Posted: 3/7/17 at 10:05am
Ben already did the show through one holiday season. If he is able to maintain his body and his voice, having not missed a show yet, then maybe he'll want to continue, but I'd be surprised if he extends beyond November.
Posted: 3/7/17 at 10:20am
In interviews Ben stated he has been involved with DEH for 3 years now so I doubt he would extend but who knows. If they bring this show to London I can see Ben wanting to perform there for a shot at the Olivier but a lot of these are simply predictions.
As for avg ticket prices, I think the box office tend to release some premium orch seats within 2 weeks of performance (or change regular seats to premium seats) to increase the avg ticket price. Right now premiums are $399 for the summer. I bet it'll be around $450 after the Tonys.
Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:55pm
Just watched this on YouTube and a milestone was made this past week: first time a Sondheim show on Broadway broke $1 million mark for 1 week's worth of performances.
skip to 21:28 to hear the great news!
Posted: 3/10/17 at 5:52pm
Wick3 said: "Just watched this on YouTube and a milestone was made this past week: first time a Sondheim show on Broadway broke $1 million mark for 1 week's worth of performances."
Well, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. The revival of ALNM starring CZJ grossed $1,031,000 for eight performances the week ending 1/3/10, 112% of potential at the Walter Kerr.
"
Posted: 3/10/17 at 5:59pm
Also, I think the amazing FOLLIES revival with Bernadette Peters (:P) remains to have the highest grossing week of any Sondheim show ever on Broadway, if I recall correctly.
$1,132,226 for one of the weeks.
Of course, the theatre was bigger, but still.
Updated On: 3/10/17 at 05:59 PM
Posted: 3/11/17 at 8:14am
OYF is still grossing more than shows like Chicago every week. While it's clearly not going to pass the 1m mark any time soon it seems to be doing fine. Yet every week people are here saying it should close?
Posted: 3/11/17 at 8:37am
Rainah said: "OYF is still grossing more than shows like Chicago every week. While it's clearly not going to pass the 1m mark any time soon it seems to be doing fine. Yet every week people are here saying it should close?
"
Comparing OYF to "shows like Chicago" is apples and oranges, though...
Updated On: 3/11/17 at 08:37 AM
Posted: 3/11/17 at 11:32am
HogansHero said: "OYF is NOT doing fine LOL. wow
Wow is right. I think that many here simply look at the dollars grossed in a week and compare the grosses to other shows and make similar statements. What folks need to do is to see what the percentage of gross potential is, and OYF had a GWP of 39% and In Transit"s was 32%. A show can't make a cent of profit at those numbers. It's hard for any show to make a profit with a GWP achieved of anything less than 50%, if that.
"
Posted: 3/11/17 at 12:12pm
I know this has been said before, but it's still true that there are often reasons other than "making a profit" that keep a show open. I think OYF is probably a perfect example of these "alternate inducements"
1. The producers may wish to continue to promote the underlying product -- in this case, the Estefan/Miami Sound Machine brand.
2. The producers may wish to promote an upcoming tour.
3. The producers may feel that the losses they are taking are helpful in their tax situation.
4. The producers may feel that the ego gratification/fun of having a show on Broadway is worth something out of their own pockets. Kind of like if you go to a casino and lose $100 -- it's an amount you can afford, and it sure was fun.
And I am sure there are many more.
I'm pretty comfortable that the Estefans are having great fun with this, can fully afford whatever hit they are taking, and that, over the long run, the marketing/branding of their songbook will more than cover any losses from OYF.
Let's not forget that unlike many shows that are just "selling the show" and some related merchandise, including the OCR and the tshirts and ephemera in the lobby, the Estefans have 23 "albums" lots of singles, a bunch of videos and god knows what else that they very likely continue to get residuals from.
Besides, with a net worth north of $500M, a stake in the Miami Dolphins, and the seat on the Board of Univision, I think they can afford a little "vanity press" project.
(I thought the show was kinda "meh"-- but I'm 100% in favor of it staying open for another 10 years and keeping that theatre lit and filled with people buying discounted tickets!)
Posted: 3/11/17 at 12:13pm
I didn't pay much attention when I was initially seated, because people show up late and all of that. But when we left at the end of On Your Feet, a bunch of rows in the back of the orchestra were completely empty. I don't know if people moved up at intermission or the show has just managed to somehow move tickets in the front but not the back of the house. It was jarring for a Broadway show to see that many empty seats grouped together like that.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 12:24pm
As Mike said, the Estefans are very rich and can afford to keep a show running for months even if they didn't make a penny on it. But the show made over 600,000 dollars, so not sure why people are saying it didn't make any money.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 12:34pm
muscle23ftl said: "As Mike said, the Estefans are very rich and can afford to keep a show running for months even if they didn't make a penny on it. But the show made over 600,000 dollars, so not sure why people are saying it didn't make any money.
I truly don't understand what you are talking about. It didn't "make" over $600,000, it GROSSED over $600,000, which was only 32% of its gross weekly potential. So for that week, the show didn't make a penny though it certainly lost a lot of dollars
"
Posted: 3/11/17 at 12:57pm
I don't always follow these grosses every week so it is hard for me to determine if a show is truly declining or it is the winter slump.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 2:11pm
The gross potential is irrelevant. What matters is their weekly operating cost, or their "nut." OYF's nut is most definitely north of $600,000
Posted: 3/11/17 at 2:16pm
@Mike66, that list of reasons a show might be kept open notwithstanding losing money does not relate to the "doing fine" comment. The show is certainly not doing fine. Every recent season we have had one or more shows that stays open without regard to bleeding bucks.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 3:26pm
HogansHero said: "@Mike66, that list of reasons a show might be kept open notwithstanding losing money does not relate to the "doing fine" comment. The show is certainly not doing fine. Every recent season we have had one or more shows that stays open without regard to bleeding bucks.
"m
No disagreement on this. My comment was solely that the Broadway balance sheet might not be totally reflective of what the producers are "going for" (to steal the line from Mormon). I remember a comment Hal Steinbrenner made a few years ago about the Yankees -- that they were just an "entertainment product" part of YES network. For someone like me, I would have thought it the other way around.
I don't think OYF is "doing fine", but the producers obviously think it's "doing well enough."
Posted: 3/11/17 at 4:25pm
trpguyy said: "The gross potential is irrelevant. What matters is their weekly operating cost, or their "nut." OYF's nut is most definitely north of $600,000
I was trying to explain in a quick way that because a show grossed $600K doesn't mean that it "made" $600K. Obviously, how well it's doing depends on the ratio between its weekly nut and its gross potential. But I'm also pretty sure that for a musical, it's very rare for the nut to be less than 40% of gross potential. There is data I found that in the 2010-11 season the AVERGE weekly cost of a musical was $589,754 That was 6 years ago and costs are much higher now.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 4:25pm
trpguyy said: "The gross potential is irrelevant. What matters is their weekly operating cost, or their "nut." OYF's nut is most definitely north of $600,000
I was trying to explain in a quick way that because a show grossed $600K doesn't mean that it "made" $600K. Obviously, how well it's doing depends on the ratio between its weekly nut and its gross potential. But I'm also pretty sure that for a musical, it's very rare for the nut to be less than 40% of gross potential. There is data I found that in the 2010-11 season the AVERGE weekly cost of a musical was $589,754 That was 6 years ago and costs are much higher now.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 4:38pm
Have to agree RaisedonMusicals - although the 50% gross potential figure seems rather arbitrary/stupid, in reality from the figures I have seen it does seem unusual for a musical nut (at least) to be less than 40% of the 'gross potential'.
Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:21pm
qolbinau said: "Have to agree RaisedonMusicals - although the 50% gross potential figure seems rather arbitrary/stupid, in reality from the figures I have seen it does seem unusual for a musical nut (at least) to be less than 40% of the 'gross potential'.
It is indeed unusual but it is not a metric. Stated simply, if OYF's nut was $500k, it would be showing a profit, and it would be of only the slightest significance that it was in a huge barn instead of a medium size house.
