Ticket Prices

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 9:24am

Okay. I am not rich by any means, Not at all. Not even a little bit. I spend most of the money I earn on theater tickets, and even when I do buy them, they're either rush, or the back of the mezzanine (I'm pretty sure the last time I saw Wicked my seat was the very last seat in the very last row). There are so many ways to get less expensive tickets, TKTS, BroadwayBox, TodayTix, lottery (although I know that's far less predictable if you have your heart set on a certain show), rush (I'm aware that's more difficult to do for a family coming in from out of town). I'm aware of all the obstacles for those coming from out of NYC, as they also have to think about where to stay, food,, etc. in addition to ticket prices. So my question is this...actors need to be paid. They need to pay for food, their home, their family, medical, heat, and things that are necessary to live. So for all those saying "just lower the ticket prices!" how do you suggest doing that so everyone working on the show gets paid? I know ticket sales aren't the only thing that helps bring in money for a show. I'm aware of that. I'm aware of other factors. I'm just asking-what do you suggest so that it's fair? The cost of everything goes up. My intention is not to be arrogant, or anything of that sort. I'm genuinely curious as to what people think is a fair solution that works for EVERYONE. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 9:54am

Well, it would be nice if we had government subsidies for the theatre like they do in London, but I'm not sure if that could apply to commercial theatre. Still, it would help something at least. Otherwise, I really couldn't say. Obviously, some costs can be cut here and there, but that's not substantial or sustainable enough. Some specific shows could benefit from the producers being less greedy. Dynamic and premium pricing has led to a lot of ridiculous price-gouging, but that's capitalism for you. And anyway, even if some of kind of price-cap were to be put on tickets, that would only effect a small number of mega-hit shows, and not the average Broadway show struggling to recoup.

I'd be curious to hear other people respond with realistic suggestions for how to lower commercial ticket prices in a sustainable way. It's a tough situation, because as you said, the employees deserve a living wage. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 12:24pm

So my question is this...actors need to be paid.

Not a question.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 1:37pm

JBroadway said: "Well, it would be nice if we had government subsidies for the theatre like they do in London, but I'm not sure if that couldapply to commercial theatre. Still, it would help something at least. Otherwise, I really couldn't say. Obviously, some costs can be cut here and there, but that's not substantial or sustainable enough. Some specific shows could benefit from the producers being less greedy. Dynamic and premium pricing has led to a lot of ridiculous price-gouging, but that's capitalism for you. And anyway, even if some of kind of price-cap were to be put on tickets, that would only effect a small number of mega-hit shows, and not the average Broadway show struggling to recoup.

I'd be curious to hear other people respond with realistic suggestions for how to lower commercial ticket prices in a sustainable way. It's a tough situation, because as you said, the employees deserve a living wage."

****NEEED a livable wage. Not deserve. The people who work on shows and who are in those buildings need to be paid a livable wage. I think that comes before any thought of lower ticket prices.

[Thelosertakesitall1997]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 1:46pm

Updated On: 1/19/21 at 01:46 PM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 1:51pm

Yes, they NEED a living wage, absolutely. Thank you for the correction!

[Wick3]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 4:00pm

From what I recall for actor's equity Broadway weekly minimum is $2168. That equates to over $110k/year. This is the minimum so I'd presume lead roles would be more significant. For a minimum salary in the 6 digits I would think that's a living wage.

As far as lowering ticket prices, I highly doubt the producers will decrease ticket prices to rush ticket levels (though we did see a sale on Rudin's productions last March for $50/seats) but I also doubt Hamilton will sell out a theatre charging $269 regular seats and $849 premium seats like it did before covid.

It'll be someplace in the middle. I have a feeling ticket prices may be similar to 4-5 years ago and if those do not sell, then there will be more discount codes floating around and hopefully there will be TKTS for last minute 50% off tix.

[ElphabaGoodman]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 4:09pm

Wick3 said: "From what I recall for actor's equity Broadway weekly minimum is $2168. That equates toover $110k/year. This is the minimum so I'd presume lead roles would be more significant. For a minimum salary in the 6 digits I would think that's a living wage.

As far as lowering ticket prices, I highly doubt the producers willdecrease ticket prices to rush ticket levels (though we did see a sale on Rudin's productions last March for $50/seats) but I also doubt Hamilton will sell out a theatre charging $269 regular seats and $849 premium seats like it did before covid.

It'll be someplace in the middle. I have a feeling ticket prices may be similar to 4-5 years ago and if those do not sell, then there will be more discount codes floating around and hopefully there will be TKTS for last minute 50% off tix."

after taxes, Equity dues, agent/manager commissions, the minimum ends up being closer to $1300 a week. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 4:11pm

Wick3 said: "From what I recall for actor's equity Broadway weekly minimum is $2168. That equates toover $110k/year. This is the minimum so I'd presume lead roles would be more significant. For a minimum salary in the 6 digits I would think that's a living wage."

 

Yes, but this doesn't account for the many weeks out of the year that an actor is likely to spend out of work, statistically speaking. Also, different actors will have different living wages. For a young person like me, I would be living the life of luxury on Broadway minimum salary. But that might not be the case for people with children, mortgage, car payments, etc. (EDIT: all of this in addition to the point ElphabaGoodman brings up above)

In any case, I don't think the OP was necessarily saying that current Broadway minimum isn't a living wage. It's a question of how to reduce costs for a production without having to reduce payment for artists. 

And I agree that prices will naturally drop post-COVID, maybe significantly. But it seems to me that this isn't solving the problem of inflated ticket prices in a sustainable way. Also, 5 years ago, the average commercial Broadway ticket was already priced high enough to be a luxury item. 

Updated On: 1/18/21 at 04:11 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 4:17pm

From what I recall for actor's equity Broadway weekly minimum is $2168. That equates to over $110k/year. This is the minimum so I'd presume lead roles would be more significant. For a minimum salary in the 6 digits I would think that's a living wage.

If taxes didn't exist, sure. Your take home pay would be about 70k after federal, state, and NYC taxes are taken out. Which in NYC isn't a lot of money. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 5:34pm

I’d like to know how much revenue is going to lining the producers and investors pockets. Especially for the longer running hits. I’m sure all 3 million dollars Hamilton makes a week isn’t going to the cast/crew/orchestra. It’s going to Jeffry Sellers children’s trust fund.
I don’t think anybody is suggesting the cast gets paid less, but that producers and investors take more of the financial hit. Wicked and The Lion King can both make premium tickets and seats half the cost and they would still be making an exorbitant amount of money.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 5:42pm

Call_me_jorge said: "I’d like to know how much revenue is going to lining the producers and investors pockets. Especially for the longer running hits. I’m sure all 3 million dollars Hamilton makes a week isn’t going to the cast/crew/orchestra. It’s going to Jeffry Sellers children’s trust fund.
I don’t think anybody is suggesting the cast gets paid less, but that producers and investors take more of the financial hit. Wicked and The Lion King can both make premium tickets and seats half the cost and they would still be making an exorbitant amount of money."

Producers and investors only get money in weeks that there is a profit. So yes on Hamilton they had been doing quite well. But on shows that don't get to profit, the producers make very little money and the investors none. The cast and musicians get their salary regardless of how much money is/isn't being made. In the case of Hamilton, they also share in 1% of the profit.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 5:57pm

Only the original cast of Hamilton share the 1% profit deal and that wasn’t even given to them from get go, that had to be fought for. Also I wasn’t insinuating that all producers and investors are making Hamilton money, I understand it’s a rare event for shows to be that successful. That is why I only mentioned the three shows I did. 
I think the juggernaut hits are overpricing how much their worth and in return it makes newer and smaller shows harder to sell. 

Updated On: 1/18/21 at 05:57 PM

[Wick3]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 6:43pm

Sutton Ross said: "From what I recall for actor's equity Broadway weekly minimum is $2168. That equates to over $110k/year. This is the minimum so I'd presume lead roles would be more significant. For a minimum salary in the 6 digits I would think that's a living wage.

If taxes didn't exist, sure. Your take home pay would be about 70k after federal, state, and NYC taxes are taken out. Which in NYC isn't a lot of money."

I live and work here in NYC and certainly do not make over $100k/year and somehow still able to survive. I agree it's not a lot of money but my point is it's still a livable wage even in NYC. If that salary is less than $30k/year though then that's another story. JBroadway made a good point though that the likelihood of a Broadway actor having work all year is unlikely and I didn't think about that. I forgot that not everyone works for Hamilton/Wicked/Lion King. I'm cool with the minimum salary actor's equity negotiated.

But to the OP's post, I think we might see more 'bundles' presented to investors. I recall for Hello Dolly a few years ago, Rudin presented it as a bundle to investors (bundled with plays Glass Menagerie and A Doll's House pt 2) so even though Hello Dolly was a major hit, investors only made a profit of 5% due to the losses of the other 2 plays that season.  

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 6:52pm

I agree it's not a lot of money but my point is it's still a livable wage even in NYC.

I understand but you not including taxes was strange. 70k is middle class in NYC and yes the point about not working 12 months out of the year was a good one. The ensemble member on Broadway has a roommate. Or two. Surviving and living are two different things. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 7:06pm

Sutton Ross said: "Surviving and living are two different things."

 

True, and I think that's where my earlier word choice of the pay theatre-workers "deserve" becomes relevant again. They NEED to live, but they DESERVE to be able invest in their future; a home, a family, and just being financial stable in general. 

 

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 1/18/21 at 8:08pm

I’d agree with this. I was never on Broadway but by survival gig put me in the 60-70k range, and I still have roommates. And it was tough to save anything because it’s just an expensive city. And being a tipped employee most of what I’ve saved would go
To paying taxes.

The ones surviving and doing well are probably partnered and therefore can split the rent.

I remember seeing a Tony Award nominee getting on the train with me at my stop. And I’m like damn. Even when I’m at the top of my game, I still can’t afford to leave this neighborhood.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 1/19/21 at 9:40am

Just have to say--I think it's clear that I know nothing about the business side of Broadway. So reading your answers is also very informative! Thank you*!

 

 

 

*No sarcasm. It's really interesting to know about this because I never really thought about it before. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/19/21 at 10:39am

The idea that an actor's salary should account for representation fees is something that should be done in negotiations if it such a hardship. How is that, or the average ticket buyer's, responsibility? 100K is a livable wage. There are commutable boroughs, cities and towns they can move to if they otherwise can't afford Manhattan.

Also, the fact that an actor may only work a few months out of the year is irrelevant. There are millions of temporary jobs in this country. They are, in general, paid at the market rate. How is it the employer's responsibility to guaranty a high enough salary to cover the periods of unemployment? If an actor wants job security he or she is in the wrong industry.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/19/21 at 11:06am

I don't suppose it's possible for someone to have a passion and a talent for performing...while also not wanting to live in constant fear of poverty? Sure, that's the way it is, and the way it's been for a long time. But it's not unreasonable to aspire for better. Mentalities like that are how we end up perpetuating systems built on exploitation. Not that Broadway actors are exploited, necessarily, but many actors in this industry are, and it's often shrugged off as "that's show-biz!" rather than actually dealing with the problem. 

Your other points make sense, but again, there seems to be some confusion about the premise of this conversation: no one is saying Broadway actors are underpaid. We're just saying their pay should not be lowered.

You raise a decent point about other sources of income, and that not being the producers' responsibility. That may be true. But again, if we bring this back to the original question: you say it's not the average ticket-buyer's responsibility to cover an actor's period of unemployment. Sure. But is it better for that money to go to a wealthy investor? If we're looking for ways to lower ticket-prices, that burden should be on the producers and investors, not the lower-salaried workers. 

[Wick3]

Posted: 1/19/21 at 11:51am

I think the hope is for investors of long-running hits Phantom, Wicked, Lion King, and Hamilton to reinvest the surplus of money on new Broadway musicals. 

Hamilton earned $3 million a week for 3-4 years. If it costs on average $10-15 million to produce a new musical, then the crazy amount of money Hamilton made during those years could probably produce the entire Broadway season for the next few years. *I know this is an extreme example but I think you understand my point.

 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/21/21 at 6:13pm

If and when Broadway reopens look for much higher prices even with widespread unemployment,a scarcity of restaurants and a reduced audience due to unemployment and high prices. If any kind of social distancing is still with us in some form prices will rise due to reduced seating capacity . Add to the restaurant issue the crime now in Times Square and the subway makes people leery of using it

It will be a,tough climb for it to survive but I wish all concerned good luck.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 1/23/21 at 8:04pm

Bring back 2fers - 2 for the price of one in the beginning and some sort of marketing strategy to lure people back to BWAY as it will be tough the first couple of months do I dare say a year? Balcony seats $20.21

Updated On: 1/23/21 at 08:04 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/23/21 at 9:20pm

Robbie2 said: "Bring back 2fers - 2 for the price of one in the beginning and some sort of marketing strategy to lure people back to BWAY as it will be tough the first couple of months do I dare say a year? Balcony seats $20.21"

Half price tickets? Sure. Two-fers? No way. They are the least efficient way of selling tickets on earth. They are also the most expensive. Labor intensive at both ends, data poor, and on and on. That ship, my friend, sailed decades ago.

People will be lured back by shows they want to see. Not many shows at first, because supply will need to stay limited so the demand creates sustainable price points. No one is going to intentionally open a show for which they have to give away tickets although (assuming there are shows in houses with balconies) a deep discount up there is certainly possible. But that's not going to solve any producer's problem. 

We will get there. We will get there in 2021. 2021 will not look like the Broadway you remember from 2019.  Patience.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 10:24am

Interesting article in today's New York Times about how many companies are pushing "premiumization."  Gift link.

Is the Entire Economy Gentrifying?

Companies are trying to maintain fat profits as the economy changes, making “premiumization” their new favorite buzzword.