Good is Not the Same as Quality

by Rick Culbertson | March 29, 2010

I believe that there are two basic ways to judge a show. One scale is “bad to good.” The other is “non-quality to quality.” I cannot define what makes a show bad or good because the elements that make a show bad or good are very subjective. For the ease of my argument, however, I will propose that a good show is a “hit show” that receives strong word of mouth praise and high marks from the critics in regard to the performance of the actors, director and author. One thing I can do is to define a quality show. Simply put, a quality show is a show that looks expensive. It is a show in which the producers have spent a good deal of money on the sets, costumes, lights and sound, and hired solid musicians (if it’s a musical).

Based on this distinction, it is important to note that “quality” does not imply “good.” We can all think of scenarios in which a quality show is actually bad, and a non-quality show is actually good. Put another way, good theater doesn’t need expensive bells and whistles, and throwing money at a bad piece of theater will never make it good.

Here is another way to look at it: All shows on Broadway are high quality. When you buy a ticket to a Broadway show, you know that it is going to be a high quality show, because part of what makes Broadway “Broadway” is the use of material resources to make a show look fantastic. But I would venture to guess that we have all seen some really bad Broadway shows. Hence the idea that throwing glitzy sets and lights at a bad piece of theater can never make it good. On the other side of things, I would venture to say that all virtually Los Angeles 99-seat theater shows are low quality. Practically speaking, you simply can’t spend a lot of money to make these shows look like a million bucks. But we have all, of course, seen some amazingly good 99-seat theater shows.

Now, it is true (and important to point out) that the 99-seat theater scene in LA has a wide range of “quality” elements. Most showcase productions and beginning theater companies are generally the lowest quality because they have very little money to spend on their productions. And there are some 99-seat theater shows in LA that are higher quality; certainly not on par with the quality of the Ahmanson (which we can safely say is Broadway quality), but better than showcases.

Again, quality does not mean good and good does not mean quality.

If we were to graph these two scales, we would use an x-y graph with four quadrants. The x-axis would be the Non-Quality to Quality scale, and the y-axis would be the Bad to Good scale. Drawn out, it would look like this:

On the graph above, I have plotted four different productions. Point A is a good Broadway production. Point B is a bad Broadway production. Point C is a good 99-seat theater production and point D is a bad 99-seat theater production.

The problem with the above graph is that few patrons think in terms of the quality-versus-good paradigm. It can be hard for an average patron to view two seemingly similar scales of judgment as two completely separate scales of judgment. The danger to us as theater-makers comes when a patron cannot tell the difference between quality and good. When this happens, he/she can be fooled into thinking that quality, in fact, equals good, because quality is so much easier to see. (“It was so amazing; the chandelier came down from the ceiling and crashed right onto the stage!” Etc.) When quality overrides good, our complex four quadrant graph collapses to a simple line, on which one side is quality and the other side is non-quality. Drawn out, it becomes this:

Now, point A (good Broadway production) and point B (bad Broadway production) are both seen more favorably to point C (good 99-seat theater production) and point D (bad 99-seat theater production).

The biggest problem for the LA 99-seat theater community is this: Even though a patron wants to see a good show, when it comes down to buying a ticket, they will likely be more willing to pay to see a quality show.

Now, before you get mad at me, think of this: some Broadway tours that come to the Pantages are bad shows, but they manage to sell out 2,700 seats, 8 times a week. Whereas smash hit, great 99-seat theater shows often struggle to sell out their 396 seats each week. Marketing (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with this problem-a big tour spends more on marketing that the most expensive 99-seat theater show’s entire budget. But there is another important element at play here that, in fact, determines the success of all marketing: The brand.

Broadway producers and marketers understand that an average patron doesn’t understand the difference between quality and good. The producers use this understanding to fool the average patron into thinking that quality does equal good (even though they in fact know that it doesn’t). This is why Broadway in general has been able to brand itself as “Good” theater, because it really brands itself as “quality” theater. Since 99-seat theater has not branded itself at all, its default brand is one of low quality productions. And, since the average patron can’t tell the difference between quality and good, then by the transitive property, Broadway ends up getting the brand of “good” and LA 99-seat theater gets the brand of “bad.”

IF Broadway = Quality AND Quality = Good THEN Broadway = Good.

IF LA 99-Seat = Non-Quality AND Non-Quality = Bad THEN LA 99-Seat = Bad.

Whether we like it our not, this is what is happening to us in LA. Yes, it is true that in Los Angeles we may be able to sell out a show and get people to come see us in the 99-seat world (We sold over 5,000 tickets for Divorce! The Musical). But we cannot ignore the fact that Wicked ran for over 800 performances in a 2,700 seat house (The Pantages) here in LA. If people understood that a particular production in a 99-seat theater house was as good as, or better than Wicked, then wouldn’t it make sense that the same number of people would go out and see the 99-seat theater show? No! Because a good 99-seat theater show has to overcome the negative brand of, “LA 99-seat theater equals bad.” And that is a tall order, given that most 99-seat theater shows spend less than $1,000 a week on marketing.

So how do we fix this?

The obvious solution is that all 99-seat theater producers should run out and spend as much money as possible on building better sets and costumes, right? Well, no. Because, unfortunately, 99-seat theater producers are locked into a system wherein we have to produce on the extreme cheap- a direct result of the price controls that Equity has forced upon us. The plain truth is that the current Equity 99-seat contract forces us to lose money on these productions. So, even if a producer wanted to spend more money to increase the quality of his/her production, he/she couldn’t, unless he/she wanted to take a huge loss. Who can afford to do that?

So with the economic realities of LA theater being what they are, producers keep churning out low quality productions- both good and bad. And this, of course, reinforces our “low quality” brand.

Surely, a producer could remedy this by producing on the HAT or LOA contract, right? After all, if the 99-seat theater ticket price controls are the problem, then producing on a HAT or LOA contract would solve the problem since the HAT and LOA provide for higher ticket prices than the 99-seat contract. Right? The answer here is, sorta, but not really. It is possible that a producer can produce on the HAT or a LOA. And some producers do. Right now there are productions running in 99-seat theaters that are on a HAT or a LOA. But the patrons don’t know that a producer is doing this. And if the patron doesn’t know, then the LA-99 seat theater brand of Low-Quality will still apply. Additionally, producers rarely use these contracts to increase the quality of their productions; they use them to increase the “good” elements of their productions- namely, to hire better actors. And it is extremely rare that a producer actually charges more for a ticket than the 99-seat theater contract would have allowed in the first place. While raising the “good” is good, it doesn’t do anything to change 99-seat theater’s overall “low quality” brand.

So really then… how do we fix this?

Well, it’s a loaded question. Certainly, the answer is not to go out and produce Broadway shows in 99-seat houses. But, we do need to take this issue of quality more seriously. We can’t just stick our heads in the sand and say “Our shows are good, and audiences should know that,” then turn around and complain that no one comes to the theater anymore.

The first step is for producers to accept the distinction between quality and good. It’s hard for us producers to look in the mirror, but we have to. And we have to do it as businesspeople, not just as artists.

Once we accept this distinction, we then need to come together as producers. We need to define the parameters of our work, and the goals of our community. With those definitions in place, we can begin to control our brand, instead of having our brand control us. We can fight to make the necessary changes to the Equity contracts that are hurting our productions. Over time, with the correct strategy, a solid plan, and a defined brand, we will pull ourselves up and create a higher quality 199 seat theater scene, and then an even higher quality 299 seat theater scene.

It’s a long road and a hard road. But if we really care about theater in Los Angeles (and I know that we do because most of us do it for little or no money), then we simply have to come together and start a producer’s organization.

But, in the meantime, if you are a producer, ask yourself if you would rather produce a good show, or a quality show?

This is a trick question. The answer, or course, is both.

Posted in Producer’s League by Rick Culbertson on March 16, 2010