In interview for my current position I was asked: “What do I see as the role of Front-of-House Assistant?”
I believe I got carried away with my answer. I expounded such wisdoms as “to augment the public’s cultural experience; to assist in all features of accessibility; to create a safe and friendly atmosphere; provide a service; send them away eager to return.” Later I pondered: are Front-of-House staff really considered part of the cultural and artistic process of theatre? Are we not merely ticket-checkers, bar and sales assistants?
Cue interview question two, which related to methods of ‘upselling’. “Sorry? ‘Upselling’?” Apparently a principal part of the role is ‘upselling’. Apparently it’s an Art. The term, it seems, is well known (even by Wikipedia). In defining ‘upselling’, phrases such as “induces the customer”, “more expensive” and “more profitable” leap out like headlights down a dark country lane.
My personal conflict wavers between: “hey, let’s not get too precious about this” and “but this is exploitation”. You see, I feel I am being asked to upsell to mother Mary and her little son Johnny the large popcorn (popcorn – in a theatre!), when they had barely the money to buy the tickets!
In my first FOH incarnation I recall being struck by certain prices: “Is that how much we charge for a packet of crisps? And those peanuts are… how much?” When questioned about this, about the scenario of, say, our mother Mary and young Johnny coming to the theatre, buying a couple of packets of crisps and drinks and being charged… how much?... the Manager’s argument was (and I quote) “if they can’t afford it they shouldn’t come to the theatre.”
I struggled to compose myself.
That comment has since left a dirty taste in my mouth. Any theatre worth its salt has an Outreach department, the purpose of which is connecting Theatre to the disenfranchised; those who feel isolated from these sectors. I wonder what Outreach would make of the aforementioned Manager’s comment.
However, it’s no good me declaiming with passion a love of theatre, of a fanaticism for the tragedies of Shakespeare; for David Hare’s politics; for Ibsen’s haunting explorations of the past… blah di blah blah… I suppose one has to accept that merchandising is how commercial theatre sustains itself. It needs to make money. Besides, Shakespeare’s theatre would have been familiar with merchandising. So why should I feel aggrieved?
If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, right?
Ian Lambert, http://ianlambert.wordpress.com/