Buckles Blog: "Incredible Shrinking Show" #3

Friday, March 02, 2007

"Incredible Shrinking Show" #3

Posted by Picasa

38 comments:

Anonymous said...: 7 Elephants???? What the heck. paul Kaye brings in 10 from C&B for Evansville. Ken and Nicole use 7??? George Carden's Springfield, MO date had 10 in 2006. Ringling Blue has 7? Carson and Barnes 2006 opening had 9 elephants. ken and Nicole have 7? For being the largest private owner of asian elephants in North America, you sure wouldn't think so. i suppose though the shows i mentioned above had 3 rings to fill he only has one half of a ring(curb). 7 act wouldn't be anything to b*tch about. But thats when a trainer presents the elephants, when the elephants present their trainers..... Well then. I have said enough.; 02 March, 2007 09:02
Anonymous said...: A reviewer said, the show has "all the ambience of a warehouse." I wish I'd said that.; 02 March, 2007 10:18
Anonymous said...: I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I don't think there's anything wrong with 7 elephants per se, and infact a few years down the road if somebody can claim 7 captive born elephants on a show I'll feel a lot more confident about the continued role of elephants in circus. Historically there have been plenty of great shows that had no more than 7. The problem is that when 7 elephants don't make up for other holes in the program the audience comes away from a performance that doesn't make much of an impression -- something even 20 elephants couldn't fix.

Ben Trumble; 02 March, 2007 10:30
Anonymous said...: This seams to be an excelent photograph ; that specifically conveighs this Corporations present state of affairs .

But I'm sorry to see this ,
& for me -
The Bell ; just does NOT ring !
( the Horses even look Ashamed! )

IT'S TO BAD
This show looks like a Local High Schools Gymnasium Production .

It should be better than this .; 02 March, 2007 11:23
Anonymous said...: Hold on Ben, this is the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, it is held to a higher standard, a standard that THEY set themselves over the centuries. The reason it's reputation lived up to it's advertising was THE FACT that it was the Greatest Show on Earth. The Felds are charging TOP DOLLAR for tickets and concessions and they are diverting the money into their pockets rather than into the production. I know costs go up, that's business, but when a first row seat in NYC is $156.00 then I damn well expect to see 18 elephants.; 02 March, 2007 13:36
Anonymous said...: the new red show is in our area for norfolk and hampton dates. they say they are gearing the shows to the children rather than circus fans because the children are the audiences of tomorrow. a friend went last night and loved the show. His seven year old son's take on the new ringling red? "i didn't see anything i haven't seen before. why don't they get anything new?"

this was something that could never have been said in the days when irvin or johnny north were putting the show together. and if they had cut costs so dramatically, i can't blieve that they wouldn't have had still a stronger feature than the separated wheels.; 02 March, 2007 14:11
Anonymous said...: If this is the GSOE the circus is in VERY bad shape!!!!!!! Even putting Costumed [befitting a circus] showgirls on five elephants would be a big improvement. This production is just tooo blaaaaaaa, This comment is a lot tamer then the one that got lost in space.; 02 March, 2007 14:12
B.E.Trumble said...: You feel like you're playing for 18 elephants, the folks next to you feel like they're paying for more aerial acts, and the folks next to them feel like they're paying for more clowns. You all feel like the performance is somehow incomplete. The days of 18 eighteen elephants are probably over. But the general audience for the circus -- not fans -- would feel a lot better about what they paid for those front row seats if the rest of the show didn't feel like an empty vessel. (I've never personally held the Feld shows to a higher standard. I think I'd have to go back to the late 1970's to say, "Wow, that was the best circus I've seen this year," after a trip to Ringling.; 02 March, 2007 14:28
Buckles said...: When being interviewed by a reporter, who thought the show was sub-par, Robert Ringling said: there are good years and not so good years but every year it is the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH.; 02 March, 2007 14:38
Anonymous said...: If they would just stop using "THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH" it would be an improvement. Its like they are telling a lie. It is a lie.; 02 March, 2007 14:53
Anonymous said...: I attend the Ringling show with a ticket in my hand...I purchased the ticket, that makes me a customer. Ben, isn't it obvious that I was refering to the glory days of the Greatest Show On Earth?; 02 March, 2007 15:18
Anonymous said...: It is easy to sit in cyber space,and tell all how life used to be,but i think everyone would have a diferent veiw if they were traveling today,and saw how much 2006-07 is changed from even 1970,let alone 1930.
The permits,laws ,and feed bills have all changed greatly over the years, now everyone has so much expense in laywers,and court fees..if some one slips and falls. and lets not forget FUEL...
everyone should go back 10,or 15 years and remember who is not around anymore,and when you see 3,4,7,or ten elephants,just be happy to see them...some day youmight not be able to.
Randy Peterson; 02 March, 2007 17:51
Buckles said...: Randy, you make a very good point but for the sake of conversation, Feld Entertainment has 40 elephants standing idle that have to be fed anyway. There should be room for plenty more on two 60 car trains.
And as far as talent goes, the money wasted on Rock Show lighting, big screen TV and and the ramps to replace the ringcurbs would probably be enough to add 12 more acts to each unit.; 02 March, 2007 18:27
Anonymous said...: The show is paying a production person aren't they? That person is not produceing a decent show are they? The wardrobe person isn't doing their job either. I am sure a more more talented person who knows circus would not cost a penny more to produce a real circus. One elephant with one talented person [there are several out there] could do wonders with the right music, wardrobe and empress. Look what Buckles/Barbara/Anna May did for 50 years!!!!!!!!!!! Its not the size, its the performance here that is sorely needed.; 02 March, 2007 18:38
B.E.Trumble said...: I don't know how it works out for Feld in terms of the nut when it comes to putting more elephants on the road. As you point out Buckles, they're being fed and cared for anyway -- though I would think it takes more grooms on the road to do that. But Randy's right about the added liability issues and secondary costs that simply don't exist keeping "surplus" animals back home on the farm. And I really do suspect that if 5-10 years from now the shows could leave Florida with 4-7 elephants each, all born at CEC, they'd leave every other elephant at home because it's easier in the ongoing war of words. There's no arguing that the shows could add acts without hurting the nut -- sadly it isn't hard to find inexpensive talent in certain corners of the world. (I say sadly because we all know good performers who deserve to be better paid.) With the Blue show in particular somebody obviously believed that they could get away with a barebones set-up for two years, and be forgiven later. (Or if it worked, not worry too much about being forgiven.) There may be another issue at work here somewhere. With the GSOE for a very long time the owners saw the circus itself as their lasting legacy. (Maybe not John Ringling, who seemed to see his Museum as his legacy.) Possibily the current owners see the circus merely as a way to pay for their own real legacy, whatever that may be.

God knows it's tough out there. Fuel's making it's annual Spring/Summer march back above $3; the stock market tanked this week; and now some economists are talking about another recession. The Incredibly Shrinking Circus, whatever its title may be is going to get smaller still before it grows again.

Randy, are you getting snowed on again?; 02 March, 2007 19:15
Anonymous said...: I agree with Ben that an act of seven captive born elephants would be something to be proud of. If Ringling had five in the center and three or four in the end rings we wouldn't miss the days of 22. Elephants are just easy to count but they represent the whole show that's shrunk (as the man says). Ringling is synonymous with size and spectacle. If I went to see the Mormon Tabernacle Choir I wouldn't be happy to see Peter, Paul, and Mary, Mills Bros., Back Street Boys (pick your age group). What's out there now isn't the Greatest Show on Earth. It might be found in Evansville around Thanksgiving.; 02 March, 2007 19:45
Anonymous said...: I agree with Randy and Ben. As much as it would be great to see a longmount, I'm just glad as a circus fan to see two or three elephants in a show. I've see the circus from back in the day. It's those kids sitting next to me that have never seen an elephant before who sit in amazement as an elephant does a handstand.
Yes, Ringling charges absurd fees and probably puts a huge chunck of profits into into corporate's pockets. But think about it this way: for every elephant on the show, thats one elephant PETA can say is "abused." When this law of addition adds up, it only means a bigger war with PETA, not to mention meeting the stricter and stricter requirements of each state's laws, restrictions, red tape, insurance stuff, ect.. Yes, Evansville used a larger herd for its production, but only for a few shows. Not on consistant basis for a whole year like Ringling has to.
And in regards to the lighting and big tv, in this day and age part of what makes entertainment more satisfying is not just the form itself but how it is presented to an audience; hence concert lighting, video, and sound effects are part of the act. They help to give a sense of awe. If this weren't true, why are more Americans adding surround sound to their tv's. That extra boom makes a car crash more realistic. Just like those lighting effects makes the flying trapeze or elephant doing a headstand more amazing.; 02 March, 2007 20:39
24-HOUR-MAN said...: It still goes back to the fact that if this was "One Horse & Up" or some little show with little or no financial backing I could forgive. But these people keep telling every one they are the best thing the Circus Industry has to offer. Bull Shit!!!!; 02 March, 2007 22:28
Anonymous said...: We'll Buckles, I dont know what you think but I'd be willing to bet that if D.R. was still alive there would still be 15 to 20 bulls on C&B regardless of costs and expenses!; 02 March, 2007 22:54
Buckles said...: I've been in the circus business all my life and I'm yet to hear of any child saying, "Daddy take me to the circus, I hear they have Rock Concert lights this year".
.; 02 March, 2007 23:13
Anonymous said...: Horse shit! Felds aren't shy about charging the going rate for tickets and concessions. The economy is fine, the stock market just hiccupped, gas is basically the same price as it was 30 years ago with inflation taken into account. Charging $45.00 a ticket means you can bring back two cage acts, two flying acts, three rings of chimps, 3 rings of bears, 3 rings of liberty horses, etc, etc, etc,. I rest my case, no more questions your honor!; 03 March, 2007 01:17
Anonymous said...: Safe to say no kid has ever cared about the theatrical lighting, nor few adults when it comes down to it. Perhaps that's why child are so scarse at the Cirque shows, or squirming in their seats.

I have to say in fairness, honesty, and reality; right now with fuel costs, insurance, etc -- even D.R. Miller would have a tough time justifying 20 elephants on the road "regardless of the cost." In the end if after a couple seasons it isn't paying for itself, first it's a luxury, then a hobby, but it's not a business. When 20+ elephants in five rings put people in the seats it was a sound business decision. When it ceased to put people in the seats it could no long be justified season after season. I would guess that Mr. Miller never saw his circus as a hobby. more elephants means more trucks, means more work for the mechanics, means you can't leave the tire truck or the fuel truck home after all. More elephants means more grooms, means more bunk house space, means maybe another trailer. By the time everything is said and done you aren't just adding four or five trucks, you're adding six, or seven, or eight -- you're rebuilding 3-4 diesels over the season at $7K a pop. You're replacing God knows how many tires at $200 per. You're giving inspectors at least a dozen new reasons to find something wrong. Granted there's the bragging rights, "More bulls than Ken & Nicole" But will the audience really care in East Dipstick, Arizona? If you're not cretain, if you don't know for a fact that they'll care, you can't afford the gamble.

Ben; 03 March, 2007 01:46
Anonymous said...: As to rock show lighting at the circus: Shine a colored spot on a revoling mirrored ball and the kids will still say, "woooo".; 03 March, 2007 06:56
Anonymous said...: C'mon Ben, T-shirts and sneakers for wardrobe ?
Sweat-suits in the show for come-in ?
Is this really about cost ?
Let's look at percentage of budget.Take away 1 cat act,2/3 of the horses,2/3 of the elephants 1 flying act all the chimps, all the bears, 2/3 of the dog acts, 2/3 of the teeterboard acts,then cut your vendors % by over 50% while doubling and tripling the cost of novelties and food.
the only place the GSOE has grown in the last 5 years is in adminitration (more people doing less) and the number of lights has not grown in over 10 years,cut the number of musicians by 1/2, cut out the sequins and stones & feathers,the elephant blankets,the floats, 2/3 of the funny animals in spec,2/3 of the clowns,2/3 of the dancing girls
even as a bean counter you have to see the difference !; 03 March, 2007 07:09
Anonymous said...: And I don't understand all the conversation about the "expense" of lighting.
You can only buy so many lights,and it's not like you're buying new lights every year.repair and re-configuration is not that expensive. in 1989 RBBB bought a complete rock show's lighting for the Gold Unit in Japan and they had a full compliment of lights at that time,19 years ago for all 3 units. you can only put so many lights in a given space and again you don't throw them out and buy new lights for each show. By this time RBBB has to have enough lighting equipment to be its own selfsustaning lighting equipment warehouse. And if not, why not ?
looking at the cost of lighting ammortised over the expected life of that equipment is not that significant a percentage of a show's budget; 03 March, 2007 08:24
24-HOUR-MAN said...: Someone once asked D.R. about the size of his show, and he replied,"because that's all I can afford".
I can't believe this is all the Felds can afford!!!!

Can you imagine what Paul Kaye,Ian Garden, Jody Jordan, George Carden, or Jon Zerbini, & others, would do with the kind of bank roll Feld has.; 03 March, 2007 09:04
Anonymous said...: There was a 19th Century politician in New York named George Washington Plunkett who wrote a book on "Honest Grafters" versus "Dishonest Grafters." The central idea being, "that Reformers are like hayseeds." Anyway, the show in question in this particular topic is all about cost. I said in one of the other posts that the current management may have decided that they could get away with a barebones show for two years, and nobody would notice -- in which case they'd make a pot full of money spending nothing so little on costumes, or talent, or whatever. You can dress it up like it's an artistic decision. (We spent 15 million dollars reinventing the circus.) But really it was a business decision. George Plunkett would have said these were dishonest grafters because the public expected more (based on a hundred years of history) and went in with their guard down. Was it a necessary business decision to keep this particular show on the road? Not by a long shot. This is the "brand name" show, and maybe they did need to change things to meet whatever their margins are, but they didn't need to go to these extremes. And that's why it's failed in the marketplace, and why the other unit isn't just like it this season. The economics of 20 elephants on a truck is a different story. Nobody's trying to get away with being cheap in the hopes of raking in boatloads of cash in downsizing dramatically from those numbers. It really is more about keeping the shows on the road. There's a picture of Ben Wallace that Buckles posted today. Wallace better than anybody knew that if you were gonna sell the rights pickpocket on the circus, you better have a strong enough performance to come back to town next year and still have your name on it. The Blue show forgot that rule.

Ben Trumble; 03 March, 2007 09:18
Anonymous said...: " If you don't know for a fact that they'll care you can't afford the gamble " GEE isn't that the gamble the man D.R. took for over fifty years!!!, and expenses are somewhat relavent, it cost him alot more to move 20 elephants down the road in 1997 than it did in 1977 and in 77 alot more than in 1957. I don't see Strates, Wade, or any of the other big Carnivals leaving half to two thirds of thier rides at home because of rising costs!; 03 March, 2007 14:41
Anonymous said...: It's a gamble every year. Always has been. God willing, every year at least some shows will win. But you can't honestly compare '57 to '77 to '97 to '07 and suggest that what worked in one period will work in the next. Wish that was true. Core rate of inflation can be spread out over those years, but look at the perecentage increase in insurance costs as they apply specifically to a circus over the last ten years, and look at the percentage increase in diesel between 1997 ($1.20 a gallon on average) and today ($2.87 yesterday here in California -- as high as $3.20) last summer. The gamble changes and you hedge your bets. I suspect if there was any real reason to believe that 20 elephants was what it was going to take for Carson & Barnes to do great business in 2007, you'd see 20 elephants. And they would be worth every penny of the added costs. But if the evidence over the last ten years is that a big elephant herd isn't a significantly better draw than a two truck herd, strictly in a business sense, how do you justify it? Without strong sponsors in town after town, without the significant phone sales of a decade ago, with additional costs and regulation, the landscape has changed and I don't think anybody can say, "the expenses be damned."

Ben; 03 March, 2007 17:56
Anonymous said...: You brought up many significant points, however speaking of Carson & Barnes you missed one very important one. People may be trying to wear the shoes of Jesse Jessen,Ted Bowman, Charlie Belletti, but they will never fill them!; 03 March, 2007 22:05
Anonymous said...: I must agree with someone's earlier comment : if it was just a matter of rising expenses why haven't the other forms of outdoor entertainment been whittled away also ?
And besides RBBB works on a very different profit ratio than the smaller shows. Even the largest of shrine circuses or tented circuses don't have the luxury of the grandiose offices of RBBB nor have they been buying ice shows,broadway plays,and Las Vegas magic shows. we really are comparing apples and oranges.
Another circus owner we all know tried touching the ice show market and soon dropped out of the running due to under capitalization, a number of Feld Entertainment venture have failed over the past 20 years or so,but not many, none of them due to being under capitalized. And at present RBBB is still only one of the holdings of Feld Entertainment. Usually the cost end of the ledger on such a large enterprise is drawn in for one reason,and that is to make it look more profitable on paper in preparation for sale.; 04 March, 2007 08:50
Anonymous said...: Anon. I thought about making teh point regarding Ted Bowman and and others associated with the Miller shows over the decades, moving the show, routing it into money, or from the 80's into the late 90's the administrative juggling and the pioneering H2B Visa system Jim Judkins put together. Mr. Miller didn't do it alone, and some changes over the last decade reflect the simple fact that Barbara and Geary don't have taht same wealth of support. (Though there are many excellent people in similar positions on the show.)

Why are things different in the carnival business? Mr Elliot has probably forgotten more about carnival economics than I'll ever know. There have been lots of smaller ride owners who haven't survived. Bad as the insurance fiasco associated with Brooks has been for circuses, it was devasting for some of his small ride clients who lost the best part of the '05 season. The carnival audience is bigger than the circus audience overall. For better or worse economically the circus is about the performing arts; people attend once every year or two and it doesn't occur to them to go again a second or third time in a single season. They might go to four or five fairs and carnivals. Carnivals aren't selling a single day event (granted, nor for that matter is Feld.) When costs go up, so do ride prices, but fair admissions tend to be much lower than circus admissions, and rides can be enjoyed ala carte. Patrons aren't required to spend more money. After the first carnival of a given season you generally know what the next one will cost you in ride prices, and you can plan ahead. Likewise you know when the fair is going to be in town every summer. Even in January you know what's happening that second week of July, or whenever. The circus announces itself a week, or two weeks, or maybe a month ahead. Kids (and adults) can ride the same major ride multiple times and never get bored, because the experience is a thrill and quite literally releases endorphins, a physical, palpible rush. Biologically we're all pleasure seekers and those endorphins = pleasure. Circus is more cerebral. As much as big ride operators are harmed by competition from theme parks, I think there some benefit too. When you pay fifty bucks to spend a day at a theme park, paying twenty-five for a arm band for rides on a big carnival midway seems like a pretty good deal. Money spent is money spent. The Strates Shows set a one day record for ride revenues at the Erie County Fair in Hamburg, NY last August. A few days later a large tented circus played to disappointing business in Angola, NY, a few miles away. There isn't an attraction in the world that was going to bring big crowds out to the circus when Strates had already worked the immediate area and a payday didn't seperate the events.

Ben Trumble; 04 March, 2007 10:33
Anonymous said...: Thanks Ben. Most, if not all, of us want to go back and watch five rings of elephants, three flying acts, a big cat act. You have offered some sound explanations on why will see them again. We don't want to hear that we can't have another desert but your probably right.; 04 March, 2007 15:23
Anonymous said...: I respecfully have to disagre with Ben on the difference of advertising time of circuses I believe that way over half of the audiences that go to circuses in America go to either a RBBB show or a Shrine show both of which work most towns on a regular annual time table.The shows that advertise a month or less in advance are much smaller venues. The BIG tent shows seat how many as opposed to the building shows that seat 5 to 20 thousand.And as far as Strates knocking out a circus last year, competion from giant shows affect the attendance of any other type of entertainment,rodeos,concerts,racing of all sorts etc. Isn't that supposed to be the bookers area of expertise ? to not book in a week after any giant event that you can't compete with; 04 March, 2007 18:55
Anonymous said...: Mr. Trumble, First of all I was not putting down anyone currently employed by C&B,and I have the upmost respect for Geary and Barbara. I was simply trying to say that the best of the old time press and contracting agents are all gone, but who know's maybe thier methods and practices would be lost in today's world.
As for your Circus versus Carnival lesson thank you, but I think I have a pretty fair over all understanding of the inner working's of both, having been raised around the Carnival business, then spending 22 years in the circus industry, Hoxie,Great American, Nordmark, Garden, Kelly-Miller, etc, and currently I am entering my 8th season with my own 10 ride Carnival. I too was caught up in the Rich Brooks fiasco, in fact,I had just jumped my show from Florida up to Michigan for the summer when I recieved the official word, luckily between all the rumors flying around and a telephone call from a Florida insurance fraud investigator about 3 weeks prior I realized I needed to start searching for a new carrier, which I did but at more than triple the rate from Brooks, and I was paid up with him until Feb 2006! Ben in closing just let me say that we may have differances of opinion, but we both share the great love of the American Tented Circuses, and the way they used to be, and the empty feelings I'm sure we both feel in seeing them slipping away!
Bobby Fairchild; 04 March, 2007 23:00
Anonymous said...: Sadly, even the PERFORMERS are not smiling! The "guys" sitting on the horses look like they were "bothered" to be there...would have never happened if the Herriotts were in the ring!
:-)
-Cindy Potter; 05 March, 2007 11:40
Anonymous said...: Some of these performers must read or have heard of the blog. They are hanging their heads hoping we don't reconize them... Its not their fault that the powers that be dress them in awful wardrobe and do all they can to screw up the circus performance. They get no support from the powers that be. This has to be better then from where they came from for the work. Or at least they were told that. Work is work to some and it is a shame they have to be ashamed of that work when they know they can perform better if given the chance. Its not the performers I am rioting about but the people who are supposed to care about the whole circus [owners] and present this thing as GSOE when it is a laughing stock that is not funny.; 05 March, 2007 12:48
B.E.Trumble said...: Larry, I agree with you absolutely that some years bookers -- and this is probably true on every show -- fall down when it comes to anticipating what the big fairs can do to business if they're nearby. Makes you wish you could get in and out of the northern tier of States by early July before every single county seems to have a fair coming in a week. When I was a kid and we worked the Strates dates at the Chemung Co Fair, and the Erie Co Fair, and the New York State Fair all of August went by in a blur. It's a tough route for any circus between mid-July and well after Labor Day in New York. Back then June and even late May were better for tent shows.; 05 March, 2007 14:22

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Powered by Blogger. DownRight Blogger Theme v1.4 created by (© 2007) Thur Broeders