An Open Letter to the Media Accreditation Team – 2010 Edinburgh Festival Fringe
We are writing this letter to express publically our disappointment and bewilderment that you have rejected The Public Reviews (www.thepublicreviews.com) as an official accredited outlet for this year’s festival.
The Public Reviews was established in 2007 and in May this year we celebrated our third anniversary. The site has the sole aim to provide a unique voice in the world of reviewing, allowing normal (i.e. non-paid or “non-professional”) members of the public to become part of our dedicated and passionate reviewing team; a team that now consists of over 80 reviewers not only in the UK but also in the USA and in Australia.
The growth of the website over the past 3 years is nothing short of phenomenal: in 2007 – 67 reviews, in 2008 – 88 reviews, in 2009 – 447 reviews and, so far in 2010, we have reviewed in excess of 600 productions around the world and forecast that we will have delivered in excess of 1000 theatre reviews by the end of the year.
In our humble beginnings we were receiving approximately 50 website hits a month but, nevertheless, many theatres including The Chichester Festival Theatre, The English National Opera, and The West Yorkshire Playhouse believed in our product so much that they welcomed us as an accredited media outlet to review their productions. Since then we now review in excess of 90 theatres across the country, also being welcomed as press to many West End productions – a number increasing on a daily basis. We currently receive approx 50,000 unique website hits a month. If that wasn’t enough, we also are invited to interview some of the biggest names in theatre including Craig Revel Horwood, Olivier Award Winning actress Janie Dee, and National Youth Theatre Artistic Director Paul Roseby.
We have gained huge support from press officers, theatre companies and public relations companies in the past three years and just a small collection of their testimonies to our work and professionalism can be found on our 3rd Birthday feature (http://www.thepublicreviews.com/happy-3rd-birthday-to-us/)
In 2009 The Edinburgh Fringe Media Accreditation Team granted the Public Reviews official accreditation for the first time (http://www.thepublicreviews.com/category/edinburgh-fringe-09/) and Deborah Klayman attended – a reviewer for other accredited publications for three previous years. The vast majority of shows Deborah reviewed directly quoted our publication, not only during the festival but also afterwards on their websites and promotional material.
I would now like to reproduce an email sent from the Media Accreditation Team to one of our supporting theatres who emailed you in support of us being accredited. The response comes from Neil McKinnon – Head of External Affairs:
“The Edinburgh Festival Fringe is a unique event. We are the world’s largest open access arts festival. This means that companies and venues are responsible for creating, staging and funding their own productions. The Fringe Society neither selects works nor pays performers to bring work to the Fringe. Consequently, we do not ‘own’ any tickets for the shows that take place as part of the Fringe. We act on behalf of the companies and venues who have funded their own productions and ask us to issue tickets to media outlets who undertake reviews of these shows.With over 1,500 requests annually for accreditation, we have a responsibility to ensure that those journalists and bloggers who we offer accreditation too [sic] are going to produce reviews that will help performers, many of whom will struggle to recoup the cost of bringing their work to Edinburgh, to sell more tickets.
Many different groups and individuals are using new technology to take reviewing in interesting new directions – such as the aggregating of twitter comments to create a ‘buzz’. Many of these innovative models are carried out by people who do not have media accreditation.
It is worth pointing out that not being accredited by the media office does not prevent a potential reviewer from purchasing a ticket for a show or approaching the producers or venue hosting a show and asking them for a complimentary ticket for a performance. It is also the case that if the producers of a show ask us to arrange a ticket for an individual who is not accredited we are happy to do that”
You have informed us during several email exchanges and telephone conversations that we, The Public Reviews, have not met the eligibility criteria to be accredited for this year’s festival. This is despite asking on a number of occasions what the exact criteria are. We have never been given a straight answer.
Our issues are as follows:
1. If you have criteria on which you base your decision, please provide us, in writing, what the criteria are. If in fact there are no actual criteria, what has changed since last year (when we were a smaller site with fewer visits per month) that has resulted in us not being accredited this year?
All we are asking is for some degree of openness and transparency in the decision making process. If needs be, shake-up and reform the process for future years.
2. We applied for accreditation for 10 reviewers who, between them, would have reviewed in excess of 300 shows at this year’s fringe: not just the few shows that would command national press attention. Therefore, how does declining our team benefit the other productions whose “performers, many of whom will struggle to recoup the cost of bringing their work to Edinburgh”?
As has been proven last year, companies rely on the support that sites such as ours provide. We, as a company, have never taken press tickets and not reviewed a production. We strive to get all reviews online within 24 hours after seeing a production and, 80% of the time, reviews are usually up within 12 hours.
3. On several occasions you have indicated that despite not being accredited, it does not prevent us from being able to review a show. This is obviously untrue. It is common knowledge that the four main venues (The Pleasance, The Guilded Balloon, Udderbelly and Assembly Rooms) will not give you press tickets and will not grant access to press areas and information without an official accreditation number from yourselves. You have also said that you will, where possible, help us to get access to press tickets. If this is the case, why not accredit us with official passes? Or, if indeed they are not really necessary, then why have an accreditation process in the first place?
We feel that this whole process has been patently ridiculous and, at the end of the day, only two parties come out of the whole process worse off. The first is the Media Accreditation Team, who are unable to provide satisfactory responses to, not only our questions, but also the concerns raised by a large number of theatres and members of the public who frequently rely on our reviews. The second (and ironically the one that you purport to help) is the theatre companies. We are one of the UK’s most recognised theatre reviewing websites with a huge following including a vast number of theatre going public and the theatres themselves who have no issues or concerns with quoting our reviews alongside those of The Guardian and The Observer, to name just a couple.
The Public Reviews will continue to grow on a week by week and month by month basis, and it is a shame that such a small-minded and blinkered point of view will mean theatre companies, producers, actors, directors and the theatre going public will be short-changed from our lack of coverage of this year’s festival.
I look forward to receiving your response to the concerns raised in this letter.
Regards
John Roberts – Editor
On behalf of The Public Reviews
Tags: 2010, Edinburgh, Festival, Fringe, Head of External Affairs, Media Accreditation, Neil McKinnon, Open Letter
3:14 am on July 20th, 2010
Hmmm, sounds to me as though the festival is a little wary of honest, individual, and unedited reviews by ‘the public’. This is very short-sighted indeed, particularly in this brave new world of public journalism. Come on, Edinburgh Festival, move with the times!
5:36 am on July 20th, 2010
It takes time for the ‘accredited’ reviewers to get around to reviewing the few shows that are on their lists and it seems a shame that the MAT is reluctant to increase the number of available reviewers who could not only spread the load, but seriously help these smaller and less publicised companies get a few more people through their doors. Although the reviewers are not ‘professionals’ they are all experienced, intelligent and conscientious who are passionate about the theatre, honest in their opinions and more than able to pen a well written review. They are not the jaded, over exposed reviewers of the profession, and therein lies the success of this site. The public (me) like an honest and fresh critique of a show from someone that has the same outlook and expectations as themselves. Leave the ‘arty’ ‘look how clever I am’ ‘OMG, not another of these, I have seen so many’ reviews to the critics that like the sound of themselves more than the productions. I trust the Public Reviews far more than any others as I know exactly what the production is going to be and whether it is one that I would like to see. When you are paying good money to see a show, you want to enjoy it, be it sad, funny, thought provoking, or just plain straight forward fun. This, thank goodness is what you get from the the Public Reviewers. Please could MAT reconsider their decision. Thank you.
6:57 am on July 20th, 2010
This is a bizarre decision. Having searched for reviews on shows I want to see on the internet thepublicreviews.com always appears in the top10! Sort yourselves out Edinburgh!4
8:05 am on July 20th, 2010
I am completely supportive of this open letter, the Fringe have really upset a lot of people this year. If I was a performer, I would not be happy at having paid hundreds of pounds to get ‘fringe support’ to find out that they don’t support at all! I think it’s especially important to have places for reviews this year since the #edfringe site doesn’t have a place this year for leaving public reviews, so people attending are going to have to rely on review sites.
Assembly have their own accreditation process, so please contact them direct. As for GB, Udderbelly and Pleasance, they do require acreditation, but interestingly enough, have their own ticket process, so they can keep away from the Fringe and make sure it runs smoothly.
Don’t be put off about reviewing, contact the companies direct who will be more than happy to work with you – the fringe pass wont be worth much soon since they change their rules and regs so much.
8:43 am on July 20th, 2010
Having been a reviewer for the Public Reviews since its start in 2007, I have watched and indeed introduced many people to the wonderful world of theatre. I have meet some wonderful People in my role and have taken many people with me to review shows; including children when a children’s production is being reviewed. I cannot believe that the accreditation team for the fringe has actually refused to recognise this company and its suitability to be accredited (even though accreditation was given last year.) I will continue to support the theatre and also The Public Reviews and feel your rejection is unfortunately yet another kick in the pants for the Arts as a whole and in the long run the Pubic Reviews will not suffer, it will be the artistes and actors who have used money they can really ill afford, to fund their productions. Wake up accreditation team and see what your decision will actually mean for the people who are taking shows up to this years Edinburgh Fringe.
9:01 am on July 20th, 2010
I see their point about not being able to give away tickets which ‘belong’ to the producers of 700 small scale shows.
But would it kill them to give you the email list of those producer contacts, or even bounce an email for you, so TPR could ask them directly if they’d like a reviewer who will actually deliver a review, to attend?
Was this signed by Kath Mainland, director of the Fringe, or some functionary lower down the festival food chain?
Johnny
9:14 am on July 20th, 2010
The real shame here is that the companies involved will miss out on a review. It astounds me that there would be a vetting process at all, doesn’t seem in the spirit of the fringe to me. It sounds a lot like some opinions are more valid than others- the fringe would not like to appear as having that opinion on the content of the festival. It does seem quite elitist for the world famous ‘fringe’ festival.
9:16 am on July 20th, 2010
This decision makes no sense to me. As a theatre maker and supporter I storngly rely on The Public Reviews to give me an honest take on the shows I am thinking of seeing.
I believe the reviews are not working to an agenda like many professional reviewers seem to be but rather just tell me what they thought – surely that is the point – is it entertaining and worth seeing, not should I see it to support a reviewers agenda.
The public reviews offers a unique voice within theatre reviewing and I would urge the MAT to review their decision.
9:32 am on July 20th, 2010
What a disappointment. Part of the purpose of the Fringe is to promote new works, encourage creativity and encourage the viewing public to broaden their horizons and experience new works, new ideas and fresh talent. This is difficult to do without getting reviews in to the mainstream and a site such as The Public Reviews is vital in achieving this. With audiences wanting feedback and reviews at the touch of a button and as quickly as possible, how can it be that a site such as this is not in a prime position to do this as it does for so many theatres and production companies?
It beggars belief that this decision has been made and is disappointing to say the least. The Accreditation Team at the fringe appear to be out of touch somewhat and have made short sited decision here. This supports the ideals of the fringe festival; perhaps it would be nice if the fringe supported the ideals of this site. Quid pro quo Accreditation Team.
9:45 am on July 20th, 2010
For all the reasons laid out above in the open letter, I am dumbfounded that the Public Reviews has not been accredited.
I feel that the Accreditation team will regret this short sighted decision as ultimately it will reflect extremely poorly on their part.
I hope that the Public Reviews can maintain a strong presence at the festival through direct contact with the producers of the performances.
This is an unfair kick in the teeth for the Public Reviews which is, after all, a major website on the British theatre scene, well respected by an array of prestigious venues and companies and well utilised by the public.
My personal email to the Accreditation team has gone unanswered so for that and for denying Public Reviews the accreditation they deserve, Edinburgh Fringe, shame on you!
Mal
9:57 am on July 20th, 2010
10 willing reviewers who could potentially review 300 shows for a well run, popular and influential review site. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
What is going on here? Dig deeper to find the root of the problem.
J
10:02 am on July 20th, 2010
sounds like you aren’t sleeping with the right people my lovelies… maybe there is something to be said for those who are not part of this stranglehold – as someone has rightly said your reviews and tweets are so easy to find that you will be read anyway. The decision is silly, in the end the producer has the right to invite or not, you should have the right to request seats to review and it is up to the show if they want your coverage – for certain companies your web strength is what they need, for others they may prefer to reduce or keep it to the physical papers.
10:05 am on July 20th, 2010
This seems to be yet another example of an organisation that should support the arts but actually helps in sabotaging it, due to continued and illogical changing of the goal posts.
The Accreditation Team should at least have the proffessionalism to provide reasons for why The Public Reveiws were not accredited this year – let me rephrase – concrete facts about what The Public Reveiws failed to achieve this year which contributed to their failure to be concidered for accreditation. Not a snarky commentry about not being able to give away tickets to all and sundry.
Neil McKinnon’s comments are insulting to the reviewers on this website who are not looking to get a free show so they can write about it in their own blogs or to “create a buzz”, but are dedicated to giving quality reviews to inform the public. The reviewers on this website are not paid, they do this because they have a love of theatre and a desire to support, critique and applaud it.
As a co-director of my own theatre company that greatly needs good informed reveiws for her shows I find that this particluar ommission for accreditation would be laughable if it wasnt so frustrating.
10:11 am on July 20th, 2010
How disappointing. The website clearly meets the eligibility criteria and would offer prolific and valuable reviewing across the Fringe Festival. I would definitely be looking on this website for guidance on what to see while I’m in Edinburgh. I hope the media accreditation team reconsider or that theatre companies allocate tickets directly for you. Lucy
11:20 am on July 20th, 2010
A short sighted and ill considered decision that deprives the performing companies of well written and highly visible and accessible reviews that they so often need and want.
The Edinburgh Festival is a great event, but are they in danger of getting caught up in their own ‘buzz’? Surely a ‘unique’ festival such as the Fringe should jump at the chance to support the unique reviewing model of The Public Reviews.
11:29 am on July 20th, 2010
I run Mobius, a theatre and comedy PR company working with a number of productions and venues across London and at Edinburgh Fringe for the past seven years. We have worked with the Public Reviews for a long time now and readily accept them to all of our shows. You’ll note their recent attendance at Old Vic’s “Aftermath”, part of LIFT, for example. I find their reviewers conscientious, insightful and hard working. In a festival of 2500 shows I feel it is important to encourage coverage to be as wide spread as possible – small, developing companies need all the feedback and publicity they can get. I would like to appeal to the Fringe to reconsider this decision, and have no doubt that my fellow publicists will agree with me.
11:53 am on July 20th, 2010
This is truly shocking indeed! An outrage! The Public Reviews are going to have to send a few more emails to get the free passes than was previously thought!
Who do the ‘Fringe’ think they are?
Some kind of charity organisation who coordinates and supports 21,148 performers in 40,254 performances of 2,453 shows in 259 venues?
They are clearly trying to cripple the arts indstry one website at a time.
On a serious note, posting the personal information of employees is downright scandalous. A little perspective perhaps.
12:07 pm on July 20th, 2010
This really seems daft and makes no real sense. It costs enough to do Edinburgh in the first place and only a fighting chance of getting reviewers in to see your work anyway. I hope they reconsider there decision, Public Reviews is a fantastic site and needs to be in Edinburgh.
12:16 pm on July 20th, 2010
As both a reviewer for and ‘customer’ of TPR, I am, like everyone else, baffled by the logic in refusing this accreditation. The growing success of the site is proof enough that people want to read the independent reviews we provide. I can’t understand why Edinburgh Fringe are finding this so difficult to grasp. The letter sounds great; fingers crossed it gets the considered reply it deserves.
12:40 pm on July 20th, 2010
What a bizaare decision by the Fringe. thepublicreviews.com provides a service to the theatre industry by promoting shows across the UK. The 50,000 unique hits a month demonstrate that the public have a thirst for a public and independent reviews, how can refusing the accreditation possibly help anyone?
12:42 pm on July 20th, 2010
I feel that the Fringe not accrediting The Public Reviews to be outrageous. I regularly use and view the Public Reviews when deciding on what shows I should go and see, I find their reviewers to be honest and present well thought out and constructed reviews. I find the style of the site accessible and easy to use. Declining them makes no sense, especially to the companies that are going to lose out on having their show reviewed.
1:09 pm on July 20th, 2010
@Bemused Bystander
In one breath you say that “The Public Reviews are going to have to send a few more emails to get the free passes than was previously thought” and then that there are 2,453 shows in 259 venues!! That’s quite a few extra emails if those figures are correct.
From what you’ve written it comes across that you don’t take this site seriously, and that you think all the reviewers are basically blaggers. Is that what you actually think?
And one final thing – you seem to be quite up with all the facts and figures on the festival… you wouldn’t happen to be from the media team yourself would you…? ;o)
1:11 pm on July 20th, 2010
It is suprising that such a decision has been made by the MAT, and it seems very stubborn that they will not go back on their mistake so as not to lose face – which is the only reason I can see for them doing so. Ironic, seeing as though this is turning out to be a huge emarrassment for them.
1:22 pm on July 20th, 2010
@bemused bystander – you are right, the posting of personal details is wrong and as a result the offending post has been deleted. We do not tolerate personal attacks of this or of any sort, and as a result the offending poster has had their IP address blocked from posting in the future. This is not the place for such behaviour and I hope that the actions taken and our apology for such an incident taken place is accepted?
1:26 pm on July 20th, 2010
I am a regular at the Fringe and a “Friend of the Fringe”, over the past 10 years I have seen 200 plus productions whilst in the city. Around only 30% of these were ever booked in advance, relying on word of mouth and mainly reviews once in town. Experience also tells me that the view of the “common people” far nearer fits my likes and dislikes than so many of the “professionals” who normally hate what I like (they do seem especially anti musical). I know where I WOULD have been looking for my pointers and it is certainly not any of the major newspapers, and lets not also forget we will have the wonderful opportunity of being able to pay for our Times Online daily use!
1:28 pm on July 20th, 2010
I was personally accredited to review for The Public reviews at last year’s festival in addition to the other publications I was writing for. I was given a Press Pass and accreditation number which I used to see and review shows, and also to promote TPR to the Edinburgh Festival performers, producers and audiences. How the Media Office can justify the decision not to accredit us this year is a complete mystery to me, and seriously disappointing. Fortunately, due to my work there last year and TPR’s many supporters and contacts we will be there reviewing regardless, but this does not absolve the Media Office of their responsibility to behave fairly towards us and at least have the decency to show us which part of the criteria (which I met last year) has changed and now excludes us.
Sad and bewildered.
Deborah Klayman
2:09 pm on July 20th, 2010
This decision makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion it’s a biased decision. I think the very name of this now highly respected reviewing body has been a factor in their accreditation refusal. ‘What place has the public got in reviewing productions? Ridiculous – we can’t possibly have them rubbing shoulders with The Guardian or The Stage, preposterous.’ It’s pure thatrical elitism and nothing else and it’s an absolute disgrace and flys in the face of everything the Edinburgh Fringe stands for. It’s hard enough for new companies going up there getting an audience, let alone a reviewer. Why can’t the Media Office back up their decision? Because there is no reason for it other than elitism, if I’m wrong then tell me and The Public Reviews why I am wrong and give us a credible reason for their refusal.
Come on guys – man up – explain yourselves or do the decent thing and revoke your decision – we’re all allowed to make mistakes – even one as big as this, true character is in admitting that and reversing the decision. Come on, do the decent thing…we will ALL respect you for it. Joe O’Byrne
2:19 pm on July 20th, 2010
What a shame- as someone who will be attending the Fringe in a few weeks I am always looking for a way to decide which of the hundreds of shows available I should go to see- the public reviews would have been a perfect way to help sieve through what’s available to find something I’m likely to enjoy.
3:46 pm on July 20th, 2010
Poor decision Fringe folks.
As someone who produces shows which thepublicreviews.com have reviewed I can honestly say that people do read the reviews on the site and make decisions to see shows because of them.
I understand that the Fringe Office must get bombarded with requests from every http://www.tom,dick&harry.com but this site is no fly-by-night operation and I wish them lots of luck in their bid to get the decision overturned.
4:12 pm on July 20th, 2010
I am fairly new to reviewing for The Public Reviews but take the opportunity – something I never thought I’d get the chance to do – very seriously and am proud to review for a site that sets and achieves such a high standard.
I confess to being slightly nervous at the thought that my reviews could influence people’s decision whether to go and see a show or not, so endeavour to be fair, honest and professional with everything I write. Having said that, for years I have sought out reviews for shows that I am interested in, am excited about seeing or if I’m unsure whether to make the effort and fork out for a ticket, so I know that reviews count – and accurate, honest reviews count most of all.
I believe The Public Reviews benefits from reviewers whose love of and enthusiam for seeing all kinds of performance has not been tainted or distorted by years of professional reviewing, just strengthed by years of enjoying stuff.
Edinburgh are simply missing a huge opportunity here to get a team of enthusastic and knowledgeable ‘amateurs’ – with a professional approach and a demonstrable online readership – reviewing a large number of shows and generating interest and (most importantly) bums on seats at a time when it matters more than ever.
4:15 pm on July 20th, 2010
Sounds to me like the M.A.T don’t know what they’re doing. Or maybe they’re just complacent and lazy…
5:00 pm on July 20th, 2010
I was a visual artist for OVER 15 years and moved away into film because the artworld didnt appreciate work that is made with the public as its intended audience, and not made for the art world elitist. And low and behold an institution such as Edinburgh fringe festival are pulling such tricks, SHAME ON YOU!!!
6:19 pm on July 20th, 2010
Our show has a run of only a week, so reviewers with a quick turnaround (yes, that does basically mean internet sites) are more valuable to us than a review in print that could take days from when (if) the reviewer gets to see our show.
I’m really surprised that The Public Reviews has been refused press accreditation, especially if you see the quality of these so call ‘amateur’ reviews. They only seem amateur in the fact that they aren’t being paid, to me. Still, at least we can arrange free tickets if we want the reviews.
With the average show receiving under half an audience as standard anyway, don’t we have enough tickets to give away to make it at least worth giving a seat to someone that is going to write up a review?
6:35 pm on July 20th, 2010
@Bemused Bystander
Posting personal details would be scandalous, however citing work details that are available on the Fringe website is not.
The way in which staff at the Media office (who I will not name so as not to offend) spoke to me when I enquired as to their reasons for refusing our accreditation – a question I am surely allowed to ask? – was variously rude, dismissive, sarcastic and patronising, and I felt very degraded by the experience. I don’t feel that is the way one professional should be made to feel by another, and I also feel we will now be penalised for fighting our corner – something I also feel we are allowed to do.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yours is just clearly in the minority.
8:14 pm on July 20th, 2010
I would be interested to know what the MAT deem as ‘amateur’ reviewers – reviewers who review for ‘Broadway Baby’ are unpaid and work within exactly the same framework as TPR and gain Media Accreditation year after year.
8:15 pm on July 20th, 2010
We have been following your story with interest as we are a new listings and reviews site for the Fringe. As we are new this year, we would not expect to be accredited and hence haven’t applied. However, we have had a great response from shows who are keen to be reviewed and have been in touch directly. Our site will focus on reviews from the public and I believe we are unique in allowing people to submit these by SMS. This is intended to make it more convenient and therefore increase the number of reviews each show receives. We will also be featuring longer reviews by our team, who are not professionals but keen amateur performers and musicians. I am pleased to hear that other audience members do welcome these reviews and I look forward to helping get the word about all the great shows that I am sure we will be seeing! Best of luck to everyone at The Public Reviews – I hope this doesn’t put a dampener on your Fringe experience this year.
3:21 pm on July 21st, 2010
I regularly check The Public Reviews for reviews of fringe shows in London and around, knowing that there will be comprehensive coverage around town – reliable reviews from the fullest range of shows, especially the newest venues and companies. I’d assumed to use it to cross-reference reviews from this year’s Festival , expecting that there would be the usual easy access to prompt, critically sound postings, usually among the first available. Is this a done deal or is this decision potentially reversible?
3:31 pm on July 21st, 2010
@Martin Bishop
Hi Martin in response to your question.
We originally found out we were declined accreditation from the MTA on Friday 16th, almost a month since we put in our official application.
We then mounted a very public appeal in which many theatres including; The Royal Exchange, The Contact Theatre, Manchester Opera House & Palace Theatres and The WYP to name a few supported by writing to the accreditation team.
We then found out late Monday afternoon that they still felt we should be declined, again with no clear reasoning other than as stated in above letter ‘we don’t meet the criteria’.
We are as of yet still awaiting any official response to the questions raised above, apart from one very sarcastic natured comment as you can read above by @bemused bystander who is a member of The MTA.
I have a feeling that they will not back down on the decision, “Pride comes before a fall” and all that!
However myself and TPR team will be in Edinburgh and so far the response from Venues, Producers, Theatre Companies and PR’s have been that of utter disbelief and have offered their full support.
I would like to express on behalf of all the reviewers our heartfelt thanks, to everyone so far showing support…rest assured we will continue to provide you with the best coverage possible.
John Roberts – Editor
3:46 pm on July 21st, 2010
@Bemused Bystander
“Some kind of charity organisation who coordinates and supports 21,148 performers in 40,254 performances of 2,453 shows in 259 venues?”
You don’t support everyone as some of the main venues have their own accreditation process and ticket handling which is extremely professional and efficient and based on one set criteria. As a reviewer myself, with full accreditation let me explain to you that the main venues prefer to deal with us direct and by pass the Fringe completely as they are not happy with the service you provide.
And as someone else mentioned, it’s not about ‘free passes’ as you would maybe like to think. Apart from a handful of review sites, nobody is paid to do the reviews – it’s a service provided by people who genuinely love the fringe and like to help out – so the review sites are a fantastic display of charity. Many reviewers use up all their holidays to come to Edinburgh to work 24/7 which is dedication.
It will be interesting to see which review sites have accreditation this year and if blogs have been granted, when sites such as TPR haven’t. I suppose it all depends who you know in the Fringe office eh?
4:04 pm on July 21st, 2010
Having written on occasions for this website and local newspapers in the Edinburgh area, I would have thought TPR an obvious choice for accreditation.
I personally live in Edinburgh and every year experience the masses of people flooding into the city, only to find so many shows and performances that they find themselves lost in the entire Festival. The accessibility and efficiency of TPR has always impressed me, and the huge genre of arts that it covers means that whoever browses the website, they are bound to find a review of a performance that appeals to them. It focuses not purely on those performances that will hit the headlines or rake in the most money, but even those that you imply need the most help in public recognition.
My final comment is that reviewing is also part of the Festival. Budding young reviewers, writers and bloggers swarm to the festival in the hope of creating some material to express their writing skills, and the wonder of TPR is that it allows anybody who is interested in writing to do so. The high standard of the website and its content speaks of the unrealised talent of many writers in Britain, and by denying accreditation to the website you are not only damaging those acts in the Festival who need our attention, but also taking from the writers who equally desire exposure.
I shan’t launch into hypocrisy or irony in some of your decisions, but perhaps a ‘review’ of your choices and their reasoning, in light of some of the comments posted here, could prove to be worthwile.
9:51 pm on July 21st, 2010
I would like to join John in thanking all those who have so generously posted, emailed and phoned TPR with messages of support. I would also like to thank many of you who have pledged support for TPR in Edinburgh, we look forward to seeing and reviewing your shows and hopefully recommending some fantastic productions that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Deborah Klayman
10:15 am on July 22nd, 2010
Surely this must be an oversight on somebody’s part. The Public Review service is very valuable to the world of the thratre; the statistics show this is increasingly so.
3:19 pm on July 22nd, 2010
Dear Bemused Bystannder, although it would seem that you are not exactly a ‘Bystander’ at all, but a very interested party. Do you honestly believe that your position, whatever it is in the MAT office, gives you the right to be so sarcastic and arrogant? Has the job of deciding who gets accreditation given you delusions of power? As can be seen from the support posted here I sincerely hope that TPR gets not only more plays to review, but is given accreditation from other companies, not only because they deserve it but to show you that MAT should be sincerely working to help the however many thousands of companies and shows that have put themselves in your hands and trust you to do the best for them, not feed your power mania. I have the feeling that you are going to dig your heels in over this, but have you thought that the most intelligent way to stop this blog on your intransigence is to let TPR know why the accreditation was refused? Have you noted that the only ‘nasty’ comment has been yours? Please also note that I am not afraid to give my own name to this comment, and to also state that I am a friend of John Roberts although not a reviewer, and yes, I do and have from the start used TPR to find out whether I want to see a production or not, after all 50,000 people a month are not going to be wrong in thinking it a worthwhile exercise, are they?
12:54 pm on July 23rd, 2010
What I cannot understand is why The Edinburgh Fringe Media Accreditation Team gave The Public Reviews official permission last year and have decided not to this year? A plain English explanation is the proper and helpful response The Edinburgh Fringe Media Accreditation Team should give to The Public Reviews as to why they are not granting permission this year.
I have been attending the festival every few years since 2001 and I would much rather rely on The Public Reviews who offer more helpful reviews than some of the other big names who, in the past I have found to only offer a ‘one size fits all’ approach to reviewing.
11:59 am on July 24th, 2010
I would just like to add my support to you guys. It does all seem rather bizarre that you would not get accredited this year, or any year. It is even more important that you are there as it seems the forums on the old edfringe website are no longer there and so there are fewer ways of finding out what the public thinks of shows. They have a facebook discussion page as the alternative but this is not categorised or used in quite the same way and a poor replacement. I hope people are also haranguing the fringe office about the loss of the forums – so vital also for finding accommodation and staff.
6:21 am on July 27th, 2010
Bitter Lemons website base in the USA feature our story!
http://bitter-lemons.com/2010/07/the-public-reviews-gets-snubbed-by-edinburgh-fringe-festival/
10:49 am on July 27th, 2010
This is utterly ridiculous. What is the issue with them providing the reasons you apparently did not meet the criteria (if there is any)? Why can they not back-up their decisions? Their reluctantance to do so makes them look very bad.
And the comment by “Bemused Bystander” reflects very badly on the MAT and makes them look unprofessional and lacking in manners.
1:39 pm on July 27th, 2010
It really doesn’t make sense why they have denied ‘The Public Reviews’ media accreditation with no staisfactory explanation, especially considering the enormity of success achieved by ‘The Public Reviews’ since last year.
The truely dissappointing aspect of this all is how the theatre companies, actors, directors, and the theatre going public who rely on this website for information are being denied of the service provided by The Public Reviews’.
8:54 pm on July 28th, 2010
It is such a shame that the committed and enthusiastic work of the Public Review team is not being recognised by the MAT, when the site is such a popular choice for audiences and the wider professionals to use. At the very least MAT should be transparent in their decision making process.
On a positive note, even the smallmindedness of this act will not stop John Roberts et al from having the best (and most honest) reviews up online probably before the actors hit the sack on opening night!!