NYT: The Broadway Musical Is in Trouble — Page 3

Lot666 said: "KJisgroovy said: ""For the majority of my life, I'd come to New York twice a year with all my tickets bought way in advance. Tickets bought in advance were always much more affordable, either because tickets were priced lower to generate interest and word of mouth or because there were discount codes offered before a show opened. With notable exception, the trend for a few years seems to have been to price tickets as high as possible and only lower them closer to the performance date."

I also used to buy all my tickets way in advance to get the best seats at the best prices, but this is no longer an effective strategy. Myvisitin July for the Sunset Blvd finale was the first time I ever went to NY without pre-purchasing all of my show tickets. I currently have another visit planned for November, and I've only bought tickets for Chess(and I almost wish I hadn't bought this show ahead of time) and Masquerade; all of my other slots will be filled post-arrival,based on available good seats at reasonable prices.

"

Yes! I do not buy my tickets well in advance anymore, although I would love to, because I know I will be able to get a cheaper ticket closer to showtime, even if that means sacrificing preferred seating (ORCH vs MEZZ vs BALCONY)

I also typically choose what I see based on 1.) subject matter 2.) are there any performances in particular I'm wanting to see? Any actors that I like.

Given that a lot of us are going to shows to see a specific performer, it is always in the back of my mind that for various reasons, that performer may not be on for the performance time I can attend. So I prefer to buy closer to time to see if anything is signaling the actor/actress I'm hoping to see will be out during that performance.

I also do not know the last time I've purchased a full price ticket. I just can't justify to myself. I'll take a partial view, but I mostly have luck with lotteries/discount codes/cheaper tickets somehow.

KJisgroovy said: ""It's free will"

So is everything. This is not an interesting or unique observation. And it's not relevant to what the poster was saying.

When there are shows that costs 900$, people aren't going to see as many shows. Of course, this is their choice. However, if there weren't shows that cost 900$ a ticket they would not have to make this choice. Folks would have plenty of money to see other shows.

Jay has made this same point everytime he's posted. Whether you think this is a valid point or not, fine. However, you seem more interested in getting digs in than understanding what the OP meant."

I'll assume you're referring to me given the free will reference.

I wasn't trying to be unique or interesting. I was trying to respond to the specifics of the post in qustion.

Many of us align with assertions from Jay (or anyone else) that ticket prices are increasingly prohibitive for many people. But that was only half the post.

And I'm not interested in getting in digs, but I am going to push back on opinions I find questionable which is what I did here as did several others right after me.

But hey, to each their own. I've said my piece and others will infer whatever they want.

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 03:59 PM

"several"

One or two.

As I posted to the author in the Times, grosses and audiences are at all time highs. Maybe we don't need 77 shows per season. A successful show can pay the appropriate salaries quite easily, and the vast majority of flops would still flop if all labor took a 20% cut. The truth is, the successful shows make so much money, the producers are willing to flood the market in search of their next elusive hit. And when the show flops they get to claim the Broadway model doesn't work.

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 04:23 PM

Idk if anybody reads OnstageBlog but they just posted a really interesting companion post: https://www.onstageblog.com/editorials/2025/9/22/broadways-financial-crisis-needs-structural-fixes-not-hand-wringing

The article seems accurate as a look at the economics of new Broadway musicals as a whole, although it felt a bit unfair to lump in the musicals that opened this year (or at the end of last year) with shows that opened in past years. The 2024-25 season, overstuffed as it was, might look differently depending on how things play out for Maybe Happy Ending, Death Becomes Her, and Buena Vista Social Club (and even Operation Mincemeat, given its lower costs).

Maybe they will fade away and won't make a profit too. Or perhaps they plug away for two or three years and the season looks better. Michael Paulson repeatedly telling people that this or that show hasn't made a profit yet (after opening, in many cases, just a few months ago) in the comments section is both technically accurate but also a little misleading. He downplayed the obvious success of Just in Time, and it's hard to imagine The Outsiders won't turn a profit in the end.

And as others have noted, some of the new musicals either weren't very good or had limited appeal.

But that quibble aside, the gloom does seem appropriately gloomy for new musicals. Costs are obviously high, and while demand seems healthy enough, I wonder how much some shows were hurt by the economy and the current atmosphere about coming to the United States. When I was there in April, it seemed like there were plenty of tourists from Europe, but I knew some people who normally make a trip to New York City weren't there. Those absences can hurt even the well-performing shows, because it means a runaway hit is just a respectable success. And unless they really catch on and become long-runners, they have a limited window to recoup.

Another concern is that all this is happening with pretty full theaters and solid attendance. Interest hasn't dropped, and the U.S. economy has held up well enough for the sort of upper middle class people who attend Broadway shows. But what happens if and when the bottom drops out of the economy? I think plenty of people are struggling with high costs already - the sort of folks who like theater but aren't hell-bent on making an annual trek to New York City if they have financial concerns. The cost of hotels in NYC has gotten a lot worse during the past two years. It's disheartening.

I am not smart enough to understand all the financial issues facing Broadway but costs for some of these shows seems daunting. Galileo (the one I have seen out of town) is a $23 million show? If so, good luck, investors.

It's not surprising that the focus has turned to starry plays. Even ART, which no one seems all that excited about as a play, has been doing well thus far based on the cast. For the moment, it seems like plays will dominate.

Updated On: 9/23/25 at 11:25 PM

Haven’t read the whole thread. Apart from insane ticket costs, social media can sink a show quicker than an iceberg. You read these boards and what posters complain about is the same things critics go for. The days of rewrites and fixing issues during previews are long gone. Some of this brought upon the shows themselves. Producers don’t know how to produce anymore.

Benjamin Button is rumored to be arriving in the spring. It seems to be a polarizing show, but it did win the Olivier Award for Best New Musical.

It would not solve the larger issues, but ample sales research affirms that it is generally easier to make another sale/repeat sale to an existing customer than to attract a brand new one.

It is the reason why when you donate money to an organization, your thank you email or letter quite often includes a second ask. It works.

While I've seen something comparable occur a few rimes in my theater-going years, I'm surprised more shows, particularly those that are struggling, don't offer an incentive to purchase a ticket for a repeat visit after someone attends a performance. Even if limited to select performances and select seats, it seems like an experiment worth conducting more regularly.

It can be targeted, have a tight timeframe for action (i.e., offer expires one week from date of the performance you attended, can be structured to prevent widespread distribution/use, and is private so it has less chance of contributing to a narrative that the show might be struggling.

Or maybe it has been done more than I know and the results have proven unsatisfactory.

SteveSanders said: "It would not solve the larger issues, but ample sales research affirms that it is generally easier to make another sale/repeat sale to an existing customer than to attract a brand new one.

It is the reason why when you donate money to an organization, your thank you email or letter quite often includes a second ask. It works.

While I've seen something comparable occur a few rimes in my theater-going years, I'm surprised more shows, particularly those that are struggling, don't offer an incentive to purchase a ticket for a repeat visit after someone attends a performance. Even if limited to select performances and select seats, it seems like an experiment worth conducting more regularly.

It can be targeted, have a tight timeframe for action (i.e., offer expires one week from date of the performance you attended, can be structured to prevent widespread distribution/use, and is private so it has less chance of contributing to a narrative that the show might be struggling.

Or maybe it has been done more than I know and the results have proven unsatisfactory.

"
I’ve personally advocated for this to my friends in the industry who can get the ear of the right people, but ultimately it comes down to assuming there is a remote possibility of a repeat customer, which they often don’t bank on for most shows and usually repeat customers often come back at discounted or rush/lotto prices.

Usually fan efforts have been popular, like MINCEMEAT with their Understudy Bingo. It was a fan created card that incentivized people to see different combos of performers, and the production and casts have wholeheartedly embraced it in London and here. If you get a bingo, you get a small free button at the merch stand with a cast members face on it. Even such a small little token of appreciation carries meaning such as:

- The production is thankful that you love the show enough to come so many times

- That you recognize the hard work of the understudies swings and make it a point - or even an event - to see them. (Personally, it took me five tries to get to a show where Brandon was on as Charles since David had pretty great attendance in the beginning, even when his knee was messed up.)

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "I also think we are not economically in a time where people will shell out $400 consistently for a show that is “kinda trash but could be fun!”

It’s “tighten your belts” unless it’s something that MUST be seen.

And you get “must see” more often than not when it’s large scale and critics are equally praising it.

I don’t think “word of mouth” is as much of a thing anymore.

Death Becomes Her unlocked something with how they used TikTok. They knew it was funny, they knew they could grab clips that showcase the humor in a bite size way.
"



I would consider Tik Tok/social media to be this modern version of "Word of Mouth"

Updated On: 9/23/25 at 02:39 PM

The national tour of Shucked in SF did a clever Instagram and Facebook campaign, but the show is not selling well in SF and it is playing the smaller touring house, the Curran. Part of the problem is they offer Rush tickets for every performance, but do not advertise it. The print is so small on the website, one can barely find it. This is a mistake. Producers need to send out the word that we have tickets, especially on weeknights, for most shows, come on down and buy a rush ticket. Producers and Theatre Owners need to cultivate the theatregoing audience again, especially the young tech crowd that does everything last minute. Only a few name shows or name stars will sell out, but other shows could sell more seats if they worked at it. I think the idea of sending an email thanking people for coming to the show and offering them discounts for a re-peat visit is a GREAT idea. We older theatergoers used to see some shows 2 or 3 times because we loved live theatre, and those balcony or rear mezzanine seats were relatively cheap ($3-$6). Theatregoing is no longer a habit -- in fact, the entire cost of the evening has outpaced itself for most people -- transportation, babysitting, meals, and especially theatre tickets. Yes, if you want to see a movie star in person before he or she dies, you will pay $500-$1000 -- but that's only for the very wealthy, and only one or two snob hits a year.

As for new musicals, most are re-hashes of middle of the road movies, usually plots and characters with no feelings. That's why a Dear Evan Hansen, Outsiders, Great Gatsby, or a Maybe Happy Ending can sell in this market: we are starved for shows -- for movies, too -- with authentic relationships and feelings, not superficial mean girl-vengeful former wives, or a long forgotten cartoon figure. So many of the new shows last year were based on trivial material that just did not need to "sing." I guess I am old fashioned that way, but at least the semi-concert version of Sunset and the revival of Gypsy were shows that had characters with feelings that needed music to tell their stories.

Updated On: 9/23/25 at 04:38 PM

Ensemble1711444445 said: "Theater owners can help in a few ways...especially in the care and feeding of investors.

Cancel shows running at a loss. Moulin and Hells Kitchen and Cabaret are spending money that would otherwise go back to investors who are losing on most shows.

Extend shows (John Proctor) when they are making money and could recoup. Making Proctor close was cruel to those investors.

Start picking shows that have smaller budgets and lower running costs. Force producers to be smarter about the process. But also reward better managed shows -- too many shows are picked up for cronyism and that iscosting investors a fortune - Smash and Boop alone lost 50 million in a few months. This season looks dismally similar."



Oh my...there is so much misinformation and ignorance of how the business operates, I don't even know where to begin.