Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 10/13/24 — Page 2

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. 

 

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."

You wrote what I was thinking (but more articulately), but was too lazy to do.  I was thinking of the great original productions of Follies and Ragtime, along with the Harold Prince Show Boat, all of which were truly great productions, but which had no chance of returning their investments.  At least with the first two, they created new theatre masterpieces to be cherished, and the Prince Show Boat ran for two years and showed that a 75 year old war horse could be thrilling.

People here have a hate boner for this production, so keep talking about as if everyone involved is completely stupid. Water for Elephants came in with a similar capitalization and running costs, received better reviews and has already announced closing. Tammy Faye is coming in with a similar capitalization and the writing for that one also seems to be on the wall. 

saxpower said: "I haven't seen this production but out of curiosity:

How does the scope/likely cost of the renovations for Broadway and London compare? From the seating charts it look like the Broadway renovation was more signifigant (I'm aware the West End and Broadway economic models are different). I've never been to the West End at all and haven't been in the August Wilson since it was the pre-renovation Virginia (the "high school auditorium" look), so the photos don't help me compare. Was the Broadway version at an economic disadvantage comparaed to West End?

How much would cutting the pre-show help? I'd assume the performers are on the lower end of the payroll, and if you cut the preshow, ticket prices go down, which may negate the savings.

The other cost issue in the background is the eventual cost to return the theatre to its original configuration, meaning even more money will need to be made for a profit.



lopside said: "People here have a hate boner for this production, so keep talking about as if everyoneinvolved is completely stupid. Water for Elephants came in with a similar capitalization and running costs, received better reviews and has already announced closing. Tammy Faye is coming in with a similar capitalization and the writing for that one also seems to be on the wall."

Not doubting you, but wouldn't the theatre renovations significantly increase the funds needed to put on this version of Cabaret as compared to other shows? I suppose Water for Elephants required some work to be done to the rigging system for the aerilaists but they didn't have to gut the Imperial."

Broadway Journal posted the numbers for both the shows.  

The cost of returning the theatre to its previous state is accounted for in the capitalisation. And the London renovation would also have cost at lot, but the report was that ATG paid for it themselves since they needed to revitalise the Playhouse with its poor sightlines anyways. Apart from that, the difference in capitalization is similar to other transfers. 

 

chrishuyen said: "I went back to pull the numbers from Broadway Journal (granted, these are estimates and actual cost week to week can change), but just to compare the two:

• Water for Elephants: $25 million capitalization, $960k weekly to break even
• Cabaret: $26 million capitalization, $1.6 million weekly to break even
• (and since it's here anyway) Back to the Future: $23.5 million capitalization, $980k weekly to break even

So while the initial cost is comparable, the weekly expenses are a lot more for Cabaret, which is the reason why I think it's fair to call it hubristic. Even just looking at the weekly published grosses for Broadway, it's usually only the top shows that can get over $1.6million a week (and obviously they'd want more than that to make a profit). And while I appreciate the kinds of financial risks producers/investors take to put things on Broadway, I could tell from the outset that this show was probably going to lose moneyespeciallyafter Eddie Redmayne (who this show had based their whole campaign around in the US) was leaving after 6 months.

Specific audience tastes and critics aside, it's not a complete one to one to compare the West End and Broadway productions either due to the different costs of producing on either side of the pond. I don't know if there's been anything published about weekly costs in London but I assume their operating budget is lower, which is why even without fully A-list stars, they can still keep the show running (the ticket costs have definitely gone down too over time).

As for the renovation, I definitely got turned around a bit when I went but I think the majority of it was just wallpaper, installing lights/stages/decor, and clearing different paths of travel for going into the theater. The preshow cost would be the performers, but also the ushers/front of house staff(I might be wrong, but I think they get paid overtime rates for something like this?)

I agree that the Tonys performance was the buzziest one of the bunch. While it definitely turned some people off, it also enticed a lot of people in my circle who are "theater casuals" in a "come and see it for yourself to find out" kind of way, but Eddie Redmayne was definitely the biggest draw and the conundrum is that those people who were interested due to his performance on the Tonys aren't as excited to see someone else do it since they think it would be less "weird" (which ironically works better for most of us on this board)."

A slight adjustment : there's a bit of difference between 1.6 and 1.16

Feidlimid said: "chrishuyen said: "I went back to pull the numbers from Broadway Journal (granted, these are estimates and actual cost week to week can change), but just to compare the two:

• Water for Elephants: $25 million capitalization, $960k weekly to break even
• Cabaret: $26 million capitalization, $1.6 million weekly to break even
• (and since it's here anyway) Back to the Future: $23.5 million capitalization, $980k weekly to break even

So while the initial cost is comparable, the weekly expenses are a lot more for Cabaret, which is the reason why I think it's fair to call it hubristic. Even just looking at the weekly published grosses for Broadway, it's usually only the top shows that can get over $1.6million a week (and obviously they'd want more than that to make a profit). And while I appreciate the kinds of financial risks producers/investors take to put things on Broadway, I could tell from the outset that this show was probably going to lose moneyespeciallyafter Eddie Redmayne (who this show had based their whole campaign around in the US) was leaving after 6 months.

Specific audience tastes and critics aside, it's not a complete one to one to compare the West End and Broadway productions either due to the different costs of producing on either side of the pond. I don't know if there's been anything published about weekly costs in London but I assume their operating budget is lower, which is why even without fully A-list stars, they can still keep the show running (the ticket costs have definitely gone down too over time).

As for the renovation, I definitely got turned around a bit when I went but I think the majority of it was just wallpaper, installing lights/stages/decor, and clearing different paths of travel for going into the theater. The preshow cost would be the performers, but also the ushers/front of house staff(I might be wrong, but I think they get paid overtime rates for something like this?)

I agree that the Tonys performance was the buzziest one of the bunch. While it definitely turned some people off, it also enticed a lot of people in my circle who are "theater casuals" in a "come and see it for yourself to find out" kind of way, but Eddie Redmayne was definitely the biggest draw and the conundrum is that those people who were interested due to his performance on the Tonys aren't as excited to see someone else do it since they think it would be less "weird" (which ironically works better for most of us on this board)."

A slight adjustment : there's a bit of difference between 1.6 and 1.16"

Lets just add one more fact to compare the 3, 

Back to the Future has 11,824 tickets a week to try and sell to cover their $980K operating cost

Water for Elephants has 11,080 tickets a week to try and sell to cover their $960K operating cost

Cabaret only has 8,560 tickets a week to try and sell to cover their $1.16K operating cost, equating to a 17% higher operating budget to W4E despite having 29% fewer tickets to sell to cover those costs, and equating to a 15% higher operating cost than Back to the Future with 47% less inventory to sell. Lets be clear no one is praising the finances of Water for Elephants, which are also a bit out there, but there is clearly a level of hubris teetering on financial malpractice on the part of the Cabaret producers for thinking this production would ever been profitable on Broadway,.