Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 7/3/16

[Rob]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:26pm

Click below to access all the grosses from all the shows for the week ending 7/3/2016 in BroadwayWorld.com's grosses section.

Also, you will find information on each show's historical grosses, cumulative grosses and other statistics on how each show stacked up this week and in the past.

Click Here to Visit the Broadway Grosses...

Up for the week by attendance was: THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT-TIME (11.4%), CHICAGO (7.5%), FINDING NEVERLAND (6.7%), PARAMOUR (6.6%), FUN HOME (6.4%), THE CRUCIBLE (5.6%), FULLY COMMITTED (4.9%), AN ACT OF GOD (4.1%), SOMETHING ROTTEN! (4.1%), SHE LOVES ME (3.9%), AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (3.8%), LES MISÉRABLES (1.7%), SHUFFLE ALONG, OR, THE MAKING OF THE MUSICAL SENSATION OF 1921 AND ALL THAT (0.8%), FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (0.2%),

Down for the week by attendance was: ON YOUR FEET! (-4.9%), BEAUTIFUL (-4.7%), THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (-3.6%), JERSEY BOYS (-3.1%), SCHOOL OF ROCK (-2.7%), THE COLOR PURPLE (-2.3%), KINKY BOOTS (-2.0%), MATILDA (-1.9%), WICKED (-1.9%), WAITRESS (-1.3%), ALADDIN (-0.8%), THE HUMANS (-0.3%),

Click Here to Visit the BroadwayWorld Grosses...

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:31pm

Not bad for a holiday weekend when people usually leave the city.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:43pm

I think the 4th landing on a Monday, rather than a Fri/Sat/Sun, really helped to boost sales more than usual. 

[bdn223]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:56pm

On a side note Book of Mormon continues its slow but steady downward slide. It still selling out but it looks like the premiums aren't selling like they used too. I wonder how long it will remain in the SRO club with The Lion King, Wicked, and Aladdin, before it transitions to the tkts long runners with Phantom, Chicago, and Jersey Boys.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:58pm

Seriously? It made $1.3 million last week. Not exactly a "slow but steady downward slide."

[10086sunset]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 3:59pm

Happy to see the slight bump for Curious Incident.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:20pm

neonlightsxo said: "Seriously? It made $1.3 million last week. Not exactly a "slow but steady downward slide.""

 

I know, right? They're still making well above their nut and doing just great. I didn't realize $1.3 million is cause for concern. How overdramatic. 

[bdn223]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:32pm

Updated On: 7/5/16 at 04:32 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:34pm

"I am saying the law of demolishing returns is finally hitting it"

 

That's not a thing, and what you're saying is incorrect.

Correlation does not imply causation, did you ever take a stats class?

Updated On: 7/5/16 at 04:34 PM

[vampire musical]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:34pm

bdn223 said: "Year over Year Book of Mormon is down 10 point in its Gross % of Potential from 113% to 103%. In the first two quarters of 2016 Book of Mormon's Gross % of Potential is below 100% at 98.8% which had only previously happened while it was in previews. This has likely been exacerbated by Hamilton, as Mormon did to Jersey Boys whose weekly Gross % of Potential dropped 7 points in after Book of Mormons first year on Broadway and another 7 points during its second year. Jersey Boys is being used as a comparison as they were both Male friendly ziegiest shows. I am not saying I expect Book of Mormon to be on TKTS within the next year, but I am saying the law of demolishing returns is finally hitting it. Now its up to the producers to figure out how to steady the fall.

 

"

Get Leslie Odom Jr. to join the show.  I hear he's free now

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:39pm

"How overdramatic."

I'm not sure that's what it is exactly. People hate being bored, and some shows reach the point of being boring. So they look for something trenchant to say. The same things happen with the stocks of companies that just trudge along happily profitable without the need for introducing the next big thing every year. Investors are delighted but pundits are frustrated. When shows start losing money, then they close. But no one in the real world thinks BOM investors are installing black crepe on their banisters.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:40pm

I'm not sure we should be referring to bdn223 as a "pundit."

[bdn223]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 4:49pm

Updated On: 7/5/16 at 04:49 PM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 5:12pm

I think HAMILTON has taken away the high demand for BOOK OF MORMON. Also, BOM has been running for 5 years now, so I doubt there's many people left paying $400+ a ticket. You can also get MORMON tickets easily these days and don't have to buy tickets 6 months or more in advance. It'll still be grossing $1 million+ this time next year.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 6:39pm

@bdn, your analyst skills seems as weak as your spelling skills (which are atrocious). Stats incidentally are tools, not analysis. Let me learn you something about analyzing theatre: when a show is a success, as BOM obviously is, there are two modes of moving forward once the zeitgeist as you call it ends. The first is called maintenance mode, and the second is called burnout mode. As an investor, you want the former. That's the sweet spot BOM has maneuvered into. That is a "decline" only to a number cruncher who lacks the sophistication to appreciate strategy. (There is no strategy in statistics.) 

Theatre productions are quite different from the typical corporate investment because that are ad-hoc rather than on-going as enterprises. They are also closed systems-no new money is sought or accepted, and investments are not commodities. The first thing that happens in a successful show is that the investor recoups his or her investment. From that point the ROI is in effect ∞ -- something that is meaningless to a statistician. Were we to try to compare the process to a conventional enterprise, we'd want to look at a company like Levi Strauss: it blazed onto the market and settled into maintenance mode where it has been happy for over a century and a half. Many jeans have come on the market in the interim, but except for the couple of competitors that have basically done what they do, we know laugh at the jeans we bought 10, 20 or more years ago. But Levi's investors don't want it to be Saint Laurent, a company that must endlessly reinvent itself. And neither do BOM investors. 

I hope this helps you understand why people are disparaging what you have said. 

[bdn223]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 7:19pm

Updated On: 7/5/16 at 07:19 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 7:23pm

BDN: EVERY SHOW is on a downward trend, if you're going to put it that way. Even Hamilton. And business has three S's not four.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 8:14pm

For a supposed "analyst," you have some of the most horrendous grammar and spelling I've ever seen. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/5/16 at 8:46pm

Liza's Headband said: "For a supposed "analyst," you have some of the most horrendous grammar and spelling I've ever seen. "

True, but s/he has some serious invisible ink.

[binau]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 3:20am

How nasty this thread has turned. 

[GreenGables]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 8:48am

HogansHero said: "@bdn, your analyst skills seems as weak as your spelling skills (which are atrocious). Stats incidentally are tools, not analysis. Let me learn you something about analyzing theatre: when a show is a success, as BOM obviously is, there are two modes of moving forward once the zeitgeist as you call it ends. The first is called maintenance mode, and the second is called burnout mode. As an investor, you want the former. That's the sweet spot BOM has maneuvered into. That is a "decline" only to a number cruncher who lacks the sophistication to appreciate strategy. (There is no strategy in statistics.) 

Theatre productions are quite different from the typical corporate investment because that are ad-hoc rather than on-going as enterprises. They are also closed systems-no new money is sought or accepted, and investments are not commodities. The first thing that happens in a successful show is that the investor recoups his or her investment. From that point the ROI is in effect ∞ -- something that is meaningless to a statistician. Were we to try to compare the process to a conventional enterprise, we'd want to look at a company like Levi Strauss: it blazed onto the market and settled into maintenance mode where it has been happy for over a century and a half. Many jeans have come on the market in the interim, but except for the couple of competitors that have basically done what they do, we know laugh at the jeans we bought 10, 20 or more years ago. But Levi's investors don't want it to be Saint Laurent, a company that must endlessly reinvent itself. And neither do BOM investors. 

I hope this helps you understand why people are disparaging what you have said. 

 

"

 

Alright, let's not get nasty here, ladies.  BDN is right in saying that BOM is in a downward trend.  Every single week, year to date, has reflected ~100k less gross than the same week the year before.  This is a trend that has been observed at least since 2013.  In fact, Year-on-Year (YoY), BOM is down an average of 100k/week every year.  It is obviously nowhere close to being in trouble, but BDN is right in saying that sales are slowing. 

Compare this to some of the other long running musicals - Wicked demonstrates nearly the same sales YoY, and the Lion King actually appears to be growing.  Jersey Boys and Kinky Boots are two others that are showing declines (albeit, more precipitously)

Hamilton, for the record, also does not have a downward trend, as it is going from $1.7m in January to $2.0m+ today.

Again, not saying BOM is in trouble - just trying to defend BDN's original claim (analyst or not).  BOM's annual ROI is in fact declining, but still wonderfully profitable and will continue to make money for investors for years

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 9:05am

I think we had a problem with how it was presented and framed, not what was presented. Your analysis at least removes the hysterics and over-exaggerations, and doesn't attempt to influence the analysis one way or another with subjective commentary.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 9:16am

Liza's Headband said: "I think we had a problem with how it was presented and framed, not what was presented. Your analysis at least removes the hysterics and over-exaggerations, and doesn't attempt to influence the analysis one way or another with subjective commentary."

 

Yup. I don't think anyone was being "nasty." Everything and everyone is a downward trend. We're all going to die someday. No cause for alarm. :)

Updated On: 7/6/16 at 09:16 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 9:19am

This is true, my friend. Whenever there is uncertainty or chaos, I like to take solace in the fact that one thing is guaranteed: death!  :) 

Updated On: 7/6/16 at 09:19 AM

[binau]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 9:25am

neonlightsxo said: "Liza's Headband said: "I think we had a problem with how it was presented and framed, not what was presented. Your analysis at least removes the hysterics and over-exaggerations, and doesn't attempt to influence the analysis one way or another with subjective commentary."

 

Yup. I don't think anyone was being "nasty." Everything and everyone is a downward trend. We're all going to die someday. No cause for alarm. :)

 

 


"

 

It's all kisses and rainbows isn't it :p? I think my favourite 'not nasty' quote so far is "your analyst skills seems as weak as your spelling skills (which are atrocious)", lol.