How much $$$...

[renthead333]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:13pm

do the big on shows broadway cost to run each week???

i was really wondering about
-rent
-wicked
-phantom
-color purple
-tarzan
-wedding singer

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:16pm

Depends on the show, but usually above the $900,000 mark. Check out the Broadway Grosses section of the Broadwayworld site.

[renthead333]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:20pm

no, not how much it makes each week. i was wondering how much it costs to produce each week.

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:22pm

How much it costs to produce each week? You mean how much it costs to maintain the show as it's running?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:25pm

$900,000???? If that were true, only a few shows would ever be able to turn a profit. The question was how much COST to run the show, not how much the shows grossed weekly.

Rent is one of the cheaper ones. I think it's break is is around $300,000 to 350,000 per week, which is the main reason it's been able to survive so many years, even during times when its attendance numbers dipped to 60%.

The most expensive shows generally break even around $600,000 to 650,000. Producers rarely budget a show higher than that because, unless you're selling out (or close) every week, it's very hard to remain profitable.

[FeelingElectric]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:27pm

Even though Rent is a big show on Broadway, I would not think it costs that much to produce weekly. It is a minimal set, a minimal band, and no really huge names to pay a large salary to. I would also think that Chicago and Sweeney Todd(Besides salary to Patti/Michael), would be fairly cheap to produce as well.

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:28pm

Sorry Margo. For some reason I was thinking gross numbers. Thanks for clarifying that. Was there ever a show that cost $900,000 or more just to maintain?

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:34pm

I imagine Lord of the Rings must be quite close to $800,000. I'm not sure, Margo could probably help me here, but wasn't Sunset Boulevard one of the most expensive shows to run weekly in the past decade?

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:38pm

What about Follies?

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:39pm

-rent: $300,000
-wicked: $675,000
-phantom: $625,000
-color purple: $600,000
-tarzan: I have heard about 10 different figures
-wedding singer: $510,000

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:41pm

Not that I've ever heard of. Shows generally are capitalized and budgeted to be able to break even as long as attendance is 65-70% (depending on how many discount tickets are being sold every week). Only a handful of shows ever gross over a million dollars weekly and no producer is going count on being able to bring in that much every week -- it's great if it happens, but a financially prudent producer never assumes that it will. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Wicked may be the most expensive show right now (other than maybe Tarzan or Lion King, but Disney doesn't release its financial figures), costing around $700,000 or so, but given that it grosses $1.4 million most weeks, obviously it's making huge profits (premium seating helps).

Sunset Boulevard made the mistake of budgeting the show so expensively that it had to do something like 75-80% weekly in order to break even. That was fine when Glenn Close was in the show and it was a selling out, but after she left, the show struggled at the box office and eventually lost millions.

Updated On: 4/22/06 at 05:41 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:48pm

Follies cost $800,000 in 1971 which was a record at the time. Not sure how that would translate into 2006 dollars, but clearly its initial capitalization and weekly running costs were outrageous for the time. While it had a decent run of over 500 performances, it was simply too expensive to turn a profit.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 5:49pm

The "general" rule of thumb is ideally you want your show to be breaking even at around 60%

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 6:02pm

FeelingElectric, there is no such thing as a cheap show to produce on Broadway because of union minimums. Not what you pay the musicains and crew, but how many you have to emply. Each theatre has a different minimum number of musicians but it's usually above a dozen. So if there is ANY music played, you must have those guys under contract. In many cases with shows that have a small band, there are musicians called "walkers" who just play cards backstage - all the while getting pay and benefits. It is, I believe, the same with IATSE, the stagehand's union (and locals please correct me if this has changed, I've been out here in Los ANgeles for a long time). So Rent may be much more expensive than it appears.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 6:08pm

Actually, the Nederlander minimum is 4 musicians. If somebody really wants all the house requs for musicians or any other weekly op costs, PM me...

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 6:09pm

So how exactly does a show like Sweeney or Company work with the Union contracts?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 6:10pm

There have been lots of concessions with the walkers issue over the years since the last contract renegotiation.

Even taking everything else into account, Rent is still one of the cheapest musical shows on Broadway at around $300,000/week to run (I've heard $315,000 is the exact number).

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 6:14pm

Sweeney negotiated special deals with Equity and the musicians' union, with the eventual upshot being, the producers paid for the performers to join the musicians' union and the performers were compensated at the salary rate which was higher as between the two unions -- which ended up being the musicians' union, in I believe all cases, since you are paid bonuses for every additional instrument you play.

One assumes that COMPANY will have a similar arrangement with the unions.

[FeelingElectric]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 7:42pm

Perhaps cheap was the wrong choice of word, but certainly the shows I mentioned are not as expensive to produce day to day as Wicked for instance.

[Tag]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 7:54pm

I have been told by a very reliable source the Toronto's LOTR has a weekly operating cost of $1 million. Its very possible that this is true as there are 55 cast members (including a couple 'big' names, around 70 backstage crew, and something like 26 musicians.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 9:56pm

LOTR will definately have to cut costs if it plans on coming to NY. I can't see it lasting too long if it were to cost that much at a legit musical theatre.

[Tag]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:02pm

They can't cut their costs, if they did it would be at the expense of the original vision for the show.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:06pm

I understand that. But with the way Broadway economics go, and from what's been said above, they'd be risking A LOT of money.

Plus, you're not taking into consideration that they could make time cuts. Shows over 3 hours in the US at least cause the production to have to pay overtime to certain personel because of unions.

With LOTR being as massive as it is, it's more than likely that they'll be making some cuts here or there for other productions, especially with pretty much all of the reviews saying it was slightly weak in structure at certain points.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:06pm

Then it will fail.

But I think we all knew that already.

[Horton]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:17pm

I have a feeling everybody in Sweeney get paid a respectable salary. They are all so talented!