Not really. The "health" of a show is determined by how much it costs to run versus how much it actually grosses. Attendance figures have a tenuous relationship to that, show to show because of differences in theatre size and average ticket price (among other things). For instance, Drowsy Chaperone's attendance numbers are generally only in the 70s, but it's grossing roughly $900K per week (with an average ticket price near $90)which translates into a weekly profit of around $300K -- obviously means it's doing very well financially. Wedding Singer on the other hand, while also in the 70s in attendance each week at a much smaller theatre than Drowsy is in (300+ fewer seats), is heavily discounting thus has a low average ticket price and is barely grossing enough to break even weekly even though it costs roughly the same as Drowsy to run each week.
Thus, even though the two shows have similar attendance figures and running costs, the disparity in pricing and theatre size means that one is a hit while the other is struggling.
Similarly, the reason Rent has been able to survive (and still run profitably) even when attendance has dipped into the 60s is that its weekly running costs are very low ($315K or so). Chicago can also credit its long run to a low weekly nut which makes it somewhat impervious to attendance flunctuations over the years.
That's why you more or less ignore the attendance figures and focus on the actual gross versus the weekly cost in determining how well a given show is doing at the box office.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 8/1/06 at 08:15 PM
)
