Side Show closing
Quickcamme
>>Do you suppose everyone on this group is a moron? Suppose again. It
has been revealed that no notice has been posted. The cast has been
"told" that they might close in early January if business doesn't pick
up. No notice has been posted. It's all huckstering to try to save the
show. Which is fine. Let's just be truthful, shall we?<<
I have to admire the casts determination in trying to keep their jobs but
closing notice or no closing notice, it's pretty much a done deal. The
theater's already been booked by High Society. Previews start in late March.
FaithBur
Just a random thought on the Side Show closing.... But I never thought the logo
was catchy at all. (and it certainly wouldn't be the most attractive thing to
wear on a T-hsirt, for example) I started to wonder how important a logo may
or may not be to the success of a show. There are several shows that have
come to B'way so slickly packaged that I think it infulences people's
perceptions of the content on a subliminal level. (or at least gets them
interested in seeing it... thinking that a show that has such good packing must
be worth seeing)
I wouldn't deign to say that the show is closing because it has a bad logo.
But it certainly can't help matters if tourists walk by, see the logo, and
continue walking. In other words, I think in this era that an eye catching
logo is of more importance than it used to be. (again, I don't think it would
have saved the show to have had a more catchy logo- but it wouldn't have hurt
IMHO)
-Faith
Faith Burwasser- Fait...@aol.com
~The Laurie Beechman Page~
http://pages.prodigy.com/faithb/laurie.htm
tim salyer
I agree completely with you..the logo and the ad campaign for Side Show
I think are definitely responsible for the closing of this show.. I
loved this show and thought Alice Ripley and Emily Skinner have 2 of the
best voices i've ever heard on Broadway..It's a shame a good show is
closing so soon.
DaALMICK
Faith,
I didn't think Side Show needed a catchy logo. I thought it was strong enough
to stand as a work on its own merit. However, maybe, today's Bway Audiences
need glitz, logos, and splashy signs.
Alan
Oh34
I certainly do agree with you---Effective marketing can lauch or sink any
product or service... And for these purposes a Show can be thought of the same
way.
I love the music from this show. But, early on I think people believed it was
going to be and evening of "freakishness" which I realize is not a word or true
in the case of Sideshow. If they had fired the marketing PR people
earlier---perhaps this would not be taking place.
Linda
FaithBur
That's pretty much what I was getting at... of course *I* don't think that a
show needs glitzy marketing to entice me to see it. <g> But maybe tourists
do. Sad.
I was wondering this when I first saw the show in previews- I thought the logo
looked rather stupid and wondered if that'd have any effect on the show. I've
been trying to think of any other shows that got very good reviews and closed
early, that perhaps also were not as slickly packaged.
At any rate, I'm seeing it again- maybe one last time- this wknd. It's not the
best show I've ever seen, but there have been far worse that have run much
longer.
RANDYINLA
>>
>I agree completely with you..the logo and the ad campaign for Side Show
>I think are definitely responsible for the closing of this show.. <<
Couldn't agree more... Look at the long running shows on B'way. CATS. Les
Miz, Phantom.... all eye catching logos. Cameron Macintosh has brought a few
lessons to B'way. Quality or not, marketing has become as or more important
than the show itself. The failure of Sideshow lays on the ad/marketing
campaign... IMHO
DaALMICK
We are going to see SIDE SHOW saturday night. And maybe one more time before D
DAY. We got Front row for Saturday. Maybe I'll see you there Faith.
Alan
SngA2n
>The failure of Sideshow lays on the ad/marketing
>campaign... IMHO
It didn't hurt Rent, having a very low- key generic type logo. If people want
to see a show, they will.
MsFunOne
IMHO the logo really doesn't matter that much. I do think, however, that Side
Show would have really benefitted had its cast recording been released much
earlier, or if a concept cd was released before the show even opened.
RANDYINLA
>>It didn't hurt Rent, having a very low- key generic type logo. <<
That "low-key generic type" logo is a very trendy looking, simple and memorable
logo. That's the key. Sideshow has no such visual support.
No, logos don't make the show but they can really help it. CATS and those cat
eyes are the perfect example... IMHO
wm...@acpub.duke.edu
If it does close, R.I.P. I still quote Faye (Joan Crawford) Dunnaway in
Mommie Dearest film: "Tina, bring me the ax!!"
On 24 Dec 1997, FaithBur wrote:
> Just a random thought on the Side Show closing.... But I never thought the logo
> was catchy at all. (and it certainly wouldn't be the most attractive thing to
> wear on a T-hsirt, for example) I started to wonder how important a logo may
> or may not be to the success of a show. There are several shows that have
> come to B'way so slickly packaged that I think it infulences people's
> perceptions of the content on a subliminal level. (or at least gets them
> interested in seeing it... thinking that a show that has such good packing must
> be worth seeing)
>
> I wouldn't deign to say that the show is closing because it has a bad logo.
> But it certainly can't help matters if tourists walk by, see the logo, and
> continue walking. In other words, I think in this era that an eye catching
> logo is of more importance than it used to be. (again, I don't think it would
> have saved the show to have had a more catchy logo- but it wouldn't have hurt
> IMHO)
>
Hanon
Rather than blaming the logo, maybe the reason Side Show is closing is because
Henry Krieger apparently only knows 3 chords. Just my opinion, of course.
HANON
FaithBur
>Rather than blaming the logo, maybe the reason Side Show is closing is
>because
>Henry Krieger apparently only knows 3 chords. Just my opinion, of course.
There are other shows that are worse but have lasted longer due to marketing.
How long a show runs does not have a direct correlation with the quality of the
show. (think Grease, Passion, etc...) Surely you don't think Cats is the
best written show ever? :) (I like the show but I wouldn't go *that* far!)
Side show is closing because it didn't have enough of an advance... which means
it wasn't drawing people in... which probably has more to do with marketing
than quality.
DMark35522
In article <19971230192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fait...@aol.com
(FaithBur) writes:
>Side show is closing because it didn't have enough of an advance... which
>means
it wasn't drawing people in... which probably has more to do with
>marketing
than quality.
-Faith
There is a third reason, which is the usual one - shows which are of lesser
quality (and of course this is subjective) run not because of hype but because
of word of mouth. Any of us who have been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to
have shows run in New York can tell you that marketing is important, but word
of mouth is ESSENTIAL. Not to trash anyone's opinions here, but not enough
people were telling other people they HAD to go see SIDESHOW. The group sales
people weren't booking their groups to see it because they didn't like it
enough. European and Japanese tourists weren't interested in the show. I
vividly remember TITANIC even before the Tonys - many industry people were
telling friends that they went expecting to laugh and ended up crying...because
they were touched by something.
It was clear that it was reaching enough people to get a run.
People go to CATS and LES MIZ etc not because they are 'better' shows, but
because they have become brand names - people know what they're going to get.
I think it is fair to say that NO ONE who works professionally in the theatre
thinks SIDESHOW and TRIUMPH's failures were because of marketing. Last year
people said the same thing about BIG. It is false logic to assume that
because a less than classic show succeeded because of a brilliant marketing
campaign (GREASE) marketing can 'save' every marginal show.
If it is any consolation to those who love TRIUMPH - due to its size(small) and
subject matter (some people find it quite funny) and the lack of other product
out there (new musicals) , it will do quite well in regional and stock. Well,
it SHOULD. Unlike others in this group, I don't pretend to predict the future.
DENIS
FaithBur
>I think it is fair to say that NO ONE who works professionally in the theatre
>thinks SIDESHOW and TRIUMPH's failures were because of marketing
Fist, I didn't say they were toally due to marketing- just that it
*contributed* to their failure. And chiefly that failure is not a direct
result of a bad show- i.e. if you have a show that is bad, it follows that it
will fail and it will fail only because it is bad. (I think that Side Show is
a good show, but that is irrelevant to my statements here, which I also beleive
to be true for some shows that I'm glad closed quickly <G>)
Yes, word of mouth is very important- but you have to get those first people in
the theatre in the first place. There is only so far word of mouth will travel
if only people who are very "into" theatre and see everything see the show.
Many people who aren't "in the know" haven't even heard of Side Show. And it
doesn't help that there is no name recognition associated with another media
(book, movie). You need to get some of the tourists and people who think ALW
wrote every show on B'way <g> into the theatre to being with.
Whether or not they'll like it is debatable- no one can know for sure since
they weren't agressive about getting people into the show until it was too
late.
>European and Japanese tourists weren't interested in the show.
I would say that is due more to marketing than word of mouth. How many
Japanese tourists got to see the show and tell their friends? (and also it
isn't a show that plays well to the tourist crowd who 1) many times don't have
a striong concept of the English language and 2) aren't familiar already with
the plot. I for one have shied away from seeing foreign productions when I
didn't already know the story. I wouldn't recommend Side Show to foreigners-
nor would I have recommended Passion or Falsettos, for that matter)
>It is false logic to assume that
>because a less than classic show succeeded because of a brilliant marketing
>campaign (GREASE) marketing can 'save' every marginal show.
I didn't say that it was true in every case; only that it *could* have helped.
It certainly wouldn't have hurt. That was the main point of my post- not that
I think the show would have surely been saved by better marketing; just that it
should have had that chance. And that the reason a show closes (or succeeds) is
usually more complex than whether it is "bad" or "good."
RANDYINLA
<<
I think it is fair to say that NO ONE who works professionally in the theatre
because a less than classic show succeeded because of a brilliant marketing
campaign (GREASE) marketing can 'save' every marginal show.
>>
Well, I work in the professional theatre and I think SIDESHOW is closing due to
poor marketing. SIDESHOW is a far bettr show than BIG and I believe the
marketing campaign did not represent SIDESHOW to its best advantage. I don't
believe brilliant marketing can save every show. But I do think SIDESHOW would
have fared better with a clearer, more representative campaign.
>>If it is any consolation to those who love TRIUMPH - due to its size(small)
and
subject matter (some people find it quite funny) and the lack of other product
out there (new musicals) , it will do quite well in regional and stock. Well,
it SHOULD. <<
See, that's your opinion, which is yours to have. Many of US feel that
marketing would have served SIDESHOW better, which is OUR opinion to have.
Just don't preface statements with >>NO ONE who works professionally in the
theatre<< since you can't speak for all of us. We all get our own humble
opinions..... yes?
RandyInLA
fyns...@webtv.net
RandyinLA, I'm sorry, but you don't get to have an opinion. I've just
decided that NO ONE gets to have an opinion anymore. I am bored of
opinions. Frankly, I think opinions are what killed Side Show. If
there'd been no opinions Side Show would still be running. Just my
opinion, which I know longer get to have.
Hanon
****************
Brilliant! Couldn't have said it better myself!
HANON
fyns...@webtv.net
fynsworth wrote: which I know longer get to have.
fynsworth replies: Hey, fynsworth, you stupid prick, look how you
spelled "know".
fynsworth: Oh, know.
fynsworth: You did it again, egghead.
fynsworth: What's your point?
fynsworth: No. No. The kind of no you mean is spelled no. Get it?
fynsworth: Oh, I see. Go know.
Doc Bender
Denis wrote:
>There is a third reason, which is the usual one - shows which are of lesser
quality (and of course this is subjective) run not because of hype but because
of word of mouth. Any of us who have been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to
have shows run in New York can tell you that marketing is important, but word
of mouth is ESSENTIAL. Not to trash anyone's opinions here, but not enough
people were telling other people they HAD to go see SIDESHOW....I think it is
fair to say that NO ONE who works professionally in the theatre
thinks SIDESHOW and TRIUMPH's failures were because of marketing. Last year
people said the same thing about BIG. It is false logic to assume that
because a less than classic show succeeded because of a brilliant marketing
campaign (GREASE) marketing can 'save' every marginal show.<
Agreed. From almost every theatrical quarter, I've seen very little enthusiasm
regarding both Triumph and Side Show -- but a great deal of head-scratching
about Ben Brantley's reviews.
Doc Bender
DaALMICK
Agreed. From almost every theatrical quarter, I've seen very little enthusiasm
regarding both Triumph and Side Show -- but a great deal of head-scratching
about Ben Brantley's reviews.
I don't think that is true. I think there is a great deal of interest or
people would not have tried so hard to save the show (and I am not just talking
about the Cast). Side Show has an image problem it just could not overcome.
Most of people's perceptions about Side Show were not accurate. For example,
the show is not really about freaks! In spreading the word about Side Show, I
encountered statements like "its depressing". How can people who have not seen
it have the perception it is depressing (which it is not!)?
Alan
Doc Bender
>I don't think that is true. I think there is a great deal of interest or
people would not have tried so hard to save the show (and I am not just talking
about the Cast).<
Fans are not theatre professionals.
> Side Show has an image problem it just could not overcome.
Most of people's perceptions about Side Show were not accurate. For example,
the show is not really about freaks!<
And that's the exact problem with the show. It's too afraid to even
realistically deal with the subject matter it presents.
>In spreading the word about Side Show, I
encountered statements like "its depressing". How can people who have not seen
it have the perception it is depressing (which it is not!)?
Alan<
The only thing about Side Show that is depressing is the waste of talent.
The Diary of Anne Frank is depressing -- Side Show is silly.
Doc Bender
Jeff Marx
DaAlmick wrote:
<<I think there is a great deal of interest or people would not have tried so
hard to save the show (and I am not just talking about the Cast). >>
Yes you are. Whether you believe it or not, they were the engine behind the
whole "save the show" campaign. Fine, good luck, more power to them -- but
let's not pretend these are uninterested parties aghast at the poor marketing
of a high quality show.
<<In spreading the word about Side Show, I encountered statements like "its
depressing". How can people who have not seen it have the perception it is
depressing (which it is not!)? >>
I'm tempted to ask who you've been talking to.
But nevermind, please, I think I don't want to know.
Jeff Marx
----------
It's called flowers wilt.
It's called apples rot.
It's called thieves get rich and saints get shot.
It's called God don't answer prayers a lot.
Alright, now you know.
-- Stephen Sondheim in MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG
DaALMICK
Doc,
Side Show is NOT afraid to deal with the subject matter it presents. I repeat,
Side Show is NOT about freaks! It is about acceptance, it is about love. And
to that end it deals VERY well with the subject!
Side show is neither depressing nor silly. It is a very good piece of
theatre!!
Alan
fyns...@webtv.net
Alan, a very happy new year to you. I think your New Year's resolution
should be to stop spouting your opinon of this show. I mean, we get it.
Really, we do. You LOVE it! You think it's GREAT theater! You think
it's NOT about FREAKS! You think it's about acceptance! So, accept
this, Alan... Some agree with you, some don't. You have stated your
opinion over and over again. You are not going to convince anyone of
anything, so, given that we get your point of view, give it a rest
already.
DaALMICK
Happy new year to you too old fynsworth! Funny thing about opinions-we all
have them! And in America, we all have that right to speak em. Like I said
earlier, chap, feel free to ignore and don't read.
Alan
P.S. My new years resolution really has NOTHING to do with Side Show, the cast,
or the crew. Much too trivial!
Adam D. Feldman
DaALMICK wrote:
> Most of people's perceptions about Side Show were not accurate. For example,
> in spreading the word about Side Show, I
> encountered statements like "its depressing". How can people who have not seen
> it have the perception it is depressing (which it is not!)?
I, for one, was deeply depressed after seeing SIDE SHOW. But I'm not
sure it was for the reasons you're talking about.
Warmly,
Adam