Lizbie1 Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 I've never got close to that number, but suspect it's per performance. Maybe someone else can confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalia Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 It’s per performance. I’ve definitely gone over 9 tickets for a production. 😬 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstar Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Thanks. I don't intend to get to that limit either but was interested in theory. Thus far my worst have been 5 each for R&J and Manon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridiem Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dawnstar said: Thanks. I don't intend to get to that limit either but was interested in theory. Thus far my worst have been 5 each for R&J and Manon. Your use of the word 'worst' amused me, Dawnstar! But I know exactly what you mean... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 It strikes me that 9 tickets per performance is very generous and would satisfy most people’s needs. And of course group bookings kick in if you wish to purchase 10 or more tickets per performance. So I still don’t understand what limits are placed on purchases of Patrons/Friends tickets, other than for Rehearsals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridiem Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JohnS said: It strikes me that 9 tickets per performance is very generous and would satisfy most people’s needs. And of course group bookings kick in if you wish to purchase 10 or more tickets per performance. So I still don’t understand what limits are placed on purchases of Patrons/Friends tickets, other than for Rehearsals. I actually think 9 tickets per performance is bonkers. Why on earth should people be allowed to buy that many tickets (unless they think the tickets are going to be hard to shift for some reason)? Someone above suggested that being a Friend should allow you to bring one person with you, as with some gallery memberships etc - maybe stretch that to 4 to be generous, but 9?? Edited October 24, 2019 by bridiem 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toursenlair Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 6 hours ago, ninamargaret said: Without going into the rights and wrongs of the whole mess, I think a problem is that the ROH, and other theatres, need large numbers of Patrons, Friends whatever to swell their coffers. Inevitably, the more that give this support, the more tickets and benefits they want, and can justifiably expect. If I was a Patron paying several grand a year I would be pretty miffed not to be able to get tickets because some were being held back for the general public. You would have to be a particularly generous minded patron to say 'I don't mind foregoing my ticket so that Joe Bloggs can have it'. Some years ago the Donmar closed its' Supporters list because too many people wanted priority tickets - a very honest action, but I can't,see the ROH doing that. But I totally agree that greater transparency on the part of the ROH is needed, and a clear policy should be stated and adhered to. Just to say, here in Toronto, "Friends" don't have any priority access to tickets. I do "pay several grand a year" (well a couple anyway) and this gives me the same ticket access as someone not donating a cent, i.e. I can book a subscription when they go on sale to everyone in March for the following Sept-June season. And I can buy individual tickets when they go on sale to everyone in September. So if Joe Bloggs gets to the box office before me, more power to Joe. I consider my donation as exactly that, a donation. I don't know that donors can "justifiably expect" benefits like this, but I guess the ROH has trained its Friends to think they can. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, bridiem said: I actually think 9 tickets per performance is bonkers. Why on earth should people be allowed to buy that many tickets (unless they think the tickets are going to be hard to shift for some reason)? Someone above suggested that being a Friend should allow you to bring one person with you, as with some gallery memberships etc - maybe stretch that to 4 to be generous, but 9?? I've seen hen parties in there before now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuthE Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, bridiem said: I actually think 9 tickets per performance is bonkers. Why on earth should people be allowed to buy that many tickets (unless they think the tickets are going to be hard to shift for some reason)? Someone above suggested that being a Friend should allow you to bring one person with you, as with some gallery memberships etc - maybe stretch that to 4 to be generous, but 9?? I would agree with 4 per performance as a baseline (because who doesn’t sometimes want to bring more than one friend?) and for “premium” shows such as those we’ve been discussing, 4 in total per run of the production. The latter limit was working very nicely for several seasons until they decided to remove it in favour of a free-for-all; indeed it was last imposed for the 2018 Ring cycle. The only disadvantage of the latter limit is its potential to ensure second-cast shows sell badly even though regulars want to buy tickets for them, but there are ways round that at later stages. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninamargaret Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) My RSC Patronage didn't specify limits generally, but did put limits on productions likely to be popular - the David Tennant Hamlet was, I think, one of those. I would think a limit of four is perfectly reasonable, nine sounds daft, to me. And if it means that people can't club together and buy a more expensive level of membership that may even be good for the ROH coffers. Edited October 24, 2019 by ninamargaret spelling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, RuthE said: I would agree with 4 per performance as a baseline (because who doesn’t sometimes want to bring more than one friend?) and for “premium” shows such as those we’ve been discussing, 4 in total per run of the production. The latter limit was working very nicely for several seasons until they decided to remove it in favour of a free-for-all; indeed it was last imposed for the 2018 Ring cycle. The only disadvantage of the latter limit is its potential to ensure second-cast shows sell badly even though regulars want to buy tickets for them, but there are ways round that at later stages. I think this is a very reasonable suggestion. As @ninamargaret points out this is how many you could buy with ONE membership - sorry but who realistically brings 8 friends? And if they did/wanted to it would not be unreasonable to say that if they wanted that many plus ones, perhaps someone else should buy a friends membership or understand they need to wait for general booking to secure that many seats! In theory the 9 ticket limit means 9 people could split a friends membership between them - I think in fairness it’s probably rare for this to occur but a single person does not need their privileges to extend as far as 9 tickets! Plus 3 is more than generous in my opinion - if facilitates a whole family ‘sharing’ a membership in effect. Of course friends could also be online come general booking day and have the exact same chance of securing further tickets as anyone else then, meaning that they’re likely to get everything they want anyway, with the exception of even more tickets of productions like La Forza/Fidelio, but already having secured a potential 4, this seems fair if demand is high and there will be people with no tickets at all! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Macmillan Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Today's Times has picked up on this issue in its News pages - nothing new, I think, and no sign of the small article in the online edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 @penelopesimpson did you ever receive a follow-up reply from Alex Beard? I have heard nothing from ROH customer services since contacting them last week. I presume I won't get anything back now. I suppose that may be the end of it then...If nothing else at least I hope this has raised internal awareness to ROH that there are people that pay attention and care about this type of thing! I suppose we can see if it's had any difference (or not) with Netrebko's Tosca in the Summer season (this time only 4 performances as opposed to Fidelio's 6!)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstar Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I didn't have a reply from the ROH to either of my follow-up emails either, which I find rather disappointing in terms of customer service. They could at least have sent a generic acknowledgement of receipt even if they'd been told not to give out any further information. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Dawnstar said: I didn't have a reply from the ROH to either of my follow-up emails either, which I find rather disappointing in terms of customer service. They could at least have sent a generic acknowledgement of receipt even if they'd been told not to give out any further information. Yes I agree. I don't know why they shouldn't be open and transparent about these things though, especially for a part-funded organisation that seems (at least on the surface) to be keen on principles of transparency etc, but to completely ignore makes me more suspicious that there is something untoward going on. Either that or it's just a case of staff either aren't clear what to communicate, or aren't clear on the policies/rules themselves - which indicates wider managerial issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridiem Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I suspect they haven't replied because there's nothing sensible they can say. They've messed up big time, and been rumbled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 35 minutes ago, bridiem said: I suspect they haven't replied because there's nothing sensible they can say. They've messed up big time, and been rumbled. Yes of course, agree that's why they haven't replied. But even a generic 'we appreciate your feedback and we have passed it on to the relevant department' type of response (which of course doesn't answer the questions raised but at least makes us feel like something is being done/they are listening to people) would be better than being ignored. Or even if they can't muster that, a simple acknowledgement of receipt and thanks for your comments, we value feedback from our audience etc (with no promise that nothing will be done/passed along) would be better than being ignored. You can't pick and choose what you reply to, all messages should be treated equally. Of course in reality I know they of course can/will ignore and nothing more can/will be done by someone like me, but all messages should receive a response even if it's a really bland one; otherwise the 'contact us' function becomes somewhat redundant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangorballetboy Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Perhaps they gave up on providing civil responses when someone took matters to the newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 30 minutes ago, bangorballetboy said: Perhaps they gave up on providing civil responses when someone took matters to the newspapers. Why would/should that change the situation? It's not like anything confidential was shared, nowadays unless specifically stated that things shouldn't be shared (and even then they could be unless there is an obligation or some sort of contract stipulating that one is bound by that) then I don't think anyone did anything wrong here. Regardless of whether or not you agree the issue should have been made public - and I personally have no issue that it was, why shouldn't the organisation receive criticism/questions when it's valid, clearly the papers thought so too otherwise they wouldn't have bothered printing? - I don't think 'bad' press is a valid reason for ignoring concerns/communications from customers. Yes, they may be unwilling or unable to share certain information (which is understandable on a certain level, if not ideal) but they could at least provide a generic response as I suggested above? If they want to present the organisation as some sort of elite private members' club where they aren't beholden to anybody then that's different - I wouldn't expect a response (nor would I likely bother contacting in the first place). But as an organisation that is partly public-funded as well as putting itself forward for trumpeting values such as 'openness', I think it's poor form to not at least acknowledge messages they have received from customers in good faith. I (and also others who have written in I presume) only feedback because we value the organisation and want to help it improve. Or alternatively, we want to know more about how things work so we can work with their policies/rules etc. Of course in this particular case I communicated that I was critical of the choices they made, but some of my points were also simply questions rather than criticisms - I wanted clarity over how ticketing works. I don't think this is an unreasonable or particularly burdensome request? Why bother having a contact us page at all if messages go ignored? Besides I think publicly facing organisations (should) always invest in customer feedback - if they genuinely want to improve the audience experience that is! I understand the press attention (although 2-3 articles, hardly front page news!) may have put them under additional scrutiny when responding to such questions, but ultimately if you can't defend and or explain your own policies/rules then perhaps you need to rethink them... Anyway I don't wish to be antagonistic and keep this conversation going as I sense the thread has run its course; I doubt ROH will respond to any of the questions raised here now. But to conclude - I find the situation overall pretty disappointing - from the actual fact that so few tickets were available on general booking in the first place (especially in the cheaper price categories), followed up with the conflicting responses/messages from ROH, topped off with the now non-response to genuine enquiries. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penelopesimpson Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, bangorballetboy said: Perhaps they gave up on providing civil responses when someone took matters to the newspapers. Perhaps I took things to the newspapers when I gave up on expecting a constructive and civil response. And will do so again until Power starts speaking the Truth. Edited October 31, 2019 by penelopesimpson 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penelopesimpson Posted October 31, 2019 Author Share Posted October 31, 2019 7 hours ago, JNC said: @penelopesimpson did you ever receive a follow-up reply from Alex Beard? I have heard nothing from ROH customer services since contacting them last week. I presume I won't get anything back now. I suppose that may be the end of it then...If nothing else at least I hope this has raised internal awareness to ROH that there are people that pay attention and care about this type of thing! I suppose we can see if it's had any difference (or not) with Netrebko's Tosca in the Summer season (this time only 4 performances as opposed to Fidelio's 6!)... Sorry, JNC, away in Italy at the moment but the answer is No. However, I will be pressing for an answer and a couple of the journalists I spoke to are interested in a follow up. I don’t mind putting Alex Beard’s responses on here butI am not going to pass his communications ( if there are any) to the media. However, as this has happened twice now - Forza and Fidelio - I cannot see what he can say. what beats me is WHY? ROH has gained nothing and made itself look disingenuous, at best. Mr. Beard continues to show all the sure footedness of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with his PR. Is there nobody in that enormous marketing department with the nous to tell him that you can’t keep on pretending! And I am being kind in my choice of words... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 It appears I spoke too soon yesterday! The ROH replied today. "When tickets first went on sale to the general public last Wednesday, hundreds of tickets were available for purchase. Of course these tickets, as with tickets for any of our most popular productions, sold out very quickly after booking opened. This is why further tickets will continue to be made available through our Friday Rush ticket scheme, which ensures members of the public have access to our most popular productions at affordable prices every week, but also through the release of further ticket holds as we get closer to the performance dates in March. These seats are held back for individual philanthropists who have supported the production, supporters of the artists on our stage, as well as members of the press and other partner organisations. We expect a large number of these to be released in the coming months for public booking. We remain committed to extending access and opening our art forms to a new generation of audiences. Last Season, for instance, 30% of our tickets were sold at £35 or under, 77% of which were sold to members of the public, and in The Stage’s annual pricing survey, the Royal Opera House consistently offers the cheapest tickets in the West End. It is also worth noting that the proportion of Royal Opera House tickets sold to the general public has been 63% on average over the last five seasons. We are always determined to strike the right balance between nurturing the next generation of opera and ballet lovers while ensuring the continued support of our Friends and patrons. I am confident that our pricing policy moving forward achieves this aim, ensuring that our art forms can survive long into the future. I have passed all your suggestions upwards to the Royal Opera House management structure so they are aware of your concerns and wishes for future seasons." The pros for me are: - They have acknowledged/responded to my message - They note my concerns will be fed back - They provide additional information about further tickets that may be available if sponsors/donors are unable to attend which is helpful to know and understandable that would hold tickets back for these people - It's positive that 30% of tickets sold for £35 or under (although of course 'cheaper' productions like the mixed bills and student standbys will skew the stats on this somewhat) The cons/things I'm less happy about: - They claim hundreds of tickets were available. Without knowing how many 'hundreds' if it's difficult to say if this is proportionate. But if 6 performances, and ROH has a capacity of 2256 - or so google tells me - that is roughly 13,500 tickets for sale. Even if we say 900 odd tickets were available (as presumably otherwise you start going into the 'thousands', although one could be generous and say up to 1900 something tickets before going into 'multiple' thousands), this is around 7% (or 15% if we go for the more generous just under 2000 tickets). In my opinion, whilst of course better than completely selling out to friends, I think this still isn't enough tickets available for the general public. - I'm dubious about the claim they offer the cheapest tickets on the West End - I believe this is the article they are referring to: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/the-stage-ticketing-survey-2019-top-price-tickets-dip-but-cheapest-go-up/ - nowhere does it say they 'consistently offer the cheapest tickets' in the West End. It notes that it actually had the most expensive tickets (for a subsided show) as well as also having the cheapest ticket overall (£8). The article notes the average price for West End shows is £49, without knowing what the average price for ROH tickets are, it's impossible to know whether ROH is 'cheaper' or not. To say that they 'consistently offer the cheapest tickets' is somewhere between stretching the truth and an outright false statement. Perhaps they are referring to a different survey (without them sending a link themselves I can't corroborate) and maybe there is some other research that does back up this claim which I am not aware of. But if this article is what they are basing the claim on it's incorrect and misleading. - They still haven't clarified any policies on selling out to friends/holding back tickets for the general public. I presume the assumption is that tickets are held back (as otherwise Fidelio would have certainly sold out to friends?) but if this is the case shouldn't they be proud of this? Or perhaps because the numbers held back are so low they don't want to confirm or deny...? Not necessarily a bad thing but I'm slightly surprised that only 63% of ALL tickets are sold to the general public, meaning members are buying 37%. Maybe this shouldn't be surprising on one level as members are of course more likely to attend more regularly and buying more tickets for friends/family etc too. And especially if there are thousands of members this doesn't seem too far fetched. The positive side of this does seem to be that 77% of the cheaper tickets (£35 and under) are sold to the general public meaning on average the public are proportionally buying more of the cheaper tickets which I think is the way it should be. Anyway, overall whilst I might not be 100% satisfied with the response, I'm feeling more positive about ROH and their customer service at least. I'm happy that my concerns/feedback will be relayed to management in some form (even if it's only briefly considered!) and the fact that have responded makes me feel more confident that they do value customers' opinions as well as ensuring access for all. So whilst my concerns about access to tickets etc still remains, I think this response has gone a long way to reassuring me that ROH is committed to at least listening and re-considering (even if nothing changes), as well as raising internal awareness that this is a valid topic of interest for customers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangorballetboy Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, JNC said: - I'm dubious about the claim they offer the cheapest tickets on the West End - I believe this is the article they are referring to: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/the-stage-ticketing-survey-2019-top-price-tickets-dip-but-cheapest-go-up/ - nowhere does it say they 'consistently offer the cheapest tickets' in the West End. It notes that it actually had the most expensive tickets (for a subsided show) as well as also having the cheapest ticket overall (£8). The article notes the average price for West End shows is £49, without knowing what the average price for ROH tickets are, it's impossible to know whether ROH is 'cheaper' or not. To say that they 'consistently offer the cheapest tickets' is somewhere between stretching the truth and an outright false statement. Perhaps they are referring to a different survey (without them sending a link themselves I can't corroborate) and maybe there is some other research that does back up this claim which I am not aware of. But if this article is what they are basing the claim on it's incorrect and misleading. As a subscriber to The Stage, I have access to the published survey data. I've just looked at 2017, 2018 and 2019. The figures are split between commercial theatres and subsidised/NfPs and show the top price and the bottom price. In each year, the ROH shows as the cheapest across both sections (even though for 2018 & 2019 it showed an opera price as the lowest, which is higher than the ballet "cheap" tickets). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bangorballetboy said: As a subscriber to The Stage, I have access to the published survey data. I've just looked at 2017, 2018 and 2019. The figures are split between commercial theatres and subsidised/NfPs and show the top price and the bottom price. In each year, the ROH shows as the cheapest across both sections (even though for 2018 & 2019 it showed an opera price as the lowest, which is higher than the ballet "cheap" tickets). Thanks for this - does it mean 'cheapest price' on a single ticket though, in which case I fully believe it as the cheapest ROH standing prices are exceptional value. Or does it mean 'cheapest price' as an average taken across all prices - which would be a much better/more accurate measure as it takes account of prices across all ranges, rather than allowing them to say they have the 'cheapest tickets' - which isn't a false statement but if it means having the cheapest singular ticket price, but then all other tickets across price ranges being more expensive on average then it is slightly misrepresenting the situation. It's still positive they have the lowest price tickets (as a per ticket comparison) so I'm not complaining here, I just think it's important to be clear that this alone doesn't necessarily mean they have the 'cheapest tickets' (on average) which is what the phrase they use around consistently cheap tickets implies. (Unless the survey of course does state this, in which case well done to ROH!) Edited November 1, 2019 by JNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangorballetboy Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 13 minutes ago, JNC said: Thanks for this - does it mean 'cheapest price' on a single ticket though, in which case I fully believe it as the cheapest ROH standing prices are exceptional value. Or does it mean 'cheapest price' as an average taken across all prices - which would be a much better/more accurate measure as it takes account of prices across all ranges, rather than allowing them to say they have the 'cheapest tickets' - which isn't a false statement but if it means having the cheapest singular ticket price, but then all other tickets across price ranges being more expensive on average then it is slightly misrepresenting the situation. It's still positive they have the lowest price tickets (as a per ticket comparison) so I'm not complaining here, I just think it's important to be clear that this alone doesn't necessarily mean they have the 'cheapest tickets' (on average) which is what the phrase they use around consistently cheap tickets implies. (Unless the survey of course does state this, in which case well done to ROH!) As I said, it shows the top price and the bottom price. According to the methodology, the research is done across all the theatres for one set date - in 2019, it was 5 October - which explains why there were opera prices and ballet prices in different years for ROH. That does mean, for the rep theatres, higher priced shows may not always show up (e.g. Fidelio, which only just trumps Hamiton...). To be honest, I don't see how "consistently offers the cheapest tickets in the West End." suggests anything to do with a average price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, bangorballetboy said: As I said, it shows the top price and the bottom price. According to the methodology, the research is done across all the theatres for one set date - in 2019, it was 5 October - which explains why there were opera prices and ballet prices in different years for ROH. That does mean, for the rep theatres, higher priced shows may not always show up (e.g. Fidelio, which only just trumps Hamiton...). To be honest, I don't see how "consistently offers the cheapest tickets in the West End." suggests anything to do with a average price. Thanks for clarifying. I just think it’s very easy for this statement to be misread or imply that they do have cheaper ‘overall’ prices as ‘cheapest tickets’ could encompass this (in my opinion). For example theatres may start at slightly higher priced seats around £15, but then they max out at £80 or so, so I would say many theatres consistently offer cheaper prices than ROH. But of course this is only my opinion and others may interpret it to mean exactly the bottom priced tickets only, so perhaps it’s just me reading too much into it! Thanks for the additional info, interesting to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstar Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 54 minutes ago, JNC said: Thanks for this - does it mean 'cheapest price' on a single ticket though, in which case I fully believe it as the cheapest ROH standing prices are exceptional value. Should standing places be used when comparing West End theatres though? As the majority of West End theatres don't offer standing places - I can only think offhand of 3 that do & I think they only sell them if a performance is sold out - then it's not really comparing like for like. I think that a fairer comparison would be the cheapest seats in all West End theatres. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangorballetboy Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Just now, Dawnstar said: Should standing places be used when comparing West End theatres though? As the majority of West End theatres don't offer standing places - I can only think offhand of 3 that do & I think they only sell them if a performance is sold out - then it's not really comparing like for like. I think that a fairer comparison would be the cheapest seats in all West End theatres. The cheapest seats in the ROH are the same price as the standing places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnstar Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Ah, I didn't realise that. I thought the standing places were slightly cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 2 hours ago, JNC said: When tickets first went on sale to the general public last Wednesday, hundreds of tickets were available for purchase. I’m very pleased you received a response JNC. I’m afraid I do get a little worried by the lack of precision in this answer. There are 6 Fidelio performances and ‘hundreds’ of tickets were available for purchase. The implication is that a minimum of 200 tickets were made available. That would give an average of 33 per performance. The opera house seats 2,256 and 33 seats is 1.5% of all seats. It may well be that the Royal Opera House made more than 200 tickets available and possibly substantially more. We are not told. But when the question is very much about the fairness of making tickets available for public booking with a suspicion that very few tickets were available, I cannot understand why the ROH chooses to be so coy about the number of tickets it made available. Far better for the Royal Opera House to be explicit on the number so that we’re not left speculating whether the figure is 200 or 900 (and I wouldn’t imagine for a moment it was more than 1,000 or the answer would have been ‘1,000+‘). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNC Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 @JohnS I very much agree - I did a similar ‘number crunching’ in my post and ‘hundreds’ isn’t a very helpful/clear answer as well as not enough tickets generally when looking at the overall availability of seats. There’s not much more I can do as an individual but I’m satisfied they’ve responded (if not being satisfied about the clarity of the response itself!) and I’m pleased I’ve raised awareness about it in some small way. I really do hope they reconsider and ensure an adequate number of tickets are held back for future performances (at least 20% for me would be a minimum, in an ideal world I would say 40% to tie in with the stats ROH provide about how many tickets are ‘able’ to be sold to the public) but I have to be honest I’m not too hopeful considering the history with La Forza too. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Perregrino Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 On the subject of Friends benefits etc, this made me chuckle and think of this thread when I was walking around the excellent Degas à l’Opéra exhibition at the Musée d’Orsay this morning. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridiem Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 I'm glad you did get a reply, JNC. But at the risk of labouring the point, the problem is that it (and Alex Beard's earlier statements) are in direct opposition to what several members of this forum (and so presumably others) were told by ROH staff on several different occasions. So, either both/all the staff involved were wrong; or, the policy was rapidly changed when the controversy became clear to the ROH. Either option (and I lean towards the latter) reflects very badly on the ROH, as does the lack of transparency (to use a polite word) about what has been happening. But, I do think/hope the ROH will now have to be a lot more careful in future about this issue, which is all to the good. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now