HADESTOWN recoups

Yay! Well deserved.

carolinaguy said: "Pretty quick recoup. The smaller cast and orchestra must give them a very manageable running cost. The show's had quite a long journey and it's great for all involved that it's paying off."

Also, since the Tony awards, it seems they have played the dynamic pricing model masterfully in that small theatre.

Good for them, hopefully it has continued success and a long run.

poisonivy2 said: "I think this includes the off Broadwsy and out of town runs"



I don't think that's accurate. I can't say with utter certainly, as I'm not expert on these things, but I have always been under the impression that these investment and recoupment figures pertain only to the show's Broadway production. Especially in this case, because Hadestown's off-Broadway and London runs were put on by non-profit theatre companies (not sure about the Edmonton theatre).

It would depend on how the companies were set up and how soon the commercial producers began putting in enhancement money. So it is possible that some of the costs of the earlier runs are reflected in this recoupment as well, though not an absolute certainty.

AEA AGMA SM said: "That's an overly simplified way to figure out running costs that doesn't take into account various non-fixed weekly expenses. Advertising, costs for promotional items for awards campaigns, weekly rehearsal expenses (understudies, replacements, rehearsal for promotional appearances, etc), or even just maintenance. Wardrobe, for one, is a pretty predictable weekly cost, but things like set and prop repairs, lighting maintenance, sound, etc can vary quite a bit week to week."



I see your point - but if I calculated the running cost based on the all-time gross, the investment, and the number of weeks, then the number I calculated DOES take into account those expenses, doesn't it? Because it's an average number across all of the weeks that it took them to recoup. Without those additional expenses that you mentioned, it would have taken fewer weeks for the show to recoup, so the calculated average would have been lower. It might not be an accurate representation of their fixed weekly expenses like rent and labor, but ultimately, shouldn't our estimations of running costs reflect those inconsistent expenses? The only expense you mentioned that might be considered an outlier are the awards campaigns, since those only happen once.

JBroadway said: "If my math is correct, the fact that they recouped their $11.5MM investment this week suggests that their running cost is about $845K a week. Part of that is an estimation of what this past week's gross was (we won't find out until tomorrow, since today is a holiday, but I guessed it was about $1.2MM as usual).

$845K seems kind of high for this show, though. Maybe I did the math wrong? Or maybe it's just more expensive than I would have thought.

EDIT: I guess whoever is in charge of releasing the grosses doesn't recognize Veterans day! Usually they wait until Tuesday to post the grosses when there's a holiday, but they came out today anyway! They grossed $1.4MM this week."

I don’t think your analysis is correct, but I can’t quite articulate what I believe is the case. After a show makes its weekly but, all that’s left over does not go to the investors. I remember reading many years ago, and the percent may no longer be accurate, that about 50% of the remaining gross is split, with about 1/2 going to return the investment and the other 50% going to the theatre owners, creatives, performers who have negotiated such in their contract, etc.

Again, that may no longer be an accurate percentage, but I think the premise is still correct.

PS—I didn’t actually like the show, but I am delighted that it has returned its investment so quickly. That is always good for incenting future investments.

Updated On: 11/11/19 at 04:51 PM