|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:07:44 GMT
For what it's worth, I hope the NT and other venues do ballots more regularly for events like this one where demand for tickets will hugely outstrip availability. Granted, the way this has run has been messy, but it's just their first attempt. In the future, being more transparent about how it will work and when & what proportion of tickets will be available will be good, perhaps in conjunction with a more open day-ticketing system. Ultimately though, once the kinks have been ironed out a ballot will mean that people aren't penalised for not having internet access, or access to lots of computers, or where work/study/other responsibilities means that they can't simply take time off at random times in order to enter the mad rush of a traditional sale. The balloting system (in theory at least) gives everyone a fair stab at getting tickets and removes the need to set aside an unknown amount of time on ticket day to sit in front of several computers frantically hitting refresh. I suspect that it also helps with things like touts and reduces the load on the IT infrastructure since the surge in web traffic should be reduced and it's less problematic if the website struggles. I can only imagine how thankless a task it must be for whoever is organising sales on things like this. At the end of the day, no matter what, there will always be a large number of people disappointed. Furthermore, there probably isn't a much chance of spending money on improving the ticketing system, given that the income is fixed (i.e. you can't increase the number of seats sold since it's already ~100%). I appreciate that I've been lucky enough to get tickets in this second ballot, but I was saying the same thing back when I lost in the initial ballot. Ballots for all aren't fair for long term members. I know a couple of people who have been members of the National for over a decade and who have seen over 100 productions there in that time frame but didn't get tickets for this. With all due respect why should they be bunched together with people going to see their first ever play, never mind first to The National? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:08:48 GMT
If there were 5,000 tickets in total on sale for the run of a play, and you were randomly assigned position 21,548 when booking opened, and at least half of the 21,547 people ahead of you in the queue were genuine and intended to buy two tickets each once they reached the front of the queue, you (and 19,000 others) still wouldn't be able to buy tickets. The ballot just takes the guesswork and the sitting around for hours on booking day praying there'll be something left out of whether you're going to be able to buy or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:09:27 GMT
With all due respect why should they be bunched together with people going to see their first ever play, never mind first to The National? With all due respect, why shouldn't they? |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:10:19 GMT
I hate this ballot, it is annoying but not because I want to game the system. I just want to buy tickets, which has been possible for literally every other show in town. Even the ones that don't sell memberships to make ticket buying easier. Humph  But the thing is that -if you're not gaming the system on traditional sales- then your chances of having been successful in this ballot were actually better than if it had been a regular sale.
What I mean is that, assuming in a truly fair ballot, then the only people who's chances of getting tickets are reduced are those who would have otherwise 'gamed' the system but cannot any longer. Granted, a proportion of people work outside the ballot (e.g. high donors) but that's the case anyway.
The fact that you were unforunately one of the (for the sake of argument) 75% of hopefuls who weren't able to buy tickets has nothing to do with the fact that it's a ballot.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:13:06 GMT
For what it's worth, I hope the NT and other venues do ballots more regularly for events like this one where demand for tickets will hugely outstrip availability. Granted, the way this has run has been messy, but it's just their first attempt. In the future, being more transparent about how it will work and when & what proportion of tickets will be available will be good, perhaps in conjunction with a more open day-ticketing system. Ultimately though, once the kinks have been ironed out a ballot will mean that people aren't penalised for not having internet access, or access to lots of computers, or where work/study/other responsibilities means that they can't simply take time off at random times in order to enter the mad rush of a traditional sale. The balloting system (in theory at least) gives everyone a fair stab at getting tickets and removes the need to set aside an unknown amount of time on ticket day to sit in front of several computers frantically hitting refresh. I suspect that it also helps with things like touts and reduces the load on the IT infrastructure since the surge in web traffic should be reduced and it's less problematic if the website struggles. I can only imagine how thankless a task it must be for whoever is organising sales on things like this. At the end of the day, no matter what, there will always be a large number of people disappointed. Furthermore, there probably isn't a much chance of spending money on improving the ticketing system, given that the income is fixed (i.e. you can't increase the number of seats sold since it's already ~100%). I appreciate that I've been lucky enough to get tickets in this second ballot, but I was saying the same thing back when I lost in the initial ballot. Ballots for all aren't fair for long term members. I know a couple of people who have been members of the National for over a decade and who have seen over 100 productions there in that time frame but didn't get tickets for this. With all due respect why should they be bunched together with people going to see their first ever play, never mind first to The National? The flipside of that argument is why should a publicly funded cultural space like the NT be biased against newcomers or, for that matter, youngsters?
Furthermore, as I said previously, in a truly fair ballot the likelihood of getting a ticket for those who don't game the system are actually higher than a traditional ticket sale. The reality is that whenever demand is far higher than supply we'll all know a few regulars who miss out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:15:10 GMT
👆Goodness. I'll have one from the top and five smaller numbers please Carol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:18:56 GMT
Ballots for all aren't fair for long term members. I know a couple of people who have been members of the National for over a decade and who have seen over 100 productions there in that time frame but didn't get tickets for this. With all due respect why should they be bunched together with people going to see their first ever play, never mind first to The National? The flipside of that argument is why should a publicly funded cultural space like the NT be biased against newcomers or, for that matter, youngsters?
Furthermore, as I said previously, in a truly fair ballot the likelihood of getting a ticket for those who don't game the system are actually higher than a traditional ticket sale. The reality is that whenever demand is far higher than supply we'll all know a few regulars who miss out.
Because whether people like it or not there are some people who are passionate theatre attendees who, collectively, keep theatre alive in the UK. Even with the Public subsidy The National still needs people to attend. I'm all for making theatre more inclusive but not at the expense of those who have supported theatres for many, many years. It reeks of self entitlement that somebody who has never visited the theatre in their life damands an equal chance to obtain tickets as soon as the most passionate patrons. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:22:13 GMT
Erm… the people didn't demand it, the National offered it. If the National listened to demands, Rufus Norris would be hanging from the fly tower, every TheatreBoard.co.uk member would get free snacks and a private lounge, and we wouldn't have to queue up to buy tickets, we'd just be given them as some kind of divine right.  If you're worried about entitlement, you're looking in completely the wrong direction... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:22:48 GMT
With all due respect why should they be bunched together with people going to see their first ever play, never mind first to The National? With all due respect, why shouldn't they? Because they haven't paid their dues. When the football team I support - Queen's Park Rangers - has a big match they have a loyalty points scheme in place to ensure that the most loyal fans get tickets. It is ridiculous that The National did not deploy a similar system for this. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:25:07 GMT
The flipside of that argument is why should a publicly funded cultural space like the NT be biased against newcomers or, for that matter, youngsters?
Furthermore, as I said previously, in a truly fair ballot the likelihood of getting a ticket for those who don't game the system are actually higher than a traditional ticket sale. The reality is that whenever demand is far higher than supply we'll all know a few regulars who miss out.
Because whether people like it or not there are some people who are passionate theatre attendees who, collectively, keep theatre alive in the UK. Even with the Public subsidy The National still needs people to attend. I'm all for making theatre more inclusive but not at the expense of those who have supported theatres for many, many years. It reeks of self entitlement that somebody who has never visited the theatre in their life damands an equal chance to obtain tickets as soon as the most passionate patrons. So in your view is meer 'attendance' the key to determine someone's 'passion' for theatre? Or should audience-members be quizzed about how truly passionate they are before getting the booster treatment? If you go, but walk out at the interval does that count against your 'passion' and is that better or worse than not going in the first place? And, incidentally, how do you rank between those that don't attend for monetary reasons, or because of location, or other commitments, or because they simply don't like what's currently being put on?
Ultimately, whether you describe that approach as 'entitlement' or 'gate keeping' is I suppose a matter of opinion.
However, as I said, the reality is that with a fair ballot your chances are no different to a general sale. The fact that a proportion of regular goers will miss out is an unavoidable effect of supply << demand whether the tickets had been in a ballot or regular sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:26:46 GMT
I've very much enjoyed the mathematical side of this conversation, but now that we've gone into the realm of people having to pay their dues before they're considered worthy of buying theatre tickets, I'm out. If someone genuinely believes this, I don't think they can even understand the opposing viewpoint, which is mine. Hasta luego!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:28:48 GMT
I think we should ask the theatre's new Patron to make a judgement about entitlement at the theatre. I understand Meghan Markdown is always at The Nash.
Oh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:29:34 GMT
Because whether people like it or not there are some people who are passionate theatre attendees who, collectively, keep theatre alive in the UK. Even with the Public subsidy The National still needs people to attend. I'm all for making theatre more inclusive but not at the expense of those who have supported theatres for many, many years. It reeks of self entitlement that somebody who has never visited the theatre in their life damands an equal chance to obtain tickets as soon as the most passionate patrons. So in your view is meer 'attendance' the key to determine someone's 'passion' for theatre? Or should audience-members be quizzed about how truly passionate they are before getting the booster treatment? If you go, but walk out at the interval does that count against your 'passion' and is that better or worse than not going in the first place? And, incidentally, how do you rank between those that don't attend for monetary reasons, or because of location, or other commitments, or because they simply don't like what's currently being put on?
Ultimately, whether you describe that approach as 'entitlement' or 'gate keeping' is I suppose a matter of opinion.
However, as I said, the reality is that with a fair ballot your chances are no different to a general sale. The fact that a proportion of regular goers will miss out is an unavoidable effect of supply << demand whether the tickets had been in a ballot or regular sale.
It's the continuous financial commitment which defines passion and loyalty. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:33:29 GMT
So in your view is meer 'attendance' the key to determine someone's 'passion' for theatre? Or should audience-members be quizzed about how truly passionate they are before getting the booster treatment? If you go, but walk out at the interval does that count against your 'passion' and is that better or worse than not going in the first place? And, incidentally, how do you rank between those that don't attend for monetary reasons, or because of location, or other commitments, or because they simply don't like what's currently being put on?
Ultimately, whether you describe that approach as 'entitlement' or 'gate keeping' is I suppose a matter of opinion.
However, as I said, the reality is that with a fair ballot your chances are no different to a general sale. The fact that a proportion of regular goers will miss out is an unavoidable effect of supply << demand whether the tickets had been in a ballot or regular sale.
It's the continuous financial commitment which defines passion and loyalty. So perhaps priority ticket buying should go to those that buy the most G&Ts at the interval. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:36:48 GMT
So in your view is meer 'attendance' the key to determine someone's 'passion' for theatre? Or should audience-members be quizzed about how truly passionate they are before getting the booster treatment? If you go, but walk out at the interval does that count against your 'passion' and is that better or worse than not going in the first place? And, incidentally, how do you rank between those that don't attend for monetary reasons, or because of location, or other commitments, or because they simply don't like what's currently being put on?
Ultimately, whether you describe that approach as 'entitlement' or 'gate keeping' is I suppose a matter of opinion.
However, as I said, the reality is that with a fair ballot your chances are no different to a general sale. The fact that a proportion of regular goers will miss out is an unavoidable effect of supply << demand whether the tickets had been in a ballot or regular sale.
It's the continuous financial commitment which defines passion and loyalty. And drives up the prices to a level where plenty of people who would love to be passionate and loyal simply cannot afford to do so. Your argument basically boils down to money = passion, which is quite possibly the most elitist and ridiculous notion I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:43:25 GMT
I've very much enjoyed the mathematical side of this conversation, but now that we've gone into the realm of people having to pay their dues before they're considered worthy of buying theatre tickets, I'm out. If someone genuinely believes this, I don't think they can even understand the opposing viewpoint, which is mine. Hasta luego! Well, we'll have to disagree with each other. I'm not, for the record, being elitist. I benefitted greatly from the Travelex seasons coming from a ridiculously poor background with no members of my family interested in the theatre and certainly not interested in funding anyone who might be. However, as parsley might say, there are some people who are happy to spend £6 a pint and hundreds on alcohol and cigarettes each month-and that is not limited to any class or background - who haven't managed to fork up the £5-18 it costs for the cheapest tickets in London to see theatre. There's a reason why you, you if you so desired, would get nowhere a ticket to see England play in a World Cup match and why membership and loyalty schemes exist across a number of different fields. To reward loyalty. Why shouldn't theatre be run on the same principles? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:44:01 GMT
It's the continuous financial commitment which defines passion and loyalty. So perhaps priority ticket buying should go to those that buy the most G&Ts at the interval.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:45:44 GMT
It's the continuous financial commitment which defines passion and loyalty. And drives up the prices to a level where plenty of people who would love to be passionate and loyal simply cannot afford to do so. Your argument basically boils down to money = passion, which is quite possibly the most elitist and ridiculous notion I've ever heard. How wealthy do you have to be to be able to afford the many thousands of tickets under £20 in London theatre. It's a HUGE myth that theatre is expensive. The reality is that you can't force people to attend unless you have a gun at their heads. That's why loyalty should be rewarded. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:47:22 GMT
I've very much enjoyed the mathematical side of this conversation, but now that we've gone into the realm of people having to pay their dues before they're considered worthy of buying theatre tickets, I'm out. If someone genuinely believes this, I don't think they can even understand the opposing viewpoint, which is mine. Hasta luego! Well, we'll have to disagree with each other. I'm not, for the record, being elitist. I benefitted greatly from the Travelex seasons coming from a ridiculously poor background with no members of my family interested in the theatre and certainly not interested in funding anyone who might be. However, as parsley might say, there are some people who are happy to spend £6 a pint and hundreds on alcohol and cigarettes each month-and that is not limited to any class or background - who haven't managed to fork up the £5-18 it costs for the cheapest tickets in London to see theatre. There's a reason why you, you if you so desired, would get nowhere a ticket to see England play in a World Cup match and why membership and loyalty schemes exist across a number of different fields. To reward loyalty. Why shouldn't theatre be run on the same principles? Except that under your definition of 'passion=money', the NT do run by those principles since anyone 'passionate' enough to donate £1500 a year (patron members) got to bypass the ballot altogether.
Even below that large donation, the different memberships (going down to ~£35) rewarded you with increased chances of success since there were multiple staggered ballots.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 14, 2019 15:49:16 GMT
'Gaming the system' in this context is otherwise known as caring enough to keep abreast of theatre news, know when tickets are going on sale, organize yourself to be online to book them the moment they go on sale, and patient enough to keep hitting refresh when the website inevitably falls over. Oh, and checking back for returns regularly.
In other words, being a dedicated theatre fan.
We're not talking about some form of cheating here!
Ballots level the playing field by allowing the people who don't care all that much the same chance as the people who care passionately. The problem with it is that the people who don't care all that much....don't care all that much. It's an odd way to treat your audience. I'm not convinced that it really widens audiences - surely the goal is to create *new* enthusiasts, rather than get a succession of 'not-very-bothereds' through the door once each?
Of course, if the goal is to widen access, you shouldn't be putting huge stars into tiny theatres unless you are prepared to broadcast the production to cinemas.
The goal should be to get more people in, not to get new people in by keeping the regulars out....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:50:41 GMT
Well, we'll have to disagree with each other. I'm not, for the record, being elitist. I benefitted greatly from the Travelex seasons coming from a ridiculously poor background with no members of my family interested in the theatre and certainly not interested in funding anyone who might be. However, as parsley might say, there are some people who are happy to spend £6 a pint and hundreds on alcohol and cigarettes each month-and that is not limited to any class or background - who haven't managed to fork up the £5-18 it costs for the cheapest tickets in London to see theatre. There's a reason why you, you if you so desired, would get nowhere a ticket to see England play in a World Cup match and why membership and loyalty schemes exist across a number of different fields. To reward loyalty. Why shouldn't theatre be run on the same principles? Except that under your definition of 'passion=money', the NT do run by those principles since anyone 'passionate' enough to donate £1500 a year (patron members) got to bypass the ballot altogether. And so they should get priority access. Yet members who commit themselves to £90 in membership fees and hundreds more in ticket purchases throughout the year were put on w same level as someone who couldn't even point out The National on a map... |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 14, 2019 15:52:49 GMT
Except that under your definition of 'passion=money', the NT do run by those principles since anyone 'passionate' enough to donate £1500 a year (patron members) got to bypass the ballot altogether. And so they should get priority access. Yet members who commit themselves to £90 in membership fees and hundreds more in ticket purchases throughout the year were put on w same level as someone who couldn't even point out The National on a map... Nope. The different members levels had additional (separate) ballots that effectively gave them extra chances to succeed compared to those in the completely public sale.
That doesn't change the fact that when the demand is so high those 'chances' are still pretty low.
|
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jan 14, 2019 15:58:12 GMT
I don't think anyone could complain if long-term members who have attended lots of shows got some extra priority on this, not that that would have benefited me.
Do find some irony in all the talk of expanding access to the NT here in that this play sounds like exactly the sort of thing that will put off potential theatre fans if they get a ticket, lured in by a star and then met with something highly obscure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 15:59:14 GMT
And so they should get priority access. Yet members who commit themselves to £90 in membership fees and hundreds more in ticket purchases throughout the year were put on w same level as someone who couldn't even point out The National on a map... Nope. The different members levels had additional (separate) ballots that effectively gave them extra chances to succeed compared to those in the completely public sale.
That doesn't change the fact that when the demand is so high those 'chances' are still pretty low.
And that doesn't change the fact that there are some people who have never seen the inside of a theatre and never will do again got tickets and people who have seen over a hundred productions at The National didn't. We'll never agree because I will never accept that that is right. |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 14, 2019 16:03:06 GMT
Original ballot agree a free for all, with an equal chance.
Now that they have had a second ballot to sell the remaining tickets as it appears to be undersubscribed it would make sense to value loyalty whether a member or not.
The National is a very inclusive organisation and relatively simple to get the cheapest tickets (hope a Travelex replacement is found) and this should be used to entice new theatregoers rather than an ‘event’ which could/has alienated part of their core audience.
|
|
If you're worried about entitlement, you're looking in completely the wrong direction...
