Critical conditions

Review (noun) “A critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in public medium”

Advertisement (noun) “A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event”

The two definitions above seem very clear in their differences, but in some quarters there seems to be confusion between the two.

I’ve no intention of sparking off the ‘critics only give bad reviews’ debate again, but there’s a real difference between an objective review and advertorial. But it is a difference that some companies seem to overlook.

Look closely at the second definition above and you’ll see it contains the word “promoting”. A well-written review can promote a show and encourage audience members to book, but that is not its primary aim. In contrast, an advert needs promotion at its heart – something to appeal to the reader and make them want to book.

Let’s throw another word into the mix:

Objective (adjective) “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.”

It’s a key component of any critical appraisal that it should be objective and impartial. The critic is an outside pair of eyes that can impartially review the good (and sometimes, if we are honest, the bad) elements of any given production, free from any commercial pressures or influence.

After twenty years working in the arts and PR I thought I’d seen most things, but a response from the Theatre Royal, Newcastle upon Tyne, this week has caused me to pause and reflect on the importance in the distinction of the three words above.

Newcastle’s Theatre Royal has an interesting review ticket policy. On applying for press tickets for a forthcoming tour this week a reviewer was informed they would need to pay for tickets “like a normal patron” and then publish the review with a link to the venue website. The venue would then track how much traffic the review generates, “and on the basis of this make a decision on whether to supply complimentary press tickets the next time”.

this attempt to force publications into a commercial agreement is a worrying and dangerous move

This fundamentally changes the relationship between producer, venue and critic. By agreeing to such divisive terms the critic is placed under undue pressure to provide a positive review to drive traffic to the venue. In effect they are writing commercially driven editorial to drive web traffic. To me this sounds suspiciously like the definition of advertisement described in the dictionary.

Let’s reverse roles and imagine that each time a venue sends out a press release the publication tells them they will only run the story if the venue purchases an advert? It’s something that no venue would entertain, and indeed it’s a pet hate that press officers across the country often recall when discussing challenges in their jobs.

Now I’m not for one moment suggesting that venues hand out review tickets on a free for all basis – venues need to ensure that they receive value for the tickets they issue – but tying a publication into what is effectively an advertising contract sets a dangerous precedent.

Venues need to work closely with arts journalists but it can’t be too cosy a relationship. Generating a series of ‘puff’ pieces does the credibility of neither publication nor venue any favours in the long term, as readers will soon see through an endless stream of five star reviews. Linking review tickets to website traffic, and ultimately box office revenue, removes that essential barrier of impartiality.

The media landscape is changing fast and commercial pressures for both venues and the media are a necessary consideration. Some arts journalists already talk of pressure being applied from the sales arm of their publication to write only positive reviews, but the Theatre Royal’s move seems to be the first instance of a venue trying to impose such conditions.

It’s a move that needs to be strongly resisted – for all the sabre-rattling in the news over the last year about problems within the media, one thing that the country is celebrated for is its freedom of the press.

Critical objectivity is at the heart of all we do and this attempt to force publications into a commercial agreement is a worrying and dangerous move, which means we are unable to cover events at this venue.

I hope this is an isolated case and not a new trend. In tough times we need more exposure of the work our venues are carrying out, not less – moves such as this can only harm their long-term prospects of growing audiences.

I offered the Theatre Royal the opportunity to comment on their policy but they have declined, stating “we prefer to deal directly with our arts journalists”. The question is, will arts journalists be willing to deal with them?

Glen Pearce is a freelance PR, writer, theatre critic and member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.
www.glenpearce.com
Tw: @glenpearce1