Define "flop"- Page 2

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 12:55pm

I think some argue that the term "flop" has been used in everyday language to mean beyond the objective, hard line business meaning. When a show fails to recoup, then it is definitely considered a flop in business terms. However, since people use it in every day language, some think the way many use flop seems to indicate it also has had no major influence in theatre culture/canon. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see some big name musicals be considered a "flop" when it is seen as incredibly influential and its name has survived the test of time.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:08pm

you can call anything you want a flop, just as you call it a play, musical, revival, farce, comedy or anything else. but in each case there is an industry accepted definition that, should you choose not to use it, you risk sounding foolish. 

[TheThreadMaster]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:16pm

I thought a flop was a show that is non-comercially successful

[@z5]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:20pm

Doctor Zhivago and Amazing Grace

[BWWMatt]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:01pm

While I understand and acknowledge that the term "flop" has been accepted to mean a show that does not return its initial investment in theatre business jargon, I think that this definition has some inherent issues. 

Mainly because, if we use this definition of a "flop" as the "industry accepted definition," as Hogan and others have said, then we should, in turn, use the converse to say that a "hit" should be defined inside the industry as a show that does recoup its initial investment, as others have mentioned as wel. 

The problem that I see with that is that nearly everyone in the industry uses the term "hit" in a much different context, usually for their own benefit. Producers are quick to call their show a hit once positive reviews are posted. Critics will regularly use some variation of "it's a hit" for pull quote purposes in their articles. Press reps will slap "hit Broadway show" in a press release after the Tony nominations come out, as will ad agencies on banners and eBlasts. 

So, if the industry itself is using a broader definition for the word "hit," would it not stand to reason that there is room for more flexibility than the industry accepted definition of "flop"?

I will concede that these terms can be used differently in a board room (although the idea of "flop" being a formal definition is a little funny to me) than they are on a message board, but it just makes sense that if the industry has determined that a "hit" is not strictly one thing, than a "flop" doesn't need to be either. 

Also, language grows and evolves, things can take on different meanings, and with the obsession around shows like "Carrie," "Lestat," etc. it seems like "flop" has colloquially come to mean something more specific than the pretty broad "a show that didn't make money" definition that encompasses 75% of all Broadway shows. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:19pm

Well said, Matt! I hadn't considered that aspect of it. 

[GottaHaveAGimmick]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:22pm

"You are all flops! I am the earth mother; and you are all flops."

-Martha, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:22pm

@matt that's not unreasonable except that whatever is said in a press release that's not expressly factual [dates, prices, names, location] is more often than not BS [as you more or less acknowledge]. and that is true whether it is calling a show a hit, long-running, classic, unique, beloved or everyone's favorite, broadway bound. and as I said, peoply have the right to be silly. [and yes we mock shows that make silly assertions in press releases. daily.]

[SweetLips]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:35pm

Every show that comes to our shores is always---'Direct from Broadway', as if, flop or not.

[BWWMatt]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:38pm

Hogan, I think that we are mostly on the same page. I don't disagree with anything that anyone has said in terms of the established uses of both terms. I guess the more I think about it, my ultimate point is just that I think there is room for multiple definitions, at least in my addled little mind. 

If you look in the dictionary, many, if not most, words have multiple, slightly different meanings. So, to me, when I hear the word flop in a business sense, it is absolutely a show that doesn't make money. However, when I hear it in more of a gossipy, "All-Time Biggest Flop" ranking sense, my understanding of it is slightly different. 

I guess, as with most language, it is all about the context. 

 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 4:14pm

MattTamanini said: "Hogan, I think that we are mostly on the same page. I don't disagree with anything that anyone has said in terms of the established uses of both terms. I guess the more I think about it, my ultimate point is just that I think there is room for multiple definitions, at least in my addled little mind. 

If you look in the dictionary, many, if not most, words have multiple, slightly different meanings. So, to me, when I hear the word flop in a business sense, it is absolutely a show that doesn't make money. However, when I hear it in more of a gossipy, "All-Time Biggest Flop" ranking sense, my understanding of it is slightly different. 

I guess, as with most language, it is all about the context. "

I absolutely agree with this. There are words that when used in legal contexts have very specific meanings and you have to be careful with what words one uses (for example "costs" ). However, in every day conversation, context certainly matters and we know how meanings of words have evolved in ways that don't contradict the original, specific use but have expanded upon it and its meanings alter depending on the nature of the conversation. And then dictionaries may or may not follow suit. For example, the Collins dictionary defines "hit show" as "a successful and popular show on television or in the theatre". The Collins dictionary defines "successful" as "Something that is successful is popular or makes a lot of money."

These aren't the greatest definitions, but the conjunction "or" makes it seem like when people refer to a popular show as a "hit show" even if it actually lost money, they aren't necessarily incorrect in that context.

 

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 04:14 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 5:20pm

as i said above somewhere, we're all free to use the definition we want. one on one it is usually fine because we can make funny faces or do air quotes so folks don't think we mean something technical, legal or whatever. That's not as easy in print or online because there is no context. But it's all fine. 

[bear88]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 3:24am

There's an understandable gap in these terms, because a show can be an artistic flop or an economic one. The two often don't match. I enjoyed Great Comet a lot and found it brilliant, but it is unquestionably a Broadway flop for its investors. But I'm not an investor, so I don't care, except for being disappointed that it didn't run long enough for me to see it again on Broadway. 

I was surprised at some of the shows on Mister Matt's list that didn't recoup the first time around. Was She Loves Me a flop because it didn't? It seems like the answer is yes, but the musical has been revived twice to great acclaim and is regarded as one of Broadway's finest musical comedies. But the revivals have come decades apart, and I doubt they did the original investors any good, although I don't know.

I am too ignorant of how shows make money on tour, and to what extent they do the original investors in the Broadway production any good. It sounds like the answer is no. Please correct me is that's wrong, or partially wrong.

But I think it's easiest to stick with the usual definitions. A hit recoups. A flop doesn't. Some hits and flops are bigger than others. For discussions of the business of theater, artistic merit shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

Updated On: 8/17/17 at 03:24 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 3:41am

I was surprised at some of the shows on Mister Matt's list that didn't recoup the first time around. Was She Loves Me a flop because it didn't? It seems like the answer is yes, but the musical has been revived twice to great acclaim and is regarded as one of Broadway's finest musical comedies. But the revivals have come decades apart, and I doubt they did the original investors any good, although I don't know.

That is why it is best not to take the term personally, it's all how the show did as a business during its Broadway run, is all. A few shows do end up doing a lot better on tour, etc.  I know most who feel that 'flop' has a bad connotation say so from defending their passion. But Broadway is not a cheap business, investors don't care much how much you loved this or that show, how long it ran or how good it was if they don't make their money back. Unless a few who put cash in for the love of art, they want to think they made a wise financial move. 

Take someone like composer Frank Wildhorn, not a single one of his shows has ever returned their investment when on Broadway. Yet, they are still produced somehow - there is always someone who is ready to gamble, hit or flop. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 10:11am

bear88 said: "There's an understandable gap in these terms, because a show can be an artistic flop or an economic one. "

See, this is why the non-economic definition is silly: what does it mean? That in your opinion a show is no good artistically? Once again we are back to finding euphemisms for " I didn't like it." Wouldn't you feel silly calling Mamma Mia a flop? 

[bear88]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 5:19pm

HogansHero, that's why I agreed with you. It is human nature for people to want a show they like to be considered successful, but that muddies the waters.

Sticking with the traditional definitions is actually beneficial, I think, because it takes inherently subjective discussions of artistic merit out of the equation. A show recouped and made money for its investors, or it didn't.

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 7:02pm

Maybe we're skirting around a more interesting question: instead of "what constitutes a hit versus a flop," it's more "how has the diversification of the musical theatre business (in terms of shows as "product" to record, tour and license) changed the producing industry from when the goal was to run forever on Broadway, period?"

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 8/17/17 at 7:50pm

It is important that when a show is declared a hit by the producers - as the show has capitalised, therefore clauses in the show's contract are activated and the share of the profit pool changes for the creatives and producers (amortilisation).

This is different from a critical hit, for example the "5 Star Hit".

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/18/17 at 3:30am

HogansHero said: "See, this is why the non-economic definition is silly: what does it mean? That in your opinion a show is no good artistically? Once again we are back to finding euphemisms for " I didn't like it." Wouldn't you feel silly calling Mamma Mia a flop?"

Nonsense. First of all, language is inherently fluid and open to interpretation, so it seems arbitrary to say, "The specific economic definition is the only one that applies." But no, "flop" doesn't have to be synonymous with "I didn't like it." Or conversely, you could have a play that achieves some amount of popularity and commerical success, but still doesn't make its money back, such that it would be difficult to consider it a "flop."

In general, non-industry, non-economic terms, a "flop" is defined as a total failure, meaning that it would have to be financially and artistically unsuccessful. If a movie is critically panned and doesn't make money, it's a flop. If a movie is successful but critically panned, or critically praised but doesn't make its initial investment back...well, there might have to be new terms for those. But "flop" implies a total artistic and financial failure.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/18/17 at 4:05am

 But "flop" implies a total artistic and financial failure.

Not on Broadway, no. Any investor or producer would know what you mean by flop.

You can call it what you want with your own standards, the term won't change meanings within the industry.

 

 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 8/18/17 at 12:32pm

I woke up thinking about the most recent revival of On The Town. It was my favorite show of my 2014 trip and that's saying something as I saw eight great shows that trip. Does anyone know if that revival recouped? I seem to recall that it did not, which is a shame. What about the original or the revival previous to the most recent? 

Updated On: 8/18/17 at 12:32 PM

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/18/17 at 2:33pm

blaxx said: "Not on Broadway, no. Any investor or producer would know what you mean by flop.

You can call it what you want with your own standards, the term won't change meanings within the industry."

The question of the thread is "How do you define a 'flop'?" The question wasn't, "What is the accepted standard industry term for a flop?"

Most of us aren't investors or producers. We're not in financial meetings to discuss whether or not a show was financially successful. The term "flop" existed before, and outside of, the industry usage about financial investment.

Let me put it another way: The restaurant Joe Allen has decorated its walls with posters for Broadway flops. (It started when the cast of the show "Kelly" gave the restaurant their poster, after the show completed its run of one show.) When I went in recently, they said that Amelie doesn't qualify to be on their wall. So clearly the term "flop" has other, non-industry uses.

 

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 5:00pm

That's not entirely accurate. A tour pays a royalty to the Broadway mother company that eventually makes its way back to those investors. That's a fairly small amount however and unless the show was very close to recouping it's unlikely that would get them there. You're correct in that investors in the Broadway production would have to re-invest in the tour if they wanted to be a bigger part of that. In most cases, they have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to invest the same % in the tour as they had in the Broadway production. And in most cases, those investors do re-invest because tours make money more often than not.

[DAME]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 5:36pm

How long before a flop goes up at Joe Allen's?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 6:51pm

If a show does not recoup its investment on Broadway it is considered a flop. It's not that complicated. 

Oye DAME, como estas marica?!