Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 10/13/24

[Rob]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 2:39pm

Click below to access all the Broadway grosses from all the shows for the week ending 10/13/2024 in BroadwayWorld's grosses section.

Also, you will find information on each show's historical grosses, cumulative grosses and other statistics on how each show stacked up this week and in the past.

Click Here to Visit the Broadway Grosses...

Up for the week by attendance (% of capacity) was: OUR TOWN (12.3%), SUFFS (12.2%), ALADDIN (9.4%), CHICAGO (8.9%), SIX (8.9%), WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (8.6%), THE GREAT GATSBY (8.3%), & JULIET (7.5%), CABARET AT THE KIT KAT CLUB (6.4%), HAMILTON (5.5%), THE LION KING (5.2%), THE NOTEBOOK (5%), MJ THE MUSICAL (4.9%), THE ROOMMATE (4.9%), HARRY POTTER AND THE CURSED CHILD (4.6%), BACK TO THE FUTURE: THE MUSICAL (4%), THE BOOK OF MORMON (2.8%), HADESTOWN (2.3%), STEREOPHONIC (1.3%), MOULIN ROUGE! THE MUSICAL (1.2%), ONCE UPON A MATTRESS (0.9%), ROMEO + JULIET (0.7%), THE OUTSIDERS (0.4%), JOB (0.3%), YELLOW FACE (0.2%),

Down for the week by attendance (% of capacity) was: LEFT ON TENTH (-4.4%), SUNSET BLVD. (-0.3%), HELL'S KITCHEN (-0.1%), WICKED (-0.1%),

Click Here to Visit the BroadwayWorld Grosses...

[Kad]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 2:41pm

Nice boosts across the board thanks to the holiday weekend. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 2:44pm

Great number for Moulin Rouge as they bid farewell to Aaron and JoJo last weekend.

[Ensemble1728379893]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 3:00pm

"Hills of California" is doing very poorly.  I wonder if it might last to December.

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 3:19pm

Ensemble1728379893 said: ""Hills of California" is doing very poorly. I wonder if it might last to December."

There have been very few limited runs that close early in the last few seasons (besides that vey first post-shutdown season). Most of the time they just push through even if they aren't doing well. 

[Wick3]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 3:21pm

Ensemble1728379893 said: ""Hills of California" is doing very poorly. I wonder if it might last to December."

Didn't they recently extend a week in December?

[Jarethan]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 3:36pm

The people who invested in Cabaret must be in shock.  R&J in 7 performances grossed more than Cabaret in 8 performances.  I guess Eddie Redmayne really did sell a lot of tickets, despite many peoples’ doubts.
 

I am also amazed by the average ticket price for Wicked last week.  I guess all the movie publicity is helping the Broadway box office. 

[OhHiii]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 3:46pm

Sonia Friedman won't close Hills early. Her Butterworth/Mendes productions always play out their runs. She does close things early, but rarely. She's very motivated by her relationships with the artists (see: Beanie), so she does what she has to do. I respect it.

Moulin Rouge is one I'm curious to see post-Aaron. Jojo was never the draw on her own as good as she is in the role. For as expensive as that show costs to run, the next couple weeks will be a foreshadow of how their January/February is gonna turn out. In any case, I don't believe it has years left on its life, but rather months. 

And the Back to the Future end of year announcement has to be coming soon. It just doesn't make sense they'd be enduring losses of that scale for so long. They've lost over $1mil cumulatively over the past 6 weeks easily.

I think they could be selling better, but if you had told me a decade ago that Nicole Scherzinger was leading a production of Sunset Boulevard and it was grossing over $1million a week, I would have laughed in your face. Yet here we are and I'm thrilled. I hope reviews and when they get past previews and can start doing press in earnest really push it higher. 

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 4:04pm

Jarethan said: "The people who invested in Cabaret must be in shock. R&J in 7 performances grossed more than Cabaret in 8 performances. I guess Eddie Redmayne really did sell a lot of tickets, despite many peoples’ doubts."

Not to beat a dead horse each week, but...Cabaret IS still selling a lot of tickets. The issue is the immense expense of running this production. If your average ticket price is $132 and you're selling about 93% of your inventory, you should be in a great position. Instead, this production is coming in at just under their weekly breakeven. It's ludicrous. They had the 10th highest average ticket price this week, yet are the only show in that top 10 that didn't make their weekly nut. The only way this would have been successful would have been for the show to become the next zeitgeist hit, like Hamilton, Wicked, Rent, etc. But the production (a revival of a show that American theatergoers are intimately familiar with, and had a restaging of the near perfect Mendes production not too long ago) was never bound for this type of smash success stateside. They assumed, like so many still foolishly do for some reason, that their show would replicate their London success here, no questions asked. It's just bad producing. 

Updated On: 10/15/24 at 04:04 PM

[VotePeron]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 4:09pm

Good examples of how you can't beat bad word of mouth. If anyone on the fence of Cabaret were to Google it, they would  not be persuaded to buy a ticket.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 4:12pm

Yeah, the capitalization and running cost will always be the hurdle for this production of CABARET. It never seemed like a sensible investment, but it's not my money!

As discussed last week, they could get rid of the prologue and the pre-show meal (and if they're gonna kill one it probably makes most sense to kill both), but that would be a major change that would generate some bad buzz. Probably best to ride it out with those elements at least through the holidays. (They may also feel both elements are intrinsic to this production, who knows.)

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 4:15pm

VotePeron said: "Good examples of how you can't beat bad word of mouth. If anyone on the fence of Cabaret were to Google it, they would not be persuaded to buy a ticket."

Except now, anecdotally, the WOM is much better with the new cast.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 4:28pm

I don't think they can kill the prologue and meal though (I mean...physically, yes they CAN. But it is not a good idea). All of those extras are a major selling point for the show, and part of how they charge increased prices. It's all about the experience.

For as much as I harp on this production (since I found the direction of the actual show to be embarrassingly bad), I actually do love the concept. And I had a fun time exploring the space in the prologue. And unique theatrical presentations are something we should be seeing more of, frankly. The market has shifted, and there is a major demand for this type of "special experience." People are going out less frequently post covid, but the flip side is that they are spending more when they do go out. And I'm not just pulling this out of anecdotes and conjecture, every piece of market research (especially around arts and entertainment) supports this. When we do plop down our cash on something, we now want it to be for an elevated experience. This kind of experience HAS found success in US theater...but unfortunately, its usually not on Broadway. Sleep No More (which extended their final performance date how many times?) is an obvious example. Or Barrow Streets "pieshop" version of Sweeney, or Irish Rep's The Dead 1904. Ticket prices for this season's version of The Dead 1904 skyrocketed, people here balked. But guess what? It will be sold out every show. But none of these productions I mentioned are dealing with Broadway contracts. The finances are damn near impossible to work on Broadway for something like this. I hope someone can figure out the business model for Broadway for this type of immersive, massive presentation. But it isnt THIS revival of THIS musical.

[BETTY22]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 5:53pm

"Hills of California" is such a wonderful play - i was hoping this would really pick up after NYT rave.

OUCH 

[Piparoo]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 7:14pm

BETTY22 said: ""Hills of California" is such a wonderful play - i was hoping this would really pick up after NYT rave.

OUCH"

Me too. Love this show. Saw it Friday night, and the mezzanine was two thirds empty. Orchestra had several full rows on the side empty. I get that it was Yom Kippur, but wow. Hope it was mostly because of the holiday but grosses would suggest otherwise.

[OhHiii]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 8:20pm

MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "Jarethan said: "The people who invested in Cabaret must be in shock. R&J in 7 performances grossed more than Cabaret in 8 performances. I guess Eddie Redmayne really did sell a lot of tickets, despite many peoples’ doubts."

Not to beat a dead horse each week, but...Cabaret IS still selling a lot of tickets. The issue is the immense expense of running this production. If your average ticket price is $132 and you're selling about 93% of your inventory, you should be in a great position. Instead, this production is coming in at just under their weekly breakeven. It's ludicrous. They had the 10th highest average ticket price this week, yet are the only show in that top 10 that didn't make their weekly nut. The only way this would have been successful would have been for the show to become the next zeitgeist hit, like Hamilton, Wicked, Rent, etc. But the production (a revival of a show that American theatergoers are intimately familiar with, and had a restaging of the near perfect Mendes production not too long ago) was never bound for this type of smash success stateside. They assumed, like so many still foolishly do for some reason, that their show would replicate their London success here, no questions asked. It's just bad producing."

It just makes me laugh when takes like this come along because with Cabaret’s runaway success in London, OF COURSE any business-minded person would seek that same success on Broadway. Every show is a risk and the production didn’t land the same way. World events also made the lack of urgency this production has impossible for folks to overlook. In London, it sails on style. But to smugly say the producers were dumb to bring it here is absurd when they didn’t have a crystal ball to see what would ultimately happen. They had sales data and critical acclaim. Duh they transferred. 

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 8:23pm

OhHiii said: "
Moulin Rouge is one I'm curious to see post-Aaron. Jojo was never the draw on her own as good as she is in the role. For as expensive as that show costs to run, the next couple weeks will be a foreshadow of how their January/February is gonna turn out. In any case, I don't believe it has years left on its life, but rather months."

Moulin Rouge definitely has more than "months" left. If they start to dip they'll stunt cast again and be fine. They still have a few years left at minimum.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 10/15/24 at 11:10pm

OhHiii said: "MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "Jarethan said: "The people who invested in Cabaret must be in shock. R&J in 7 performances grossed more than Cabaret in 8 performances. I guess Eddie Redmayne really did sell a lot of tickets, despite many peoples’ doubts."

Not to beat a dead horse each week, but...Cabaret IS still selling a lot of tickets. The issue is the immense expense of running this production. If your average ticket price is $132 and you're selling about 93% of your inventory, you should be in a great position. Instead, this production is coming in at just under their weekly breakeven. It's ludicrous. They had the 10th highest average ticket price this week, yet are the only show in that top 10 that didn't make their weekly nut. The only way this would have been successful would have been for the show to become the next zeitgeist hit, like Hamilton, Wicked, Rent, etc. But the production (a revival of a show that American theatergoers are intimately familiar with, and had a restaging of the near perfect Mendes production not too long ago) was never bound for this type of smash success stateside. They assumed, like so many still foolishly do for some reason, that their show would replicate their London success here, no questions asked. It's just bad producing."

It just makes me laugh when takes like this come along because with Cabaret’s runaway success in London, OF COURSE any business-minded person would seek that same success on Broadway. Every show is a risk and the production didn’t land the same way. World events also made the lack of urgency this production has impossible for folks to overlook. In London, it sails on style. But to smugly say the producers were dumb to bring it here is absurd when they didn’t have a crystal ball to see what would ultimately happen. They had sales data and critical acclaim. Duh they transferred."

The real issue to me is: when they Capitalized the show, how long did they figure it needed to run — and at what grosses - in order to just return its investment.  I can’t help thinking that a Garth Drabinski (sic) must have been a led producer.  I

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 12:58am

One other CABARET problem that dawned on me as I was standing in front of a subway ad for it tonight:

Without the actor names on this, I would have had no idea who was pictured. They are unrecognizable.

It's nowadays viewed as tacky to list people's credits on advertising like this, but they need to bridge the gap of WHO these people are, why you know them, and why you should care about them.

[inception]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 9:17am

In that ad the names are not placed over each - Adam's name is over Auli'i's photo - so for people who don't even know who they are this could be even more confusing.  Maybe it is considered tacky but they probably should have done one saying "Adam Lambert from American Idol & Queen."

Updated On: 10/16/24 at 09:17 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 9:20am

While Cabaret's producers had no way of knowing the production would be poorly received here, they did know the finances involved. Their production requires a lot of very expensive tickets being sold just to break even, and that level of sales is not sustainable long-term unless you're continually putting in true A-list names or you have exceptional word of mouth to build excitement for the production itself when you can't get those A-listers. Continually slotting in A-listers isn't viable, really, and they didn't get the exceptional word of mouth. Moreover, the A-lister driving their sales for their first six months also became synonymous with the production... and a major source of its poor word of mouth, which likely now casts a shadow over anyone replacing him.

All productions are a gamble, but this one, in hindsight, looks like an exceptionally hubristic one that required the production to become a massive must-see event to simply break even.

[witchoftheeast2]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 9:20am

inception said: "In that ad the names are not placed over each - Adam's name is over Auli'i's photo - so for people who don't even know who they are this could be even more confusing. Maybe it is considered tacky but they probably should have done one saying "Adam Lambertfrom American Idol & Queen.""

Genuine question. Do people just book tickets directly from Ticketmaster, Telecharge, Seatgeek, Stubhub, without looking up information about the show first? If you look at the cast on the shows website there's usually a bio for them. While I think it's ridiculous to put their credits on a poster- too much- I find it hard to believe people buy tickets without looking up who they're seeing in the show first 

[Wick3]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 11:23am

Normally people know or have heard of the actor/actress listed above the title.

I think people who read these boards will do the research and see who's who in the show. The average tourist, however, will most likely just go to the TKTS line or their hotel concierge and ask for a recommendation and then buy tickets. This is why I think hiring a person to vouch for your show at the TKTS line is pivotal and well worth their salary (which unfortunately is most likely minimum wage.)

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 11:33am

witchoftheeast2 said: "Genuine question. Do people just book tickets directly from Ticketmaster, Telecharge, Seatgeek, Stubhub, without looking up information about the show first? If you look at the cast on the shows website there's usually a bio for them. While I think it's ridiculous to put their credits on a poster- too much- I find it hard to believe people buy tickets without looking up who they're seeing in the show first"

Seeing an ad is one thing. Actually getting someone interested in buying is a different matter and only a tiny sliver of people who see the advertising will do that.

If you're seeing ads for multiple Bway shows, there are a lot of things to choose from, and some people won't put in actual time to research (especially if they are a tourist), they'll go with their gut.

But that's merely an observation I had. Maybe this isn't the issue for the production based on their data.. 

Updated On: 10/16/24 at 11:33 AM

[Kjol]

Posted: 10/16/24 at 12:02pm

Kad said: "While Cabaret's producers had no way of knowing the production would be poorly received here, they did know the finances involved. Their production requires a lot of very expensive tickets being sold just to break even, and that level of sales is not sustainable long-term unless you're continually putting in true A-list names or you have exceptional word of mouth to build excitement for the production itself when you can't get those A-listers. Continually slotting in A-listers isn't viable, really, and they didn't get the exceptional word of mouth. Moreover, the A-lister driving their sales for their first six months also became synonymous with the production... and a major source of its poor word of mouth, which likely now casts a shadow over anyone replacing him.

All productions are a gamble, but this one, in hindsight, looks like an exceptionally hubristic one that required the production to become a massive must-see event to simply break even."

I do not think it's hubristic to believe in your work. And it's not even like they were transferring from a limited run at the Almeida. If people can't even back themselves with two years of success behind them, then we might as well just have nostalgia bait jukeboxes churned out. 

Moroever, people have to stop believing word of mouth for general audiences being the same as whatever gets said on here. Find it hard to believe that the show could have such poor word of mouth that people still kept turning out for the original cast such that they had the highest ticket averages for most weeks of their run.

And if we're doing just a surface observation, I wish that the Tonys social media channels didn't remove all show performances. The Cabaret one was the most popular one, and I don't mean that just in terms of views, but also the very interested commentary alongside. I remember being a little surprised, but it far outstripped Alicia Keys and Merrily. It was a polarising performance in the best sense, the kind that makes people want to see it. It is true that the production is synonymous with him, but I feel like that's more of a trend on Broadway where name recognition means a lot more. Not to mention that they have released snippets of the new cast, and it's plainly obvious that the interpretations are pretty different.