|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
A West End Recession?Dateline: 25th November, 2001 I remember reading somewhere that the technical definition of an economic recession is a decline in economic growth in two consecutive quarters. Now, my memory may be faulty, but that does seem reasonable: after all, a recession means that the economy is going backwards, so six months of doing so must give major cause for concern. There is no doubt that there has been a definite decline in the West End's ticket sales in the current quarter. The terrible events of 11th September have caused a sharp fall in the number of Americans (and Japanese, so I read) visiting this country, which has meant the British tourist industry has taken a real knock. London, of course, has been particularly hard hit, with hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions - which, of course, includes West End theatre - taking the brunt of the decline. This week's news that top prices for two of London's longest running and popular musicals - Cats and Phantom of the Opera - have been cut right through into the first quarter of next year sends the clearest signal yet that the West End's theatre industry is seriously worried. Cameron Mackintosh, one of the West End's most successful producers for many a long year, would not be cutting prices if he saw any alternative. The First Blow But the effect of the 11th September attacks was not the first blow to tourism this year. Although not so major, the foot and mouth epidemic also caused a fall-off in visitor numbers in the third quarter, although SOLT, the Society of London Theatre, was quick to reassure us that it hadn't affected the West End. There had been, we were told, an increase in the number of people attending West End shows. Yes, it was an increase, but it was an increase which was smaller than expected, reducing the overall growth for the year. Thus there have been two quarters during which growth has declined. The West End, I would suggest, is in recession. There's an interesting letter in the current edition of "The Stage" in which the writer talks about the number of empty seats, even in the most popular shows, during the week. His suggestion was that theatres should massively reduce their prices, saying that a seat occupied at £10 is better than a seat not occupied at £40. My first reaction was that such a price reduction would be counter-productive, for many of those who would be otherwise pay £40 or higher at the weekend would simply come earlier in the week. Obviously probably the larger proportion of the weekend audience couldn't do this, but I felt that the managements could not afford to risk even the smaller proportion doing so. Clearly I was wrong. Times must be very difficult. There were, of course, signs much earlier in the year that the West End was facing problems. Both Mackintosh and Lloyd Webber complained bitterly about the dirty, crime-ridden streets around Theatreland, comparing the West End to the Times Square area of pre-Giuliani New York. We hear this week of the closure of the long-running Buddy. It may be, of course, that this particular show has reached the end of its natural life. It may also be that Ken Ludwig's Over the Moon is really just a bad show, and that is the only reason for its closure. But one has to wonder... West End developments over the next few months should be quite interesting. Articles Indices:
|
|
|