why doesn't Hamilton take over another broadway theater?

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 1:57pm

No show has ever done this but why not? There is already a year long or more wait for tix, just take over the August Wilson when Groundhog day closes in September and open up a second Hamilton. Make double the money and it will be incredible. They wont have a problem selling tix. 
i bet it could work. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 1:59pm

Why do you think Groundhog Day will close so soon? And no.

[LesWickedly]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:01pm

I remember this being brought up last year. The thing that is working best for Hamilton is that it's hard to get into, which makes the tickets sell out. Opening another theater would be smart for maybe a few months, but then demand would die down. It wouldn't happen.

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:01pm

too expensive to run, niche movie, too many substitutes to choose from tix wise. 

why not? It makes sense economically. The broadway show now won't lose revenue as the tix are already sold. It would double profit. It makes complete sense. 2 Hamiltons on broadway.  Also they could publicize it as being benevolent saying "we see the high demand for the show and we want to make sure everyone gets a chance to see it so we are opening up a second Hamilton"

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:03pm

Demand is high because supply is low. How does increasing the supply make any economic sense?

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:03pm

The Hamilton tix for the current production are already sold until when...sept 2018? Sold out yes? 

So how would it lose demand? only 1200 or so people a night can see the show. There are probably at least 5-10 million people who want to see it. I don't think it would lose demand. And it would rake in so much more money than it already it. THey should do it. 

[nycgogetter]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:04pm

It would run half as long.

 

And without the "DEMAND" to get tickets, they would lose out on premiere ticket demand - thus losing that extra, all profit money.

.

 

 

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:05pm

i don't think you are looking at this in the limited economic environment that broadway shows are in and in this specific economic case. 
the tix are already sold. they cannot make any more profit than they already have in the bank. They arent depreciating the current value because the product has been sold. 

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:09pm

so you are saying that national tours depreciate the value of the broadway show because people won't travel to NY to see shows? Kinda the same thing. 
If the demand is there, make more supply. The demand is there. THe product is sold out. People want more. if its already sold out until 2018 sept then if you had another Hamilton open up sept 2017, they would make more revenue. there are 350 million people in the country and tons more overseas. The demand won't die, its the biggest hit in the history of broadway. 

they would make a mint and it would be amazing. So you are saying, that coke should only make 1 million coke cans a year because if they make more their value would depreciate? that makes no sense. People want to see Hamilton, there aren't any tix. Make more Hamilton shows. Its basic economics. Build more product. especially because the product is already tapped out. 

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:11pm

I think these discussions are truly fascinating. It reminds be back in 2011, when it was rumored that Jordan Roth offered Book of Mormon to transfer into the St. James post-Tonys. While you'd be making more money each week in sales, there is a definite marketing strategy with having extremely low supply and extremely high demand. When I did SRO the first time for Mormon, and it was freezing, and we all stood outside, the Lottery Dude told us "It's because the producers like to have people see a line outside the theater. It looks incredibly good for the show in the public's eye."

I think there's also something to be said about a show's overall value and how the public perceives it. A move to the St. James by Mormon possibly would've seemed as a greedy money-grab, just like if Hamilton was to open a second company on Broadway. Not to bring another show into the mix, but Wicked, for example, would rather have some empty seats than appear on TKTS or TDF. Why? Value.

Would anything truly negative have happened if Mormon moved? No, but it wasn't until this fall that you could purchase full price tickets on Todaytix for Mormon, either. That may have happened a bit sooner. 

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 02:11 PM

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:11pm

ladypresent said: "i don't think you are looking at this in the limited economic environment that broadway shows are in and in this specific economic case. 
the tix are already sold. they cannot make any more profit than they already have in the bank. They arent depreciating the current value because the product has been sold. 

 

"

This would crash and burn for a number of reasons. 

If you want it so bad, why don't YOU put up the $12 million + to mount a second production here in NY?

[Valentina3]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:13pm

"They arent depreciating the current value because the product has been sold."

 

You keep pointing out the obvious yourself. What you're proposing would deprecate the future value, and deprecate it at double its current rate.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:14pm

Lots of reasons:

The less tickets they have, the more they can charge, Selling six months worth of tickets for $998 is one thing, but when you have double the amount, the more people might balk at that. Ultimately, as high as the demand is, it would cheapen the brand. If there are two concurrent NY productions, the one at the Rodgers suddenly becomes less special.

They're also about to have three additional companies nationally, not to mention a London production. And yeah, the show is basically minting money, but all of these additional companies cost a considerable amount to put up. If they were to take over another Broadway theatre, they would have to build an additional set, cast another production, hire crew, build costumes, etc. That's not cheap.

I also think, in general, it would be bad press for them. Sure people would buy tickets, but it reeks of hubris to open a second production in another theatre when no other show has done that. There is always a high demand for Broadway houses, and such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary. 

 

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 02:14 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:16pm

This gets discussed every time a show is a huge hit. I remember it being discussed (and rightly dismissed, for all the reasons already mentioned) with The Book of Mormon, Wicked, and The Lion King. I'm sure if there were message boards back in 1988, people would have discussed this with regards to Phantom of the Opera. 

[ladypresent]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:23pm

if i were the producer, or if the producer gave me permission, i would  set up a backers meeting and raise that money in about an hour. I would think it would be the safest bet to recoup monies and make money consistently following. thats not the point of this discussion though. 

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:27pm

It could also get confusing for people buying tickets to which theater to go to. Yes, it will say on the tickets where they are for, but people don't care or read things carefully and may just go wherever they see a theater marquee.  And then you get the people who will probably demand to go in because they are there and shouldn't have to travel further,  even though they are wrong. I work in retail,  I see this all the time. 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:29pm

ladypresent said: "if i were the producer, or if the producer gave me permission, i would  set up a backers meeting and raise that money in about an hour. I would think it would be the safest bet to recoup monies and make money consistently following. thats not the point of this discussion though. "

Recoup what money? The show has already done that. And it is consistently making money as it is. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 2:49pm

And add to Marianne's pount: you'd have competing casts.   You want to see cast A, but got tix for cast B?  Problem.  Cast A is getting great sloppy, no one wants to go.

 

If you think the professionals haven't ghought of th he pros and cons of this, you're crazy. It isn't only about how fast you get $ in your hands.

[Willie4316]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 3:36pm

Hamilton performed initially with high demand and low supply. The Chicago sit down and now 2 national tours will be running. Call me crazy but it seems that producers are more than willing to increase the supply. If anything I preferred that they added a 2nd national tour. In the long run it can provide for cheaper tickets for patrons for those not living within the metro NY/NJ area if you factor in booking flights, reserving rooms in hotels, etc. They wouldn't have set up 4 productions (5 come this fall in London) if they knew that demand would die down. Demand is obviously there, across the country and across the pond, although the latter is yet to be seen.  

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 3:50pm

Except all of those additional productions are being done rather far away from NY. The point is that basically anyone on the East Coast is going to have to go the NY to see the show- it doesn't come anywhere near Broadway until a stop in DC in mid-2018. They are increasing the supply but in specific markets. If you live within driving or train distance of New York, they're not going to have another option for a long time, and that's deliberate. 

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/14/17 at 4:06pm

Yes, there is a huge difference in having a production in NYC, Chicago, and 2 touring productions nowhere near each other, versus 2 in a 10-15 block radius in NYC. Plus do we know if some of the demand is still scalpers? Like I know the limits for ticket purchase is still low, but someone could still make a nice profit off of a few tickets. 

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 10:16am

When it's in residence in Vegas and playing on Royal Caribbean we will look back on this thread and laugh!

[Lot666]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 10:27am

wonderfulwizard11 said: "...such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary."

While I agree with much of your post, this show has been perceived by many as "greedy" since they jacked the house (i.e., non-reseller) ticket price to $849.

[¿Macavity?]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 10:38am

Wee Thomas2 said: "When it's in residence in Vegas and playing on Royal Caribbean we will look back on this thread and laugh!

 

"

I'm already laughing at this thread. Two productions in NY? LOL!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:41am

Lot666 said: "wonderfulwizard11 said: "...such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary."

While I agree with much of your post, this show has been perceived by many as "greedy" since they jacked the house (i.e., non-reseller) ticket price to $849.

 

"

And I still will repeat:  I'd rather see that money go into the pockets of those that made it happen, then to scalpers!  (And many of us feel that way)