Cheaper to Produce: NY or West End?

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 3:31am

West End.

Case in example: Matilda cost £3M to produce ($4.5M) in London.
on BWay, it cost £16M (which it's since made back).

Due to the higher equity rates in NY and all the unions, it's a lot more expensive. That's why a Broadway show will have 3567653345678987543233456790098653421234568987643224567875432322 producers (investors) and a London show will have 1, 2 or 3.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 3:50am

How exactly can Matilda have made $16million profit to pay back investors already? Its running costs arnt cheap

[anmiller07]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:31am

Matilda had 12 million in advance sales before opening, which is a nice start. I don't know what the nut is, but it's easy to believe it already has/is close to recouping.

Edit - found this Its fixed weekly expenses are relatively low at $584,452 plus 7% of grosses payable to the landlord, the Shubert Organization, exclusive of other theater expenses. Updated On: 6/27/13 at 06:31 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:36am

Advance sales do not go towards recouping. They only get that money in increments (well, the money from Telecharge anyway, which is the vast majority of their sales.) I think it's only a week or two before the scheduled performance.

Matilda has not recouped yet. (or they are guarding it as a secret)


Nick -- while I totally agree with your reasoning, your numbers for Matilda in London, seem unbelievably low. That set ALONE has to have cost several million dollars.

[anmiller07]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:38am

Don't know how reliable this source is, but it also states that Matilda cost RSC 4 million to mount in London, which is recouped in 6 months.
Investors anticipate Matilda's payday prospects

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:42am

Exactly, you cant take an advance into account. Its only the per week profit after costs.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:43am

Interesting, thanks for posting the article. I'm shocked actually.

In that article, it does say that it will take Matilda about a year to recoup.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 7:26am

Cameron Mackintosh once said he would NEVER produce a show on Broadway first because of the ridiculously high production costs.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 12:10pm

The article says it cost four million to produce in London, but does that include the costs of the original production at the RSC before they opened the West End production? If not then that could explain why it seems so much cheaper, because they may have been able to recycle some of the physical production from Stratford, which would of course then reduce some of the start up costs for the commercial run.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 1:09pm

Also high proportion of costs, are in the shows development, in this point Matilda didn't have to do in New York and instead burdened the cost in Stratford/London, Matilda still cost 4 times as much in New York than London.

[AnythingGoes23]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 2:18pm

Matilda's London transfer was about 4million but they had spent a good few million in Stratford with the RSC which is funded.

Broadway was more expensive as its a completely new production set wise and rehearsal time prior to opening. The show is yet to turn a profit but is expected to in a year.

Broadway costs a lot more, about double than London. Cameron indeed did say he will never produce direct on Broadway and very few lone producers can these days ( I think David Merrick was the last lone producer on broadway directly) as its so expensive and in Broadway you now frequently see upto and over 15 producing teams or people.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 5:57pm

Lol at Nick thinking Matilda had recouped on Broadway, he's a bit obsessed with the show.

[AvenueQResident]

Posted: 6/27/13 at 6:54pm

Presuming that's why ticket prices are a lot higher on Broadway, as it's a much more expensive part of the theatre world to run?

[roadmixer]

Posted: 6/28/13 at 4:25pm

It is much cheaper to produce in London. The wages are lower. Union agreements are weak or non-existent and vendors charge less per week there for lights, sound, automation and scenery. Rules regarding child actors are not as stringent either so shows like BILLY E, MATILDA, OLIVER etc. are cheaper there for that reason. Tickets are cheaper as someone pointed out but the cost of living is off the charts in London. Most workinh in theatre face long train rides in and out.

Updated On: 6/28/13 at 04:25 PM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/28/13 at 4:58pm

"Rules regarding child actors are not as stringent either so shows like BILLY E, MATILDA, OLIVER etc. are cheaper there for that reason."

They may be less stringent as to how much they are paid, but I've been under the impression that the rules as to how much they are allowed to work seem to be far stricter over there than over here (which has given birth to the triple, and now quadruple, casting of child leads).