Define "flop" — Page 2

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.

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

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.

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

-Martha, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

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

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

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

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?

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?"

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.

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

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.

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?!