An Oversaturated Spring? Data and opinions...

Does there need to be some kind of centralised governance on the programming of Broadway and opening schedules for the greater good? Realise in practice it’ll be a nightmare and highly political.

Under saturated audience? How does he know how many people want to go to the theatre. The people interested in seeing Hells Kitchen is generally going to be a different audience than those interested in seeing The Who’s Tommy. I suspect for some of those people, it will be their first Broadway show. This is about finding your audience and selling your show to those who are interested. Not a zero sum game like people are making it out to be.

I don't think the problem is an oversaturated spring. Each new show needs to find their audience as it's always been, right? That's always been the rule on Broadway. However, I do see a few titles from the list of shows opening this spring that have the word 'flop' all over. But that's not related to the oversaturated season, I simply think they won't ever work no matter the season or the amount of competition.



I think the problem on Broadway are the costs, that deserves a deep and detailed discussion imo

My comment was in response to the guy from back to the future who said the market was over saturated and that it’s irresponsible.

binau said: "Does there need to be some kind of centralised governance on the programming of Broadway and opening schedules for the greater good? Realise in practice it’ll be a nightmare and highly political."

The landlords at various points over the years have tried to help the April glut of shows by having shows close by the first Sunday in January (not doable for every show). Let's say the earliest a new show can start is 6 weeks past that (give or take), which puts you at mid-February previews –– not the best time of year to build WOM. And then sometimes hands are tied by artist scheduling.

This year is no worse than past years but it still causes some of those late-April shows to get memory-holed by people (press, voters) seeing shows 4-6 nights a week.

We also must remember that the time of year wouldn't matter a bit for some shows: they would fail whether they opened in January or April or September. (Ohio, Grey House, Once Upon, Shark, etc). A really good show with a sustainable audience base will rise up from the crowd. Heart of Rock & Roll is going to be hurt even more by opening smack dab in the middle of some of the most hotly anticipated works of the spring *and* on the same night as Patriots. Spamalot's numbers have been pretty decent, and it helps that it's the only musical comedy in town with something of name value; it might sputter out by springtime, but for now it looks ok.

Updated On: 1/25/24 at 11:32 AM

General knowledge was that people wanted to open as close to the Tony cutoff as possible because it would give them the best chances at the Tony, but Adam Feldman mentions that in the past 20 years over half of the Best Musical winners did not open in the spring, so I wonder if it's just a paradigm shift that needs to happen? To be fair, if your show closes before January, I do think your chances at winning Tonys becomes a lot slimmer, so it's about playing the game to remain open until the Tonys, which would be harder it you open earlier, but then it also becomes about creating a show people want to see, marketing it to those people, and keeping finances under control so that you can still run through some leaner months (all of which, in my view as an outsider, you should be doing anyway).

I don't really think there should be an authority to oversee this, because I don't see it as an inherently bad thing, but it does seem to be good food for thought for producers.

Interesting article - I would also add that so many shows opening at once do make audiences have to pick and choose more, depending on the amount of spending money they have. With a whole bunch of shows opening at one time, even if I'd like to go and see the majority of them, with ticket prices as they are, it's impossible for me to financially attend all that I wish to in such a close time frame to each other.

If openings were more staggered throughout the year, my budget would definitely allow me to attend more without having to pick my top priorities (and therefore often missing shows before they close).

There's an upper limit to how many shows people can or will see in a short period. There's only so much "oxygen" to go around and with this many shows either all of them get a small amount or someone is left without. It may not be possible for multiple shows to get good box offices all at the same time, which also affects word of mouth and Tony-related "momentum". There just may not be enough "butts in seats" to sustain this many shows. The other and related possibility is some shows get "lost in the shuffle". From what I understand of "The Notebook" and "Like Water For Elephants", the plots are somewhat similar with similar themes. Will both be able to compete with each other? We will see. I just don't want to see shows which would be hits any season end up closing. There's no guarantee it will be the quality shows that survive.

I don't know if you're missing any, but these are always my go-to resources:

Broadway League Opening Night Calendar

Off-Broadway League Opening Night Calendar

Broadway Now & Next

pmensky said: "Upcoming openings. What am I missing?:

Days of Wine and Roses - January 28

Doubt - February 29

My Son’s a Queer - March 12

The Notebook - March 14

An Enemy of the People - March 18

Water for Elephants - March 21

The Who’s Tommy - March 28

The Outsiders - April 11

Lempicka - April 14

The Wiz - April 17

Suffs - April 18

Stereophonic - April 19

Hell’s Kitchen - April 20

Cabaret -April 21

The Heart of Rock n Roll - April 22

Patriots - April 22

Mary Jane - April 23

Uncle Vanya - April 24

The Great Gatsby - April 25

Mother Play - April 25"

Alan Cumming Is Not Acting His Age is March 11, if you want to count that.

Do the people who decide if and when to take a show to Broadway (the main producers, I assume) always care that much if the show lasts for a long time there? I'm sure everyone involved in a show (not least the investors) would like that to be the case, and many involved may even believe that that's the main aim. But are the key decision-makers sometimes taking a show to Broadway with an eye to garnering attention and enabling future marketing of the show as a 'Broadway' show, with future plans for licensing and tours etc? Does a short Broadway run sometimes intentionally serve as a sort of loss leader for the long-term life and reputation of a show?

Fan123 said: "Do the people who decide if and when to take a show to Broadway (the main producers, I assume) always care that much if the show lasts for a long time there? I'm sure everyone involved in a show (not least the investors) would like that to be the case, and many involved may even believe that that's the main aim. But are the key decision-makers sometimes taking a show to Broadway with an eye to garnering attention and enabling future marketing of the show as a 'Broadway' show, with future plans for licensing and tours etc? Does a short Broadway run sometimes intentionally serve as a sort of loss leader for the long-term life and reputation of a show?"


Broadway is too expensive to be viewed as a loss-leader by sane lead producers. Not when most of these shows are costing $18-$25 million. Everyone's hope at the start is that a show can be a success on Broadway, and then ALSO be a success on the road, in London, with regional licensing, etc.

Keep in mind also that licensing is pennies on the dollar for investors. It starts as 60/40 split for the authors & producers, then with time becomes more in the author's favor, until after about 18 years the producer gets nothing and the author gets all. (In most cases.) That can work out well for the authors, but it's a sloooow process if something like Be More Chill or Dance in Ohio producers expect to see any profit.