$132.50.........Stop the insanity- Page 2

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 1/15/10 at 11:19pm

Wah Wah Wahhh.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 1/15/10 at 11:38pm

Yes top prices are 132.50 or whatever, but just about 99% of the time, whether you are a student, senior, or just smart you can get tickets for $25-50 bucks, same seats. In NYC, it's TKTS, and discount codes and internet searches and general/student rushes/lotteries, etc. I've paid full price for shows like, 5 times out of the hundreds and hundreds of shows i've seen and that's because I was too impatient and wanted my tickets NOW before anyone else and to know I was sitting front row center or whatever. But if you're a theatre goer you know there are ways to NOT pay full price. That top price is for the irregular theatre goer and the people that are so excited to see the show they must have their tickets long in advance.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 8:27am

I have personally (meaning out of MY pocket, not a gift to me) only paid full price for a Broadway show once. It was to SOUTH PACIFIC. Every other time, I have used a discount, TKTS, TDF, rush, or lotto. I fully understand that it is a hard game that producers are playing nowadays. They have to charge as much as a spectacle like WICKED in order to make money even if the show is a hard sell. Sometimes, it pays off (NEXT TO NORMAL) and sometimes... not so much (THE NEIL SIMON PLAYS). The best anyone can hope for when your standard for ticket prices is so high is some good reviews, good word of mouth, or both.

My issue with the ticket prices and everyone's argument here is not about my dislike of having to pay that much because I'm not a hypocrite. I know I don't. The issue is that when the ticket prices are that high, they're harder to afford. Audiences then buy less of them and the producers need to turn to other means of getting their tickets out there: TDF, TKTS, and discounts. Then they're earning less money. Even if the advance gets better with the discounted tickets, you're still selling discounted tickets and you're earning less. You remove the discounts and sales suffer all over again.

I'm not saying ticket prices should go back to being $30, but lower like $100 for shows like LA CAGE that are tough sells or won't be as appealing to tourists. People like all of us who shop for discounts at any cost would obviously still be rewarded, but at least then we'd see better numbers for these shows.

[alterego]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 8:42am

For that price you should get a full orchestra (not a band) at least - after all it is a MUSICAL.

[musicalsFan]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 10:19am

Yes top prices are 132.50 or whatever, but just about 99% of the time, whether you are a student, senior, or just smart you can get tickets for $25-50 bucks, same seats. In NYC, it's TKTS, and discount codes and internet searches and general/student rushes/lotteries, etc.

Stephanie,

When you are out in the real world paying money for your own apartment, food, everything then come back and participate in this converstation.

No, you cannot get tickets for $25-50. Look at the discount codes. They are generally for orchestra, and they are $50+. Same thing with tickets at TKTS. I am most familiar with these, because they are the main ways I can see shows, since I am neither a student nor eligible for TDF.

Most rush is for students.

TDF isn't available for everyone. I wish I could join.


Updated On: 1/16/10 at 10:19 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 11:46am

The kicker is they will only go higher.

NY Hotels are the most expensive in the country. If ticket prices keep going up, many tourists will go elsewhere hurting everyone.

Many shows I have not seen & will not because I cannot get a discount. ALNM would be nice but not @ those prices for a High School talent show orchestra.

Updated On: 1/16/10 at 11:46 AM

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 12:13pm

Not to mention that student rush and other discount prices are going up too...I couldn't believe that White Christmas was charging $41.50 for college student rush.
Updated On: 1/16/10 at 12:13 PM

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 12:57pm

"musicalsfan"--I AM. I work a full time job, live in an apartment in Chicago, also audition, pay my public transportation card, insurance, and take care of a cat and boyfriend and NEVER ask my parents for money. So I'm perfectly welcome in this conversation. Don't make assumptions about people.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 1/16/10 at 1:06pm

let me add that I've been out of the parent's nest for about a year and a half, about half of that in Chicago (the first year in Orlando, Fl) and I've seen about 20 shows on my own, only paying full price once as an anniversary present to see the press opening night of Addam's Family. Other than that it's $10 here, $25 there...yes it's a large part of my small income gone but that's what I choose to spend my money on. I sacrifice in other spots.

[dented146]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 3:05am

Broadway is a bargain especially for the visitor to NYC. How many people come to the City from out of town and see two or three shows then go home and play golf every week. It costs $100 to play a round of golf at most good public courses. The same is true for all pro sporting events.

If you're a student then you're probably pretty strapped whether you're at NYU or Memphis St. At least in New York you have access.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 12:58pm

"Broadway is a bargain"? are you out of your mind? The ticket prices for Broadway and New York theater across the board--especially Broadway--are out of control..including student rush. It's very strange to me to think that it's "fine" that theaters are charging so much for the theatre. Sure, it may be fine with you--already established theatre fans, or working people who make enough money to afford theatre--but even $50+ that most theatre charge for their cheap seats is far too much to make any average young person or non-theatre goer want to take a risk on a medium they don't usually see...ESPECIALLY if they can see a movie fr almost a fifth of the price. I went to NYU for THEATER and it was damn near impossible to convince any of them to spend $25-$35 dollars they would have to spend on theatre tickets instead of movie tickets. And these are supposed to be our future theater actors!

Honestly, I spent four months living in London and saw FORTY shows, and the most ever paid for a ticket was 20 pounds (Full. Price.). That was a top price level ticket for a production at the Young Vic. Even IF the pound was worth twice as much as the dollar (which it was not...it was practically even with it while I was there), that works out to $40 for a full -price, top-notch ticket to the equivalent of a major off-broadway venue in this city. But what do our major off-Broadway venues charge? Often $50, $60 for non-subscribers. That's a HUGE difference.

But that was a rare situation indeed. I saw at least a dozen shows for FIVE pounds at places like The Globe, The National Theater. I saw Dame Judi Dench from the back of the orchestra for TEN POUNDS (the top ticket price for that west end prodction? Thirty pounds); I saw Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart in Waiting for Godot for 17 pounds; I saw EVERY Royal Shakespeare Company show for five pounds; I saw shows at The Royal Court and The Bush Theatre for FREE because countless top-notch theaters offered FREE tickets to people under 26. I'd say eighty percent of my tickets cost me no more than ten pounds, only ONCE did I break twenty, and often these prices were NOT discounts because I was a student, but simply ticket prices offered for MAJOR shows (and some of the best theater I've seen in my life).

I came back to New York and have been able to afford seeing next to NOTHING since. To me, even student tickets in this city seem unbelievable in comparison; often they go on sale, incidentally, when many students are in school; or so few are offered that they're hard to get your hands on. And what about people of all ages who aren't students? Do we really have no interest in making theater a financially feasible thing for THEM to see? I'm sorry, but the ticket pricing in this city is absurd, and I don't think it's a coincidence that London's theatre scene is significantly more lively and rich than ours AND they have the cheaper tickets...

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 1:15pm

BroadwayGirl,

Pretty much every specific example you cite comes from a government and/or corporate subsidized theatre company, essentially the equivalent of a non-profit here in NYC. So if your beef is with the Roundabout, Manhattan Theatre Club and Lincoln Center, you have a fair point. It's fair to say that a company which takes public money does have a mandate to make theatre accessible to as broad an audience as possible. And the NY Broadway non-profits do have programs that offer cheaper seats but they don't typically offer as good locations as London.

But I'd be curious to hear some examples of what you paid for tickets to anything in the West End and where you sat. That would be a more apples-to-apples comparison. I know you mentioned seeing Judi Dench from the back of the stalls, but was that in a commercial production or in one of the Donmar's productions at the Wyndham's?

Mind you, it still won't be a perfect comparison because physical production, advertising and labor costs are significantly lower in the UK vs. NY. But let's put that circumstance aside for now. I still suspect the comparable examples will be far fewer, if any.

[BroadwayGirl107]

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

Well, first of all...I think it is an apples to apples comparison. Like I said, I paid twenty pounds for a best-in-house price level seat at the Young Vic. No concession. EVEN if you doubled that, it's forty US Dollars (and the pound was NOT near even close to twice the dollar while I was there), and a lot fo not-for-profit theatres (LIKE I said), will charge upwards of $50 for their regular priced tickets.

But if that doesn't suit your fancy, I saw A Little Night Music (the production that is currently on broadway) ON the West End for 17 pounds. How much can I pay to see it on Broadway? $57.

But I'm not after a "perfect comparison." My point is...theatre is more accessible there AND it is better. Whereas we have $25 student "discount" tickets, that have 25-30 pound full price tickets. Or, even in larger shows, sixty pound full price tickets. Our "bad" seats almost cost that much (and I say all this factoring in the difference between the dollar and the pound when i was there). Not-for-profits have $15 tickets for student, their subsidized theatres have free tickets for people under 26, 5 pound tickets for those who aren't lucky enough to get them in time, and often a sizable amount of 10 pound tickets available for ANYONE to buy. And all of these things are significantly easier to get your hands on because they can be booked over the phone, online, or at the box office in advance.

Is it huge part of this problem government funding? Yes. While their National Theatre gets twenty million pounds a year, our Public Theatre gets $40,000. This, to me, is a problem. Its a pretty blatant reflection of the way their society values their theatre and the way ours does. They view it as something that is for the people; something the people are entitled to; something the people need and will benefit from. We view it as a luxury--an exclusive club for existing fans, a perk of living in New York and having enough money to afford theatre. But if theatre is not something that is accessible to everyone, the audiences are small, the shows are made to MAKE money rather than to entertain and enrich, and the result is a lifeless theatre scene that costs three times as much for its audience members than a flourishing one across the pond. And then what of our future audiences? How do you get people who DON'T follow theatre to spend $30, $40, $50 on "cheap" seats when in their minds Avatar in 3D will be way more worth it for less than half the price?
Updated On: 1/17/10 at 01:38 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 1:46pm

Also, out of curiosity, I went STRAIGHT to the ultimate commercial show in both towns to get a true perfect comparison. In London, the cheapest ticket for WICKED on the West End is 15 pounds. Wanna cheap seat on Brodway? Cough up $50.

Hmmm...

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 2:14pm

You almost won me over, until the end.

Firstly, the production of ALNM that you saw in the West End was a transfer of the production from the Menier Chocolate Factory so it's another non-profit example. Also, it was announced as a limited season in the West End -- something which is pretty unique to the economics of London theatre (a commercially-viable limited run of a transfer of a musical). Also, that's only one example of the 40 shows you mentioned you saw.

That said, though, the place where you really lose me is in your last paragraph.

While their National Theatre gets twenty million pounds a year, our Public Theatre gets $40,000. This, to me, is a problem. Its a pretty blatant reflection of the way their society values their theatre and the way ours does. They view it as something that is for the people; something the people are entitled to; something the people need and will benefit from. We view it as a luxury--an exclusive club for existing fans, a perk of living in New York and having enough money to afford theatre.

Do you honestly think THAT'S why there is a fraction of the government funds allocated for the arts in the US vs in the UK? Or conversely, do you think the love of theatre across the UK is first and foremost a function of ticket prices in the West End?

You acknowledge that there is a severe lack of government funding for the arts but your solution for that is to lower Broadway ticket prices to somehow fix that while simultaneously weakening the viability of the shows themselves???

If anything, your argument supports increased funding in arts education and increases in funding towards regional and local theatres so that people across the country begin to make theatre a more significant part of their lives. It supports non-profit arts centers and producing organizations in New York and across the country trying to create more programs like the National 10GBP program with the help of government, corporate or private sponsorship. All of those things will build future audiences.

But if the primary way that people make theatre a more important part of their lives is by specifically by seeing Broadway shows, then I guess you need to be lobbying the airlines and hotel industries to lower their prices too, no? After all, the vast majority of people in this country DON'T get to visit New York with any frequency, if at all. If you want to change the culture of the country as a whole as it relates to live theatre (which is what would likely need to happen to ultimately see any change in attitude by the Federal government), there are any number of better places to start than with lowering Broadway ticket prices because such a change would only affect of the tiniest fraction of the people whose attitudes you are seeking to change. Looking, however, to the commercial Broadway theatre industry -- a business first, whether you like it or not -- to lower its ticket prices and weaken its financial viability in so doing, as a means of influencing the national culture is at best naive and at worst, ass backwards.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 7:25pm

"You acknowledge that there is a severe lack of government funding for the arts but your solution for that is to lower Broadway ticket prices to somehow fix that while simultaneously weakening the viability of the shows themselves??? "

...I'm no sure where you're getting that from. I think that's twisting my perspective on the situation...which is just that I want to see top-notch theatre available at low prices in New York as well. If it can happen in London, I don't think it's a pipe dream for it to happen in New York. "Top-quality" is not limited to commercial theatre, and in fact, it rarely is.


You do bring up an interesting challenge in regards to federal funding. The clearest obstacle to having our government put $20 million dollars into any ONE theatre even if there WAS a great national interest in theatre is that many people will be 3000 miles to far to ever see those things. The UK is significantly smaller and putting $20 million in a London theatre geographically speaking is an easier thing to justify.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 8:53pm

Also keep in mind when I was in London the pound V dollar was double, in other words, 20 pounds was forty dollars etc etc.

So yes, if you paid forty pounds for a ticket in London, then I can understand how it would relate to being eighty dollars and that price being an acceptable to fund a full price production.

[dented146]

Posted: 1/17/10 at 8:56pm

My point is that compared to other forms of entertainment which succeed at being profitable, Broadway is not expensive. If you want everyone to be able to get seats for $40 or $50 then you either need government funding for everything or you are asking all the people who work in theatre to have much lower salaries.

People working in theatre do not make very much money even on Broadway which is the pinnacle. I believe that the talent on Broadway is best served when markets forces are in place.

I would love to see the government do more to support the arts. But that just isn't in the cards here in the US.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/18/10 at 4:29pm

Broadway has always been expensive because it is the best and it is live. In 1932, at the height of the depression, tickets to the revival of "Showboat" staring the original cast AND Paul Robeson were priced at 1.25 to 7.00. To a common man in New York in 1932, that was the equivalent of one day to one week's wages (or one week's rent) or 28 five-course meals at Horn and Hardart's automat (look that one up, they were COOL) for the price of a top seat. Considering a Big Mac Meal costs about 7.00 at McDonalds nowadays, 28 would by 196.00.

Things never change. The decimal point just hkeeps moving.

[wheety1621]

Posted: 1/18/10 at 4:50pm

I think what needs to be understood is people are now trying to save money!! Of course you'll always have the rich folk who can pay top dollar but majority will look for a deal and want the half price tickets at TKTS! Therefore, they have to put prices up because if they kept them low, the tickets that end up at TKTS, they arent getting alot! So if they put the prices $100 plus then the people who can pay it will and the ones who dont at least they'll get a min. of $50 which is what the need to keep it running! Thats if it's a show people want to see thou :-p

[Insider2]

Posted: 1/19/10 at 1:02pm

I'm sorry, but anyone who can sit here defending a ticket price of $132.50 in this economy is either a producer, an investor, sick in the head, or all three.

And by the way, the horrendous BYE BYE BIRDIE has a top price of $146.50 for "Prime Orchestra", whatever the hell that is, and $136.50 for just plain old regular orchestra.

"Stop the insanity" is putting it mildly.

[BrianS]

Posted: 1/19/10 at 2:45pm

Plenty of people can defend the price without being any of the three because unlike you, they understand the industry. Like EVERYTHING else for sale, no one forces you to pay anything. You CHOOSE if you feel the show is worth $130. There are plenty of things you may choose not to spend $130 on every day of your life. Ever had a $130 bar tab? Well, I'm sure others on here think that's an insane waste of money, but you chose to spend your money that way. Can you imagine saying "it is outrageous that skydiving cost $130! It totally isn't worth that price."? How is Broadway different than golf, or skydiving, or ANYTHING else?

Seriously, how do you a) not understand this? and b) insult the people who do?

[BrianS]

Posted: 1/19/10 at 2:49pm

and to the poster above comparing west end shows to NYC, most West End productions I've seen of musicals have nowhere near the depth of talent of their Broadway counterparts. And those 30 pound ticket prices are subsidized by a portion of a 50% tax on income compared to your tax rate which is at most 33%. Not to turn this into a discussion about taxation, but that money doesn't appear out of thin air and a lot of people who want nothing to do with the arts end up contributing to your lower ticket price.

[duffny1]

Posted: 1/19/10 at 3:27pm

I love reading this thread. Popcorn in hand. It is a train wreck...Loving it.