Corporate Partnerships in the Theatre

I'm personally not that bothered, if it mean extra dosh for theatres or productions then so be it. 

In America, they're more willing to have showcase sponsorship. Indeed in Chicago, they have the CIBC Theatre and the Cadillac Palace Theatre. 

What do European theatres do ? It’s a rhetorical question as I know no one knows or cares but with large subsidised sectors they would be a better comparison wouldn’t they ? The absolute obsession with all things American is very wearing.

Might be helpful to note here that there is a LOT more to America than laws around gun ownership (just as there is more to the UK than a Brexit vote) so perhaps lets keep this thread about theatre/corporate sponsorship as intended?

I am not sure why involving corporate money into theatres is considered an evil deed. Their sponsorship is generally guaranteed to improve/refurbish theatres which usually means better seats, restrooms, wider public spaces and sound maintenance of the property. They don't get their name on the marquee for nothing.

The 'Cadillac Palace Theatre' is in Chicago on a street downtown where, up until the mid 90's, there were several theatres that were rat-infested movie houses on the verge of collapsing. Without corporate entities sweeping in to restore those theatres and make them viable houses for plays/musicals, they would have been torn down.

If that means naming the theatre after a a brand that helped save it and bring it back to life, so be it.

 

As long as the sponsors can't influence the programming, and the funding goes towards cheaper tickets / better facilities and not just the owners' pockets, it really doesn't bother me at all.

To OG,

I respectfully disagree and as an American who worked in theatres which were supported by a fair amount of corporate funding, I think I can speak with some authority here.

There seems to be a notion, or 'societal attitude', that anything tied to corporations is 'evil and therefore must be avoided'. That's a pity. Not all corporations are evil, nor do all require a 'quid-pro-quo' that amounts to their using theatres as a mass-marketing tool in exchange for major funding. Many give because they feel it is the correct thing to do and because many Board members/trustees believe strongly in supporting the arts. Yes, they may get a mention in the programme but beyond that, many give squillions to keep theatres afloat and ask for very little in return.

Ask any regional theatre in the US where they would be without corporate partners and many would say 'closed'. So to suggest that there is some 'elementary need to dilute everything with branding' is wrong. It is actually a need to stay open, as, unlike the UK, many of those theatres cannot rely on a modicum of government funding. I have rarely seen, where there is heavy corporate funding, actual branding being used in a way that was grotesque. Yes, some stages are jointly named after the brands that funded them, but if Coca-Cola has paid £25mil to refurbish a theatre why should they not have that right? Wealthy patrons have areas of buildings, rooms and auditoriums named after them all the time for their vast contributions (here is the UK that is very common, especially in museums) so why should corporates be treated any differently for their genorosity?


PS Sorry for the double post - have used this forum for some time and still find it difficult to navigate correctly when responding with previous quote.