Shubert Organization, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolvedHowever, I don't understand why I had to ask times for a refund! Featuring a lead actor who was disabled from a sore throat was a disservice to the author of the play, the rest of the cast and the paying spectatorsInstead of telling me that the refund was a one time courtesy, the Shubert Organization should have apologized for the damage createdThey should also have apologized for making me request a refund times, two of which through the Revdex.com.I thank the Revdex.com for their diligence
Sincerely,
*** ***

As a one time courtesy a refund for $will be issued to the cardholder. The refund will be credited back to the *** which was used at time of purchase

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A full refund for $327.00 will be issued to the cardholder's [redacted] ending in [redacted] within the next 7 business days.  The patron may contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### with any questions or concerns.  Thank you.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint...

ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I have yet to see the refund on my credit card statement.
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: I'm hoping you can help me resolve a very unpleasant experience I've had with [redacted], Theatre Operations [redacted] at The Shubert Organization.

I've been very patient trying to speak with [redacted] for over 5 weeks regarding a refund request for 4 tickets purchased for Chicago on Sun Aug [redacted] that I was told by the theater that day would be refunded, I would just need to call the organization the next day to have the refund issued.

I've sent multiple emails and have left multiple voicemails for [redacted] on 8/*, 8/**/ 8/**, 8/**, 8/**, 9/* and now today.

On Aug [redacted] emailed (only correspondence I've received to this day) - saying she was unable to offer a refund b/c I should have done research to see that this play may not be appropriate for a 10 yr old child and could come back to watch the show.

As soon as I received her email I tried calling and emailing to understand why I would not be issued a refund when the theater specifically told me, after our group of 4 left the theater after 20 min, that I would be refunded fully.

Since then I've continued to try and reach [redacted] to resolve this issue and on Fri 8/** when I spoke with [redacted] she told me to wait and call back after Labor Day b/c [redacted] would be able to refund 2 of the tickets and possibly all 4.

I waited and called the week after Labor Day only to again get [redacted]'s voicemail and left her yet another vm and email.

Today when I called and spoke with [redacted], who has been very nice trying to help get this resolved for me, put me on hold (I'm assuming to speak with [redacted] as she's done on past calls) and when she came back a few min later said she does not know what to tell me, [redacted] is just ignoring my calls & emails and proposed I could try writing a letter to the Chairman or reporting this to the Revdex.com.

Why would an employee tell a customer to report their negative customer service to the Revdex.com as a best solution and next step and how is it acceptable to have an employee blatantly ignore a customer's correspondence?

I greatly appreciate your help resolving this situation.Desired Settlement: $198 credit card refund for the 4 show tickets.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.

Sincerely,

Review: I purchased 3 tickets for the12-**-2014 show of the play DISGRACED playing at the Lyceum Theater.

Unfortunately that night, the lead actor, [redacted] had a sore throat and it was extremely difficult to understand him and to follow the play. No announcement was made as to his illness or explanation offered why the understudy was not replacing him.

At the end, a number of people were complaining that they had missed a lot of the play, one in particular, a young woman who said that she had been sitting in the 3rd row of the orchestra!

It is difficult to understand why [redacted] appeared that night. At the ballet, I have yet to see a limping main dancer on stage, at the opera, no lead singer sings with a sore throat, conductors who are ill are replaced. Musicians who are ill cancel their recital.

Why was [redacted] not replaced?

Tickets to a Broadway show are expensive, I paid $109 for each ticket, there were 3 of us. The show was ruined for us as it was so frustrating trying to figure out what [redacted] was saying!.

The show was far below Broadway standards.

I am not interested in seeing Disgraced again but I would like to be refunded $327, the price of the three tickets I purchased.

I already wrote a letter to the Shubert organization on Jan *, 2015 and I did not get any response.

Please find attached a copy of the receipt as well as a copy of one of the tickets.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of $327.00, the price of the tickets.

Business

Response:

As a one time courtesy a refund for $327.00 will be issued to the cardholder. The refund will be credited back to the [redacted] which was used at time of purchase.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I have yet to see the refund on my credit card statement.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

A full refund for $327.00 will be issued to the cardholder's [redacted] ending in [redacted] within the next 7 business days. The patron may contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### with any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved. However, I don't understand why I had to ask 3 times for a refund! Featuring a lead actor who was disabled from a sore throat was a disservice to the author of the play, the rest of the cast and the paying spectators. Instead of telling me that the refund was a one time courtesy, the Shubert Organization should have apologized for the damage created. They should also have apologized for making me request a refund 3 times, two of which through the Revdex.com.I thank the Revdex.com for their diligence.

Sincerely,

Review: The problem involves the Broadway play "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time." This is a hybrid of an advertising/sales/service issue.

The play has a lead character who is highlighted on stage for more than 90% of the time in a starring role. The character is played by [redacted] (with another actor, [redacted], used as an alternate). My issue is that none of Shubert's promotional materials, critic's reviews or press mentions that [redacted] is an alternate. (I highlight that the use of an alternate is different from that of an understudy. If an actor is ill, an understudy may replace him or her. With an alternate, it is at the whim of the producers to choose whether an alternate will perform.) Thus, in previous productions where alternates have been used in the starring role (for example, Billy Eliot and Matilda the Musical), advertising materials highlight that multiple performers play this ONE LEAD role, the multiple performers do press, and the critic's reviews comment on which of the alternates they saw.) Here, [redacted] has been clearly designated the lead performer. On the night I saw the play (with [redacted], not [redacted]), the playbill had a full page insert of a bio/interview with [redacted], with no mention at all of [redacted]. Multiple critic's reviews mentioned only [redacted] in their reviews (indicating not only that the reviewer had seen [redacted], BUT ALSO that the production made sure that it was [redacted] who was performing on the night of the critic's attendance.) Similarly, a Q and A piece in the NY Times was with [redacted], with no mention of [redacted] (OR that there is a regular alternate); and a NY1 interview was with [redacted], again with no mention of [redacted] (OR that there is a regular alternate). While [redacted]'s name is mentioned in the production website as a "cast member," even now, it does not mention that he alternates (as opposed to understudies) in the lead role. Furthermore, PAGES AND PAGES on Shubert's website highlight only [redacted] in the linked reviews, photos and articles. (PLEASE SEE in particular "[redacted]" and in particular the content in the FIVE inserted links at the bottom of the page.)

Obviously, if a performer is sick, I understand that any part may be played by an understudy. However, in this case, it is misleading for the Shubert, in its advertising, its website, its placement of [redacted] for critic's review, and its promotional materials, to mislead ticketbuyers into believing that [redacted] is the lead performer and not a co-alternate performer.

I sent 2 letters of complaint to Shubert that were unanswered. And I had a conversation with a "[redacted]" at Shubert that was unproductive.Desired Settlement: A replacement ticket with similar seating for a performance in which [redacted] is performing --- most likely any Friday or Saturday night, except for when [redacted] is on vacation.

This outcome is particularly warranted since the show is not selling out, and a court action addressed to this claim would seek punitive damages since the practice not only was misleading to me in purchasing this ticket but has widespread impact on others who see this production and further on future shows who may choose to similarly adhere to this misleading business practice.