IF YOU THINK PRICES ARE TOO HIGH DON"T BUY TICKETS- Page 3

[jakebloke]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 1:57pm

"It's just as crazy as seats on an airplane. I've paid as low as $125 round trip on a flight with the person next to me paying $900 for the same flight."

Yes, but 2 completely different things IMO. In theater, you're paying for entertainment where the view can be very important to your enjoyment. The last row in the theater should not be priced the same as prime seats....and 2 seats in that last row with the exact same view shouldn't be priced with an $85 dollar difference.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 2:14pm

JakeBloke,

I sympathize with what you're saying, but I think we also have to consider it the other way.

The producers would likely prefer to simply charge the same price for the entire mezzanine or balcony (whether they could sell it or not is another matter but that would surely be their preference). Instead, they typically, and somewhat arbitrarily pick a number of seats (2 rows, 3 rows, 4 rows, what have you) that they can price lower to accommodate those who cannot afford the top price seats and without unduly compromising the show's economics.

Unfortunately, most theatres don't have a natural "break" in seating in those last few rows so you do have a situation where someone sitting literally one row behind may have paid significantly less. But the alternative can't realistically be that all of the seats in that section be priced at the lower price because that would too adversely affect the show's economics and would never happen. So even if it sometimes sets up this somewhat unfair situation between audience members sitting in adjacent rows at vastly different ticket prices, I'd rather that than losing the availability of a lower price altogether.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 2:39pm

"It's just as crazy as seats on an airplane. I've paid as low as $125 round trip on a flight with the person next to me paying $900 for the same flight."

"Yes, but 2 completely different things IMO."

You've missed my point entirely which was the incongruity of sitting right next to a person who paid a drastically different price than you did.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 11:11am

I'll say it again.... and with CAPS this time....

BROADWAY IS NOT A RIGHT. IT IS A LUXURY, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO SPEND THE MONEY AND/OR CAN AFFORD IT. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A SPORTING EVENT OR CONCERT. ENTERTAINMENT IS NEVER A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT.

BROADWAY, ESPECIALLY, IS A BUSINESS THESE DAYS; NOT AN ART. DENY IT ALL YOU WANT BUT THE PRODUCERS ARE, IN NO WAY, OBLIGATED TO MAKE ANYTHING "AFFORDABLE"

You really can't cut back on the number of shows you see and just buy the $40 to $50 seats???

If you NEED it so badly, you'll take on an extra shift at work or you'll sell personal valuables for some cash. You act like it is IMPOSSIBLE to afford the cheapest seats - this is completely false. Act like an adult; make some sacrifices, and make it work, or let it go.

G'Damn. Your self entitlement is sickening. Get a second job or something.

[Mark_E]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 12:04pm

I agree with what has been said that if you want to see theatre, there IS a way to do it even with the way ticket prices are going. Im a student at the moment and am cutting down on alot of things which lets me use my money for the theatre.

Eat Cheap
Don't buy that beer
Don't buy that new t-shirt etc

If it is so important to you that you need it, you would find a way, trust me.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 1:06pm

I'm sorry. I tried reading the rest of this thread, but only got halfway through because my brain was overloading on the sheer stupidity of the initial post and those who agreed with it. Do you REALLY not see the problem with higher ticket prices? It's not about the ALREADY established theatre-goers and fans who obsess enough about theatre to post on boards like this. The problem with ticket prices is getting the GENERAL public interested in theatre. With higher ticket prices, it because an exclusive club that only pre-existing fans with scrimp, sacrifice and save for. Hell, (as I said in the other thread on the same subject), I went to NYU Tisch as a THEATRE student, and it's hard to convince these people to even pay student prices to come into the theares. So that's nice that some of you pre-existing theatre fans are content with prices being affordable for YOU, but to me, there's a whole world of people out there who I think could enjoy and love theatre and make it a part of THEIR lives as well, if only the medium was affordable for them to take a risk on.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 1:41pm

BroadwayGirl,

A few questions/observations:

1) OK, how would you do that and still have Broadway be a viable commercial enterprise? That is, if you still deem the $50 seats that can usually be found somewhere in the theatre for most shows too expensive to encourage new people to come to theatre, how exactly would you make that financially feasible? In sentiment, I'm all for what you suggest -- bringing new people to theatre -- but financially speaking, it's a pipe dream.

2) There is PLENTY of theatre to see in New York that is much more affordable. You are suggesting that in order to get people interested in theatre, we should be giving them the opportunity to see what is perceived to be the highest level of theatre (I don't go so far as to say the "best") at a significant discount. I say, why? Sure, it would be a nice thing to do. But beyond that, why? Are you suggesting that there is no other theatre in New York besides Broadway that might turn the "general" public into avid theatregoers? I don't think that's true.

3) You write that "The problem with ticket prices is getting the GENERAL public interested in theatre." Is that true? Is everyone that sees a show on Broadway these days a die-hard fan? Broadway is a major tourist destination and I believe that recent stats indicate that at least 50% of the ticketbuying public is from out-of-town. So plenty of people are getting interested in theatre notwithstanding ticket prices. Would lower prices increase that figure? Perhaps. But if it did so at the expense of the viability of the shows themselves, what good would that do?

4) You write that "...to me, there's a whole world of people out there who I think could enjoy and love theatre and make it a part of THEIR lives as well, if only the medium was affordable for them to take a risk on." OK. But what luxury item is that NOT true of? I too would love for more people in the world to experience fine food, or tropical vacations, or any number of enriching experiences but do we yell and scream that it's unfair for those things to be as expensive as they are? Perhaps not because those things aren't as important to us as theatre, which we see as a necessity for ourselves rather than a luxury. But it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to Broadway theatre specifically -- not all theatre in general -- we ARE dealing in a luxury item. Having it be cheaper would be nice but it's nothing we have the right to demand or expect.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 1:53pm

"In sentiment, I'm all for what you suggest -- bringing new people to theatre -- but financially speaking, it's a pipe dream."

Please see my post in the other thread (again) about London. It's not a pipe dream...it's a reality there.

"You are suggesting that in order to get people interested in theatre, we should be giving them the opportunity to see what is perceived to be the highest level of theatre (I don't go so far as to say the "best") at a significant discount. I say, why?"

If I had a mere penny for every time I tried to convince non-theatre-goers to check out the latest thing at The Public, or Playwrights Horizons, or off-Broadway at Roundabout, or at the Mitzi Newhouse, I might have be able to afford a student rush ticket for RAGTIME!

"Is that true? Is everyone that sees a show on Broadway these days a die-hard fan?"
How many shows have closed in the last couple of months? Tourists flock to tourist SHOWs...the ones that have raked in the most Tonys, or have gotten (in Wicked's case) the most hyped-up word of mouth from other tourists. They're not exactly rushing to Ragtime...which could have had an audience if...

"But it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to Broadway theatre specifically -- not all theatre in general -- we ARE dealing in a luxury item. Having it be cheaper would be nice but it's nothing we have the right to demand or expect."
This is the fault, to me, in the American mentality towards theatre. I don't think it should be a luxury item at all. And I think--as London proved to me--the theatre scene ad the quality of work flourishes more when it's treated as something for the people, something they need, something they benefit from.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 2:20pm

Theatre has always been expensive. It is all relative. When I started attending shows in the early 70's Orchestra Seats were on the $20-$35 dollar range... pretty cheap right? Well consider how cheap when the average persons take home pay was $140 - $180 a week. Is the ration to average salary and theatre ticket prices really changed?
I was a student at the time and saw JCS standing room only and paid the whopping price of $6, I had to skip lunch for a couple days.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 2:25pm

It IS a pipe dream. A) because of the vastly different costs associated with mounting shows in the West End vs on Broadway as I noted in an earlier post; B) as I've attempted to explain repeatedly, the vast majority of the major productions that offer the affordable tickets you describe are subsidized companies.

I have a feeling we could continue to debate this back and forth endlessly. I will concede this as I did before: you have a very valid beef with the non-profits. Your argument is far, far weaker, however -- if not untenable -- when it comes to the commercial Broadway producers.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 2:37pm

"Do you REALLY not see the problem with higher ticket prices? "

EVERYTHING has gone up in price. It always does, but since the recession, it seems more drastic. The price of theater has ALWAYS been very high in comparison to the prices of other forms of cultural experiences.

So, with that in mind, think of the rise in price of things that you like and want to keep in your life. Take smokers, for example. No matter how high the price of cigarettes goes, they will pay it. (now don't go saying I'm comparing cigarettes to theater.) Please understand my point that "where there's a will, there's a way."

For those of you who must have theater or die - how about attending less expensive theater? How about going to off broadway, regional, and local theater?

How about continuing doing the lotto, rush, and student discounts? How about saving up some money?

[Mark_E]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 2:44pm

Boadwaygirl I don't think I agree with you on a number of things.

Think of the Young Vic and Royal Court as a kind of Off-Broadway. And the National/Donmar and RSC are government subsidised.

Sure, Wicked does tickets for £15. These seats are REALLY restricted views or at an incredible distance from the stage. They charge £25 for the day seats, Wicked charges $25 for the lottery. Wicked is also not getting the same buzz in London as it is in New York, It's easy to get tickets most of the time.

Alot of the cheap seats in London theatres are in the Gallery, the 4th level, which (I don't think) no Broadway theatre has, so they price these as the cheapest in the house.

On Broadway you can get really cheap tickets for practically all shows with the Lottery System. They have brought it over here with Legally Blonde, but they are charging £25($40), not $25, and that's for a lottery! Most shows charge the same for student tickets or day seats (Hairspray, Jersey Boys etc)

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 7:21pm

Mark_E...Wow, I guess I haven't been very clear. I'm very well aware of the government subsidized theatres in England, and I compared the Young Vic etc directly to New York's major not-for-profit off-Broadway theatres. What I am saying is our lack of federal funding for the theatre is PART of the ticket price PROBLEM. As I said in the other thread, the National Theatre receives almost twenty million pounds a year in gvoernment funding, the Royal Shakespeare company in the vicinity of 15 million and our Public Theatre (for example)...receives $40,000. Yes, I know this argument started out in regards to purely commercial theatre on Broadway, but I'm also saying the problem exists (if less severely) in our not-for-profit theatres as well...which are now acting like commercial theatres because they're just trying to balance their budgets.

But seeing the rest of your post about Jersey Boys and Legally Blonde made me realize there's not much I could say about larger commercial shows. I have very little interest in shows like the two you mentioned here, and didn't bother to see them while I was in London, so I don't know what their student prices were. I guess I'm more concerned about the quality of theatre that is offered at any given price in either city. In London, I could get tickets (in advance, over the phone or even online) at the major fringe theatres and The National (as well as the Globe--a commercial theatre with no government funding) for FREE, or for as little as five or ten pounds. It seems that in New York, I can get student rush at our major not-for-profits for as little as $15 up to $30 or more with harder-to-get student rush tickets or with a hit-or-miss lotto. For every one student ticket I buy in New York, I was able to get, two, three, four, five in London. I'd still be paying less than I would be to go to the cinema in New York for most single tickets there. Subsidized, not-for-profit, commercial, WHATEVER the situation, it saddens me that in New York, top-quality theatre is NOT so readily available at that cheap of a price.

"For those of you who must have theater or die - how about attending less expensive theater? How about going to off broadway, regional, and local theater?

How about continuing doing the lotto, rush, and student discounts? How about saving up some money? "
As I belabored above, even at that level, I could see more theatre, better theatre for less money than I would pay for off-Broadway shows in London. My thought is...if the Brits could figure that one out, why can't we make this happen in our country?

[Mark_E]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 7:26pm

I see what you mean now. The Freebie tickets is only a trial scheme in the UK, and I have been finding them hard to get. I got an email from the Donmar announcing their Discovery evening for Red and they had long gone by the time I tried to book my ticket.

The National is Great though. I have seen so many shows there for £5 this season including Habit of Art which I got a 2nd row stalls seat when it was sold out!

Posted: 1/17/10 at 7:50pm

My thought is...if the Brits could figure that one out, why can't we make this happen in our country?

Because all that extra funding comes from higher taxes paid in the UK. So, indirectly they do pay more for tickets and tourists benefit by getting the low prices also.

I'm not saying we shouldn't support the arts more in the US, just saying it's not as if the Brits have some brilliant idea we're not using. Which is not to say that they don't do some(many?) things better than us, it's just that, as with health care, Europeans are willing to pay higher taxes in order to get services for "free" or at reduced cost. Unfortunately, I don't see that flying with John Q. Public in the USA. Updated On: 1/17/10 at 07:50 PM

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 9:39pm

BroadwayGirl, please shut up. I beg of you...stop.

You have done the BEST job at pretending to know what you're talking about. Sometimes I wonder if you actually do know.... and then you end your posts with some moronic justification that sounds so f*cking childish.

The fact that you think it would be easy (or even feasible) for the U.S. to set up a comparable system, to that of U.K., just so you or I could buy cheaper tickets to a Broadway show is absolutely retarded.

I have never read such stupidity in my life. I doubt you even realize how it all works. It would never work in an economy like our's. Besides, you've COMPLETELY gone off the original track - this isn't about being like the Brits or national funding; it's completely irrelevant because it will NEVER happen!!!

The point is.... With our *current* setup, you must deal with the prices. Stop whining & b!tching. Just cut the bull and let's get down to the nitty gritty. If you can't pay, don't complain. Or give up a meal. Or sell a valuable. Or work overtime. Or get a second job.

G'Damn. You people are so lazy and think that you *deserve* lower ticket prices. You deserve nothing. The producers can do whatever the hell they want to do! End of story. Done and Done.

[DefyGravity777]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 10:37pm

"Clearly there are people who are able to fork over 120 bucks for a Broadway show, that is why they do it. "

Yes. However these are not the people that are going to fill theaters month after month. People paying $120 are most likely out of town people who see a show on Broadway MAYBE once a year. What about us people that live in NY, or around the NY area, or visit frequently? We're the people that are going to see the shows most and so it's important prices accomadate us, too.

I pay full price and I see shows maybe once a week or 2 weeks and live in PA which is fairly close to NYC.

As for the rest of this whole thread if I have the money I get full priced tickets. To get the better/full priced seats I will take the bus and not the train, I will stay in a hostel and not some fancy hotel, I will bring my own food and not eat out. It's all about saving money one place to be able to afford the more expensive seats. Now I don't get full priced tickets all the time, if I am short on cash or want to see a lot of shows I will sit in the last few rows of the mezz/balcony, do lotteries and SRO to save that way. Like random people on here said "where there's a will there's a way".

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 11:38pm

I agree with everything you've said EXCEPT....

"We're the people that are going to see the shows most and so it's important prices accomadate us, too."

Not their priority. Their goal is to make money, not appease to the regularly-attending audience members. Sorry.