Staging a West End winner

The West End and Broadway transfers of ‘Enron’ by Lucy Prebble reflect the increasing degree of collaboration between the subsidised and commercial sectors in theatre, and the ever-growing internationalisation of theatre production. They also reflects the growing trend towards, and necessity of, partnership between arts organisations, which is ever more prevalent in both the not-for-profit and commercial worlds.

‘Enron’ started its life as a Headlong Theatre production presented at Chichester Festival Theatre and subsequently at the Royal Court Theatre in London. All three of these subsidised companies – and their producers – have remained involved in the commercial presentation at the Noel Coward Theatre in the West End. They have been joined by three established West End producers and two New York producers who regularly present productions on Broadway.

MONEY MATTERS
From a legal perspective, there were a number of challenges in devising a structure which reflected the concerns of each party. Key issues included the fact that producers take differing approaches to risk, but that there needed to be a unanimously agreed approach to decision-making and involvement. Surprisingly, one of the least problematic areas to address was the allocation of financial entitlements amongst the parties: negotiations on this subject were quickly concluded by using methods generally recognised in the theatre industry for the sharing of revenue, and by taking a pragmatic approach whereby each party appreciated that everyone needed to have an appropriate share in the success of the production.
Commercial theatre production is an inherently risky business, where in the worst-case scenario a producer loses not just investment raised from their backers, but also has to meet additional losses themselves. For West End or Broadway producers this is something they work with on a daily basis. By contrast, while subsidised companies undoubtedly take risks, in general terms they are more likely to be risk averse, at least from a financial perspective. To work successfully, there was a need to marry together these two different worlds and work out structures so that each producer could be engaged and involved with decision making for the production, without matters becoming too unwieldy.

RISK AND REWARD
The solution to both of these issues was to establish a new company as the vehicle for the West End production. There was a brief period of time where this was to be known as Enron Limited, but given the subject matter of the play (the downfall of the US Enron corporation) this quickly became called Enron The Play Limited. This company then entered into two separate co-production agreements. The first was with the subsidised producers, the second with the commercial West End and Broadway producers. This allowed a different approach to be taken in each agreement in order to address the varying needs of the parties. The agreement amongst the subsidised producers allowed them to elect whether they wanted to accept a higher degree of risk – including bearing their share of any losses which might arise – and in return receive a higher share of profits, or to have their liability limited to the investment they contributed in return for a lower profits entitlement.
Each agreement also provided for discussion amongst the parties, with each group of producers (subsidised and commercial) represented by one of their number in dialogue with the other group, so as to streamline decision-making. This also reflected a consensus that the subsidised producers should focus, to a greater extent, on creative decisions and that the commercial producers on commercial decisions. That said, it was clearly acknowledged that decisions in one area would potentially impact on the other. In this way, those who had been involved in the creation of the production could ensure that their work was safeguarded, while those with extensive experience of producing in the West End could work to establish its commercial success. While complicated, Enron’s journey allowed a range of complementary skills and experience to be involved in its ongoing life on stage so that both risk and reward could be shared.