There are 3
advertising agencies that handle the bulk of Broadway business.
3.
In the
2005-2006, Broadway season, there were 39 new productions on Broadway.
There were also 32 continuing productions from the previous season.
71
shows. Handled by 3 agencies.
Divided
equally (which they are not), means that each agency handled an average of
23.67 shows. In reality, 2 of those agencies handled the majority of the
shows.
To demonstrate
a huge practical problem associated with these numbers, let's look at the four
nominees for Best Musical in 2007: Curtains, Grey Gardens, Mary Poppins and Spring Awakening.
All FOUR of
these musicals were represented by the same advertising agency.
That means
that Tony campaigns, sales figures, etc. were all discussed, strategized and
planned in the same house.
So when you're
doing your next show, you should understand that your meetings will probably be
held in the same conference room as your direct competition.
Can you
imagine if Microsoft and Apple were handled by the same advertising
agency? And shared a conference room? Or Coke and Pepsi? Or
even small hometown grocery stores?
It's not even
smart business to consider these facts before making your choice of your
agency, it's
just common sense. I'm not insinuating that anything
unethical is happening at any of these agencies, but with millions and millions
of dollars on the line, why would you take the chance of all that information
under one roof? Even the most ethical and honest employee would have to
be subconsciously influenced with the knowledge of what one show's competitors
are doing, wouldn't you think?
In other
industries, companies refuse to allow their advertising agencies to rep
competitors. Duh.
I know what
people will say: "Ken, the reason there is so much overlapping is because
there isn't enough consistent work to go around to keep these agencies
running."
I
disagree. 23.67 shows is a lot of commission. And besides, I've
seen the sizes of each of their offices. And conversely, I've seen the sizes of
all of the Producers’ offices in this city. The agencies don't need to
take on this much work.
But this isn't
their fault. They are just growing their business. We're the ones
ignoring the reality and allowing these practices to continue.
The other
argument is that there aren't enough qualified advertising agencies in
business. This may be true.
Anyone out
there want to hang a shingle?
Ken, there's an ad agency that could be maverick enough to break this hold. They're a bunch of agency hotshots who started a new firm where they take a stake in the product/comp etc in lieu of the traditional fee heavy structure. If the show flops you pay them less. If it does well, they've essentially helped you capitalize it.
http://www.anomalynyc.com/
(Yes, I am posting this in hopes you'll come see my show)
Posted by: Andrew Grosso | July 31, 2008 at 06:37 PM