In this interview segment, the hosts discuss how the rise of social media has altered the influence of traditional critics on theatrical productions. Speaker A notes that a negative New York Times review once could cripple a show, but today the impact is muted, with word‑of‑mouth and online buzz becoming more decisive. Speaker B explains that Broadway is less vulnerable to critics than Off‑Broadway because it has larger audiences, greater marketing budgets, and the capacity for post‑show social media interaction. He cites the musical Wicked as an example: despite not receiving universally rave reviews, its strong word‑of‑mouth, extensive advertising, and brand power propelled it to success, effectively diminishing the weight of critical opinion.
20 years ago, you get a bad review on the New York Times, next day posting notices, we're closing. Today, doesn't help to get a bad review, but you hit a key point, word of mouth. With Facebook, Twitter, whatever's coming out next year, how have you seen that change the power of the show?
I think that Broadway in particular is a lot less susceptible to the critics than Off-Broadway because Broadway, again, has more seats for the power of social media and post-show interaction to take effect. Also, Broadway has marketing and advertising dollars that can compete with reviews. A lot of people don't remember that Wicked did not get 100% rave reviews because the word of mouth was strong, they had an incredible ad campaign, they had a brand, and the reviews kind of went away and got brushed under the rug. They didn't get panned by any stretch, but it wasn't the—
critics' favorite flavor.
Must go see. Yeah, this season. So I think that off-Broadway, that's a little bit harder because you do need that extra press push. You rely on press in an additional way because your marketing and advertising dollars are much tighter and word of mouth is valuable, but it takes a while. A lot of people don't remember that I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change, this sort of iconic off-Broadway musical hit that ran for, I want to say, 12 or 15 years, It struggled at the beginning, and they held on feeling that there was word of mouth, and financially they were able to at the time. But every year it gets more and more expensive, so it gets a lot harder to just hang on and see if the word of mouth clicks, because you don't want to burn what you do have in the bank. But I think that the role of the critic is still powerful. I don't think it is the only factor that plays in. And it's certainly not a measure that I ever am— you know, yes, it's wonderful to wake up and get good reviews and have some nice quotes to pull. It makes your job easier. But I measure my pride in a show based on the audience's response and what's on stage. You know, I told you earlier what kinds of projects I like for. I like for good projects that tell a story. And to me, projects that are art for art's sake and aren't about the audience, I'm less interested in. That's not to say they're not wonderful for their own reason, but especially if I'm coming at it from a commercial producer standpoint, it is about the audience. It is about pleasing the people there, giving them an emotional or a fun experience that they want others to share in, and they want to tell people about that. If people don't leave the theater talking about the night they had, then it was a flash in the pan. I try to work on projects that keep people talking, even if they're light comedy. I want people walking out of The Last Smoker in America debating some things. I want people walking out of Craving for Travel wondering if they should be using a travel agent. I mean, that may sound trite, but it is important that the conversation continues at dinner and drinks and beyond. Otherwise, those people aren't going to get more butts in the seats. It's nice when you see a spike in sales from good reviews. I've seen a spike in sales from bad reviews too. So, you know, sometimes there is something to the press is press. And—
