Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 3/7- Page 2

[massofmen]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 10:04am

their fall also can be contributed to the fact the the show is just average and now that the word of mouth has gotten out after the undeserved lavished praise on the thing (greatest show ever and crap like that) people are just not going.

The show is FINE. Thats all just fine (I actually disliked the whole thing save a few numbers but I am trying to give it the benefit of the doubt). The same thing happened to spring awakening. The reviewers said it was the next rent and the future of musical theater..blah blah..so for the first year and a half people went in droves and bought tix because we are sheep. But after the word of mouth got out about how it was just average, the show dwindled and died. Reviewers have power but it only lasts for so long.

You would think after winning a tony for best revival it would last longer than it is going to. I would like to see the last time a revival or any show that wins the tony, has ticket sales fall as fast as this one did..maybe Millie when Sutton left? Spring awakening did much better..Gypsy?...it just goes to show that the SHOW isn't good.

Then the real life of the show is seen. And this one's true colors are coming out.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 10:23am

avgbway nut, I was using 15-20%, because after those ticketing/cc/group fees, there is usually one or two other stakeholders who take a small cut of gross. Could be the theater (on top of base rent), could be a production related gross fee, could be some other royalty. That brings the % up. Absent that, yes, it would be in the range you described.

[gcontini2]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 10:24am

Massofmen -
I agree. Many people saw and loved HAIR because it was brought back nostalgia for them, both musically and historically. In every performance, there was a predictable extension of that original Central Park audience who literally raced down to the stage all giddy to dance with the cast in the end...I saw the same types (who'd obviously knew what to expect) getting ready to rush onto stage at the end in the Broadway version...so like attracts like... My point: this was always a very good production of show that was never all that well-written as a musical, and its popularity has had much to do its audience giving it more credit as a great show than it may really deserves. I think we're seeing the changing over of that audience now... Just my thoughts.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 10:58am

"You would think after winning a tony for best revival it would last longer than it is going to."

Oh really? Just like Company, La Cage aux Folles, Nine and Into the Woods? Those all recently won the Tony for Best Revival and didn't last as long as Hair has. The first 2 didn't even make it more than a few weeks after winning.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 2:29pm

Barney,

Thanks for the clarification and I see what you were after. Two minor thoughts:

-- the sort of star percentages you describe are still the exception rather than the rule and generally, they'll usually only apply on a portion of the gross that is over a certain threshold. In the theatre's case, a minimum base rent is typically included in the nut and is applied against the percentage, so it's only the overage that would need to be accounted for. You're right that there might be a bit more coming "off the top" at higher grosses, but adding anywhere from 6-11% more in converting from gross to net to account for it still seems to me to be quite a bit too much.

-- A star percentage and/or theatre percentage is taken based on Net Gross and not Gross Gross. So while it may not make a huge mathematical difference, if you are going to account for star percentage and possible additional theatre rent (the former probably not necessary in HAIR's case specifically), it would be a separate deduction after you've arrived at Net.

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 4:41pm

Now I'm far from an expert on Broadway grosses and whatnot, but I don't really think Hair is in as big a danger as its being made out to be. Percentages aside, if we use $500,000 as a moderately fair estimate of its nut, I believe it has either came close to or exceeded that mark just about every week.

I HIGHLY doubt the producers would close the show when they just started a new cast and its only a few months from summer. Plus, the next week or two are spring breaks for most colleges, so I would expect a little bump for them in the coming weeks.

Now, come Labor Day, the producers may be more likely to look at closing it depending on its performance during the summer season, as well as advance sales.

[Trainwreck]

Posted: 3/10/10 at 4:56pm

I have never seen Hair, but it's among my list of shows I want to see the most from everything I have heard/seen. It's sad to see this happening. I had hoped it would still be on Broadway in 2011 (the earliest I plan to visit NY again).