The Stage News reports on a trial run of pay-what-you-decide pricing at the regional theatre in Stockton, UK:
The Pay What You Decide system is now in effect for all theatre productions at the arts centre for six months, following a trial on a one-man show at the venue.
Too Much, Too Young, starring Jack Bennett in January, took nearly 50% more than the theatre expected, with almost one third of the audience new to theatre performances at the ARC.
Although the theatre would usually charge £10 for a show such as Too Much, Too Young, through various discounts and free ticket offers it would be expected to yield an average £3.50 per ticket. However, the one-man performance took an average £5.25 per ticket.
ARC chief executive Annabel Turpin emphasised that it was too soon to label the Pay What You Decide scheme as success.
“There’s a lack of research around it,” she said. “If it doesn’t work, we’ll come out and say so. We’re big enough and brave enough to admit that we’ve tried something and it hasn’t worked [if it does not work]. I think it will, and I’m really confident that it will.”
Turpin explained that although the scheme would encourage bigger audiences through potentially lower prices, it is more important to remove the gamble involved in seeing new work at the theatre.
She said: “There is a core of people who probably can afford to come, but don’t come because it feels like too big a risk. So as well as removing the financial barrier, we’re also removing the financial risk barrier, and I think that’s much bigger.”
No, I don’t understand the last sentence of that quote. But what can we make of the story?
Recall the new research from the NEA from a few weeks ago (I commented on the reports here). In one report, the NEA asked the question ‘why did you not attend the performance?’ to the subset of people who had said they were actually interested in visiting a particular performance or exhibition but did not, in the end, attend. Ticket price was not the leading response; lack of time was.
The problem with the time-cost of attending a performance is that it is a risk that cannot be insured. When someone says to you, after a dismal party or lecture or show, ‘well, that’s two hours of my life I will never get back,’ what they are saying is literally true. It cannot be repaid.
And so the big risk of attending a new show (rather than the familiar and predictable) is not the ‘financial risk barrier’; 10 pounds for a ticket is much smaller than the time cost of attending.
So what to do about that? Well, I would think the last thing a theatre wants to say to patrons is ‘we are not really sure if you will like this; don’t worry, if you don’t you don’t need to leave any money.’ That is a clear signal that the patron’s time is ‘at risk’. Confidence in the quality of production should be much more effective at attracting those people who are otherwise on the fence about attending.
If pay-what-you-will is working at Stockton, that’s great. But I would recommend careful thought be given by any other presenter thinking of going this route.
Leave a Reply