When We Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other (NT)

For someone who appears to care so much about passion you do seem to be hell-bent on preventing those whose first trip to the theatre might spawn such a passion from ever getting the chance to do so.

Yes, some people who got tickets might never go back (and the play itself might be the main issue there), but you seem to be assuming there are hundreds if not thousands of such people, which is highly unlikely to say the least...

We all were first time visitors to a theatre once, and as far as I'm concerned no-one should be barred from choosing a play for their first show purely because they want to see its star. We've probably all discovered work that way. It doesn't make a first time visitor any less passionate than someone who has the luxury of time and money to make repeat visits.

Quantity and quality are never synonymous, and that applies equally here. To say otherwise can only serve to perpetuate the view that complex theatre is elitist - to my mind it is distasteful snobbery, and no better than the issue of superfans who feel they are more entitled to see a show/performer than anyone else just because they've been a million times before.

What can I say? My gin fizz brings all the boys to the yard.

Those schemes for supermarkets are a con but I made a comparison with the football team I support.

For example, in a fortnight's time we have a big away match against Portsmouth in the FA Cup and will receive approximately 3,000 tickets. Now, we're not a big team but we have around 12,000 active regular fans so the club deploy the loyalty points system to make sure the most loyal 3,000 have first refusal on those tickets.


Everyone accepts this is fair and if they want to attend such fixtures then they need to be more loyal.

Such a system would work wonders for National.

You cannot quantify love or loyalty of a production (or even a football team) those who spend money on tickets every week to a match do not love their team more than those who watch them in the pub. Those who see NT Live rather than trek to London do not love it more or are more deserving than those who live locally and have the means to do so.

I didn't see a single show in the Nash last year. Logistics and finances kept me away. I am not less 'loyal' because of it.

I'm fine with 'rewards' for membership scheme holders, in whatever form. I'm not fine with the idea there is a 'ranking' of theatre attendees.

*puts Arts Council hat on*

The point of ACE funding is to widen accessibility, in the general sense, but also to keep costs down to bring down financial barriers. Therefore any organisation with significant ACE funding (never mind other public monies) would soon find themselves with, what I believe is known technically as a lot of explaining to do.

*takes Arts Council hat off*

Plus such a system is a good way to turn the average punter off an organisation sharpish.

A theatre funded by the public (partly) should ensure that it does not exclude part of that public from being able to attend. An NT live would cover that but none appears forthcoming. A tour would help, but this isn’t likely to tour. An extension similarly but a slim chance, I imagine, and it has to be announced alongside an initial booking period.

I think many see that this has so far been a PR disaster; angering regulars, cutting out many (most?) who would have attended for the first time, setting remainers versus leavers (whoops, I mean winners versus losers), etc.

First mistake was choosing a very big name for a very small theatre in a very limited run. Second gross miscalculation was promoting a ballot as some sort of egalitarian thing instead of it being an admission of failure to avoid exclusivity.

An exclusive production at the National that deliberately cuts out many of the public who pay for it is pretty scandalous as long as it remains that none of the extra means of making it available as per above are not provided. Punchdrunk got hauled over the coals for it and that was only for an R and D experiment. For a full production the NT turning people away just proves to people that it is for the few and not the many (or whatever Magic Grandad said).

Nobody should be excluded from attending the theatre. However the way this ballot has been run doesn't seem fair to me.
This ballot has created nothing but a hype. Some people entered the ballot just for the sake of it. People asked friends, family and their cats and dogs to enter the ballot. People from abroad entered the ballot too.

I was lucky enough to win the ballot, I have a membership, however I didn't get the chance to buy tickets for the dates I was aiming for, the first week or so. Comes the public ballot and even the under 25s and they manage to get front rows and first week and paying less money than me. Not fair really. At least they could have saved better and more quantity of seats for members

This is why I want to queue up outside to try to get a ticket for the first week

This is a good point that hasn't been brought up - if sitting at your computer all morning with 3 devices is somehow "gaming the system", then surely so is setting up multiple accounts to enter the ballot or getting a bunch of people to enter for you etc. I don't see how one system is inherently fairer than the other. At the end of the day those in the know, or those who are willing to be a little unscrupulous are always going to get an advantage.

I personally think the traditional method is fairer because it is more directly open to all and those who are really interested in a particular production can then make the effort to find out booking dates, get a membership, take the morning off and so on. Whereas with a ballot people who aren't that bothered either way can just throw their name into the hat for the hell of it due to the hype or fame.

It gives the impression of being a Willy Wonka-ish publicity stunt for newspaper coverage (which it got). They didn't do it for Mosquitoes with National Treasure Olivia Colman in the same small venue, and her stage appearances are rarer than Cate Blanchett's. In that case I missed out on public sale day (sold out in minutes) but with a couple of hours dedicated to page refreshing a few weeks later I got the best seats in the house, and again for my mum later in the run.

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what "statistically significant" means. Considering people were reporting being up to position 9057 in the queue *just to enter the ballot* then I'd have to have a HELLUVA lot of different browsers available to me to put a noticeable dent in any stats, and I don't usually go over two unless it's something like Angels In America.