Comments on: An Analysis of the 2010 WATCH Awards

By: Jessie Roberts

Jessie Roberts — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:39:14 +0000

I didn’t read the other comments before I sent mine and I have to disagree with the quality of the people associated with a production being a factor in the success of a show. Of course it is in the sense that a production with dedicated, talented people should result in a quality theatre experience. With the Vienna Theatre Company, I have worked with people who have been nominated for and won awards in other theatres, including myself. These and others who work with VTC have all of the attributes cited in the previous comments. And the shows have been audience successes. However, the company receives few nominations and fewer awards. So, IMHO, the differing factors primarily seem to be the financial assets that are available for a production and the technical abilities of the venue.

By: Jessie Roberts

Jessie Roberts — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:32:13 +0000

I am affiliated primarily with the Vienna Theatre Company and this interesting analysis confirms what I have perceived for years. Theatres with smaller budgets, less sophisticated venues, fewer shows or shorter runs of shows and other similar factors that could qualify them as “smaller” are disadvantaged in the WATCH system. While it may be challenging to create a tiered system, I think it would foster more support for WATCH and more cooperation among the theatres in the area. If WATCH can come up with the complex algorithm that assigns what shows are to be reviewed by which judges, it should be able to come up with reasonable criteria for having two tiers of award categories. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

By: John Bordeaux

John Bordeaux — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:05:40 +0000

Dan is absolutely on target, and I’m a bit shocked that the human element didn’t make into your data analysis. A theater with a good reputation (show audiences often outnumber the actors, the schedule is reliable week to week, theater governance features more than one outsized ago, or one incestuous clique, etc.) – will attract the more capable directors. Those directors, in turn, attract more volunteers willing to work on their shows, and can therefore select those of higher quality and reliability.

It’s an ecosystem, not a closed equation (more shows = more awards!). Until we consider the human element, population centers and proximity to theaters, etc., we are likely premature to recommend solutions.

By: Dan Remmers

Dan Remmers — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:17:48 +0000

That data is interesting. Obviously, the more tickets a company can sell, the bigger the budget, and the better the production–in certain areas. A big budget helps with costumes, props, and the set, but you don’t need much money for great sound or lights (once you have a good board and instruments). And certainly a good director and actors aren’t dependent upon a big budget.

Reputation is the unmeasurable factor. In community theater, the quality of a production is a function of the quality of the volunteers. A theater with a good reputation will attract and retain good volunteers. It can be difficult to gain reputation, but one great production can get people to take notice. Dedicated, hard-working volunteers always trump a big budget.