ABSTRACT
The West End has traditionally provided two very valuable guides as to the merits of new plays, the tests of 'pleasurepopularity' and of 'exposure'. It is scarcely necessary nowadays to point out that these are not the only tests. Good plays are not invariably popular. For much of the nineteenth century, Shakespeare was regarded as the first nail in the bankrupt manager's coffin, and it was the reckless devotion of certain actors, coupled with the eloquence of some critics, which helped the public eventually to respond more favourably. But if Shakespeare's plays had not possessed emotional warmth, richness, variety, humour and sheer dramatic strength, no proselytising from enthusiasts could have persuaded audiences to come, year after year; and to that extent popularity not only indicates a deep human response to primary feelings but also acts as a useful check to the fervours of those who would like the public at large to think as they do. Enthusiastic reviews, as all press officers know, are helpful to the success of productions, but they do not guarantee hits; if, however, satisfied audiences tell their friends and a word-of-mouth enthusiasm spreads, then hits happen. The commercial value of good reviews is that they can provide that initial boost to productions which can carry them through the awkward first weeks before the swell of popular opinion gathers strength.
