Should Critics Get Free Tickets?

An interesting discussion with the artistic director of a small theatre company here in San Francisco about whether theatre critics should be entitled to get in to see his show (and shows in general) for free prompts me to write this post.

The artistic director -- let's call him Fred -- asked me for information about the "protocol" with regards to giving out press tickets. I told him that the decision about free tickets is always at the discretion of the theatre company. But I added that pretty much every company, big and small, local and national, gives away tickets to critics. In fact, with the exception of a few Broadway shows which I saw on the fly in New York and a handful of productions where I was offered free tickets but decided to pay because I was attending 100% as a friend of the creator and not in a critical capacity, I don't think I've paid for a ticket to see a performance (whether theatre, concert, or dance) since I started working as a professional arts critic.

Fred, as far as I can tell from our discussion so far, thinks that critics should pay for tickets unless they're absolutely committed to writing a review of his show. The arguments for this are understandable: Why should a critic get a free ride and not give anything back in return? Plus, his theatre company is very small, operates on a shoestring and is truly hungry for every dollar.

The thing is, often a critic needs to see the work of a company (especially a small, young one such as Fred's) to familiarize herself with it in order to decide whether to devote a 1,200 word column to that company in the future. Furthermore, sometimes critics write about productions in avenues other than their main publishing vehicle. I, for one, frequently comment on shows in this blog and I also review theatre every few weeks on the radio (on the local NPR affiliate KALW's Artery program.) Then there's the possibility of having the show crop up in other areas of a critic's work. For example, if I'm writing an article about the many faces of San Francisco theatre, or the way in which companies are using space in an innovative way, I may refer to Fred's company and talk about his show.

Theatre professionals know this which is why they usually do what they can to get critics into the house, thinking about their shows, and hopefully talking and writing about them too. I might also add that just because a critic promises a theatre company a review, it doesn't guarantee that the review will appear in the media. The editor may decide not to publish the piece for whatever reason. The paper may go bankrupt overnight and cease operations. Some things are beyond the critic's control, making it hard for a theatre company to discriminate between reviewers who say they'll definitely be writing a piece about a show and those who have other less direct reasons for checking out a company's work.

In short, I believe that if theatre makers want to generate discussion about their work, they should provide critics with open access to it. Of course, there is one notable exception to the rule, which I should mention. If a theatre company doesn't want its work reviewed (e.g. because it's a workshop production and still too "raw" for public comment) it shouldn't feel obliged to let critics see the show for free. Obviously a director can't stop someone like me from paying for a ticket. But in this case, I would personally probably respect the theatre company's wishes and keep my thoughts to a dinner table discussion with friends, at least until the run is over.