Whatever's going on right now, it's pretty bad--I have never seen so many shows close or announce closing in such a short period of time. A lot of people have been saying it's because of the recession, and that makes more sense than anything: at the moment, nobody wants to shell out $120 to see a Broadway show. That's the very very least of people's worries. And obviously Broadway is hurting for it. Do you think, then, that this is going to maybe lead to producers actually getting the hint and trying to work toward lower ticket costs as a way of getting more butts in seats (especially since this is a moment where it seems not much else is going to work)?
We can hope so.
No producer is going to lower the top ticket price from $480 (just an example) if there's a market that'll pay $480 dollars. And if no one wants to pay that much, who knows?
Right now, I'm just hoping that THE SEAGULL will discontinue its idiotic "pay extra for two aisle seats" policy.
They better keep Student Rates!
Nope.
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/05
I don't think so. "Jersey Boys" is raising their Orch tix to $127 on Jan. 1. Yes, it's doing well, so they can do that. I think it sucks (it's a smallish cast for a musical, and it appears a bit greedy).
But "White Christmas" has a $141.50 ticket price.
$141.50??? Are they kidding??? A family of four pays nearly $600 for a night in the theatre when they could rent the movie for $2.00 bucks?
$141.50?? Wow, I didn't realize White Christmas had prices that high! I hate to ask what the rear mezz seats cost...
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/05
I know, Jenna! I got the "discount" flyer in the mail the other day and it said you can save 30%, and get tix for only $103!
WTF?
It did say that they have "discount" rear mezz tix for $65.00. But as that is the "discount," I assume those rear mezz tix are going for $90 or $100.
Well, WHITE CHRISTMAS is only running about a month, and... well, anything to make a profit, right?
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/05
Yes, Bustopher, "White Christmas" is doing this dangerous thing where they're spending $12 million and trying to make it back in six weeks. It seems like a dangerous concept to begin with, but then charging $141.50 a ticket in this particular economy, seems even worse.
But to get back to the original question:
Remember when theatres started charging $1.00 for "theatre restoration charges"? They all charge it now, whether they are restoring a theatre or not, and nobody balks.
IF "White Christmas" sells out, it says to other producers that it's okay to charge $141.50 per ticket.
I don't wish anything bad for "White Christmas," I hope it succeeds as a show. But if OTHER producers see that one person is charging that much, it's a slippery slope. And eventually, the public is going to revolt. (i.e., "Young Frankenstein" and their $400 tix).
Broadway Star Joined: 12/12/05
This goes along with White Christmas, but despite the economy, the runnings costs of these shows will probably stay the same amount, and if they change for whatever reason, THEN you would probably see a change in tickets prices whether it be for the better or for the worst. There are these giant shows that still have to make a certain amount, and can't really afford to lower ticket prices and attempt to boost sales.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thank God I have no interest in seeing White Christmas! IMO, the shows that can get away with it (Jersey Boys, Wicked, etc.) won't lower ticket prices until such time as they get to be on half price, at which point, no one except the out-of-towners will be interested in seeing them anyway.
However, it should behoove the "lesser" draws to lower their top prices or otherwise they won't make a damn nickel. I said "should" -- meaning, that anything can and will happen.
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/05
Ed, I did have an interest in seeing "White Christmas." But it's priced itself out of my interest.
But I really loathe "Jersey Boys" for raising those prices. That show has a relatively small nut for Broadway. And them raising to $127 is simply greed.
And a new show comes along, they have to charge the same price to "compete." Look at "Title of Show".
Why can't Broadway have a scale that relates to the particular production? "Title of Show" can charge $50 and still be a Broadway show, and "Wicked" can charge $110, because it has a cast of a zillion and looks it.
Why do all Broadway shows have to charge the same price?
As long as they can get away with it & people pay it they will continue. If people see shows 20 & 30 times they have no fear.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
No, because they operating costs aren't going to go down.
Featured Actor Joined: 9/4/07
I sure hope so. I think producers should maybe even speak to musicians and performers about takeing small pay cuts. We all know local one will not accept that. Equity minimum is just under $1600 a week. If you are a lead the minimum is much higher. I know that many performers would be happy to perform on The Great White way for less.
Updated On: 10/24/08 at 01:54 AM
Top prices may not go down but more people will use TKTS and other discount services. Until everything settles down you may see more latitude at teh box offices if the shows are not selling out.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
I don't think tickets prices will ever go in reverse, but you can be sure there will be a lot more discounts out there. Good for us, but bad for the shows. More shows will close before this is all over. Young Frankenstein is now offering $45 tickets.
Take a poll of all broadway actors/crew members/front of house/etc.. and ask them if they're able to afford a pay cut.
They slashed the actor's salary in half for the principle roles in YF.... yet they still keep those $400 tix.
This is scary that this topic has to be on a thread, but its a reality.
ToplessCoco, premium seating for Young Frankenstein is not $400. It's $200 for weekends and $175 for weekdays.
Didn't YF have $400 tickets in the beginning, when it was hyped as the next Producers and failed to deliver? I saw it last Feb and that was just around the time they had started putting it on TKTS for Wed matinees. It went downhill from there, yes. And while I didn't hate the show (though I did see it from lotto seats), I didn't love it, and it wasn't worth $400.
But if people pay it, I don't think prices will change, sadly. And that is why some shows may stay off-limits for me. Even $65 or rear mezz is a little steep for my budget and requires some careful planning.
Yes, YF did have $400 premium seats. I agree that those prices are way too high. But then again, like Brooks said in an interview: everybody goes crazy over 30 premium seats per night, but no one mentions the $25 front row tickets and the hundreds of regularly priced tickets.
Anyway, I'm happy they lowered their prices. $200 really is the maximum for premium seats (even though I'd *never* pay that much money to see a show).
to answer the original question yes and no.
For shows like Spring Awakening, YF, Gypsy and the "smaller" shows yes. But for JB, Wicked and even Phantom where people are going to brokers to get seats (stubhub around $150+ for last row, balcony left), then no.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
>>If anyone needs to take a pay cut it's the producers, not the cast, musicians or crew. I love the idea that taking money from the lowest paid people is somehow the solution. Because that's not one of the reasons for the "recession" at all... <<
Amen!! The percentage they get is even higher than the writers! Yes, they put in a lot of money but with the huge shows, they get paid back and then some! How much money is too much? ALW has like $750M or something!
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Just another thought. Many out-of-towners who fork over the big bucks to see JB, Wicked and the other biggies are the folks for which NYC is a once-in-a-while or a once-in-a-lifetime experience. When their expendable income is tight, so is their theatre-going going to be limited -- they want to see a "name" show, not a smaller piece like [tos] or Spring Awakening. Ergo, these "smaller" shows depend more on the hardcore tri-State theatre audiences. But if these smaller shows are charging the same as for, say, JB or WC or whatever, the cost is just too much of a financial strain on the locals' budgets. It seems to me that some money in the till is better than no money in the till.
Videos