So long as there have been plays, there have been critics to pass judgement on them. Theatres came to Britain with the Romans; so theatre critics may lay claim to be the world?s second oldest profession. Many critics believe that it is part of their job to ensure that their readers do not go to productions of which they, the critics, disapprove. Conversely they also write hyperbolic phrases knowing full well that these will be used by producers as publicity; for example, ?kill for a ticket? or ?the hottest show in town.? In other words, they go well beyond the job of informing their readers and actively seek to influence which shows real theatregoers go to see. But how influential are they, and can their influence be measured objectively, asks Ian Senior.
In New York it has always been the case that bad reviews by a few influential critics could close a new show within days, and certain critics became known as the butchers of Broadway. In the UK, it has been argued, there are many more newspapers and so the influence of individual critics is reduced. In detailed research I have identified the most influential papers and their combined impact on the West End theatre?s box office in 2003. My method was to estimate the number of theatregoing readers of 21 titles that carry regular West End theatre reviews. Taking their London readerships, I calculated the financial impact a rave review (or a pan) would have over the course of a year when converted into the average ticket price of seats. This gave the ?raw? impact of reviews by the 21 titles. Next I scaled the raw figures according to the size of venue in which the production occurred; productions of less than universal appeal such as The Vagina Monologues are presented in smaller theatres than My Fair Lady. Finally, I analysed the reviews given by all 21 papers to 32 productions that were launched in the West End in 2003 with open-ended runs. A rave or favourable review was calculated to have a positive impact on the box office, a neutral review would have no impact, and a negative review or a pan would have a negative impact. Overall, the effect of all the reviews on the 32 productions was positive at about £18m, equivalent to 6.3 per cent of the total box office. However, the financial impact of The Evening Standard, the most influential of the 21 titles, was negative by nearly £2m.
I then asked the question, ?what influence do reviews have on the length of an open-ended run?? Using the same data I calculated the correlation between the length of run of those of the 32 productions that opened and closed in 2003 and the financial impact of the reviews for each production (below). The correlation is positive, meaning that productions with favourable reviews run longer than those with negative. The coefficient of correlation (known as R2) is 0.12, which means that if reviews influence the length of run, they account only for 12 per cent of the factors that influence its length.
I conclude that in 2003 the overall impact of the West End?s theatre critics was favourable to the box office by about £18m, a result that should warm the hearts of producers and investors alike.
Ian Senior is an economic consultant. He publishes a fortnightly newsletter that ?does unto theatre critics as they do unto others?;
w: http://www.rcubednews.com. Full details of this study have been published by The Institute of Economic Affairs; w: http://www.iea.org.uk