So yesterday I talked about some of the fundamental issues that are always under the surface of running the Waco Performing Arts Company - especially issues surrounding the facility. Bear in mind, those problems are always in the background of the events that occurred the past few years. Every other challenge that has arisen has done so on top of those concerns. They can't be gotten around or forgotten, and they make everything more difficult.
But those issues alone didn't lead the WPAC to its closure last week. The current downward spiral began with the Tuna cancellation. Anyone who says that the Tuna mess can't be blamed for the current problems does not fully appreciate the situation. And I've heard plenty of people say that it's an excuse, or it can't possibly be to blame, or it's being overblown, or somehow the whole mess is my fault. Such an opinion simply reflects a lack of knowledge of the task of running the WPAC, the typical operations of the theatre, common performing contracts, seasonal structure, Waco in general, and this whole incident in particular.
Here's how the whole thing went down: Instead of our typical one-night-only showing, we booked five performances of Tuna. We did that because of how popular they have always been in Waco and how well they sold in the past. I was even talking to them about adding a sixth show before they were scheduled to play in September of 2008. So the economic impact of this show was to be five to six times greater than any other show would be. Also, I set them to open the season for us. There's a reason theatres and sports teams both make a big deal about the season opener. It sets the tone for the season. It brings in big numbers who can then easily be contacted and enticed to come back. It's easy to get someone to come back and repeat something when they just had a good time at it. And Tuna was sure to give people a good taste in their mouths for the next show.
So when they cancelled, they not only took away a good bit of revenue, they killed the momentum of the season opening. That would have been bad enough in any year, but with what then happened with the national economy, it proved disastrous. Refunds were processed as fast as possible for that show. The next show was Defending the Caveman. A show for which the entire marketing strategy was built around promoting it to the Tuna audience. I had floor graphics ready to print, handouts, commercials, follow-up emails, and mailings ready. It was scheduled for two shows. It would have been a breeze to get two audiences for it out of five or six from Tuna. Instead, it bombed and our season got off to a limping start.
So, a smart person would ask, why did I agree to reschedule that first show? Why did it have to be done? For those who either didn't know or don't remember, I didn't choose to reschedule the show; they requested it of me. I was told in no uncertain terms that if we didn't reschedule the show, and instead we held them to the contract that we had with them, it would bankrupt them. (This is where I point out as I have had to many other times that, yes, we did have a valid contract with them. Somehow rumors started that we didn't have such a contract. I assure you we did, and we entered it into evidence in the suit we eventually filed against them.) So having been told that if I made them honor the contract, as was my right, it would bankrupt them, I chose to do the only thing I really could: I agreed to reschedule the show. They set the dates in January and I agreed.
Then when they cancelled again in January, this time only two days before they were supposed to play, public opinion began to turn against us. Patrons and donors who would have felt for us and helped us in other circumstances now began to get angry and short. The problem, I think, is in a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the theatrical presenting business. Unlike a theatre company that casts local actors and produces a show locally, a touring house like ours contracts with independent agencies to send their shows to our town. The theatre hires the show as a service and then sells tickets to the public. But the relationship structure is important. The theatre has a relationship with both the touring show and the local patrons. But the local patrons only have a relationship with the theatre. So when there's a problem with a touring company showing up, the audience doesn't think abstractly enough to realize that their problems are really with the touring company and that the theatre is equally injured. They also cannot complain to anyone but the local theatre about their frustration and anger. No matter how many times we tried to explain to angry patrons that the Tuna cancellation was done to us and not by us, many of them not only displayed no understanding but no interest either.
And the reason we were told we needed to reschedule again? They said there was a flood that destroyed half the costumes for the show. A magical flood in the middle of a drought in Austin, Texas. When I asked to see proof of the damage from their insurance claim, I was assured it would be provided. When I asked that their insurance also cover all of our losses and the costs of rescheduling yet again, I was assured it would. When I asked that they provide a reschedule date immediately so that I could at least have something useful to tell our patrons, I was assured of it. And I got all of it in writing. They promised to cover damages and they provided the date in April. This is another common misconception. It was asserted that I was the one demanding that they accommodate our schedule by playing the April 2009 dates. Nothing could be further from the truth. They provided the dates and when I pointed out that they were already committed to be in California during those dates, I was told that they were rescheduling California for June and that they would definitely be in Waco in April. It was only later, when the theatre in California told me that not only would they not reschedule but that no one had even approached them about rescheduling that I had to give the Tuna group a deadline to avoid a suit. They ignored the deadline and ceased communicating with me despite my giving them countless opportunities to do so.
Further, we learned that they never had any intention of playing the dates in January either. Their crew wasn't contracted, their marketing coordinator was instructed not to speak to me, and they were impossible to reach leading up to the engagement. So while I could have been working on promoting other shows, writing grants, soliciting donors, caring for the facility, or doing any number of other things that would have actually helped the theatre, I was instead trying furiously and futilely to get ready for a show that they knew would not happen.
So the damages of Tuna's fraudulent actions against us began to multiply. When compounded with the challenges theatres across the country were and are facing with trying to maintain artistic integrity and audience interest amid economic downturn, the thrice-scheduled and thrice-cancelled Tuna show began the downward spiral from which the WPAC has not recovered. This is in answer to anyone who thinks the incidents are unrelated or that the Tuna cancellation cannot have been that big of a blow. It was more than financial. My staff spent weeks processing refunds, handling theatre preparation, promoting, and interacting with customers over a show that would not happen. And let there be no mistake or misunderstanding: we were lied to. They took advantage of my goodwill toward them which was extended because of the long good history that had existed up to that point between Tuna and Waco. They figured that they could do whatever they wanted to Waco and Waco would just be glad they showed up whenever they got around to it. They made cold, calculating, illegal decisions for the sake of making themselves a bit more money at the expense of honoring a contract with one of their oldest and most loyal supporters. And in the process of doing so, they succeeded in alienating many people in Waco from the WPAC. We did the best we could to explain the situation to local patrons, but many just wouldn't even listen after the second rescheduling. That loss of goodwill, combined with the financial loss, the loss of opportunity to present our season to the full houses that Tuna would have brought, and the loss of time that was devoted to cleaning up their mess instead of promoting and supporting our other shows was the catalyst for the present difficulties.
I am proud to represent myself and the WPAC in our lawsuit against them because I know that at no point in the entire process did I do anything wrong, illegal, or embarrassing. I have gladly made every part of this issue public record because every part of this issue supports my actions. Further, contrary to some rumors out there, refunds were issued to every patron who requested one. And I'm proud of that because it wasn't easy. We were counting on money from that show in September to help cover bills that were coming due for other shows later that season. Then we were counting on it in January to help us get back on track. Then we were counting on it in April just to survive. So, no, the refunds didn't go out as quickly as I would have liked them to. But the fact that they did get refunded, (and the latest ones that went out were issued just a few weeks after the show was scheduled to have played), and that the WPAC was still able to stay open and keep fighting is something of which the entire organization can be very proud.
If you have any questions about this issue, or if I didn't address something, please let me know. I know I didn't comment on every aspect of it such as soliciting patrons to donate the cost of their tickets rather than request a refund, which was as necessary as it was unpleasant. But I think I covered most of it here. Also, know that we're still in the midst of a lawsuit with them, so I can't comment on anything that isn't a matter of public record, but everything I've said here is a matter of public record that can be accessed by either reading the lawsuit we have filed in McLennan County or in the various newspaper articles that have been written on the subject. Tomorrow I'll talk about this season's programming.
So when they cancelled, they not only took away a good bit of revenue, they killed the momentum of the season opening. That would have been bad enough in any year, but with what then happened with the national economy, it proved disastrous. Refunds were processed as fast as possible for that show. The next show was Defending the Caveman. A show for which the entire marketing strategy was built around promoting it to the Tuna audience. I had floor graphics ready to print, handouts, commercials, follow-up emails, and mailings ready. It was scheduled for two shows. It would have been a breeze to get two audiences for it out of five or six from Tuna. Instead, it bombed and our season got off to a limping start.
So, a smart person would ask, why did I agree to reschedule that first show? Why did it have to be done? For those who either didn't know or don't remember, I didn't choose to reschedule the show; they requested it of me. I was told in no uncertain terms that if we didn't reschedule the show, and instead we held them to the contract that we had with them, it would bankrupt them. (This is where I point out as I have had to many other times that, yes, we did have a valid contract with them. Somehow rumors started that we didn't have such a contract. I assure you we did, and we entered it into evidence in the suit we eventually filed against them.) So having been told that if I made them honor the contract, as was my right, it would bankrupt them, I chose to do the only thing I really could: I agreed to reschedule the show. They set the dates in January and I agreed.
Then when they cancelled again in January, this time only two days before they were supposed to play, public opinion began to turn against us. Patrons and donors who would have felt for us and helped us in other circumstances now began to get angry and short. The problem, I think, is in a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the theatrical presenting business. Unlike a theatre company that casts local actors and produces a show locally, a touring house like ours contracts with independent agencies to send their shows to our town. The theatre hires the show as a service and then sells tickets to the public. But the relationship structure is important. The theatre has a relationship with both the touring show and the local patrons. But the local patrons only have a relationship with the theatre. So when there's a problem with a touring company showing up, the audience doesn't think abstractly enough to realize that their problems are really with the touring company and that the theatre is equally injured. They also cannot complain to anyone but the local theatre about their frustration and anger. No matter how many times we tried to explain to angry patrons that the Tuna cancellation was done to us and not by us, many of them not only displayed no understanding but no interest either.
And the reason we were told we needed to reschedule again? They said there was a flood that destroyed half the costumes for the show. A magical flood in the middle of a drought in Austin, Texas. When I asked to see proof of the damage from their insurance claim, I was assured it would be provided. When I asked that their insurance also cover all of our losses and the costs of rescheduling yet again, I was assured it would. When I asked that they provide a reschedule date immediately so that I could at least have something useful to tell our patrons, I was assured of it. And I got all of it in writing. They promised to cover damages and they provided the date in April. This is another common misconception. It was asserted that I was the one demanding that they accommodate our schedule by playing the April 2009 dates. Nothing could be further from the truth. They provided the dates and when I pointed out that they were already committed to be in California during those dates, I was told that they were rescheduling California for June and that they would definitely be in Waco in April. It was only later, when the theatre in California told me that not only would they not reschedule but that no one had even approached them about rescheduling that I had to give the Tuna group a deadline to avoid a suit. They ignored the deadline and ceased communicating with me despite my giving them countless opportunities to do so.
Further, we learned that they never had any intention of playing the dates in January either. Their crew wasn't contracted, their marketing coordinator was instructed not to speak to me, and they were impossible to reach leading up to the engagement. So while I could have been working on promoting other shows, writing grants, soliciting donors, caring for the facility, or doing any number of other things that would have actually helped the theatre, I was instead trying furiously and futilely to get ready for a show that they knew would not happen.
So the damages of Tuna's fraudulent actions against us began to multiply. When compounded with the challenges theatres across the country were and are facing with trying to maintain artistic integrity and audience interest amid economic downturn, the thrice-scheduled and thrice-cancelled Tuna show began the downward spiral from which the WPAC has not recovered. This is in answer to anyone who thinks the incidents are unrelated or that the Tuna cancellation cannot have been that big of a blow. It was more than financial. My staff spent weeks processing refunds, handling theatre preparation, promoting, and interacting with customers over a show that would not happen. And let there be no mistake or misunderstanding: we were lied to. They took advantage of my goodwill toward them which was extended because of the long good history that had existed up to that point between Tuna and Waco. They figured that they could do whatever they wanted to Waco and Waco would just be glad they showed up whenever they got around to it. They made cold, calculating, illegal decisions for the sake of making themselves a bit more money at the expense of honoring a contract with one of their oldest and most loyal supporters. And in the process of doing so, they succeeded in alienating many people in Waco from the WPAC. We did the best we could to explain the situation to local patrons, but many just wouldn't even listen after the second rescheduling. That loss of goodwill, combined with the financial loss, the loss of opportunity to present our season to the full houses that Tuna would have brought, and the loss of time that was devoted to cleaning up their mess instead of promoting and supporting our other shows was the catalyst for the present difficulties.
I am proud to represent myself and the WPAC in our lawsuit against them because I know that at no point in the entire process did I do anything wrong, illegal, or embarrassing. I have gladly made every part of this issue public record because every part of this issue supports my actions. Further, contrary to some rumors out there, refunds were issued to every patron who requested one. And I'm proud of that because it wasn't easy. We were counting on money from that show in September to help cover bills that were coming due for other shows later that season. Then we were counting on it in January to help us get back on track. Then we were counting on it in April just to survive. So, no, the refunds didn't go out as quickly as I would have liked them to. But the fact that they did get refunded, (and the latest ones that went out were issued just a few weeks after the show was scheduled to have played), and that the WPAC was still able to stay open and keep fighting is something of which the entire organization can be very proud.
If you have any questions about this issue, or if I didn't address something, please let me know. I know I didn't comment on every aspect of it such as soliciting patrons to donate the cost of their tickets rather than request a refund, which was as necessary as it was unpleasant. But I think I covered most of it here. Also, know that we're still in the midst of a lawsuit with them, so I can't comment on anything that isn't a matter of public record, but everything I've said here is a matter of public record that can be accessed by either reading the lawsuit we have filed in McLennan County or in the various newspaper articles that have been written on the subject. Tomorrow I'll talk about this season's programming.
7 Cachinnations
Can you talk a little bit about the contract? The Trib reported a "short contract" and a "long contract." I think the short contract had been executed, but the long contract was not signed by Tuna's management. How can Tuna mgt claim that not doing the show would "bankrupt them," yet they never took the time to execute or sign and return the long contract (or the second contract)? And with the paper trail so clear, what would make Tuna Mgt. think they had no obligation to WPAC?
In Your Corner,
A. Wacoan
Posted on 3/02/2010
Sure. It's standard business practice when a show is negotiated to engage in verbal negotiations up front. After terms are agreed to, an offer is given in writing from the presenting theatre, usually via email. The response is a short-form contract, usually called a deal memo, that lists the agreed time, date, place, price, and other essentials. It is legally binding and includes a stipulation that further details will be covered in the long-form contract to follow. The short-form contract is countersigned and copies are given to all parties. A long-form contract is then sent by the show that repeats the above information and goes into detail on items such as the technical requirements, hospitality, box office procedures, etc. That is then signed by the theatre, counter-signed by the show, and copes are sent to everyone involved.
In this case, that is exactly the process that was followed right up until the last step. The short-form contract was in place, and it is sufficient for a show to be done on just such a contract, although it is unusual. However, it is not unusual for the long-form contract to not be returned to all parties until just shortly before the show. So I sent in the long-form contract signed in March of 2008 and was informed that summer that it had been signed and I'd receive my copy soon. Of course, I have that confirmation in writing as I have everything in writing.
That contract didn't come because of the September rescheduling and I was told that they were amending it and resending it for signatures again. Of course, that never happened and the trail of deception began.
But the ultimate reality is that the short-form contract, which is legally binding and sufficient for playing the show, was in place. And the long-form contract was also in place, although a copy had not been sent to me, and confirmation of that fact was given to me in writing.
As for how they could claim it would bankrupt them, I was told that the two creators and performers in the show were staking this tour personally. They said that because hurricanes washed out some of their dates surrounding our date in September, it would bankrupt them to have to pay their crew and transportation costs to only have one location to play. I later found that claim to be spurious since that is exactly the same scenario that they engineered for themselves in January - a solo engagement without surrounding dates. That is further evidence that they never intended to play the January dates.
To your last question, it seems obvious that they simply thought they could "big-time" Waco. They thought they could say whatever they wanted to and the hillbillies in Waco would let them walk right over us. It is insulting in the extreme, but that's the answer. They were just sure that we were unsophisticated enough to let them do and say whatever they wanted to without ever being called on it.
They were wrong.
Posted on 3/02/2010
Yes indeed they were wrong and what a shame. It could have been an incredibly memorable event for them and the theatre culture in Waco.
What was the outcome of the suit?
Posted on 3/02/2010
The suit is still ongoing. I can't comment on it specifically, but if and when there is anything to announce, I'll let everyone know.
Posted on 3/02/2010
Scott,
I thought you did very well with WPAC. Thanks for sharing about the Tuna fiasco. I think we all know what was going on there. Those guys have a reputation that follows them.
IMO, WPAC has been against the wall for a long time. I personally think they stuck it out too long in that old building. That building, though historical, really was a money drainer and I have spoken to former Hippodrome managers who have told me the same.
As much as I love the Hippodrome (I have been on stage there twice), I think WPAC's future should involve a new or newer facility. Granted, there aren't many options available right now, but I think professional theatre in Waco could work so long as you have (1) good shows; (2) easy parking; and (3) alcoholic beverages.
I think a larger stage with larger dressing rooms and wing storage could attract the larger money shows that can define an entire season for an organization for WPAC.
Let's be honest: Three performances of Les Miz could probably put WPAC in the black for an entire season if WPAC has low overhead and good benefactors.
You put that one home run on the stage, Scott, and you can bring all kinds of stuff thereafter for the community.
You didn't have that to work with. Your counterparts in similar cities to Waco with larger and better facilities had a distinct advantage over WPAC.
It is my sincere hope that WPAC will come back and come back strong. I think the group should take two years off and fund raise. WPAC could bring in old talent and friends to put on fund raising shows, etc.
However, IMO, if WPAC ever wants to not be in this position again, something will have to be done with the Hippodrome, or, in the alternative, WPAC will have to have an alternative facility to the Hippodrome in which to show larger, money earning shows.
Good luck on your lawsuit. Let me know if your lawyers would appreciate any extra assistance.
Thanks again, bro.
Brent
Posted on 3/02/2010
Thanks, Brent. I'll actually be talking about my vision of a future for the WPAC and the Hippodrome in my final post on this series. I'm not sure if that will post on Friday or at the beginning of next week, but stay tuned. There's still a lot of interesting ground to cover between now and then.
Posted on 3/02/2010
Nothing that I haven't said before but I'll say it again. My extended family and I were big Tuna fans. We have seen them all several times and were looking forward to this show. Enough to ride it out all the way to the end. Once it all started coming out and once Mr. Williams comments were printed it was all over. Those folks will never see another dime from me or the rest of my family.
Posted on 3/02/2010