So You Want to be a Theatre Producer?

James Seabright

• Publisher: Nick Hern Books
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781780010090
• Topic: Medien & darstellende Kunst
• Subtopic: Theaterregie und& Theaterproduktion

A comprehensive guide to every aspect of producing a show, from raising the money to creating a hit.

This unique guide offers comprehensive, clear advice to anyone producing or selling a show, whatever the venue or scale. Packed full of insights and tricks of the trade, it will give you the inspiration and confidence you need – whether you are taking your first steps in the profession or simply want to know what it takes to get a show on the stage.

Drawing on his own experience as a producer of theatre productions at every level – from university, via the fringe, to the West End – James Seabright takes you through each stage of the process:

• Having an idea for a show or getting the rights to an existing one
• Planning your budget and raising the money
• Booking your venue or a tour
• Marketing and selling the show effectively
• Getting the production designed, rehearsed and onto the stage

From the fundamental (dealing with contracts) to the frivolous (how to organise your first-night party), every aspect is explained with the help of illuminating examples. There is also a wide-ranging appendix and a companion website with downloadable contract templates, marketing packs and budget spreadsheets.

'At last, hundreds of students on arts management and administration courses have a comprehensive reference book. It provides a unique guide for anyone taking their first steps into the world of producing.' The Stage

'Essential reading for anyone contemplating a life in the theatre fast lane.' - Thelma Holt

1

The Role of the Producer

The producer’s role can appear confusing and indefinable. The briefest of definitions would be that the producer is responsible for delivering a good show, on time and in budget. The producer also typically defines what is ‘on time’ and ‘in budget’ for the show, as well as raising the money required to fund the production.

This chapter makes a stab at expanding on that definition – but the starting point has to be a recognition that there are lots of different kinds of producer.

At one end of the scale is the ‘do-it-all’ producer who is involved in every aspect of a show: creatively, financially, administratively, technically and promotionally. At the other extreme is the producer who either specialises in a particular area for one production, or for all the work they produce.

Taking those five main areas of the ‘do-it-all’ producer’s job description one by one is a useful way of looking at things. Note that all of the areas summarised here are explored in more detail in later chapters.

Creative

The artistic figurehead of a production is its director, but that doesn’t mean the director is the creative force behind it. Often the concept for a show will come from someone else, and that person may well be the producer. Even in a scenario where the overall idea or energy for a show comes from the writer or director, the producer is often integral to the creative direction the show goes in, through the choice of cast and the creative team, an involvement in the design process, and being the person who determines the way the show is marketed to the public and pitched to the press.

For this reason I dislike the recent trend for some producers, particularly those working in the subsidised sector, to give themselves the moniker ‘Creative Producer’ or ‘Artistic Producer’. It is somewhat tautological for starters, like a cast member deciding they are to be known as a ‘Performing Actor’. But it also suggests that other aspects of the production are not their problem: if the show goes way over budget, doesn’t attract an audience, and makes the theatre burn down, presumably that’s not the concern of the Creative Producer – because those areas aren’t in their brief.

Clearly, the ‘Creative Producer’ moniker is designed to counteract the perception of producers being money-driven and uninterested in the artistic process, but for me it stems from a misunderstanding of the role. Admittedly in some productions which have multiple producers, one of them may have primary responsibility for creative areas over and above other concerns. But even then the person in question is still a producer, with a creative agenda in the context of constraints and possibilities with which they still engage.

Financial

Producers are often thought of as the ‘money people’ – they are portrayed as having prime responsibility for and chief interest in the raising of finance and the making of profit. For starters, anyone who gets into theatre producing to make money is in the wrong business. Sure, there are some millionaire producers out there, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Easier money can be made quicker and easier in almost any other industry you can mention. So, when a lucrative show does come along, the producer shouldn’t feel bad about that success – as long as they’ve dealt fairly with everyone involved in making the show. By contrast, in the subsidised sector – where shows rely on funding and donations rather than investment – there is no profit motive at play. The producer still has to raise the money in the first place, albeit from different sources.

Sometimes an individual will be credited as a producer in recognition of their having raised a chunk of money for a production, but they are unlikely to be the lead producer on the show. It is a particularly American trait to give people a producer credit just for raising money, but it increasingly has a place in big commercial shows here in the UK, given the desire to reduce risk through spreading it between more investors. One negative consequence of having so many producers can be that the money-raisers then expect to be involved in every major decision on the show, in the belief that it will enhance the production and protect their investment. Such producing by committee can lead to a ‘lowest common denominator’ outcome, which is rarely a sure-fire way to make a hit show.

In some ways, this issue of giving producer credits to people who raise money is less relevant to fringe and small-scale shows – although given that they normally have lower budgets, it increases the likelihood that one individual investor could afford to fund the entire project. This can present its own challenges in terms of being beholden to the whims of a third-party financier, even if they are not asking for producer status.

Aside from actually raising the funds for a production, the producer is responsible more generally for the budget: both setting it in the first place, and overseeing its management as the production goes ahead. Areas of this responsibility are often delegated to others in the team, but to coin a phrase: the buck always stops with the producer.

Administrative

There is always a lot of paperwork to handle with any business matter, and putting on a show is no exception. Budgets, insurances, play licences, performer contracts, creative-team agreements, invoices, settlements and remittances all have to be handled and managed along the way, plus any number of other organisational tasks such as the booking of rehearsal rooms, the payment of expenses claims, and the drawing-up of schedules. For touring productions, all of this has to be replicated for each and every venue. With larger shows, particularly in the commercial sector, a producer will often delegate this area of their responsibility to a general manager; in the subsidised sector this person might be called an administrator or production coordinator instead. But whoever is doing the work, the producer is in charge of making sure the administration of a show hangs together, thus oiling the wheels of a production for smooth running.

Technical

Lighting, sound, set, props, costumes, health and safety, risk assessments... they all have their role to play in a show, and they are generally looked after by a dedicated team of stage managers, technical crew and designers that the producer recruits and manages. In better resourced shows, the technical side of things is headed up by a production manager on behalf of the producer – although they report to the general manager, when there is one. Production managers take day-to-day control of certain areas of the budget and work closely with the design team to ensure that the creative vision of the show can be delivered onstage through the smooth running of all things technical. With small-scale or low-budget shows, the producer may have to be their own production manager.

Promotional

The business of finding an audience for a show through the astute management of both paid-for marketing and press coverage has to be a prime concern. To a large degree, a producer has to understand the mechanics of promotion to understand what the difference is between a good idea for a show and a bad one, at least in terms of the show having a hope of selling a ticket. Clearly, not all good shows are popular, and not all poor shows are unpopular, but to some extent any such reversals of fortune and fairness can be attributed to the success or failure of a production’s approach to marketing and PR (public relations).

In many ways, a good producer is someone who knows what an audience wants before they do – which places a canny sense of public demand at the centre of a producer’s skill set. Indeed, the very earliest decisions made when putting a show together – where and when to do it – are intrinsically linked with an understanding of the audience that a show is reaching out to, and how they are best reached.

Perhaps even more difficult is the vital producing skill of foreseeing the level of demand for a show, and choosing the right size of venue to match it: this is intrinsically linked with an understanding of how an audience will respond to a particular show. Almost every aspect of a production feeds from the decision of the scale at which it is being mounted, and a good producer understands that bigger isn’t always better. Particularly with shows that are trying to cultivate a new audience or a cult following, the decision to start small and aim to scale up to a big show is a sensible strategy to adopt.

Subsidised versus commercial

A few references have been made to the differences between working in the subsidised and commercial sectors already. A producer doesn’t necessarily have to ally themselves with one particular sector and always work in that area – a good show is a good show regardless of how it is financed, although of course the priorities and rationales vary quite a bit depending on the financing arrangement.

Many acclaimed shows come about through the collaboration between subsidised and commercial producers and organisations, such as the musical Spring Awakening having its UK premiere in 2009 under the auspices of the subsidised Lyric Hammersmith producing the show, with the publicly invisible support of commercial producers who then took up their option to transfer it into the West End (although unfortunately the show did not fare well commercially, despite strong reviews). Another example of collaboration ‘across the barrier’ are the arrangements that the National Theatre and Donmar Warehouse maintain with New York-based commercial producers, whereby a retainer secures first refusal to transfer productions from these subsidised London venues to commercial presentation in the USA.

If you are a new producer wondering whether you should start out in the subsidised or commercial sector, the answer probably lies in the sort of shows you would like to put on, and how they might be financed. Do you aspire to stage work more like that which you see in subsidised or commercial venues? Do you think that your dream project would be a show that could attract investors to risk money on it in the hope that it might turn a profit? These are the key questions to ask yourself when you’re starting out. Many producers experience both sectors during their career; certainly an understanding of one sector can provide useful background and contacts when working in the other.

I have always tended toward the commercial side of things, but have also got grants from both Arts Council England and other funders for individual projects, particularly at the development stage. Being a commercial producer doesn’t disbar you from seeking funding, and working in the subsidised world doesn’t make ‘profit’ a dirty word. Indeed, if you think about it, there is more in common between the two sectors than there are differences between them. If you accept that the majority of commercial productions lose money, then you can see that they too are effectively subsidised – by their investors.

However, the industry perception is generally that a commercial producer should pay more for the same services as a subsidised-sector producer. When it is considered that the majority of commercial productions do not recover their investment, whereas a subsidised show will almost always achieve its own version of ‘recoupment’ through a combination of funding and box-office receipts, this seems particularly strange. It is obviously evidence that the commercial sector has an image problem, but that’s only going to change if producers do a better job of demonstrating that they’re doing a fair deal, and ideally one that means everyone involved benefits when a show goes into profit.

Apprenticeship versus experience

The traditional way of training to become a theatre producer is to go and be an intern or assistant for a well-established producer. Eventually the apprentice either persuades their boss to let them take on their own projects, or they fly the nest and go independent. This approach reflects the reality that you can’t learn how to produce solely from reading a book like this, any more than you can teach yourself to drive a car by reading a manual. Certainly you need a manual to understand the framework, but producing is an instinctive business. Like learning how to drive a car, the theory of producing is important – but can only take you so far towards ‘passing your test’ by getting a show to first night.

As a producer starting out, you need to make a decision about whether to commit yourself to the apprenticeship approach, or just to start trying to produce and learning by your mistakes. As explained in the introduction, I took something closer to the latter path – but there is a different ‘right answer’ for each new producer.

One aspect of anyone’s development as a producer, regardless of their chosen career path, is the availability of mentors and advisers. I was fortunate to be mentored through my Stage One New Producer Bursary by the hugely experienced Nick Salmon. Along the way I have learnt a lot by asking Nick and other producers for help or advice, and cannot understate the importance of such practical support. Whether or not you are lucky enough to have such a structured form of expert advice land in your lap, don’t be afraid to call up or write to producers who you admire and respect, asking for advice. My experience is that the most successful people are often also the most ready to help out a newcomer.

The big picture

One really important part of a producer’s role is maintaining a view of the ‘big picture’ at all times in the production process. There is an endless stream of deadlines, details and hurdles to overcome in putting on even the simplest of shows, so it is easy for those involved with the show to get caught up with little things. Somebody has to be there to keep an eye on the production as a whole – is it heading in the right direction at the right pace? Do certain contentious details just distract from a bigger problem in need of urgent attention?

Being able to step back at any point and take a view is an essential producing skill. To achieve that, the producer needs to avoid getting caught up in the ‘tunnel vision’ that a close-knit production team can engender. Being able to spot the difference between ‘tunnel vision’ and the more desirable quality of having a focused and dedicated team is also an important skill. I often reflect that the amount of time a typical producer actually spends producing is quite small: so much of what a producer does, particularly on a small-scale show, is effectively general, production, or financial management. But being ready to put the spreadsheet to one side and make a creative call on something is vital.

2

Conceiving a Show

The basic idea is where a show begins, and will also ultimately determine when it ends – through the idea’s success or failure when developed into a production. This chapter explores the various potential sources of ideas for shows, and then looks at how they might be developed. I also explore the differences between putting on new writing and revivals.

Where do the ideas come from?

Inspiration

Sometimes wonderful ideas for shows appear seemingly from nowhere, or can be inspired by a personal response to another show, a book you’ve read, a work of art, or a piece of music. The difference between a writer having an idea in this way, and a producer being inspired thus, is that the producer then needs to find a creative team to help realise the idea.

Here’s an example from my own experience. I heard an excerpt of a book being read on BBC Radio 4, and was engaged by the insight offered by the material. My intrigue eventually led to the creation of the one-man show My Grandfather’s Great War, as a result of my making contact with the writer and reader, Cameron Stewart. He’d published his grandfather’s war diaries online, which led to media interest in the material, and the subsequent publication of them in book form. By happy coincidence Cameron is also an actor – and as he was interested by my suggestion that we create a solo show from the diaries, I then connected him with a regular collaborator of mine, David Benson. Together they adapted the text into a performance script and the production premiered at the Edinburgh Fringe in 2008 and went on to tour successfully, generating further interest in the book itself which proved a popular item of merchandise at performances. It’s worth noting that even with the source material already in place, this one-man show took nine months to reach the stage. Inspiration doesn’t make it any quicker to produce a show.

Pitched ideas

Producers are often pitched ideas by writers, directors or other creatives. These can be in a variety of levels of development, from just the nub of an idea to a full script draft. Most commonly, if the producer is interested in an idea that is yet to be developed, they will request that a treatment be prepared, to flesh out the idea over a few pages that more fully explores how a production might grow from the idea. Asking for a treatment is considered the first stage of commissioning a script from a writer, and as such can require the payment of a treatment fee. Some writers will happily put a treatment together gratis if they are keen to make a project happen (but their agent is unlikely to agree with any such outbreak of philanthropy).

If there are underlying rights that need to be sought in order for the project to proceed (for example, the rights to adapt a novel for the stage), a treatment will be invaluable so that the rights holders can get a sense of the proposed usage before granting a licence. The process from treatment to having a script ready to go into production can be a long one. One recent example is a musical I co-commissioned, adapted from a novel, where the acquisition of rights took six months and the writers then spent a year creating a full draft o...