| re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:28 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 10:03 pm EDT 08/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| "it seemed to sell very well, so I wondered what the big hit was for not pushing him in the marketing." I think "very well" is relative and in this case, it was not well enough. Groban left the show after over 8 months with most of the capitalization unrecouped. When a show engages an audience-drawing star (and pays him or her as such), the game plan by definition is to recoup on his or her back (here made all the more difficult because of the very high costs). If that did not happen, that's a fail. Making him must-see theatre is the only logical way to proceed (because the only way to succeed under these conditions is to manufacture demand so you get decent premium sales and, even more importantly, so you are not discounting). Picking up on your point, did "everyone [you] know" make the trek in to see Groban? It is obvious that, while the show did indeed sell very well, it did not enjoy sold out advances far in advance and the nefarious thing that allows is for people who did not feel the need to secure tickets far in advance to change their mind in the spring when there were other competing shows for their attention. I'm not going to speculate on marketing to replacement stars or anything related to Oak because as I see it as putting the cart before the horse. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 10:03 pm EDT 08/06/17 |
| Next: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - CCentero 10:36 am EDT 08/07/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.012131 seconds.