Economic Depression will kill new shows this fall

[massofmen]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:01pm

I think because there is very little disposable income in this new recession the new shows coming in this fall are going to have a very very rough time surviving to the tony's.
BIlly Elliot, Shrek, TOTC, are all big musicals with huge Capitalization costs. Word on the street is that Shrek is upwards of a 30 million dollar musical. Wicked was 14 and it took a year and a half to recoup selling every night.
The fall and winter will be a scary time on broadway for new shows and running ones now.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:06pm

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:12pm

I agree about the health of Broadway for at least a year, maybe (shudder) longer. Looking at it from a historical perspective, however, even in the depths of the Depression (say 1931-1934), some worthy shows did make it and made it big time: say, Girl Crazy; Mourning Becomes Electra; Anything Goes; Of Thee I Sing; The Children's Hour; Ah, Wilderness!; As Thousands Cheer; Face the Music; Gay Divorce; etc., etc. Granted, some of these and others that had a run may not have been of eternally great value, but the point I'm making is that there always seems to be some room for great theatre on Broadway. I'm naive enough to believe that if there's something out there that's truly worthy, somehow, some way, it's going to make its way through the cracks and against all odds. We may not get as much as we want, but there will be something.

[BrianS]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:17pm

maybe a more accurate title would be "Economic Depression will kill mediocre to bad new shows this fall."

Great shows always survive. And before anyone jumps on me for making it sound obvious, my point is that for the last few years, things have been so good that even mediocre material that was in NO WAY ready for Broadway was making it to Broadway.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:27pm

I'm not sure if you can equate this era to the Great Depression of the 1930's. The relative cost of launching a show was less then and so was the relative cost of tickets. I remember reading an account of a woman who recalled her mother never buying an ironing board when she was young because whenever she had enough money to buy one, she would instead spend the money for tickets for her and her daughter to see a Broadway show. (I think I recall that correctly, I read it in a film festival programme once.) The point of the piece is that the relative prices are a lot different.

[jrb]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:35pm

I was just having a conversation about this subject with some friends of mine.
It was pointed out that in times of depression there is often an increased need for escapism and art. True, this is somewhat obvious, but I had assumed that this fact would be outweighed by the tightening of America's belt.
I think, if nothing else, this will change the way in which things are produced and selected. It may only be temporary and I'm not saying that it will be for the best but I am interested to see what will happen as a result.
One can only imagine that as the economy continues to cascade, parents will be thinking twice before dropping $100+ for b-ways hot tickets. The teen fuel behind the bigger names could be greatly affected.
Do you guys think this will help smaller, lesser-known pieces or are we looking at more of the same?

[Boq101]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:46pm

What's different from the show that survived the depression and the shows now is that back then seeing a musical wasn't a big thing, it was as natural to a New Yorker as visiting Central Park or seeing a movie. Nowadays it costs a hell of a lot more to see a broadway show, it's not at the same place it used to be.

Back then the dilemma was: See a show or eat a big dinner?
Now it's more like: See a show or buy myself groceries for a week.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:46pm

Being a child of the Depression whose parents were hard hit by the economic realities of the period, I have some first-hand knowledge of what it was like. During that period, people who did have jobs considered themselves lucky if they made $25.00 a week. The very top price for a theatre ticket was under $5.00 in those days. So, if you went to one show a month, that meant that you were spending 5% of your income on one show. Based on today's figures and my salary, if I bought one ticket a month at a top dollar of $120.00, it comes out that I'm spending 1.6% of my income on one show -- and I'm working the same kind of job that my parents did. The biggest difference, I believe, is not in the relative prices of the tickets, per se, but the fact that very good seats could be had for much less than $5.00 -- sometimes under $1.00 (if you had the legs and energy to get up there). I do deplore the fact that there no longer seems to be a graduated system of ticket pricing whereby the better the seat, the higher the price. As long as you were willing to sit in the rear orchestra, front mezzanine, etc. It cuts out the middle man.

[Pocketsquared Fanadu]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 1:56pm

Plus, the internet is free, youtube is ubiquitous, cable is cheap, and none of these alternative distractions was available during the last depression.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 2:20pm

They had better talent back in the day.

And people minded their manners inside the theater back in the day.

And they had better pre- and post-show restaurants and clubs.

And not everything was based on a movie.

And going to Broadway was exciting and people dressed up.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 2:27pm

and yet tickets prices still go up!?!?! Doesn't make sense.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 5:13pm

"none of these alternative distractions was available during the last depression."

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The current economic situation is nothing even remotely similar to the Great Depression or even 2000-2001. Unemployment is 5.7%, in 1982 it was 10.8%. A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We have had ZERO. I'm not saying we won't, and I'm sure the current environment is tough for many people. However, the current economic downturn isn't even a recession, let alone a depression. Previous downturns have been MUCH worse than this one.

Not to mention, this downturn is seeded in the midwest, not in New York. House prices/rents have not fallen in the NY metro area (while they've fallen 20% elsewhere), and fuel costs don't hit New Yorkers nearly as hard as rural people. I understand not all theatergoers are New Yorkers, but a good portion are.

This isn't going to be as bad as the doomsday people will tell you it is. Financial markets are screwed and in unprecedented territory. But from a national economic perspective? I think people NEED a little more perspective.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 5:23pm

"This isn't going to be as bad as the doomsday people will tell you it is."

No but people are still going to try to pass their crappy shows off on a bad economy.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 5:57pm

I hate to be the prophet of doom here, but the problem is not this year, it is late 2009 and 2010. The full burden of the housing bust, the weak dollar and inflation has not hit the US economy yet. When it does, and when it lasts not for a few months but for years, it will have an effect on Broadway. It is very likely that shows will be down-sized with more emphasis on content and less on wrapping, and that ticket costs will be moderated (or discounts made deeper and more readily available). One of the toughest losses will be the loss of tourists, domestic and especially foreign. Ever heard the phrase "when the US sneezes, Europe catches a cold."? The EU is going to have pneumonia by 4Q08.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 7:51pm

Maybe the flat out greed on broadway may have something to do with it.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 8:25pm

Word on the street is that Shrek is upwards of a 30 million dollar musical.

I've read a few articles recently that have mentioned that Shrek's capitalization costs are less than Young Frankenstein's and that show was capitalized around 20 million.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/19/08 at 11:03pm

"and yet tickets prices still go up!?!?! Doesn't make sense."

Of course it does. If one can judge by the line at the Met Opera yesterday, the people who can afford to and want to will still see shows--and for the most part that's 90% of all audiences.

There will be a culling effect, of course. Producers will be far less inclined to poor money into probable busts like "Lestat" and "Tarzan"--shows that were riddled with problems from the moment of conception.

Inferior shows will close quicker but potential blockbusters liKe "Billy Elliot' and
"West Side Story" on the horizon will counterbalance losses taken by ill-conceived shows.

Perhaps the most-important indicator that Broadway will continue to thrive is that producers are still having a hard time booking theaters.

The end result is that brilliant theater like Michael Grandages "Don Carlos" will not have to be abandoned because all houses are occupied, many by second-rate productions.

The theater industry is quite similar to the airline industry in this respect: both have customers that need their products and in tough times poorly managed companies
flounder while quality products flourish.

Not to worry, barring a depression or a suitcase nuke going off at the Belasco, Broadway will do very well for the foreseable future,

[StageFan2]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 9:55am

I don't know how much damage our current slowed economy will have on Broadway as a whole. I agree it will have a negative impact on some new shows which in a thriving - or at least stable economy, would do well otherwise. I think people will pick and choose more carefully what they'll see on Braodway, which IMO means proven hits. I look for Jersey Boys, Momma Mia, Wicked, and Disney to continue their box office domination while new shows struggle.

Even some new shows which are forcasting success, like Billy Elliot, Shreck - etc, maybe initially post great numbers, but bad word of mouth and/or bad reviews could prove disastress. That's not to say that the economy will "kill" new shows - I don't think it will help them as in past years when tourists and New York Theatre-goers had more disposable income.

As for high ticket prices, people pay them. Look at the the average ticket price for Jersey Boys - I believe it was upwards of $120. So, the market is there, and as long as the market is there - greed or whatever label one wants to use - will be there as well.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:13am

"It is very likely that shows will be down-sized with more emphasis on content and less on wrapping, and that ticket costs will be moderated (or discounts made deeper and more readily available)."

I think the discounts will appear before any full prices decrease. There will always be people willing to pay full price, and they don't want to lose out on that.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:21am

"Not to mention, this downturn is seeded in the midwest, not in New York."

Ummm, NYers don't support live theatre entirely, I believe the majority is visitors. So if the midwest is broke, they ain't coming to The Big Apple. Also, hotel prices in NYC are OBSCENE from even a year ago. If you can afford shows, you can't foot the hotel bill. That's what will kill the entertainment industry. It is the airlines and hotels that are jacking up prices to make up for debt, so less people overall are traveling and those that do are paying the price.

And in my opinion, good shows don't survive. The shows that survive are the overblown movie knockoffs because people think those are the guaranteed good time. Artfully composed shows like Grey Gardens,A Catered Affair are just a few small, beautiful things that get lumbered by high ticket prices and lack of name recognition.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:27am

I do wonder if this is the right economy for two Mamet revivals running concurrently.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 6:56pm

Of course it does. If one can judge by the line at the Met Opera yesterday, the people who can afford to and want to will still see shows--and for the most part that's 90% of all audiences.

Please don't remind me, I've been working the lobby since last Monday (the day of the six hour long line for exchanges)... it's been insane. Not so bad today and yesterday, but still a bit nutty. You are quite right though, the fact that there are that many people willing to wait that long for tickets at those prices, shows that there is still a market for entertainment at this price point.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 8:30pm

Frog_Fan 85:

You are my hero (or heroine).

As tough as it was to hang on THE LINE, it must have been diabolical to be cordial to people, quite a few of who, were agitated, to put their behavior in the best light.

At one point, at about hour three on the line, I think I had an out-of-body experience. I could see myself looking down at the line. My wife warned me it could happen and said, "Just don't walk to the light".

I do remember thinking, however, that it was reassuring to know Springstein or U2 weren't the only artist who could elicit such a response from the public.

God is in his heaven. Allis well. Broadway will not only endure but flourish.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 9:32pm

You can stick with "hero". I'm the guy in my avatar who isn't Stew. I had my last day of lobby duty today, so now I shall return to my desk... at least until the season actually starts.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 11:23pm

I saw the brochure for The Damnation of Faust. The scenic design appeared to be stunning. Do you know anything about it or Mary Zimmerman's production?