I was using hyperbole to make a point, not being literal -- sorry if that wasn't clear. What I was saying is that compared to producing and marketing a live tour, producing and distributing a DVD is very inexpensive.
My basic point is this: if, as you suggest, a decision to sell a DVD were a simple matter of North American profitability, you'd see lots of official DVD's of Broadway shows. But as you may have noticed, none -- including mega-hits -- sell official DVD's of their performances. It's not because they can't (producers and Actor's Equity could work out that deal if they wanted to). It's because if you sell a person a DVD, they're much less likely to buy a ticket for the tour which, though more expensive than a DVD to produce, has a higher profit margin. The profitability in live theater rests in putting people in seats, not peddling DVD's.
Televising a performance before a national tour is one thing; that acts like an advertisement for the tour, and helps sell tickets if the DVD is not available as an alternative. I'm certain a Legally Blonde DVD would sell, because it is one of the most popular stock and amateur musicals in the U.S., with about 4,000 performances done in high schools a year (and that's not hyperbole -- you can check it). But selling a live tour to an enormous Asian market is potentially much more profitable. It's obvious producers wouldn't want to undermine that by releasing DVD's that might get pirated.
Any analysis of North American DVD sales decisions that fails to recognize these considerations is flawed. The fact that Broadway hits do not put out DVD's proves the point.
Updated On: 1/3/14 at 10:19 AM