NYT: The Broadway Musical Is in Trouble

[MezzA101]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 7:07am

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/theater/broadway-musicals-finances.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n08.ZDKn.s2OJ4u9U0PVQ&smid=nytcore-android-share

[binau]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 7:36am

It seems to me that if the costs are too high we agree that people are getting paid too much. Are we in a position where for the greater good we need to start challenging labour laws and working conditions to bring the costs down more inline with a sustainable business model? Who exactly should and can budge?

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 07:36 AM

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 7:47am

"Ticket prices for musicals are not rising fast enough for them to offset those rising costs"?

[dan94]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:00am

binau said: "Who exactly should and can budge?"

Theatre owners. We can start talking about labor cuts after, and only after, rental agreements are more in line with reality.

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:10am

Odd that there is no mention of MHE there, which has been one of the most unique success stories in the modern history of Broadway. Unless its numbers absolutely tank, it should be on track to recoup and have a long tail of profitability.

 

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:12am

Updated On: 10/7/25 at 09:12 AM

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:12am

dan94 said: "binau said: "Who exactly should and can budge?"

Theatre owners. We can start talking about labor cuts after, and only after, rental agreements are more in line with reality.

"

In any business, payroll is going to be your biggest expense, but rent is almost always the second biggest. 33 of the 41 Broadway Theaters are owned by 3 companies (The Shuberts, the Nederlanders, and ATG). It's foolish to think there isn't some level of price gouging at play.

[binau]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:27am

Ethically/morally I wish it would be the land lords who take the cut. However, this is prime real estate in the middle of manhattan. They could just close down the theatres and open up other kinds of businesses who will pay full rent if needed? (It would be scandalous though if the rent was above market rate and being held up by monopolistic price fixing etc). 

Whereas I suspect that for many of the employees they are not really getting paid market rates and are in fact getting paid higher because of labour laws. 

[BdwyFan]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:44am

It seems the only way for productions to turn a profit is to cast big names, big stars.  It’s the reality of the situation.  Sorry folks. I don’t see the financial model and cost structures changing anytime soon.  And it doesn’t seem that the League is able to affect any change to this model.  Sad reality. Who can? 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 9:57am

A few more thoughts:

• I don’t think lead-time is the issue. Audiences buy later nowadays. “We don’t have enough audience” is a bit of a copout…there will always be some shows that simply do not appeal to the masses. (The two that could have used a little more lead time are the shows that Seaview muscled in at the last second: Sidney Brustein and Illinoise.)
• Last season’s big flops all had loooooong developmental processes, did not change meaningfully, and for most of them the subject matter made it an uphill battle. None of them were rushed in.
• If price-gouging by the landlords is happening, private equity-owned ATG is probably leading that charge. These are the perils of PE. Shubert and Nederlander should know better than to gouge (big emphasis on should!!!!!)

Now let’s talk about the current Equity negotiations:

• This piece dropped as Equity pushes for increases in its current negotiations. The union of course wants more; this piece paints a bleak picture, but it doesn’t talk to anyone on the AEA side (nor does it mention the negotiation).
• I’ve always felt Broadway would benefit from a contract like SETA, where employees earn a smaller base salary but are entitled to a bonus if the show earns above a certain threshold. That’s probably the only way to keep running costs manageable and allow struggling, newer shows a little more time to find an audience.
• We shouldn’t be surprised if there’s a strike in the next few years.

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 09:57 AM

[dan94]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 10:04am

With AEA and 802 both currently negotiating and signaling to their members things are not going well, I would not be surprised if there is a strike this year.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 10:32am

binau said: "Ethically/morally I wish it would be the land lords who take the cut. However, this is prime real estate in the middle of manhattan. They could just close down the theatres and open up other kinds of businesses who will pay full rent if needed? (It would be scandalous though if the rent was above market rate and being held up by monopolistic price fixing etc).

Whereas I suspect that for many of the employees they are not really getting paid market rates and are in fact getting paid higher because of labour laws."

People on the side of the theatre owners are going to point to labor laws and high salaries as the reason for high costs, but there's always going to be mitigating factors with that.

Actors almost never work a full 52 weeks in a year. If a show closes early, and you cancelled other engagements (concerts, film/TV shoots, other shows) in anticipation of fulfilling your contract, then you're out of luck. It's the only job in the world where it's perfectly normal to get laid off almost every year. Add onto that union dues, agent's fees, and self-employment taxes, it's not a lot of money to live on in the most expensive city in the world.

It's not one group responsible for this. Theatre owners are charging insane rents to producers, inflation is jacking up prices (made worse by tariffs), and New York is in a cost-of-living crisis. Something's got to give, or theatre will be the least of our worries (every sign points to there being a mass homelessness crisis in the next 20 years, and New York will be the epicenter.)

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 10:32am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "A few more thoughts:

• I don’t think lead-time is the issue. Audiencesbuy later nowadays.“We don’t have enough audience” is a bit of a copout…there will always be some shows that simply do not appeal to the masses. (The two that could have used a little more lead time are the shows that Seaview muscled in at the last second: Sidney Brustein and Illinoise.)
• Last season’s big flops all had loooooong developmental processes, did not change meaningfully, and for most of them the subject matter made it an uphill battle. None of them were rushed in.
• If price-gouging by the landlords is happening, private equity-owned ATG is probably leading that charge. These are the perils of PE. Shubert and Nederlander should know better than to gouge (big emphasis on should!!!!!)

Now let’s talk about the current Equity negotiations:

• This piece dropped as Equity pushes for increases in its current negotiations. The union of course wants more; this piece paints a bleak picture, but it doesn’t talk to anyone on the AEA side (nor does it mention the negotiation).
• I’ve always felt Broadway would benefit from a contract like SETA, where employees earn a smaller base salary but are entitled to a bonus if the show earns above a certain threshold. That’s probably the only way to keep running costs manageable and allow struggling, newer shows a little more time to find an audience.
• We shouldn’t be surprised if there’s a strike in the next few years.

"
 

Updated On: 10/7/25 at 10:32 AM

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 10:35am

dan94 said: "With AEA and 802 both currently negotiating and signaling to their members things are not going well, I would not be surprised if there is a strike this year."

If that is the case, I doubt many people would notice - or care. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 10:58am

Re: developmental work, that is an interesting point. I’m not sure how much initial capital is allocated to this but you do have to ask yourself if too much time is being wasted trying to ‘perfect’ things that don’t seem to change enough. It’s quite interesting how decades ago shows would be often written and mounted quickly but now many shows take years to get off the ground. 

But yes something has to budge. I don’t think it’s going to be us, the ticket buyers. We pay enough and the factors are known what causes us to buy more (eg a list celebrities). The theatres are almost always packed so there isn’t THAT much room for increase in volume of tickets either at an overall level (just some of the shows that don’t ignite the box office) . The landlords will be difficult to budge. The unions will probably not stand for any idea of a pay cut. 

So in reality we might just see a transformation in the kind of shows we see mounted in future that seem to pass the long list of challenges they need to go through. If we end of sacrificing the number of shows, the longevity of shows and the type of shows that make it to Broadway so be it we have to bear the consequences of these decisions. 

 

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:04am

Shows like Lempicka, Galileo and Wanted that have been in development for a decade or more rack up a ton of development costs. Every out of town and workshop add expenses.  Shows that find their creative drive early have a financial advantage. 

[Idiot]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:19am

Every problem listed in the article seems relevant - and there's good info in the comments as well (including an appearance by at least one poster here).  It's not one single thing - it's all of it.  As a creator, here's where I land: the obituary for the Broadway Musical has been in development since at least the eighties when I became conscious of such things.  It's not dying.  It's changing, and a period of reflection and adjustment has begun. 

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:19am

Big elephant in the room folks.

It was not crowded this summer in the city.

Tourists are staying far away from visiting right now because of Trump.

They don’t have the audience cause the business model has been built to cater to tourists and New Yorkers aren't going to the tourist shows.

[Dom P]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:27am

 

 

 

This is cause for concern. But, we've been here before. I'd like to believe that things will improve, once again. People have been predicting the Demise of Broadway Musicals and Plays and Broadway for as long as I can remember. 

 

 

 

MezzA101 said: "https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/theater/broadway-musicals-finances.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n08.ZDKn.s2OJ4u9U0PVQ&smid=nytcore-android-share"

 

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:35am

Also 

Boop, Smash and Tamme Faye were panned. This is a very skewed article. 
 

Bad doesn’t stick around and it gets annoying when bad and spoon feeding flopping is used as a chess move to say “the industry is in trouble.”

Hamilton worked because it remembered the audience wants to be entertained AND be treated like they’re smart.

[BwayMusician]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:36am

I just want to point out that the books are not and have never been open. We don't know how much the costs are for labor, rent, and materials for these productions, and until we do, we're taking landlord and management's talking points as fact. If they truly want to be transparent and help solve the issue, why don't the Broadway League and theater owners show us how much is going towards rents vs labor vs "star power?" It was rumored that Bette Midler was making over $1mil a week plus box office points, Billy Crystal at $250k per week at Mr Saturday Night, Nicole Scherzinger making however much. For example, if Billy Crystal chose to take just 6% less each week, he could have saved the production basically the entire weekly budget for the band. Again, these are rumors, but if we're talking about a musician, stage hand, or dresser making $85,000 a year in one of the most expensive city in America, a 3-4% COL increase for the labor unions year over year doesn't seem like the first thing we should be going after. Obviously this is simplified, but if a show runs about 8 months, this is close to what folks make.

Obviously this is America - the market dictates these things, but public perception and pressure is important and can influence market factors. Maybe the next big stars of Broadway don't actually need $100k-$500K per week? Maybe we could have a realistic discussion about the profit margin theater owners really "need" to keep the doors open, especially for new shows? Maybe the NYT could get a few different perspectives other than the head of the Broadway League and a few wealthy producers during a time of tense labor negotiations? 

 

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:44am

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "Also

Boop, Smash and Tamme Faye were panned. This is a very skewed article.


Bad doesn’t stick around and it gets annoying when bad and spoon feeding flopping is used as a chess move to say “the industry is in trouble.”

Hamilton worked because it remembered the audience wants to be entertained AND be treated like they’re smart."

 

Updated On: 10/7/25 at 11:44 AM

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:50am

Ensemble1711444445 said: "tomorrowBIGLITES said: "Also

Boop, Smash and Tamme Faye were panned. This is a very skewed article.


Bad doesn’t stick around and it gets annoying when bad and spoon feeding flopping is used as a chess move to say “the industry is in trouble.”

Hamilton worked because it remembered the audience wants to be entertained AND be treated like they’re smart."

Hamilton is a one off - brilliant and complete. Smash, Boop and Tammy Faye were all bad bookings by the owners. Very few peopleexpected them to work after their out of towns...or in Smash's case it's expensiveworkshop. But they came in anyway and cost investors 75 million."

Right. They’re shocked a property based on a depression era cartoon and a completely flopped NBC tv series didn’t recoup?

Maybe Happy Ending is meeting our moment. Death Becomes Her is funny. 
 

The shows that have a clear WHY NOW are still here.

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 11:50 AM

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 11:56am

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "Ensemble1711444445 said: "tomorrowBIGLITES said: "Also

Boop, Smash and Tamme Faye were panned. This is a very skewed article.


Bad doesn’t stick around and it gets annoying when bad and spoon feeding flopping is used as a chess move to say “the industry is in trouble.”

Hamilton worked because it remembered the audience wants to be entertained AND be treated like they’re smart."

Hamilton is a one off - brilliant and complete. Smash, Boop and Tammy Faye were all bad bookings by the owners. Very few peopleexpected them to work after their out of towns...or in Smash's case it's expensiveworkshop. But they came in anyway and cost investors 75 million."

Right. They’re shocked a property based on a depression era cartoon and a completely flopped NBC tv series didn’t recoup?

Maybe Happy Ending is meeting our moment. Death Becomes Her is funny.


The shows that have a clear WHY NOW are still here."

Agreed. Add Buena Vista and Outsiders. Any hope for this upcoming seasons shows? 

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:03pm

. 

Updated On: 10/7/25 at 12:03 PM