| re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 09:26 am EDT 08/07/17 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:24 am EDT 08/07/17 | |
| In reply to: re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 08:19 am EDT 08/07/17 | |
|
|
|
| This was my point, admittedly a bit buried in the post: "I'm only suggesting that highlighting a wonderful role played by an international star at least says "someone else might strike gold here as well." When it came time to re-cast Mame, post-Lansbury, they needed a star. Judy Garland was even interested. Ann Miller played it eventually. They didn't get Sheila Smith to play it. I'm only saying, if your show has "Pierre" in the title, and you initially attract a star to play Pierre, and that star sells a helluva lot of tickets, why wouldn't you say, "okay, star vehicle here. That equation and marketing construct gives us a million two a week. Let's find the next star." If you have proven the show works thus, why wouldn't you enhance that aspect -- sell Groban -- and then sell the Groban replacement, someone with a least half his profile. They ignored the fact that they had a star vehicle, even watching the star's *absences* reveal the show couldn't sell without a star. When they already knew they couldn't sell tickets when Groban was out, they pretended he was not part of the commercial brand, and ignored him while rushing to try to sell an unknown. From day one they ignored the clear business fact, proven by Groban outs: the show at the Imperial needs a name. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 08:19 am EDT 08/07/17 |
| Next: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 10:02 am EDT 08/07/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.011402 seconds.