Posted: 1/10/17 at 11:03am
Also interesting to note that this Color Purple revival ran only half as long as the original, and in a significantly smaller house. Despite good reviews and enthusiastic (but limited) word of mouth, it was, undeniably, a flop. Perhaps a flop respected by some (personally, I think the source is terrific but the musical adaptation is unbearably amateurish), but a flop.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 5:27pm
Artistic success, financial flop.
Sometimes it is nice knowing that passion projects, and beautiful pieces of art can be created, have a decent run, and not be financially stable.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 5:39pm
Its very rare for a revival to run as long as the original production though. I wouldn't look at that statistic as cause for it being a failure.
I'd be curious to see what their weekly running costs were, because there was some bad producing going on there for this production to not recoup. As has been discussed the mounting costs couldn't have been exorbitant, so it was something in their weekly expenses that made recoupment difficult.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 5:44pm
@alice why not take a split second and try to tether your comments to reality. Just above I gave very conservative estimates of expenses that demonstrate that they were nowhere near recouping. It is easy to back seat drive, but it is tacky and in this case embarrassing.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 5:59pm
Hogan -- I'm saying I'm curious to know what the nut was. I think your analysis is accurate, but I'm curious what their weekly running costs were, and what their recoupment schedule was because I doubt many investors would have signed on initially for a revival that needed to run over a year in order to recoup, when it was known from the beginning that their box office draw (Jennifer Hudson) had signed on only for a very limited time.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 8:39pm
alice, I would like to know as well. get on it! 
But whatever it is, or was, you are not thinking it could be less than what I said. I often don't understand why people invest in things (and sometimes that makes me the fool) but I think it is reasonable to assume that people did either not caring or assuming the show would carry on and find enough of a market on the "strength" of the show or that the show would sell at a significantly higher price than it did. (The avg price for the run was under $100. I don't think that is what anyone would have banked on.It wass never the blockbuster that some would, I suspect, have anticipated.)
Posted: 1/10/17 at 11:06pm
HogansHero said: "People who think Color Purple should have recouped need to sharpen their basic math skills. The capitalization was reportedly $8mil. Over 63 frames, the show had a net gross of roughly $40mil. If we assume the nut was $550k-which I think is implausibly low-that equals roughly $35mil, a $3mil shortfall."
Actually, grosses reported as: 2017: 2,345,761; 2016: 36,962,503; 2015: 5,417,649. Don't know if the BWW tables "grosses" is the same as your "net gross", Hogan. But, that suggests, grosses total $44,725,913. That's a little more than "roughly $40M", but not a lot more.
61 weeks of performances. (I counted 61, 2 in 2017, 52 in 2016, and 7 in 2015) At your low 550k estimate- that's 33,550,000. At 600k, that is 36,600,000. At 650k, it is 39,650,000. If we go with the $8M capitalization - (I have no idea what the real number is), then recoupment was close at 550k, basically break even at 600k, and not at all at 650k. Of course, I have no idea what the average weekly nut was. Doesn't it change from week to week?
So, it appears to me that full recoupment was unlikely.
Updated On: 1/10/17 at 11:06 PM
Posted: 1/10/17 at 11:26pm
ggersten said: "So, it appears to me that full recoupment was unlikely."
That was a long path to the same destination...
Posted: 1/10/17 at 11:31pm
haterobics said: "ggersten said: "So, it appears to me that full recoupment was unlikely."
That was a long path to the same destination..."
Yep. The short path is there was no recoupment announcement by the only people who know the actual financials.
Posted: 1/10/17 at 11:54pm
@ggersten, the $44mil number is the gross gross, which I reduced by the rule of thumb 10% to come up with the roughly $40mil number. Your numbers are perfect except for that, and thus your approx breakeven at the 550k level is approx 4-5mil off. I think we are on the same page here. But regardless, I think the characterization that it is crazy that it did not recoup doesn't have a basis in fact.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 12:04am
The original production back in 2005 had an $11 million investment and that show recouped the money. I didn't see the original production so I can't compare but with inflation and what not, wouldn't the revival probably require at least $11 mil as well if not more?
Posted: 1/11/17 at 1:15am
They announced the capitalization was 8. Feel free to think they are lying, though one would think that with as many copies of the offering papers as are out there, someone would have called them on it if they had.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 2:19am
It seems to have played to pretty good houses for most of its run. And the show is a small show. So I'm just surprised that's all.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 8:20am
The Color Purple had a cast of 20, including swings, and 8 in the pit. That no longer counts as "small" on Broadway.
"Small" is Passing Strange, with a cast of 12 and 4 (extra) musicians, or Glory Days with a cast of 6 and 4 musicians, or [title of show], with a cast of 6 and 1 musician.
Heck, people were talking about Gigi like it was big and lush, and it was only marginally bigger, with a cast of 22 and 12 musicians.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 8:32am
HogansHero said: "@ggersten, the $44mil number is the gross gross, which I reduced by the rule of thumb 10% to come up with the roughly $40mil number. Your numbers are perfect except for that, and thus your approx breakeven at the 550k level is approx 4-5mil off. I think we are on the same page here. But regardless, I think the characterization that it is crazy that it did not recoup doesn't have a basis in fact. "
Thanks, Hogan. I noted that my numbers were total grosses and not your "net gross" so this helps. Perhaps this question should go in a "Broadway Accounting FAQ" - but what accounts for the "net gross" from the "gross gross".
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:12am
GIGI was a much more opulent production: even if it had a similar size cast and orchestra, it for example, had far more costumes and wigs than THE COLOR PURPLE which would have resulted in both a higher initial capitalization and likely a higher weekly running cost (as those things would have required more people backstage to maintain).
If the production budget for THE COLOR PURPLE was announced as $8 million, than legally they must have stayed relatively close to that amount. Broadway fundraising is monitored by the New York State Attorney General's Office, essentially so a producer can't pull a "Producers" scenario and claim a budget of $5 million but raise $8 and pocket the extra. And yes, sometimes you have a producer with a 'dream project' that is unlikely to realistically recoup - but it it is also a legal requirement to give investors a recoupment schedule that shows how long the show might take to recoup at various box office percentage amounts.
My point in saying there was some "poor producing" going on is because I can't imagine that recoupment schedule would have been viable to potential investors if it listed statistics showing that the production would take over a year to recoup, but would only have a guaranteed, bonafide 'draw' to sell the show for a few months. Now, perhaps some of the heavy hitters like Oprah personally contributed much of that 8 million dollars, and it ended up being a relatively small amount that was raised by outside investors - and perhaps those investors will profit share in the upcoming tour - so that is how they plan to recoup -- but I'd be curious to know if they essentially knew from the onset (because you can pretty easily forecast and run these kinds of figures before you open) that the show would likely not recoup on Broadway.
Updated On: 1/11/17 at 10:12 AM
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:24am
"My point in saying there was some "poor producing" going on is because I can't imagine that recoupment schedule would have been viable to potential investors if it listed statistics showing that the show would take over a year to recoup, but would only have a guaranteed bonafide 'draw' to sell the show for a few months."
I don't really see much sense in that statement; most Broadway shows don't recoup at all, and most shows that do recoup take a year or more to do so. It's only those few wild successes that sell out for months that recoup faster. Or non-musicals.
Talking about "recoupment schedules" being "viable" to investors is rather silly; only an idiot invests in a show assuming they'll get their money back.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:28am
Yes Newintown that is true. Most investors don't go in thinking they will get their money back. But usually its a good producers job (perhaps even their legal requirement) to have a budget / recoupment schedule that paints a scenario that it is "possible" for the show to recoup. Since they knew that Jennifer Hudson was only a limited participant, I'm simply stating that I'm curious what the producer's advance explanation for potential recoupment was. But, since this was Scott Sanders and Oprah's personal dream project to have this on Broadway - perhaps a recoupment schedule that showed a realistic return wasn't important (assuming they put in most of the money themselves).
GIGI, by the way, was the rare Broadway show these days that was apparently 100 percent financed by one person: the show's lead producer.
Updated On: 1/11/17 at 10:28 AM
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:36am
I suppose they could have said, "due to the amazing material and our stellar cast, this will probably bring in 90% of the gross potential for at least a year." It would have been a lie, but it's the kind of lie that theatre-loving people with extra money might like to hear and believe.
As it turned out, it looks like it averaged about 65-70% of the gross potential for that first year. Not mega-flop numbers, but also not what looks like a financial success. But the original production was also no runaway hit, even with Oprah touting it regularly on TV. Why anyone soberly thought that this revival would do as well or better (only 7 years after the original wore out its welcome) is a mystery to me.
The show clearly had a small number of dedicated fans; just not enough to make it financially successful. Personally, I attribute that, not to the performances, to the fact that the adaptation is poor, with a by-the-numbers book that lazily copies the screenplay and a score by a trio of hacks.
Updated On: 1/11/17 at 10:36 AM
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:41am
The original production did well enough with the same crappy adaptation. I think it's more of-- it was too soon for a revival of the same crappy adaptation.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:41am
Well, I don't think the production would have been a bigger hit if it were written by Stephen Sondheim, that's for sure. I think the overriding issue is that its the kind of 'serious,' based on a lofty novel material that isn't really a draw for most Broadway audiences these days. I doubt THE COLOR PURPLE was high up on the foreign tourist wish list. And even if the adaptation were better, I doubt it would have fared any differently.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:52am
Did the original Color Purple (2005) recoup?
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:54am
neonlightsxo said: "Did the original Color Purple (2005) recoup?
"
no.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 10:59am
Not on Broadway, but I imagine the original producers ultimately made money via the tours, regional productions etc.
Posted: 1/11/17 at 11:55am
@ggersten the "net" gross is the amount that actually gets transferred to the production's bank account by the ticketing agency (TC or TM) after they take out charges for credit card processing, ticketing fees, taxes and anything else someone can think of to get their hand in the till for.
@alice if you look at the % of potential numbers (and those are the numbers used in the recoupment schedule) you will see that they are not very good even at their peaks (not counting the weeks like Christmas). Someone who believed in a show and invested in it on that basis would not expect it to go week after week with its stars when it only topped out in the 70s. I think you have reached a conclusion you want to believe, even though it doesn't pan out.
Updated On: 1/11/17 at 11:55 AM
