Reader Cuts its Reviews

[Angie]

First let me say that I'm not sure where to put this post. I am guessing here cause it will effect shows. So mod's please feel free to move it if I'm off.

OK, does this upset anyone else? The Reader has been the only champion for small Fringe Theater in this town. The only one we could count on for getting any kind of press. And now no more.

See below from Performink:

------------------

<table style="width: 387px; height: 2418px;" border="0"><tbody><tr><td align="left" height="42" valign="top" width="84%">New Design, Fewer Reviews<!-- #EndEditable -->

<!-- #BeginEditable "byline" -->BY Carrie L. Kaufman<!-- #EndEditable -->
<!-- #BeginEditable "story" -->
Laura Molzahn wants theatres to know one thing: She knows what she’s doing. She’s been editing theatre reviews at The Chicago Reader for 21 years, and reviewing for the last two. She knows who you are, what you do, and what you’ve done in the past. She also knows the sensibilities of THE READER critics.

This is important because Molzahn last week took over the theatre review assignment duties from Albert Williams, who’s been sending critics to shows since 1995.

The change is part of an overall consolidation of editorial positions at The Reader, which was sold in July to the owners of Creative Loafing out of Atlanta (PerformInk, Aug. 3). After the sale, the Chicago production staff—who prepare photos, lay out text, create graphics, etc.—was all but decimated. The Reader is now produced by a centralized production staff in Atlanta. And the belt was tightened in the editorial department, with a number of positions being consolidated, and “some” editorial layoffs, according to editor Alison True, who would not be more detailed.

“We are faced with financial constraints, as is any publication, and I’m always making hard decisions about how to spend a limited budget,” wrote True in an e-mail.

“We’ve been trying to institute some cost cutting measures for a while,” said Molzahn by phone from The Reader offices. “That process just got a kick in the butt by the new owners.”
Also kicked in the butt was Newsweb Press, which has been printing The Reader since its inception 36 years ago. The paper is now printed in Milwaukee, by the Journal Sentinal. And the famous—and bulky—Reader sections are now gone. Debuting last week was a tabloid style Reader, an all-in-one piece that cuts out a lot of wasted paper—and cost.

“It’s a substantial savings,” said publisher Mike Crystal. The Journal Sentinal is “a highly efficient press that can print a very large paper in a single pass.” The new paper is also shorter, Crystal noted, “so there’ a significant savings in newsprint.”

But, Crystal hastened to add, less newsprint doesn’t mean less news. “The design was modified in order to preserve the content in a smaller space.”

Many in the theatre community may not believe that, as they have seen the number of theatre reviews dwindle recently. Though he is not assigning reviewers anymore, Williams was not fired. He is still on staff as chief critic. And he’s not unhappy about not having to juggle opening nights.

“I’m relieving myself of a lot of administrative stuff,” Williams said.

Part of the “administrative stuff” since about this past March was explaining to theatres why they couldn’t be reviewed. As recently as a year ago, Williams was assigning anywhere from 10 to 18 reviews a week. (The number varies depending on whether you talk to Molzahn or Williams.) In any case, it insured that virtually every theatre in the city was covered in The Reader.

But all of that ink—and pay to freelance writers—cost a lot of money. And The Reader finally got some competition, with the advent of Craig’s List and the entry of TimeOut Chicago to the market two and a half years ago. Now, said Williams, “No theatre is entitled to coverage.”

Molzahn won’t say how many new theatre reviews The Reader will run each week, only that it will be fewer and that it will vary from week to week. The first Reader with the new design featured six reviews—a long one by Justin Hayford on Mia McCullough’s Spare Change at Stage Left Theatre, an Albert Williams critic’s choice on Desire Under the Elms at the Hypocrites, and four mini reviews of shows at The Building Stage, Court Theatre, The Goodman and Black Ensemble that ran in the listings.

Cutting back reviews is “another budget-conscious choice that I hope will be short-lived,” said Molzahn.

That can only be short-lived if The Reader starts making money again. Crystal said they are hiring advertising sales staff and getting used to the new software and organizational systems that Creative Loafing already has in place. The redesign was the first initiative, to save money. Now they need to focus on making it.

“There are going to be more people out there selling in a more aggressive way,” Crystal said.

Next on the agenda is to increase The Reader’s visibility in the community.
“Based on what I’ve heard from [Creative Loafing], we will be more likely to do events that we own, that we will put on ourselves,” Crystal said.
<!-- #EndEditable --></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="84%"> </td></tr></tbody></table>

[JRC]

Theatre coverage is frequently one of the first things to go in any publication. The Trib and the Sun-times have drastically scaled back their coverage in the past few years and even within the time I've been doing stuff in Chicago, the Reader has scaled back and back. (Hell, even Performink is primarily an online pub nowadays.)

The bottom is usually the bottom line... the shows/houses that place ads will get more coverage while the smaller, storefront venues will have to do something "newsworthy" to get some ink.

This is sad news.

[Steev]

I think Time Out Chicago will fill this void nicely. I could take or leave any Reader coverage, quite honestly. The Reader theater coverage may have been important to the theater people, but I doubt the exposure to non-theater people was worth the price of the ink.

[Angie]

I see both of your points.

But you have to admit that the audience that is going for the free publication is not the same as the audience going for Timeout.

And up to this point Timeout has not even listed everyone on a weekly basis.

True they are the only game in town right now review everyone, so thank god for that.

I am so sad by this news, I know there is nothing that can be done about it. It just feels like the newest person trying to get a leg in is gonna have that much harder of a time.

So sad.

[Telfer]

Fringe theater is really getting it's ass kicked right now, this isn't the only thing going on. Timeout recently published a story about how Broadway in Chicago is pushing the fringe farther from the public's eye:

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/article/22844/signs-of-trouble

And conversely, Timeout gives high production value shows much higher "star ratings". The article was cool, but the whole time I was thinking "well, that's all well and good, but I've gotten shows Highly Recommended in the Reader and Timeout still never comes themselves."

I like Timeout, but it's a very different magazine than the Reader, and I am unsure as to whether they're going to pursue those uncovered shows on the fringe that the Reader used to cover. Perhaps the recent article was an indicator that the people at the top of the ladder are giving their theater writers and editors more room. I know Timeout Chicago's theater editor is a great guy with a great eye on the fringe. But Mayor Daley and the big wigs of Timeout probably have one thing in common: they want this city to be more, not less, like NYC. That means shrewder competition.

I think it's more likely that the fringe companies with the highest production values will rise to the top, and dozens of the others will lose their public presence. Great art will always be made if people love the process more than the success, but yes, I think we were spoiled and that era is ending.

[Angie]

Telf,

Great point. I spoke to a certain Theater Critic when we did Mr. Marmalade and Dog and Pony did it at the same time.

This critic said he thought we (CIC's cast) out acted the other company. But that it served the audience more to have a more complete experience (great set and costumes) and that is why he preferred the other production to ours.

I have learned a lot from that comment. I was always under the impression that if the acting was there that was all you needed.

I agree and disagree with the critic on so many levels. But it has defiantly changed the way I have watched shows as of late.

[Telfer]

Yea, I think that critic's opinion is painful if you do this because you love it not to cater to a commercial audience. But yeah, look into that window of what non-theater people think "good" is and you'll get a hell of a wake-up call that just might make you want to quit.

[chitiger]

I had known about The Reader trimming their coverage for a while now. It's the nature of the market. As the media industry continues to be a feeding frenzy (my magazine just got acquired again for the second time in three years), editorial content suffers as new owners try to trim costs while operating a larger portfolio of publications.

What we need is an entrepreneur who understands the wealth of theatrical content we have here in Chicago and how to make money promoting it. Shortly after reading the TimeOut article on Broadway in Chicago, I did some quick research on Web sites that review and advertise Chicago theater, including fringe theaters. The site I found, http://www.theatreinchicago.com/, was impressive. But before my search, I had never heard of such a site.

If someone could capture this kind of content that Theatre In Chicago produces, aggressively market it to a readership and get financial backing (advertisers), then I'd say problem solved. Even if it mainly existed exclusively on the Web, I think such a resource would be very beneficial (though I'd argue that producing at least a monthly hardcopy version would greatly help generate traffic to the site). This of course is easier said then done, but it's a starting point.

[stevescholz]

I'm posting tongiht because I was at an event where someone had this week's Chicago Reader. The new tabloid version almost made me shudder....what a change. That got me thinking about this thread.

I agree the cuts at The Reader are disappointing. Most every show I've produced or performed in has had a Reader reviewer. Since NewCity stopped much of their theater coverage, The Reader has been the one regular source for a the greatest variety of storefront theater and improv/sketch shows. Thank you for that, Reader!

I also agree that TimeOut isn't always reaching the same people as The Reader has. And I've watched as the Sun-Times and Tribune have cut back on their coverage. (Though I do enjoy Chris Jones' theater blog.) I have a friend who reviews theater at TimeOut. She said they try to send all reviewers to a few shows every week (she's doing a lot of the fringe stuff). That's encouraging. But it may not give everyone the coverage they'd like.

So, what to do? I believe we benefit from doing three things:

Quality shows. Quality promotion. Quality audience recruitment.

Can reviews help? Sure. A friend of mine directed the play Accidental Death of an Anarchist 10 years ago at a storefront on Lincoln. The Reader praised it and put it on the Highly Recommended list. My friend said after that happened, she had sold-out houses the rest of her run. And I think that was the only review her show got.

But reviews don't guarantee audiences. I'm sure others here have seen shows, like I have, that got great write-ups and still had many empty seats. I've seen that for improv, sketch, plays and other productions. And even if they get Highly Recommended, they might not always have sell-out crowds (I recall when Blue Man Group went dark a few nights in 2003). A review can only do so much.

What makes a show is the people you have coming in. And how you get them in need not rely on reviews. It's cool to see people like Angie and Steev and Jason Chin posting in this thread. All of them do what they enjoy, and have examples of the 3 qualities I mentioned. They put up fun shows. And they don't neglect the business side of things. As a result, they've garnered press and attention for many projects. Yet they've had sold-out shows and good turnouts not just because of those things, but because they get the word out and they continue that "word-of-mouth" promotion. They do what many bigger theaters do; work on the product, promote that product, and bring people in. That's show business.

I suspect they'd also say it ain't always easy. There are so many choices of entertainment out there. Audience development takes time. So reviews certainly help raise awareness about a show or a theater company. But there are other ways to get attention, too (Don Hall...where are you and your promotional ideas?).

Steve

[Walleye]

As much as no on wanted to see the Reader Reviews scaled back, we have to see it as a product of the times. The Reader certainly has been an asset to CIC’s growth, and to shows the shows I’ve directed for CIC, however, I wonder if we are being more sentimental about this than we are being practical.

First, it appears that the Reader is undergoing a serious redesign and that the hope is to rekindle its vitality and breathe life back into an enterprise which is currently struggling. It also appears that there is a desire to build the amount of small theatre reviews in the future is intended.
<O:p
As the Reader is working to reestablish itself under new ownership in order to once again become visible and fiscally healthy, we can look at the state of our own groups and organizations and contemplate similar things. What do we need to do to create buzz, put butts in seats and ultimately survive. Marketing your shows and companies needs to be an active process. There is more to it than flyers, postcards, press releases and reviews which, though a necessary element of marketing, can simply be white noise.
<O:p
I truly hope that the Reader is able to bounce back to regain its status as a viable resource for fringe theatre. In the meantime, what else will we do?

[Gilley]

Hopefully the Reader will get into more American Idol style contests for performers like TimeOut is.

Nobody reads theater reviews anyways, except nerds, people in the show, and old folks who don't have anything better to do.

Normal people (like me!) just go to Metromix.