Home News Theater Review Roundup: Conflict of Interest?
Review Roundup: Conflict of Interest? Print E-mail
By Carrie L. Kaufman | Theatre   
1:39 PM, January 22, 2010 | Updated on 2:33 PM, January 22, 2010

Recently, I received an e-mail from City Lit artistic director Terry McCabe. It was about Kevin Heckman, longtime PerformInk listings editor and Review Roundup reviewer. To be fair, it wasn't really about Kevin, but about the fact that Kevin both works in theatre and reviews theatre for our publication. He always has. When he started, he was an actor and director. Then he became producing director at Stage Left. Now he's the managing director at Next Theatre .

Mr. McCabe thinks this is a conflict of interest.

This brings up some interesting points for me—about the nature of PerformInk and how readers perceive it. And also about how fearful people in this community seem to be to just speak out. Luckily Terry McCabe isn't, and we had a very interesting conversation, which is shared below. Comments are more than welcome.

Carrie Kaufman
Publisher, PerformInk

Terry McCabe: A Question for the New Year

Dear Carrie,

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the rationale behind PerformInk having a producer of local theatre write reviews of his competitors' shows? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

That second question was rhetorical. Of course it's a conflict of interest. There's a reason Rich Melman doesn't write restaurant reviews, and it's the same reason the managing director of Next Theatre shouldn't write theatre reviews. Nothing against Kevin himself, you understand. But the conflict is blatant enough that I wonder why you allow it.

I dare say this may be the first time anyone from the theatre community has raised this point to you, but if that's the case, I suspect it's because we're generally reluctant to be seen as criticizing the press publicly. Over the course of years, though, going back to when Kevin was reviewing shows for PerformInk while running Stage Left Theatre , I have heard the topic brought up any number of times in private conversations among theatre folk, always critically. I have never heard anyone defend the policy, which is why I wonder what you have to say about it.

At City Lit, we have mostly dealt with the question of how to deal with the policy by simply not inviting PerformInk to review our shows. During the run of our last show, however, Kevin called and requested press tickets to it. With mixed feelings, we provided them. As his review was positive, it created the opportunity to write this letter, as it seemed we could not fairly be accused of sour grapes.

So, why do you allow a local producer to review his competitors?

best,
Terry McCabe

Carrie Kaufman Responds:

I have to say, Terry, that the first thing that interests me is your use of the word and the concept "competitor." Within the theatre community, Next Theatre "competes" with you? Really? For what, actors? Playwrights? PerformInk isn't geared toward the general public. It's geared toward the theatre community. And I'm not sure where the competition lies.

For the record, Kevin started reviewing for PerformInk long before he took the job even at Stage Left. PerformInk was conceived as a paper BY theatre people FOR theatre people, and in the '90s everyone that worked there was performing or directing or producing. My original idea of running reviews was that we would see the show, talk to the cast and director, write about it, and then do a post-mortem—talk to the people involved with the show after it closed about their experiences, why it was successful (if it was), what could have improved, or why it wasn't successful (if it wasn't). My conception was that it should be a teaching/learning opportunity. But the consensus was that theatre people simply wouldn't be honest, that they'd be too afraid of the "competition." I didn't understand that then and frankly don't understand that now.

So, what we settled on is a review structure that analyzes the show like a theatre person would in breaking it down to direct it or act it, hoping that that would be instructive in it's own way. Over the years, Kevin sometimes has strayed, but for the most part he has approached the review process from the point of view of a director. That's what I want.

I also have to say that Kevin is one of the most fair and ethical people I've ever met. I'd like to hear some examples of shows you think he's unfairly impugned because he might have something to gain with his own theatre or his own career. Usually, to be perfectly honest, his opinion falls in line with the consensus of critics. It's his insight that is valuable to me.

I also find it interesting that you reference people whispering about this, but that very few people have contacted me and simply asked. One of the things I abhor about this community is how afraid people are of reprisals. Sadly, I've seen too many times that it's true. I can't tell you how many stories I've lost simply because nobody would talk. In some cases the abuse still continues. That's not the way PerformInk works. That's not the way I work. I happily publish critical letters and I will be more than happy to publish yours and start a discussion about the issue of reviews on our site.

I hope this helps.

Carrie
 

20 Comments

  1. Steve Paczolt makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    This is an interesting topic becasue the Chicago theater community is very close knit. All of the entities mentioned are clients of mine and I respect the individuals and organizations, I think that Terry brings up some good points and if I did not know Kevin as well as I do, they could be valid, but I think that Carrie is also aware of potential conflicts and is careful not only about this topic but all content of Performink. I appreciate Terry brings the point up, I think Carrie's response was appropriate and should be the end of this concern and I will tell Kevin to continue his writing becasue he does not include personal feelings.

  2. Charles makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    One of the things I love about being an actor in Chicago is the absence of the acrimonious competition found in other places. So many of the performers, artists, and companies I have met and worked with see each other as a community of artists. We are excited when we see our other artists succeed and feel bad when they fail. In fact, when another artist shines, it hopefully inspires you. The idea that Chicago companies are aggressively trying to muscle each other out to compete for audience and money just doesn't ring true to me. I mean, if there's no proof that Mr. Heckman is maliciously skewing his reviews, then why would someone automatically jump to that conclusion?

  3. Anna makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    As Managing Director and actress/director/designer of Dream Theatre Company, I have found that in my observation all theatres large and small are in competition in Chicago. We all want audience, and a large part of the theatre going audience is members of the theatre community (your publication’s intended audience). I think the competition lies in what strategies theatres can take to win over our peer/colleague audiences. I cannot criticize nor applaud PerformInk’s review process because my company has never during my tenure been reviewed by your publication. Since you are asking for letters and response to your article, I would like to submit the question; How are the decisions made on what companies and productions in the theatre community get reviewed by a peer(I will call him “peer” instead of “competitor”) member of your publication?

  4. Randy Burgess makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    I agree that this situation can be labeled a "conflict of interest," but it is not necessarily a conflict that should exclude Mr. Heckman from continuing his reviews. One of the best ways to "fix" problems with possible conflicts of interest is to just identify them routinely. Many times, if a writer at a publication makes reference to a firm related to their employment, they spell out the conflict either within their piece or their byline. "In my investigation of the Chicago Cubs (a subsidiary of my employer, the Chicago Tribune) I found these important facts..." Or -- In addition to his duties at PerformInk, John Smith is a co-producer at Theatre Awesome. I think folks are more concerned about conflicts of interest when there is no transparency or a lack of identification. By providing readers with this information consistently, you allow them to form their own context about the articles being written and any possible conflicts.

  5. Kevin Heckman makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    I just tried to post a longer comment and lost it. But regarding how Carrie and I choose shows, the criteria are: 1. Have they been open long enough so there are reviews to pull for the round-up? 2. Will they run long enough so the review will post long enough before closing to be part of the conversation? 3. Have we reviewed them recently? 4. Does their show sound interesting? I'm interested to hear the rest of the conversation.

  6. S. Austin makes this comment

    Friday 22 January, 2010

    I agree with Terry McCabe that it is indeed a conflict of interest. I used to live in smaller cities where this kind of thing happened all the time, but I would have expected it not to happen in a city the size of Chicago.

  7. michael termine makes this comment

    Saturday 23 January, 2010

    no matter how you may try to "spin" it...conflict of interest plain and simple

  8. Susan makes this comment

    Monday 25 January, 2010

    I agree with Mr McCabe's use of the word "competitor." From a marketing, financial, and often logistical standpoint, theater companies have PLENTY of competition, and sometimes they are indeed other "peer" (and even friendly) theater companies. Let's face it---the race to find decent rental space, hone in on limited grant monies, find new board members and subscribers, and yes, attract an audience all mean competition (albeit the usually healthy kind.) I also agree with Mr McCabe that this seems to be a conflict of interest, although it does seem to be one of the mild variety. Still, it seems it should be easy to avoid, and so I believe it should be.

  9. Kate makes this comment

    Monday 25 January, 2010

    I think this speaks volumes to the kind of company I feel City Lit is; more competitive than collaborative, more possessive than creative. Kevin is a well educated individual more than qualified to review plays and one of few who can articulate honestly the essence of most productions. I appreciate Mr. McCabe's decision not to let Kevin review his shows in fear he may have an ulterior motive and I encourage all others he refers to, who also fear Kevin's diabolical nature (please excuse me for laughing at this, as I know Kevin and to imply this trait in him amuses me greatly...) I encourage those people too, to exercise their same freedom. But I think it's ridiculous. And I imagine most rational people in the theatre world do as well. And those are the people who continue to make theatre great in this community. And those are the companies I continually want to work with.

  10. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Monday 25 January, 2010

    To be fair, Kate, Terry went out of his way to say this was not about Kevin, but about the idea of somebody who runs one theatre company reviewing others. What I think its fascinating in all this is that over the years, as we've tried to sell advertising to theatres for their shows, the answer has always been, "your readers aren't our paying audience." And yet somehow now, the argument here is that Kevin's reviews might sway paying audience members. Which is it?

  11. Mr. Actor Man makes this comment

    Tuesday 26 January, 2010

    I think Carrie’s got a point that PerformInk’s being a trade publication not only makes it not unethical for Heckman to review plays, but in fact desirable since the whole point is to offer a working theater professional’s perspective. (I suppose the same thing could be achieved by hiring in a theater professional from another city or region who vows never to work in Chicago theater while they’re reviewing plays for PerformInk—and this would perhaps ease McCabe’s concerns—but who’s willing to relocate to Chicago just to write for PerformInk? No offense, Carrie.)

  12. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Tuesday 26 January, 2010

    None taken. :)

  13. steve spencer makes this comment

    Wednesday 3 February, 2010

    I'm a little late to the game, but I gotta add my two cents. First, Kevin has integrity. I've worked with him a few times & I find it hard to believe that anybody would be suspicious of his motives. Second, and most importantly, I appreciate reviews from people who actually create theatre. Most critics do not participate in the art form they write about. Time and time again I ask myself, "Who are these critics? What qualifies them to critique an art form they do not practice? A Phd?" I'm fascinated by this disconnect. Who would you rather talk to theatre about, Kevin or Chris Jones?

  14. steve spencer makes this comment

    Wednesday 3 February, 2010

    cont'd Conflict of interest? Show me Kevin's reviews in which he trashes a competing theatre for no reason. Show me his bias. If you can't, end of controversy. I wish more critics were artists & vice versa. As it is, critics are a strange elite, weird entities granted power through nothing but a collective acceptance of their expertise. Show me a critic who creates plays & I'll show you my new favorite critic. No offense to critics. I like the good ones.

  15. John Sforn makes this comment

    Friday 5 February, 2010

    "4. Does their show sound interesting" ? Really? That's a criteria? I think THAT statement speaks volumes about the legitimacy of these reviews more than any supposed conflict of interest. I guess now you should list the criteria of what makes a prouduction interesting so a theatre is lucky enough to be included? I am guessing all that is really involved is "Does the reviewer want to see THIS show for free." I would like to think that a "trade publication" would be a little more objective about which shows they attend. LORD KNOWS the JEff Committee, a "trade" group, if you will, is ridiculous and flawed, but at least if you qualify and send the invitation, they have to attend.

  16. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Friday 5 February, 2010

    The fact that we're a trade publication is exactly why we ask if it sounds interesting. That encompasses, "Has this been done before?" "Is it being done in a different way than it ever has before?" "Is there something about the show that speaks to theatre people?" And so many other questions. Before we run an article in the paper in any way, we ask if it sounds interesting. Why would we run stories about stuff that's not interesting to our readers? We only do one review every two weeks, so we want to make it a good one.

  17. Jaclyn makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    It seems odd to me that artists would prefer reviews by academics over those by fellow artists. Doesn't Kevin's work in the theatre as a director make him at least just as qualified as someone who only reviews plays (and maybe restaurants, movies, etc)and is essentially a writer for a living? Historically, practitioners have also written critically about the theatre-- Shaw and Goethe to name a few.

  18. Susan makes this comment

    Monday 8 February, 2010

    The phrase "conflict of interest" does not allude to an apparent wrongdoing. It refers to the creation of the possibility. Whether or not it continues is irrelevant in all real ways, because I don't think anyone thinks Kevin is skewing his reviews, but City Lit is correct that it is a conflict of interest. And frankly, Cit Lit should not be trashed for saying so. Whether or not Kevin is honest or ethical is also irrelevant. The fact is, he could choose NOT to be, even just once, and advance his company's agenda above the agenda of the theatre community at large. He COULD. Not he WILL, or he is likely to, but that he COULD. It's journalistically gray and clearly a conflict of interest.

  19. Bruce Spielbauer makes this comment

    Tuesday 9 February, 2010

    When I was very, very young man, I read my first real reviews of live theatre. They were written by a man who was probably the most influential critic in the world at the time – Walter Kerr. This guy came out of Evanston, and Northwestern, for those who have forgotten. Good old Walter became a theater critic for the New York Herald Tribune in 1951. After that time, while continuing to crank out those reviews, he co-wrote the musical Goldilocks with his wife. It won two Tonys. Still, he continued to crank out those reviews, a few times each week. At times, I am certain he was reviewing “the competition.” He and his wife also collaborated on King of Hearts (1954). He continued to crank out those reviews. Again, at times, I am certain he was reviewing “the competition.” Later, of course, he went on to write the same sort of reviews for that other New York rag of the time, The New York Times. (Continued in next comment)-

  20. Bruce Spielbauer makes this comment

    Tuesday 9 February, 2010

    (Continued from comment above) Of course the situation (in Chicago) discussed here represents a conflict of interest. However, this is not so very unusual. It has certainly happened before, and it will happen again. Even in major markets. However, a conflict of interest does not automatically mean the individual must step down, or give up the ghost, or change his career choices. It does require that vigilance should be exercised by the critic, and also, I believe, by the editor. Oversight. Constant vigilance. (I have no reason to believe that this has not occurred.) And, in my opinion, it also requires that full disclosure should be made to the reader (as someone suggested above). Just my opinions (and you KNOW what they say about opinions…) -Bruce Spielbauer, actor

Add Comment



Click to get a new image.