Define "flop"

A show is a flop when it doesn't recoup its investment.



I understand that people use the term more broadly, but that is the industry definition and the only quantifiable way to define success. When an article on a theatre site declares a show is a "flop," that is what they mean.

The only place it gets complicated to me is that shows now frequently recoup on the road or (more commonly now) in licensing, when shows that didn't make a splash on Broadway become perennials in regionals and community theatre.

Given that there's often more money to be made off the Great White Way than on, with the rise of the major licensing houses, many producers keep an option in for tours and licensing, and the definition of at what point the show goes from a flop to recouped can be fuzzier.

Yero, you are wrong. Making money on the road or elsewhere can not turn the Broadway Production into a "hit" When a show tours or is performed elsewhere the initial Broadway investors do not make any more moolah unless they invest in the tour. Most tours these days are run by third parties and have nothing to do with the investors. The "hands-on" producers may make more because they own or are contracted to a "piece" of the show. If you invest in a Broadway Production and it does not make back its initial investment you get zip, nada, nothing. As Gertrude Stein said: A Flop is A Flop is A Flop.

Updated On: 8/15/17 at 07:16 PM

I didn't say that all shows recoup their investment on the road, or that a successful tour necessarily means anything for the Broadway investment. I was responding to the previous poster to say that IF a show recoups its initial Broadway investment on tour, it is a hit, regardless of when the recoupment happened.

Updated On: 8/15/17 at 07:30 PM

ladypresent said: "millie won the tony award and didn't recoup its investment..is it a flop?"

By the official definition of the word, yes, it's a flop. I think we need some new terms to help describe that sort of situation.

I really never got why it's hard to get this is the only objective way to measure a hit or flop. It either made its investment back during its Broadway run or not.

I know Wildhorn would love to think the 5 year run of Jekyll and Hyde made it a hit, sorry Frankie!

blaxx said: "I really never got why it's hard to get this is the only objective way to measure a hit or flop. It either made its investment back during its Broadway run or not."



I think the reason the recoupement definition is difficult for people to latch onto is that the word "flop" also carries certain connotations with it - just as any word has connotations that go along with its literal definition. The connotations that go with the word "flop" are that the show bombed, couldn't find an audience, didn't get recognition, etc. Even the regular word "flop" in a non-theatre context implies a kind of weak collapse in a pathetic and undignified way. The image that it evokes feels like an extreme.

When a show actually does gain traction - when it runs for a year or more, gets awards or lots of nominations, gets good reviews, amasses a fan base, etc. - it feels wrong to use such an ugly word like "flop" to describe it, even if it technically didn't make back its investment. I understand it's not OFFICIALLY wrong, but it feels like a poor descriptor. I'm reminded of this incident with Spider-Man:

http://variety.com/2013/legit/news/broadways-spider-man-is-not-a-flop-at-least-not-to-one-theater-district-restaurant-1201012263/

Like I said earlier in the thread: I think we need a new set of terms.

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 02:31 AM

blaxx said: "You don't need to take the term flop beyond what it means: as a business, the production flopped. As a business. That's all. It's math really, not that hard."



Yeah, I get that's what it means. My point is that it has connotations attached to it, which cloud the definition in the eyes of many people. The average ticket-buying tourist probably has no idea whether shows recoupe investments, and many probably don't understand how that process works. Yet those people will still probably use the word "flop," and they probably wouldn't use it for shows that run for 5 years, but didn't make their money back. You and I would both agree that those people are technically wrong, but they make that mistake because the word DOES have connotations that go beyond the literal definition. I'm not trying to complicate the issue - I'm just trying to account for why the issue has already been complicated and confused.

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 02:49 AM

The only complication I would suggest is that not all flops are equal, and not all hits are equal either. Obviously a show like Spider Man that loses almost its entire investment at a massive scale is a bit different than a show that gives back 50% of its modest investment - even though they are both flops. Similarly, there is a difference between a hit like Wicked and a hit that recoups the day before it closes. I know these are obvious, but the simple binary definition of "hit" and "flop" does seem a little bit simple for my liking.

I think the real grey area is for shows that got good reviews with solid word of mouth, and ran for a good 2 years but still couldn't recoup everything...the word "Flop" seems a bit much in these cases.

I've seen the word "flop-hit" used for Sunset BLVD and other shows that lost money but ran a while and developed a following.

People are defining it in business terms, but I think the point of this thread is to define a flop in theater terms. A show may be a smash hit if it recoups, but not every show that doesn't is a flop. For instance, Amelie is a flop but Bandstand isn't. I'd say about under 4 months (more or less) on Broadway is a flop. Exceptions can be made for shows based on expectations, ie. Spiderman.