Analysis of Plays vs Musicals: "Plays Are Not Taking Over Broadway. Except That They Are."

[theatregoer]

Analysis of Plays vs Musicals: "Plays Are Not Taking Over Broadway. Except That They Are."#1

Posted: 5/24/26 at 3:55pm

Hey everyone! I want to share an analysis I did of how plays are doing business wise recently compared to the past. Essentially, while the number of plays is not very different historically, they are taking more and more of the top gross positions, as well as some of the largest theatres (Winter Garden for instance).
https://kdsmaclean.substack.com/p/plays-are-not-taking-over-broadway

Personally, I am deeply concerned about the economics of new musicals. The risk/reward is increasingly not in favor of new musicals and I don't see a way out of it - they are structurally more expensive both in the upfront capital and in the weekly costs, but end up with similar ticket prices to plays, which can recoup in a couple of months (See Giant). Producers/Investors are and will respond to this obvious opportunity.

 

[chrishuyen]

Analysis of Plays vs Musicals: "Plays Are Not Taking Over Broadway. Except That They Are."#2

Posted: 5/25/26 at 12:34pm

I appreciate the data and visualizations, but I think one big thing to note is that people seem to know how to produce plays that have stars people want to see but (for the most part) also tend to be highly acclaimed, either through audiences or formal critics.  For some reason our recent slate of musicals hasn't really lived up to that caliber in either regard.  And I think this role reversal of plays in larger houses with musicals in smaller houses isn't necessarily a bad thing, as some of these smaller musicals tend to be better than the splashy big ones (if Mexodus transfers, it would certainly need a smaller house).  If anything, this may convince producers to be more intentional about the kind of work they put on, since for the past few years it seems like there's been a glut of shows that were clearly not ready for Broadway.

So I do think there's a bit of a reckoning with what musicals audiences are willing to go see, and it's true that having a big name like George Clooney or Denzel Washington can bring more audiences who may be more risk averse and want to at least see a celebrity, but at the same time I think the failure of things like All Out and Celebrity Autobiography shows that certain stars can only get you so far (granted, George Clooney is probably on another level than the people they've gotten for those shows).

The other aspect is that I would assume many of these high grossing plays are done by producers who also produce musicals, and so being able to make a profit on a play allows them to put money into musicals that may cost more or need more development time etc.  

[HogansHero]

Analysis of Plays vs Musicals: "Plays Are Not Taking Over Broadway. Except That They Are."#3

Posted: 5/25/26 at 1:53pm

Some interesting charts but one must recognize that the present tense is a snapshot (BTW, you say at one point 3 decades but it is actually 2) and does nothing to undermine what one person wrote to me should be called "Hogan's Law" of Theatre (and especially Broadway theatre): "There are no rules."

Two variables in particular that you do not account for. One is quality (as opposed to salability) and the other is persistence. The variability of quality is significantly greater in musicals than in plays (largely owing to a shortage of strong writing and, underlying that deficiency, a surfeit of derivative "brand" exploitation.) And to further muddy the water, two of the chart-topping plays are more like musicals without music than plays. Which brings us to salability. Most chart-topping plays (as you address) are short and limited runs whereas most chart-topping musicals run for years. This in turn affects the calculus: while star-driven plays can make a (short-term) killing, they don't, to paraphrase the clever maxim), make a (long-term) living. To put it in plainer terms, if you were to invest in every new play over a decade (and let's say each season is as good for plays as the just-completed one), you would likely end up with a a decent return on your investment. If instead you invested in every new musical, you would likely make a decent return on your investment in them as well BUT you would also end up with one major hit that runs for years and produces an obscene return on your investment that keeps on giving. I would suggest that the dynamic you analyze turns on these latter variables more than on the ones on which you focus.

The typical investor (a category that includes 90+% of producers) is a risk-taker and the real difference between plays and musicals is that if you plot the latter on a risk/reward chart, you are going to end up in the stratosphere on the upper right.That's where Wicked/Lion King/Hamilton/etc live and that's not possible when you are paying, e.g., Clooney, enough of your money to notice the effect of gravity on your chart. Defying gravity indeed. 

 

 

[Theatrefanboy1]

Analysis of Plays vs Musicals: "Plays Are Not Taking Over Broadway. Except That They Are."#4

Posted: 5/25/26 at 2:54pm

I appreciate this analysis as its something I've noticed as a frequent visitor the more recent visits is that I'm more prone to attending a play than even musicals on Broadway 1) I find their quality has been far better 2) they have managed in some recent shows to draw some "names" to it. 

Sadly, I've found a disproportionate number of new musicals (revivals or new) have come to Broadway feeling half baked. I sharply noticed this contrast from 2019 and 2022 visit. and my visits in 2023, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2025 and 2026 have all felt the same. 

From outside Broadway though it has been noticed as well for theatre companies. Some collaborators who have been working across country just said to me last week, he said how the last 5 shows he's done in the last 2.5 years have felt that from the creative side has been disorganized, and a lot of people have been put in positions that they should never be in to bring something that's not fully there. Whether this is a time or talent thing, I think it would have to be looked at more. But from a production stand point I know that of the 7 theatres I have close contacts with they have noticed box office wise, the musicals are a consistent loss, while the plays they've noticed have received higher attendance, more affordable to produce and feel like what the "events" energy that musicals used to carry. This has now in return led some to only produce 1 musical a season, where they used to be producing 3-4 of 10 show seasons. 

Back to Broadway - I will say that I have found myself impressed with the names and talent as well as the versatility of the plays being shared in the last couple of seasons of Broadway.