Fairness: Loyalty versus accessibility

At Sundance, tickets are in high demand, especially for premiere category films and particular screenings in the first few days. We don't say a film "sold out" because it may still be possible for people to get tickets in the waitlist line - but this does not appease many patrons who have bought ticket packages and called to fulfill them over our call-in line and can't get tickets to the screenings they want. Some patrons have been coming to Sundance for years, even decades, and understandably become frustrated that their lottery-assigned time to reserve tickets is later in the process and tickets for some screenings have run out.

Shouldn't they have had the chance to get the best tickets first? Shouldn't they be rewarded for loyalty? Good question.

In many arts non-profits it seems a good idea to offer preferential treatment (such as early ticket selection opportunity) to long-standing patrons, especially those paying big bucks for large ticket packages. The problem is, in an organization as big as Sundance, with an enormous number of people who have been long-standing patrons, plus the number of people who come in as part of the industry/press and artist groups, we would run out of tickets for anyone else if we rewarded everyone who has some kind of connection or loyalty to the organization.

Sundance honors a strong commitment to be accessible to a wide developing independent audience, and also to give some priority to the local Utah community. To be true to these goals, we have to make tickets available to these groups, not just those already in the industry, and those that have been attending for years. The most fair way the ticketing dept has found to make tickets available is with a lottery system - you register to get a time slot and one is randomly assigned to you within a few-day period. This results in happy people, who got early time slots, and generally less-happy people who got later time slots. This puts everyone on the same playing field for ability to obtain tickets.

The idea of accessibility is something we ponder a lot in grad school. As arts administrators, is it our jobs to make the arts accessible to all? To break down stereotypes and social barriers that serve up the arts as "elite?" It seems an ideal notion; art for all. And I've noted this week that this commitment comes at a price - telling loyalists preferential treatment is not available and perhaps risking their support and some sales. It's particularly difficult to honor this when other organizations CAN give preferential treatment to some (often without sacrificing accessibility for all). But I like Sundance's ideals - regardless of how big and popular they get, they seem to stay true to their roots "supporting independent artists and audiences." So I continue to explain on our customer service line this week..."I'm sorry you got a later ticket selection time, but this is the most fair way for everyone to have a chance to get tickets."