150k viewers is quite good when translated to actual bodies in the theater. That said...
orangeskittles said: "I wouldn't have bothered to see it- let alone check out the score- if it wasn't free. I'm not sure what the goal of the livestream was. To be the first? To sell cast recordings? I don't know how this is a viable business practice."
Davenport explains their reasons in the blog post: mainly to "accelerate word-of-mouth." It's not a viable business practice (yet?). But given this experiment, livestreaming or any streaming would serve two purposes: Additional marketing to get more butts into seats as well as other sales, and pay-per-view revenue.
As I posited earlier, the fact that Davenport decided to offer a big discount post-livestream would dirty his data, so ticket sales as a measure of livestream marketing for butts-in-seats wouldn't be accurate. But he doesn't give data for that anyway, so fair enough.
As for other stats, the 10-day post-livestream 484% cast album sale increase sounds good (but of course he doesn't share what pre-stream seals looked like over what period). The stat "82.2% said they would PAY for the experience of livestreaming a Broadway or Off Broadway show" sounds good too, but survey data attempting to predict the future just isn't very interesting to me. Someone still has to take the next step and try to charge a fee; maybe we're waiting on that live theater streaming news from some months ago. And then someone will copy it and spread it for free to people like NeverSoShy who ask for a link. 
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin