Mooney on Theatre continued to grow in 2011 with the goal of bringing even more coverage of theatre playing in Toronto to our readers and I wanted to thank you for following along with us, and for those of you who are new, for joining in.

Last year we managed to provide full coverage of the Toronto Fringe Festival. In 2010 we had managed to cover all but 4 shows, unfortunately 4 shows were enough to make the statement “full coverage of the Fringe Festival” remain elusive. In 2011, thanks in no small part to an expanded editorial team, we can officially say we covered the whole festival. Since EYE is no longer in existence, we were also the only media outlet to do so. This made me incredibly proud of my writers and editors, and thankful to the readers who have told me time and time again how much they appreciated the information we provided.

I mentioned my editorial team. That was the biggest change in 2011, an expanded editorial team. There are now four of us, and it makes all the difference. I can’t begin to say how pleased I am with the work of my Managing Editor – Wayne Leung, and Assistant Editors Tiffany Budhyanto and Sonia Borkar.

This expanded team will also allow for opportunities for growth in the coming year. I’m excited and hope you’ll join us as we grow.

I’ll leave you with my favourite ever New Year’s wish. It’s from Neil Gaiman:

I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes.

Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You’re doing things you’ve never done before, and more importantly, you’re Doing Something.

So that’s my wish for you, and all of us, and my wish for myself. Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody’s ever made before. Don’t freeze, don’t stop, don’t worry that it isn’t good enough, or it isn’t perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you’re scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever.

So, please join us in the coming year, and follow along with our mistake-making.
All the best,

Megan Mooney
editor-in-chief
Mooney on Theatre

And what exactly is an Open Jam, you may ask? What this means is you could bring whatever artistic creation you are currently working on and share a work space with other members of the artistic community, may it be directors, writers or actors.

The Fringe’s two brand new studios at the Centre for Social Innovation Annex were open from 9am to 5pm for anyone to use as part of their creative process. The Neville Austin Studio (Neville’s Nook) is a multi-purpose space set up with tables, chairs, free Wi-Fi, paper, and rehearsal space. Studio B was set up as a break-out space to test out ideas on their feet or in privacy.

The Open Jam encouraged a wide variety of things, like playwrights wanting to hear their unfinished work out loud, or actors, producers and directors wanting to collaborate on new projects. Anyone interested in contributing to and/or observing the indie theatre community in action was encouraged to attend.

So I, first draft of script in hand, went to “jam.” Upon entering, I immediately found myself joining a script reading. A bunch of people, including the writer and a few actors, huddled together in a circle and listened to a brand new theatre piece. It was interesting to be able to give feedback on what worked and what didn’t, and the wide variety of people made for interesting takes on the script. People were quite constructive and positive in their feedback as well, which was encouraging.

This broke off into people working in smaller groups. Some actors rehearsed a Shakespearean scene, others put on headphones and began madly typing away on their own scripts. Others simply chatted over coffee. It was fascinating to watch.

Unfortunately, I never actually got around to testing out my work with actors, as I had intended. However, I certainly like the Open Jam idea, and think that more opportunities like this can only benefit the theatre community.

Details:
- The Fringe Creation Lab at the Centre for Social Innovation Annex, 720 Bathurst St, Suites 401-403
- Rental information regarding The Neville Austin Studio and Studio B can be found here: http://www.fringetoronto.com/artist_opp/creation_lab_book.html

The cast of Assassins

Assassins is back until February 13th at The Theatre Centre on Queen West. If you haven’t seen this production from Birdland Theatre and Talk is Free Theatre there’s still time. It’s been playing to sold-out houses so don;t leave it until the last minute, get your tickets and enjoy a fabulous night of theatre.

I loved it. I went because the Megan’s review of Assassins was so terrific. And then I went again because I loved it so much the first time. And loved it just as much the second time. I’d go a third time but I don’t want to hog the tickets. Fabulous cast, fabulous production.

Where were you when you heard that JFK had been assassinated?

My daughter said “…it must have made you think about where you were when you heard that Kennedy had been assassinated” And, of course, it did. I also realized that for Megan’s generation JFK is Kennedy. My generation witnessed the assassination of 2 Kennedys, President Kennedy in 1963 and his brother Robert (RFK) in 1968.

I had a very clear memory of hearing about President Kennedy’s death. I was living in Port Elizabeth (South Africa) and attending a Catholic girls’ school. It was first thing in the morning and class had barely started when the Mother Superior came into the classroom. We knew something had to be wrong, she never came into the classroom.

She walked to the front of the class, whispered something to the nun who was teaching us and handed her a note. She then went over to Debbie – whose father was the American Consul in Port Elizabeth – and asked her to come outside.

After they left Sister said ” I have some very sad news, President Kennedy has been shot and killed in Dallas” and then she started to cry. None of us had ever seen a nun cry. Somehow it added another level of seriousness to the news.

Here’s the thing, I don’t think it could have happened that way unless we had classes on Saturday. Kennedy was killed on a Friday – November 22, 1963 – at 12.30 pm central time. That’s 8.30 pm in Port Elizabeth. Debbie’s parents were away and she was boarding. I’m pretty sure there was no radio in the dorm. It makes sense that we didn;t hear the news until the next morning.

It’s Saturday morning that’s confusing. I remember sports at school on Saturday morning but I don’t remember classes. Did we have classes and I’ve just forgotten? Did I make this up and believe it for all these years?

Unless someone from my 1963 class at St Dominic’s Priory in Port Elizabeth somehow reads this and gets in touch with me to clarify, I’ll probably never know.

Details:

- Assassins is playing until February 13, 2011 at The Theatre Centre (100-1087 Queen Street West)
- Showtimes are Wednesday – Monday at 8 PM; Additional Matinees: Saturday and Sunday at 2 PM
- All tickets are $35 and available through Arts Box Office by phone at 416-504-7529, online at www.artsboxoffice.ca, in person, or at the door.
For more information please visit www.birdlandtheatre.com or www.tift.ca.

Note: Anything in italics is information I added to the article after it’s original publishing

Okay, so, I have put a question mark after the word controversy, because, really, although it might be viewed as a controversy, it really doesn’t seem like a make-or-break kind of thing, and I imagine pretty much no one outside of the theatre world knows of it’s existence.

Mostly I’m writing this as a response to the comments posted on Kelly Nestruck’s piece about all of this, but in case you haven’t been following, here’s some background…

First, Richard Ouzounian (theatre critic for the Toronto Star) wrote an article called “Revenge of the cool kids – Snub of Mirvish works by Dora Awards reflects badly on nominators, not plays ” on June 10. He touches on a few things in the article:

• The oft lamented issues with categories in the Doras calling it “One category fits all.”
• Issues he has with the voting process: “The general membership does not vote on the Doras. The same handful of people who make the nominations vote on the winners.”
• Lament the lack of ‘mainstream theatre’ involvement in the Dora nomination and voting process, citing this as the reason for the lack of Mirvish nominations: “You don’t send a vegan to review The Keg. … of the four remaining names I knew, two of them were resolutely from the world of alternative theatre. … Do you think anybody from the Establishment ever had a chance?”

Then, on Tuesday (June 22nd) Ouzounian wrote another piece called “Dissent Clouds Dora Awards“ Here he tells us that “two of Toronto’s largest arts organizations informed me of their decision to end their affiliation with the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts after this year’s Dora Awards.” telling us that “it seems revolution is the order of the day” There are other bits of theatre news in the article that aren’t related to the Doras.

TAPA, who administers the Dora Awards, published a response to these articles in a “communiqué” from their executive director – Jacoba Knaapen, and their Board President – Meredith Potter. I’m not positive what day they published it, because it doesn’t seem to be on the article, but I first ready it yesterday (June 24). Unsurprisingly, they basically called Ouzounian out on things published in his articles. The biggest being that they had not heard of any members looking to withdraw membership, and “to set the record straight, I spoke with Mirvish Productions yesterday and they very clearly expressed that they have absolutely no intention to withdraw their TAPA membership, which was insinuated in the most recent Toronto Star article.”

Enter Kelly Nestruck (Theatre Critic for the Globe and Mail). Nestruck published an article on his blog called “Dora Awards: Jurors are doin’ it for themselves” yesterday evening. He starts his piece with a line I quite love: “The Doras, which allegedly honour the best in Toronto theatre, are always a little controversial. As they should be. Part of what makes arts awards worthwhile is the debate they create.” Ironically, I think that statement has gotten lost in the “controversy” of his words.

He touches on several things in the piece, but the one that seems to have caught the ire of the theatre community is this:

“There are no rules forbidding jurors from voting for their own work. Yes, to repeat, there is nothing stopping Dora jurors from nominating shows or artists from shows that they were personally involved in. They can nominate them, they can vote for them and they can try to convince other jurors to vote for them. And, precisely because of the weighted ballot system, a single jury member can hold a lot of sway.”

It wasn’t Nestruck’s article that prompted me to write about this issue, but rather, the reaction people have had to his article. People seem to have taken his words as attacks on specific jurors, or even as a slight to artists motives in general. It seemed like an awful lot of intent to take away from a relatively short piece.

I admit that I don’t know the Dora processes in and out, and really don’t feel comfortable commenting on them with any sense of authoritative knowledge, but based on what I have read throughout this ‘controversy’ I will write about my take on the ‘conflict of interest’ issue. (yeah, 700 words in, and I’m finally getting to my point of view…)

There are people in the comments section of Nestruck’s piece who seem to think that this article was attacking or blaming certain people. I have to say, I don’t see that. It’s a shame that was how some people perceived the words. It wasn’t my perception of what Nestruck was saying.

In fact, as I see it, Nestruck took the time to point out that this isn’t actually about the specific jurors that he named for illustrative purposes (because, otherwise it would just sound like a ‘what if there were jurors who were related to nominations’ instead of stating that it is the case) and that if they voted for those productions they did so “because they believed in the quality of the work they were involved in.” He explicitly said “The problem here is with the Dora rules.”

It’s not about whether or not the jurors are biased towards their own work (everyone is biased in some direction, the is no such thing as “objective”), but rather about the *perception* of bias. Perception is reality. What influences people is their perception of what’s happening, not the actual fact of what is happening.

With that in mind, I have to say, I find it odd that there aren’t rules in existence to address conflict of interest. The theatre community is a small tight one, there will *always* be conflicts of interest, and it only makes sense to acknowledge them. It doesn’t mean you have to eliminate them, just address them in some way.

How they’re addressed, well, that’s up to someone else to decide (my bets would be on a committee). It could be abstention from a category, or abstention from the discussions in that category, or, no doubt, any other number of things. Just something that would remove the *perception* of undue influence.

I stand corrected, apparently there is a process in place. It would appear that there is in fact a process that addresses conflicts of interest. Apparently jurors declare their conflict of interest and leave the room during the discussion. So, my comments were in error, and I’m happy to have been corrected. More details at the bottom of the article.

The truth is, if I were on the jury and I had a piece nominated, I would want to have those rules in place so that no one could say “oh yeah, well, Megan’s piece got it just because she was on the jury, so she could talk it up to the others”.

As for the dismay some people have about names being named, it’s not as though Nestruck is leaking any big secret here, all you need to do is look at the nominees and look at the jurors and you can see the connections. Just because there are connections, it doesn’t mean there is blame. Okay, I’m withdrawing this because on sober second thought I realised that if I am saying that perception is reality in the rest of the piece, then I can’t suddenly turn around and say ignore it in another part.

________________________

UPDATE:

(June 26, 2010) So, in the comments on Nestruck’s article Jacoba Knaapen (the aforementioned Executive Director of TAPA, the organization that administers the Doras) provided some clarification. It would appear that there is in fact a process that addresses conflicts of interest. Jacoba says: “The Dora jurors meet to discuss shows twice a year and when they do, they declare an official conflict of interest and leave the room (similar to some government granting peer adjudication juries). “

That’s enough for me. It acknowledges and addresses the perception.

And I want to reiterate that what I am talking about is the *perception* of unfair advantages, it’s not that I think that untoward things are happening. In fact, I imagine that many people would over compensate for the fact that they are involved in a work and treat it more harshly than others. It’s like teachers who have their own child in their class. I had a friend where this was the case in high school. Her dad always marked her harder than the others because he was afraid people would think she was getting special treatment.

Should Toronto theatres be producing edgier content given current economic realities?

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has a great article by Sally Kalson about taking risks in the arts during challenging economic times.

Here’s an excerpt, a quote from Michael Kaiser (president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C.) as part of his Arts in Crisis project.

“Too many groups have reacted to the economy by cutting programming and marketing, which is suicide. It cuts the size of your family. Or they do more ‘accessible’ things that are boring and less interesting to donors and audiences. What they should be doing is riskier, exciting programs, if not now then three, four or five years down the road.

“I do all my arts planning five years ahead,” he said. “It gives me time to find the money and educate audiences to want to see the work.”

Take a minute to go read the whole article at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a good read, and it’s poking my brain awake. Wondering what all that poking has resulted in? Well, let me tell you…

I like the idea. I certainly feel some affinity for the idea that if you offer people new and interesting things, then they’re more likely to come see them. I don’t want to see artists pulling back. I also don’t think they should change their mandate to include edgier work in hopes of bringing in more audience members.

I suppose what I’m saying here is that I don’t think this is a time to change mandates. If you are doing something because you love it, because you feel it’s what you are meant to do, then keep doing it. It doesn’t matter what the economic situation is. If you’re edgy, be edgy. If you’re classical, be classical.

An audience member isn’t going to be less likely to spend their money on something edgy because there is less money to go around. If they are someone who likes edgy, they’re still gonna spend on edgy. If they’re someone who likes traditional, they’re going to spend on traditional.

Now, most definitely things will need to change when we’re hit by an economic downturn. Or upturn for that matter. As the environment changes, the things within the environment must adapt to the changes, including theatre companies. But the change shouldn’t be with your programming. They should be about letting people know what you have to offer. About how to get potential audiences into your performance space, where you present the work you’re passionate about.

If I were running a theatre company right now I’d be looking at my outreach, my marketing, and my publicity. I’d be trying to innovate in those areas, not switch up my programming.

Of course, this goes towards the eternal, and never definitively answered question “how do we get more bums in seats?” I suspect it’s never definitively answered because there is no definitive answer.

Some part of the answer though, has to be “do what you’re passionate about.” If you’re not loving it, people aren’t gonna want to come see you do it. Passion is infectious, and obvious.

 Tip o’ the hat to 2am Theatre for the link to the article via their twitter @2amt

Long title, isn’t it?

I saw Theory by Norman Yeung, a wonderful staged reading, on Saturday as part of The New Ideas Festival at Alumnae Theatre. I didn’t go planning to review it but it was so terrific that I decided to write about it – and about staged readings.

Theory is a beautifully written play about a film course, a professor, her students, technology, new media, and privacy. There wasn’t really a set. There were chairs for the actors and for the person who read the stage directions. Each of the actors had a script and read from it. They read as if they were performing, not as if they were reading. It really is like a radio play.

You may be asking yourself “what is a staged reading?”

That’s what I asked my daughter on Friday. She reminded me (I suspect with an eyeroll but we were in the car and I couldn’t tell for sure) that I had actually been to one a few years ago – and loved it! Except I thought it was called a reading and I didn’t even realize that until afterwards. During the performance – if a reading is a performance – I just thought it was a really cool way to do a play. It let my imagination run wild, sort of like watching radio drama.

A staged reading is the same as a reading.

It gives the playwright an opportunity to put his or her work in front of an audience, to see how the audience reacts, and to get feedback. I think it’s fairly far along in the creative process and that the next logical step is to do some refining – if needed – and then mount a production of the play.

I hope that Theory is produced soon. I’m really looking forward to seeing it.

In the meantime there are two more staged reading as part of The New Ideas Festival:

• THE FLYING AVRO ARROW – A Musical Comedy by Doug Warwick • Directed by Nonnie Griffin
  Saturday Reading at Noon – March 20
• WEIGHTLESS by Kelsey Blair • Directed by Ramona Gilmour-Darling
  Saturday Reading at Noon – March 27

Both are pay what you can. There was a full house on Saturday so don’t wait til the last minute, you might not get a seat.

One caveat about staged readings

If you think that going to the theatre could be a bit intimidating – or a lot intimidating – the intimidation potential of a staged reading is quite high. They tend to be in small spaces – the capacity at the Alumnae Theatre Studio is 80 people – and they tend to attract a lot of theatre people. And that can be unnerving. Theatre people tend to be flamboyant, all know each other, and hug and kiss and talk loudly. At least that’s the way it can seem.

Three years ago I probably wouldn’t have gone to a staged reading on my own. But now, it’s fine. Anyone can do it.

If you’d like to go to one of the reading and don’t really want to go alone you’re welcome to come with me.  Email me and we’ll set something up.

Details:

-Staged Readings, Week Two and Week Three, The New Ideas Festival, Alumnae Theatre (70 Berkeley St)
-Saturday March 20 and Saturday March 27 at noon
-PWC
-Tickets at the box office

I think that the best way to be introduced to theatre is through a subscription series.  It sounds intimidating, I mean, that’s a big commitment, right?

But there are lots of benefits. 

The first is that the best way to appreciate theatre is to see lots of it.  If you don’t like it at first, keep trying for a bit, it may grow on you.

Of course, the problem with that is, it’s hard to motivate yourself to go again if you didn’t love it the first time.  If you have a subscription series, well, you’ve already made the investment, you’re FAR more likely to go.

In fact, that goes for even if you enjoyed it.  Sometimes it’s hard to make time to do stuff, even (especially?) if it’s stuff we like.

Also, a season is chosen, a lot of thought goes into what shows will be performed.  So, you’re not seeing a random selection of shows, you’re seeing a collection of shows that someone has chosen specifically to show together.  It’s like a curated visual art show.  Each piece is great on it’s own, but seeing a seeing it with a selection of other pieces in a gallery changes how you see it.  I guess you could say that the whole changes how you see the individual.

And then, of course, there’s the fact that you’re saving money on a per show basis.

So, whether you’re new to the world of theatre, want to introduce someone to the world of theatre, or like theatre already, I’m a big believer in the concept of a subscription series.

In fact, one of my most memorable theatre experiences was after I’d been away from the theatre for a while.  Theatre Passe Muraille was running a series called Stage3.  It was great.  So much theatre, in a quite tight timeline.  Once a week if I remember correctly.  Even though I’ve always loved theatre, this changed the way I saw theatre.  It was a really incredible experience.

Why is this coming up now?  Well, I’m going to start a series of posts next week where I give you some background on current subscriptions available.  It will culminate with some (as of yet undetermined) form of compare/contrast to help folks decide what series is the one for them.

Stay tuned!

And, I’d love to hear what you’re looking forward to in the coming season, so drop me a line in the comments and let me know!

So, a lot of you have come here because of Fringe, which means you may not know the background and philosophy.  And, this is actually kind of a weird time to bring it up, except that I will soon be posting a ‘2nd Opinion Review’ and I figure it might help to have some context.

One of the core tenets of Mooney on Theatre (MoT) is that everyone’s opinion is just that.  Opinion.  There is no authoritative source on what is good and what is bad, what is quality and what is schlock.  There is only ‘what I liked’ and ‘what I didn’t like’ – which, clearly, is going to vary from person to person.

Here at MoT we express our unique opinions, which can certainly can be unique within the group of authors.  Just because a review is posted on MoT it doesn’t mean it reflects the opinions of the writers, just the opinion of *that* writer.

How someone sees a piece of theatre (or anything else, really) is effected by their experiences.  This isn’t limited to their experiences with theatre, but includes their everyday life experiences too.  Although all the experiences of the writers are relevant, that’s just WAY too big a topic to address, so I’ll tell you a bit about the experience with theatre.  We have writers who have experience in theatre recreationally, who are in the theatre industry, have an educational background in theatre, and who have no theatre background whatsoever.

The opinions of all of them are important to me.  I think it’s important to know what someone without a theatre background thinks of a show, since that’s the type of person I would love to court when it comes to the age old ‘bums in seats’ thing.  I feel like focusing on people with a theatre background is kind of like preaching to the choir, those people are already likely to be checking out what’s playing about town.

The key for me is that the writing on Mooney on Theatre include a flavour of the piece.  Not a focus on what the play is about, but rather, what the play feels like.*  Obviously this is going to include the writer’s opinion, but hopefully it will also include enough information for readers to make up their own mind about whether or not it seems like something they may enjoy. 

Sometimes it’s a challenge for me to keep theatre jargon out of the review because I’m a hard-core theatre-geek, but I do try.  For me it’s FAR more important that the comments be accessible to a wide audience.  Placing a show within the broader context of theatre theory is not important to me.  Like I said, it’s about giving a flavour.

What this means is each writer on Mooney on Theatre owns their own opinion.  No one on the site is expected to ‘tow-the-line’.  It is completely understood that opinions are personal, and that as such they will differ from person to person.  Which means they can be challenged.

This brings us to the ‘2nd Opinion Review’ option.  Given the format of Mooney on Theatre, I am totally fine with a company asking for a second opinion review.  As long as they understand that it may mean they have two negative reviews on the site instead of one, and that, if the second review is positive, it will not replace the previous review, that one will stay posted, then I’m game.

If someone asks, I will do my best to oblige.  Since I am the editor, as long as I was not the original reviewer, I will try to take on the ‘2nd Opinion Review’ myself.

There you have it, the story behind a ‘2nd Opinion Review’.  I know it may be a bit weird, but frankly, so am I.  It’s one of my many lovable qualities.

* Some of this may not be as evident during Fringe, because there is so little time to cram in so many shows.  But we still do our best.

This article by Kris Joseph makes my heart sing.  It says all the things I have been trying to say for ages, but in such a great clear way, with excellent examples.

Thank you to Kris Joseph (@krisjoseph)for this, and thank you to Simon Ogden (@thenextstagemag) for pointing me to the article.

So, to reiterate…

GO READ THIS ARTICLE

Here are some excerpts:

In the last several months there have been several high-profile examples of actors getting annoyed at audience behaviour: … there are tales all over the internets that bemoan the lack of etiquette of theatre patrons.

Hey. Actors. Suck it up.

…

My brain cannot reconcile the fact that the theatre community moans and wails about the decline in audience numbers while simultaneously waxing sanctimonius about the lack of audience members who exhibit ‘proper’ behaviour.

…

those who do not normally attend the theatre. These are the only people, by definiton, that can grow the theatrical audience.  And these patrons, in large part, are unaware of theatrical etiquette.  How dare we expect them to know all the rules?

…

re you annoyed that the audience isn’t paying attention to you? Work harder. Your job is to make them pay attention. It is hard for me, sometimes, to keep from getting annoyed at audience distractions, but I am training myself to think that such occurences represent the behaviour of someone I want to see again in the audience.  For the umpteenth time on this blog, I reiterate: our job is to serve the audience… NOT the other way around.

This is a re-post of an article I wrote after the 2008 Fringe, but it seemed worth repeating, *before* Fringe this time. I’ve done some editing and additions in this version, but it is still based on the post from last year.

After going to many many many Fringe shows at the Toronto Fringe Festival I’ve noticed some challenges that seem common among Fringe productions. I thought I’d share some observations and hopefully impart some useful advice. Or, you know, annoy people. Whichever…

This isn’t going to be about how to cast, or rehearse for a space you don’t know, or anything like that. It’s going to cover length, show descriptions and promotion, all from the perspective of an audience member.

Show length
Most Fringe shows run around the 60 minute mark with no intermission, but there is no hard and fast rule. But here’s the thing to remember, it doesn’t HAVE to be an hour.

I saw too many shows that should have been shorter. It’s always important to have every moment in a play be there for a reason, but in Fringe this is doubly important. Many people are going to several shows in a row, so, not only will your show be being compared to others, but it also means that their time is precious.

If you don’t have enough material to fill an hour, that’s just fine, run the show for half an hour. A perfect example of this was A Girl Named Ralph, it ran around 35 minutes and was great. It left me wanting more, which is way better than leaving me wishing I could get out of the theatre earlier.

Show description
Make sure your show description tells the audience what they’re in for. That was you get the people that want to see that type of work attending, and the people who don’t will stay away, so the word of mouth that gets sent around is way more likely to be good.

I realise that a lot of people apply for Fringe based on a play title alone and hastily write plays when they find out they’ve gotten in. This, of course, means that the description may not be the most accurate thing in the world, since it would have been written before the play. If this is the case then your press release is key, as are your posters, and the little flyers you hand out to people in line. It is VITAL that you make the descriptions of these accurate. Do everything in your power to get the most up-to-date information out there – make it accurate and specific, let people know what they’re getting into.

Also, it’s not just about getting the right audience, it’s also about how they will enjoy the show. So, for instance, The Mom and Pop Shop was good, but very much on the stand-up comedy side of things. I was expecting, well, I’m not sure what, but not stand-up, so I didn’t enjoy it as much as I would have if I knew I was going to stand-up. A quick line in the description that said something like “this cross between stand-up comedy and a one-man show explores…” Or, Wild About Harry, which was really just a concert of music, but I went in expecting a musical, a story, a plot line. Again, I would have enjoyed it more if I wasn’t expecting something different.

Promoting yourself
Okay, if we’re taking the Toronto Fringe as an example, people attending the festival had almost 150 shows to choose from in 2008. Something has to set you apart, and that’s going to be your promotion.

During the Fringe creating “buzz” around your show is very important. At the 2008 Toronto Fringe Festival, Gemma Wilcox promoted her show The Honeymoon Period is Officially Over by attaching a big sign to her backpack, so wherever she went around town, people knew she had a show.

It’s a good conversation starter, and here’s the truth, people you talk to are more likely to come to your show because there is a personal connection to it. So, if you manage to talk to 50 people and 30 of them go to the show, and 20 of them really like it, those 20 will likely tell others, who will tell others and so on. So, you talking to 50 people may translate to 1000 people coming to the show over the course of 5 shows. And that’s not including the folks who are just coming based on the program.

Also, be sure to check out what else is going on with the Fringe festival you’re attending. There will no doubt be a publicist, pick up the phone and ask them for a lay of the land. There’s all the normal media stuff, sending out press releases etc., but ask them about other things.

In Toronto Eye Weekly did coverage of all the shows, with areas for reader comments, and so did NOW. In fact, the Toronto Star had coverage you can comment on. So, find out where these things exist, and then, at the end of the show when you thank your audience, don’t just say thanks and ask them to tell folks if they liked it, ask them to go online at one of these sites and comment about the show in the show write-up section.

For bonus points (I know this is unlikely, but it’s worth mentioning) you could even print up little flyers with the URLs of the pertinent sites on it (and, of course, the URL to your own website) and let people know they’re available at the stage or on a table on the way out. Also, include these URLs on the front page of your own site while you’re at the Toronto Fringe.

Websites are important
If you don’t have a website, get one. You don’t have to have a fancy design, just content. Don’t rely on Facebook, I know it’s hard to believe, but there are actually people who don’t Facebook, and those people can’t get the information. The easiest way to make a quick and easy website for free is use a blog. The most common place for that is blogger. You don’t even need pictures. Just a quick flavour of the show as a write-up, and the information of when and where to see the show. In this day and age a website is pretty vital. A lot of people get their info that way.

One last thing – from the perspective of media (well, me as media anyway)
Please, please, please, in your press kit, don’t give me a CD with your images. Put them on a website, I don’t care if it’s just on flickr, give me the link, I’ll go there. I just want to be able to download them, I don’t want to have to sort through 40 CDs from 40 shows to find images.

In case I’m an outlier on this (although I doubt I am) you can make it an option, have a few CDs of images available at the box office. Let people know it’s an option, but don’t automatically include it in your kit. The bonus in doing this is that less CDs means lower costs, and a URL is far friendlier to the environment than a plastic disk in a plastic case.

******

Late-breaking added information based on my experience today (Sat, June 20, 2009) of trying to set up postings from press releases from companies with Fringe shows.

Include the word “Fringe” in your subject line. Otherwise it will be missed when I go back and do a search based on the word “fringe” in order to start posting announcements.

It’s very important that you make your press release copy-and-paste friendly. This includes putting your URLs in a format that will automatically create links, that means include the http:// in front of the address.

Once you’ve written your email, copy and paste it into notepad, or some kind of straight text editor (NOT a word processor). If it is still clear and readable you’re good to go. If it looks weird and scrambled, well, you have an issue.

As a media person we’re dealing with hundreds of press releases and requests. If you don’t make it easy for us, we’re more likely to ignore you. I am not going to invest time in fixing over a hundred press releases, so if it doesn’t work, you’re likely to not get posted.

Also, think about what order you want to put your press release in. I have been getting several press releases where the times are at the front of the release. Personally, my take on this is, let the people find out what the show is and if it’s something they might be interested in before you tell them when and where to see it. People expect those details at the end and will be willing to scroll down to see them, but if there is only ‘teaser text’ and then a click to the rest of the article, when you’re show is playing isn’t likely to whet the reader’s appetite.

Oh, and something that most people will already know, but apparently not everyone does… Good practice dictates that when you’re sending an email to a large group, you should blind copy the participants.

*******

The bottom line
Far too often promotion ends up being the last priority for people putting on shows, but it’s actually one of the most important things. You could have the best show in the world, but if no one knows about it, well, it doesn’t matter.

You need an audience if you’re going to at the very least recoup the $700 entry fee into Fringe, and at very best make a profit, make a name for yourself, build a reputation, and be successful enough that you end up with a show like ‘da kink in my hair that followed a path starting with Fringe that made it’s way to Mirvish (not to mention the television show).

So, no matter how pressed for time you are, find a way to do a bit of publicity. Beg help from friends, hire someone, find a student intern who wants some experience, ask your parents to help you, I don’t care how you get it done, but don’t neglect the publicity side of things, it’s almost as important to success as the quality of your show.

I think that brings this to a close for now. If you have any comments or questions, or, if you’re an audience member who has some additional tips, I’d love to hear from you in the comments.