why doesn't Hamilton take over another broadway theater?

[ladypresent]

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]

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

[LesWickedly]

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]

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]

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

[ladypresent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[GreasedLightning]

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]

"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]

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. 

 

[adamgreer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.