The power of critics
I’ve seen some local discussion recently about an article and subsequent blog post by Chad Bauman of the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre, a notable and respected thinker in the arts administration world with many distinct accomplishments under his belt.
Essentially, in both pieces, he asserts that critics should not have the amount of power that they have, and that crowdsourcing reviews might be of better use in the long run in light of the massive cuts to local arts reporting that are becoming all too popular.
In his blog post, he makes good points. Lack of diversity among critics is an undisputed concern. Personal bias and outright discriminatory statements have often edged their way into artistic criticism, as was the case in a recent debate about the Chicago Sun Times’ Hedy Weiss. Critics have varying levels of credibility and education. And, as seems to be the overarching theme, a critic is just one person. Furthermore, with ongoing cuts to arts journalism, as marketers there may come a time when we can’t rely on articles and reviews to help us sell our work, and we should therefore be prepared. These are valid and important considerations as we consider the meaning of critics and the role they play in our world.
However…
There are some notable holes in Bauman’s argument.
Size and scope. The Milwaukee Rep, where Bauman is managing director, is the largest regional theatre company in Wisconsin, with 20,000 subscribers and 5,000 donors. Therefore the potential for crowdsourcing, simply due to their annual attendance and the number of productions they do each year, is far more significant than that of, say, a small musical theatre company in nearby Madison.
Bauman represents a situation in which there are likely to be thousands of people willing to participate in online commentary, which supports his argument that the crowd as a whole holds more weight than the individual critic. His situation is not the norm. In a smaller city with a higher saturation rate like Madison, the number of people who see the work and the number of people willing to take the time to write reviews is substantially smaller.
Discussion and access. There is certainly a diversity problem amongst our critics, and implicit biases can make their way into artistic criticism, a trend which we must address. However, if we are to introduce theatre to a new, younger, less exposed audience, we need educated journalists to seek and write about plays that address diversity and social issues in spaces where those new audiences will see them. We also need those journalists to help us understand why those plays are important, and how to talk about them. Publications that serve diverse audiences, such as Madison’s Isthmus, need to hang on to their arts criticism because they, through both their print and online editions, provide Madison audiences with the most comprehensive source of what’s going on in the city. It’s an almost universally relied-upon source of information, and free to pick up at hundreds of local sites. A knowledgeable journalist (and I grant you, there are many who are not) can make all the difference in promoting discussion and helping people to know what’s happening and figure out how to think about it.
Cultivated interests: Crowdsourced information comes to the patron when they go looking for information on a play. If I’m not looking to buy a mattress, I don’t look up mattress reviews. Similarly, if I’m not already aware of a show, I’m not going to look for a review of it, be it crowdsourced or written by a critic. Nor am I as likely to see the theatre’s publicity about all the great feedback they’ve gotten on their piece; If I don’t follow them or am not on their e-mail list, I don’t get the info.
Publications with reviews are what I deem intermediary marketing, in which the patron may or may not be looking for information, but are nonetheless a captive audience (in this case, reading through a newspaper or website). It is entirely possible to unexpectedly see a great review of something you weren’t aware was happening and subsequently go buy a ticket. I’ve seen it happen many many times. Criticism and journalism, simply due to their wider reaches, cultivate an interest that may not otherwise be there, particularly for fringe groups.
Talk about bias: If we are crowdsourcing our reviews, what’s to stop people’s friends and family, people involved with the show, or people paid or bribed, from posting positive reviews in order to drive up the average? Critics are at least identified and held to standards of objectivity, and if they don’t adhere to them (which admittedly does happen), we have a way of calling them out. Not so on the internet, where the computer screen and creative usernames provide a veil of anonymity.
An interesting strategy
If you’re on the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre’s e-mail list, then you saw an interesting contradiction in the American Theatre article. Bauman writes:
In a recent survey sent to our single ticket buyers at Milwaukee Repertory Theater, we asked patrons what drove their purchasing decisions, and their responses mirrored my own hotel searches. First and foremost, patrons must be interested in the subject matter or premise of the play. Next, they check with friends and family to get recommendations, and then consider the ticket price. Only after all that do patrons report that a professional review will influence their purchasing decision.
His point here, as he goes on to say, is that this is in stark contrast to ten years ago, when a similar survey at Arena Stage revealed that people’s desire to buy tickets rested first and foremost on the Washington Post review. Essentially his point is that “times have changed.”
Let’s ignore the fact that he’s talking about two distinctly different cities and audience bases and just focus on the impact of the review. Given that he notes that professional reviews rank fourth in importance for audiences, it’s interesting to note a promotional strategy that Milwaukee Rep took in both 2014 and 2017 after getting lukewarm reviews from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Milwaukee’s major newspaper. You can see the 2017 version for Guys and Dolls here; it is virtually identical (with some different critic’s and audience quotes) to the 2014 e-mail sent out for The Color Purple.
In it, the Rep asserts that the Journal-Sentinel “Got it wrong” and offers a 25% discount and money back guarantee for the show.
As a marketer, I find this quite confusing. One bad review, in a sea of other good ones, is worthy of discounting the product and offering a money-back guarantee (which, as an audience member, means I’m going to be much more critical)? The impression I get here is desperation…as well as an indication that certain critics hold more power in the Rep’s mind than others. If we want to crowdsource, then why not just focus on the multitude of positive reviews (also an asset the Rep has that smaller communities do not)?
What about the bad stuff?
This calls into question the impact of the bad review in a crowdsourced situation. Bauman seems to feel that theatre criticism, when left to the masses, will result in an abundance of positivity. But reviewing an arts experience is a multi-faceted task to ask of the general public.
To use his own example, when looking for a hotel online, you review cleanliness, comfort, location, service, and amenities. This cookie cutter approach simply cannot apply to arts experiences. The variety of tastes, styles, and types of experiences is too broad to count on crowds to reliably rate them on any sort of metric. If an audience member isn’t interested in the subject matter, the play can be fabulously executed but they might give it a bad review anyway. (good critics can tell the difference between the writing and the performance). They may unfairly compare it to the Broadway production they saw 30 years ago. Furthermore they might encounter a rude usher, have an uncomfortable seat, have to wait too long at the bar, or be cold, and give the production a bad review, even if the venue in which it is being performed is being rented and thus out of the control of the theatre company doing the producing. If theatre criticism is to be crowdsourced, then how do we educate audiences on what to evaluate and how?
The bottom line
I respect Chad Bauman and the incredible things he has done in his career. I quoted him more than once in my thesis. He is an important thinker, and he’s not wrong that we need to think differently about theatre criticism as we progress into a different age.
But I also believe that theatre criticism plays an important role both in marketing and the furthering of the arts as an element to be considered in our society, and that rushing into a crowdsourced approach for theatre criticism could potentially backfire. We as marketers need to find ways to leverage good reviews (and even bad reviews) in conjunction with knowledgeable audience critique.
