I think if we begin thinking directly about these problems, as you have here, we can come up with solutions. It may be that part of the reason there is such variability in quality is precisely because so much market pressure is taken off of theaters by their nonprofit status.

You point out that there is a problem with theater precisely because it is an experience, and how do you market that. Well, consider what Richard Florida has said about how people are increasingly interested in experiences — it might help if that aspect were in fact emphasized more, as well as the fact that each performance is unique. Those could in fact be selling points.

[...] it’s hard to pull off. It takes  a lot of work, and no one pays you for it. It has a hopeless business model. We theatre-makers of the blogosphere are so pathetically drawn to this most pure and least [...]

[...] since jotting down a few observations on theater’s crappy business model, I’ve found myself mildly obsessed with finding a solution to the problem of funding [...]

If by a theater that makes no money, you mean non-profit theatre, yes that is completely possible as an economic and artistic force. Then though, it becomes about larger economic forces either way, when you have to consider can you pay your staff? People cannot commit themselves completely to the creation of interesting, fresh, and still relevant content for an entire season if they’re working a different job that requires a completely different skill set. If pay for artists is completely removed, then artists have to give up their trade in favor of something that will put food on the table. Then, it becomes about finding artists who are effective as mediums between the material and the audience, which you are less likely to find because the time to invest is not available.

Shakespeare sells, but if that’s all we know how to do, then what happens when Shakespeare stops selling? Or what if we want to do something that isn’t Shakespeare? We can create commercial art that people will consume, but that just presents the same things over and over again, repackaged in different productions. It’s not interesting to create and in short, only feeds the current system, it doesn’t change it.

RE Garrett: There are subscription models and such for theatre. Most regional theaters, even the enormous ones like the Guthrie in the Twin Cities, rely heavily on season subscriptions to keep themselves alive. Try whatever combination you’re looking for, but ultimately theatre companies survive based on ticket sales (both subscription and at-the-door), private donations, and grants. The ONLY functional exception are the major Broadway houses, which survive purely on ticket sales and merchandising.

In both cases, providing DVDs would be really interesting, but it undercuts demand. If someone can get a copy of a production and share it with their friends, then their friends are less likely to come because they don’t need to pay to see it. In the cases of Broadway houses, where long runs are the standard, it also means that the original customer is much less likely to come a second, third, or eleventh time.

Can you possibly sell DVDs after the show? Maybe your program could help a minimal camera crew shoot and quickly burn DVDs for sale as people leave… or for mail delivery.

Also the Shakespeare festival was always packed when I lived in Lexington, Ky. Hire him if you can I guess.

You’re a fabulous writer Chris – keep up the great work.

G

ps: as a final thought – consider making a list of all the known/conceivable pricing models for theater. Surely people have tried subscription models, crowd-funded models, etc, right?