Some shows get boosts from the Tony coverage, but the only thing that CONSISTENTLY makes a difference is winning the "Best" categories.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
I don't know if they SAVED shows, but I do know it has helped some show extend their runs longer than they would have. How much longer is speculative, but I'm sure people can make educated guesses based on gross v. operating costs before and after winning important Tony categories. I think winning is better for publicity than performance though if there is a really good performance I can see it being shared on YouTube and twitter and other social media.
I don't know 'saved,' but wasn't their Tony Awards performance credited with keeping The Wedding Singer open for longer than it otherwise would have been?
In recent years the only example that comes to mind is A Christmas Story: The Musical. Their performance of You'll Shoot Your Eye Out at the 2013 Tony Awards was absolutely electric and I think started a lot of buzz and word of mouth between people who missed it that Christmas season and those who were lucky enough to catch it. I think it spread enough buzz and demand for the tour the following holiday season. I know its what peaked my interest so see it the following year at MSG.
Also I know Patrick Pacheco wrote an article for the LA Times (maybe around 2012-13?) about the impact of Tony Awards performances and mentioned how even though Parade beat Beauty and the Beast for Best Musical, Beauty and the Beast's performance basically made it the winner that night and helped its ticket sales immensely. I'd post a link but I'm having a hard time finding the article.
To answer the question directly, I would imagine it always helps...but is it worth the COST to perform?
I think the larger benefit of a Tonys performance is to expose the show to the national non-New York audience to spark interest for the eventual tour. A lot of theatre-attending people who are not reading the BroadwayWorld.com boards every day are watching, and that's how they discover new shows.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
Wick3 said: "lol Parade? I think you meant Sondheim's Passion.
"
Thanks Wick3! My bad, I mixed up the two musicals that are one word, two syllables, beginning with Pa. See, if I could find that article I wouldn't have mixed it up haha.
Hmmm I seem to remember Fun Home being lauded within the theater community pre-Tony;s, but I remember the performance of Ring of Keys drumming up a lot of interest for the show and that coupled with the Best Musical win I think definitely helped extend it's life.
I agree with Capn, I think the largest impact really is in drumming up future interest. I remember watching tony award telecasts in high school, and the exposure on the show was my first introduction to many shows. Shows that later would rank among my favorites, and to eventual productions of which, I would later buy tickets to.
I’m sure there were/are many others like me. The immediate impact on a currently running production might be minimal, but the exposure really helps future productions in the long run.
I may be mistaken, but didn't the grosses for "Bandstand" raise exponentially after their performance, and intro from Jill Biden? They also won Best Choreography, but I think it's pretty unanimously agreed that Jill's intro paired with their electric performance is what garnered (a short-lived) peak in interest.
They/them.
"Get up the nerve to be all you deserve to be."
Next to Normal....even though its Tony performance was far from perfect, its performance definitely helped sell tickets. Yes it won 3 awards, its Best Score and Orchestrations wins over Billy Elliot are considered one of the biggest Tony upsets of all time after Avenue Q winning over Wicked. These awards though rarely sell tickets especially when you have the then Tied for the Tony Nominations' Billy Elliot sweep in 10 of the 14 categories in which it was eligible. So all of the headlines the following morning read "Billy takes Tony Glory"....
The performance very much showcased the iconicly manic performance of Alice Ripley, who also gave one of the most memorable acceptance speeches in recent memory. These two factors in combination helped take a struggling little off Broadway musical and turn it into one of greatest success stories in recent Broadway history, that is even studied in marketing classes.
bdn223, Tom Kitt attests to the appreciable bump you describe for Next to Normal in an article written by Patrick Healy in the New York Times at the time the show recouped.
Gentleman's Guide is easily the first example that comes to mind. The top award win was the deciding factor, but for me, that vibrant "I've Decided to Marry You" made me want to see the show. (Which I did.)
One of the coffee table books on Broadway musicals has a chapter on the making of “Grand Hotel” and credits the performance on the Tonys being the turnaround moment when he show began to surge at the box office. The show also won a lot of Tony’s that year which no doubt helped.
“I knew who I was this morning, but I've changed a few times since then.”