably a much smaller segment of the overall audience who bother waiting in lines. And unless there is a risk to sell out, the other segment won’t bother turning up early. And they may simply buy a ticket and go have a drink until the doors open.
I hadn’t really thought carefully about this possibility until now.
So the important marketing question becomes this: once the lines have been worked and in the absence of a 5-star review, how does one capture the attention of that segment who buy tickets but don’t want to bother with lines or street side pitches.
It also further fuels my suspicion that I overestimated the effect of our fliering In Edmonton We had a very positive TV review and appeared live on air on two other occasions. I was also blogging for a free daily newspaper. That’s pretty damn good mass marketing exposure.
Von Allan
August 5, 2010
Throw me into the group that hates waiting in line. I’ll never forget traveling to Scotland; people queue in ways I’ve never experienced. Very politely, I should add, but it’s not me. I want my ticket and I wanna sit down ASAP. I cannot abide making small talk with strangers in a line. I’ve not experienced being “flyered” by fringers, but I think I would find that awful.
You wrote, “We had a very positive TV review and appeared live on air on two other occasions. I was also blogging for a free daily newspaper.” This, I suspect, helped a great deal. While I know these things can be unpredictable, it might be interesting to really do outreach for your next out of town show (or hell, even the Ottawa Fringe) and try and plug into sympathetic media (ahem, assuming you didn’t do this this time around!). If you do a Google News search on your name, there’s one brief mention in the Winnipeg Free Press and that’s that. When we chatted the other day, we didn’t get into this, but I’m curious to know more about your approach with media, other gate keepers and opinion formers in the weeks leading up to the Winnipeg Fringe.
sterlinglynch
August 6, 2010
A press kit was prepared and sent. We have some great publicity stills from Alan Dean and last year they were picked up by the papers in both cities.
We managed to get a slot in the Fringe-organized media call. The organizers don’t guarantee any media will turn up. We had the CBC (who did a fairly thorough tapping of the bit we had prepared — no idea if any of it aired), the Winnipeg Free Press took some pics, and there were a couple of fringe photographers. I think it may have been brute luck. We give a “No-Commie” pin to any media with whom we come in contact.
I suspect and I have heard that the media aren’t interested in anything Fringe until a few days before. But maybe some work months before might pay off. Pitch them a Fringe related story in January and perhaps they will remember come July.
Wayne has suggested (in conversation) that I target local bloggers well in advance of a tour stop. I think that makes a lot of sense. I will add it to the arsenal.
Evan Thornton
August 5, 2010
Good points Edgar and Sterling!
However, Sterling, I must qualify — I will happily stand in line to buy tix at the venue; but once I have my ticket, I tend to stroll over to the nearest pub and wait until about 10 mins before show time before heading over. Most seats at the Winnipeg Fringe are fine, and I just don’t see the point of standing in line to be among the first ones into the theatre, even though it seems to be a Wpg tradition.
In fact, I like to arrive just when the bulk of the line is through and seated, then I take the pick of what is left with no unnecessary waiting around. When you are seeing 4+ shows a day, it’s important to pace yourself, and standing is far more tiring than walking, to me.
Also have to say that only about 1 in 15 shows I see are on the basis of flyering, so having extra time to “get to” the likes of me would do little good. I listen to what people I trust are saying about the shows they’ve seen, read the program, read reviews – but hanging about waiting for a good pitch is a mug’s game to me; most pitches are so weak and tepid one is amazed that the performer has what it takes to get on stage in the first place.
sterlinglynch
August 6, 2010
Too true. Many of the street pitches are more than a little underwhelming and rarely work on me. I think it was that very fact that spurred Ray and I to get into character for our pitch.
Your own approach to show selection fits the data: word of mouth remains king (closely followed by TV)!
Theresa Dickison
August 6, 2010
Thought I’d weigh in – I’m the American friend that Edgar was talking about in his post a little while ago. He pretty much hit it right on the nose. I didn’t much like standing in the lines but at the same time, it’s kind of part of the deal so I suppose I’ll have to get over it. I didn’t mind the flyering either – that’s actually why I ended up wanting to go to G-Men Defectives. Sterling and his partner-in-crime engaged and charmed me while I was in line for another show so I wanted to see what they were about. I think the two of you have something here. While some may have not liked your play as well as others at the Fringe, the both of you have a chemistry going that seems effortless. I’m pretty sure that Sound and Fury or Die Roten Punkte didn’t start out as Sound and Fury or Die Roten Punkte. It probably took them a lot of practice to gel and really get going to find their groove. I predict you will do the same.
I came from Milwaukee specifically for the Fringe festival and managed to get in 10 shows plus the Midnight Cabaret. (It probably would have been more but Edgar made the sacrifice and took me to other stuff in Winnipeg that wasn’t Fringe related. ) I loved all 10 shows and didn’t think any were stinkers or a waste of an hour. While there was stuff I didn’t like about the logistics of Fringe, I do love the concept of Fringe. I go to plays of all shapes and sizes in Milwaukee but even the smallest theatre companies here don’t give that intimate experience that I experienced at Fringe. The closest Fringe festival to me in the states is in Indianapolis and I will probably go to it just to be able to experience Fringe again. (I think it would also be interesting to compare a U.S. and Canadian Fringe festival.)
As far as analyzing numbers go, I love the almighty spreadsheet in many areas of my life and like hard numbers to tell me things (I’m an American – that’s my only defense for many, many things). But, at the same time, pop cultural and artistic endeavors seem to take joy in defying the “numbers” and I think that’s a good thing. Artistic endeavors by committees looking at numbers never seem to work out well. (That would explain much of the dreck that comes out of Hollywood but that’s a different discussion altogether.)
I’ve also learned in the last 10 years or so to avoid reviews, star systems, and critics altogether before I view any movie or read any book. Too often, I have liked what the critics excoriated and abhored what they adored. Star systems and grades are misleading and don’t tell the whole story. By all means, keep the written review – just throw out the stars. While in Winnipeg, I avoided the newspapers but did listen to other people in line to see what they thought about certain shows. I realize some people just don’t have the time or inclination to read through the descriptions of the shows or just take a chance on a show. I went to When the Killer Mutant Lizards Attack at the last minute because it filled the all-important time slot and found that it was one of if not my favorite show of the Fringe because Brian Hirose was just that talented a writer and actor. I took a chance and it paid off handsomely.
All in all, the overall impression that I came away with was that I was lucky that there were artists out there that decided to make this their life. It isn’t always glamorous and I don’t think anyone is getting rich from it but it’s nice to know that there are people out there who do something like this for the sheer joy of doing it.
sterlinglynch
August 6, 2010
Hello American Friend!
Theresa, thanks so much for reading and contributing to our discussion. I’m really pleased that we are getting an international perspective on the 2010 Winnipeg Fringe experience. And thanks for coming to our show. I’m also pleased to read our street pitch worked!
Like you, I’m a huge fan of the roulette approach to viewing. As an audience member, I always make a point of going to see one show I haven’t heard anything about. I also often go based on considerations of time and proximity. More often than not it pays off.
And this of course draws me to the old adage: location, location, location!
I think organizers should also keep this in mind. If venues are close together, when a show sells out, people may be more inclined to pick another show rather than not go at all.
sterlinglynch
August 9, 2010
P.s. If you’ve enjoyed reading this thread, you may appreciate this follow-up post:
http://sterlinglynch.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/our-2010-winnipeg-fringe-numbers-are-in-we-broke-even-or-so-i-shall-claim/
In it, I share my attendance numbers from the 2010 Winnipeg Fringe.
Brian M. Carroll
August 8, 2010
In Defence of Musicals at the Winnipeg Fringe Festival
Every year I hear complaints about the musicals at the Winnipeg Fringe. Examples over the years:
1) It’s cheesy (including the variant “It’s too cheesy”).
2) It’s too cheap a production.
3) It’s too expensive a production (for the Fringe).
4) It’s not good enough.
5) It’s not new.
6) It’s not local.
7) It’s local (implying also #1 and #4).
8) It sucks attendance from other (implied better) shows.
9) It’s not fringey enough.
10) It’s Broadway.
11) It’s Off-Broadway.
12) It doesn’t take enough chances.
13) It’ll kill one and two handers.
I’d like to thank Sterling for passing on Kelly Hughes comments and thank Edgar Governo for his comments. They made me think about bigger issues about the Fringe, both in Winnipeg and on the circuit.
The complaints change from year to year, but there are always complaints about musicals. I think there is something deeper going on here. Something that has more to do with the Fringe circuit than just about Winnipeg Fringe musicals.
Let me take the above list in order:
1) It’s cheesy (including the variant “It’s too cheesy”).
There’s no place in the Fringe for a cheesy musical? Hey, it’s summer! Not every show at the Fringe has to have redeeming social value. I’m not a huge fan of musicals (much less cheesy musicals). I’d rather have drama, myself. BUT! If I had to face 55 dramas as great as Bedbound, I’d slit my wrists. Sometimes I need some summer fluff. Sometimes I eat popcorn.
Joseph Aragon has won best of venues and a Harry Rintoul award for cheesy musicals. They can be cheesy and still be good.
2) It’s too cheap a production.
3) It’s too expensive a production (for the Fringe).
No matter what a company spends on a musical, it’s either too little or too much. Either the sets look cheap and cheesy, or they spent too much money and are unfairly competing with other (implied, more worthy) Fringe shows. The former has been said about some of Joseph Aragon and Leith Clark’s musicals. The latter was said about The Wave, into which MTC put $80K. But guess what: The Wave was such a big hit that MTC remounted it in their winter season. The Wave was a brand new play. Isn’t the Fringe a place to try out new stuff?
4) It’s not good enough.
Isn’t the Fringe a place to try stuff out? Some experiments fail.
5) It’s not new.
It isn’t just that Winnipeggers like musicals. They want a wider variety than Rainbow Stage and MTC and Prairie Theatre Exchange offer. Plus some actors, directors, and producers want to perform shows that aren’t being offered in Winnipeg. The Fringe is unjuried. So folks can put on anything they want, as long as they’re willing to put up a few bucks. So we get “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”, even though it had already been a movie. ‘Cause somebody wanted to do it live. And apparently a whole pile of people wanted to see it live. Some many times.
6) It’s not local.
Touring companies bring scripts from outside Winnipeg. Why can’t local companies? When ‘Peggers put on musicals that aren’t written by locals, it keeps a pool of talent employed and available when locals write their own scripts. Aragon and Clark had a pool of talent to draw on, many of whom had performed on Rainbow Stage. They didn’t have to build that pool, AND create new musicals.
7) It’s local (implying also #1 and #4).
See answers to #1 and #4. Plus, how are local artists supposed to hone their craft if they don’t get to try stuff out? Fringe allows experiments. Some succeed; some fail. People learn from both.
8) It sucks attendance from other (implied better) shows.
The Fringe circuit is highly competitive, particularly in Winnipeg and Edmonton. I doubt that The 25th Annual… sucked attendance from Die Roten Punkte, or (7×1) Samurai, or The Pumpkin Pie Show: Commencement. If it sucked audience from “your” show: produce a better show!
9) It’s not fringey enough.
Meaning it won’t lose enough money? Artists gotta eat, too. You want fringey? Talk your friends into buying tickets for the shows that take chances. Don’t blame the artists for wanting to make a living. When audiences pay more for “fringey” shows then they’ll get more of them.
There’s a bigger issue here. I hear Fringe artists asking how to break the “cardboard ceiling”.
Well here’s a news flash, folks: musicals at the Winnipeg Fringe can provide a few rungs on the ladder. Take Matthew Tapscott. I first saw him in The Wave (see #3 above). Which MTC remounted. On the basis of The Wave, I saw him in the lead role in “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”. Which he reprised in a British production in Britain and Italy. Now he’s in the resident company of the National Arts Centre, where he performed in A Christmas Carol and Mother Courage. And his band performed the last Saturday night at the Outdoor Stage at the Winnipeg Fringe.
What’s wrong with giving artists a leg up through the cardboard ceiling?
10) It’s Broadway.
11) It’s Off-Broadway.
12) It doesn’t take enough chances.
True, but it’ll keep a whole pile of people paid until something that does take more chances comes along. The local production of Hedwig… either lost money or barely broke even, and it sold out. That wasn’t safe. But it kept the pool of talent going.
13) It’ll kill one and two handers.
If you take a look at Keir’s comments, you’ll see that touring economics strongly favour solo shows, with two-handers coming in second. Touring companies will continue to bring these sized shows. In fact a few years ago, the Winnipeg Fringe organizers were worried that the Fringe would shrink to nothing but one and two-handers.
BUT enough of answering criticisms: the best defence is a good offence.
Why should local performers continue to produce musicals at the Winnipeg Fringe? And why is that good for the Winnipeg Fringe and the Fringe circuit?
1) It fills an economic niche that touring companies find more expensive.
Winnipeg Fringe musicals can be bigger than touring productions. So they can compete for audience by putting on bigger cast productions. Touring companies have several advantages over local. They’ve done their experimenting in their own home town and on the road in smaller Fringes like Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. So their shows can be well-honed by the time they come to Winnipeg. Whereas a Winnipeg company has to be ready to compete on opening night. Touring companies can make money in multiple cities. Local companies that don’t tour make or break in just one city.
Why shouldn’t locals have the means to compete?
2) Big casts employ a lot of locals
Lots of folks get experience, and some money (maybe), and Winnipeg maintains a pool of talent available for a wide variety of projects.
How is that not a good thing?
3) That experience can get some people through the cardboard ceiling.
See Matthew Tapscott for example.
4) It gets the audience downtown.
Once they come downtown for one show and have a good time, Winnipegers stick around the Fringe to try other shows. This increases audience. The past two years have seen a phenomenal growth, from 73,000 to 86,000. Get ‘em downtown and they’ll stay to see more, both local and touring.
5) Big cast productions tap into another Winnipeg strength: the enthusiasm for working cooperatively.
There’s a long tradition of cooperation among Winnipeg artists. Why shouldn’t they use this as a competitive strength?
5) Big casts have lots of fun.
And (I’m told) great end-of-show parties.
It isn’t JUST that Winnipeggers like musicals. It’s one of the ways that the local talent hold their own in a highly competitive market.
Brian
sterlinglynch
August 8, 2010
What an impassioned defense of musicals at the Winnipeg Fringe. There must be a larger and longer debate happening along these lines about which I’m not aware. Thanks Brian!
Personally, I like musicals and would be happy to watch a big-blinged-out musical for ten bucks. Or a well executed bare bones musical.
Ultimately, I’m quite happy to let the Fringe’s lottery / market forces determine who gets in and what kind of show is produced. There will be cycles and corrections and that’s all part of the long term fun — and part of the beer tent / blog chatter.
Natalie Joy
August 8, 2010
Wow Brian, thank you so much for posting this. It’s great to have your perspective on what you’re seeing.
And isn’t this all part of the awesomeness that is the Fringe anyway? Encouraging dicussion and having differing points of view?
You’re all reminding me of why I love my job.
Tim Hogue
August 9, 2010
Brian, thanks for posting this.
Sterling, I would be one of those rabid Fringe-til-you-drop people mentioned earlier, typically seeing over 30 shows while volunteering up to 40 hours over the course of the Winnipeg Fringe. I always start weeks before the festival with my program book and a highlighter, going through and marking every past performer/company that I’ve had great experiences with in the past. Sometimes it doesn’t work but most years I get a really full slate of fantastic shows without much time and effort. I usually leave the last weekend as free as possible to catch shows that fall through the cracks. The only reviews I read throughout the Winnipeg Fringe are in The Jenny Revue – written by you and me and other fringe attendees with nary a star in sight. The ‘beer-tent-buzz’ is an invaluable tool for me and could be for you as well – just avoid it on the weekend evenings when it’s full of locals not looking for theater. After 19 years fringing I also have a short list of extremely reliable fringe buffs, and an ever increasing long list of not quite so reliable ones, that I talk to on a daily basis, especially in the first few days when that buzz is starting and use that info to fill in my open slots based on what is being talked about. As you were new to our fringe this left you were off my radar screen until Brian and Barb arrived and gave me their list of hot shows. I should mention how grateful I am every year they show up – I always get at least one great show from their list! You made it onto my last weekend list based on their ‘buzz.’ Next year, if you come back, you’re going to be one of the highlighted shows/companies in my program book.
I think of Dawson Nichols – came through with I Might Be Edgar Allen Poe. Brilliant piece of theater. It was held in one of the hot-box BYOV’s, people were fainting in the venue from the heat and it was long, really long by Fringe standards, with an intermission and an hour long second act but people went back in to see the end as it was so good. He came back a two or three years later with Virtual Solitaire. Another brilliant piece of theater but only the hard-core fringers went early in the run because no one recognized Dawson Nichols name. He had another five year lapse in visits and his houses stunk even though I thought Jekyll was as good or better that I Might Be Edgar Allen Poe. Brilliant actor with fantastic scripts but he lost his shirt coming here. He hadn’t been back frequently enough to build his level of trust with Winnipeg audiences.
Once you have that built and as long as you keep bringing quality theater to Winnipeg the crowds will show up.
sterlinglynch
August 10, 2010
Tim, thanks so much for reading and your thoughtful reply! Thanks also for seeing the show. I’m very pleased to hear we made it to your trusted company list. And for me this seems to be the crucial point. Our responsibility as performers and companies is to build trust with our audiences. Build trust and you build an audience.
Tim Hogue
August 12, 2010
I did see your spot in the program book and it intrigued me but when Barb & Brian gave you rave reviews then it pushed your show over the top. It’s tough after so many years of fringing to see all of my friends shows let alone all of the companies that have done me well over the years. I must admit it can bite you in the ass too! I loved Three Sisters by Cowgirl Opera from Calgary and ranted about it to everyone that would listen. When they brought PIG here last year I couldn’t wait and ranted even more about how good Three Sisters was, even convinced a lot of people to go see PIG. I hate to say it bit I was thoroughly disappointed. If I hadn’t been on the far side of the room I would have left the venue. The performers probably would have thought I left due to the graphic content but would have been mistaken I found PIG to be gratuitous, self-serving tripe. Especially after experiencing Three Sisters – that show is still in my Top 10 all time favorite fringe shows and it was a musical!! Just shows how easily that trust can be broken.
sterlinglynch
August 13, 2010
Hi Tim! Your story is a great reminder to performers how valuable an audience member’s trust is and that we shouldn’t take it for granted! I haven’t seen either show but now I wish I had seen both! Further proof that generating talk is what matters in publicity!
Celeste Sansregret
August 10, 2010
OK, let’s talk about musicals, commercial hits, box office numbers and what you can and can’t tour and why.
I was in a certified hit in Winnipeg this year, BREAST FRIENDS. We pulled over 200 people a day for our last 4 shows and sold out our final show.
If there hadn’t been AT LEAST a 250 seat venue available in Winnipeg we would never have done this show. We put 5 people on stage, brought Alison Field in from Toronto, built a set and had a burlesque performer with a really expensive costume. If we hadn’t had a sound designer MARRIED to one of our cast members we could never have done the show we did.
The fact we were doing a show where women talked about their breast didn’t hurt either.
Yes, we got a great review in the Free Press. We also postered our butts off and fliered line-ups hard until we hit full advance ticket sell-outs which only happened our final weekend.
Can we tour this show? No, not really, though we may try do Edmonton next year. We have a cast of 5 women plus a tech/SM and an ASM. There are 7 children under 13 who would need to come on the road with us. Hey, maybe we should do “The Sound of Music.”
However big shows that pull crowds help draw big groups of bodies to festivals who will hopefully have such a good time at the musical or the hit comedy or the Ken Brown drama that they’ll check out some of the people they’d never heard of who fliered them in the line-up before or after that show.
By the way, I personally made the same amount of money I made doing a 2 1/2 star solo drama in Winnipeg last year as I made this year in a hit. I postered and fliered hard last year too. Don’t even talk to me about Edmonton last year. I lost my shirt with a 4 star review and I fliered 4-6 line-ups every single day. Why? Because I got a bad review in the Journal. Would I have done better with a show called “Show Us Your Tits!” – 100% . Will I do a solo drama again that has nothing to do with my breasts? You betcha.
Would I abolish the star review system? Yes and I’ve both benefited and suffered as a result of it.
Did I see shows that should have done better than they did in Winnipeg? Yeah, absolutely.
FILTH for one. Frank Zotter is a great actor and it was a great play and a great production. Why the festival put an intense 90 minute drama about really tough subject matter in a 300 seat theatre is anybody’s guess.
As to PUTNAM COUNTY: they are in-town theatre school kids. They were a huge cast with 25-50 friends and relatives in-town each. That helps bump your numbers. They got great press and it’s a musical in a town that loves musical theatre. They were willing to pay the rights for a New York musical hit? Good for them.
I have no problem with anybody producing a hit play at the Fringe. When I produced UNDERNEATH THE LINTEL for John Huston 3 years ago we paid the huge cost for a script that had been produced off-Broadway. John loved the play and wanted to do it. He got great reviews in Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton for his performance and deserved them. We sold out every night in Winnipeg. We earned over 10K on our HOLDOVER in Edmonton.
Why wouldn’t you want to do a great script with a great part for you as an actor?
I agree with Keir on this: the artistic freedom I have on the Fringe is not available to me anywhere else as a writer and performer. I do this for the joy and satisfaction of being able to say exactly what I want to say and do what I want to do.
However this is also not my hobby. I can make way more money with a one or two person show that’s a hit that I will ever earn in a large cast show, even if I have to pay literary rights. And I will have more creative freedom in a smaller company than I will in larger one.
Keir is right about this too: Fortune favours the prepared. I would have fared exponentially better last year with another month’s show prep. I needed another two weeks for rewrites and then two more weeks in rehearsal. That’s a mistake I won’t make again.
So yeah, it’s easier to sell the happy, big-cast comedy show or musical but I also know that a great, well-written dramatic monologue will do well in Winnipeg or Edmonton or Ottawa or Toronto and I know if I continue to work hard, I will eventually nail it and write and perform that hit solo show.
Let’s do this again next year folks!
sterlinglynch
August 10, 2010
Hey Celeste! Thanks for reading and your comprehensive response!
I agree. What makes the Fringe tour so addictive is that it allows for tremendous artistic freedom and growth and it also offers a genuine opportunity to make a buck. And let us not forget all the great people we meet along the way!