A live performance of Jules Feiffer's "Little Murders" at a regional theater in Arlington, Va. that holds "pay-what-you-can" performances over the periodic objections of its artistic director, me.
Toronto Star ethics columnist Ken Gallinger does a pretty good job today answering a query from a financially strapped theater-lover who feels guilty about attending “pay-what-you-can” professional stage productions. “…My husband says paying less than full fare takes advantage of the theatre company. Technically, we could pay the ticket price; we still have access to credit. And there are things we could cancel…What do you think?” asks the inquirer.
Gallinger explains the benefits to the company of not having a sea of empty seats facing the actors, and also how discount tickets have promotional value to theater companies. All true: the theater companies wouldn’t offer “pay-what-you-can” if they didn’t think it was in their companies’ long term interest. There are other benefits that Gallinger doesn’t mention. For example, the increased audience size still contributes to the average audience statistics that a non-profit company can use to seek advertisements and to argue for community foundation grants.
Even this wouldn’t cover the topic, however. “Pay-what-you-can” and other discount ticket programs are essential if theater companies are going to meet their own ethical obligations to the community, and if live theater is going to survive at all. The ticket prices at most large, established regional theaters are, in a word, unconscionable. Justifiable perhaps, since live theater costs more to produce than can be paid for by box office receipts, but still unconscionable. Though it is a unique entertainment and cultural form that educates, enriches, and binds communities together, live professional theater’s price structure has all but excluded middle and lower income individuals and families. In my theater’s market, for example, the regional company acclaimed for its musicals charges between $75 and $90 for its seats, with various processing fees capable of bringing the cost to over $100. Even a last minute, take-a-shot rush seat is $30. How often can an average family go to professional theater at those prices? I’m not sure theater-goers like Gallinger’s questioner should feel guilty about not paying full prices. Perhaps the theaters should feel guilty for charging so much that what once was a spontaneous decision–“Hey! Let’s go to a show!”—now has to be accompanied by a household budget review and a week of Ramen noodles.
What about those, however, who come to a “pay-what-you-can” performance and could easily afford full price? What does “what-you-can” really mean? It certainly doesn’t literally mean what the theater-goer can afford. It means something more complicated…“pay-what-you-want-to-remembering-that-you-did-get-something-in-return-and-this-does-cost-money-and-the-company-is-barely-getting-by-or-it-wouldn’t-be-having-pay-what-you-can-performances,” perhaps.
I think, unless the performance is total garbage and you feel the company has a nerve charging anything for such incompetent dreck, a fair “pay-what-you-can” payment is half the usual ticket price. Once the theater-goer has paid that, he or she should consider a tax-deductible contribution to make up the difference, or even exceed it. This might allow the company to keep its ticket prices out of the stratosphere, so live theater doesn’t join ballet, opera and polo as pastimes only the wealthy can afford.
Post Script: The objections referred to in the photo caption arise from my observations that most of those who attend “pay-what-you-can” performances, at least at our theater, can afford to pay full price, but leave the theater after paying a pittance, if anything. And that is unethical.
Ethics Alarms 
There are a growing number of smaller professional theatre companies that operate entirely on Pay-What-You-Can ticketing. LA’s Coeurage Theatre and Columbus OH’s Available Light Theatre are two that I know of, and Seattle’s ACT Theatre offers PWYC for all remaining unsold tix at the door. Available Light calls it “Pay What You WANT;” I’m not sure if the semantics make a difference. Matt Slaybaugh, their artistic director, talks about it here: http://avlt.co/avltpwyw. His audience, ticket income and budget skyrocketed upon implementing PWYW pricing, and immediately saw an increase in audience diversity. Their average ticket works out to be about $13 (I had spoken to the AD of a prominent DC-area theatre who charges $25-$35 a ticket, but after comps, discounts, paperings etc, their average ticket is actually under ten bucks). They don’t have to deal with student/senior discounts, dynamic pricing, special discounts, online discount codes, etc. I am seriously considering implementing an all-PWYW policy when I start producing.
Good luck, John. I don’t see how it can work out, math-wise, unless all productions are small cast, low tech, and bare bones. If we could build an ethic into the culture where people felt obligated to give as much as 13-15 bucks, that would represent great progress. So far, I don’t see it, at least with our PWYC audiences.
Ideally, “pay-what-you-can” isn’t “pay-what-you-feel-like.” You just have to take stock in how much money you can really give. I don’t make much money at all, and I’ve given $5 and $10 for a handful of performances. I think once I did $20 since I didn’t have change. That $20 is just going to go into my stomach anyway…
Yuck!!!
By way of exchanging it for food, I should clarify.
I thought the reason you didnt like PWYC was just becuase youre cheap. 😉
Pay what you can works for live theatre because in general the type of people attracted to live theatre are the thinkers, and they understand the cash dynamics. if they were the Budweizer-swilling, Lost-is-good-entertainment crowd, PWYW would fail miserably. Here in Portland for example we have an honor system for the bus system, and it fails miserably, there’s widespread cheating. But that’s because it’s a different type of person who rides the bus, on average, than who goes to live theatre.
I di disagree with paying 50% of the ticket price. In my opinion it isn’t ethical to pay anything less than the asking price if you can afford it, unless it’s 5 minutes before the start of the show and they are just looking for warm bodies to fill seats. I also disagree that the middle class cannot afford a $100 ticket price. This i the same middle class who forks over $50 a month for cable TV without blinking.
“I also disagree that the middle class cannot afford a $100 ticket price.”
If Mitt Romney said something like this, he’d be in such trouble.
I $100 ticket? Sure. A couple? A family? More than once a year?
Cable’s much better deal by any measure.
Have those PWYC “professional” theatre companies worked out some kind of special deal with Actors Equity Assn. (the AFC-CIO union of professional stage actors in the USA)? There are certain “Equity minimum” weekly pay rates for different types of theatres which must be met.
AEA is independent of other unions, such as Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of TV & Radio Artists, American Guild of Musical Artists (professional dancers). Many actors belong to more than one union, e.g., if you see some famous movie star acting on Broadway, you can bet he/she belongs to both AEA and SAG (at least).
(Yes, I’m an AEA member.)
I’m confident that they are in full compliance with any regulations involving union actors and crew. I’m guessing that they probably use predomintantly non-union actors. I’ve been EMC for 18 years, and I’ll go Equity if I can be guaranteed a paycheck larger than my non-theatre day job. I consider myself a Professional non-union actor, as do the majority of my colleagues.
John is right.