Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

NYC Ballet PricesAudience Member Goes on Strike


  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#61 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:10 AM

I wouldn't be so hard on Parker, even with that statement. Her position may be low-effort, but it's similar to a "rainmaker" in a law firm; I assume she attracts attention and money.

#62 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,349 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:25 AM

I wouldn't be so hard on Parker, even with that statement. Her position may be low-effort, but it's similar to a "rainmaker" in a law firm; I assume she attracts attention and money.

This. It's a great deal for both of them.

#63 puppytreats

puppytreats

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:46 AM

I like SJP. (She kissed Misha on SATC and introduced the NYCB Workout, after all! And what a personality!) I have nothing wrong with her affiliation with the company or her position on the board of directors. But as a director, she exposes herself to liability if she does not perform her fiduciary duties, and she exposes the company to harm. I certainly would not publicly make such a comment, either. If she wants to be on the board, then she has legal obligations. If she wants to just support the company without the burden of board duties, she could have other roles. I think some people on this board could contribute much to the board of directors even if they lack financial resources. Maybe I am hopelessly naive....

#64 abatt

abatt

    Sapphire Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,765 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:04 PM

Here's a link to a NY Times article on the pricing issue:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&ref=dance

#65 vipa

vipa

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:15 PM

Here's a link to a NY Times article on the pricing issue:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&ref=dance



Thank you abatt. I had just read the article. I don't know quite what to make of it. They want to fill the orchestra, 1st and 2nd rings before opening up sales for the rest of the house. If they open up the 3rd and 4th ring, those tickets will not be as cheap as they had been. There was also talk about prices changing as time goes on.

I don't know quite what to make of it all. I love rows A & B of the fourth ring. If I understand correctly, I won't be able to buy those unless it is a performance that is selling extremely well, and then those tickets will be more expensive then they had been.

If anyone has more clarification I would appreciate it. For me, I guess I'll be going fewer times and being more selective.

I guess NYCB is experimenting with ways to stay alive. I don't blame them for that.

#66 susanger

susanger

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:00 PM

Here's a link to a NY Times article on the pricing issue:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&ref=dance

What a ridiculous puff piece by The New York Times. They must be desperate not to lose City Ballet's advertising revenue.

By closing the 3rd and 4th Rings, City Ballet is eliminating nearly 1000 seats from their inventory: 676 in the 4th Ring, 278 non-obstructed-view seats in the 3rd Ring and 26 obstructed-view seats in the 3rd Ring, a total of 980 seats. (I used the seating charts on lincolncenter.org). They are basically saying they can't sell more than 1500 seats to any performance except Nutcracker and Swan Lake. They should be worried.

#67 christine174

christine174

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:28 PM

The article focuses on the "ire" of fourth-ringers and that we're "burning mad." I'm not so mad. I'm just sad. Really sad.

#68 Jayne

Jayne

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:48 PM

To inform the conversation, per the NYCB website, I found a link to their annual reports, the most recent is 2009. Revenues are reported as follows:
46% Performance Ticket Sales & Tour Fees
36% Public Support (see below)
15% Investment Income / Foundation earnings
3% Other income (this is usually merchandise sales, etc)

The public support slice of the pie is subsequently broken down as follows:
44% Individual Donations
17% Special Events
12% Foundations donations
8% Government support
6% Estates & Trusts

Expenses are broken down as follows:
69% Production Costs
10% Administration (most executive directors / artistic director salaries are included in this slice)
8% Facility Expenses
7% Production Management Expenses
6% Public Support Expenses

Another Interesting Numbers:
206 total performances
NEA listed as a donor in the 75k - 99k category
60 Minutes journalist Lesley Stahl is in the 50k - 74k category
The MSNBC's Money Honey Maria Bartiromo, Macy's Foundation, Hon. Kimba Wood (would be Supreme) and ELLE Magazine are in the 25k - 49k category
Chanel, Inc is in the 15k - 24k category
Walt Disney Company in the 10k - 14k category

I could not find Ms. Parker listed as a donor, although she could have donated anonymously in 2009. I hope this information is enlightening.

#69 Slant

Slant

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 03:42 AM

Here's a link to a NY Times article on the pricing issue:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&ref=dance



I love how they called Fourth Ringers the "bleacher bums."

Anyhow, FYI, the percent of house sold for the 2010-2011 season was approximately 68%.

#70 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 05:03 AM


Here's a link to a NY Times article on the pricing issue:

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=1&ref=dance



I love how they called Fourth Ringers the "bleacher bums."

Anyhow, FYI, the percent of house sold for the 2010-2011 season was approximately 68%.

What would be really interesting to know is how, on average, an all-Balanchine program sells in comparison to, say, a program of Thou Swell, 2&3 Part Inventions and Mercurial Manoeuvers.

#71 richard53dog

richard53dog

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 05:34 AM

What would be really interesting to know is how, on average, an all-Balanchine program sells in comparison to, say, a program of Thou Swell, 2&3 Part Inventions and Mercurial Manoeuvers.


Even more to the part, how would an "all Martins" program sell?

#72 abatt

abatt

    Sapphire Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,765 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 05:38 AM

They have never dared to do all Martins. The house would be empty. Obviously, most All Balanchine programs sell well.

#73 Drew

Drew

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:04 AM

I wonder where labor would be included under expenses? (Also, marketing)...

#74 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 08:37 AM



What would be really interesting to know is how, on average, an all-Balanchine program sells in comparison to, say, a program of Thou Swell, 2&3 Part Inventions and Mercurial Manoeuvers.


Even more to the part, how would an "all Martins" program sell?

Clever pun!

They have never dared to do all Martins. The house would be empty.

Much like the residents of Tokyo fleeing Godzilla!

In all seriousness, though, the sales disparities between programs highlights an underlying problem this company has: It wants to be seen as an engine of choroegraphic initiative but the audience itself is perfectly content to watch old Balanchine favorites and dreary productions of the great story ballets. (Do all Robbins bills sell well???)


I wonder where labor would be included under expenses? (Also, marketing)...

I assumed labor fell in the production costs category.

#75 richard53dog

richard53dog

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 08:59 AM

They have never dared to do all Martins. The house would be empty. Obviously, most All Balanchine programs sell well.



But isn't this pretty much an elephant sitting in the room? There are obviously budget issues that are challenging to solve but nothing, nothing, nothing seems to impede the relentless procession of "new Martins ballets" that it seems no one is interested in seeing.

I don't know, I'm only guessing, but I wonder if Martins' published salary DOES NOT INCLUDE commissions and royalties for this junk?

To make matters worse, now we seem to have a "lighter version" of this Martins procession. It's called "new Millepeid ballets".

I understand the need and importance of new choreography, but ,sorry, NYCB could take the money they spend on these projects, put it in a pile, douse it with gasoline and through a match into it. It would be a more efficent way of disposing of the cash and they coyuld use the rehearsal time for stuff audiences would buy tickets to see.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):