Matilda closing question?

[Broadwaybeauty2]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 2:54pm

i saw Matilda and thought it was wonderful. The audience was packed.

 

are there reasons besides poor ticket sales why shows close? Because it didn't seem like it was a struggling show, but I am not in the know.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 2:59pm

The producers might want to license it for amateur and school theaters. With a show like this, it would be a huge success in junior high/community theatres.

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 3:05pm

Broadwaybeauty2 said: "i saw Matilda and thought it was wonderful. The audience was packed.
are there reasons besides poor ticket sales why shows close? Because it didn't seem like it was a struggling show, but I am not in the know."

You need to take into account the number of tickets sold, and the price at which those tickets were sold vs. the cost of the production. 

In the case of Matilda, I suspect that they were selling out shows, but with many tickets discounted. Given the cost of a large cast (children's roles will have multiple children playing the role) and the [from what I have heard] large licensing fees from the RSC, the costs were not low. The Shubert is also not cheap to book. It's possible that the margins on the show were thin and given the discounting they just were not making enough on the investment to make it worth continuing.

The potential for licensing would also be a reason that they may make more profit post-closing.

Updated On: 1/2/17 at 03:05 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 3:13pm

Many shows do better during their closing weeks. I also suspect the shuberts were looking for show like hello dolly with Bette to come along. 

[massofmen]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 3:22pm

It was an overhyped show that cost too much to run. 

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 3:51pm

It made money up until the end.

but with the high running costs it was uncertain it would make money before April again.

[Notreallysilent 2]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 6:33pm

It started off doing really well, and I feel like it just slowly started getting less revenue. If you look at the grosses you can tell it had trouble doing good during the winter and spring months. Matilda was always good for summer and during breaks.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 7:47pm

It's a big and expensive show to put on....and it's in a fairly large theater. Shows with less overhead and in smaller theaters can hang in there longer.

It was very busy in terms of ticket sales at times and at certain times of the year.... but the theater had many empty seats at other times...and tickets at TKTS for example recently were practically always sold at 50% off when in the beginning, it was more often 20-30% off.

 

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 8:37pm

Broadwaybeauty2 said: "are there reasons besides poor ticket sales why shows close? "

Aside from accepting a limited run in a theater and then not wanting to leave.... no.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/2/17 at 8:49pm

1. It is not at all uncommon for a show to be sold out for s few performances each week (weekend nights, say) and still be losing money on the week as a whole.

2. Many if not most contracts with theaters give the theater the right to evict a show once it falls below a certain weekly gross, whether or not the lower gross is meeting the expenses of the producers. As Call_me_jorge points out above, the theater may have evicted MATILDA with the expectation that something more profitable would replace it.

In theory, MATILDA could move to another theater, but that is expensive and, with theaters in short supply, the producers of MATILDA may not have found another theater where they thought the show would do as well.

IOW, lots of variables govern the closing of a show. It's not quite as simple as "the show isn't making money", even though that's what we usually say here. The expectation of future revenues may be more important than the actual revenues of the present.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/3/17 at 12:43pm

GavestonPS said: "1. It is not at all uncommon for a show to be sold out for s few performances each week (weekend nights, say) and still be losing money on the week as a whole.

 

Absolutely true. And a sold-out show doesn't necessarily mean that those tickets were paid for, let alone paid for at full price.
 

2. Many if not most contracts with theaters give the theater the right to evict a show once it falls below a certain weekly gross, whether or not the lower gross is meeting the expenses of the producers. As Call_me_jorge points out above, the theater may have evicted MATILDA with the expectation that something more profitable would replace it.

 

The Great Comet of 1812 unexpectedly decided to go for an open run at the Imperial, which was slotted for Hello, Dolly! Matilda had a really bad winter last year, so the Shubert was offered as an alternative option to Bette Midler. She said yes. 
 


In theory, MATILDA could move to another theater, but that is expensive and, with theaters in short supply, the producers of MATILDA may not have found another theater where they thought the show would do as well.

 

They struggled last winter, and with such a large cast, they probably rarely earned back their running costs each week during that time, so they would unlikely be any more successful at a smaller house with the same running costs.


IOW, lots of variables govern the closing of a show. It's not quite as simple as "the show isn't making money", even though that's what we usually say here. The expectation of future revenues may be more important than the actual revenues of the present."


I believe that's what happened with Mamma Mia! They could still be profitable in a smaller house, which is why they transferred. Unfortunately, much of its audience was a result of "impulse" buying based on its marquee visibility, which it lost on 44th Street. I'm sure its several-month closure for the transfer also contributed.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/4/17 at 9:32am

Thanks, Fosse76. I have to admit I don't read Broadway grosses; I haven't even been to a Broadway theater for years. I just have a general understanding of the business, one greatly clarified by your knowledge of the details.

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 1/4/17 at 11:47am

GavestonPS said: "In theory, MATILDA could move to another theater, but that is expensive and, with theaters in short supply, the producers of MATILDA may not have found another theater where they thought the show would do as well."

 

One additional point: As far as I know, RSC retains most of the rights to  the show. Whether the US producers can move it depends on the terms of the contract between the RSC and the producers. It's possible that contract restricts the right to move or makes it uneconomical (e.g., by charging fees based on the Shubert Theater)

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/4/17 at 11:55am

MATILDA is extraordinarily expensive to run on Broadway. The producers ultimately stand to make more money by running a non-Equity tour and eventually licensing the property regionally. Sometimes producer contracts stipulate a grace period between the close of a "first class production" and the allowance of "stock / amateur / school" licensing.  I don't know if its necessarily the case with MATILDA, but I have heard of a couple other shows that closed on Broadway because they were interested in rolling out the show to other licensing platforms but couldn't do that while the show was still in its "first class" production run.