The first linked story in the LA Times describes how the LA Phil is still a tough ticket to score in the new Disney Hall. The second story questions the LA Times 'slant' of the story. The main point made is:
Using Good News The Wrong Way
In a recent article of the Los Angeles Times by Christopher Reynolds, the increase in the number of tickets sold by the Los Angeles Philharmonic certainly paints the organization is a positive light.
The article points out that over the past three years, the orchestra has increased the number of tickets it sells (181,457 in 2002-2003 season to 302,428 in the 2004-2005 season) along with expanding the number of performances it offers (from 98 in the 2002-2003 season to 165 in the 2004-2005 season).
Using those figures, the LA Phil has experienced an overall increase in ticket sales of approximately 16%. That is absolutely good news and the LA Phil should be very proud of their accomplishments. In a perfect world, the LA Phil will continue to enjoy attendance figures of 95% or better without having to reduce their number of performances for years to come.
This is certainly good news for the LA Phil, a double digit increase in overall ticket sales over the past few years while also increasing the number of overall performances is a wonderful accomplishment.
So how can such good news get used in a negative way?
For the simple reason that the article seems to imply that in order to improve its 60% capacity rate, the LAP built their new hall with 831 less seats (or a 27% reduction in the number of available seats). Keep in mind the article does not state that overtly, but that's what I inferred
Now I did not get that implication when I first read the article, and I am not certain if I see that implication now. What do you think? But what really puzzles me is how ticket sales going from 181,457 to 302, 428.... is a 16% increase?
UPDATE! The 16% was a now corrected typo. It was a 66% increase.