I've just tried to book a single ticket for the Norman Conquests at the Old Vic. I looked at the seating plan first and chose my seat from a few left in the stalls, and then phoned to book.

I was told that as of last week, ATG has introduced a new ticketing policy: you cannot buy, whether online or by phone or in person, any seat or seats which would leave either one or three seats left together, because they find these harder to sell. I was offered instead a restricted view seat in the back of the upper circle, being the only one which did not infringe this policy. As a single visitor on this occasion, I was therefore not allowed to buy a decent seat in the theatre, even though there were a few left.

I find this quite disgraceful, especially as a regular visitor and supporter of the Old Vic, which they could see from their booking records. I was told I could write to Ken Pamplin at the New Wimbledon Theatre (The Broadway, London SW19 1 QG) to complain. But that's not going to help me to see the Norman Conquests from a reasonable seat, even though they have them.

Wait, disgraceful *new* ticketing policy? I've fallen afoul of many places that refuse to leave singles or triples before now, cinemas as well as theatres. I agree with the disgracefulness of it (for once; I often find the word disgraceful is overused) but it's something that's been going on for a while.

You weren't planning on going for a Trilogy day, were you? Buy two and I'll come with you?

It's new to ATG. I've occasionally found with other organisations that it's the case if I try to book online, but when I phone I've always managed to buy the seat I want - they won't offer it to you but if you tell them that you've seen online that it's free, they'll sell it. That's why I usually phone to book, having looked at the seating plan. Also in this case it was particularly infuriating since it meant I simply couldn't buy a decent seat when there were some available, and the person on the end of the phone, who (said she) sympathised, simply couldn't do it.

Sorry Weez, I wasn't.

Yes, I fell foul of that too (Winters Tale) - I was not allowed to book two tickets from a remaining block of three, I had to book two single seats in two adjacent blocks of three behind each other - as the stalls are almost sold out I can't see the problem in leaving a few singles.

These people run ticketing at the Donmar also ? There I was not allowed to exchange one ticket from a block of two to another night because "we can't sell the single seat it would leave" - errr - well I wanted to exchange the seat for a SINGLE seat on another night so it balances out, and anyway your queue for returns IS A MILE LONG. It is disgraceful a subsidised venue uses these commercial sector sharks with their assorted booking fees anyway.

Surely this policy is counterproductive - aren't the vast majority of productions
(let's face it, most don't sell out completely) just going to be left with seats that they're not allowed
to sell, even if people want to buy them?

What happens if you have a group that want to sit together in one row, but that would leave one seat free?
Are they going to refuse to sell the group tickets, or tell them they have to be split up? Because the likely outcome is that the group won't go at all, if they can't sit together, and how likely is it that a reasonable popular production will have that many seats free elsewhere in the theatre that doesn't leave either a single or a triple set of seats free?

And what about me and my two friends, who often go to the theatre together - if they don't leave any 3 seats together, and we're not allowed to pick seats that would leave one seat three, how are we ever going to find decent seats together?

It was counterproductive for me. I wanted to go to an Old Vic production but the single seats available to buy weren't what I wanted. It was particularly irritating because I could see that there were blocks of four that I would have wanted a single from.

Consequently, I've decided to give this a miss and use my savings to see something at the RSC instead.

There must be lots of people who go to the theatre by themselves (or in groups of three!) I often find myself sitting next to another 'single' at a play.

It's counterproductive for me too - I don't want a restricted view seat at nosebleed level, so I won't be seeing it.

This is outrageous. I have heard many bad things about the ticketing side of ATG recently, especially the telephone ticket centre, which is based in the NWT.

By the way, it's Kevin not Ken Pamplin.

Complain to the head of ATG, demanding to know why they feel the need to discriminate against people who are on their own through no fault of their own. Send a copy of the letter to The Stage and to the major national newspapers. State that an unsatisfactory or patronising reply may also be released to the press. Demand figures to show that the theatres have lost a significant amount of money by selling single seats. Aim to make this a publicity nightmare for them. If bad publicity means that just ten people are put off buying tickets for each performance then over the course of a year it'll cost them somewhere in the region of £120k to £130k.

It's arrant nonsense to suggest that they lose money because single seats are hard to sell. I looked into this a few years ago when Ticketmaster tried the same thing with me (and they ended up being reprimanded by the theatre, which hadn't authorised such a policy). If the show is popular enough to sell out then it will sell out, as customers would rather buy separate seats than miss the show. If it isn't popular enough to sell out then the scattered single seats aren't a problem. Either way, the theatre can't lose money.

Furthermore, think what this policy means. If there are five seats at the end of a row and a couple want to buy two of them they can't, because that would leave three. By induction, it follows that they shouldn't allow the selling of anything that would leave any odd number of seats free.

Sounds like utter madness, financially as well as in terms of catering to their audiences' need, just like several people have mentioned above. Let's face it, it's not as if they won't be able to sell every single seat in the stalls (and quite probably the rest as well) for these productions. Guess I must have been lucky when I booked my single seat for The Winter's Tale, as I managed to get a good seat in the stalls.

Is this new ATG policy definitely Policy -
and is it for all venues -
or exclusively for the Old Vic,
in which case might it have been instituted BY the Old Vic -
eg just while they're 'In The Round'?

I knew ATG were going to launch a new website or somesuch - might it be a blip, not Policy?

If it's true, I'm Very disappointed -
especially as I've had some Very Pleasant booking experiences with ATG recently.

If this is really Policy, I'm appalled.

And apart from the Principle of it,
the vast majority of my own Theatre trips are as a Single -
& many of the rest are for 3.

So if it really is ATG Policy, I'll certainly be aiming to book elsewhere in future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But before we jump to conclusions, please will someone get us official clarification - in writing?

"people who are on their own through no fault of their own"

Quite right, it's my husband's fault for not coming.

Biddy, I was told categorically on the phone by both the employee and her manager that it was the new ATG policy, since last week. That's across the board, not just the Old Vic and not just whilst it's in the round. Jenny, you may have booked for A Winter's Tale before last week, as I did.

I should point out that it wouldn't matter if you were buying two seats rather than only one - if it left three seats on the row, you couldn't do it. But that doesn't mean the policy isn't discriminatory against singles, because the majority of times when this will arise is when someone tries to buy just one ticket.

But selling the singles will turn those pesky threes into beautiful twos! *dies*

this seems crazy to me....

Do all rows have even number of seats in every theatre??

I often go on my own and have come across this disappointment with see tickets before, it's annoying if everyone follows suit.

Good points as ever Matthew Winn.

This is a really common policy. I doubt it's costing the theatres money, or they wouldn't be doing it. They've had plenty of time to crunch the numbers.

Judging by an earlier thread, a surprisingly large number of people refuse to go to the theatre on their own. The producers are simply catering to them.

On a brighter note, if you only need a single ticket, you are much more likely to get a great seat at the last minute. I've been very lucky on many ocassions in getting a single house seat an hour before curtain, at a concession rate. If I wanted a pair of tickets, I'd probably end up sitting in the back of the balcony.

You win some, you lose some.

Time for the WOS FORUM singles theatre trips and hot dates thread to come alive again lol

I've seen far too many bad managerial decisions to believe that a decision like this was based on hard evidence. If they have proof that this is going to make them better off they'll have to produce it for me to believe them.

I don't think they can. When a customer decides not to go through with a transaction they don't record the reason for that decision so they simply don't have the necessary data to decide which is the best policy. In a typical year I fail to conclude several bookings because the best seat I've been offered is too far back. I hate sitting near the back and know that I'll have a thoroughly miserable time, so now I don't do it because it would just be a waste of my time and money. But nobody has ever asked me why I'm not going ahead with the booking. ATG aren't in a position to say they're better off by restricting the sale of some seats because they've never collected the information necessary to make an informed decision.


But it doesn't make any difference. Remember, odd numbers of seats left stranded at the end of a row won't have an effect on ticket sales until a show is 90% full anyway, and if a show is that popular then the audience will either adjust the dates they want to suit the availability of seats or they'll split up. The only effect of this policy is to force people to accept vastly inferior seats simply because they don't fit exactly into the space available. If a show is selling at 90%, there are two seats free in the second row and sixty free at the back of the stalls, and I - on my own - get to the box office before a couple, why should the couple get preferential treatment? It won't change the amount of money taken by the box office, or if it does it'll be because I go elsewhere.

As previously mentioned in various threads I actually prefer going to the theatre on my own and this new policy is likely to hinder my theatre-going no end. Is anyone else prepared to start an online petition so that these "managers" can see the strength of feeling against this policy? It is highly discriminatory against single theatre-goers and articulate arguments in this thread should show them the error of their ways.

Online petitions aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Get the name and address of a higher up (which we appear to have at the top of the thread) and send them a real letter on real paper.

Bizarre. So they can't even sell tickets to couples on rows with an odd number of seats? I sat on E23, an aisle seat, on Thursday - that's going to make selling Row E at the Playhouse tricky isn't it? Only threesomes or singles to start it off I guess?

Either there's more to this than meets the eye, or someone is going to get fired.

It is discriminatory, clearly, but in a mathematically complex way. For example, as I said, I was confronted by two blocks of three with one directly behind the other. I was not allowed to book two from a block of three, however I WAS allowed to book a single from each block, behind each other, leaving two blocks of two. However (stay with me !) if a group of three now wants to book, they can't AT ALL because there are only four seats left - a single would be left. So four seats remain empty.

However, if they had allowed me to book two together in a row, then the three who came after me could have had three seats together behind me, leaving ony a single empty.

So, there are situations in which singles, twosomes, and threesomes are all discrimated against.

"If a show is selling at 90%, there are two seats free in the second row and sixty free at the back of the stalls, and I - on my own - get to the box office before a couple, why should the couple get preferential treatment? "

Exactly. That's exactly what happened to me (except I was offered the back of the upper circle, not even the stalls). And I'm still bloody mad about it.

You're right, Jan, but if more couples than singles buy tickets (which is probably still true - it's the entire basis for this policy) then it is going to be mostly singles who suffer.

interesting that no-one has posted a comment SUPPORTING this policy - presumably most people involved in theatre professionally come on here. If I - as a single person - am ever subjected to this discrimination there will be hell to pay.

If I was going to complain about this (I'm not - but good luck) I'd write to Kevin Spacey c/o Old Vic - there are all sorts of reasons why (if the letter ever gets there) he'd likely be more receptive than some corporate suit.

ATG has been in the Scottish press recently for closing their Scottish ticketing and moving it to London, I wonder if this is part of what seems like a total restructuring of their selling policy.

I'd second the idea of contacting Spacey, who in my experience is pretty responsive and engaging, although what he personally can do to influence ATG "policies" is questionable.

How irritating for you, Alexandra. I completely understand your anger and frustration, I'd have felt the same way. I'm planning to see some of those shows and expect I will likely come up against the same problem. Most of the time I prefer going solo but even when my partner comes as well, as she will be to a couple of these, the same problem could apply in the way that Jan postulated earlier. That explanation accurately sums up the ludicrousness of this policy. And the fact that they are having to explain this to would-be single bookers, when the policy is designed to address a supposed problem partly of not being able to sell to single bookers, makes it even ludicrouser.

As has been said, I too have encountered this at other venues. I'm fairly sure the SBC venues don't allow singles to be left on a row on the online system, although when I've subsequently phoned they've tutted sympathetically and booked it for me.

PS is it only 1s and 3s they are trying to avoid, not all odd numbers? "Sorry, you can't have that one, it'd leave 37 seats unsold."

I once got told by a friend that she didn't invite me to her dinner parties as (at the time) I was single and this would screw up the numbers so it was couples only. I only discovered this after someone innocently asked why I hadn't been at her last couple of dinner parties, which I hadn't known about.

Sorry - I'm dragging us into a redundant intimacy.

Fine with me, since you've made me laugh twice with your "ludicrouser" and your 37 unsold seats.

Do they allow you to return unwanted tickets for resale? Seeing as some of these productions will undoubtedly sell out, wouldn't this then lead to single theatregoers buying two tickets and then returning one of them, safe in the knowledge that someone would snap up that returned prime stalls seat? That is, if they allow returns, which I suppose they probably don't given the draconian new policy. Honestly, if this isn't going to mean that people buy even more tickets that they don't intend to use (this time because they have no choice) and then ending up selling them on ebay I'd be surprised.

No they won't (see my post earlier in the thread about Donmar). If you try to return one of two they won't let you because (it will leave a single seat we can't sell". eBay idea is good.

Occasionally, I bet they do. They must have been snapping up returns for Speed the Plow, singles or otherwise.

Again, though, how accurate is this claim of not being able to sell singles? Is there no one here who has box office experience and can confirm or refute this? (Or who knows BO staff?)

Hi i work in a west end box office. And any good hard working box office such as mine that has a horrendously busy show will sell you a seat wherever you want as long as its available. If not we will offer the next best thing. if it leaves a single so be it. if it is a busy show and people are flocking to buy tickets then all box office staff should know they will be guranteed to sell the odd single.

I don't know if this is true of any good hard working box office or not, pork chop, but I want to be able to buy on the phone and not have to visit the box office to buy a ticket. And lest anyone suspect otherwise, can I assure you that I am not the kind of person to take no for an answer. As I said, I have often persuaded people on the phone to sell me a seat when the online system doesn't let me leave one seat on a row, which is quite common. But I have never before encountered the level of intransigence of ATG, pursuant to its new policy.

As a group booker, this happens for groups. Not as you are now experiencing but especially SEE will not give you a block of seats together. You will be given all the odd seats going all over the theatre and not even in the price range that I WANT!! This way they fill the theatres seats but gain a bad response from the group. I asked one guy at SEE, if he and his girlfriend went with me to see a show and I gave him 2 tickets but no where near each other - what would he say? He said he wouldnt like it at all but still only offered me odds and ends!!! Where is customer satisfaction??? Think they may have to look to their laurels this coming year when bookings slow right down!

At the risk - OK, the certainty - of coming across as somewhat nerdy, I wrote a program to simulate the effect of a "no singles or threes" policy and see how it affected ticket sales.

The program creates two identical virtual theatre seating plans. It then creates randomly-sized groups of people (with a strong bias towards couples) and tries to allocate the best seats available for them as if they'd been buying tickets in a real box office. Seats are allocated on a "closest available, centre outwards" basis: seats are sold from the middle of a row outwards and the seats allocated to each group are the closest to the stage that can hold that number of people. Each randomly-created group is allocated seats from both seating plans, with the seats from one plan being subject to the restriction that it never leaves one or three seats free at the end of a row. The simulation then compares how people are seated between the two strategies to see whether people are better or worse off. Because the seats are allocated from both virtual theatres at the same time it's possible to compare strategies in a way that could never happen in a real theatre.

Results

The disappointment factor: The simulation calculates a weighted estimate of how much worse off people are under one strategy compared with the other. The value is based on the number of people who end up in different rows and how much further away from the stage they are. There are winners and losers in both strategies, but the overall loss is around twice as great for ATG's strategy compared with the conventional seat allocation policy.

Individual displacements: ATG's idea is really bad news for singles: a substantial number were allocated seats five or six rows further back than they could have bought under the normal method. In contrast, it was very rare for the normal strategy to give any size group a disadvantage of more than two rows over the ATG policy.

Point of first failure: This is the percentage of tickets already sold at the point where it first happens that a group cannot be seated together. It generally hovers around 99.4%. The implication is that it's not until the last few seats that there's a risk of being unable to keep a group together. Anyone who tries to suggest that unrestricted purchasing leaves dozens of unsellable seats up the sides of the theatre is misinformed or lying.

Additional observation: While testing I found one run that packed ten couples into the back row even though the row just in front was over one-third empty. I thought it was a bug. It wasn't a bug. It was ATG's idea at work: there were five seats free at each end of the penultimate row but the program flatly refused to give them to any of the couples because that would have left three free seats.

GEEK GEEK GEEK

but in all honesty - good work!

awesome...now to change it all!

Matthew, how is it that you know these things and the people in charge of the various offending ticket agencies don't have a clue? What do they base their change of policy on? Guesswork? The hope that the new policy will mean that all us single theatregoers will now be have to force some friend or family member along (= increasing sales) in order to get to buy a decent seat? Or is it some sort of peculiar malice directed towards people who have the audacity to go to the theatre on their own? I'm baffled.

Ok, that is AWESOME, to use the lingo of my home country.

But just to throw a spanner in the works, I have to ask, does the program take into effect the number of singles (or even threes) that simply will not go to the theatre under the current ticket policy? Or (even more difficult to calculate) the bad publicity that may result from a letter-writing campaign?

More the former than the latter: I can't see myself booking ticket(s) going-forward under the no-single-or-three's policy. I've seen many shows from ATG on a single ticket -- and at full price -- but given that I normally go to the theatre on my own, that's not going to happen with this policy, because frankly I'd rather spend my money on something else rather than sit in a restricted-view seat where I can't see anything anyway because I'm too short. So lost revenue from me, which may not matter in a show that sells out seconds before it's announced, but may matter in the long run.

(Or a sale on eBay/this site at face price with full disclosure solely so that I can buy two tickets. I can't say I think that makes a lot of sense, but whatever.)

Matthew Winn for Prime Minister!
Awesome!

Matthew, I never thought I'd be so in awe of an anorak. Seriously, thank you.

May I add thanks and congratulations to Matthew, and I hope you don't mind (copyright infringement and all that) but since the ATG website does not have an online contact, I have taken the liberty of printing this thread off and posting it to the head office in Woking and have just e-mailed the Old Vic a link to this thread.

At the risk of being boring about this, I have just booked (single!) tickets for Cherry Orchard and Winter's Tale at the Old Vic and have conducted my own mini experiment. I looked at the plans and noted the available seats for my two selected dates, with one or two odd single seats dotted around the middle of the stalls. I then selected the option "best available", and was rather taken aback that on BOTH occasions I was offered a central seat WHICH LEFT AN ODD NUMBER OF SEATS in the row, despite there being a lonely single in the immediate row behind, a human being in a box office would surely have offered me one of those odd singles!!!
Now they have TWO rows with odd numbers of spare seats in them!!!!!!It just doesn't seem at all logical captain.

The plot thickens. In the light of Trev's experience I just tested them myself, to see if the policy had changed at all.

I phoned and pretended to try to buy N35 and 36 for Living Together on 13 November, which is the only pair of seats left and would have left N34 on its own. I wasn't allowed to do it on the website of course. When I phoned, the person I spoke to said that she wasn't supposed to sell me those two because it would leave one on the row, but she would. I asked why she wasn't supposed to, and she confirmed that they had recently received strict instructions not to do so. She said that some of them in the office were obeying the instructions and that some of them weren't, and she wasn't (obviously the person I spoke to previously was). She said that whether I was allowed to buy such seats depended on who answered the phone.

This is a shambles!

Impressive intelligence gathering skills there!

So - if following the 'party line' - they could have three unsold tickets yet turn away a customer for two. Crazy! I wonder if some of the office staff become more flexible nearer the performance date?

Do seats show up as unavailable if someone has selected them in online booking but not yet completed the transaction? You could select one of the three online, then call the box office and buy the other two, then logout of the online system without buying the single.

This is ridiculous! Why do we need to use proof by induction, subterfuge and gaming an online system just to buy a theatre ticket!

I managed to attend all three of the Norman Conquests on my own (Wendy no-mates!) and had no problems at all. Can't see what all the fuss is about. The operator was very helpful and the seats were excellent - as were the shows! I have booked lots of tickets with ATG and have no idea what Bananafrit is banging on about - I suggest he (or she) puts a sock in it.

Wendy.

It works! (but you have to confirm the booking before you log off, not just select your seat). I just confirmed online the purchase of N34, and then opened up a separate window and confirmed the purchase of N35 and 36, and then went back and released N34! (and then I released the other two as well and exited without paying).

But it wouldn't have worked with my original attempted purchase of one out of two left on the row, because once you've confirmed the purchase of both of them in one booking (which was the only way I could buy either of them), you go straight to the payment page and it's too late to release one of them.

Er, wendy, it's me complaining, not bananafrit, and you need to read the thread. No-one's suggesting you can't buy one ticket if there are plenty left. You can't buy one ticket if there are only two left in the row. Which for me meant not at all since it was almost sold out for when I tried to book.

So we've identified a workaround for couples on those occasions that they are discriminated against, but the (more likely?) problem of a single wanting to buy one of an available pair is unresolved. So singles are further discriminated against by having less chance of gaming the system!

Maybe someone could bring this to the notice of 'The Stage'?

An article - or a Letter - in The Stage could greatly help our campaign.