ROH 23/24 season announced

[JohnS]

Good to see such interest in pricing.

 

I’ve been following up the discrepancies between ballet and opera prices where some of the lower priced ballet tickets are significantly more costly than opera tickets (Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella v Don Carlo).

 

I haven’t as yet got an answer to the particularly issue raised but have been provided with the folliwing:

 

“The pricing model for the 2023/2024 Season will be reflective of our current financial position and commitment to ensuring that performances at the ROH are accessible for everyone. We are proud to announce that we have consistently been named the cheapest theatre ticket in the West End, with tickets this Season (22/23) starting at just £4, and have been able to maintain almost 40% of our tickets at £50 or less, despite rising costs.”

 

I am assured that the ‘almost 40%’ refers to main house performances but have not yet had clarification as to whether main house performance include schools matinees/Paul Hamlyn/NHS performances. I think it would be more meaningful if these were excluded as these performances are not on sale to the general public. I also find ‘almost 40%’ infuriatingly vague - it could readily cover a range from 35.5% to 39.5% (or possibly even less than 35%).
 

The ‘almost 40%’ is an average over the whole year and there will be significant variations between productions. With this in mind and as the ROH wishes to highlight how well it is doing to promote accessibility through reasonably priced tickets on sale to the public, I think there’d be considerable merit in publishing what %age of tickets are for sale at £50 or under for every price map (rather than people having to do their own analysis) and the results may well be rather illuminating. I have made the suggestion to the ROH but not yet at a senior level as I’ve been having some email exchanges to get a better understanding of pricing.
 

When the price maps are made available on line, I’ll be interested to see what the pattern is as regards %age of tickets for sale under £50 as well as checking some particularly seats which highlight the massive discrepancy between ballet and opera prices for lower priced tickets.

 

In the past consistency in pricing was achieved because all prices were a similar %age of the top price. I think it’s a matter of regret that the ROH has abandoned such an approach and we now see many anomalies. I don’t think it’s good enough simply to charge what the market will stand. There needs to be an element of fairness which was provided when there was at least consistency in pricing. How can anyone justify charging £112 for Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella when that same seat (Stalls Circle B26) is £90 for Don Carlo?

 

From the information already published there’s a real oddity in ballet standing prices: for Nutcracker, the most expensive ballet in the Autumn with top price £160, standing is £12; for Don Q and Dante standing is £14 (top prices £150 and £130); for the Cellist standing is £9 (top price £110). If these standing prices followed the Rheingold pricing (£25 compared to £325 top price), standing tickets (to the nearest £) would be Nutcracker £12, Don Q £12, Dante £10 and Cellist £8 (to nearest £0.50 the prices would be £12.50, £11.50, £10 and £8:50).
 

Once the pricing maps are published and I’ve had chance to have a reasonable look, I may well contact Alex Beard. I rather think the discrepancies in pricing have occurred more by accident than design.

[Bluebird]

59 minutes ago, JohnS said:

Good to see such interest in pricing.

 

I’ve been following up the discrepancies between ballet and opera prices where some of the lower priced ballet tickets are significantly more costly than opera tickets (Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella v Don Carlo)......

 

.....There needs to be an element of fairness which was provided when there was at least consistency in pricing. How can anyone justify charging £112 for Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella when that same seat (Stalls Circle B26) is £90 for Don Carlo?

 

The prices in the Upper Slips have been the hardest to understand.  The acoustic there is, arguably, the best in the House for opera yet the price of a seat in the Upper Slips for opera has, consistently, been lower than the price of a seat for ballet.  I would have thought that most ballet fans would consider sight lines to be more important than an outstanding acoustic yet the prices do not reflect this.

 

Opera prices have ranged from £15 (Barber of Seville) to £18 (Werther/Don Carlo) whereas, for the better Upper Slips seats,  Cinderella and Beauty were priced at £22.

 

Edited to add the following:

Upper Slips seats and Stalls Circle Standing used to be sold at the same price for opera as well as for ballet.  There were a handful of seats at the very back of the amphitheatre which, because of their restricted view, were also sold at this price.

 

A couple of years ago, a new price band was created for these rear amphitheatre seats as well as for the better Upper Slips seats.  The interesting point is that this new price band was created for ballet performances only.  For opera, these seats remain at the same price as Stalls Circle Standing.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Bluebird

[Lizbie1]

One of the things that interests me is that the opera pricing structure* has remained fairly consistent, whereas for the ballet it is all over the place.

 

*By which I mean which seats are in which bands, how the lowest price relates to the highest, etc. but not necessarily the prices themselves 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Lizbie1
Fairly for fairy!

[Lizbie1]

53 minutes ago, JohnS said:

From the information already published there’s a real oddity in ballet standing prices: for Nutcracker, the most expensive ballet in the Autumn with top price £160, standing is £12; for Don Q and Dante standing is £14 (top prices £150 and £130); for the Cellist standing is £9 (top price £110). If these standing prices followed the Rheingold pricing (£25 compared to £325 top price), standing tickets (to the nearest £) would be Nutcracker £12, Don Q £12, Dante £10 and Cellist £8 (to nearest £0.50 the prices would be £12.50, £11.50, £10 and £8:50).

 

Just one note: while this is interesting analysis some here might want to know that this is quoting the SCS standing prices - there are lower prices for standing tickets elsewhere in the auditorium for all apart from Don Q (and I'm beginning to think this might be an error).

[JohnS]

Many thanks @Bluebird and @Lizbie1.
 

There are many anomalies on pricing and when contacting ROH I did include the Upper Slips anomalies which I know were brought to attention some weeks ago. I should have said that the anomalies I highlighted in my post above were purely for illustration.
 

The stability in opera pricing patterns (albeit there’s year on year inflation) is telling. It’s the frequent ballet price changes and movement of seats into different bands which make me wonder if the resulting anomalies are a result of accident rather than design. 

 

As regards maximum ballet prices and whether there’s a reluctance to increase these further, Nutcracker has increased by £10 to £160 compared to last year. Let’s see what the price is for Swan Lake. I’d expect it to be more than the £175 for Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella, perhaps £185 or £190. And as @Richard LH said, the Cellist is significantly more expensive (47%) than when premiered in early 2020.

[bridiem]

2 hours ago, JohnS said:

The ‘almost 40%’ is an average over the whole year and there will be significant variations between productions. With this in mind and as the ROH wishes to highlight how well it is doing to promote accessibility through reasonably priced tickets on sale to the public, I think there’d be considerable merit in publishing what %age of tickets are for sale at £50 or under for every price map (rather than people having to do their own analysis) and the results may well be rather illuminating. I have made the suggestion to the ROH but not yet at a senior level as I’ve been having some email exchanges to get a better understanding of pricing.

 

Thank you for all the very interesting information and comments, JohnS.

 

I wonder also if the fact that a seat is restricted view, or is in fact a standing ticket and not a seat at all, should also be an essential part of the data on this subject provided by the ROH.

[Richard LH]

5 hours ago, JohnS said:

And as @Richard LH said, the Cellist is significantly more expensive (47%) than when premiered in early 2020.

With nearly the same % increase for The Dante Project, in that case only 2 years after its premier. Presumably they think these large hikes makes financial sense in terms of increased sales income, but have these two ballets been successful and popular enough to warrant that belief, or is it just more of a punt, or wishful thinking?

[li tai po]

Every time I hear the Royal Opera House bleating on about their current financial position, I suggest they approach BP for a donation.

[JohnS]

Many thanks @bridiem.

 

The ROH looks to demonstrate its accessibility in terms of making available ‘almost 40% of our tickets at £50 or under’ without specifying whether the tickets provide an unrestricted view or whether they’re seats or standing places. I think that’s perfectly reasonable as it’s covering all tickets put up for sale.
 

The horseshoe auditorium means that some tickets will inevitably have restricted views and at least the ROH readily provides the view from every ticket for sale albeit without showing the impact of audience members sitting in seats in front.

 

My major concern is that there seems to be an unfairness in pricing, particularly the pricing of cheaper seats for ballet which have seen very significant increases in recent years. That has occurred because the traditional pricing map (where prices for all productions were broadly a similar percentage of the top price) has been abandoned. 
 

I’m also very interested in just how close the ROH gets to achieving its ‘almost 40% of tickets are £50 or under’. And with 10% plus inflation it looks pretty impossible to achieve.

 

I meant to add a note of caution about the prices published in the magazine as there may be a few typos. Hopefully the pricing maps will be available fairly soon on line.

Edited May 14, 2023 by JohnS

[Lizbie1]

1 minute ago, JohnS said:

Many thanks @bridiem.

 

The ROH looks to demonstrate its accessibility in terms of making available ‘almost 40% of our tickets at £50 or under’ without specifying whether the tickets provide an unrestricted view or whether they’re seats or standing places. I think that’s perfectly reasonable as it’s covering all tickets put up for sale.
 

The horseshoe auditorium means that some tickets will inevitably have restricted views and at least the ROH readily provides the view from every ticket for sale albeit without showing the impact of audience members sitting in seats in front.

 

My major concern is that there seems to be an unfairness in pricing, particularly the pricing of cheaper seats for ballet which have seen very significant increases in recent years. That has occurred because the traditional pricing map (where prices for all productions were broadly a similar percentage of the top price) has been abandoned. 
 

I’m also very interested in just how close the ROH gets to achieving its ‘almost 40% of tickets are £50 or under’. And with 10% plus inflation it looks pretty impossible to achieve.

 

It's also unclear how many of those are heavily reduced tickets for slow-selling productions.

[MJW]

2 hours ago, li tai po said:

Every time I hear the Royal Opera House bleating on about their current financial position, I suggest they approach BP for a donation.

 

Whilst I don't disagree, I'm not sure many organisations would be too willing to be publicly associated with BP; look at the issues that the British Museum has with their sponsorship. 

 

Given ROH has a sizable wealthy audience (a smallish minority perhaps of the total but still..) I'm surprised that private banks or asset advisors for example aren't falling over themselves to offer sponsorship. Credit Suisse (perhaps unfortunately given what has happened to them) has sponsored exhibitions at the National Gallery for some years now.

[Guest oncnp]

18 minutes ago, MJW said:

 

Whilst I don't disagree, I'm not sure many organisations would be too willing to be publicly associated with BP; look at the issues that the British Museum has with their sponsorship. 

 

Given ROH has a sizable wealthy audience (a smallish minority perhaps of the total but still..) I'm surprised that private banks or asset advisors for example aren't falling over themselves to offer sponsorship. Credit Suisse (perhaps unfortunately given what has happened to them) has sponsored exhibitions at the National Gallery for some years now.

 

Luxury firms such as Boodles, Van Cleef and Arpels and Rolex do a fair amount of sponsoring. Cartier (and I'm sure there are others) have used RB dancers for private performances. 

[MJW]

40 minutes ago, oncnp said:

 

Luxury firms such as Boodles, Van Cleef and Arpels and Rolex do a fair amount of sponsoring. Cartier (and I'm sure there are others) have used RB dancers for private performances. 

 

If you look at the cast sheets for example there is no advertising on there at all - I'm not suggesting they should be littered with company logos but still something like "This performance is supported by X" would be seen by thousands. 

 

I've a meeting with my firm's boss tomorrow - I'm tempted to suggest it 😁

[Guest oncnp]

8 minutes ago, MJW said:

 

If you look at the cast sheets for example there is no advertising on there at all - I'm not suggesting they should be littered with company logos but still something like "This performance is supported by X" would be seen by thousands. 

 

I've a meeting with my firm's boss tomorrow - I'm tempted to suggest it 😁

Van Cleef and Arpels got a mention for their sponsorship of Nutcracker but you're right, a logo would have made it much plainer 

[MJW]

5 minutes ago, oncnp said:

Van Cleef and Arpels got a mention for their sponsorship of Nutcracker but you're right, a logo would have made it much plainer 

 

Or just general funding (rather than performance specific) which entitles a company to have its logo etc on the cast sheet (just as an example).

 

I know this isn't quite the same thing but the NG's current Impressionism exhibition highlights the company sponsors - 

 

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/exhibitions/after-impressionism-inventing-modern-art

[alison]

50 minutes ago, oncnp said:

Van Cleef and Arpels got a mention for their sponsorship of Nutcracker but you're right, a logo would have made it much plainer 

 

And of course now that we no longer have printed cast sheets there's no back of the cast sheet to bear advertising.

[alison]

12 hours ago, JohnS said:

“The pricing model for the 2023/2024 Season will be reflective of our current financial position and commitment to ensuring that performances at the ROH are accessible for everyone. We are proud to announce that we have consistently been named the cheapest theatre ticket in the West End, with tickets this Season (22/23) starting at just £4, and have been able to maintain almost 40% of our tickets at £50 or less, despite rising costs.”

 

I find this pretty difficult to believe, particularly given that more or less the lowest price bands for Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty seats have been £34 and £51 this season - hence my frequent complaints that I can't afford to sit down any more for many bills - and that opera is generally more expensive than ballet.  I'd like to be proved wrong, but I can only see this being correct if you include seats that have been flogged off for a tenner or whatever the going rate is for them to selected groups, rather than what is actually available to the general public.  It might be technically correct, but would be highly misleading: what would happen to that newbie member of the general public who reads that ROH performances are "accessible for everyone" and then finds that the reality of so-called "accessible" pricing is very different?  Would they even bother trying again in the future?

[Scheherezade]

I think it's clear that the only way 40% of tickets could have started at £4 and been maintained at £50 or less is through through the giveaway student prices for slow-selling productions.

 

I should also say that I do not consider that a £50 ticket can in any way be considered cheap. Very many people will be entirely priced out at this level.

 

And I find the statement that "we have consistently been named the cheapest theatre ticket in the West End" more than a little disingenuous since that comparison can only be correct when set against ticket prices for highly sought-after commercial theatre productions. It most certainly does not hold up when compared with subsidised theatre, since the National Theatre has a whole raft of tickets at around £20, all of which, it is worth pointing out, have excellent sight lines and all are seated, not to mention the £10 day of the performance tickets available at very many theatres, including those in the West End.

 

[Sophoife]

6 hours ago, JohnS said:

at least the ROH readily provides the view from every ticket for sale albeit without showing the impact of audience members sitting in seats in front.

 

This! I was lucky enough to get SCS D51 for last Friday's Sleeping Beauty , only to discover on arrival that in front were high stools. As soon as the two ladies whose seats were in front of me arrived, it was clear I would not see more than about 5% of the stage. There was no mention on the ticket that the view might be restricted (not the fault of the person who sold me the ticket!).

 

Happily the usher (also short!) came along, had a look, and sent me downstairs to his boss, who was able to seat me in C-something, on the other side, and in front of me was an empty seat due to a six year old preferring to sit on her grandmother's lap! 

[San Perregrino]

8 hours ago, Scheherezade said:

I think it's clear that the only way 40% of tickets could have started at £4 and been maintained at £50 or less is through through the giveaway student prices for slow-selling productions.

 

tickets for YROH patrons tonight are reduced to £1:

 

15 MAY 2023

MONDAY, 7.30PM

TICKETS IN THE AMPHITHEATRE ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO YOUNG ROH MEMBERS

MAIN STAGE

GUIDANCE: Content suitable for all, subject to House rules

 

SHOW ALL

Conducted by Jonathan Lo

CAST

Sarah Lamb, Ryoichi Hirano, Christina Arestis, Gina Storm-Jensen

£1–£170

LAST FEW REMAINING

Buy tickets

[capybara]

36 minutes ago, PeterS said:

 

tickets for YROH patrons tonight are reduced to £1:

 

15 MAY 2023

MONDAY, 7.30PM

TICKETS IN THE AMPHITHEATRE ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO YOUNG ROH MEMBERS

MAIN STAGE

GUIDANCE: Content suitable for all, subject to House rules

 

SHOW ALL

Conducted by Jonathan Lo

CAST

Sarah Lamb, Ryoichi Hirano, Christina Arestis, Gina Storm-Jensen

£1–£170

LAST FEW REMAINING

Buy tickets

 

The seats for Young ROH members in the amphi have been sold out for ages. I think that the £1 price may have been readvertised because it now relates to the masses of unsold seats which appeared at the sides of the Stalls. But that is simply my speculation.

 

I have always welcomed the YROH scheme and have often found myself next to someone who has paid a minimal amount (£25?) for their ticket when I have spent over £100. But, if they are now offloading premium seats for £1 - AND I EMPHASISE IF - I would feel somewhat put out.

[Dawnstar]

3 hours ago, capybara said:

 

The seats for Young ROH members in the amphi have been sold out for ages. I think that the £1 price may have been readvertised because it now relates to the masses of unsold seats which appeared at the sides of the Stalls. But that is simply my speculation.

 

I have always welcomed the YROH scheme and have often found myself next to someone who has paid a minimal amount (£25?) for their ticket when I have spent over £100. But, if they are now offloading premium seats for £1 - AND I EMPHASISE IF - I would feel somewhat put out.

 

I feel fairly put out that I've paid £70 for my restricted view side stalls circle ticket for tonight & will be looking across at quite a few people who have paid a heck of a lot less than that for unrestricted view stalls seats. Especially as back when I was young enough to qualify for the YROH the scheme hadn't been invented, all they had was last-minte student standby which was no use for me at university in Bristol because last minute train fares to London were unaffordable. So I never got any ROH discounts when I was younger & or course I never get any now as I'm too old.

[Jan McNulty]

Not ROH but I was looking to book a performance at The Lowry, midweek matinee or evening.

 

I’ve booked for the evening as the tickets were cheaper!!

[balletyas]

On 26/04/2023 at 11:00, Sim said:

Very happy with the Ashton programmes, and especially Sarasota's visit.  With the MacMillan triple I would replace Different Drummer with Gloria (although it's probably too depressing to have that with Requiem!), but happy to see the other two ballets again.

 

I wasn't crazy about The Cellist but liked Anemoi very much so will give it another go.

 

Will probably skip Dante as I liked Act 1 but then it was downhill from there.   The other full length ballets are oh-so-predictable, but I understand they need to present bums-on-seats stuff.   Glad to see Winter's Tale back.

 

Disappointed that yet again we get Nutcracker at Christmas.  Yes, it makes money so I understand why they are showing it, but for me as an enthusiast there are so many other ballets that could be put on, or at least alternated with Nut.  Oh well.

 

Very disappointed that yet again Fille is not being done, nor Bayadere, nor Sylvia, nor Onegin.

 

Happy that the season is starting with DonQ....I will see that and then save my money until the last third of the season.  I hope with what I save that I can take a trip or two to the Continent to see other companies.    

 

 

 

Quite agree - would so love to see Fille  or any of the others... Bayadere for the white act - the other two acts seem to be fraught with issues so perhaps best avoided...but such a loss not to see that wonderful white act again....and Fille and Sylvia would be a joy.. also why not Les Patineurs and at the Macmilan end, Song of the Earth which ive sorely missed..... I could've done without Swan Lake yet again, and agree with others that the Dante is a bit too soon for me.. 

[OnePigeon]

1 hour ago, Dawnstar said:

 

I feel fairly put out that I've paid £70 for my restricted view side stalls circle ticket for tonight & will be looking across at quite a few people who have paid a heck of a lot less than that for unrestricted view stalls seats. Especially as back when I was young enough to qualify for the YROH the scheme hadn't been invented, all they had was last-minte student standby which was no use for me at university in Bristol because last minute train fares to London were unaffordable. So I never got any ROH discounts when I was younger & or course I never get any now as I'm too old.

Same here.  I’m sure it falls under age discrimination but I haven’t got the money to test it out in court, especially when I’m paying so much more for my rubbish tickets. There are so many fairer ways of offering discounts to people on lower incomes, as many other arts institutions demonstrate.

[bangorballetboy]

50 minutes ago, OnePigeon said:

Same here.  I’m sure it falls under age discrimination but I haven’t got the money to test it out in court, especially when I’m paying so much more for my rubbish tickets. There are so many fairer ways of offering discounts to people on lower incomes, as many other arts institutions demonstrate.

 

It's not age discrimination.  Quoting from the Citizens' Advice Bureau website: "Businesses are allowed to offer concessions or discounts based on age - for example, cheaper access to leisure facilities for 18-25 year olds, or pensioner lunch deals."

 

Similarly, receipt of free bus passes and winter fuel allowance on the basis of one's age is not age discrimination either!

[Lizbie1]

I think it's great that they're trying to get young people into the habit of going. If one out of fifty ends up being a regular, that's a good result in my book. And would we rather see those seats going begging?

 

(I speak as someone who also missed out on cheap tickets in my youth.)

[OnePigeon]

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think it’s unfair to offer discounts to a certain age group only, simply based on their age and for no other financial reason. There are plenty of us struggling who would also love access to those discounts and I have a fair few years of ballet going ahead of me yet to support them with my ticket purchases, not to mention a child who also loves to come with me.  Other arts organisations offer other ways of levelling out the discounts and I wish the ROH would also.  I don’t wish to see the seats going begging, but I resent subsidising people in that scheme getting top seats while I sit up in the gods because I was born in the wrong decade.  I just think the discounts should be offered on a broader basis.  

[MildConcern]

18 minutes ago, Lizbie1 said:

I think it's great that they're trying to get young people into the habit of going. If one out of fifty ends up being a regular, that's a good result in my book. And would we rather see those seats going begging?

 

(I speak as someone who also missed out on cheap tickets in my youth.)

One of fifty here! I don't think I'd be half as passionate about ballet and opera as I am now (and pay full price for so many tickets) if it wasn't for the fantastic exposure the Young ROH scheme gave me. As a person who would've only wanted to book for Swan Lake and Giselle otherwise, £10 stalls student standby tickets lead to me falling in love with Ashton, listening avidly to Strauss operas... it gave me the 'bug' true and proper. Those were the days!

 

As a result, I feel rather cheered now when I occasionally look down from my amphi seat at a stalls full of excited young theatregoers who are getting the same opportunities I once had!

[Dawnstar]

1 hour ago, Lizbie1 said:

And would we rather see those seats going begging?

 

No but I'd prefer them to either offer discounts (smaller ones) available to everyone or to not have put the prices up so much recently that the seats aren't selling.

[Lizbie1]

6 minutes ago, Dawnstar said:

 

No but I'd prefer them to either offer discounts (smaller ones) available to everyone or to not have put the prices up so much recently that the seats aren't selling.

 

I take the first point but as to the second: a) I think they're trying to find out what the market can bear and b) the higher prices might be more than covering any lost revenue due to unsold tickets, as discussed previously.

 

I think they're making a mess of it in some ways (e.g. the inconsistencies JohnS has been writing about) but I do cut them some slack as it can't be fun trying to balance the books.

[JNC]

I’m with @MildConcern! Yes it’s a bit annoying I no longer qualify on a personal level but it’s great the young get this opportunity. 
 

realistically ROH are never going to introduce a mass scheme in this scale requiring means testing, so you need a broad category. Statistically younger people are less well off than every other age group - yes even pensioners now! Who in general are better off for owning their own houses etc - this is what research currently suggests and pensioners benefit from many things like winter fuel payments, free buses etc, these things I’m sure are being reduced and I don’t want to make this into young vs old but rather to make that point that as an overarching category there is some evidence why the young should be advantaged, as well as the “lifelong love of arts” instilling point already made. 
 

Sure there will be some wealthy youngsters taking “advantage” of the scheme but this is unavoidable without means testing which is impractical and would cause roh additional resource they can’t spare. So overall I support the young being prioritised here.

 

separately let’s not gripe at the young who are merely taking what’s offered (wouldn’t you?). The real issue here is the overpricing of seats so that ROH has to offload them at discount, not who they’re offloading to.

 

I imagine the complaints about any individual advantaged by last minute discounts when others have loyally paid full price on booking day for less good seats would be levied regardless of the age group that benefits.
 

so yes, in this current world where roh are overpricing things and having to discount the young seem well placed to benefit as an overall group as good as any! 

[Jane S]

I wonder if there's anyone here who was introduced to the ROH via the Midland Bank Proms? They seemed very popular at the time but I guess there's no way of knowing how many prommers became long term customers.