Was the reviewer comped (given free ticket by the performing company) to the show? And does it matter?
Rule: If you answer, please do so BEFORE reading the other answers. Thanks!
Question 1: For performance art (opera, Broadway show, symphonic concert, song recital, etc) reviews that appear online. If there is no 'disclosure' in the review about how the reviewer paid (or did not pay) for the ticket to the performance, what is YOUR assumption?
A) All reviewers (both printed press and independent bloggers) were given free ticket B) Only the reviewers for printed press were given free ticket. The blogger reviewers weren't C) Printed press pay for the ticket for their reviewers. The blogger reviewers paid for their own ticket. D) All reviewers paid for their own ticket.
Question 2: Do you automatically discount the credibility of a review if the reviewer discloses that he had been comped to the show in return for an honest review of it?
2009-05-13T21:07:08Z
Thanks for your comment, Petr. Can you add to that what your assumption would be if there is no disclosure in the review about whether the reviewer was comped or not? Thanks!
2009-05-14T16:05:53Z
Hey, thanks everyone for answering! Yep, my main interest is in learning what the audience ARE ASSUMING when they read a review.
Specifically whether they realize that nearly all the reviewers they read online, press or non-press, are comped to the performance (and like baritone says, they get press package with info along with the ticket) by the performing company.
So it seems that most people think that reviewers aren't comped... And if a reviewer says that he is comped then people would think that his review isn't as credible as the ones that don't say so?
1. If I don't see any disclosure or disclaimer I'd say I'd assume B. Opera and symphony companies, as a rule, comp the press reviewers. Independent bloggers probably aren't comped by the company. Unless they know a cast member and get free ticket from them.
2. No, unless the review smells fishy - like being so overly profusely praiseful. If the review seems fair and covers both the good and the bad of the show, then I actually like it better.
Reviewers should be upfront about whether they were comped to the show or not. I think the general audience assume that non-press reviewers pay for their own ticket, so if they don't disclose it, that is dishonest.
I won't go into whether they should accept the comp or not. It's how it is already done. Printed press ARE always comped (the free tickets come from the company and not from the press' boss). They not only get tickets from the company but also a press-package (folder of extra info on the production, cast members, and photos). And it is expensive to attend live opera and symphony nowadays. As long as the comp doesn't come with the requirement to write positive review, I don't have a problem with it.
Several prominent critics, not all contemporary, have been quick to state they purchase their own tickets at regular prices and use their own money for every performance they attend and review. I applaud them.
I was playing a revue at a theatre when I witnessed the extreme opposite kind of critic. Comped seat, big dinner on the paper's account, too much wine, and one comped, overly-sated and somewhat inebriated salaried professional critic for a major metropolitan newspaper slept and dozed through the show. The review was mildly pleasantly disposed toward the performance, but every performer knew he had missed 80% of it while in his seat, and his judgment was impaired for the other 20%.
I'll take critic one every time. Not because they have sympathy for us plebes who spend the same money for those seats. They have paid for a professional service and are free to do with their opinion what they choose,without obligation. Critic number one makes it publicly plain that he has no other obligations to anyone, including those who pay his salary, except to say what he actually thinks.
If a blogger can't afford a ticket out of their own pocket, they should cut their cable TV service and save up so they can.
Comps are for performer's friends, families and other artists, perhaps a few who endow the hall or production. Everyone, everyone, else pays.
A. because I for sure know that opera and symphony companies give free ticket to the press for shows they review. Also I know that some companies give free ticket to bloggers, too.
No, because most reviewers get free ticket but don't say that they do in their review. They hide it and they let readers think that they didn't. If this reviewer says up front that he got the ticket for free, then I trust him more because he chose to not hide the potential conflict of interest anyway.
It has been more than 15 yrs. since I attended a live performance of any kind(haven't even be out to a movie in the same length of time); so my opinion probably want count for much, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth anyway.
The only "review" I've accessed in recent years, were the difference in prices of the various DVD's of Wagner's complete Ring: needless to say, I bought the cheapest even though I preferred another.
The only specific instance I can ever recall of having read a review of any kind, was one in the St.Louis Post-Dispatch of Margaret Truman's debut concert in St.Louis, Mo.(remember her? President Truman's daughter?). And the critic mercilessly "panned" her; but my music director of the high school band and I had already purchased our tickets, and had to travel from northeastern Arkansas to attend the concert.
Needless to say, I totally agreed with the critic: she was absolutely horrendous.
But to address one specific aspect of your question(s): if I were a critic such as yourself, I would never accept a comp ticket for any performance I reviewed - your integrity would never be called into question, and your reviews therefore would be beyond reproach(forgive my "long-windedness").