Do you think the recession is going to lead to lower ticket prices?

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)?

---

They better keep Student Rates!

---

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?

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.

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).

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

ToplessCoco, premium seating for Young Frankenstein is not $400. It's $200 for weekends and $175 for weekdays.

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).

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 08:03 AM

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.

---