Co-producers vs. "Co-producers"

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/7/22 at 6:55pm

In today's day and age where every Broadway production lists dozens of producers, is there any way for a member of the public to distinguish between someone who genuinely has active control, vs. someone who just wrote a large check?

Sometimes it's obvious: you have situations where Nick Jonas becomes a "co-producer" of Chicken and Biscuits after previews have already started. Then on the flip side, you have some cases where where it's clear that someone is ACTUALLY being credited with having helped produce the show, like for example, the lead producer of a London production staying on as a co-producer when an American producer brings it to NY. Or an Off-Broadway company being a co-producer on a show that began at their company. Because in those cases, they helped to produce the show in the most literal definition of the word.

But what about when it's not so obvious? What about when you've reached the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th name on the list of credited producers, and you're still seeing people who are professional producers, or belong to production companies. Is there a way to infer whether they actually have producing responsibilities, or whether they just put money in? If it's the former, what would those responsibilities be, when they lead producer probably has everything covered?

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/7/22 at 8:49pm

The person (or persons) on the top billing line are the ones who make the decisions. The rest are money people —but they don’t get a seat at the table. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/22 at 11:54pm

Truth is, the most important thing to remember in trying to wrap your head around this subject is that there are no rules. None. 

Top billing? Often means lead producer but not always. You don't have to look too far to see a major investor who ends up on top. Sometimes the control attaches to someone who is not a producer at all, the executive producer. Sometimes people end up high up because they are taking an equity interest in lieu of payments to which they would be entitled. That often includes a rights holder of one sort or another, but it can also be a landlord. But you can't always tell. Sometimes the landlord has just made a financial deal, and other times they are actively involved in producing. 

You are on the right track. If you want to know, you can dig, or you can intuit. Sometimes the answer is easy (the celebrities, the CEOs of large corporations or hedge funds, etc are not actually producing) but sometimes not. For the most part, it is a rare show where more than a very few people are calling any shots. Non-profits may have produced below, but they are not very often actually producing on Broadway; they are being paid for their prior work and for rights agreements but they rarely have a seat at the table. If you dig a little, these things are not hard to figure out but don't look for oversimplifications. If you see someone who has lead produced substantial shows, and they are listed below 3rd, it's probably an investment but sometimes there is a particularized role that they could be playing. Again, always repeat: no rules  

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/7/22 at 11:58pm

The top line of the playbill = the lead producers. They are doing the actual work of producing the show. Everyone else is a co-producer, meaning they raised money, invested money, or did something else to deserve above-the-title placement. (The order above the title from the second line down is related to how much money they raised.)

The co-producers are limited partners. They will never lose more money than what they invested. They have no decision-making capacity. They might be invited to select ad meetings, but they have zero power. 

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 9/8/22 at 7:40pm

Probably the best way is, is you know the name of the LLC, to search the SEC's EDGAR database. Those filings will include the names of the managing members.

[ddenoff2]

Posted: 9/10/22 at 10:31pm

From a legal standpoint, a coproducer isn't even a limited partner except to the extent they have invested their own funds.  The investors are the only limited partners 

A coproducer in most cases will receive a share of profits after recoupment from the General Partner's 50% of the profits (although some shows do not offer this "vig" at all)

As for a "say", some General Partners welcome ideas and input from coproducers and some do not.  But neither coproducers nor limited partners have any legal standing to make decisions nor any risk or liability beyond their investment.  
 

if you're interested in more detail DM me for a PDF copy of my Theatre For Dummies.  

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/10/22 at 11:13pm

Thanks for your responses, everybody! That clarified a lot! 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 8:25am

One more point of clarity for someone working in the business, since some knowledgable people seem to be flocking to the thread and my crew hasn't been able to elicit answers from colleagues: does anyone have a ballpark on what's the going rate for above-the-title placement these days (i.e., what's the minimum amount required for a share)? I understand it may vary from production to production, but even a rough average will help.

[ddenoff2]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 3:42pm

$125-250K for a play

$250-500k for a musical.  Some musicals will take $125k

and BTW the minimum investment is often $25K but sometimes $50K for the sole reason that above 39 investors the production must do Audited financials instead of Reviewed.  So keeping the number of investors lower avoids the cost of Audited statements 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 4:27pm

I hate to sound like a broken record but... there are no rules. If a production is coming up short and it completes the deal, the number becomes what is needed. If someone brings some important non-monetary benefit to the production, the name will fly at the speed of light above the title. It also depends, of course, on the producer and the property: it could go much higher.