I, on the other hand, am scouring the newsprint for reasons behind the coverage. Why did this project get coverage? What was newsworthy about it? Was the subject a Bright Young Thing? If so, why does the editor or writer or producer perceive them this way? How is the story angled? Why did they tell it that way and not another way? How did this angle make it a better fit for the outlet?

(Admittedly, I spend less time dissecting television simply because TV wants celebrity. And you can just about Full Stop it right there.)

In order to understand why you are not getting coverage, it’s important to understand why someone else is. For example, if you have a nonfiction book about an obscure, mainly academic topic, the chances of a People Magazine review or booking an appearance on The Daily Show is pretty damn slim. Because these are outlets are nailing specific demographics and your project simply is too niche.

So the next time you’re on NYPost.com (come on, you know you read it) or Vulture or flipping through Time Out, take a look at the stories and think about why the writer/editor decided to give that particular project coverage.

No doubt, this exercise can be tough on the ego. Try not to fall into the “but what about meeeeeeee” trap when you are reading the rave review of your arch nemesis. Try instead to break down why Arch Nemesis got the coverage in the first place. What you learn may surprise you.

What can you do?

A bunch of things! But here’s what you don’t do: re-send the press release.

Publicists can be a tight knit group, and a few that I am close to were recently chatting about how they had fielded requests from several clients to resend their releases in the hopes of remedying a ticket sales slump. How lucky, I snickered to myself, that my fabulously clever clients know better than that!

Until I was sitting in a meeting two days later and someone from development said, “No offence but…” (You know where this is going, right?) “We experience zero bump in sales when the press release lands.”

Smiling through gritted teeth, I said, “That’s good! You’re not supposed to.”

A press release is not marketing collateral. (Now say it out loud, just to reinforce the message.)

There is a reason why a press release only goes out to the press. A press release is about announcing and, a good one has the potential to drive it. And news is not “our ticket sales are in a slump.” News is announcing a new project, a milestone, a casting notice, etc. Anything that the press may need to know when they consider covering your project. Yes, some online outlets will pick up the release and post it, but you can’t count on those outlets to re-post the release simply because your sales are slumping or you want to build “buzz.” If you didn’t capitalize on it the first time, it’s unlikely to do anything different the second time around – well, except piss off the press, who have to sift  through their overburdened in-boxes.

If you send press releases with zero newsworthiness, the press will stop paying attention to them.

A press release (like press in general) needs to be part of the overall marketing strategy. It is not a strategy on its own. So you should have a plan in place for when the release hits. What’s your social media strategy around the news announcement? How are you alerting your fans and followers to this news? And, what are you going to do to stretch the excitement over a longer term if you do not have “news” to drive it?

There were loads of different reactions, from the “Wait, Backstage reviewed?” variety, to dispirited statements from many small companies about how Backstage were one of the few outlets they could count on to review shows. Of course, there were the groans about the quality of the writing in the reviews. But bottom line, for the most part, the community was mourning the loss.

The news came at a time when there was a bit of self reflection by the critic’s themselves in this really smart  criticism series curated by Rob Weinert-Kent on HowlRound.

Of course, I was asked by several people if there was anything to be done to reverse the decision. Sadly, I don’t think so. The metrics just were not there. Why should Backstage continue pouring money into a section that simply was not being read? There was someone in an office looking at page view stats, and Backstage readers told this person via their clicks that they simply were not interested in reading reviews.

“Don’t they know how important they are to the industry?” I was asked.

Well, if readers weren’t clicking on the reviews, the publication concluded that they reviews weren’t important to their readers.

Could they have figured out way to make the reviews section more integral to the paper itself? Sure, I bet they could have found some creative solutions. But the bean counters in the corporate office simply look at their return on investment. And paying for to staff a section that was ignored by their readership just doesn’t make bean-counter sense. They weren’t thinking about the industry on the whole, just the impact on their bottom line.

What troubles me the most about Backstage’s decision is that they have now set a precedent. Over the past few years, for example, Variety has cut down on the number of non-major shows that it reviews due to budget cuts. Now that it has merged with a Tinsletown-centric new media conglomerate, I don’t expect that to change. In fact, I won’t be at all surprised if legit coverage is cut entirely. (Hell, in the web redesign you can only find Legit if you hover over “Other.”) After all, Backstage is an industry publication, geared towards actors, but industry nonetheless. And industry wasn’t reading the reviews.

I can’t help but thing that as a community we are failing our reporters, critics and our publications. We don’t spend money in the publications, the lifeblood of every outlet. But we expect that they dutifully attend the theater and file reviews and features. Meanwhile, space is withering along with the ad dollars.

But there is no limit to the internet, you say! Well, that’s not technically true. Companies pay for a certain amount of usage data. The more data, and often the more traffic, the more they pay internet providers. Sometimes this usage is capped, but then they have to pay for overages. And this is not taking into account that they also have to pay for editors, writers, designers, IT staff, etc.

Back in the day of flush ad spending, the big money subsidized the arts coverage of the smaller companies. But as the ad money drifts away, the publications have no choice but to shrink staff, and shrink coverage.

I get advertising is expensive, and often there is no money in the budget for it. And I wish that that an enterprising ad sales person would figure out a way to make the financials work for small companies. I think it would benefit the indie theater community on the whole.

Did you know, for example, that the Village Voice has a super affordable eblast program for theater, and their theater sales rep is really willing to work with small company’s and their budgets? But do they sell tickets? Honestly, it depends on the show. Some shows make their money back. Some don’t see a dime.

(This is totally a post for another day, but I will address it quickly. Honestly, I think in only a few cases do you see a return on ad spending. However, it is the cumulative effort of marketing/advertising/pr that has impact on sales. That said, this is really about the health and longevity of the theater community on the whole, which also encompasses the journalists that cover it.)

The reality of the situation is that publications have rent to pay and a payroll to meet each week. If they can’t make the numbers work, something has to give. And usually what “gives” is what doesn’t generate revenue.

This response by a freelance journalist to The Atlantic has been making the social media rounds. Essentially, The Atlantic wanted to the guy to “repurpose” a reported piece he did for another outlet, and as payment they offered the prestige of publishing in The Atlantic.

Arts journalist Randy Gener prefaced his Facebook link to the story with, “Why is your arts group not getting decent media coverage?”

And he’s pretty much spot on, and I am supremely frustrated by our culture of free. And for some reason, the arts are complicit in this Freeconomics. But that’s an argument for another day.

Here’s the thought Randy’s comment sparked…

As media outlets are less inclined to pay (and frankly I was shocked a publication like The Atlantic resorted to such), the coverage for arts dwindles. Of course, there will always be young journalists who are looking for a by-line in a publication with the prestige of The Atlantic.  But they will be less inclined to write about arts, and more about celebrity, because that’s what garners page views, comments, and social media shares. And all of these metrics are measurable. And what’s the point of writing anything for free if it’s not going to amount to a tangible benefit that you can then show off to a prospective employer?

Seriously, it’s time to start Tweeting and Facebooking links and leaving comments. And not just to comments that express your displeasure with Theatermania’s Bros On Broadway series, or to grouse about your bad review. Smart, insightful, helpful discussions about shows you’ve seen or responses to reviews (worth reiterating, someone else’s please, not your own!) are important. And don’t just zoom in on the “major” shows with star power. Leave a thoughtful response for the publication that’s covering the downtown scene. Show them that this coverage matters to their readers.

I see loads of comments on the blogs of fellow artists, or long and wonderful back and forth discussions on Facebook, but scant few on more general news sites that do culture coverage, or on showbiz-centric sites like Backstage or Theatermania. If you want arts coverage to continue, it has to matter to the outlet. (Case in point is Variety. Did you notice the new site redesign, no longer behind a paywall, has a dedicated section for “digital” but legit coverage is now lumped into “more”?)

The only way it matters is in the measurable metrics.

Just something to think about.

Why, yes, I am a chicken.

I’ve been working in NYC theater for something like 17 years. I have seen a lot of “failures.”

Let me first define my use of failure:
The reviews were awful, to the point of career damaging
The show didn’t find an audience, and the actors played to audiences of one or two
The artists/company lost their total investment (and then some)

Now, the companies may not have seen that as failure. I worked with one group whose response was “hey we don’t care about the money, we’re making art!” And the bad reviews would just roll off their back and they were out there and doing it and “failing” spectacularly and loving every minute.

But for many companies, they felt the failure. Some handled it better than others. Many handled it poorly.

Personally, failure scares the shit out of me. In my professional life, I take care to only bring on board clients I think I can help succeed. Not every show will get stellar reviews, but I want them to get reviewed full stop. This means I read scripts, survey the creative team, and, most importantly, get a clear idea of what their expectations are for press. If it feels like I can help them succeed, I take it on. If not, I pass. Failures literally keep me up at night. And I am the type of person who needs my sleep.

Now here comes a lot of people do not know about me. I used to write plays. Then I started working with the press, and critics, and there was simply too much opportunity for failure. The idea that my work would be held up to such critical scrutiny, that my writing career was make or break by a group of strangers… Well, cold sweats and barfing. So I stopped writing. It was more comfortable.

Over the years, I’d start and stop a number of writing projects. But then about a year and a half ago, I started writing seriously. Not plays, no way. Theater is still very much a business that is frighteningly make-or-break on critical response. So, I wrote a novel in a genre where success is free of critical judgment–by the “professional” critics anyway. It’s about what resonates with the readers, not what a media outlet decides is “of the moment.”

Of course, I am still scared of failure. But it has been out to beta readers, and the feedback so far has been wonderful and thoughtful and even the criticisms are easier to take now than they were 20 years ago. Perhaps it’s maturity. Perhaps it’s because my professional career is spent dealing with critics and criticism that I don’t take it as personally. It’s probably a mix of both.

So this partially explains my blogging absence. I’ve been very busy writing! But, I have also spent the past three months starting and deleting this post, because I fear sharing what I have done.

So, now that I have come clean, talking about this should be easier going forward, right? So, I am going to blog about my experience releasing this book as a self publishing venture–the good, the bad, the ugly.

It is definitely going to be an interesting experience for me (not to mention difficult–I really loathe promoting myself). Well, out of the frying pan, as they say.

Here. We. Go.

I recently dealt with the second scenario, and was asked that the web outlet pull the review entirely. Don’t ever do this. That is taking a big giant dump on the free press.

Call your mom and sob. Go out for lots of drinks with your BFF and talk about how the critic is a scourge on humanity and an imbecile to boot. Throw darts at the critic’s picture. Exercise your right to not purchase the newspaper or visit the website. Hope their traffic plummets and ad dollars dry up.

Scream, cry, and rage as if they stole your dragons.

But don’t ask that for the review to be pulled.

Or, can you re-read the criticism as objectively as you can and ask if there is something valid about what the critic said. Was there something that still needed work? Or, can you simply accept that someone didn’t like what you did. You don’t get a rave for simply showing up.

Creative folk usually rally against censorship. Asking for a review to be removed is exactly that. Think about it.

Put on your Big Kid Undies and take the bad reviews with the good. You may actual learn something from them.

It’s easy to ask why, but only when you rephrase the question can you actually take action to fix the problem:

Why SHOULD they?

What are you doing that is different from everyone else? And different does not automatically mean coverage–what makes it innovative? What stands out about your project? Are you doing something that is part of the zeitgeist? Does it fit into the news cycle in anyway? (And remember, the news cycle is going to be vastly different a week from now, never mind six months from now.)

Sometimes, the answer to “why should they” is not what you want to hear. There are hundreds of theater shows running each week in New York City. Now factor in live music, opera, dance, film (mega-releases and small independents), book readings, poetry slams, art gallery openings, new museum exhibits, and loads of other stuff I am forgetting. That’s a lot of stuff, all vying for the same limited column inches that you are.

Your “why should they” may come up empty this time, but maybe next time it won’t. If your “why should they” is repeatedly coming up empty, maybe you need to think a bit more strategically about what you are doing. If press is your goal, you may have to compromise something in your programming to reach that goal.

And if you don’t want to compromise, that’s perfectly okay. Just realize that it will be a struggle to get the coverage you want and deserve, and adjust your goals accordingly.

Season plan accordingly!

I always advise that if you are looking for press impact, you need to plan your productions accordingly. Great advice, but… Not helpful. So I figured I would put together a neat calendar that gives a general landscape.

Just a note–schedules are always in flux and this is more of a general lay of the land than hard and fast booked schedules. And this is also for press impact, not ticket sales impact. So I am not even considering that audiences go to the Hamptons for the summer (and, by the way, that’s a myth).

Finally, more and more there is no “good” time to open, so you kind of have to grit your teeth and just do it. But, there are definitely months to avoid.

January

January used to be a great time to open. I would urge clients to kick off their shows on January 2nd. Who wants to spend the holidays in tech, right? Well, apparently no one minds anymore, since early January is now is chock full of festivals to coincide with APAP. And we are seeing three Broadway openings this month as well.

February

Broadway competition is not very heavy in this frigid month, but some of the major Off Broadway non-profits do begin to open again. This year, I like February more than January, but it’s still important to get an idea of what’s opening when before you make the plunge.

March

I like early March for openings, but it needs to happen within the first two weeks. Later March usually sees the lead up to the April insanity as Broadway producers cram their productions in time for the Tony Award cut off dates. This year, Off Broadway is much quieter than February, but that’s often not the case.

April

You have to have something really “Wow!” worthy to attempt to open Off Broadway in April. It’s a hard month. I would avoid it at all costs.

May

A lot of the major Off Broadway shows open now, after avoiding the April Broadway stampede. There is also the problem of the Tony nominations… Now theater coverage is geared towards features on the nominees and handicapping the awards. And, the critics are burnt out. It’s certainly better than April, but can still be a challenge.

June

Get the Tony’s over with, and it’s a decent time to open. Again, keep an eye on Off Broadway. Over the past few years, they have moved into later June for this very reason.

July

While you butt up against press on vacation, July is a pretty nice time to open. Of course, summer 2011 was buzzing with the RSC, which made summer openings a lot more complicated.

August

Ah August. You have to battle the NY Fringe, and that’s no fun. But I think if you open early or later August you can do OK with press impact.

September

I loved to open shows immediately after Labor Day. The press is excited to get a new season started, and they are energized. Apparently, everyone else noticed too. Now, a lot more shows are cropping up right after Labor Day, and the First Irish Festival has grown into a pretty major fest with a good amount of coverage. I still won’t count out an early September opening, but look towards later September as well (like after the 20th).

October

I’ve always liked the first two weeks of October. But after around the 15th, Broadway gears up, and the major Off Broadway shows are opening. I look at it as our own little Oscar season–this is when the more serious fare gets produced, and those amazing character actors are on stage. Unless your show can tie into Halloween trend stories, it’s going to be a tough time to make any impact.

November

November is like April, and very busy. Late October through November 2011 was simply horrible if you weren’t opening a major production. Plus you are battling the Thanksgiving holiday, when pretty much everyone speeds out of town. So unless your play is about Pilgrims, I’d just sit back and enjoy the pumpkin pie.

December

The remainders of November flow into early December, and now the press begins to cover the holiday-themed fare. If you have a holiday tie-in, it’s possible to get into trend stories and so forth. The week just before Christmas was actually quite nice in 2011–there wasn’t much opening so a few smaller shows were able to get some traction. I recall it being this way in 2010 as well. But it’s a tough time to get audience out . I also recommend going with something more lighthearted and comic during this month. It just seems to resonate better than the serious work.

OK, did I miss anything? What are your experiences opening during a certain time of year? Let me know in the comments!

To put it succinctly, it was a crap weekend for Hollywood. And while the pundits blame crappy reviews and lack of testosterone at the box office, I think there’s something a else at play that may be effecting your box office too.

It has to do with the economy, but this time, I am not talking about money. I am talking about time.

Eliminated jobs mean that the people left employed (and ostensibly those who still have available entertainment dollars) are working longer as they pick up the slack. Salary cuts, which many have faced, mean that people may be picking up part time jobs or freelance work to fill the financial hole.

I know I have no time right now. I haven’t had time to do any real holiday shopping, haven’t had time to clean up the house for guests, haven’t had time to do much of anything since I have a lot of work obligations right now. And I am sure I am not the only one.

I think people are more cautious about how they spend their time. Do they have two or three hours to spare to see a movie or a play? Will this be the best use of the one free evening that they may have in the week? Or would that three hours be better spent catching up on housework or having a long dinner with a friend?

People are now saying, hey, with less leisure hours, this time is as valuable as my work time (if not more so).

So how do you let new audiences know that their time spent with you is not time wasted? Maybe people will start paying attention to reviews again. But I still think word of mouth is the strongest driver. Your biggest advocate is your already loyal audience. How are you inviting them to tell their friends?

The story of Amanda Hocking's literary rise reads almost like The Little Engine That Could

I have been pretty transfixed by Amanda Hocking, the young woman who made a million bucks by self-publishing her ebooks and then landed a traditional publishing contract with an advance of double that amount.

If you read her backstory, she’s like the little engine that could. And she most certainly DID. On her blog, she is pretty open about how she got from working a minimum wage job to being the breakout story of the year in the literary world.

While Amanda’s story is unique, I am searching for the “ah ha” moment to extrapolate from it. She doesn’t owe it all to Twitter or Facebook — in fact she has said she is not very good at keeping up with either of those social networks. She mentions being involved in some online forums, but it sounds like she was in these forums well before she began selling her work.

There seem to be two things that she points to as instrumental for her success: her fans, and book bloggers.

Book bloggers. Not the New York Times Book Review. Not Kirkus.

Fans. The people who gave her 5 enthusiastic stars on Amazon, who gladly downloaded the next book in the series, who told all their friends about her, who left supportive messages on her blog.

And about that blog. It doesn’t have all the bells and whistles that the online marketers insist you need for success. It’s a Blogspot domain, with a generic design.

She’s very warm and completely approachable on her blog. Charmingly self-depracating. While she doesn’t respond to her fans in the comments, everything she writes is clearly for them. Often it’s pretty mundane.

She also includes a chapter of each of her books. It’s a little tease for the reader. She pulls the reader into the story. Then a link brings you to an Amazon page where you can purchase for less than a cup of coffee. She has taken away a lot of the risk people feel when trying something new.

Yes, her pricing is very low. Ninety-nine cents for the first book in a series, and then something like $2.50 for subsequent books in the same series. It’s a model that almost mimics the old dime store novels. A serialized story that is inexpensive enough for fans to keep on purchasing.

So what are our takeaways? Honestly, I am not so sure. It’s hard to excerpt a theater piece on a blog, and there are a few more barriers to entry than a link to an Amazon page. But I think the focus on the relationship with her fans is important, with the book bloggers running a close second.

So, guys, what’s your take on this?