Will TBA Help Change Alcohol License Requirements in SF?

Following up on a couple of recent comments (below):

"There's a reason Chicago has a storefront theatre on every other block: the city gives them liquor licenses." - Dan Wilson

"Small theaters need any income that they can get, and this under table/BYOB shit is getting tiresome. I agree with Matthew that any help that TBA can provide in reforming SF's horribly anti-art cabaret laws would be huge step in the right direction. If we want to attract young audiences, allowing beer/wine into at the theater is an absolute requirement." - Sam Shaw

"If we can present as a collective the needs of the shows, venues and address the city and alcohol board we can find a plan to allow beer and wine to be sold legally, making money for all and making the audience happy ... I would love to talk to TBA and whomever else as well about making this possible in San Francisco." - Matthew Quinn

Now, you may be asking, why are these licenses so complicated to get? In fact, the licenses themselves are not all that difficult to procure, the problem lies in the restrictions and requirements the licenses place on the venue.

The most commonly issued liquor licenses are the following:

Type 47, On-Sale General - Eating Place (Restaurant) -- Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licenses premises. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the licenses premises. Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises.

Type 48, On-Sale General - Public Premises (Bar, Night Club) -- Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises where sold. Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are not allowed to enter and remain (see Section 25663.5 for exception, musicians). Food service is not required.

The basic problem is this: Because most small theaters don't serve food (cooked on the premises), the only way to legally serve alcohol at the venue is to ban minors from the premises. (You can download a PDF of all California alcohol license types here) The other annoying thing is that each of these cost $476.00.

Now, if you want to get super specific, what actually needs to be changed, modified, or needs some kind of local exemption added to it, is Section 23038.1 of the ABC Act.

Basically we need to redefine what the government considers a "theater" and remove the clause which stipulates theaters must have a "bona fide eating place" which serves food at least %25 of the year.

The big question is, and one that was posed by Matthew Quinn in his comments above, would TBA be willing to help modify the law for the betterment of small theaters? And if not, do we, collectively (meaning the small theater operators), have the drive and follow through to do it ourselves?

To be totally honest, and this is where an organization like TBA would be a big help, I am really not sure what to do next or who to talk to about this. Do we go straight to ABC and start asking questions? Do we need a lawyer? Do we have to convince a member of the SF Board of Supervisors to support us and put the issue to vote at a Board meeting? Again, I don't know, but a group with the clout, connections and resources of TBA leading the charge would go a long way to solving this problem.

TBA's Sabrina Lazarus Wants To Ban Alcohol In Theaters - I Don't

First of all, and I want to make this absolutely clear, I believe there is plenty of room in the market for all types of theater, audiences, plays, shows, acts, sets, production value, talent etc. Theater is whatever you want it to be. There are no rules. There is no status quo. It is what you make it.

Last week, Sabrina Lazarus, a marketing person at TBA, put out a post titled, "Why I'm Glad We Don't Live in Shakespearean England (Or Modern-Day England, For That Matter)," in which, she quoted me ... the following is my response:

(WARNING: this will be an in-depth response, quoting Ms. Lazarus, offering plenty of good natured teasing and some honest rebuttals)

I'll start where everyone starts, the title of your piece, "Why I'm Glad We Don't Live in Shakespearean England (Or Modern-Day England, For That Matter)". Sabrina, why do you hate the British? I mean, I know that whole taxation without representation thing was bad and all, but now those Limeys have given the world things like "The Office" and the ever endearing David Milliband. Really, they're not that bad, and I'm sure you'd love the English countryside in the spring.

Your prompt for writing was the piece in the Times Online about positively rowdy and, occasionally, randy behavior at theaters in London. The Times article can be found here, while Ms. Lazarus' response can be found here. The rest of this post will consist of quotes from Ms. Lazarus and my rebuttal to those quotes.

On to the quoting:

"Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to allow alcohol into a theatre."

Or anywhere else for that matter, especially bars, restaurants, private homes, concerts, family dinners, football games, office Christmas parties or fishing trips.

"I don't see people chugging beers at the movies."

Go to a movie theater in Europe or Canada, there are lots of theaters that sell beer and wine. There's a movie theater in Athens, Georgia, whose claim to fame is that they sell alcohol, and allow you to brown bag it and smoke in the theater. Go to any movie theater at 9pm on a Friday and closely watch the underage patrons ... you'll find beer chugging is not all that rare.

"Once upon a time it was the norm for all food and drink to be banned during performance."

Really, when? Prohibition? The Reformation? The first performance of Cirque du Soleil? To put it into perspective, alcohol isn't even banned from Church - Jesus loved the stuff he turned water into wine to the delight of the masses.

"You can eat at the movies, but only because the sound is cranked up to a level where chewing isn't going to bother anyone too much. In live theatre, ear-splitting sound would be distracting and take away from the show."

I have eaten meals with many, many people, but never have my ears been deafened from the sound of one's chewing ... I'm just sayin'.

"I'm sure it's not just the poor folk being disrespectful."

But, to be clear, some of the "poor folk" are clearly being disrespectful?

"And I'm sure there are many who can't afford high ticket prices who are sitting completely respectfully, enjoying performances in a more mature way."

This is where you lose me, Sabrina, because, to me, it sounds like if I don't enjoy a performance in a fashion that you deem "respectful," I am somehow immature. Different strokes, for different folks, Ms. Lazarus.

"Back in Shakespeare's time ... being an actor was no better than being a prostitute ... so rude behavior in the theatre made just a bit more sense."

What about back in Thespis' time, when actors were priests conducting religious rituals honoring Dionysus, the god of wine, the "inspirer of ritual madness and ecstasy." Was wine banned back then? Or was there only a ban on overtly loud cheering? Or did they ban fornicating? Your above point would hold up far better if the questions I just posed were rhetorical, unfortunately, those questions have very real answers. Drinking, cheering and fornicating were all encouraged and the "actors" were some of the most respected members of the community.

You then go on to quote me and posit your solution to the "problem" in the West End - ban alcohol, and closely monitor the sobriety of patrons.

In all honestly, Ms. Lazarus, I am astounded by your "solution." As I said at the top of this post, there is plenty of room in the market to satisfy every potential ticket buyer's interest. If that interest just so happens to be a "respectful" and "mature" audience experience, great, there are many venues which are happy to oblige. If, however, that ticket buyer's interest lies in a rowdy and raucous evening, there need to be venues which can supply that as well. If those interests are somewhere in between, guess what, there are even more venues which will be suitable.

Banning alcohol from all theaters is not only bad business, but reveals an amazingly myopic view of what Theater should be. While the experience you want to take away from a night at the theater may well line up with the wishes of a majority of current theatergoers, who's to say that the majority of the public (which, mind you, does not attend any type of theater on any regular basis, but does consume alcohol on a regular basis) is also interested in that same experience? Furthermore, banning alcohol punishes anyone who enjoys a glass of wine during a show but does not feel compelled to relieve themselves on the stage, ie, responsible drinkers (the majority of drinkers). Who's to say that if venues began banning alcohol, this subset of patrons wouldn't decide to instead head to a bar for some music, and, of course, drinks? Not to mention, for small theaters, alcohol sales in one evening can easily pay someone to run box office and concessions while still kicking money back to the venue or production.

I will also point out here, that while there are extreme examples of rowdy behavior cited in the Times article, London theater in the past six months is having a record year, despite the worldwide economic downturn. "Figures released by the Society of London Theaters (SOLT) for the first six months of 2009 (Jan. 1-July 18) show attendance up 2.5% and box office receipts up 3.5% over the same period last year."

Banning alcohol is not the answer. It's reactionary, bad for business, and limits what one can experience at a theater. As a representative of Theatre Bay Area, and by proxy the San Francisco theater community as a whole, I'd advise you use more discretion before labeling what is and is not "respectful" or "mature," and especially before doling out advice which could very well be detrimental to the community at large.

I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

-Carl Benson

Casting Connection Interviews PianoFIght's SHIT Show

Ray Hobbs, Devin McNulty and Duncan Wold, producers of PianoFight's touring sketch comedy act, "The SHIT Show," shot the bull around with Casting Connection's Molly Craft in her radio show The Production Office for about an hour today, in advance of the premiere of "SHIT Show V: A Laugh 'N A Half" which runs Fri & Sat nights at 8:00pm, July 31 - August 15 (Get SHIT tickets here).

Highlights:

- Devin gets totally shot down by Molly after an awkward story about sleeping ass-to-ass with Ray

- A fan of the SHIT Show phones in to ask about upcoming performances and SHIT Producers are baffled by the fact that an actual human actually follows their work

- Duncan announces PianoFight's plan to run "Throw Rotten Veggies at the Actors Night" in October during SHIT Show Deluxe as a response to TBA's "Free Night of Theater" (more to come on this in August)

The interview in full:

S.H.I.T. Show V - Promo Video

Kick ass promo video for "The Stop Hating Imagination Time Show V: A Laugh 'N A Half" - limited world premiere run Fri and Sat nights at 8:00pm, July 31 - August 15.



TICKETS - TICKETS - TICKETS - TICKETS

Combined Artform and PianoFight Buck Recession - Getting Stronger

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – July 21, 2009 – As the recession looms and hundreds of theater companies receive government stimulus money (the NEA’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants), Combined Artform and PianoFight, two for profit, non-government aided companies, are expanding in both Los Angeles and San Francisco while building a theatrical pipeline between both cities.

In San Francisco, Combined Artform and PianoFight will be managing all of Off-Market Theaters, including two theaters (54 and 65 seat black boxes) and a large rehearsal room as of September 1, 2009. And in Los Angeles, Combined Artform will add the 45 seat Theater Lab to its management duties in September along with the 80 seat Theater Asylum it has been running since July of 2007.

Starting in 2006, Combined Artform began bringing shows up from LA (PAPA and Eavesdropper.) Joined by PianoFight in 2007, both companies have actively worked to send shows between the two cities with wildly successful bi-city runs of FORKING!, ShortLived, The Stop Hating Imagination Time Show and Tilted Frame (currently running in both cities). Plans are being made for future development of this pipeline, including solo performance.

It is the goal of Combined Artform and PianoFight to leverage the multiple spaces in both cities to bring these two great theater communities closer together. As theaters across the country shutter their doors, and companies cut back on budgets and season lengths, Combined Artform and PianoFight are thriving while using an unusual business model in theater – the for-profit company.



About Combined Artform (Formerly-C.A.F.E.- Combined Art Form Entertainment)

Founded in 1998, is on a mission to develop and combine all art forms to pioneer the “arts of the future,” as well as be an active and supporting member of the San Francisco and now Los Angeles performance production scene. Created by Producing Artistic Director Matthew Quinn, and joined by Steve Kahn in 1999, Combined Artform has collaborated with actors, singers, filmmakers, sketch comedy groups, musicians, improvisers, and fine artists in more than 100 shows, including Santaland Diaries, Eavesdropper (SF), Improv Jam, PAPA (at the Eureka w/Open Fist), Tilted Frame – SF & LA and the SF Solo Festival, Shortlived and FORKING. www.combinedartform.com

PianoFight Productions began in July of 2007 when Dan Williams and Rob Ready formed the company with the simple goal of producing new work by new artists. In its short existence, PianoFight has created such critically acclaimed hits as ShortLived, FORKING!, and The S.H.I.T. Show (all of which have had runs in LA) as well as taken over management of a theater (Studio 250 @ Off-Market), developed a website and blog with hours and pages of original content, and produced a recurring webseries (iN PRODUCTiON) and short film. For more info, please visit www.pianofight.com

Press Contacts:

Matthew Quinn – Combined Artform – Tel: (415 )336-0513 – mquinn@cafearts.com

Rob Ready – PianoFight – Tel: (917) 363-9646 – rob@pianofight.com

PianoFight on Blog Talk Radio Today - Call In!

PianoFight's Rob Ready, Eric Reid and Dan Williams were interviewed on Casting Connection's Blog Talk Radio with Molly Craft (7/7/09) about The Theatertron. Friends and fans called in to chat (make fun of us) and have a high minded debate on theatrical theory (continue to make fun of us).

Matthew Quinn's Cost Break Down of "Free Night"

After a lively debate on the blogotubes over the last few weeks, hopping around multiple blogs, lots of individual posts, and even more comments, we offered Combined Artform's Matthew Quinn some space to give his unvarnished thoughts on Theatre Bay Area's "Free Night," in order to condense a thread from four different sites and sum up the numbers - he graciously accepted. Below is a quick summary of the conversation to date followed by Quinn's post.

SUMMARY:

May 17: Radiostar interviews PianoFight on current state of theater, discuss Theatre Bay Area's "Free Night of Theater" program

June 9: Theatre Bay Area (TBA) releases a study titled "Assessing the Intrinsic Impact of the Bay Area Free Night of Theater Program"

June 16: Arts Journal posts results from an NEA funded survey which cites double digit declines in theatrical audiences since 1982

June 18: Head theater critic for SF Weekly Chloe Veltman invites TBA's marketing director Clay Lord to post his thoughts on the study in a post titled "Great Study. But What's It For?" - Dan Wilson (of Radiostar), Sam Shaw (of Crisis Hopkins), Matthew Quinn (of Combined Artform) and Carl Benson (of PianoFight) respond with questions about specific numbers

June 23: TBA posts second study of "Free Night" with hard data on ticket requests, actual attendees, and follow up purchases prompting PF's Benson to make case against "Free Night" in post "The Real Problem with TBA's 'Free Night of Theater'"

June 26: TBA's Clay Lord responds on TBA blog Chatterbox in post titled "Theatre, Relevance and Hush Puppies" and Matthew Quinn presses for more numbers

July 2: Matthew Quinn breaks down cost of "Free Night" versus return in sum-up of conversation on the PianoFight blog (below)

COMBINED ARTFORM'S MATTHEW QUINN BREAKS DOWN NUMBERS ON "FREE NIGHT"

Clay,

Thank you so much for this information it helps to give me a better picture of the value of "Free Night of Theatre." And thanks to PianoFight for letting this go up as a post and not just a comment, and outlining the thread of conversation.

So summing up the numbers, the actual value of this project is much higher.

$182,000 - Printed value of tickets

$200,000 - Original PR Services

$50,000 - Additional PR services

$20,000 - TBA Services

$40,000 -Survey

$492,000 - Total Resources used for FNOT

-So almost a half a million dollars worth of resources are used for FNOT and for that you get 3,581 people to attend a show, at a resource cost of $137 per person.

-Of those people, 74% were first timers seeing the company putting on a show or 2,650 people, to get this market it cost $186 per person of the resources.

-And for the ever so hard to get, new people to the theater, 18% or 645 people for $765 per person.

So looking at this I think one needs to ask, is FNOT really working?

Is this an appropriate use of these resources?

Could something more effective be done instead?

I'm sure there are many positive elements of this project, but is it providing you with the right type of awareness, people, and information at a cost that makes sense?

Are theaters in the community (large, small, members of TSC) fully aware of the cost and reward of this project? Half a million seems like a lot for a one day event.

And to the second point, of course it would be great to have a survey to confirm those hunches we have on audience decisions, to get more insight into an audiences actions and how to get new people to our shows.

My question: "Are these even the right people to be surveyed?"

And are the above questions even the ones we should be asking? It's a bit disconcerting that money is being spent for data that isn't considered useful, yet, just wait and see.

And while I understand grant money takes a while to come down the pipe, and you're reacting to plans from years ago, is it prudent to go ahead with a 4-5 city expansion using additional resources for a program that isn't utilizing those resources and providing information that is not yet useful?

I'm sure some people are happy with the results of the program. Any new people are great people to have, especially if, as you point out, there are not many (if any) out of pocket expenses. My concern is that no one appears to be questioning if there is a better use of these amazing resources, on a model that can bring in more people without saying theater has to be free in order for them to see it.

Does the community really see this as a benefit and effective use of resources?

Just because you can do this, should you?

We could still get 6 million marketing impressions with the same publicity, just a different program.

And what do companies feel about $40,000 being spent on a possibly useless survey when perhaps it could be used for other more relevant purposes?

I would really like to hear other companies' thoughts on this.

In closing, I did get a chance to read the posting on the Mark-Up and perhaps I'll get some time read that book, it sounds very interesting. I also added a comment about some thoughts I had on Free and Theater and while it's not an answer, I do try to come up with some different uses of "Free." And I'm sure the community could come up with a better program then FNOT to get audiences to the theatre, your thoughts?

Thanks again for your time and commitment to this conversation, it is appreciated.


Matthew Quinn

Combined Artform

UPDATE - JULY 4 (by PianoFight): As the conversation in comments has veered slightly away from TBA's "Free Night" and into the realm of the art itself, we thought it prudent to post a few more links which deal with this specifically, and which helped spur a lot of this type of conversation.

October 7, 2008: Brendan Kiley of Seattle's The Stranger newspaper posts article titled "Ten Things Theaters Need to Do Right Now to Save Themselves"

April 13, 2009: Kiley posts on The Stranger's blog a lengthy email from PianoFight's Rob Ready, interspersed with Kiley's commentary, disccussing Kiley's ideas and how successful PianoFight's application of those ideas has been in a post titled "Small, Successful Theater Companies in Other Cities: PianoFight from San Francisco"