NPR: How Broadway Is Losing Its Middle Ground

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 2:31pm

Article/radio piece dissects Last Ship and Side Show:

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/20/378570656/how-broadway-is-losing-its-middle-ground

My only problem is people constantly saying things like: "How do you tell somebody who's going to spend anywhere from $175 to $500 or more per ticket for a show, how do you tell them, 'It's so-so, but you can't miss this performance'?" Gerard asks.

I saw Side Show for like $80 and Last Ship for like $90, so it seems weird they keep inflating these full-price tickets above what they actually cost (they have never been $500, ever), and not factoring that most people see things at a discount if they can, etc. Sure, you have to pay full-price for a hit show, but that is the opposite of this piece, no?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 2:55pm

Ticketbuyers who don't know any better first access ticketsellers such as Broadway.com and StubHub who inflate ticket prices with their ridiculous fees. Then Ticketmaster & Telecharge have devious ways of selling premium tickets over regular tickets (it's tricky to figure out that you have to uncheck the premium options).

And most ticketbuyers are buying 2 or more tickets. It's grossly expensive.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 2:56pm

That being said, if you are the type of person who has found BroadwayWorld.com and joined its message board, you probably are a more educated ticketbuyer and know about discounts available from TKTS, TDF, BroadwayBox.com, rush policies, etc.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:25pm

Maybe the $500 is for Book of Mormon in the middle of the holidays? But yes, most tourists just aren't going to know about various deals--and to be fair, a number won't care either, especially if it involves taking chances (lotto) or waiting in line outdoors for some time (especially in the winter). Interesting that theater critics are becoming more and more useless, though.

But is this really true?

That creates a boom-or-bust environment on Broadway, says Bagert: "You're either a monster hit or you close quickly. There's no middle ground."

Apparently Ken Davenport gets a lot of hate on this forum, but I've found his producer blog educational (are there any other insider resources like this?). Specifically, he publicized, with investors' blessings, that MacBeth with Cummings did flop, but it actually made back 90% of its investment. Thing is, only full recoup is traditionally publicized, which leads to misunderstanding. (I asked him some additional questions about it via email, and he answered while reiterating that point.)

Side Show/Last Ship did/will close quickly. IF/THEN will have run out on Idina Menzel's contract, but does that count as middle ground? I don't know. What shows would count as "middle ground"? The article is titled "LOSING its middle ground," so I assume there have been shows that did okay but not great, yet they didn't give examples.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:36pm

Those paying exorbitant prices are corporate businessmen from Dubai, Japan and elsewhere, who also pay $37,000 a month to rent a NYC apartment.

[Hest882]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:48pm

Pootie, good points. However, I also don't think a show recouping 90% of its investments is a good thing. That would be like a company saying it almost broke even but has never made a profit.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:53pm

@Hest882: I agree it's not good news, but (IMO) there's still a difference between "losing everything" and not quite breaking even, especially when we're talking about investments in the millions these days.

I mean, I have plenty of investments, and the success rate runs through the entire gamut--worst being if a company goes out of business and the stock becomes worthless. But selling at a slight loss, for example, wouldn't deter me from taking additional risks. Actually losing everything on a bet would, though that thinking probably doesn't completely apply to Broadway, all these people with super deep pockets...

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:54pm

Does NPR give any answers for the big-haired audience members problem?

[binau]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 3:59pm

I know this sounds obvious, but the major problem with Broadway IMO is the major costs of mounting and (especially) running the shows. The article (and we on this often) often exaggerate and say that "no one wanted to see X show" but that's just not true. Side Show's houses were more full than not in most weeks (with a range of premium, full-price, discounted and papered tickets I imagine), and it did gross $4 million dollars. That's a lot of money! But unless a Broadway show practically sells out at full price for many, many months (sometimes edging on a year or more), it won't recoup!

It's not a very sustainable business model because the demand for most shows is just not there.

I am thankful for people that continue to take the risk to invest in Broadway shows. It's not always about the money.

Unless we can find a way to reduce costs (which seems near impossible. Although in the NYTimes article On the Town have been managing to reduce their weekly nut in-time), or increase demand (which seems near impossible in a century where people can see films, at a more convenient time for less money AND probably enjoy them more), this business is going to be a tough one.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 4:19pm

And the mounting costs just keep rising... West End seems to be doing something different, but I don't follow that area at all.

Historically, has the 25/75 success-to-flop ratio ever been different on Broadway? Maybe the sustainability lies in gambling addiction.

(Edit to clarify: I meant that to be half-joking. :P There are definitely people who care more about theater as an art. Thankfully.)

Updated On: 1/22/15 at 04:19 PM

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 6:37pm

Who buys the high-end tickets ?

*There must be an affluent sector of the tri-state who are regular theatre patrons.

*Luxury hotel concierges do a lot of promoting certain shows and hotel clients are usually easy to persuade because they might be busy with their primary visit intentions ( business or pleasure)

*Large corporations do large scale entertaining - it is not just dinner but also a chance to see a hit show ( or they may even have corporate boxes, as they do for sports events which interest major clients).

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 6:42pm

The pricing for THE RIVER was very democratized.

While there were two-tiered premium pricing seats, there were also a number of seats priced at $ 35 ( 40 seats per performance) either for the day's performance access/rush tickets or for the incoming week's performance access tickets. Also, the popular riverbank seats ( two front rows around the thrust stage at CITS) were priced at $ 95.

Maybe the step in the right direction?

Updated On: 1/22/15 at 06:42 PM

[binau]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 6:47pm

For accessibility yes, but I don't know if that is going to lead to any real financial benefits.

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 7:20pm

For straight plays which have much lower breakeven levels, it might yield some healthy financial results with higher occupancy rates. For musicals, which have much higher costs to mount and to run, it will have to address both the revenue-generating side (volume vs pricing) and trimming/rationalizing the costs. Sometimes, the sets and performances for musicals are too unnecessarily lavish and spectacular.

Updated On: 1/22/15 at 07:20 PM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 7:31pm

"For straight plays which have much lower breakeven levels, it might yield some healthy financial results with higher occupancy rates. For musicals, which have much higher costs to mount and to run, it will have to address both the revenue-generating side (volume vs pricing) and trimming/rationalizing the costs. Sometimes, the sets and performances for musicals are too unnecessarily lavish and spectacular."

Well, the argument that commercial Broadway rewards spectacle too much has come up a fair bit, it seems. We see it in the film industry too. Yes, Avatar was reamed for having a crappy story, yet it made ridiculous gross because it was pretty. Maybe this is a cultural thing overall?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 9:51pm

"Specifically, he publicized, with investors' blessings, that MacBeth with Cummings did flop,"

Alan Cumming. C U M M I N G.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/22/15 at 10:07pm

Comings. Noted. Thanks!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/23/15 at 11:45am

"The pricing for THE RIVER was very democratized."

God love our Hugh, the people's prince.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 1/23/15 at 6:35pm

I would say shows like Cinderella, After Midnight, Motown, and If/Then are/were middle ground.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 10:42pm

When they list the grosses each week is that the gross minus the operating cost or that actually what they make from ticket sales each week? Does anyone know which show has the highest operating cost?

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 10:44pm

The operating costs are not factored into the grosses, and the weekly nut for each show is typically unknown, although people on here have tossed some numbers around in other threads.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 11:20pm

Estimated or specific nuts are occasionally published for certain shows in articles discussing them, but I don't know how the journalists arrive at those numbers (the estimates, like $600m for Matilda http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/theater/matilda-arrives-on-broadway-with-big-dreams.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ).

I just read an article of the most expensive Broadway musicals ever produced as of 2014, and turns out Spider Man lost $60 million (capitalization $75 or $79 adjusted for inflation), and that number was given by investors to the NYT.
http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/the-10-most-expensive-broadway-musicals/?view=all

For shows that don't fully recoup--knowing production costs, actual grosses, and close date, but not knowing the actual recoup or loss number--I don't think there's a good way to estimate the weekly nut or vice versa. (?)

But the highest operating cost? Spider Man's was estimated $1.2 million a week in January 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/theater/spider-man-by-the-numbers-breaking-down-its-costs.html

Updated On: 1/25/15 at 11:20 PM