ROH Autumn 23 booking

[JohnS]

I understand the criticisms being made and there have been some spectacular ROH own goals but I wonder if some recent successes have been rather forgotten? It’s only a few months since the Friends 60th Anniversary celebrations which I thought were pretty well received. I appreciate that the ‘feel good’ factor is evaporating and for some may have completely evaporated.

 

I just hope the ROH deals with the immediate Don Q pricing issues, undertakes an urgent review of pricing to ensure all inconsistencies are addressed for Winter and the rest of the season, and sorts IT/website problems. A public statement with an apology for the recent hiatus, the Don Q action being taken for 5th July (as a minimum bringing the standing price in line with the other Autumn standing prices), and setting out the work needed to ensure all runs smoothly for the rest of the season would be enormously welcome.

[Geoff]

7 minutes ago, JohnS said:

I understand the criticisms being made and there have been some spectacular ROH own goals but I wonder if some recent successes have been rather forgotten? It’s only a few months since the Friends 60th Anniversary celebrations which I thought were pretty well received. I appreciate that the ‘feel good’ factor is evaporating and for some may have completely evaporated.

 

I just hope the ROH deals with the immediate Don Q pricing issues, undertakes an urgent review of pricing to ensure all inconsistencies are addressed for Winter and the rest of the season, and sorts IT/website problems. A public statement with an apology for the recent hiatus, the Don Q action being taken for 5th July (as a minimum bringing the standing price in line with the other Autumn standing prices), and setting out the work needed to ensure all runs smoothly for the rest of the season would be enormously welcome.

 

JohnS, I sympathise with what you say - but ROH has been promising FOR YEARS to sort out its IT/website so it is unsurprising if people begin to lose faith. I have lost count of the number of times we have been told "it's all fixed".

 

See for example this thread (started last year but which refers back even further):

 

 

[JNC]

The price increases overall is dispiriting. Whilst not completely justifiable, an argument could be made on inflationary and cuts/losses covid to justify. I would be more willing to try and understand and sympathise on a level if not for…

 

what is completely unforgivable is for the more expensive tickets to have DECREASED at expense of the more reasonable/lower price ones!

 

(I’m not talking about the overpriced restricted stalls circle seating discussed but the prime stalls seating)

 

Clearly shows the ROH are trying to appease those with deeper pockets, or get some sort of stat to say “but our most expensive seats have only gone up by x%” without giving any thought to regulars, those with less financial means, those who don’t want to compromise on restricted views etc.

 

It is only fair that the most expensive seats should rise proportionally, or more than proportionally than the cheaper seats to ensure fair access for all. There are those with very deep pockets who would be fine to pay £200 to sit in the stalls or a box, and if this “subsidises” keeping cheaper seats elsewhere that strategy should be implemented!

[The Sitter In]

The ROH ought to be ashamed of itself. It trumpets is accessibility yet keep hiking prices for shows which don’t sell out. Does no-one in the little Floral St bubble realise that the two are related?

For people who, in some cases, have loyally attended the ROH through thick and thin iver many decades, this is a slap in the face. What organisation consciously prices out its most devoted followers?

Anecdotally, I know of many regulars who are now coming very little or not at all. I shall not book a single seat for Don Q - a ropey production of a ropey ballet danced by a company it doesn’t suit.

Shame on the ROH.

[Blossom]

One of the arguments I made to Alex Beard re last summer’s pricing was that by raising prices so that stalls, stalls circle centre, grand tier and balcony were all blocked out at something like £170, this pushed people with money further up the house and therefore as a side effect, people who would have bought the cheaper tickets would be pushed out rather than priced out. So from another point of view, at least the slight reduction in ticket cost in those areas and the greater differentiation in pricing in those areas would take the pressure off the better value seats. At least this time the first bit is true. 
I think they have learnt from summer how far they can push pricing at the top end, but at least this time the pricing test (on the lower end) is only being tested on a single production.
 

So the real question is whether everyone will really opt out or not and whether it’s the less-expensive-but-significantly-more-expensive-than-before seats and whether these will remain unsold.  Could it be more financially viable to then offer these at a discount than the higher value tickets lower down? 
 

[LinMM]

I don’t think you could say Row D in the Balcony should be the same value as much closer seats in the stalls etc. 

If they started charging £170 ( the same price) in the back of the Balcony then it would make sense not to sit there and just to aim to sit in the better seats at the same price!! 
But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you Blossom! 
Needless to say I was talking hypothetically….I will not be paying £170 for any seat in the ROH!!! 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by LinMM

[Blossom]

45 minutes ago, LinMM said:

I don’t think you could say Row D in the Balcony should be the same value as much closer seats in the stalls etc. 

If they started charging £170 ( the same price) in the back of the Balcony then it would make sense not to sit there and just to aim to sit in the better seats at the same price!! 
But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you Blossom! 
Needless to say I was talking hypothetically….I will not be paying £170 for any seat in the ROH!!! 

 

 

In summer, Balcony centre prices were pretty much the same as stalls - so £170 through centre of first 3 tiers and around £100 for front of amphi. It priced me into areas I might not usually have selected, potentially pushing other people further up and then possibly out of the house. 

 

Bringing prices down from £170 so that the balcony and stalls circle aren't all blocked out in red is a definite improvement - everyone will have their limit. My challenge is that I get very frustrated paying good money to have someone else's head blocking my view, never mind a proper restricted view.  That is the threshold i wouldn't cross - if i could only afford a restricted view seat because of the price increases, that's the point at which I'd be out.

[Scheherezade]

Since the ROH wishes to mirror the prices in West End commercial theatre rather than the considerably more reasonably priced subsidised theatre, it’s revenue-raising strategy should echo the ‘prime/premier seats’ scheme utilised in those theatres whereby the wealthy, the corporate punters and those who want to feel special can pay a premium for the best seats in the house.
Given the vast number of restricted views pretty much everywhere else, this could hardly be criticised as inequitable and would necessarily be much fairer than targeting those who can no longer afford the cheap seats and punishing them for being poor. Inclusive - and I had understood that inclusivity was a prerequisite of subsidy - the current pricing strategy most definitely is not. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Scheherezade

[Blossom]

10 hours ago, Scheherezade said:

Since the ROH wishes to mirror the prices in West End commercial theatre rather than the considerably more reasonably priced subsidised theatre, it’s revenue-raising strategy should echo the ‘prime/premier seats’ scheme utilised in those theatres whereby the wealthy, the corporate punters and those who want to feel special can pay a premium for the best seats in the house.
Given the vast number of restricted views pretty much everywhere else, this could hardly be criticised as inequitable and would necessarily be much fairer than targeting those who can no longer afford the cheap seats and punishing them for being poor. Inclusive - and I had understood that inclusivity was a prerequisite of subsidy - the current pricing strategy most definitely is not. 

But is the current approach to pricing not driven by a reduction in subsidies in favour of ACE supporting a wider range of institutions which may or may not be of the same calibre- depending on your opinion? 
 

Just playing Devil’s advocate here…

Working close to Shakespeare’s Globe, they must get significant funding to keep top prices at a low £68 including cushion and I am sure subsidies are part of the reason why this is possible. However, I then got thinking about all of the costs they don’t have - much fewer cast members needed and they are jobbing actors not salaried, no scenery, no plush seats or carpets to keep in tip top condition, only a handful of musicians…

 

Should ACE be stumping up more cash to reflect the institution or should ROH be less discerning about who they allow to make the most substantial donations? Is ROH spending its budgets wisely or does it (somewhat literally) need to cut its cloth to better fit?

[Bluebird]

15 hours ago, JNC said:

 

what is completely unforgivable is for the more expensive tickets to have DECREASED at expense of the more reasonable/lower price ones!

 

(I’m not talking about the overpriced restricted stalls circle seating discussed but the prime stalls seating)

I’ve just noticed another large price reduction in an area which has a full view of the stage. 
 

The seats in the amphitheatre, in the central part of row H, were £91 for Beauty and will be £67 for Don Q.

 

To be fair, for Beauty, they were then in the same price band as row G (which is now £83) and are now in the H to N price band.  

 

Nonetheless, it’s another case of higher prices being considerably reduced.

[bridiem]

32 minutes ago, Blossom said:

But is the current approach to pricing not driven by a reduction in subsidies in favour of ACE supporting a wider range of institutions which may or may not be of the same calibre- depending on your opinion? 
 

Just playing Devil’s advocate here…

Working close to Shakespeare’s Globe, they must get significant funding to keep top prices at a low £68 including cushion and I am sure subsidies are part of the reason why this is possible. However, I then got thinking about all of the costs they don’t have - much fewer cast members needed and they are jobbing actors not salaried, no scenery, no plush seats or carpets to keep in tip top condition, only a handful of musicians…

 

Should ACE be stumping up more cash to reflect the institution or should ROH be less discerning about who they allow to make the most substantial donations? Is ROH spending its budgets wisely or does it (somewhat literally) need to cut its cloth to better fit?

 

The one thing I don't think the ROH should be doing in response to budget difficulties is to continue to raise ticket prices so that it becomes (has become) what most people have always thought it was anyway - i.e. a very expensive and elitist organisation to which only well-off people can go. I have spent decades persuading people that this is not in fact the case; in the last few years, it's become impossible to disagree with them. And I don't understand how this approach is compatible with receiving what is still a huge amount of funding from ACE with its emphasis on accessibility etc etc.

[Blossom]

2 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

The one thing I don't think the ROH should be doing in response to budget difficulties is to continue to raise ticket prices so that it becomes (has become) what most people have always thought it was anyway - i.e. a very expensive and elitist organisation to which only well-off people can go. I have spent decades persuading people that this is not in fact the case; in the last few years, it's become impossible to disagree with them. And I don't understand how this approach is compatible with receiving what is still a huge amount of funding from ACE with its emphasis on accessibility etc etc.

I completely agree with you on this and have lobbied AB to prevent this from happening. This is what will kill the art form.

 

With ACE funding, I think they have to invest a lot into their education programmes, cinema (because they don't tour UK) and D&I programming before they even get to consider using it to subsidise tickets. I get the impression that inflation is increasing their costs without any new sources of income which would go some way to fix their problems, but what's not clear is where they might have looked to create efficiencies (other than the lack of investment in the website to fix problems that have been going on for years) vs increasing ticket prices. Most businesses looking to grow would start looking for new sources of income to supplement, but if this is ROH stream, the challenge is that there isn't nearly enough content to support this.

[bridiem]

18 minutes ago, Blossom said:

With ACE funding, I think they have to invest a lot into their education programmes, cinema (because they don't tour UK) and D&I programming before they even get to consider using it to subsidise tickets.

 

If this is an ACE requirement, it's entirely irrational; what's the point of educating people to appreciate an art form if they then can't go and see it?

[FionaM]

12 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

If this is an ACE requirement, it's entirely irrational; what's the point of educating people to appreciate an art form if they then can't go and see it?

exactly

[zxDaveM]

7 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

If this is an ACE requirement, it's entirely irrational; what's the point of educating people to appreciate an art form if they then can't go and see it?

 

also, the near obsession with getting 'new audience', whilst there seems almost indifference to retaining that audience, or nurturing hard core, multi-visiting 'fans' (for want of a better word). They seem to take those for granted, the thinking being that they will come whatever

[San Perregrino]

I’d like to know how many of the people who have benefitted from ‘introductory’ prices have subsequently booked to see a performance at full price? 

[Blossom]

27 minutes ago, zxDaveM said:

 

also, the near obsession with getting 'new audience', whilst there seems almost indifference to retaining that audience, or nurturing hard core, multi-visiting 'fans' (for want of a better word). They seem to take those for granted, the thinking being that they will come whatever

There is a need to grow audiences for the future of the art form though- we will all need replacing at some point and chances are that interest is dwindling from generation to generation. But then we go back to the old chestnut of graduating Young ROH from £25 tickets into the current price challenge.

42 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

If this is an ACE requirement, it's entirely irrational; what's the point of educating people to appreciate an art form if they then can't go and see it?

Completely agree and think ROH would be much better investing in something like BRB2/creating national performance opportunities for final year students as more of a marketing tool for the art form.

[zxDaveM]

15 minutes ago, Blossom said:

There is a need to grow audiences for the future of the art form though-

 

agreed, but personally, I think they target the wrong sort of new audience. There is merit, yes, in getting younger people to 'sample' what's on offer, but I think that, by and large, they won't become regulars until slightly later in life. This is from personal experience; I'd been to ballet performances (not many - mainly at the behest of a girlfriend of the time!) in my 20's or 30's. But getting less enamoured at being bounced around at gigs in my late 40's was looking for something 'different', and ballet captured me. I first went along of my own volition (a TV performance got me interested), and was rather smitten - but to answer Peter S above, I was sent an offer of a heavy discount to the Balanchine 100 triple bill in a decent Amphi seat and so started coming more often. I would probably have come again anyway, but this offer did draw me in more immediately.

 

Anyhoo, what I'm trying to say in a rather clumsy, roundabout way, is that like many aspects of life these days, marketing people seem obsessed with youth, when quite often it is the more mature folk that actually have the spare cash to attend something like ballet performances - and possibly more of an interest. I'm not convinced that that section of the community is being targeted in any way. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for younger people coming along and enjoying the performances (and hopefully returning, with friends) - but what's the point of all that effort to get them through the door once (twice?) if then you make no effort to hang on to them later

[Dawnstar]

@zxDaveM While I agree with your overall point, I would like to say that there are some people who get hooked at a younger age. I first went to the ROH in 2004, a few weeks before I turned 19, to see Der Rosenkavalier, still my favourite opera. I've been every season since & next season will be my 20th anniversary (only seeing opera until 2018, then I added ballet). And that was without any ticket incentives as back then all they did was student standby on the day, which I couldn't make use of because I was at university in Bristol and last minute train fares to London were far too expensive. I am very envious of younger people nowadays with all their cheap tickets.

[San Perregrino]

Y A W N

 

“

Many thanks for getting in touch.

 

Your message has been passed to us via our Box Office team. 

 

Like everyone, we have seen our costs soar in recent months due to inflationary pressures and other costs associated with upgrading our ageing infrastructure. As a result, have had to review our approach to ticket pricing to ensure we remain accessible to as many people as possible while remaining financially viable. 

 

Unfortunately, this inevitably means that some tickets will go up, others will remain the same, and others will go down. It also means that we take a different comparative approach across different productions and art forms, adapting price bands to ensure greater accessibility across the entirety of the Season. 

 

We are therefore delighted to have the second cheapest theatre ticket in the West End in this year's Stage ticketing survey and to have more than a third of our tickets priced at £50 or less.

 

With best wishes, “

[zxDaveM]

That takes the BS wiffometer all the way up to 11

[Sim]

It also means that we take a different comparative approach across different productions and art forms, adapting price bands to ensure greater accessibility across the entirety of the Season. 

 

This STILL does not explain the discrepancies in pricing within the same art form (albeit different productions).  I guess in the absence of a real response we will have to make do with the usual platitudes.

[li tai po]

and they will win the accolade of having the second cheapest theatre ticket in the West End again this year.

 

You can buy an upper slip music stand (restricted view listening seat only) for Anemoi/The Cellist for only £4.  What a bargain!

[Beryl H]

Have the Don Q prices now been revised, although I can't book for another week I signed in and using the Seat Plan saw the Stalls Circle Standing are £14 now.

 

My own area of the amphi, row S, has gone up to £52, whilst the whilst same area for Nutcracker is only (?) £32, very odd!

 

 

[art_enthusiast]

1 minute ago, li tai po said:

and they will win the accolade of having the second cheapest theatre ticket in the West End again this year.

 

You can buy an upper slip music stand (restricted view listening seat only) for Anemoi/The Cellist for only £4.  What a bargain!

 

Yep, sounds like false advertising because if the view is that bad, it's basically not worth going in my opinion. You might as well watch it on the stream from the comfort of your own home! Without spending money on the journey there.

 

Looks like this strategy might give them more streaming subscribers and less actual in-person audience members.

[San Perregrino]

8 minutes ago, Beryl H said:

Have the Don Q prices now been revised, although I can't book for another week I signed in and using the Seat Plan saw the Stalls Circle Standing are £14 now.

 

My own area of the amphi, row S, has gone up to £52, whilst the whilst same area for Nutcracker is only (?) £32, very odd!

 

 

You’re right!! Currently £14. Are we victorious? 

[Guest oncnp]

15 minutes ago, Beryl H said:

Have the Don Q prices now been revised, although I can't book for another week I signed in and using the Seat Plan saw the Stalls Circle Standing are £14 now.

 

My own area of the amphi, row S, has gone up to £52, whilst the whilst same area for Nutcracker is only (?) £32, very odd!

 

 

 

SCS does appear to have been changed back to £14. The box office assured me a couple days ago that £26 was correct so they appear to be making more changes. 

 

Are these the "proper" seat maps yet?  When I look I don't see the price legend or the date drop-down box. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by oncnp

[Guest oncnp]

1 minute ago, PeterS said:

You’re right!! Currently £14. Are we victorious? 

I hope so but the fat lady ain't sung yet.  Let's see what they are tomorrow morning. 

[Bluebird]

Just received from the Friends:

 

 

We have recently made a small number of mis-steps, brought to our attention by our valued friends and patrons, with regards to ticketing for Don Quixote.

 

Upon reflection, we agree that the price increases for a small number of tickets have been disproportionately too high, and so have made the decision to change our approach for certain Don Quixote seats and standing places. We will be re-imbursing those who have already paid more for the small number of tickets affected through account credit.

 

We would like to thank those who have brought this to our attention, and apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

Edited to add that there's no sign that they've reduced the restricted view amphi seats.  They still appear to be £52.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Bluebird

[Guest oncnp]

19 minutes ago, Bluebird said:

Just received from the Friends:

 

 

Edited to add that there's no sign that they've reduced the restricted view amphi seats.  They still appear to be £52.

 

I'm seeing restricted amphi view (M67, 68, L67-70, 45-48) as £36.00. Maybe they're still tweaking?

Edited July 4, 2023 by oncnp

[Bluebird]

6 minutes ago, oncnp said:

 

I'm seeing restricted amphi view (M67, 68, L67-70, 45-48) as £36.00. Maybe they're still tweaking?

They were always £36.  It's the front side amphitheatre (restricted view) in rows B-E which have gone from £34 for Beauty and Cinderella to £52 for Don Q

[Guest oncnp]

5 minutes ago, Bluebird said:

They were always £36.  It's the front side amphitheatre (restricted view) in rows B-E which have gone from £34 for Beauty and Cinderella to £52 for Don Q

 

Ah,  I see what you mean. Odd they discount - considerably - for "restricted legroom" in the amphi but not for restricted view

[capybara]

I seem to sit next to Young ROH members quite frequently. The majority are in London because they are students (many from abroad) and do not appear to envisage themselves sustaining their ROH attendance once their courses are over. “Making the most of it while I can” is something I hear a lot. Nevertheless, I retain my positive view of the scheme.

 

 “Hurrah” 👏👏👏 if the correspondence from BCF members has resulted in some rethinking of Don Q prices, even if the formal written responses never seem to change. Fingers crossed for tomorrow.