Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 12/24/17 — Page 3

GreenGables said:

"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."

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but wouldn't the unions likely have contracts that apply to a "Broadway" house, meaning a theater that seats more than 499, as does Equity?

In terms of the rest of the discussion, if you really want a sense of how a show is doing, also keep your eye on the average ticket price. A high average ticket price is the best indicator of a show's demand. But you sort of learn to watch everything, meaning the gross dollars, the percentage of gross capacity, seats sold, etc., along with the average ticket price,

Hogan would be entirely right if we knew exactly what the weekly nut is because then we'd have all the data we'd need to see if a show is profitable or not. But without that information, the gross only tells you so much. We all understand that if there are two shows grossing $1 million per week, one might well be making money hand over fist and the other might be losing its shirt.

@GreenGables I think this all depends on what the nut is, as @RaisedOnMusicals said. If it is lower than what I think then anything is possible. I don't put a lot of stock in recoupment schedules; they are basically a work of fiction at the frontier of legality. I also think even 70% over the cold months is questionable but again we can all wait and see together. (I am unaware of any concessions based on Circle's size.) I agree with @RaisedOnMusicals that avg price is an interesting thing to look at as a gauge of demand (and that looking at everything is what one does), but the bottom line is the gross/nut relationship. As I said at the outset, it's all about paying the bills. If you only sell 100 tickets but you sell them for $200, that's still only $20000.

@Daddy I was referring to the month in the aggregate, but I agree it is defying gravity in any event (even though I would not have had the nerve to use that expression ) Based on my assumption about the nut, if the show falls back to an average of $550k or less (which translates to $500k or less net), then it would have to run into the spring in the red (and that assumes it is not in the red already this past week).

My point from the beginning of this is that there is no cause for optimism. We've had some fun back and forth, but nothing makes me think that there is a reasonable path forward, absent some astonishing bump in business that would surprise everyone (or someone willing to lose money for sport, as certain other shows have found).

I bet you could be that person, General. You'll never miss the half mil.

Updated On: 12/29/17 at 07:42 PM

markypoo said: "So let's shift this, if we may, to Spongebob.
How's the long term prognosis looking?"

If I am learning my lessons carefully, the conclusion would be that anyone who wants to see this show should hurry down to TKTS as soon as possible and snag a few prime seats.

How'm I doin?

m

If the show reverts to its non-holiday grosses, there can't really be a debate that it will cost Viacom heavily to keep it going. Will they? Who knows? They certainly don't have a great deal to look forward to at the Tonys, but maybe the head to head with Disney will teach them a thing or two. I think I side with Viacom spending the money, if for no other reason to avoid humiliation great enough to chill a future for the property, but I would not bet heavily.

markypoo said: "So let's shift this, if we may, to Spongebob.
How's the long term prognosis looking?"

To me at least Spongebob feels like this seasons GHD, the people on the boards seemed indifferent to the show before previews started with a low advance then the show got great word of mouth and reviews when it opened.

That being said, the show needs to get all the family-friendly tourist in to the Palace now before Frozen opens sucking away all that demographic. Younger boys are probably more willing to sit through Frozen then most young girls at Spongebob. I might be wrong though.

the producers should also be worried about Mean Girls and Harry Potter as well. From what I found from research, (over hearing my daughter and her friends), most people who grew up watching Spongebob absolutely love Mean Girls and have read/watched the Harry Potter series on multiple occasions.

With all this said, I think Spongebob will run for a year or so give or take. But, the show needs to be filling seats and making a lot of money over the winter months because once spring comes I fear it will get lost with all the other shows opening.

RippedMan said: "I mean I don't think anyone is worried about the producers not having the money to keep it running, it's just a matter of will they? And why would they? There's no way they'd win Best Musical. The might be nominated, but so what? If the Macy's parade didn't help then what would?"

Perhaps they’re hoping if Ethan wins best actor it could bolster the show? I actually passed on seeing the show when I was in NYC November 8-13 (my “dance card” was full and I was less than enthusiastic about the show then), but would genuinely like to see the show now. But if strong reviews, being featured on a few critics’ “best of” lists, and strong word-of-mouth haven’t bolstered the show, I’m not sure a best actor Tony will do it much good in way of foot traffic. Nevermind, the fact that Ethan will likely face formidable competition come awards season. But then again, Spider-man ran how long with a lot less going for it?

I went to SpongeBob on my last trip when friends REALLY wanted to go (it was not on my list). I left a fan and have talked folk into going...all of whom ended up liking it despite reservations. But for all the talk of Frozen sucking away its audience, isn't Frozen pretty well sold out for a few/several months? At least sold out at the price people would be willing to take kids for. That's an honest question, I'm just basing it on hearsay from my NYC friends who are lamenting how long they have to wait to take the kids in their lives to see it

dramamama611 said: "VERY few examples of a best actor (or actress) win making a difference at the box office. VERY few."

Out of curiosity I went back and looked at the Best Actor winners for the past 20 years, and the last time the award went to an actor in a show that was struggling was John Lithgow in Sweet Smell of Success. That show closed two weeks after he won the award.

For Best Actress in the past 20 years there are a couple examples where the win failed to add much longevity to a show. The revival of Porgy and Bess managed to make it to the fall after the Tony Awards (though that could be just as much attributed to it winning Best Revival as to Audra winning Best Actress). Grey Gardens didn't do half as well, closing in July after taking two acting awards.

So I would venture to agree with dramamama that an acting award alone does not really generate much business at the box office.

Except that the weekly nut (fixed) isn't dollar-for-dollar equivalent to the weekly operating expenses (variable), which can fluctuate by a small -- OR LARGE -- margin depending on a number of factors including marketing & advertising spending campaigns, interest fees and/or payments on any loans taken out on the production (if applicable), unexpected or "non-budgeted" expenses for sundry, etc.

leighmiserables said: "So, first assuming this is true (which I’m inclined to, as you are clearly someone with insider info on the production as you kindly provided us with those set model pictures a few months back), we can all stop arguing and say that as long as the show is breaking ~500k+, we have no reason to panic, yes? Great."

Actually, no. In addition to the fact that the weekly nut is not carved in stone in the offering papers or even week to week [Liza's Headband is a little off on jargon but right on substance], a gross of $500k only provides approx $450k to the production, which is well in the red. In a week in which the nut is $490k (i.e., "high 400s", you would need a gross of over $544k to break even. I don't question what itsjustmejon read and then reported, but that is not dispositive. For that you would need to see the weekly report.

Unless I missed a year, Chicago (without even including rare week 53) has grossed more in 2017 than any year since 1998. Clearly, the weekly nut is not the same as it was 19 years ago, and there has been ticket inflation, etc.; but that is still amazing. Two questions:

-- Does anyone know what their weekly nut is?

-- Is it ever going to close? I am thinking that this is probably the perfect show to move to World Stages (or whatever it is called) if it actually ever starts losing money on an annual basis (I assume that it loses money on certain weeks every year (for years), but that the better weeks more than compensate for those periodic losses. I am sorta thinking that it might become Broadway's Fantasticks or The Mousetrap, i.e., the small show that runs forever. Not the same as Phantom or Wicked or The Lion King...just this plugger that manages to thrive year after year.

leighmiserables said: "Sorry—I'm a little confused here. When you're talking about breaking even, do you mean in a specific week, or overall for the production?"

For the week, although it could be applied to all weeks in the aggregate, but when you are breaking even on running expenses, you are not contributing a dime to recoupment of the capitalization, which is what has to happen for the production to break even.