Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 12/24/17 — Page 2

grumpyoptimist said: "ethan231h said: "why the dip for waitress...I know they performed 1 less show but I doubt thats why.."

Wasn't one of their perfs on Christmas Day? For a show hovering at or above 100% for a couple months, I wonder if that number of people aren't willing to go on Christmas itself (so you get a solid number, but not spectacular, knocking down your average). Just a thought..."

Christmas Day would not be accounted for in this report, since it was Monday and the gross reports go from Monday to Sunday.

That being said, for both Waitress and Once on This Island this is a case where the potential gross percentage is a number to look at and take into consideration. Yes, Waitress took a dip, but pulling in 95% of your gross potential is nothing that the producers need to worry about. As for Once on This Island, pulling in 85% of your gross potential is again a pretty good sign, as it would take some extraordinarily bad producing to put up a show that would have a weekly break-even point that high.

Pauly3 said: The (increased) gross also reflects only 7 performances. "Looking good" may be a stretch in the big picture (based on known and unknown info), but the related comment was a long way from wholly unreasonable (based on known and unknowninfo)."

You can't view things in the abstract. The show is losing money consistently, and it's not reasonable to use the word "good" in a discussion of its finances. As rehearsed in an earlier thread, the avg price metric is especially damning esp in a small house.

leighmiserables said: "HogansHero said: "The show is losing money consistently..."

Not disagreeing, but do we know this for a fact? I feel like it's impossible to say so if we don't have an approximation of its weekly running costs.

"

Well I did suggest to the producer that they replace the billy goat with a nanny goat to save some cash

(kidding)

raddersons said: "Miss Saigon may have had some revolutionarydesign and performancesyears ago,but content-wise it was never an award winner. In today's climate it is melodramatic and offensive (in my opinion). Oddly enough, one of the most "meh" plays this season for me (M Butterfly) did an amazing jobat dissecting why Miss Saigon is so problematic.It also got a bad Times review, and some lukewarmother reviews... which can be killer. I'd like to think audiences got more critical.

That being said, I'm a liberal NYCtheater fanatic and I care about these things. Do mid-western tourists?"

This is probably going to sound silly, given that the original production ran for 4,000+ performances; but, I don't think it ever hit the emotional chord with audiences en masse that Les Mis did. It didn't desperately need to be revived, particularly when the recent Les Mis revivalS were not particularly successful. I don't know if either made back its investment, although I would imagine it would be pretty safe to bet that the first did not.

When the revival was announced, I have to admit to thinking two things: (1) that it was too soon; and (2) that they needed a revisal that did not require huge grosses (which it clearly did not get) in a huge theatre to be successful.

I have always loved Miss Saigon, but I don't think it is as loved as the 4,000 original run suggested, something I clearly not prove. Other factors that were or were not previously mentioned seemed valid to me: (1) no one outside of the posters on this board have ever heard of anyone in the cast; while that may have been true the first time, the publicity surrounding Jonathan Price's hiring was a blessing from heaven; (2) it is a downer and people are already pretty down right now...who needs to be reminded of oppression when we have an oppressor 'hopeful' in the White House; (3) the original success of Les Mis, coupled with Miss Saigon's huge success in London, made record numbers of people buy tickets in advance...that momentum was never going to be there this time; (4) there was a lot of competition for filling the seats...do I see a too soon revival with a cast I have never heard of or do I see something new (and even most of those new shows couldn't fill the seats; (5) tourists did not need to travel to NYC to see tired old Miss Saigon.

I also felt that the revival of Cats was ill-conceived. It was just too soon for a show that a lot of people hated the first time around, despite its phenomenal success. I suspect it is almost impossible to duplicate a success that was pretty incomprehensible in the first place.

Updated On: 12/28/17 at 02:51 PM

Why do you think OOTI is so costly to run every week? The cast isn't huge. The tech isn't huge. The pit isn't huge. I wouldn't be surprised if running costs were around ~350/400k, which is around 50% gross potential on a typical 8-show week.

raddersons said: "Why do you think OOTI is so costly to run every week? The cast isn't huge. The tech isn't huge. The pit isn't huge. I wouldn't be surprised if running costs were around ~350/400k, which is around 50% gross potential on a typical 8-show week."

^I've had the same thoughts.

Hogan, while I completely agree with you that it's the actual gross and not the percentage that matters, when you're in a house that maxes out at 800k, I can't imagine the producers would green-light any production with a nut more than half of that. It just really doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, so I'm hesitant to say it's a sinking ship unless we know for a fact (or at least close to a fact) that the running costs are much higher than 400-450k.

I saw the show once, enjoyed it, and that was enough for me. Whether it stays or goes is really immaterial to me. I just find it strange that some people are willing to chime the death bell without any factual basis — even if it is possible that it's in the red, from what we know it's just as possible it's in the black.

Updated On: 12/28/17 at 05:14 PM

Leighmiserables - how much the weekly cost is, is always the mystery... From what I've read on line, the most conservative musical is $450 K - with the most average being in the 600K and north area (two articles that I found that sound like they have some idea on these things:

http://newmusicaltheatre.com/greenroom/2016/02/broadway-budgets-101-breaking-down-the-weekly-budget/

http://erinrebeccaroberts.com/blog/2015/01/09/the-inner-workings-of-broadway-production-budgets

The nuts being mentioned here are not realistic. I would guess low 500s. In answer to the question, I think a January that's 10-20% above December would be cause for hope. (And remember that the published gross is roughly 90% of the portion available to the production.) Even in the most optimistic posture, let's say you'd need to sustain the current grosses through the winter. Being able to would be a big surprise to me.

In order to create some rule of thumb based on theatre size-to-nut, you'd need to assume that producers are rational creatures, and history tells us otherwise. Especially in this case.

I stand by what I said.

Updated On: 12/28/17 at 07:09 PM

Warbucks2 said:
Shows with high nuts are most often matchedto big theatresthat can bring in a high enough potential gross to recoup in a year if the showplayed on average at ~75% gross potential. That must be a magic number that investors can stomach. Shows playing in smaller theatres virtuallyalways have a significantly smaller nut compared to their large theatre counterparts. So we can probably assume correctly this has a smaller than averagenut.

"

^ This is good stuff.

BUT -- shouldn't the same hold for a small venue -- that around 75% gross potential is the necessary box office to justify the risks? Of course, the actual dollars will be very different from the Rodgers to Circle in the Square (which I thought was your point) -- but the percentages should remain (generally) the same-- and the investors just put in less and get out less but take on the same "type" of risk -- no?

If grosses at its neighbor would crash by HALF--the (neighbor's) show would most definitely NOT be HEAVILY profitable--actually, it would be BARELY profitable

DOUBLE POST

Updated On: 12/29/17 at 11:03 PM

very true!--but it would be a LOW six figure profit

HogansHero said: "Mike66 said: "Warbucks2 said:
Shows with high nuts are most often matchedto big theatresthat can bring in a high enough potential gross to recoup in a year if the showplayed on average at ~75% gross potential. That must be a magic number that investors can stomach. Shows playing in smaller theatres virtuallyalways have a significantly smaller nut compared to their large theatre counterparts. So we can probably assume correctly this has a smaller than averagenut.

"

^ This is good stuff.

BUT -- shouldn't the same hold for a small venue -- that around 75% gross potential is the necessary box office to justify the risks? Of course, the actual dollars will be very different from the Rodgers to Circle in the Square (which I thought was your point) -- but the percentages should remain (generally) the same-- and the investors just put in less and get out less but take on the same "type" of risk -- no?

"

Sorry guys but it just doesn't work this way. And OOTI is a perfect example of why it can't. It's at 85% this week, and that's either barely enough or, more likely, not enough. Its next door neighbor could crash by half and it would still be heavily profitable. These percentages are non-sequiturs: there are just way too many variables for them to make sense. The reason people produce shows like this is because they think they have a hit on their hands, that can fill up and sell premium. You'll notice the absence of any of any successful producers or top tier investors above the title. There's a reason for that."

@Hogan - i generally agree with you re Grosses more than %, but I'm thinking in general terms that most recoupment charts (which I know always have a little bit of Fancy Accounting, if you catch my drift) try to floor a breakeven in the 60s-low 70s (with the exception of star driven limited runs, which can be in the 90s). I'm assuming the producers for OOTI would have a similar floor, which would put the breakeven in the ~500k range ($450k if they're really cutting corners) for an 8 show week. So while that's not exactly gangbusters business, I don't see them in any immediate danger of closing if they can keep the grosses in that 85% range for a 9 show week this week and stay at least in 70% territory going forward.

Second thought - would Circle in the Square have lower union costs because of its size? Similar to the way non-profit houses have negotiated lower costs.