If you are a performer, reviewers are like Americans. It is difficult to live with them, but it is difficult to live without them.
Getting a bad review can be very upsetting, though.
This week, reviewer Amy Taylor blogged about a theatre/comedy review she had written at the recent Edinburgh Fringe. It was her fourth year there as reviewer and, in her blog, she did not name the show she reviewed. She described it as "a two-hour long interactive comedy show, that involved actors impersonating characters from a famous TV comedy".
She had booked her Fringe tickets via the show's PR lady.
Amy says in her blog: "I wrote what was I felt was a negative, yet honest and fair review, which was published on The Public Reviews website shortly after. In my review, I stated that the show was 'unauthorised' as when I researched the show, I found a number of articles and quotes from the makers of the TV show saying that the show had not been authorised by them."
It is well worth reading Amy's full blog here but the potted story is this...
... A few days after the review was published, a barrage of e-mails started from the show's PR lady, culminating in a threat of legal action for libel. Even this escalated with, Amy says in her blog, accusations of conspiracy.
Amy's view is that "the intimidation, bullying and harassment of journalists simply because someone disagrees with what they have written, is immoral, unethical and odious. My advice to any company that is disappointed with a review is to see what they can take from it. If the review is constructive, then there will be something positive in there that you can learn from."
She also points out that "journalists communicate with one another. This means that if you threaten a writer or a publication with legal proceedings, other writers will hear about it. Once others learn about your treatment of journalists, it damages your reputation more than any negative review ever could. Some might say that's ironic, but to me, that's poetic justice."
Amy's review is still online here at The Public Reviews.
The show she reviewed was Ted & Co: The Dinner Show, staged by the British company Laughlines Comedy Entertainment who also have Fawlty Towers: The Dinner Show in their repertoire (not to be confused with a rival Australian company's show Faulty Towers: The Dining Experience).
Laughlines claims to be "the UK's leading comedy entertainment company" - something which I think might be disputed by the BBC etc.
I asked PR guru Mark Borkowski what he thought about the handling of this affair. He has vast Edinburgh Fringe experience - he legendarily got acres of coverage for Archaos in two separate years by simply claiming they were going to juggle chainsaws during their show (they were not) and then having people ring up and complain to the Council and to the press.
He told me yesterday: "In PR, legal action is a threat of the very last resort. Jaw-jaw before war-war. It reminds me of the Private Eye reply to a letter they received threatening legal action. The letter said:
"Our attitude to damages will be influenced by the speed and sincerity of your apology.
"Private Eye's reply was:
"Tell your client to fuck off - Sincere enough for you?
"Frankly," Borkowski told me, "every bad review is an opportunity.
"According to Claire Smith at The Scotsman," he told me, "2012 was a high bullshit mark on the old Festival's Plimsoll line. There were more PR people running around the Fringe than performers."
So, obviously, I asked Claire Smith what she thought.
"I think there was definitely more paranoia around this year," she told me, "and a lot of misunderstanding about the way PR people and journalists work together. PR people helped me get interviews - get comments on things - check information. But I heard a lot of spurious theories about the way PR people influence reviews which I would not agree with...
"Reviews are not as powerful as they once were because of the influence of social media and I would say that is a good thing. Social media has amplified the word of mouth effect - which has always been one of the great things about the Fringe. But the numbers of people getting paid to write reviews is shrinking. Are we losing something? I think we are... Though I would still argue reviewers can add something to the mix.
"I'm glad Amy blogged about her experience. I've had similar experiences myself in the past and it is very upsetting."
(Claire refers to a recent report she wrote for The Scotsman on the financing of the Edinburgh Fringe and being threatened, during her research, by a prominent venue owner and a prominent British comedian.)
Australian John Robertson, who had two shows at this year's festival tells me: "The only PR people I saw at the Fringe drank with me in various bars, danced with each other, knew each other and when gathered in a group, all began to look and sound exactly the same. My PR was lovely, but I can't speak to a deluge. Though I did see the high watermark of bullshit (fake stars, stars from odd places, reviews with plenty... of... this) but that begat its own backlash from punters, which is lovely."
There is another angle to this story, though. That the Ted & Co stage show at the Fringe this year had no authorisation from the copyright owners of Father Ted.
Mark Borkowski told me: "Clearly there is a rights issue. If I was a corporate TV rottweiler legal, I would take a good look at the company's output. Do BBC Worldwide know they are staging Fawlty Towers or Father Ted?" (BBC Worldwide distribute Channel 4's Father Ted series)
In a posting on my Facebook page, comedian Richard Herring put into words what I myself had been thinking: "I simply don't understand (and never have) how they are allowed to do this without the consent of the people who created the characters."
Ian Fox suggests: "The Fringe Society does question whether or not you'll be using music in a show and you pay relevant PRS fees at the end of your run. I don't see why they can't ask when you fill in your Programme registration If you're using characters and material created by others do you have the rights to perform the material? and simply not allow anyone who doesn't have rights into the main Programme."