Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 1/8/17- Page 3

[HogansHero]

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

@ggersten the "net" gross is the amount that actually gets transferred to the production's bank account by the ticketing agency (TC or TM) after they take out charges for credit card processing, ticketing fees, taxes and anything else someone can think of to get their hand in the till for.

@alice if you look at the % of potential numbers (and those are the numbers used in the recoupment schedule) you will see that they are not very good even at their peaks (not counting the weeks like Christmas). Someone who believed in a show and invested in it on that basis would not expect it to go week after week with its stars when it only topped out in the 70s. I think you have reached a conclusion you want to believe, even though it doesn't pan out. 

Updated On: 1/11/17 at 11:55 AM

[Mike66]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 12:32pm

QueenAlice said: ". But, since this was Scott Sanders and Oprah's personal dream project to have this on Broadway - perhaps a recoupment schedule that showed a realistic return wasn't important (assuming they put in most of the money themselves).

"

Several of you have mentioned this in one way or another.  And I don't think it's to be overlooked with this production.

I think if I sat down with Oprah this morning, and asked her if she cared about recouping her investment, she would laugh in my face.

This production has "reclaimed" the luster of a work that many felt was shortchanged in the original production.  It's made a star of Cynthia Erivo.  It returned Heather Headley to Broadway. It attracted a diverse audience, including many, many African Americans who have not been a core constituency of Broadway  audiences, and it is a quite correct point of pride in that community --whether someone saw the show or not.  And now it might go out on the road and reach an even larger audience.

For someone like Oprah, it's hard to imagine that she is anything less  than ecstatic about the outcome.

 

 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 12:34pm

So well said, Mike66. This was a production that changed the landscape of Broadway.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 12:36pm

I'm sure Oprah doesn't mind. I'm talking about the (presumed) other investors. But if they shared her vision that the art and the opportunity was more important than the money - everybody wins.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 12:44pm

"This production has "reclaimed" the luster of a work that many felt was shortchanged in the original production.  It's made a star of Cynthia Erivo.  It returned Heather Headley to Broadway. It attracted a diverse audience, including many, many African Americans who have not been a core constituency of Broadway  audiences, and it is a quite correct point of pride in that community --whether someone saw the show or not.  And now it might go out on the road and reach an even larger audience."

And yet it ran less than 1/2 as long as the original, in a much smaller house, which means much fewer than 1/2 the number of people even saw it. If anything "shortchanged" the material, it may have been this production.

Updated On: 1/11/17 at 12:44 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 2:35pm

@alice people invest in shows all the time to make money, thinking those shows will find an audience and achieve that goal. Most of those shows don't. That is ALL that happened here: no incompetence, no incorrect recoupment schedule; just a show that under-performed. A lot of people went to see the show, but not enough and not paying enough. Who knew that not as many people would pay big money to see JHud play Shug as would to see BMid play Dolly? I have no optimism you will ever see this point, but if you isolate the frames during which JHud was in the show and extrapolate it to the full run, the show still would not have recouped. 

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 3:24pm

I don't understand how this show cost as much as $8m capitalisation, but accept the figure is correct, as it was released by the producers.

if you look at the staging of this, no way did it come anywhere near $8m, but does this figure represent the tech process at the Menier? If so the Menier Didn't know this was gong to Broadway and could have easily folded in that South Bank venue. I understand that some of the set up costs has to go into the rehearsal period before the show starts? But the main role was already developed and ready and that is Cynthia Erivio who again learned her role for the Menier production, all other roles are secondary, so rehearsals could have been brought down to half the normal time.

So where did that $8m get spent?

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 3:34pm

"But the main role was already developed and ready and that is Cynthia Erivio who again learned her role for the Menier production, all other roles are secondary, so rehearsals could have been brought down to half the normal time."

If you really think that rehearsal time could be cut by 50% merely because one cast member knew her lines and songs, then I'm going to have to discard anything you have ever said and will ever say about theatre.

Updated On: 1/11/17 at 03:34 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:15pm

I think 8 million dollars is a fairly routine amount for mounting a Broadway musical these days.  That includes the fees for the director, designers, the publicists, the marketing team, the preliminary advertising budget, all the production elements (lighting, scenery, costumes, sound), the rehearsal expenses: (the hall, the salaries for the actors and crew prior to performing), the union load in costs, the General Manager, the legal team, theatre rental, and the list goes on and on.  Just because the scenery for the production looked like it came from a barn don't mean it was cheap.

Hogan -- thank you - that analysis of Jennifer Hudson makes a lot more sense. I think everyone like ly overestimated her box office appeal and my guess is most investors imagined she would fill the theatre at greater capacity during her time in the show, which would have made it easier to recoup.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:17pm

You could hit the 50% the main and hardest role has been developed and ready. You need to train the lesser roles to work with Cynthia.

When new principal casts come in they don't shut the show for 8 weeks, to re-develop the roles for the show and start over again.

So if a show goes in rehearsal for 8 weeks + rehearsal whilst in previews ordinarily, then with the main role developed you can half it to 4 weeks + rehearsal time whilst in preview,

So this is what I am merely saying, before you get rude and try and score points off me, to compensate for you own inabilities. But then again I don't come on here and claim to be an expert in theatre. Still though the main question I asked hasn't been answered, where did that $8m get spent?

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:19pm

"then I'm going to have to discard anything you have ever said and will ever say about theatre."

You weren't doing that already?

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:23pm

"You could hit the 50% the main and hardest role has been developed and ready. You need to train the lesser roles to work with Cynthia."

Well, it's certainly clear that you don't have the slightest clue how a show is developed or how rehearsals work. Do you think The Color Purple is merely a series of skits with Celie doing all the work and everyone else just fitting in around her at random?

"When new principal casts come in they don't shut the show for 8 weeks, to re-develop the roles for the show and start over again."

Right - they rehearse the new actors during the day while the former cast does performances. Do you think they wait until after an actor has left to replace them?

This is really one of the silliest things I've ever read on this board.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:28pm

VERY little of rehearsal has to do with LEARNING lines/music.   It's developing relationships, character, etc.

 

Question: is there a MANDATORY rehearsal period via Equity?  I thought I remembered there was....I don't believe  you are allowed to save money that way.  

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:35pm

There is certainly an industry standard (if not an Equity rule).  Keep in mind too that shows are very often still raising money during the rehearsal process -- legally, they can raise money right up until Opening Night.  Having a standard rehearsal period is invaluable not only for the actors and the creatives (who sometimes can't do their work until the show is in rehearsals) but for the publicists to drum up business for the show.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:38pm

@phantom, sets are not anywhere near the biggest line item in most shows. Rehearsals are mandated by contract and non-negotiable (and as noted elsewhere, very much needed.) Marketing is a major expense that you seem oblivious to. And there are bonds, deposits, advances and reserves included in that amount. It is very low and @alice quite a bit less than what is considered routine nowadays.

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

Anyone who wants to know where the money went should read Mitch Weiss's "The Business of Broadway," which is a very nuts-and-bolts look at how a show is produced, budgeted, etc. To give the short version: typically about 40% of the budget is physical production costs (not just sets, but lighting, sound, costumes, wigs, etc), 6-10% on creative and production fees (composer, director, designers, music supervisors, GM, tech supervisor), 12-15% on advertising (TV, radio, print, social media) and advertising agency/press agent fees, 13-15% on production salaries (crew, company manager, crew heads, music contractor, etc), 5% on rehearsal salaries (actor salaries, stage manager salaries, payroll taxes), 8-10% on general admin (producer fees, legal, office rentals, insurance, payroll & accounting, rehearsal rentals, trucking, etc), and 10% for contingency and union bonds. The money goes VERY quickly, even for small shows. With CP, the simpler set may have led to a reduction in production costs, but not creative fees, and smaller sets & production budgets don't necessarily correlate to lower labor costs.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/11/17 at 4:59pm

Hogan-absolutely- I mean to use the word  "routine" as "is common"- but certainly not as the standard. 8 million is indeed a low amount for a musical/ I believe NATASHA this is season (as a comparison) is capitalized at over 13 million.

[GreenGables]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 2:52pm

Yeah, sorry gang, $8mm isnt even close to 'routine'.  That's pretty low.  Plays are $3-5 and musicals id say the average is closer to $12m.  The investing paperwork I saw for last season all had budgets in the 12-15 range. 

Typically the physical set is high hundred thousands to a million, with another 500k or so for light, sound etc. For simplicity, lets say a show's budget is $10m.  A standard breakdown might look like this:

Physical production: $1.5m
creative / production staff: $1m
advertising / PR: $1.5m
rehearsal/shop/load in salaries: $1.5m
Tech expenses: $500k
theater dark time and load in: $1.5m
general legal / finance / administrative: :750k
transportation/lodging: 100k
union bonds/royalty advance: 500k-750k

you'd likely then reserve 500k+ for closing costs and put 500k in the bank as reserves.  And if there was a pre-pro try out, add another $1.5-$2m on top of that.

 

All this to say, you really cant tell much from how a show 'looks'.  That set may have been simple conceptually, but it still probably cost a cool 500k to build and light.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 2:56pm

"Yeah, sorry gang, $8mm isnt even close to 'routine'.  That's pretty low.  "

If by "gang" you mean the one person who stated $8 million is routine?? The rest of us know better.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 4:26pm

A gang of one is way better than some of the alternatives.

[binau]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 8:09pm

"if you isolate the frames during which JHud was in the show and extrapolate it to the full run, the show still would not have recouped. "

Can you show that calculation? I'm not sure my quick calculation is consistent with that claim. Though of course such an extrapolation would probably be an overestimation anyway of the revenue as the Jhudd fans may have started drying up over time.

In any case, I do think this is yet another example showing how unsustainable this business model is (commercial Broadway theatre). The show has clearly underperformed financially but it seems like the only way for a show to be a hit is to sell out at full price for over a year and that is very difficult to achieve.

It's pointless for me to say this because I'm sure anyone who is in this business has tried/is trying, but I wish there was a way we could reduce the crazy high costs involved with mounting and running a Broadway show. I suppose it's impossible.   

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/12/17 at 8:59pm

qolbinau said: "Can you show that calculation? I'm not sure my quick calculation is consistent with that claim. Though of course such an extrapolation would probably be an overestimation anyway of the revenue as the Jhudd fans may have started drying up over time."

I calculated the net gross for her 26 weeks as about $712k which would be roughly $43,4 mil over 61 weeks. (I said 63 but that was wrong.) That would just recoup at the "implausible" number of $550k, but not at the slightly more realistic $600k or the more likely $650k. (And of course, the weekly nut is not static, and had JHud stayed the whole time, even if there was no dropoff as you suggested, certainly her pay would have increased the nut during that additional period.) 

"In any case, I do think this is yet another example showing how unsustainable this business model is (commercial Broadway theatre). The show has clearly underperformed financially but it seems like the only way for a show to be a hit is to sell out at full price for over a year and that is very difficult to achieve."

But it is NOT unsustainable. It is sustaining itself quite nicely, thank you very much. And a show does NOT have to sell out at full price for over a year to succeed. There are plenty of examples of shows that don't do that and still recoup. But no, a show that almost never has an average price over $100 and also doesn't sell out hardly at all is not going to recoup. But realistically it shouldn't. And yes it would be lovely if everything didn't cost so much. 

[binau]

Posted: 1/13/17 at 6:18pm

Yes I suppose when I look at the overall numbers and the shows that continue to churn through - it does seem to be 'working'.

I just ask myself sometimes how and wonder how long it can go on for.....if I think about some of my favourite shows in recent times (e.g., Follies, A Little Night Music, Grey Gardens, The Scottsboro Boys, The Visit, Bridges of Madison County, next to normal, Matilda, Bright Star, Caroline, or Change), it is crazy how so many of them failed to turn a profit (80% of that list). I don't get why people pour money into these shows sometimes - don't get me wrong, I'm glad they do, but sometimes it just doesn't make financial sense to me. 

And even when they do, I read so often on here people trying to find the lowest prices possible to see the show - then it seems like these same people lament and ask themselves why a show has fallen over?

From what I've seen, unlike other commercial ventures this might be a special case where investors aren't always necessarily expecting shows to turn a profit - so maybe that's partly a reason why it continues to work. I look at this season of shows and there is a whole line up of shows like some above that might not necessarily seem like a commercial hit I am excited to see (e.g., DEH; War Paint; Come from Away; Groundhog day etc.). 

I wonder if there will be a day where investors will one day exclaim enough is enough though, and we won't continue to see this churn of shows like we have seen for years and years.

 

Updated On: 1/13/17 at 06:18 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/13/17 at 6:42pm

The declarations against the "fabulous invalid" have been going on since before any of us were born. If the invalid survived the darkest days of Broadway, today seems like an odd time to think that will change.With limited exceptions, most people invest in shows because they believe in them, love them  and believe others will too (and thus that the show will be a success). Most shows aren't, and never have been. But the downside is low and the upside is astonishingly high so people continue to invest, thinking that their show is the little engine that could. Sometimes that engine turns out to be pulling DEH, while other times it's In Transit. Don't lose sleep worrying about Broadway.