The Future of the Subscription Model in Theatre According to Patrons

I just had a moment to read, “Hitting Theater Hard: The Loss of Subscribers Who Went to Everything” which was written by Michael Paulson and published in the New York Times. It’s a very thoughtful, timely piece.

It’s a topic that is front and center in many of the leadership meetings at performing arts organizations across the country as the business model of the live cultural experience has been forever changed. But as I finished reading the article, I noticed there was an equally interesting storyline running in parallel — and that storyline was the feedback in the comments of the article.

At the time I was reading the article, over 500 people had commented. And those comments were heavy, descriptive, and passion-filled. Most commenters self-described as theatre patrons and had deeply held perspectives on what they believe was happening in the world of the performing arts. As I read and scrolled, it was like being in a real-time focus group.

As a marketer, my job is to try and connect the dots in consumer behavior. What insights can we pull to better understand the actions we should take in engaging potential audiences? So with a little (actually a lot of) copying and pasting of 500 pages of reader comments from the New York Times story, I enlisted the help of an AI-driven LLM (large language model) to summarize an analysis of how readers responded to the story and their perspectives on the future of the subscription model.

As you can imagine, the themes of what the feedback was from readers was quite varied. It was fueled with emotion as will the responses of the folks reading this article — everyone has an opinion on the past, present, and future health of the theatre industry.

So, here’s what AI has to say about what it’s hearing from patrons who weighed in on the New York Times story. I tend to think it’s one of the more emotionless ways to navigate an emotion-driven industry.

1. Preference for New and Challenging Content: Many commenters express a desire for new and innovative plays that challenge their thinking and offer fresh perspectives. They are seeking content that introduces them to the unknown and sparks new ideas.
2. Dissatisfaction with Didactic and Preachy Plays: Several commenters mention their dissatisfaction with plays that come across as didactic or preachy. They prefer works that engage them intellectually and emotionally without feeling like they’re being lectured to.
3. Desire for Entertainment and Enjoyment: A common sentiment among commenters is the desire for theatrical experiences that offer entertainment and enjoyment. They seek plays that are not only thought-provoking but also fun and engaging.
4. Preference for Flexibility in Attendance: Many readers express a preference for buying tickets to individual shows rather than committing to subscriptions. They value the flexibility to choose what they want to see and when.
5. Impact of Age and Accessibility: Age-related factors, such as concerns about late showtimes, accessibility, and comfort, play a role in some commenters’ decisions to unsubscribe or attend theater less frequently.
6. Connection Between Subscriptions and Donations: Commenters highlight the link between subscriptions and donations, indicating that many donors are also subscribers. This connection emphasizes the importance of retaining both groups for theater funding.
7. Shift in Viewing Habits: The rise of streaming platforms and the convenience of enjoying entertainment at home have impacted theater attendance habits. Some commenters mention that they have developed a preference for at-home viewing.
8. Mixed Feelings About Shakespeare and Classic Plays: Some readers express mixed feelings about classic plays like Shakespearean works. While some appreciate the artistry and skill involved, others find it challenging to connect with the plots and language.
9. Importance of Audience Diversity: Many commenters stress the importance of diversifying theater audiences and programming. They believe that reducing reliance on a homogeneous subscriber base can lead to more inclusive and diverse experiences.
10. Financial Concerns for Theaters: Several readers acknowledge the financial challenges theaters face due to the decline in subscriptions. They are concerned about the impact on the theater industry and its ability to continue producing quality shows.
11. Efforts to Adapt and Engage New Audiences: Some commenters highlight the need for theaters to adapt their strategies to engage new audiences and retain existing ones. This includes exploring flexible subscription models and programming that appeals to a wider demographic.
12. Value of Artistic Risk-Taking: The discussion of risk-taking in theater arises, with some readers emphasizing that the decline in subscriptions could lead to less willingness to take artistic risks, which are essential for creativity and growth.
13. Personal Preferences and Individual Tastes: Many comments reflect individual preferences for specific types of plays, genres, or formats. Readers acknowledge that personal taste plays a significant role in their choices to subscribe or attend shows.
14. Nostalgia and Appreciation for Classics: While some commenters express a desire for new and contemporary works, others appreciate the value of classic plays and their enduring appeal.
15. Theater’s Social and Cultural Role: A few comments delve into the broader role of theater in society, discussing its potential to challenge norms, provoke thought, and reflect the world around us.

While this is far from a scientific study or analysis, 500 responses from New York Times readers who are self-identifying as performing arts buyers is nothing to sneeze at. As you read the comments, you can hear their passion scream off the page for an industry they obviously care deeply about.

It was clear well before the pandemic that the traditional subscription model of old simply doesn’t match the realities, wants, or needs of the modern performing arts patron. The pandemic put that reality on steroids and we are seeing it in the lack of revenue across organizations.

The question remains —what do we do about it? And while I will continue to spend time and energy sharing my personal opinions, I think it’s wise to give space to the opinions of those who have historically bought the tickets.

When I asked the LLM to summarize all 500 pages into just the three themes that rose above all of the rest from the comments in the New York Times story, here is how it said patrons feel:

1. Dissatisfaction with Programming and Content: Many commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the programming and content offered by theaters. They mentioned that some productions were overly didactic, lacked entertainment value, or focused too much on teaching lessons. There was a desire for more fun, diverse, and engaging shows that cater to different tastes and preferences.
2. Flexibility and Variety in Subscriptions: A significant number of commenters highlighted the need for more flexibility in subscription models. They preferred the option to choose individual shows rather than being tied to a full subscription. This theme also touched on the idea of having more options for different types of subscriptions, allowing subscribers to tailor their experiences to their interests.
3. Impact of Age and Changing Preferences: Many commenters discussed how age and changing preferences played a role in their decisions to unsubscribe or attend theater less frequently. Older audience members mentioned factors like late show times, parking concerns, and health issues. Some individuals also mentioned shifting priorities and a preference for alternative forms of entertainment, such as streaming services.

There’s a great quote by Gary Hopkins that reads, “Never allow your ego to diminish your ability to listen.” I think whatever progress we want to see in the future of the subscription model, our ability to effectively listen will be the key ingredient to any success we hope to have.