Broadway Profits

[krispy kreme]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 9:47am

I know we had a thread about merchandise recently, but it had me thinking.....do profits from merchandise and soundtracks go back into the investors pool? Do those that invest in a show get a cut of that or is their investment purely from box office dollars? It makes me think that investors from a show like Wicked or back in the 80's with Les Mis profited even more if merch money was added back to the overall profits.

Anyone know the answer to this?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 2:08pm

do profits from soundtracks go back into the investors pool?


Profits from any "soundtrack" album would go to the company that produced the movie the soundtrack album is taken from.

[thismyshow]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 2:41pm

^ no need to be a smartass

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:02pm

That's not being a smartass - that's a simple answer to a simple question. Stop looking for insult where no insult is intended.

Investors on Broadway usually do not have a stake in concessions, be it merch or bar. In Europe, they have a hand in everything, as a rule.

[dwwst12]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:22pm

Come on. He absolutely is being a smartass. Isn't anyone else getting sick of people being rude in response to simple semantic errors and typos?

Not to mention how lame and unfunny the whole thing has become. Why not throw in another timely bit of humor while you're at it by telling them "You are the Weakest Link... goodbye!"

If it's such an affront to you that the OP refers to cast recordings incorrectly, I'm sure you can find a nicer way to convey your concern.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:27pm

I'm VERY sick of people being rude on this board - I just don't think that response qualifies. Sure, frontrowcentre could have been more helpful - but his response was accurate.

And, just so we're clear - investors don"t get a piece of an original Broadway cast album unless they invested - which is usually not a part of the initial deal.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:35pm

"That's not being a smartass - that's a simple answer to a simple question. Stop looking for insult where no insult is intended."

He knew what the poster was asking and decided to give a smarmy response instead to mock the the poster for using "soundtrack". That's not the "simple answer" and there was definitely insult intended.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:49pm

I'm not a mind-reader and have never known frontrowcentre to snark. I took his response at face value. Have you anything else to add to the conversation?

[krispy kreme]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 3:50pm

Thank you for the kind responses. I'll choose to ignore the rude response. Yep, I made a mistake. An honest one. Happy Holidays!

:)

[LegallyBroadway2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 4:05pm

those responses aren't even... rude... they're hilarious. Soundtrack. . . cast album. . .

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 4:33pm

Only one response was (arguably) rude, LegallyBroadway2. One question, FOUR complaints about the "rude" response, and one, count 'em, one valid answer.

Can't we streamline this board a little? If you have an issue with a poster, please don't spam the board - report it as abuse to the mods. Anything else is a waste of bandwidth.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 4:45pm

Did I miss something or have we completely failed to answer the original question, distracted as we have been by snark and discussions thereof?

I assume that profits from the OBC recording would be considered part of the gross receipts of the show (unless the contract were worded to exclude them), but I honestly don't know for sure.

Anyone?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 4:48pm

Re-read the thread, Gaveston. I've already answered that question. Your assumption is incorrect. OBC profits for original investors are exceptions rather than the rule.

eta: the contract usually works the other way around.
Updated On: 12/22/11 at 04:48 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 4:59pm

Amazon and iTunes classify OBC recordings as soundtracks.

When a swing moves into another actor's role he or she is taking their "track".

Come on, I myself have used the term Broadway Soundtrack before. Get the F over it.

Updated On: 12/22/11 at 04:59 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 5:11pm

"Re-read the thread, Gaveston. I've already answered that question. Your assumption is incorrect. OBC profits for original investors are exceptions rather than the rule.

eta: the contract usually works the other way around."

Sorry, ghost, I did know you have answered the question about concessions. But I take it from the quote and context that there was originally another question about proceeds from OBC recordings.

It was that latter question that got lost in the mix, I think.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 5:11pm

I guess we all have things which niggle us...for frc2 one of those things is the use of soundtrack for cast recording.

He once described a UK issued cast recording as being a bootleg. I pointed out that as it was > 50 years old it was a perfectly legitimate release as public domain in the UK starts after 50 years (well, the beginning of the following year).

That lack of understanding niggles me. I suppose you could say I was being sarcy to point out his error, but I wasn't...and I don't think frc2 was being in this case either.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 7:36pm

Oh, good grief. FrontRowCenter is never anything but polite to others. But those calling him out don't care about that. The Net Nannying is worse than behavior they proclaim to be concerned with.

Just because Amazon or iTunes classifies something, doesn't make it correct, btw.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/22/11 at 10:31pm

Anyhoo, sorting through the posts here, I take it that merchandizing is not added to the gross of the show and that the OBC recording is a separate investment with a separate tally sheet.

I have no idea why anyone invests in a Broadway show under these restrictions.

[LuminousBeing]

Posted: 12/23/11 at 12:50am

All I can contribute to the merch question is this: when I worked at a merch stand during the Boston run of the non-eq "South Pacific," I took home 2% of the sales revenue. The head merch girl took home 5% of her sales. I don't know where the other 92-and 95%, respectively, went. And neither did the head merch girl who was traveling with the show.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 2:15pm

Just because Amazon or iTunes classifies something, doesn't make it correct, btw

Absolutely. Amazion's site is riddled with errors in entries for all styles of music. I have sent hundreds of corrections to Amazon when they classify cast albums as "soundtracks" and they generally accept my suggestionms.

I find I-Tunes to be virtually useless... even names of singers are often spelled incorrectly.


I continue to encourage people here and everywhere else to alwasy use the word movie in conjunction with the word soundtrack. It serves as a reminder that one does mean the movie soundtrack recording.

Updated On: 12/30/11 at 02:15 PM

[temms]

Posted: 12/30/11 at 10:49am

To answer the question in the post:

Merchandise and cast albums and so forth are considered "subsidiary income". Normally a merchandising company pays for a license to make the products, and depending on the deal they either keep the profits or share them and the owner of the show (the authors) receive the profit share/license fee.

The producers/investors of a show share in the subsidiary income (I believe to the tune of 40%) from a show for 10 years following the close of the original production. This includes royalties from cast albums, licensing fees from amateur/stock productions, film sales, etc. Anything that makes money off the title other than ticket revenues. Contractually this is money that goes to the author(s) because they own the property (unless it has been created as a work-for-hire, where a producer specifically pays writers to write something and retains ownership of it when it's done). The production contract gives the producing entity a certain percentage of that income for a certain length of time in exchange for the added exposure/value that they have given it by raising the money and giving it a Broadway production.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/31/11 at 10:40am

Thank you, temms. That sounds a little more realistic. I was having trouble imagining a producer explaining to his investors why they share in none of that subsidiary income.

Let's add that the Dramatist Guild strongly opposes the concept of any stage work being a "work-for-hire".

[ChenoKahn]

Posted: 1/1/12 at 5:29pm

Frontrowcentre is right on the Wicked cast-recording they spelled Kristin Chenoweth's name with an "e" and in As Long As You're Mine he is listed as Leo Norbert Butz. I know kind of off subject but it has always bothered me.

[metsfan]

Posted: 1/2/12 at 1:47am

Temms is right and Ghostlight2 is wrong. Investor participation in subsidiary income (merchandise, cast recording) is not "the exception, rather than the rule." Quite the opposite: It's enshrined in the APC, which doesn't make it law, but does make it the standard.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 1/2/12 at 1:55am

There are no absolutes here. As a rule, investors do NOT make money off of merchandise on Broadway, and as to OBC's, it varies as to contracts.