So I just found a new blog today 2amtheatre. I added it to my blog list because from reading the first page, I found that I liked more than just the look of the blog but also the content...lol. Anyway on April 14th, the writer of the blog post, Alli Houseworth, makes mention of a marketing campaign used by a group of women in Times Square:
They are promoting David Mamet’s new play Race. Race is a story about a group of lawyers who are representing a case in which a man has been accused of raping a woman. Two of the lawyers are male (one white, one black), the other lawyer is a black female, the accused is a white male, and the “victim” (in quotes because this is a Mamet play, after all) is a black female. As the story unfolds we learn that the “victim” was wearing a red sequined dress at the time the alleged crime was committed.
The street team for Race that has been spotted working around TKTS in Times Square is comprised of women of various races who wear short, strapless, red sequined dresses (like the one the “victim” wore in the play) and who hand flyers to passersby.
The question was then posed: Is this an effective grassroots marketing campaign for the new play Race? Houseworth continues with asking basic marketing questions:
1. Does the Race street team grab your attention?
2. Do they get people talking?
3. Are the memorable?
4. Are they distinguishable in a crowd of other ads and messages?
5. Do they align with the rest of the marketing campaign (or, in other words, do they fit the “brand” of Race)?
6. Does this particular street team sell tickets?
7. And finally, do they convey an appropriate message so that an audience member’s expectations are met when they see the show?
Houseworth states her argument that the answers to questions 1-6 should be yes but the 7th question is a bit more complex. Houseworth goes on to say that "We’re in the business of selling art. And, theatre is distinguishable from all other arts because it is the one medium in which there is a direct expression of the human condition."
The writer of the post felt that the campaign members were being shameful and was disappointed in the decision to have the women in red dresses especially since the character they are dressed up as was raped in the play. (And it was especially shameful because the women were seen flirting with men who would pass by)
I have never read the play Race and I think sometime in the future I would and then I could have a better opinion on the significance of the red dress and even better what the play is about (ha). But from just looking at this on the surface, I would not be disappointed in the women (I probably would't flirt if I were them) but I do not see anything wrong. I am sure the play has some very serious undertones within it but what other way would they have advertise the play? Enacting the rape, have a court scene? I think the use of the symbolism of the red dress does catch the eye and it is when the flyers are giving to those who pass by they can then see the seriousness of the play and take interest. I think it is a big reaction to be ashamed of the actions of the company and the marketing team.
I thank Alli Houseworth for this article because it does bring up a good question. How far do you go to get attention for the arts? Now there are some really provacative ways advertising is getting audience attention. Should the arts follow that trend for the sake of attendance? Tell me what you think and read more of the post here Arts Marketing Morality
No comments:
Post a Comment