I think you're right about the iPad and the Kindle. Even using Kindle for the iPhone a year ago, I saw the potential there; when they announced the iPad, I may well have swooned. (For the record, I don't swoon easily.)

One of the things I'm hoping to do through the 2amt site is to offer playwrights help in formatting their scripts to sell via Amazon, which would go directly into the Kindle or the Kindle app for the iPad. (It's not something I've talked about in the open yet.) Some have already figured out how to do that, others don't know where to start. That way, playwrights can get their work out where it can be discovered, where they can show it off with additional materials (video clips, notes, image gallery, author interview), where they can lnk to it and highlight it on their own websites, and where it can download straight to the device of your choice.

It's only a half step and a jump to formatting the script for Amazon's self-publishing program. This wouldn't matter to AD's, but a playwright could go to his or her local bookstores and ask them to order copies, hold readings and book signings, etc. A theatre company could also bring in a few copies for sale to the public, or feature links on their website, what have you.

The developing iScripts concept–and I don't know if that's a working title or not–looks to be something along the lines of iTunes but for playscripts. It would have that tight focus on playscripts and be purely electronic.

This is a case where we can use the tools that are available now, we just have to take the time to use them properly and advertise what we have.

I also agree that the print script is dead — or at least dying. Many playwrights have decided to stop submitting to contests that require entry fees; I've also decided, personally, to stop submitting to (almost) anyone who wants a printed script.

Finally, while I share your enthusiasm for the iPad and Kindle, I think it's best to conceive of those as devices with which the ultimate disruptive solution needs to be compatible. Somehow, scripts (and related materials) need to get into those devices… but the somehow is the disruption.

Second, the disruptive technology in the area of submissions is actually the Kindle and the IPad. More and more AD's, agents, and literary managers are carrying these things these days. Your paper script is the least convenient thing and becoming obsolete on the receiving end, so stop spending time and money (and trees) creating them. We can carry an entire literary office in our briefcase or purse. And if the choice is between taking an electronic script with me or carrying the paper copy, I'm going electronic every time. So, this war has already been won for those who have adjusted. Agents still send paper, for the most part. And those sit in piles. The .pdf files sit in folders on my machine but that's with me no matter where I go.

Simplest way to build on that is probably a simple app for the IPad that links the script to existing information for the playwright, the play, and associated content (reviews,video, context, etc.)

Now all someone needs to do is buy the domain and build the thing. I'd be happy to lend a hand…

I think you're right on the money there. I've seen cases where board members' choices for plays didn't get picked, and they threw in the towel. Of course, that's a hissy fit and makes you wonder how committed they were in the first place, but still, it does happen.

This is why the curator/AD is crucial, and why not everything can or should be crowdsourced.

In my own company's case, we've worked hard to build a level of trust with our audience. We're in the triangle between Louisville, Cincinnati and Indianapolis, so if they want to see the big shows on tour, or the popular regional theatre shows (Drawer Boy, Doubt, Dinner With Friends, W;t), they can do that pretty easily. Or even the summerstock staples, those are all within easy driving distance. So we bring them shows they won't see anywhere else, for the most part.

Yes, we've done Mamet and Shepard and Lanford Wilson, but we've also done Sean Reycraft, Marie Jones, Tom Mula, Daniel MacIvor, James Rasheed. And we've premiered several of my plays here. And our audience trusts our choices, because we put it in terms of “here are stories we've found that we want to share with you.” (We also do 360 Storytelling events, about which more here: http://www.2amtheatre.com/360storytelling/ which encourage the audience to share their stories with us.)

There's also the potential backlash of letting the consensus carry the day and when the show isn't what they were expecting, the AD and the company get the blame. I've also seen that happen.

But I know of a summerstock theatre out here that used to trade in lousy sex farces and mindless comedies, partly because the entirely-too-large board was taking a hand in picking the season. They pared down the board and brought in an AD who designed a slightly more challenging season, and they've improved the level of their shows steadily since then. They're still doing light, fun shows, but they're picking quality and mixing it up with the occasional drama. And the audiences love it just as much if not more.

Seems to me, audiences will let you know if there's something they're looking for, if there are plays they want to see. In our case, we've built a store of good will with them that they'll take a chance on our shows and often bring friends to the next, who'll bring friends to the next and so on. That's what I call audience development.

#1 — I think you raise a very interesting possibility here. It's the soft of effect we call an “unintended consequence” of the system. If we invite audience participation, but don't seriously turn some of the engagement over to them — if we don't really make it a two-way conversation — then yes, I think we would risk alienating them further. But if we really did engage with them, over time, time and time again, they would buy in, and if they were eventually “over-ruled” — if they got, say, their third choice instead of their first, and the AD had very good reason for the swap — they'd be totally be “in” enough to look past it, I believe. This is all, of course, thoroughly speculative… and only the real world would determine how real-world participants would behave.

#2 — I really think that in some ways, what we're talking about here is giving ADs another tool (or more information) to fulfill a curatorial role they are already playing. ADs already try to make season selections that serve their audiences, at least to some extent, while also being true to their theaters' brands and missions. This tool would simply be a way to help ADs take their audiences' temperatures, as it were — to know them better. It would only be one input in season planning, but not necessarily the final word.

I'm interested in figuring out in this equation a couple of things –
1 – What happens when audience members are engaged in the decision-making process and yet the plays they liked aren't selected? Will they check out? Or will they be so 'in' at that point that they'll come see whatever was picked?

2 – what happens to the notion of the curator – that the AD picks things sometimes that audiences might not think they want to see, but actually these selections raise up, open up, challenge and inspire their audiences. If it is all what people THINK they want (and sometimes that means what they are comfortable with) do we start to lose our vitality?

Time is a very limited quantity for me. I read 300-500 scripts a year. (I like reading plays) It feels like the pile never shrinks.

A way for writers to supply additional materials would be pretty great.

But, if an AD is on the fence, they shouldn't do it. And more often than not, they won't. Requests for tweaks are just a way of stringing along writers, because most AD's don't want to–or don't have the spine to–say no. It's far easier to blame the Lit Manager or the audience. (Id it really that difficult to tell a writer “I like your work, but I'm not going to produce this one?”)

I am all for open dialogue, and for open feedback. But as you say, if an AD isn't open to that it won't change anything. There's no technology to remove the silo from someone who doesn't want it removed. If an AD wants to prompt a conversation, they already can.

The only real barrier to that is whether or not the AD wants to be open and have a conversation.

And certainly, minor tweaks are always possible once you agree to produce a show. I just wouldn't want to be doing them on spec in the hopes that the AD would maybe produce it. Certainly, different plays can adjust and adapt to different audiences and communities. A lot of that should be up to the director and the community instead of the playwright. But if a playwright is happy to revise accordingly, that can be a good thing.

This of course takes a slightly different approach than at Samuel French. The big change here is that the play is a more fluid, living thing than a dead piece of parchment. What's so wrong with a play being slightly changed in order to emphasize different aspects of the themes/topics involved? So long as all parties involved are willing participants, I kind of like the idea that at one theatre(er) whose audience is 20 yrs difference in age than in another one, the aesthetics and the context of this former audience would prompt a different understanding of the play than with the latter.

But why would an AD try to alter a play like that? Why not just look for another play that fits what they're looking for? It's one thing to set Hamlet in 1950's Milwaukee, but another to want to further develop or redevelop a play like that.

“I'd really prefer it if Laura Wingfield had someone else to talk to in the first scene, maybe someone her own age. Give her some contemporaries, maybe lighten her up a little, that'll fit with our theater's mission.”

No, at some point, the script has to be judged on its own merits. I don't get to rewrite or revise anything I choose from Samuel French or Dramatists, and unless there's an option whereby the playwright can offer that, then it shouldn't be the case here, either.

The first is openness: by making it very easy for an AD to invite others to provide open feedback, it is that much easier for more people to be involved. Granted, if said AD has no interest in openness, this won't change anything.

the next one that I can think of is supplying secondary material within the framework of the play selection process. If a playwright is able to provide supplemental material, he would have a better position to illustrate his artistic vision beyond just the written word. It's much easier to discuss artistic development with multi-media supplements.

Here's another one: what about the situation in which an AD might be on the fence about a play, and would want to see what it might look like slightly altered. In marketing, removing barriers to exchanges increases the rate of exchange: so maybe the opportunity to throw up a comment on a scene like “if there is a way to include x/y here, we might be inclined to consider the play” might drastically increase the chances of getting produced.

the last one would be efficiency. All of the ADs I have spoken to on the subject reference the fact that due to time constraints, they can only read a certain number of plays a year. If you increase the efficiency of the process at all points, you could increase the number of plays that are considered.

I think ultimately any tool like this would require some strong AD buy-in or be dead in the water. Although I'm certain there are ADs out there who do not believe they should try to alter a play according to their theatre(er)'s aesthetic or many other considerations a theatre(er) has that a playwright doesn't, I'm sure at least twice as many do. Therefore, a tool which does not provide a win-win situation to both parties involved won't be useful to anyway. is all I'm saying.

But for the sake of argument: How would an AD module of that sort help the process? What would the benefit of just shifting the current develpment model online change the process?

But again, I'd want to stick to a single theatre. I'm not going to keep redeveloping a script for every group that wants to produce it, even the 2nd or 3rd productions. At some point, it has to stand on its own, and either your company wants to produce it or not.

I don't think we can rely on hungry playwrights not to game the submission system you've laid out. We already have performers who show up for auditions without the stated characteristics or experience asked for, and administrators who apply for a position they don't have the paper qualifications for. I'm not saying no one is ever right to press their career in this way, my point is that there's not going to be enough of the promised “winnowing” of the massive “reading pile.”

But yes, why can't we advertise our potential projects? What if an AD could choose a project that intrigues him or her, that fits their style or mission, or even the theme of an upcoming season? Why not guarantee a world premiere and even work together to tailor it to the needs of that company?

Very good ideas, G. (And we'll be watching the iScripts project as it develops, don't worry.)

The problem with crowdsourcing that kind of thing is that you run the risk of losing the individual voices of the playwrights. “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” wasn't crowdsourced. If Stoppard had listened to some of the reactions audiences have had over the years, we might not have had the play at all.

Obviously, we listen to consistent advice–if 9 out of 10 people say the ending doesn't make sense, or think it says something other than what we meant, we'll revise, and that's fine. But for the most part, I'm going to listen to and work with people whose opinions I trust–good or bad.

More to the point, if I'm putting a script out there for sale, I don't expect to make major revisions to it, let alone by section or scene, let alone over and over. If I'm to the point of submitting a script to multiple theatres or even offering it for them in a standardized online library-type setting, I'm finished working on it. Revising a script regularly just to resubmit it over and over like that will eat into what little time I already have for writing the next script. And I won't be getting paid for that time either.

If a theatre wants to produce it and wants to bring me in to actively develop it further, that's another matter. But I wouldn't start revising it until the ink was dry on the contract.

I've got a few other ideas on AD's and submissions, but I'll be posting those in a little bit…