@jorge, as I said, it is not the case. You can't trust everything you read here (or anywhere). First of all, the number of times stop clauses have been invoked can be counted on your fingers. Secondly, the stop clause is not invoked months in advance. Finally,I don't think the show has ever fallen into a range where it could be invoked in any event.
Can someone please explain Natasha Pierre's numbers to me? It's late... How are they making that much more than their gross potential? Are those premiums? They don't have standing room, right?
VintageSnarker said: "Can someone please explain Natasha Pierre's numbers to me? It's late... How are they making that much more than their gross potential? Are those premiums? They don't have standing room, right?
"
Anything above 100% gross is done through premium tickets. So, in reality, it is possible for a show to sell less than 100% of its tickets, but have higher than 100% gross, with premium tickets making up the difference.
premium tickets are included in the potential gross. When a show is sold out (e.g., Hamilton) the potential gross is generally calculated mechanically and straightforwardly. When it is not, the potential is a fluid number (e.g., a premium ticket price may or may not be lowered at some point and still remain unsold). But as I also said before, there can be and are errors in these numbers because no one really cares about them.
@Hogan, Respectfully, I would like to challenge that. Looking at Waitress specifically, their potential gross has never changed since theyve opened, though they have had weeks where they are completely sold out and above capacity and weeks where they are in the high 80s.
Grosses has always been explained to be as net of premium seats. Typically in offering documents, they include a note like "Potential gross is calculated based of a top ticket price of X on weekdays and Y on weekends and does not include premium seats.
@Green, re Waitress, there is no reason the potential would change in that situation. What I was saying is that the potential COULD change if seats that had been premium were reduced to the standard price due to soft demand. This is something some but by no means all producers do. This also assumes that the potential was properly adjusted which is not a foregone conclusion. The only number that gets audited is the actual gross. Re net of premium, that is simply not the case. (Looking at Hamilton should convince you of this.) Also, what appears in the offering papers is apples and oranges to these numbers. The offering is designed to be conservative, and not to make promises that may not be achieved. No show is going to promise to sell tickets at a premium, not even Hamilton.
HogansHero said: "@Green, re Waitress, there is no reason the potential would change in that situation. What I was saying is that the potential COULD change if seats that had been premium were reduced to the standard price due to soft demand. This is something some but by no means all producers do. This also assumes that the potential was properly adjusted which is not a foregone conclusion. The only number that gets audited is the actual gross. Re net of premium, that is simply not the case. (Looking at Hamilton should convince you of this.) Also, what appears in the offering papers is apples and oranges to these numbers. The offering is designed to be conservative, and not to make promises that may not be achieved. No show is going to promise to sell tickets at a premium, not even Hamilton.
If I did the math right, 16 of the show's listed in these grosses will be gone by the winter. Sad to think of. A lot of turnover this season on Broadway.
A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.
@ACL, what on earth are you talking about? Subtracting limited runs, and shows that have run their course after long runs, I see no show that is likely to close for a reason that one might be sad about. What are you seeing to the contrary? Turnover is not a bad thing; in fact many people think stagnation is a bad thing.
HogansHero said: "@ACL, what on earth are you talking about? Subtracting limited runs, and shows that have run their course after long runs, I see no show that is likely to close for a reason that one might be sad about. What are you seeing to the contrary? Turnover is not a bad thing; in fact many people think stagnation is a bad thing."