Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 5/12/13- Page 2

[bdn223]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 11:14am

Ann is Holland Taylor's baby. She is probably being payed a percentage of gross aas writer and sole actor, rather than a salary. The show has a simple set, minimal lighting, and only one actress. Their can't be more than 20 people on the payroll each week including Holland Taylor and Julie White's royalties. The show most certainaly won't recoup, but it is definitely making some pittance of money. The difference between Ann and the Testament of May is that first Ann is playing in at Lincoln Center so rent is minimal. Second is Taylor is both writer and performer equating to less mouths to feed. Ann can market Taylor who is familiar to American audiences as opposed to Shaw who is somewhat of an unknown outside of theater and hard core Harry potter circles.

[quizking101]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 11:35am

ANN's nut couldn't possibly be any more than $250,000 per week.

(If that is indeed the case, then most weeks, the show grossed at or above running costs. It certainly won't recoup, but I doubt it'll end in the red).

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 12:27pm

"It certainly won't recoup, but I doubt it'll end in the red"

If it doesn't recoup then how is it not ending in the red? That's what recoupment means.

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 12:39pm

"If it doesn't recoup then how is it not ending in the red? That's what recoupment means."

Actually, no -- plenty of shows don't recoup on Broadway, but end up in the black from touring, recordings, and other subsidiary rights. I think the press may have somewhat muddied the issue by focussing just on Broadway recoupment lately, for some strange reason

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 2:26pm

"I think the press may have somewhat muddied the issue by focussing just on Broadway recoupment lately, for some strange reason"

Because not every investor necessarily also puts money into the tours or receives a percentage from subsidiary rights, which means there are investors on a lot of Broadway shows that do indeed never see a return on their investment.

And if all investors do make their money back and the production is retro-actively seen as having ended in the black then it recouped.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 5/14/13 at 3:27pm

Actually AEA AGMA SM, investors in the original "mother" company don't have to invest in subsequent productions to benefit from their success. Typically, all of those subsequent productions pay either a direct royalty to the original Broadway company or the Broadway company participates in a share of the Author's subsidiary rights income. Since (almost without exception) all bottom-line money (after expenses) that flows back to the Broadway company is repaid to the investors until recoupment, those investors DO participate in all of that subsequent income even without being directly involved in those additional productions.

In any case, without putting words in his/her mouth, I think what quizking meant was "It certainly won't recoup on Broadway, but I doubt it'll end in the red." -- which is/would have been a perfectly reasonable statement to make.