NYT reports some recent data on Grosses

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 3:36pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/theater/broadway-hamilton-wicked-lion-king.html

"During the long dark months when the coronavirus pandemic kept Broadway shuttered, a hypothesis took hold in parts of the industry: Once theaters reopened, the audience would include more New Yorkers and fewer tourists, and the result could be a more receptive marketplace for ambitious new plays. It did not turn out that way." 

For the week ending 12/12/21, right before Omicron: 

--These shows were all in the $1MM+ club: 

“Hamilton," “Wicked,” “The Lion King,” “Moulin Rouge!”, “Tina,” “Six,” “Aladdin,” “The Book of Mormon,” “Hadestown” “The Phantom of the Opera,” “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Lehman Trilogy.”

--Harry Potter averaged $1.7MM/week in early December 

--Diana - grossed $374k at 51% capacity 

--Girl From the North Country - grossed $310k, at 47% capacity 

--Flying Over Sunset - grossed $323k, at 69% capacity

--Jagged Little Pill - grossed $768k 

For Thanksgiving Week:

--Hamilton - $3+MM, average price was $297

--Lion King - $2+MM

--Wicked - $2+MM

--Harry Potter - $2+MM

--Mouline Rouge - $1.5MM

--Chicken and Biscuits - average price was $35

Fall in general:

--Pass Over, Is This a Room, & Dana H - all played to 33% - 50% capacity through their runs. 

--Thoughts of a Colored Man - sometimes broke $400K/week

--Jagged Little Pill was averaging 80% capacity late in the fall. 

 

 

[kwoc91]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 6:02pm

Some of these data points are just brutal.

Is Girl from the North Country really going to attempt another run with those numbers?? I'm a huge fan of the show but come on. This only adds to my skepticism regarding their return.

Since I'm still pretty new to the scene, can someone shed light on how long plays typically ran before the shutdown? Reading that every play that opened last Fall has since closed sounds bleak, but I know some of them had limited runs.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 6:05pm

I guess New Yorkers just want to go to Wicked. Over and over and over again. 

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 6:44pm

BroadwayNews disclosed more data

 

https://broadwaynews.com/2022/01/31/grosses-show-big-wins-for-old-brands-tougher-economics-elsewhere/

 

Some weeks Dana H and Is This A Room COMBINED were making not even $80,000 and Chicken and Biscuits was BLEEDING money

[ACL2006]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 7:52pm

Jagged's numbers seemed pretty solid in the Fall. I wonder 1.) what their operating costs were 2.) how little advance they actually had for the Winter.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 9:08pm

Do we think this data was leaked in two publications in anticipation of the League trying to come to the negotiation table?

GFTNC's move this spring seems even more delusional now. I just don't think there's enough of an audience for the show.

Meanwhile, TINA seems to have done quite a bit better than we thought, even with so many empty seats.

I am glad we finally have this data. Wish we had it weekly. I hope these publications will continue to leak numbers at a more regular interval.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 9:17pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "I am glad we finally have this data. Wish we had it weekly. I hope these publications will continue to leak numbers at a more regular interval."

Me too. Do you think we will analyze weekly grosses by individual show once again next season?

[troynow]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 9:20pm

Seems to me Thoughts of a Colored Man was at least doing well. Even if it sometimes broke 400K I read that their advance had gone up to 1.2M. Far out performing the 7 black shows. That is pretty amazing.

Only highlighting because I quite liked it. And recall be slaughtered on here for saying they were doing well.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:07pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "Me too. Do you think we will analyze weekly grosses by individual show once again next season?"

I sure hope so...,...but once you get the genie out of the bottle...well, you know.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:21pm

troynow said: "Seems to me Thoughts of a Colored Man was at least doing well. Even if it sometimes broke 400K I read that their advance had gone up to 1.2M. Far out performing the 7 black shows. That is pretty amazing. Only highlighting because I quite liked it. And recall be slaughtered on here for saying they were doing well."

Compared to the other plays that looks like a decent number. But if we assume that even this smallish play cost $350K or more to run each week, that's barely any profit to chip away at the $5M capitalization (which is surprisingly hefty for a play with no stars or branded title).

So the play definitely didn't do "well." But if "bad" is a scale, then this is certainly towards the higher end of it. In artistic terms, it's like saying Glory Days looked good when you compare it to Gettin' the Band Back Together :)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:33pm

As I wrote at the time this silly idea was hatched, there are far too many people with access to the numbers for this to be a "secret." I suspect we will see a lot more reporting, particularly to the extent it is newsworthy.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:38pm

HogansHero said: "As I wrote at the time this silly idea was hatched, there are far too many people with access to the numbers for this to be a "secret." I suspect we will see a lot more reporting, particularly to the extent it is newsworthy."

I'm surprised this is the first real reporting that has happened. Thought for sure Boroff or Riedel or a Tweeter would try to assemble weekly grosses.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:46pm

I'm not sure Boroff is looped into this kind of scuttlebutt (he mostly writes based on publicly available stuff) and this is really out of Riedel's bailiwick. Twitter (I assume that's what you meant) seems like it would have been possible but in a more haphazard way. Plus it requires covering your tracks. And my guess is that Paulson waitied until the dust settled a little. Anyway I think the flood gates are now open and I suspect we will get the full release this season because the selective release is a killer.

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 10:48pm

I thought the logic that less tourist friendly shows would do well made sense at the time Broadway was opening but looking back, I don't think it should be surprising that the old favorites fared best. After 18 months with no Broadway, everyone seemed excited to see their favorites again and even though it may have been years since locals had seen shows like Wicked, Phantom, etc, there was new incentive to.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 11:09pm

Mr. Wormwood said: "I thought the logic that less tourist friendly shows would do well made sense at the time Broadway was opening but looking back, I don't think it should be surprising that the old favorites fared best. After 18 months with no Broadway, everyone seemed excited to see their favorites again and even though it may have been years since locals had seen shows like Wicked, Phantom, etc, there was new incentive to."

My guess is that if you looked at zip codes for the big big hits of the past 6 months, it's about 60/40 –– 60% tourists, 40% locals. Fewer tourists and more locals than in normal times, the main difference is that there isn't nearly as much spillover to non-"franchise" shows. There are still people coming to NYC...just not as many of them.

Would be interesting to see the breakdown based on when people attended, too (September/October probably had a lot more locals than November/December).

Updated On: 1/31/22 at 11:09 PM

[dangeresque49]

Posted: 1/31/22 at 11:36pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Mr. Wormwood said: "I thought the logic that less tourist friendly shows would do well made sense at the time Broadway was opening but looking back, I don't think it should be surprising that the old favorites fared best. After 18 months with no Broadway, everyone seemed excited to see their favorites again and even though it may have been years since locals had seen shows like Wicked, Phantom, etc, there was new incentive to."

My guess is that if you looked at zip codes for the big big hits of the past 6 months, it's about 60/40 –– 60% tourists, 40% locals. Fewer tourists and more locals than in normal times, the main difference is that there isn't nearly as much spillover to non-"franchise" shows. There are still people coming to NYC...just not as many of them.

Would be interesting to see the breakdown based on when people attended, too (September/October probably had a lot more locals than November/December)."

I personally saw lion king (my favorite show) again just on the opportunity it hit tkts. It was only the second time for me.They also released good seats at broadway week prices all the way up to showtime to fill the seats (which they did fill to capacity).  My relatives saw  Lion king and wicked the following day for around 150 per person total in good orchestra seats.  The big guns will be able to always pull the price levers to move capacity to capture market share before other  lesser known productions. 

 

I will note Company had very much available rush tickets late yet the pre sell was extremely strong. The audience loved it so maybe people don't realize day of demand is low. 

[bear88]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 5:20am

It's just like the movies. People flock to the familiar. And honestly, I don't really blame them. 

I saw three shows in my neck of the woods last year: a comedic play and two musical revivals. I wasn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of challenging material. I wanted to see something fun with my wife, even if - as was the case of the My Fair Lady tour - I had seen the Broadway version two years before.

My older daughter is planning a quick New York City trip next month. What's she planning to see? Jersey Boys and Harry Potter.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 9:59am

Mr. Wormwood said: "I thought the logic that less tourist friendly shows would do well made sense at the time Broadway was opening but looking back, I don't think it should be surprising that the old favorites fared best. After 18 months with no Broadway, everyone seemed excited to see their favorites again and even though it may have been years since locals had seen shows like Wicked, Phantom, etc, there was new incentive to."

I feel like the data is more muddled than this. Sure, Wicked and Hamilton and Phantom did well. But so did Six which is a new show. But the argument that people only wanted feel good shows is hurt by Come From Away (feel good, did poorly) and Jagged Little Pill (angsty, did well). I think people were willing to go out for shows that felt like events or spectacles or that had celebrities (e.g. Sara Bareilles) like always. Smaller shows didn't seem worthwhile. To me, this aligns with the plays largely being rejected except for Harry Potter, The Lehman Trilogy, and Mockingbird.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 10:27am

kwoc91 said: "Since I'm still pretty new to the scene, can someone shed light on how long plays typically ran before the shutdown? Reading that every play that opened last Fall has since closed sounds bleak, but I know some of them had limited runs."

 

I believe all of the plays that closed were on limited runs, though several of them ended their limited runs early. 

As for your question - most Broadway plays have a limited run, usually around 3-4 months - but it's often more, and often less.

As for open-run plays - it can range very widely. Most probably don't last a year, or last about 1 year. But even the MOST successful open-run plays of the 21st century have only run 2-3 years - 700-900 performance. Potter might be on track to beat that, as they've had over 800 performances. 

 

[ItsMeRaul]

Posted: 2/1/22 at 7:29pm

bear88 said: "It's just like the movies. People flock to the familiar. And honestly, I don't really blame them.

I saw three shows in my neck of the woods last year: a comedic play and two musical revivals. I wasn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of challenging material. I wanted to see something fun with my wife, even if - as was the case of theMy Fair Ladytour - I had seen the Broadway version two years before.

My older daughter is planning a quick New York City trip next month. What's she planning to see?Jersey BoysandHarry Potter."

Not necessarily. We were out in November and saw Six, Lehman Trilogy, Hadestown, and Mockingbird. In April we’ll see Suffs, COMPANY, and TBD but likely Music Man. 

Updated On: 2/1/22 at 07:29 PM

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 2/2/22 at 8:56pm

You’re on a Broadway message board so I suspect you aren’t the typical tourist who won’t want to take a risk when they are buying a $150 ticket. 

[Rainah]

Posted: 2/3/22 at 11:29am

VintageSnarker said: I feel like the data is more muddled than this. Sure, Wicked and Hamilton and Phantom did well. But so did Six which is a new show. But the argument that people only wanted feel good shows is hurt by Come From Away (feel good, did poorly) and Jagged Little Pill (angsty, did well). I think people were willing to go out for shows that felt like events or spectacles or that had celebrities (e.g. Sara Bareilles) like always. Smaller shows didn't seem worthwhile. To me, this aligns with the plays largely being rejected except for Harry Potter, The Lehman Trilogy, and Mockingbird."

Come From Away ends on a uplifting note, but it does deal with a national trauma in 9/11 and songs like "Something's Missing" are pretty damn heavy. Especially folks who aren't as aware of the show, I've noticed being turned off by the idea. "A show about 9/11? How depressing. It's an uplifting show? About 9/11? That's just sick."

I'm not surprised they've cooled off a bit