'Evidence-based' marketing at the ROH - that would explain a lot!

[Lizbie1]

One thing that I haven't seen discussed in all this is the ROH's role as a "gateway drug" for opera and ballet, and I don't know whether it's even considered by the Arts Council when it sets its agenda-driven targets. Become a regular at the Royal Ballet and the chances are that you start to seek out less well-patronised companies, who really could do with the extra support that the ROH seems so casual about throwing away; and similarly for opera.

 

That's how it happened for me, and for others I know. Without getting firmly into the habit of ballet-going at the ROH, I'd never have considered a trip to Canterbury specifically to see The Three Musketeers, as I will make in a couple of weeks; or to Leeds to see Jane Eyre and the MacMillan mixed bill; or to Shrewsbury for the BRB Midscale tour. I could go on!

[bridiem]

This morning, I forwarded my email correspondence so far on this subject to Alex Beard for comment. He replied, and we then exchanged a number of emails. I asked if it would be acceptable to share what he had said on this Forum; he replied that he is very happy for me to share that 'it is not our aim for our core audience, friends or otherwise, to come less frequently'.

 

I feel that I have now got as far as I can with this.

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by bridiem

[Richard LH]

1 hour ago, bridiem said:

he replied that he is very happy for me to share that 'it is not our aim for our core audience, friends or otherwise, to come less frequently'.

Well that is a pretty positive response from the boss, and it is now effectively on the record.

 

1 hour ago, bridiem said:

I feel that I have now got as far as I can with this.

I'm sure that's right bridiem.

 

Generally I think the c*ck-up explanation, rather than the conspiracy theory, turns out to be correct - in this case seemingly a result of an ill-thought out, and ill-presented  consultancy exercise.

 

If someone  at the ROH   did have the bright idea  of "let's  try to reduce the frequency of  attendance of our core so we can get a wider audience" then perhaps the  reaction to that idea, from the core,  caused a re-think.

 

Thanks so much for your persistence with this!

[alison]

1 hour ago, bridiem said:

I feel that I have now got as far as I can with this.

 

 

Thanks for trying anyway, bridiem.

[Bruce]

17 hours ago, bridiem said:

This morning, I forwarded my email correspondence so far on this subject to Alex Beard for comment. He replied, and we then exchanged a number of emails. I asked if it would be acceptable to share what he had said on this Forum; he replied that he is very happy for me to share that 'it is not our aim for our core audience, friends or otherwise, to come less frequently'.

 

I feel that I have now got as far as I can with this.

 

 

Nice one @bridiem in pursuing this and good on Alex Beard for realising there was a huge issue that needed to be put to bed. He's chosen to do it with a pithy statement, but there are real issues, I think, underpinning frequency of attendance by some and how that relates to public subsidy and in a house running near capacity. Ideally, it should be spread far and wide, rather than deep and narrow. Gross extremes, but they make the point. For now, Beard's statement implies no limits and that should make very regular attendees happy. Of course, prices will still be going up, but that's another issue!

 

 

 

 

[bridiem]

18 minutes ago, Bruce said:

 

Nice one @bridiem in pursuing this and good on Alex Beard for realising there was a huge issue that needed to be put to bed. He's chosen to do it with a pithy statement, but there are real issues, I think, underpinning frequency of attendance by some and how that relates to public subsidy and in a house running near capacity. Ideally, it should be spread far and wide, rather than deep and narrow. Gross extremes, but they make the point. For now, Beard's statement implies no limits and that should make very regular attendees happy. Of course, prices will still be going up, but that's another issue!

 

I would say that it has to be spread far, wide, deep AND narrow (if you see what I mean). Otherwise, far and wide simply becomes wide and shallow.

[Bruce]

3 hours ago, bridiem said:

 

I would say that it has to be spread far, wide, deep AND narrow (if you see what I mean). Otherwise, far and wide simply becomes wide and shallow.

 

It's a tricky area to talk about and words can only carry you so far - ultimately it comes down to what seems fair and reasonable - going 10 times a year, 20, 40, 60 etc? We'd all draw a line in different places. The very regularly attending fans don't want hemming in or for any number to be higher then they go(!). But what would ordinary tax payers (who fund the Arts Council) feel? I think they would want to see the money spread widely and to think that ordinary people would not find it so hard to get cheap seats because so many get scooped up by those who go much. Even if ROH found a number/set of criteria, policing it would be a minefield. There is no magic answer, but simply putting up prices to discourage (very) regulars is not it.

 

Edit to add that what I said earlier re ROH finding a better way to work with fans and use them to further the artistic aims of the place still stands. The fans are a major asset. Just my 2p anyway.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Bruce

[Lizbie1]

5 minutes ago, Bruce said:

There is no magic answer, but simply putting up prices to discourage (very) regulars is not it.

 

Perhaps one answer is to apply more widely the occasional restrictions we see on how many tickets an individual can buy for a run; this could then be relaxed, say, a month before the performance.

 

Not everyone would be happy, but if they are principally concerned about the cheap seats being bought by the usual suspects before newbies get a look in, this way would seem more closely aligned with their intention.

[penelopesimpson]

It is an interesting issue but, speaking for myself,  I book as many seats as I can afford by using the same process as everybody else, i.e. getting off my backside to book.  This is the same for any event of any type anywhere, unless you have signed up for privileged early access which raises a whole load of other issues.  I also cannot believe that there are armies of us devoted ballet fans who spend their lives hoovering up a scant supply of tickets.  Are we supposed to sit back until the eleventh hour just in case somebody who might be attending for the first time decides they want to see a performance?

 

I accept the restrictions on some performances e.g. Kaufmann was restricted last year and doubtless it will be the same when he returns in Spring 2019.  But this type of event happens only occasionally.

 

Perhaps it might have been better not to have spent £???? millions on this so-called open-up project and used the money to subsidise tickets in an 'attract new audiences initiative?'  Putting aside my dislike of a scheme that is as bland an unappealing as cold tapioca, I am at a loss to see what the Open-up project is meant to achieve.  Sure, there is now a free picnic-area/water/toilets/keep out of the cold/do anything you want area in central London, but to me it feels entirely disconnected from the Arts and I cannot believe goes any way towards justifying public subsidy..  Apart from the screen adjacent to the cloakroom, how is one to know one is in one of the major Opera Houses of the World?  Worse, what is there to tempt those who venture in to explore what's on offer or even buy a ticket?  There is no literature, nothing to look at and you have to go outside to the Box Office.  The whole scheme feels like a gigantic waste of money to me and I would love to hear it justified.  

[Bruce Wall]

2 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

Sure, there is now a free picnic-area/water/toilets/keep out of the cold/do anything you want area in central London, but to me it feels entirely disconnected from the Arts and I cannot believe goes any way towards justifying public subsidy..  

 

I may be wrong - but wasn't the 'open up' incentive covered entirely through private funds?  I thought it was.  

[Lizbie1]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Wall said:

 

I may be wrong - but wasn't the 'open up' incentive covered entirely through private funds?  I thought it was.  

 

From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/opera/11213400/Royal-Opera-House-redevelopment.html

 

“The cost of Open Up is currently estimated at around £35 million (for the 1990s redevelopment, the figure was £214 million), and Chief Executive Alex Beard has affirmed that no call will be made on the public purse or the Lottery: all moneys will come from private sources.“

[penelopesimpson]

Thanks for posting that interesting Telegraph piece.

 

However, I'm not sure that an organisation that receives public funding can separate things out in this way.  At the end of the day, ROH has one pot of money each year whether it derives from commercial revenue, sponsorship or the public purse.  It is really impossible to say that no public money is being spent on A, only private money, with all public funds going on B.  If there is so much private money swashing around, perhaps it could be used on productions rather than continually raising prices.

 

The fact remains that they have spent £35m on - what exactly?  Yes, The Linbury is a huge improvement but did the Ampitheatre Restaurant really need a complete overhaul which has completely lost it's atmosphere?  Wouldn't a refresh have been enough?  The rest rooms are an improvement and I suppose the glass over the Terrace, although I rather enjoyed braving the elements in winter.  And how many people will benefit from this now that so much of the Terrace has been lost?  

 

As to the furniture in the Floral Hall, not only is it ugly and supremely uncomfortable, it is completely out of tune with the area.  I suppose somebody in marketing told the Board it was modern and would appeal to the youth market.  Pity it's mainly us oldies who pay for sit-down refreshments.

Edited October 23, 2018 by penelopesimpson

[Jan McNulty]

As far as I am aware a registered charity has to keep a detailed record of how donations are used if they were “collected” for a specific project.

[bridiem]

24 minutes ago, Jan McNulty said:

As far as I am aware a registered charity has to keep a detailed record of how donations are used if they were “collected” for a specific project.

 

I'm sure you're right, Jan.

 

But it is frustrating when so much money is spent with such an underwhelming result (I except the new Linbury, which I haven't seen and which I hope is good) when funds for all purposes are said to be so tight.

[JohnS]

The Royal Opera House reports the cost of Open Up as  £50.7m, with all of the funds raised from philanthropy:

 

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/royal-opera-house-open-up

[bangorballetboy]

4 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

Thanks for posting that interesting Telegraph piece.

 

However, I'm not sure that an organisation that receives public funding can separate things out in this way.  At the end of the day, ROH has one pot of money each year whether it derives from commercial revenue, sponsorship or the public purse.  It is really impossible to say that no public money is being spent on A, only private money, with all public funds going on B.  If there is so much private money swashing around, perhaps it could be used on productions rather than continually raising prices.

 

It is perfectly achievable for a charity to ring-fence moneys for specific schemes and, of course, some moneys will be for restricted purposes.  You only need to look at the accounts of any sizeable charity to see how they have (and deal with) restricted funds.

 

[Scheherezade]

As a matter of interest, and since access to the public areas is not patrolled in any way by ushers, what happens to latecomers? Does anyone direct them either to the big screen or to spare boxes any more?

[Thalia]

5 minutes ago, Scheherezade said:

As a matter of interest, and since access to the public areas is not patrolled in any way by ushers, what happens to latecomers? Does anyone direct them either to the big screen or to spare boxes any more?

 

I actually had a nightmare about this the night before last, not that it has ever happened to me but I’ve been close a couple of times – is there still a screen for latecomers to watch?

[Sim]

9 minutes ago, Thalia said:

 

I actually had a nightmare about this the night before last, not that it has ever happened to me but I’ve been close a couple of times – is there still a screen for latecomers to watch?

Yes there is.

[J_New]

When I was in SC on 17th there seemed to be people walking up and down behind me after the start, and again after the interval. I didn't see an usher anywhere other than at the door from the public area into the entrance to the stairs for the auditorium, and he wasn't checking tickets. On 20th when I was in the Amphi they were checking tickets.

[Xandra Newman]

How about security checks at the entrance and onwards? 

Seems totally flawed and this is unacceptable. How hard is it for the ROH to get their act together? They are not new in the business...but all of a sudden the whole organisation seems to be in a mess.

I am not only thinking about our own security but also those of all the performing artists! 

[jmhopton]

I too wrote to Alex Beard about the original article; possibly about the same time as Briedem, and got a rapid and professional reply. Again he emphasised there was no intention to discriminate against frequent attenders. However, I also mentioned the concerns about the website which he rather dismissed as being non-problematic perhaps not something Forum members would agree with! I did reply and asked him if it would be ok to publish both my letter and his response on the Forum because of the bad feeling caused by the article and he said that would be fine though he thought it had already been covered by his reply to Briedem. However, in my reply I also instanced that frequent attenders might be being deterred by the price rises (I specifically mentioned side stalls circle) and also the matinee price increases and he didn't actively address either of these points. Still, the fact they've been highlighted may make him think about future price rises and possibly about eventually reinstating cheaper matinees though that might be wishful thinking. I do appreciate the fact he took the time and trouble to reply so promptly. We were practically on first name terms at the end!

I'll try and attach the letter I wrote to Alex Beard and his reply. Also the letter I wrote to Kevin O'Hare which I also sent to Alex Beard to prove I'm not really a grouch! I've never done this before so it may not work!

 

Alex Beard.docx

Alex Beard reply.docx

Kevin O'hare.docx

Alex beard 2.docx

[Sim]

Well done Joan....for the correspondence and for successfully posting the links.  

[Lynette H]

It may not be the ROH's deliberate intention to reduce frequency of attendance but that might be the outcome of the price rises they are implementing this season. 

 

Consider the prices for row A of the amphi. This used not to be in the top price band for the amphi because of restricted leg room. It's in the top price band now, for the normal seats.  There are a handful of seats which are cheaper because of the extremely restricted leg room ones with a pillar by the knees. 

 

For Mayerling, the price for one of the extra-restricted spaces was £50. 

 

The prices for the same seat for Don Q is £60. For Frankenstein it is £55. For Romeo and Juliet it is £74. That is for a seat which is a very tight squeeze.  

 

The ordinary seats in row A (and the central block A- D) are Don Q £73, Frankenstein £70, R & J  £85.   That's some pretty steep price increases over previous years and even during a season. 

 

I don't see any response from the ROH on the point about price rises. 

 

 

 

 

 

[alison]

37 minutes ago, Lynette H said:

It may not be the ROH's deliberate intention to reduce frequency of attendance but that might be the outcome of the price rises they are implementing this season. 

 

Consider the prices for row A of the amphi. This used not to be in the top price band for the amphi because of restricted leg room.

 

I'd always thought it was the restricted view from the curve of the tier, rather than legroom? 

 

And as for the outcome, yes, certainly.  If I can't keep my visits down to my old average per performance, then I'm going to have to cut back, and/or stand for more.  I'm already looking at the casts for Romeo & Juliet and thinking how many of these do I really *need* to see?  (I think I make it 3).  How many I really want to see is of course a completely different matter!

[bridiem]

50 minutes ago, Lynette H said:

It may not be the ROH's deliberate intention to reduce frequency of attendance but that might be the outcome of the price rises they are implementing this season. 

 

Yes. I think there are two main issues:

 

1. The ROH's intention in respect of regular attenders; we now have one statement from Lucy Sinclair and a different one from Alex Beard. I assume that AB's trumps LS's (since they cannot both be right and he is senior to LS), though quite how LS's detailed strategy ties in in any way with AB's statement I really don't know. To give the kindest possible interpretation, there must be a great deal of confusion in the senior management at the ROH

2. The effect of the various price rises on regular attenders. As Lynette H says, this has not been addressed

 

And unfortunately, in practice it is 2. that is crucial.

Edited October 27, 2018 by bridiem

[ninamargaret]

And I would think that such high prices for what are, in effect, restricted view would be likely to dissuade the much wanted first timers from making repeat visits! And don't get me started on opera prices! It's more or less a no go for me now!

[penelopesimpson]

Definitely getting that way for me, too.  I am bracing myself for Kaufmann

[alison]

I didn't go to Lohengrin (probably my second-most loved opera) because I couldn't afford to stand.

[jmhopton]

19 hours ago, Lynette H said:

I don't see any response from the ROH on the point about price rises. 

 

No he didn't address this problem which is crucial to not deterring frequent attenders. So even if the policy isn't there the result could be the same. Mind you looking at the sold out performances of Bayadere and the almost sold out long Nutcracker run they may feel their price rises are justified, unfortunately. However, it was the winter season where the reduced price matinees ends so I suppose we'll have to see if these sales are affected when public booking opens. However, as matinees are the only way people like me can attend a performance without the huge extra expense of staying over in London I suspect not.

[Lynette H]

20 hours ago, alison said:

 

I'd always thought it was the restricted view from the curve of the tier, rather than legroom? 

 

 

 

I was quoting prices for the central block of the amphi where the view is clear, not the ones further round the curve where there may be some restriction. It is very snug in there, shall we say. 

[zxDaveM]

17 hours ago, alison said:

I didn't go to Lohengrin (probably my second-most loved opera) because I couldn't afford to stand.

 

their policy seems to be working then

[ninamargaret]

26 minutes ago, zxDaveM said:

 

their policy seems to be working then

it is for me, at any rate for opera. because of mobility problems i find accessing seats in the amphi difficult - Just feel unsafe. The front amphi for Queen of Spades is £100! Stalls Circle totally unaffordable, unless I can bag one of the few 'cheap'seats. Elitist or what?