Define "flop"- Page 3

[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?!

[DAME]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 7:15pm

CarlosAlberto said: "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?!"

 

Estoy igual, Cabrona!

 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 8/23/17 at 1:47pm

Miles2Go2 said: "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? 

It was a critical success and a financial failure.  I seem to remember reading that it did not return any of its investment; that may be overstated, but not by much.

 

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 12:48am

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

Not true! Millie most certainly DID recoup (in addition to winning the Tony).

As mentioned above, depending on how a show is structured, whether the Broadway "mother" company recoups -- and hence, recoupment (i.e. profitability) clauses kick in -- depends not only on Broadway revenues, but also on whether it mounts the tour and receives revenue streams from it, licensing fees, etc. The Broadway mother company can continue to operate and recoup even after the Broadway run is over.

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 1:34am

The Oxford English Dictionary ("the definitive record of the English language" gives these definitions related to theater:

Flop: "A person or enterprise (esp. a play, etc.) that is a failure."

Hit: "A successful stroke made in action or performance of any kind; esp. any popular success (a person, a play, a song, etc.) in public entertainment."

Obviously, folks have different opinions about whether profitability, awards, critical acclaim, or popularity are the most salient criteria of failure or success. Among the options, winning a Tony and triggering recoupment clauses by reaching profit are objective, so probably easiest to agree upon. Critical acclaim and popularity may be more subjective, but arguably valid options. When the criterion is in doubt, a speaker can always clarify which one he or she is using.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 2:16am

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

Not true! Millie most certainly DID recoup (in addition to winning the Tony).

The Broadway run closed without making its investment back. That's a fact.

 

 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 8:07am

Nothing has been added to this thread since the first few posts. Anyone can apply any meaning they want to any word. The only issue here is whether you want to sound intelligent or ignorant in this industry. Words have specific connotations within any field of endeavor, and one does not repair to a dictionary to find out what they are. In commercial theatre in the United States, it is not open to debate that a flop is a show that closed on Broadway without recouping. And the mother company nonsense is just that: if a show closes on Broadway without recouping, where pray tell is the money needed to tour supposed to come from?

[chuckydisc]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 9:33am

HogansHero said: "if a show closes on Broadway without recouping, where pray tell is the money needed to tour supposed to come from?"

It can come from secondary investors who give additional money for a tour but with certain tour revenue/profit siphoned off to the primary investors as written in the contracts.

Whether the secondary investors and primary ones have any or complete overlap ... who knows?

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 10:01am

chuckydisc said: It can come from secondary investors who give additional money for a tour but with certain tour revenue/profit siphoned off to the primary investors as written in the contracts.

Whether the secondary investors and primary ones have any or complete overlap ... who knows?"

You are describing a new entity not the "mother" production. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 5:34pm

You are describing a new entity not the "mother" production.

Exactly.  They are separate productions, just as with Hamilton (Broadway), Hamilton (Chicago), Hamilton (US Tour), Hamilton (London), etc.  If there are agreements in place that make distributions to the investors of the Broadway production, it is through agreements with the new entity, but it has no bearing on the recoupment status of a Broadway run that already closed at a loss.  The closing date is the cutoff for the hit/flop status of a Broadway production and if the balance sheet dated the day of closing is in the red, the Broadway production is a flop.  You can say a show flopped on Broadway, but ultimately recouped from the subsequent tour.  That doesn't redefine the Broadway production as a hit.  It's not like the Broadway run can receive an annulment from the Catholic Church.  

[Mike66]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 7:38pm

Sometimes words can be a problem. 

There's no real debate that the industry term for a 'financial failure' is a 'flop.'  They could call it a Sydney if they wanted.  That's the word.  You are a 'flop' if you don't recoup on Broadway.  You are a "hit" if you do.  It's really just one dollar either way, in theory.

I think the problem people are having is that 'flop' carries other baggage from other ways people use the word.  But that's not really the point.  (Sydney has other uses too -- no body confuses my daughter with a city in Australia).

Here's a good example.  Loser, which seems to be a word in high demand these days.  If I go out and play tennis and get fewer points than my opponent then I am THE loser.  But that doesn't mean that I am A loser.

But don't blame the language.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/24/17 at 10:32pm

 People don't like the word flop to be used when they're talking about a show they love. Like it somehow address their personal experience, so they like to get offended. 

Updated On: 8/24/17 at 10:32 PM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 3:32pm

"See, this is why the non-economic definition is silly: what does it mean?"

I just think there is a bit of a difference between a "flop" like "Bonny & Clyde" that played under 100 performances and "Jekyll & Hyde" which played 1543 performances. They both did not recoup but one of them was good enough to stay open almost 4 years.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 4:23pm

dramamama611 said: " People don't like the word flop to be used when they're talking about a show they love. Like it somehow address their personal experience, so they like to get offended. "

 

There are a couple of posts in this thread that imply that sentiment - I admit that, though I don't agree with them. But in general I think that's a very inaccurate and pretty condescending summary of the counter-arguments in this thread. Based on this post alone, it kind of seems like you haven't been reading the thread at all - or at least not the posts of the people who disagree with you. People have been very thoughtful about examining the word, its use in context, and its implications. And people have discussed the various ways a show's success can be evaluated artistically (how long it runs, reviews, awards, word of mouth, influence and impact on the theatre world, etc.). You took all of that and basically just said "oh their feelings are just hurt." Almost none of this discussion has centered around any individual's opinions of any show. 

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 4:34pm

I don't think dramamama611 was speaking strictly within the confines of this thread.  Yes, there are those on BWW who get into a huff when their favorite show is referred to as a "flop" and they get really defensive about it.  I've seen it numerous times.

Follies was a flop.  Two Gentlemen of Verona was a hit.

GO!

[Demitri2]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 5:33pm

PRINCE OF BROADWAY

[South Florida]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 5:37pm

The Pirate Queen. Not only was the girl I dream of in it but there was an incredible cast.  From the music of Boubil and Schoneberg, and the creators of Riverdance.  How could this eff up? It did.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 6:14pm

yankeefan7 said: ""See, this is why the non-economic definition is silly: what does it mean?"

I just think there is a bit of a difference between a "flop" like "Bonny & Clyde" that played under 100 performances and "Jekyll & Hyde" which played 1543 performances. They both did not recoup but one of them was good enough to stay open almost 4 years."

absolutely, and that's why we have adjectives.

[Theatrefan26]

Posted: 8/25/17 at 7:22pm

Prince of Broadway

[KKeller6]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 1:06pm

I don't put much stock into the financials of many shows. Creative accounting, and the distribution of weekly profits-which can be different from show to show-can create  lot of scenarios, where the producers can make money while declaring a loss on their investment. To believe a show ran for 4 years, and didn't make it's money back is hard for me to think is true. In baseball, there were years and years the small market teams claimed they lost money, yet that was proven to be incorrect years later when they had to open up their books. Be very wary of these Broadway producers. They are snakes. And most of them are quite wealthy. Like it, or not, believe it, or not. Most very wealthy people DO NOT throw their money away on constantly losing ventures.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 2:20pm

"To believe a show ran for 4 years, and didn't make it's money back is hard for me to think is true."

I never understood how a show like Jekyll & Hyde had 1543 performances and did not recoup.  I do not know much (lol) about the Broadway business so I can only guess it did well enough not to lose money every week but not enough to make a substantial profit to repay investors.

[KKeller6]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 2:48pm

Or we can guess the producers used shady accounting practices. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 4:38pm

@KKeller6 that's a lovely theory but alas (with rare exceptions like Livent, for which people went to the pokey) untrue. All shows have CPAs who are not going to jeopardize their firms for any producer (again, with rare exceptions) and on balance investors as a group are wealthier and more sophisticated financially than most producers. Yes there are questionable practices related to services rendered to the production from affiliated entities of the producer, but in the scheme of things they are never enough to change a show's fortunes. There are simply too many people with their eyes on the till for anything shady in a major way.

As to the question of why (and how) a show would run for years and not recoup, the answer is that it mostly ran at the margin. Why keep it running? Because if it continues to contribute even minimally toward recoupment, investors find getting 80% of their money back a lot better than the alternative. And remember that both the producer and creatives have positive cash flow even when the production loses money, and everybody else is getting a weekly check as well. 

To put things in perspective, if a show is capitalized at $15mil, and has an average weekly net profit of $50k, after 5 years it will have returned $13mil. If it then starts to run at a loss each week consistently, it closes at a loss.

Updated On: 8/26/17 at 04:38 PM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 5:51pm

"As to the question of why (and how) a show would run for years and not recoup, the answer is that it mostly ran at the margin. Why keep it running? Because if it continues to contribute even minimally toward recoupment, investors find getting 80% of their money back a lot better than the alternative. And remember that both the producer and creatives have positive cash flow even when the production loses money, and everybody else is getting a weekly check as well. "

Thanks for the information. I always wondered about J&H not recouping. Found this information below.

"The musical will have recouped about 75 percent of its $7 million investment, according to a spokesman. The 10 current international productions, a non-Equity North American tour, and stock and amateur stagings in the coming years will certainly make the project profitable, eventually."

 

[Dave13]

Posted: 8/26/17 at 11:31pm

Whether you like the show or not, if the show fails to recoup, it's a flop.  I know lots of people on this board loved American Psycho. It failed miserably at the box office, so it was a flop.  On the other hand, Wicked received poor reviews and many on this board disliked it.  Yet it is a huge hit.