Anatomy Of A Broadway Flop: What Sank These Four Shows?

[After Eight]

"I never believed in the fiction that the the popularity of "that show" would turn into a boom for everyone else"

 

Fiction is indeed the word. Just one more line among many that were fed to us. Good to see some people refusing to swallow the guff.



"i think the marketing for a lot of these shows were terrible, and no matter how much they spent, they could never get out of the way of the loads of free publicity the media gage Hamilton. Between Vulture and Playbill, you could see over a dozen articles a day in free publicity. I always called Hamilton the Donald Trump of Broadway, seeing the millions of free dollars of publicity it got. Who could compete?"

 

Yep, the media strikes again, as always, but here, they've raised their game to new level. You can always count on them to make a bad situation worse!

[TFMH18]

The media circus surrounding Hamilton is absolutely unprecedented and marketing teams of other shows were frankly ill-equipped to handle it. Is it Hamilton's fault alone that these shows did not succeed? Of course not, but it is woefully ignorant not to acknowledge how much it hurt many other shows-- particularly the four mentioned here, as well as Shuffle Along. Teams were simply unable to infiltrate the media buzz that had been completely absorbed by Hamilton for the full year preceding the Tonys. 

Some shows, such as Waitress, School of Rock, and On Your Feet were able to grab their piece of the pie (heh) due to their well known properties and/or major names attached. But it is basically inarguable that in a different season, these "failed" shows would have received more press. Would it have saved them? That I cannot say, however, when we look back on this season, Hamilton's utter domination of the media will certainly be more than a footnote. 

[Kad]

These four shows, frankly, would have flopped whether Hamilton was playing or not.

Shuffle Along ended up being marketed as a star vehicle for a star who wasn't going to be in it. Again: Hamilton had nothing to do with it.

[EricMontreal22]

I disagree TFM.  With very few exceptions, most of the Hamilton media attention that has happened has not come at the cost of attention paid to other shows.  It's *created* attention that simply wouldn't be there for anything otherwise--it's not stealing away attention that would have been.  If that makes sense.

[aaaaaa15]

I also disagree. Bright Star, American Psycho, Tuck Everlasting and Disaster would have closed just as quickly in any other season. You can't blame Hamilton for Shuffle Along closing when plenty of people have been buying tickets to Shuffle Along since it opened. It's not like all the marketing that Hamilton has was once spread evenly between new musicals on Broadway. It is unprecedented media attention for Broadway and wouldn't be there for any show if not for Hamilton.

[EricMontreal22]

Exactly.  It's not like talk show hosts and celebs would make comments about Bright Star or, whatever, if there wasn't Hamilton to comment on.

[Dollypop]

In the 60's when I started my theater-going, the four shows discussed here might be considered Grade B shows but would have respectable runs the way Skyscraper, How Now Dow Jones, Bajour, and Roar of the Greasepaint had. All were enjoyable but not blockbusters.

 

Sad how times have changed

 

[After Eight]

"the Ham4Ham shows was something new and quite effective."

Yes, indeed. What was truly admirable about it was its generosity and selflessness, untainted by any trace of publicity, self-promotion, or self-interest. Jolly well done!

 

 

 

[After Eight]

"In the 60's when I started my theater-going, the four shows discussed here might be considered Grade B shows but would have respectable runs the way Skyscraper, How Now Dow Jones, Bajour, and Roar of the Greasepaint had. All were enjoyable but not blockbusters.

 

Sad how times have changed"

 

Sad indeed. Sad too is the fact that any of those four 60's shows was like five zillion times better than these wretched entities that win Tony Awards and mega-media hysteria. And what's more ----they had music and lyrics you could actually listen to with pleasure!

Try to remember that kind of September!

 

[Broadway Forever2]

EricMontreal22 said: "Exactly.  It's not like talk show hosts and celebs would make comments about Bright Star or, whatever, if there wasn't Hamilton to comment on.

 

"

This! I really think people who blame Hamilton for shows closing are just bitter. It's not like media would be clamoring over tuck Everlasting, American Psycho or Bright Star. Broadway shows don't ever get any mainstream media attention. 

[TFMH18]

Again, I'm not blaming Hamilton for any of these shows' failures. But they would have been paid more attention by press had it not existed. A simple point. 

[CarlosAlberto]

People blaming HAMILTON for the failure of other shows? Oh please, what are we going to blame HAMILTON for next? The Pulse massacre, the UK leaving the EU, Global warming, The Tate-LaBianca murders? 

 

[Kad]

As others have argued, it seems as though Hamilton got unique coverage... not coverage at the expense of other shows. The coverage has been Broadway coverage and Hamilton coverage.

None of these shows got less coverage than the typical Broadway show would usually get.

 

[Broadway Forever2]

The show that might have run longer if Hamilton didn't exist is Shuffle Along because it probably would have won best musical (Waitress could have won though) but even then Audra leaving would have put a big damper on the boxoffice. The show has been selling well despite Hamilton and it closing is very shocking to me but Audra was a bigger draw to the show than i thought. 

I mean the spring has been harsh but School of Rock, On your Feet and Waitress have done really well. 

I get Hamilton's media coverage has been excessive but I honestly don't think it was at the expense of other shows. And Hamilton's tickets are very hard for most people to get. It's not like people are seeing Hamilton over and over again so they cant see anything else. Most people here complain the Hamiltons tickets are too expensive for the average Broadway goer to see. 

One thing that shows could do with marketing is take advantage of social media more. Hamilton has done an effective job of that. 

[gypsy101]

Dollypop said: "All were enjoyable but not blockbusters. Sad how times have changed"

why is it sad that mediocre shows close? i think that's a blessing. what's sad is when great shows close.

[After Eight]

"why is it sad that mediocre shows close? i think that's a blessing. what's sad is when great shows close."

 

It's more than sad when crap is hailed as great --- and runs. I'd say that's calamitous.

I would also suggest that you refrain from casting judgment on shows you never saw, nor know anything about.

[gypsy101]

ditto for you

[Count von Bulow]

Bright Star could have used a bright star in the lead role.  

[After Eight]

Thanks. Except I  saw them ----- and know the difference.

 

[EricMontreal22]

After Eight said: ""those four 60's shows was like five zillion times better
 

 

"

AfterH8, are you, like, letting your 8 year old great-great niece post for you again?

[After Eight]

^

You've lifted your nose out of one of your comic books to post here, Eric?

Go back to it: it really is more your speed.

 

Psst.... And while you're not at it, learn how to read and cite correctly (if you're capable of either): it's "any of those four...."

[christinelavin]

I went to the first preview of "Bright Star" and immediately wondered about two glaring flaws: the bland, mediocre title, and the giant plot hole that everyone around me had figured out before intermission (I won't mention it on the off chance someone reading this has tickets for tomorrow).  

It was so obvious where the story was going, so I went back and read any reviews I could find from road performances on the way to Broadway.  Sure enough, ALL the reviews mentioned this plot problem, and they ALL assumed the writers would fix it before it opened on Broadway.

We all know that didn't happen -- even when on this chat board this problem was brought up again and again and again during previews.  

How can this be?  Advertising agencies literally spend MILLIONS of dollars on focus groups to figure out how to get consumers to buy specific products.  Here is a chatboard populated by educated theater lovers who SPEND their OWN money on tickets, WANT to love shows, are VOCAL with their opinons, WANT good work to be recognized -- it's a marketer's dream to have access to what so many of you are sharing out of the goodness of your heart and your passion for theater.  How can they ignore the wealth of information posted here day after day?

I know there's a few oddballs who hate everything, but for the most part, I learn a lot reading comments here -- it was because of this chat board I took a chance on getting standing room for "Dear Evan Hansen," actually got a seat  -- can't wait for it to open on Broadway.  

But getting back to "Bright Star," I was so rooting for Carmen Cusack, despite the flawed book, and also naively hoped the flaws would be fixed before opening night.  Is it possible that the writers and producers didn't read anything here or prior reviews from road productions?

How else to explain their stubbornly sticking to a story line that lacked surprise? 

[Tom5]

Sometimes (most times) fixing an obvious flaw in a production can create larger flaws which are not obvious to the casual observer (or critic).  In fact I'd guess 9 out of 10 hit (and good) shows have identifiable problems which to the casual observer (or critic again) would seem easier to fix than not. But they're left alone for a good reason.

[christinelavin]

Tom5 said: "Sometimes (most times) fixing an obvious flaw in a production can create larger flaws which are not obvious to the casual observer (or critic).  In fact I'd guess 9 out of 10 hit (and good) shows have identifiable problems which to the casual observer (or critic again) would seem easier to fix than not. But they're left alone for a good reason.

In other words -- they've given up on the show, claim it's 'unfixable' and accept that it will close and everyone loses money? Seems odd to me.  The night before opening night the composers of The Fantasticks wrote "Try To Remember" because they knew it needed a song at the top of the show -- glad they didn't give up at the 11th hour.  

I'm not a casual observer -- I'm a songwriter, though not in theater, but I love theater, and not only me, but everyone around me figured out the connection between two of the main characters (we talked during intermission).  There were many months between California and D.C. productions -- isn't this where a dramaturg would be called in?  

"

 

[Tom5]

If a show is good people forgive the flaws. I believe King Kong The Musical is in development now. How much time do you think they took figuring out how they got the ape from Skull Island to New York? And what about "sanitation"? It would take a full act to straighten that out with only a fig leaf of believability.

[Sunny11]

How can this be?  Advertising agencies literally spend MILLIONS of dollars on focus groups to figure out how to get consumers to buy specific products.  Here is a chatboard populated by educated theater lovers who SPEND their OWN money on tickets, WANT to love shows, are VOCAL with their opinons, WANT good work to be recognized -- it's a marketer's dream to have access to what so many of you are sharing out of the goodness of your heart and your passion for theater.  How can they ignore the wealth of information posted here day after day?

"
I wouldn't give this board that much credit. People have already decided that Al Pacino is going to suck in his next play months before anything of substance has been released! That constantly happens, judgements are made purely on preconceptions without any factual backing what so ever.