NYCB's new approach to scheduling

[Dale]

New York City Ballet has replaced its old mixed scheduling with a new one in which the same program ballet for ballet is repeated throughout the season. It's described in a NY Times article and will be released on its revamped website - nycballet.com - on Tuesday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/arts/dan...r=1&oref=slogin

What do you think? (I tried creating a poll, but failed) Do you like the old scheduling format or the new?

[Alexandra]

Ouch. This was a huge part of NYCB's identity. I think the Royal Ballet (under Stretton) tried programs "with catchy titles" and quickly became un-catchy. Remember its "Heritage Evening," with three lyrical ballets "for the older audience" and three New Now Ballets for "the young people we would rather have" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)

I liked Peter Boal's take on it (he's quoted in the article in Dale's link.)

[Leigh Witchel]

I'll give them a season to see how it works in actuality instead of theory. If the ballets are better performed and rehearsed because of it, then fine.

[Helene]

The advantage of programming one program at a time is that the focus of rehearsals and performances is on a fixed and limited set of works (the current and the next), which makes the performances that much sharper. Looking at the NYCB schedule, the programs are intermingled. I'm not sure how that will help to make the ballets better rehearsed.

Working on the calendar, I can see that there is definitely a marketing trend to create catchy titles, but the only ones that don't make me roll my eyes are "Director's Choice" and "All-Balanchine". Luckily most of Petipa is full-length ballets, which are immune to marketing titles.

[drb]

I was all set to hate the idea, then looked up my schedule (you must be registered):

January 12 - The Sleeping Beauty

The Sleeping Beauty

Approximate performance conclusion time: 10:30 pm

January 26 - Tradition and Innovation

Mozartiana

In Vento

Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2

Approximate performance conclusion time: 10:30 pm

February 9 - Contemporary Quartet

Carousel (A Dance)

Intermezzo

Slice to Sharp

Friandises

Approximate performance conclusion time: 10:35 pm

February 23 - For the Fun of It

Circus Polka

Walpurgisnacht Ballet

Jeu de Cartes

Firebird

Approximate performance conclusion time: 10:15 pm

Only one junk ballet on the whole list. The trick is that they are starting this system with a lot more high-voltage Mr. B. than they gave last seaason: for last year's rep it would have been a nightmare. So I think people will be relatively happy this year, but not because of the new system. In statistics this is known as confounding: an unethical trick to make a desired response come through. Of course I've only looked at a few other series so far.

Here is a problematic program:

Serenade

Dybbuk (Major Revival)

Stravinsky Violin Concerto

Two I'd want to see frequently, but in the middle of this tasty doughnut not just a hole, a rock. Perhaps they could set up extra chairs on the promenade and play old Suzanne Farrell vids for escapees. Or specifically permute programs so that 2 out of 3 times the dog would be first or last. Of course this specific example is particular to my taste, but there will be others...

"Single-ticket sales were flat from 2001 to 2003. After a spike for the 2004 Balanchine centenary, they remained higher in 2005 but declined slightly last year." For the decline, check the Balanchine rep. The only Big Gun (Quality + Popularity) was Symphony in C over and over and over. And Ashley Bouder was out. With this year's long list of Masterpieces last year wouldn't have gone down.

[cargill]

Oh dear! I had missed the article, and I think it smacks of desperation. Why they think this is the only way to attract a new audience is beyond me. I think it might make for some boring programming--all black and white ballets, all chiffon ballets (Robbins!), etc. Though I would probably be up for an Old Fogey evening. Mary

[drb]

http://www.nycballet.com/ticketing_info/su...r1_TSMenuID=246

Here's the site's illustrated list of programs. I had to log in to get to it, so I hope it works.

As you can see, the greatest Balanchine lineup since forever.

[Farrell Fan]

Because for some forty years I've had three NYCB subscriptions, there's always been a lot of repetition in my attendance at NYCB. But the programs (except for the full-evening works) were seldom, if ever, exact duplicates, and, despite my old fogey status, it was interesting to see the same works in different contexts. This will no longer be possible under the new system. It remains to be seen whether this is basically a copywriting gimmick or if it will make a difference in the quality of the performances. As a former copywriter, I tend toward the former view. The quote from Peter Martins in the Times is not reassuring in this respect. "It's an attempt to sort of be relevant to today's market, addressing today's audiences and their needs." That statement sort of makes me cringe.

[Leigh Witchel]

One thing the mix and match approach allowed was also avoidance. With this system, if you want to see Mozartiana you have to see In Vento, and so on.

[kfw]

The quote from Peter Martins in the Times is not reassuring in this respect. "It's an attempt to sort of be relevant to today's market, addressing today's audiences and their needs."

What about the "needs" of serious out-of-town ballet fans? I suppose we're a relatively small market, but I've often come into town for 5-6 performances at a time. They'll see me less often now.

[papeetepatrick]

Oh dear! I had missed the article, and I think it smacks of desperation. Why they think this is the only way to attract a new audience is beyond me.

I agree, but I don't imagine it will have much effect at all. If they are desperate, this is probably a way to lose some older sophisticated audience, but not 'sell-out' and vulgar enough to get people who might come if they thought they were going to get more popularized stuff a la ABT. Even if NYCB got a modest boost (from whatever technique), the old days of not having to be flashy are probably over (and this they would not be able to ever do as well as ABT, because they don't have the years of aiming toward that.)

[carbro]

The quote from Peter Martins in the Times is not reassuring in this respect. "It's an attempt to sort of be relevant to today's market, addressing today's audiences and their needs." That statement sort of makes me cringe.

Me, too. Why, in ballet (opera, music and other non-verbal media) is relevance relevant?

[ami1436]

This is interesting, because the Royal Ballet has (very very very slowly and minimally, but nonetheless more noticeable this past season) recently started doing a bit more of 'mix and match' with a bit less of 'theme nights', apparently inspired by NYCB. I, as others above, enjoyed seeing some of the ballets in different contexts, and many were happy for the chance at avoidance....

[bart]

It seems like "market relevance" -- which in this context refers to how you sell tickets rather than to the content of the ballets -- is esssential if you want to stay in business.

For multiple subscribers, as Farrell Fan says, this is not a good thing. Nor will it benefit people like kfw who come to town for the week to attend performances at NYCB. However, as the director of the company, Martins has to balance a number of economic factors, and seems to have given much thought to this based on analysing market research. For instance, the decline of the loyal (in my case, knee-jerk) subscription renewer is happening everwhere, in all the classiscal arts. "New" subscribers are alarmingly small in number. Several posts on BT during the spring season referred to the high percentage of empty seats at many performances.

TIMES ARTICLE: Mr. Martins said City Ballet was responding to hard facts about ticket-buying patterns. Sales of subscriptions are down and single-ticket sales are on the rise, he said, and the results of market research on how to improve the company’s appeal suggested that a system of rotating, themed evenings would help.

Company figures show that subscription sales for the winter season have dropped steadily, to 55,868 this year from 68,168 in 2001. Single-ticket sales were flat from 2001 to 2003. After a spike for the 2004 Balanchine centenary, they remained higher in 2005 but declined slightly last year.

Then there's the need to attract a new audience (especially a younger audience). This has been a frequent topic on BT. Martins addresses this as well:

TIMES: Rotating themed programs will especially help bring newcomers to ballet, the company said. “It’s about giving them context, the audiences, to really explain to them, ‘If you buy this program, this is what you will see,’ ” Mr. Martins said. He acknowledged that there was a looseness to the groupings. The program “For the Fun of It,” for example, consists of Jerome Robbins’s “Circus Polka,” Balanchine’s “Walpurgisnacht Ballet,” Mr. Martins’s “Jeu de Cartes” and “Firebird” by Balanchine and Robbins.

“You try to find some sort of catchy phrase that will appeal to people,” he said. “It’s no secret that marketing’s on everybody’s mind these days, and you have to complete with a whole slew of competitors.”

There is also an attempt to address the needs of the dancers, something that has been discusssed often and passionately on BT:'

TIMES: Mr. Martins said the new model would also help dancers by making their seasons more predictable, spreading out their workload and possibly reducing injuries.

Sounds like Martins may actually have been reading the NYCB thread on Ballet Talk.

Of the two companies that do subscription seasons in my city -- MCB and Ballet Florida -- only Ballet Florida has taken this route of creating "theme" programs under the umbrella of supposedly catchy titles. I feel that BF's programming (the the balance and synergy of ballets on each distinct program) has actually become more effective since they've done this. However, the titles chosen -- such as "Dazzling and Dynamic" and "Vibrant Virtuosity" -- are much inferior to those chosen by NYCB, which seem to focus on elucidating content rather than on telling you in a meaningless way how you're supposed to feel as you watch the dancing..

On the whole, there seems to be much to praise in the new direction. I wish them great luck with it.

[Helene]

As you can see, the greatest Balanchine lineup since forever.

If the season is a hit or a flop, how do they know whether it's due to programming a strong Balanchine season or due to the new programming approach? If ticket sales remain flat, how do they know if the programs themselves and the approach to programming have offset each other among ticket buyer preferences? (My old direct marketing hat has freed itself from its mothballs...)

[dirac]

One thing the mix and match approach allowed was also avoidance. With this system, if you want to see Mozartiana you have to see In Vento, and so on.

Yes, with this kind of programming there's no escape except walking out, as I've had to do here in S.F. on occasion.

[bart]

One negative is that the company might become frozen into its new format and find it difficult to respond to new developments as the season unfolds.

For example, during the '57-'58 season Kirstein was able to add six additional performances of Agon as a result of its unexpected popularity -- at a time when NYCB had many fewer performances than today. (Source: Stephen Walsh, vol. Ii of his biography of Stravinsky) Would such a flexibility be possible today?

One of these performances was an all-Stravinsky charity evening during which Agon, Orpheus, Apollo, AND Firebird were performed.

[beck_hen]

Noooo! I'm even a newbie to NYCB, but I loved the mix and match approach. It felt so spontaneous: a gigantic smorgasbord of ballet, the kind of thing that could only happen in New York.

To me, theme says cheesy (and can be either a stretch or lead to unbalanced programs). I could understand them introducing several such programs for outreach purposes, but would prefer it not be everything. I wish American companies would fill the "educational" gap by copying the Royal Ballet's Insight Evenings. The New York Philharmonic has some basic, accessible series for newcomers but also more esoteric offerings for others. I find this programming condescending to a balletomane; I like to see more than one cast in a ballet but I get tired of identical programming.

[sz]

What this strategy is trying to fix, I think, is the declining subscription sales at NYCB.

After reading the article and looking at the full schedule of programs currently set for Jan. 2 through Feb. 25, my guess is that this idea is probably geared towards improving those sales. If you look at all the programs for, say, subscription night of Wednesdays alone, not one program repeats on Wednesdays from Jan. 3 through Feb. 21, except that you'll see Sleeping Beauty twice because it runs for two weeks in a row. Ditto every other day of the week, even Saturday matinees.

This upcoming Winter season looks more like a Spring season minus the rhinestones... Sleeping Beauty in January?! Another strategy?... Might NYCB be trying to beat ABT for audiences craving that story ballet? NYCB will be performing a lot of SBs before ABT brings theirs to the Met.

It is so good to see a season filled with lots of Balanchine again! If only we'd get to enjoy more Sym in Cs, Brahms, Diverts, and Jewels again....instead of Dybbuk!!!! Then again, NYCB would definitely need more principals...

[drb]

ABT has theme programming at the Met. So successful that they were down to one last year. ABT has mix & match in their all mixed-bill City Center season. And it sells. So ABT copied the old NYCB method for City Center, and now NYCB copies ABT's Met idea.

Sales will be up because there are so many more great ballets this winter, plus the three Diamond Project hits. No doubt credit will go to the easy marketing scheme. More initial sales, but fewer repeats? Perhaps they should have tried the Quality gimmick first...

[Helene]

This has got to make the subscription programming puzzle much easier. In the past, with all of the combinations of programs, the company had to figure out how not to repeat any given ballet on a given series (and to account for people who bought both Tuesday or both Saturday matinee subscriptions), and how to distribute the premieres equally.

If you have 9 weeks and 11 programs, it makes it that much easier to schedule subscription series. You don't have to worry that Ballo della Regina, for example, is played on two Tuesdays, even though the rest of the program is different.

It also may make it easier for the technical teams to plan how to hang and light a night of ballet, perhaps reducing overtime costs, or at least reduce the amount of planning.

[richard53dog]

Yes, with this kind of programming there's no escape except walking out, as I've had to do here in S.F. on occasion.

Yeah, I've used that a lot . But it only works real well when you are trying to avoid the LAST piece on the program. An unwanted MIDDLE piece (drb's donut analogy is good) is reaaalll messy.

Richard

[carbro]

When the clunker is the opener, it works pretty neatly, too, in terms of convenience. But it doesn't make for much of a protest.

I wish I could believe the themes had real meaning. The first season, it's probably fairly easy to program this way, but does Firebird really belong on a program titled "Just for Fun"?

I wonder how long the experimentation will last. If it sells well when the Balanchine quotient is large and of especially high quality and that brings the B'chiners out in droves, what is proved? Will people become new subscribers in the spring solely to ensure tickets to the new R&J? Will they renew in the winter? All this has to be figured with a whole bunch of other variables.

I don't like the new system, but if it helps keep the books in balance, I suppose I'll resign myself too it -- as if I'd have a choice.

[papeetepatrick]

The first season, it's probably fairly easy to program this way, but does Firebird really belong on a program titled "Just for Fun"?

Oh, that's just horrible. 'Mozart's Greatest Hits' made all this inevitable though. Now that I think about it, 'Just for Fun' is sickening even if it was all square dances, union jacks, stars and stripes and tin soldiers. Now, if they'd make a ballet called 'Longines Symphonette', well maybe; but what next, 'Steps for the Golden Hours?' for yet another evening of longed-for nostalgia?

[kfw]

Mozart's Greatest Hits' made all this inevitable though. Now that I think about it, 'Just for Fun' is sickening even if it was all square dances, union jacks, stars and stripes and tin soldiers.

Sickening it is. carbro asks the great question of why "relevance" is relevant in ballet. And why oh why are tacky labels relevant?