What Ails Arts Journalism? The Same Ol' Complaints
Well, the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Muiscal Theater took place a few weeks ago down in LA, and already national critics are writing about the sorry state of arts coverage.
Here are some shocking, just shocking points: there's less space in newspapers for arts coverage; more people attend live arts events than professional sports; critics have retired or taken buyouts, etc etc etc ad naseum.
Gosh, this is all news to me. It's not like I haven't heard this when I attended the O'Neill Critics Institute a few years ago, and it's not like we haven't heard this from other critics who write down these stats in their columns like it was breaking news.
Don't get me wrong: Of course I'm for arts coverage. But there's something wrong when journalists have been printing the same ol' stats and regurgitating the same old complaints for at least two years.
I'm an arts writer. (Well, I'd really label myself an arts editor, but for purposes of this blog, I'll say I'm a writer.) And I agree with these writers in theory. But I'm fatigued with hearing this story. It's as if these critics/writers think if they keep throwing the live arts v. sports stats at their editors and at their readers, that their column inches will magically reappear.
Look, I don't know what the answer is. Now, there is less coverage for arts in the newspapers. But newspapers are, let's just face it, dying. Some critics bemoan that more arts stories are going online. As if that were a bad thing. Two years ago we saw stats that most readers between the ages of 18 and about 35 are getting the majority of their news online. And we also know that regional theatres want younger audiences. But regional theatres throw all their energy into newspapers: ads, reviews, Little Men. No wonder their audiences are older. Maybe I'm simplifying, but the disconnect seems obvious.
See, I'd rather spend less time beating my head against the wall about arts coverage in newspapers and spend more time figuring where the arts coverage should be: blogs, podcasts, websites, etc. Newspaper writers who wave around 2-3-year-old stats in their paper columns only reinforce the fact that they're behind the technology times. Face it, they're on a sinking ship. Who cares how many inches they have for theatre if in five years' time (or less), the paper is out of business? Who's reading? What's the real benefit for theatre companies?
I overheard someone say that she never reads blogs because she has enough unedited thoughts of her own. Here are my unedited thoughts, meant to provoke. If I edited them, my various allegiances would have removed all the sentences' teeth. I doubt they're that sharp anyway. But I'm really thinking we need to start looking at this problem from another angle.
posted by Karen McKevitt @ 1:38 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
This week the Bay Guardian ran an editorial chastising Craigslist for killing newspapers by taking away valuable classified ads. I responded on the related SFist post that I had had a terrible time getting the Express to more energetically court small theaters to run display ads. And the only reason I was angling for such attention was that the Express had cut the space it gave to theater coverage by about 50%. It has since restored about 10-15% of that, but still, until you've been reviewed by the Express, you're not listed in that extra 10-15%. For a company like Impact, that's probably three weeks into a six-week run.
For a large company like Berkeley Rep, it seems to me based on superficial readings of box office reports that newspaper coverage still has quite a bit of impact (oops) on ticket sales. A good review and a jumping-out-of-chair or even sitting-up-clapping Little Man still has clout.
Not that the Little Man almost ever gives two shits about a tiny little company like Impact, even though the company has been performing for ten seasons.
Anyway, the original point remains: that if newspapers are dying, one way they could revive is by more aggressively courting the support of theater companies and other arts organizations. Once that starts happening and the papers start (re?)establishing themselves as a repository for arts coverage, then maybe things might pick up. But I haven't seen any innovation in that area as yet.
Actually CD, the Express makes every effort to have a critic at the opening weekend of shorter-run shows, such as Impact's, and the new schedule has the (usually full, not capsule) review out by the Wednesday before the second weekend.
Even if it means the critic is up all night Sunday sweating it out for a Monday morning deadline, just a few hours after seeing the play. Ahem.
I can't speak to why newspaper account executives don't more aggressively court theater company business. It's a good question. Because they're certainly very thorough about restaurants and other businesses. I do know that I can't count how many shows I've been to where someone gets up afterwards and asks the audience to tell their friends about the show, because "word of mouth is the only advertising we can afford."
Hmmm.
As for whether newspapers are dying, I think it's systemic, and not just limited to arts coverage. So many people are turning to the Internet for their news and arts coverage these days. Listening to other arts writers complain about losing inches exhausts me, because it's not just us. I know someone who just lost his wine column in a Minneapolis paper. The big papers have all been hacking down their staffs. It's not as if we're being cut to make room for more international news or analysis or something...
Interesting points. I find it amusing that any paper is chastising Craigslist, as if it were Craigslist's fault for giving readers what they want and not the paper's fault for being so behind on the curve. If I want to fault CL for anything, it's for making sure that your resume will never get read because it's 1 of about 1,000 instead of 100, like the good ol' days.
Actually, I have seen ad managers court theatre companies. The companies don't bite because companies want to see their listings. And New Times moved most if not all listings online. So the companies don't want to put their ad in a paper that doesn't list them. That's why the Guardian saw more ads by smaller companies than the Weekly did. Now, of course I see the faulty thinking on both sides. If the paper had a ton of ads, they'd have to run listings to fill the space. And besides, why would companies argue about listings when the real battle should be about features and lead reviews?
Sure, the Little Man rules box office. What I'd be interested in knowing, though, is the age of the audiences flocking to the theatre based on the top rating or the ones staying away based on the lowest rating. How many audience members between 18 and 35?
When I was at the O'Neill, I devised this crazy and impractical notion that the way to take power away from the LM is not to give it to him. What would happen if every comapny decided to never use the LM on their marketing materials, to stop using critics' quotes and all that? Highly impractical I know. (But think of it, these companies are only helping the Chron brand the LM.) But the only way for a company to overcome the LM as it is now is for them to run ads like the movie studios do. Got a sleeping man? Buy a two-page spread. Yeah, not too practical either.
Lisa: I know -- my point was that even if the review shows up by the following week, the listing doesn't have us until the next week, no? Granted, the review is better than a listing -- but in the olden days of a few years ago, there were much fuller listings of everything going on, stagewise.
BTW, the review being posted the next week is a pretty new development -- for most of the time I've been with Impact, the review showed up in the third week, not the second, even if you (or Sam or your predecessor) were there opening night -- it's part of why we went to a six-week run, because we were closing the week after the review often ran, which didn't allow time for the review to do much good.
All that said, I do really appreciate your ongoing support of Impact and wish you as good a Sunday night rest as you can get.
Karen: I'm not sure when this changed, but the Chron used to forbid the use of the LM image. Having been the junior designer at a firm run by former Chron art directors, I do happen to have a font with digitized Little Men somewhere...
I don't know the demographic data -- Berkeley Rep is trying out TV advertising right now for 9 Parts -- hopefully we'll see soon whether it's affecting the demographics.
And yeah, I'm not crazy about rewarding a paper that's cut listings by buying a display ad. But in the east bay we're particularly vulnerable. Impact doesn't get a whole lot of people from SF, so going in a paper like the Guardian or the Weekly makes no sense for us. (Actually, a recent data analysis at Berkeley Rep shows that we're pulling a lot of people from Marin, which I thought was interesting.)
I think everyone feels that there must be something out there that works -- we just haven't found it yet.
On the other hand, when a show is hot, people manage to find the little theaters. Impact's Othello turned people away, as did Shotgun's Cabaret. (I desperately wish I'd gotten it together sooner than I did -- I missed Cabaret and feel like I'll always regret that.)
So, after all this, I guess the onus is back on us to produce the hottest shit we can. Apparently people will find us when we do.
Any other good ideas percolating? Send 'em on down...
Post a Comment
<< Home