Fanny Packing at the Helen Hayes

I was amused to read the 5/12 Backstage article in the Washington Post featuring the Helen Hayes executive director's (ED's) description of what is meant (or not) by their recent imprimatur "Helen Hayes (HH) Recommended." Since the comments address just about every concern I raised in my previous posts, it's comforting to know that either I'm being read by this august body or many other theatergoers share my views. So what can we learn about this new process?

According to the ED, "it's about putting paying butts in seats," and it's "a marketing tool to assist theaters with promoting their productions while a show is running." No surprise there - the frankness is shocking though - the Helen Hayes has always been about marketing themselves and the theaters in the area. But they tend to cloak it in the veneer of advancing theater excellence.

Getting a "Recommended" from the HH doesn't mean you will or won't get a nomination out of it, but if you don't, what's the point? I've remarked that it's a bone being tossed to the smaller, also- ran theaters, the judges preferring big production values with big name actors (i.e., big budgets). And I can guarantee that there'll plenty of unhappy people when they get passed over (again). You can't really market a "Recommended" on your CV or website after the show's closed (individual categories are not recognized). But then it's only for "a one-year trial period."

I was surprised to learn that the same eight judges that determine the nominations/awards also vote for the "Recommended" element. I see a potential conflict here: you're asking the same people to both market and evaluate a show. Where do you draw the line?

I've no problem about marketing theater: no one would be happier to see full houses than I would. The fact that they aren't full is a definite loss to us all. (But isn't this the responsibility of the theaters' individual marketing departments? Word of mouth is the time-honored promotional tool and with the advent of social networking you can let potential theater patrons know about your show real-time.) But I think the theater community would be better served if the HH kept the marketing and awards processes separate. The ED does "not see any conflict at all ...nor has any been presented to us." Well, again, at the expense of being redundant, the awards process is (or is supposed to be) impartial, private, and not subject to manipulation or coercion. But if you are publicly disclosing the lobby awardees or front runners, you are giving everyone a peek at the data. And advance information, especially in this town, is power. Who do you think that's going to benefit in the awards process, the smaller theaters (hah!)?

Reference was made of the use of "Recommended" with the Joseph Jefferson Awards. Having attended Chicagoland theater several times a year for a decade, I am somewhat familiar with their process. I'll cut to the chase and state categorically the Jeffs are everything the HH Awards process is not. But don't take my word for it; check out their website. For starters, seven or so judges attend an opening night and determine by private vote whether a show should be "Jeff Recommended." If it is, then each of the 50 Jeff committee members must attend the show without knowledge of what category or categories were singled out. Results are tabulated, nominations for the top five in each category are made, and committee members vote again to determine winners. So their "Recommended" functions as a first cut for them, the votes for each are made by different individuals, and the nomination and awards voting are done twice from 50 evaluators, not eight (and not once) like the HH process.

The Jeff is open to local Chicago theater groups only - no touring companies are eligible (that would rule out the Kennedy Center and the National Theatre) and no mime theater (which eliminates most of Synetic shows) and honors both equity and non-equity productions. They also distinguish between large and mid-size shows. If you go on their site, you'll note that the number one FAQ is "What Does it Mean to Be Jeff Recommended?" an indication that this dubious practice has attracted a measure of notoriety elsewhere. But, hey, that's Chicago - we're different, aren't we?

If the HH nabobs are looking to improve their selection process, perhaps they should review the Tony Awards. If they're interested in recognizing smaller theaters they might use the Jeff set-up as a guideline. Or better still, let's get another awards process going, allow patrons to vote for the choices, and have theater donors allocate a portion of their generous giving to audience development (instead of design/production). Build the audience the right way and they will come.