Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 3/9/25- Page 4

[Wick3]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 7:34pm

gibsons2 said: "RippedMan said: "On one hand, I think it's kind of cool that the hottest ticket is a Shakespeare play in 2025. And on the other hand, I do think it's gross that tickets are as high as they are. Denzel could have easily told them to set aside a certain amount of fairly priced seats, etc. But then there's also the gross beast that is resale. Why aren't we mad at the idiots paying $500 to see it? Or should Denzel and team asked for some of the overages to be passed back to the actors/crew? I mean they do it on AEA tours, so why not on Broadway?"

Did Hugh Jackman passed anything to the actors/crew? Did Josh Groban? People paid very high prices to see them both, especially Jackman. The Music Man was making over 3 mil a week and people stayed outside in the frigid cold in winter for a chance to buy a rush ticket. Both men were celebrated for selling out shows.

If not, why Denzel should be doing that? Just curious about your train of thoughts."

A friend who worked as an usher at the Winter Garden theater told me ushers received a bonus on the last day of The Music Man. I forget the number but it was around $5k. I’m guessing the actors/crew all received bonus checks either from Hugh or the Music Man producers.

Hopefully Denzel and Jake or Othello producers will give something to the cast/crew/house folks at the Barrymore when the production ends in June.

[Wick3]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 7:46pm

Back in 2016, Hamilton could have easily charged Othello level prices and they all would have sold… but they didn’t sell them at astronomical prices. Who profited instead? Ticket resellers/scalpers.

What’s fascinating to me is how ICEMAN COMETH starring Denzel back in 2018 was grossing roughly $800k to a million a week. It was even on TDF and TKTS. In 2019, SEA WALL starring Jake Gyllenhaal never grossed above a million dollars a week. However both of them combined in a Shakespeare play… easily gross over $3 million. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:00pm

Wick3 said: "Back in 2016, Hamilton could have easily charged Othello level prices and they all would have sold… but they didn’t sell them at astronomical prices. Who profited instead? Ticket resellers/scalpers.

The top ticket for Hamilton in 2016 was $998 which they sold for many, many months. So, that's false. 

 

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:05pm

All of this  drama about Othello reminds me of the Sturm and Drang expressed in this board back in the day.  I feel a tear around my eye.  

[Melissa25]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:21pm

Dang. I cannot afford a $2300 roundtrip ticket to Guam.

[Mike66]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:22pm

I think that many in this discussion are not reckoning with something which is very very real -- and that is the re-sale market.  I think it's only fair to really start with that when you discuss the box office prices.  Because when 'brokers' both professional and hobbyists buy up tickets for resale, that is what (in fairness) is setting the price.  It's everywhere now -- the average cost of a SuperBowl ticket this year on re-sale was more than $9000.00.  (enough) People paid it.  I paid $2500 (gasp) for a World Series ticket in the freezing cold upper deck.  (And it was an awful game).  The ticket I bought was purchased from the box office for $200.00.  (Thank God my wife didnt want to go...)

If we all accept that is the reality for all live events -- concerts, shows, sports -- in this era -- then maybe we need to ask the next question -- if someone is going to pay $700 for a ticket to see George Clooney, even though it hasnt even started previews -- then WHO should get that money?  Since the days of 'The Producers' and more and more as the years have gone on, the answer from the Box Office is that the production, not the ticket resellers (or the ticket seller platforms) should be getting that amount.

And more and more THAT is, I think what you are seeing.  Nowadays, the whole idea of a 'box office' price isnt what it was -- the US Open tennis tournament has been using 'dynamic pricing' for years now.  My box office rep for the Open is quite forthcoming when she tells me that the USTA feels that it should be getting the money people pay for tickets to their event, not the re-sale industry.  

Is this fair?  Who knows?? I don't know.  What I know is that my wife wants to go see George Clooney in May, and she never asks for this kind of thing.  I want her to be happy.  The tickets are almost sold out already for $700+.  Do I think it's a fair price -- no.  Will I pay it -- well, um, maybe so.  (And yes, I am by definition lucky to be able to come to NYC and pay that amount -- many folks cant).  But when I do buy the tickets, I will at least prefer not to pay it to StubHub or Ticketmaster and their markups. 

As someone once said -- it's all very complicated.

Thanks

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:27pm

I do think that in 2025, with smartphones in everyone’s hands, producers could find a way to make it significantly more difficult for scalpers. Make it a non transferable digital ticket that only becomes scannable thirty minutes before curtain. I’m sure there are plenty of better ideas than that too.

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:59pm

Matt Rogers said: "AKarp2013 said: "Woof, it's getting hot and steamy on theboard today."

Yeah, where the hell are the moderators? I dared to reply to America’s Sweetheart, Sutton Ross, with a slightly snarky comment in response to little Madame completely trashing me on here, and it was deleted. Meanwhile, half the posts in this thread are personal attacks. Whomever is running this board better decide what their rules are and apply them evenly."

Sutton gets comments deleted because she runs to the moderators and tattles. If you want a comment deleted, I suggest you try and do the same. Sometimes I wonder if the mods get tired of dealing with her. 

[MusicalGuy3]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 9:35pm

In my opinion, it is great that Broadway is attracting such big names. It does require that they be well compensated for their efforts. It is great that producers who take incredible risks and lose money on three of four shows earn enough on projects like Othello to keep themselves in the game. It is great that we live in a country where people can spend their disposable income in a way that makes them happy.   For many years, artists allowed scalpers and resellers to make big money when there was a demand surge.  Thank goodness for dynamic pricing.  No one is being forced to shell out $915 for a ticket.   I won't pay it, but I am happy for those who can and enjoy it.  

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 10:00pm

Lot going on in here!

I’ll add to the chorus that thinks the OTHELLO gross is well, kind of gross. The major issue for me is not the price of the top or average tickets, is that even the lowest price was high. No one is saying the producers and creatives can’t make money, but especially when this is a public domain work, it feels gross to make it entirely cost prohibitive. If they record it when the run is closing, that would go a long way for accessibility.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 11:24pm

IdinaBellFoster said: "Lot going on in here!

I’ll add to the chorus that thinks the OTHELLO gross is well, kind of gross. The major issue for me is not the price of the top or average tickets, is that even the lowest price was high. No one is saying the producers and creatives can’t make money, but especially when this is a public domain work, it feels gross to make it entirely cost prohibitive. If they record it when the run is closing, that would go a long way for accessibility."

Lol like it's not a business primarily. You have no clue about Broadway producing or investing, it's not a charity and producers owe you nothing regarding price accessibility.

[dan94]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 12:04am

Manny Azenberg, someone who knows more about producing than anyone posting in here, has many relevant thoughts on the subject. (timestamped)

https://youtu.be/2fQ2QbFliY4?si=LGwXdOwhFB8a_cCZ&t=1255

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 12:11am

TotallyEffed said: "I do think that in 2025, with smartphones in everyone’s hands, producers could find a way to make it significantly more difficult for scalpers. Make it a non transferable digital ticket that only becomes scannable thirty minutes before curtain. I’m sure there are plenty of better ideas than that too."

I do like this idea. The Public Theatre does it with their digital tickets. 

The problem with this though is that it will impede regular folks from moving tickets around. Example: Since I live in the area, if I have friends coming to NYC to see a show, they ask me to buy at the box office to save fees and then I transfer them when I get them. If I’m not able to be there when they go, they won’t get their tickets. 

[MusicalGuy3]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 12:34am

It is an interesting question I would not dismiss out of hand.  Thar said, I did not see Taylor Swift getting backlash for a much higher ATPs and no easily accessible price points for her tour.  Many Broadway shows offer $49/$59 seats, especially during previews/rush/lottery/TKTS, etc.  Something to ponder.  

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 12:53am

blaxx said: "IdinaBellFoster said: "Lot going on in here!

I’ll add to the chorus that thinks the OTHELLO gross is well, kind of gross. The major issue for me is not the price of the top or average tickets, is that even the lowest price was high. No one is saying the producers and creatives can’t make money, but especially when this is a public domain work, it feels gross to make it entirely cost prohibitive. If they record it when the run is closing, that would go a long way for accessibility."

Lol like it's not a business primarily. You have no clue about Broadway producing or investing, it's not a charity and producers owe you nothing regarding price accessibility."

Never said they did. They are free to charge what they want and we are free to discuss our issues with it. Plenty of other star-driven pieces manage to be a bit more accessible while still turning major profits.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 1:56am

IdinaBellFoster said: "blaxx said: "IdinaBellFoster said: "Lot going on in here!

I’ll add to the chorus that thinks the OTHELLO gross is well, kind of gross. The major issue for me is not the price of the top or average tickets, is that even the lowest price was high. No one is saying the producers and creatives can’t make money, but especially when this is a public domain work, it feels gross to make it entirely cost prohibitive. If they record it when the run is closing, that would go a long way for accessibility."

Lol like it's not a business primarily. You have no clue about Broadway producing or investing, it's not a charity and producers owe you nothing regarding price accessibility."

Never said they did. They are free to charge what they want and we are free to discuss our issues with it. Plenty of other star-driven pieces manage to be a bit more accessible while still turning major profits."

Yes, if the intention of accessibility is there. In here, it's about the profits. The production in itself would be less than mediocre without its star power anyway. The producers were going for the profits before the quality.

People who can't afford these prices are not missing a stunning, life-changing production. They're just missing the A listers live onstage.

[GirlFromOz68]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 7:16am

A question about Maybe Happy Ending Box Office. It's settled into the low $800K the last few weeks and I wondered if that was enough to meet their weekly nut or are they just keeping going  in an attempt to get to the Tonys despite being under what they need to be making?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 7:29am

dan94 said: "Manny Azenberg, someone who knows more about producing than anyone posting in here, has many relevant thoughts on the subject. (timestamped)

https://youtu.be/2fQ2QbFliY4?si=LGwXdOwhFB8a_cCZ&t=1255"

This, this, this. Begging folks just letting their bootlicking run wild to watch. Premium price tickets, limited engagements to generate scarcity and demand, and celebrities only working on Broadway for overinflated salaries are killing not just audiences, but also the community that makes Broadway possible. Slowly, but surely.

Updated On: 3/12/25 at 07:29 AM

[Dreamboy3]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 7:40am

Not sure why there is so much sympathy for the investors. A producer pitched to me an investment in a show. As a lawyer who prepares and negotiates similar documents for non-theater investments, I was incredulous reading the various legal documents. No one who hoped to make any money would invest based on those documents. The producer who pitched the investment to me says a lot of people make a $50k (or much bigger) investment do it for the loss to offset capital gains and for the opportunity to go to opening night and, if the show wins a Tony, the right to buy a Tony award. I am not a theater professional but I always understood that the producers who bring in investors get fees off the gross. 

[DanS3]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 10:06am

What is going on with Gypsy?  79 percent capacity?  Ouch.  Did Audra McDonald miss a bunch of performances?

[Ravanne_1]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 10:06am

dan94 said: "The goalposts do not move back."

I'm looking at this as a glass half empty/half full. Obviously theater is a business and in order for any show to stay open, it has to be profitable. And it has been proven repeatedly that a good production with some A-list film or tv talent will bring in big audiences (who by extension will pay top dollar for their tickets). We've seen this formula play out many times. Even a mediocre productions (*coughMusicMancough*) will be elevated with a big name film performer. 

And the reason that Othello is going to be able to command the kind of prices it has, at least in the short term, is because it's a limited opportunity for an audience to see two very fine, popular actors performing live. This isn't a show that's going to run for three years. And regardless of how talented a true Shakespearian performer might be, they don't have the name quality that Washington has. So the audience who really want to see him on stage will cough up a few hundred dollars per ticket and consider it a once in a lifetime kind of experience.

The question is whether or not this model is sustainable over the long term. It will work in a limited run show because a built in scarcity will control the equation. Even Broadway is under the control of supply and demand and when you have high demand for a show that is going to have a very limited supply (in regards to total tickets for the run), we get these astronomical prices. It will work for Othello, but it will not work for 99% of other productions that want to have extended runs and long-term viability. The big unknown factor is the audience limit on being willing to pay these kinds of prices. As I've said, for a once in a lifetime kind of opportunity to see a favorite actor live, people might be willing to pay prices that they never would otherwise. This isn't going to "lift all boats" (outside of the cast and crew for Othello getting to work for the entire run). I think that it's unfortunate that with only a 15 week run that there will be limited (if any) opportunity for a real fan of either the actors or the play who cannot afford these astronomical prices to have some opportunity to see the show and I think that there would be a lot less outrage over the prices if there was something like rush tickets or a lottery that would allow more access. Unfortunately dynamic pricing is here to stay, at least until the audience gets fed up and stops being willing to pay these kind of prices regardless of who might be on the stage.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 10:14am

Today marks exactly five years since Broadway shut down due to the raging COVID-19 pandemic - and per a report this morning from Michael Paulson, audiences are finally nearing pre-COVID numbers in this third full season since reopening:

"It’s been a slow road back for Broadway, but the industry is finally nearing its prepandemic levels. Attendance so far this season is at about 95 percent of what it was at the same point in the 2018-2019 season, its last full season before the pandemic, when it was setting records.

“Oh, Mary!” has been a surprise hit this season, reminding the industry that shows can work without known I.P. or famous stars. “Wicked” is defying gravity thanks to the renewed interest brought by the film adaptation. For the first time since 2018, all 41 Broadway theaters have had shows in them this season. And there are more shows than usual regularly grossing more than $1 million a week.

The crowds have returned to Broadway, and to the Times Square area. 

But — and this is a big but — profitability is down. That’s because the costs of producing on Broadway keep rising, so even reasonably strong ticket sales are not enough."

[Kad]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 11:05am

TotallyEffed said: "I do think that in 2025, with smartphones in everyone’s hands, producers could find a way to make it significantly more difficult for scalpers. Make it a non transferable digital ticket that only becomes scannable thirty minutes before curtain. I’m sure there are plenty of better ideas than that too."

There are ticketing platforms that are doing things like this. The platform Dice, for instance, limits ticket transfers to people who have verified accounts, links tickets to phone numbers, limits the number of tickets in one's possession, tickets have unique QR codes generated on the day of the event, and tickets cannot be sold on third-party reseller platforms. It also does not have a reselling marketplace- if you want to get rid of your ticket, you get a refund and the ticket is returned to the stock to be sold again at the price you paid. It's not foolproof, of course- somebody can sell informally on social media or craigslist or whatever and demand whatever price- but it is much more limiting. It makes scalping harder. Larger ticketing platforms could be doing this- but they've decided to get in on the scalping and make it happen on their terms, not eliminate it. 

Updated On: 3/12/25 at 11:05 AM

[binau]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 11:22am

DanS3 said: "What is going on with Gypsy? 79 percent capacity? Ouch. Did Audra McDonald miss a bunch of performances?"

I don’t think so did she? It looks like Gypsy is hitting a similar kind of momentum drop that happens about 12-14 weeks after performances start with these prestige musicals who pack the theatre with high paying excited theatre goers but then things start to get more difficult (eg Follies, War Paint, Company etc). 

From what I can see they will hopefully get by for a while yet though but we won’t likely see the strong early performance continue unless something changes (eg tony hype, finding a way to appeal to mass market etc).