|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 15:34:26 GMT
Fancy spending a night with Sir Ian McKellan? Then head to the Park Theatre from 3rd to 9th July as he's hanging around the bar there for a week regaling everyone with tales from his career. AND you can have dressing room drinks with Sir Ian too! What a legend. link |
|
2,054 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Mar 22, 2017 16:18:36 GMT
£95 when I looked (additional £30 if you want him to pose for a selfie with you) - I've also decided I can live without it.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Mar 22, 2017 16:43:01 GMT
Who says theatre is just for the privileged!!
|
|
170 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Mar 22, 2017 16:43:35 GMT
bit of a swindle they way they did this with an optional donation with no easy way of opting out of it, hardly optional then
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 16:50:36 GMT
They should have a cage at the back of the stage for four, non-donating day seat punters.
Four audience members could purchase, as an Extra, the right to urinate on them through the bars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 16:52:53 GMT
Looks like you can opt out or change the donation if you book by phone
Same as the wording on the National Theatre memberships - done this way so they can get the gift aid benefits.
But good luck to them to be honest and good on Sir Ian - it's an inventive way to raise funds - should be approx £100,000 + gift aid if everyone donates £60.
|
|
170 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Mar 22, 2017 17:10:11 GMT
lol to opt out you have to phone the development office, not even the box office. I don't mind them charging a fortune to raise money for the theatre as it's a good way of fundraising and god knows theatres need it but at least be honest about it and don't say its optional.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Mar 22, 2017 19:27:58 GMT
To be fair to them there are 10 X £10 day seats each day to book by phone or on line, first come first served! Haha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:31:15 GMT
It's clearly a fundraising exercise and while I appreciate that the prices are higher than a lot of people would pay it think it's rather marvellous of Sir Ian to do it.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Mar 22, 2017 20:41:00 GMT
Hmm. A bit pricey and tbh he could probably donate the equivalent of the takings from his own pocket, following his film success!
|
|
7,059 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 22, 2017 20:49:46 GMT
Clearly people are willing to pay as it's nearly sold out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 20:54:14 GMT
Hmm. A bit pricey and tbh he could probably donate the equivalent of the takings from his own pocket, following his film success! Or maybe he doesn't earn as much as people expect he does? Or maybe he does give away his own money as well as fundraising? I think Sir Ian's charity work speaks for itself personally. His involvement with Stonewall should be applauded for example as far as I am concerned. |
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Mar 23, 2017 8:17:42 GMT
Not knocking his charity work. He's a huge figure in the gay rights movement and I have always respected him for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 8:58:55 GMT
Though personally I won't be forking out (with travel as well it's just too pricey) I applaud the Park and Sir Ian for their fundraising efforts. Times are hard, public funding is scarce and if the combination of a celebrity name attached and the revenue generated will give them a big financial boost.
I'd argue that this is a better approach than Sir Ian just giving the money, because this will get people through the door and more importantly onto Development mailing lists/radars. If someone is able to fork out over £100 for an evening, well it's likely if they have a good time they can be convinced into future donations or even for the cheaper tickets, if people come have a good time attracted because they love Lord of the Rings or whatever, then they might turn into a customer etc. So while big donations are great, the longer reach development wise is probably what they're looking at as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 23, 2017 9:07:41 GMT
I've already booked to see a one-man show with him in Chichester later in the year.
Not sure about the Park Theatre, I've never been so they must be doing something wrong.
His name is spelt incorrectly in the title of this thread incidentally.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Mar 23, 2017 12:48:28 GMT
Though personally I won't be forking out (with travel as well it's just too pricey) I applaud the Park and Sir Ian for their fundraising efforts. Times are hard, public funding is scarce and if the combination of a celebrity name attached and the revenue generated will give them a big financial boost. I'd argue that this is a better approach than Sir Ian just giving the money, because this will get people through the door and more importantly onto Development mailing lists/radars. If someone is able to fork out over £100 for an evening, well it's likely if they have a good time they can be convinced into future donations or even for the cheaper tickets, if people come have a good time attracted because they love Lord of the Rings or whatever, then they might turn into a customer etc. So while big donations are great, the longer reach development wise is probably what they're looking at as well. I don't see why he should give money, just as I feel that those of us who can't afford it shouldn't feel obliged to attend. It is also very naive to not realise that this the approach that many theatres have or will be taking to make up for lost funds. The issue Park has is that despite an interesting and varied programme it just isn't central enough for a lot of people. It has, like many outer London theatres, become for local people despite international names gracing the stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 23, 2017 12:59:02 GMT
don't see why he should give money, just as I feel that those of us who can't afford it shouldn't feel obliged to attend. It is also very naive to not realise that this the approach that many theatres have or will be taking to make up for lost funds. Maybe for tax reasons they've worded it that way Yes, could be so they can Gift Aid the donation part. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:04:24 GMT
they've gone for that "it's cheap, but we hope for a big donation" route. Maybe for tax reasons they've worded it that way, but it just isn't pleasant to swallow, some feel. Yes, the ticket price is split between benefits and suggested donation so as to maximise the Park's net income from the event. But I don't believe they said anything remotely like what you "quote". Where was it said? Certainly not on the show-page on their website. And they haven't asked for big donations. They've specified a set per-ticket donation and offered additional Extras for specified additional payments. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 23, 2017 13:07:47 GMT
don't see why he should give money, just as I feel that those of us who can't afford it shouldn't feel obliged to attend. It is also very naive to not realise that this the approach that many theatres have or will be taking to make up for lost funds. Nobody objects to them doing a fund-raiser, getting a famous star and charging big prices. That's fine, normal, great, no worries. The problem is they've done it in a decidedly mimsy way. Instead of the upfront "it's £95 / £85 quid - and a few day seats for £10 so the most dedicated get a chance too" which is fine, open and honest about the objective, they've gone for that "it's cheap, but we hope for a big donation" route. Maybe for tax reasons they've worded it that way, but it just isn't pleasant to swallow, some feel. Absolutely standard for fundraisers. People can only claim gift aid on the amount of the donation over the value of the benefits (because obviously if you're getting value then it isn't regarded as a charitable donation) so they have to state the price of the benefits and that the additional donation is optional. Everyone should know that you're expected to pay the donation as well. I expect you have to go through to the development office so they can explain this to those who don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:21:12 GMT
I didn't take a quote, I was summarising the approach. The quote I think is "£25 plus a suggested donation." It is the word "suggested" that is the problem a lot of people have. I think a good few charity events have " which just seems more open and doesn't leave the option of "paying less and feeling bad about it" out there. I think that with "£85 including a donation of £60", people still have exactly the same legal right to purchase the advertised benefits for £25 without paying a donation of £60. So the Park's wording is arguably more accurate than your preferred wording which is in fact misleading because it suggests that there is no option whereas a non-discretionary payment may not be treated as a donation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:55:02 GMT
"Tickets
Weekdays and Matinees: £85
(ticket £25, suggested donation £60)
Friday & Saturday Eve: £95
(ticket £30, suggested donation £65)"
So they did "say clearly that they want" £85 and £95.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:56:31 GMT
I don't want to get into grammar/spelling nerd territory, but could someone please change Tolkein to Tolkien in the thread header? Just to stop this editor twitching every time she opens the forum on her phone? ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:04:07 GMT
I don't want to get into grammar/spelling nerd territory, but could someone please change Tolkein to Tolkien in the thread header? Just to stop this editor twitching every time she opens the forum on her phone? ;-) And, as it's not a Play, perhaps the thread could be moved to either General Chat or Entertainment and Family? |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Mar 23, 2017 14:15:50 GMT
Ah, not my point. My point is that I think it is more honest to say clearly that they want £95. To give an option is OK... but it would make anyone not wanting or being able to afford that much feel bad. At the same time, it makes the theatre feel good that they are giving an option. That "giving an option" I don't think really is. It is there, true, but it comes at the cost of embarrassing someone. Not really the right spirit, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 23, 2017 16:03:04 GMT
Ah, not my point. My point is that I think it is more honest to say clearly that they want £95. To give an option is OK... but it would make anyone not wanting or being able to afford that much feel bad. At the same time, it makes the theatre feel good that they are giving an option. That "giving an option" I don't think really is. It is there, true, but it comes at the cost of embarrassing someone. Not really the right spirit, is it? However there is a level of NT membership (above my level) where they quote a flat single price and then they break down which part of it is gift-aidable, nowhere do they say that part is optional. That whole area is a bit of a mess, in some cases organisations have reduced what they provide as benefits to members to keep the Inland Revenue happy. Anyway, what is the actual "cost" of McKellen appearing ? Yeah ... yeah ... I know ... he is priceless .... |
|
