"A classic psychological thriller."
Those are the words you will see in virtually every description of my day job's upcoming production.
I could use other words to describe the show:
"An examination of trust and social change set in the turbulent 1960's."
"A look at the internal conflict of a woman suddenly struck with blindness."
Those two statements fairly accurately reflect what the show is about. But really, who wants to see a show described like that?
I describe the show as a psychological thriller because . . . a lot of people like psychological thrillers.
That's what smart marketing is, describing your art in a way that makes people want to know more about it. Basically it's a magnet that you use to draw people closer.
The words you use are a vital component of that.
Think about it this way.
One of the biggest challenges for small arts organizations is building an audience that consists of someone OTHER then their friends, family, etc.
Then I read the way they describe their show (on a postcard, the web, whatever) and it's full of jargon, overly complex terms, etc. it basically screams to the world: THIS ISN'T FOR YOU, IT'S FOR US. DON'T COME SEE IT.
One of the easiest ways to avoid the "jargon trap" is to share the words you are using to describe a show with someone who has no particular interest in your art form and ask them, "based on what you read, do you want to know more about the show?"
Their answer may surprise you. I've done this with people and had them tell me that based on what I had written about a show it made them actively NOT want to see it . . . not exactly the intended effect.
Just remember, every word you write about your art counts. Don't blow it by trying to be the smartest kid in the room.
The thriller angle is totally the way to go for this piece. Not that it will be exactly like the movie, but that shocking image of Alan Arkin leaping out of the dark to grab Audrey Hepburn's ankle is seared into our collective pop culture memory. The 'money shot' of the play is when all the lights are out and the final girl has to fend for herself- it's a direct predecessor of a slasher flick.
Posted by: Ed | February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
How would this tie in with yesterday's post on advocacy?
Seems like, for me at least, it's the same issue only on a larger scale for advocacy and a smaller one for a production?
Posted by: Tony | February 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
How would this tie in with yesterday's post on advocacy?
Seems like, for me at least, it's the same issue only on a larger scale for advocacy and a smaller one for a production?
Posted by: Tony | February 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I actually completely agree with you on this.
We have had a few difficulties coming up with the quick, easy read to market DADA, though.
And I can't help but take your advice one step further for your own show:
"Wait Until Dark - it has a pair of tits in there!"
That'd bring out the frat boys AND Chris Jones.
Posted by: Don Hall | February 18, 2009 at 02:25 PM
Don,
We get it man. You and Team DADA are the true artists and you consider it your responsibility to mock all things that dare to mix art and commerce.
But here's the thing bro, mockery is easy. It doesn't take much effort to fire out the snarky remarks.
Posted by: Adam | February 18, 2009 at 04:12 PM
DADA:
"We'll confuse you and piss you off- and you'll love every minute of it!"
Done.
I don't mean that as mockery, either.
Posted by: Ed | February 18, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Adam, as a confirmed quibbler, the only word that I find a little deceptive (and maybe unnecessary?) in your description of "Wait Until Dark" is 'psychological.' How so? It seems like an attempt to tart up the description a bit- here's the basic premise, after all: There's a nice blind chick. Very bad guys are after her because she has a MacGuffin. Will she survive the night? The audience isn't going to see this because they want an in depth examination of her psyche. We're just rooting for her not to get harmed by very bad men. That doesn't stop it from being a good night out at the theatre. Of course, I haven't read the script for a while, so I'm kind of leaving myself wide open for a rebuttal about the hypothetcial soul-searing monologue Susy has halfway through act one about what it means to her to have lost her sight, if there is one....Mostly joshing ya. You've been doing this longer than I have, after all.
Posted by: Ed | February 18, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Bah. Forced to play devil's advocate against myself- I think the mind games Roat plays with Susy actually DO qualify it as psychological, come to think of it. Withdrawn.
Posted by: Ed | February 18, 2009 at 04:56 PM
Adam,
I wasn't mocking you in any way.
Posted by: Don Hall | February 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM