Jason Zinoman et al.

I have a bit of experience at the New York International Fringe Festival (FringeNYC) as both a performer and producer and this past Tuesday, watched curiously as Jason Zinoman took whatever air was left out of the dying balloon that was this year's festival with a scathing article in the New York Times. Yes, we might as well refer to this year's Fringe in the past tense because, despite there being two days left, there's just no reviving it. Word on the street is that patrons, press, and even judges are over FringeNYC for 2010, and may not return for a while.

The question is: will FringeNYC respond to Mr. Zinoman and the bloggers who've piggy-backed on to his story with its trademark defiance or will they take a close, hard look at the criticism and use it to evolve? I fear it may be the former as the Zinoman piece was clearly (partially) motivated by the fury that enveloped him when he was turned away from a Fringe performance for being late ("Do you know who I am?!" was apparently what he bellowed...not terribly original). Elena Holy (the festival's Top Banana) will more-than likely use Zinoman's late-comer comments to dismiss the whole piece out of hand as nothing more than the rantings of an ego-maniac who should have known the rules.

But the Times piece made points that are hard to ignore. In a mad rush to become the continent's biggest festival (their measurement being number of productions, as opposed to number of patrons), I believe Elena and the folks at FringeNYC have diluted the festival's content so much that finding gems amongst the piles of theatrical shit that get bigger every year has become nearly impossible. The festival needs to take a hard look at the mirror and really consider what needs to be done, lest a leaner, meaner festival pop up and knock it off its mantle.

What's endlessly frustrating is that the answers to the festival's problems are everywhere. From Edinburgh to Edmonton, Fringe Festivals thrive with the simplest of formulas. Despite never being accepted as an "official" fringe festival for side-stepping key aspects of said formula (taking a percentage of the box-office, for example, infuriated Festival producers the world), FringeNYC needs to look at what makes those festivals work and it needs to apply those lessons, fast.

Ms. Holy, if you're out there, let me be the first to congratulate you on all the incredible work you and your team have done. Your festival is a marvel of artistic and logistical accomplishment. But you have to see the writing on the wall. You've grown too big, too fast and you need to make significant changes in 2011 or risk alienating your core constituency. Producers are frustrated. Patrons are frustrated. The Press is certainly frustrated. Here are five changes you could make tomorrow that would win back the momentum you've lost:

1. Get over Urinetown. It's been six years since the Broadway version of your biggest hit closed. By continually invoking it (and allowing its success to dictate your policies - more on that below), you risk being defined as a one-hit festival whose glory days are long gone. It's time to move on.
2. Trim the fat. Your festival has more productions than any other in North America. Congrats. You've done it. But what does that mean? More shows doesn't mean more attendance. You sold 75,000 tickets to the 2009 festival. The Edmonton Fringe sold 92,000 in the same year with about thirty less productions. That's right. Edmonton, Alberta. You know what more productions does mean, generally speaking? More amateurish garbage that does nothing but turn people off the festival. Contrary to what Mr. Zinoman says, I think you've done a wonderful job at keeping the festival centralized, especially this year with most, if not all of E4th street jumping aboard. But the sheer number of productions does contribute to Mr. Zinoman's argument that it is simply too hard to find the diamonds in the rough. And with 197 shows to sift through, the press must resort to staffing interns and copy-writers to cover the festival. The result is less-than reliable critical coverage that does nothing to promote attendance.
3. Cap the running time for every show at 90 minutes. The idea is that patrons can bounce from show to show, catching two or three plays in a day. But too many Fringe producers and writers have little regard for their festival audience, all-too-often allowing their running times to go past the two hour threshold. With no intermissions, these marathons leave the patrons exhausted and uninterested in checking out another piece. If the 2+hour plays are garbage, the patrons leave incensed and won't likely take their chances with the Fringe again.
4. Give producers their sixth and seventh show back. You've convinced yourself that going down to five performances has somehow helped producers by focusing their audiences on fewer shows so they don't have to perform in front of small houses. Do you honestly think that, if you polled the producers of the 197 shows at the festival this year, you'd get even a handful of people to sign on to the idea that, somehow, having fewer performances over 16 days was a net-positive? Enough with the spin. You went down to five performances to create more space for more productions to increase revenue for FringeNYC. Period. You want another hit musical? Look at the numbers from a producer's standpoint. Five performances in a 99 seat house. Let's take away ten seats at each performance for press/industry, which is conservative. If, in a best case scenario, every ticket is purchased at the door (which doesn't happen, but whatever) the company receives $10.50 out of the $18 ticket price. So: 89 x 5 x $10.50. That's $4672.50. If the producers file with equity, that's $350/actor. Now add a director, a stage manager, musicians, a set, marketing costs, etc. The numbers just don't add up.
5. Lose the 2%. The Participant Agreement that you require producers of FringeNYC shows to sign contains an Author's/Creator's attachment which stipulates that the festival is entitled to "2% of (the show's) gross-income above twenty thousand dollars derived from the disposition of subsidiary rights or future productions". For many a writer, especially outside of New York, this is a non-starter. The reality is that you don't have the resources or the time to enforce this obligation (with a few obvious exceptions). But by stipulating partial ownership over seven years, you're alienating too many talented playwrights, composers and performers, who reject the idea on principle. This is especially the case with veterans of the Fringe circuit outside of New York, who are content to simply skip FringeNYC in favor of other festivals that don't ask for a cut (which is every one of them). Are you really making that much money from this? Is it really worth it?

There is one underlying theme to all the fixes listed above and that is making this festival more attractive to people outside of the Big Apple. You're the New York INTERNATIONAL Fringe Festival. You have 14 international productions this year. Out of 197 shows. That shouldn't be an acceptable ratio.

Fringe festivals, by definition, are progressive institutions. Adding more shows to your program so you can call yourself the biggest isn't progressing. Zinoman's tone was off, but his points were not. People are losing patience with FringeNYC. The weaknesses in your programming are clouding over the successes. You need to make changes and you need to make them now. You've worked too hard and built too much to watch your wonderful festival collapse under the sheer weight of itself.