NYT: Why a Fabulous Broadway Show Can Fill Its Seats and Still Close
Posted: 8/9/26 at 11:38am
Um, yeah it was filling seats but everyone went using discount codes and most of these people raving they saw the show numerous times did so because they got $40 Rush tickets. No one was buying the regular priced tickets which are the seats that generate profit to keep shows running. Those $40 Rush tickets couldn’t even cover a performance’s WiFi bill.
Posted: 8/9/26 at 11:42am
BrodyFosse123 said: "Um, yeah it was filling seats but everyone went using discount codes and most of these people raving they saw the show numerous times did so because they got $40 Rush tickets. No one was buying the regular priced tickets which are the seats that generate profit to keep shows running. Those $40 Rush tickets couldn’t even cover a performance’s WiFi bill."
The article addresses that…
Posted: 8/9/26 at 12:52pm
Brody is obviously wrong but people didn't want to pay full price for this show but were willing to for others. The blame for this closing doesn't involve the public, or "hate or intolerance". The marketing was poor, the performances on talk shows were average and still explained nothing about the show, the Tony performance was incredibly low energy, and the "we're such a cool show, the public will just find us" attitude all proved to be fatal. And when 90% of shows fail to recoup nowadays, ALW is right in saying it "practically makes no financial sense". Perhaps he's so awards obsessed he didn't understand it probably would have run at PAC for years and made him money.
Broadway is broken and that's why many shows aren't even bothering, like the brilliant Mexodus. Great shows like Dead Outlaw and Titanique were perfect downtown shows, bringing them uptown made no sense, and I think many people are now realizing this. Just not worth it.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 12:52 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:14pm
And also, it's inaccurate to suggest the average ticket price was around a $40 ticket, like the attendance was high cuz it was all papered.
The reason many are saying the model on Bway is in serious danger is you shouldn't have to sell tickets for $500 to hit your nut every week, get well over a million dollars in weekly gross.
It's not sustainable and was unimaginable 10-20 years ago.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:14 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:25pm
delete - wrong thread
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:25 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:33pm
The average ticket throughout its run was over $100 (no idea what the median price was, which would be helpful to figure out exactly what people were spending without higher prices distorting it) and the average capacity was over 90%, numbers that, not long ago, would have been a recipe for a fairly successful run. Not necessarily a blockbuster destined for years and years, but a solid run that would have likely recouped or at least come much closer to it. That's the issue and it isn't unique to this production. Lost Boys is grossing more, but has such a slim margin of profit that it would likely need to run at its current gross with no decline and no big expenditures for 4 years or more just to recoup. The star-driven limited runs have very limited windows to recoup and only do so if they sustain high ticket prices.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:33 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:46pm
Jellicle Ball has had a higher average ticket price than Wicked for Months at almost $110. The narrative that everyone was paying $40 a ticket BLATANTLY untrue.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:46 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
