ON THE TOWN SUCCESS — Page 2

There's no way that they turned a profit from ticket sales. For nearly a year the average ticket price being paid per week was $45-$65 and they've been playing to a half-empty house. No Broadway show can stay alive with those figures. Someone with deep pockets must have been dumping into the show throughout the run to keep it afloat. The week following the Tony Awards they suffered a -11% so the nominations and the performance did nothing to help them. Misty Copeland has helped a little bit in the final week to bring patrons in, but not significantly. What probably hurt the production was deciding to stage it at the Lyric. I think that theatre is far too big for a musical like that.

HogansHero said: "@adam.peterson You are correct that closing off part of the theatre might have made some sense, but that is something the producers could have done. I do think that until the current owners, there was an obliviousness on the part of the owner, and we are now seeing someone who will likely "solve" the problem, one way or another. Obviously, the desire would be to exploit the real estate to its maximum potential.

@ggersten agreed although I do not know whether or not OTT got a rent break. Reducing the fixed rent would be of minimal benefit, and reducing the percentage rent on any already reduced gross seems (perhaps) counterintuitive.

@Adirector no I did not. In fact, as soon as it was announced I recall posting that it was designed to lose its investment. I am not raining on anyone's joy including my own. (The other thing I said at the tme was that I was looking forward to seeing it multiple times because cheap or papered seats would undoubtedly be available. In fact, I am told, the show ended up giving away more paper than any show in Broadway history.) But I find dumping an extra $5mil into a show to keep it running and losing money week in and week out for this long not only insane but also offensive. You don have to agree but I think it is deserving of ridicule and, more to the point, something that people who ask about the show's finances should have explained.

@atuomala you are exactly right. The total loss is well documented and was unavoidable based on the characteristics of the show and how it was produced.

It is sad but true that artistic integrity and distinction to do not necessarily equal dollars and cents. And it is also true that ON THE TOWN survived for over a year, generally at a very low level of income. But it is not therefore HogansHero's right to continue to take the producers and their investors to task for keeping this show running. Yes, it would probably have done better in a smaller theatre, but John Rando and his creative team filled the theatre brilliantly, and thousands of theatergoers adored it (including me, who saw it four times at the Lyric). Stop complaining, HogansHero, you got your wish, and we're all tired of hearing from you about this.

"

"But it is not therefore HogansHero's right to continue to take the producers and their investors to task for keeping this show running. ... Stop complaining, HogansHero, you got your wish, and we're all tired of hearing from you about this."

Actually it is my right and I did NOT get my wish. My wish would have been for it to have been well-produced and still running instead of having its merits overshadowed by being the laughing stock of the theatre district. And yes as Haterobics wisely states, the best way to get someone to shut up is to disengage. You can also disengage yourself by simply not reading anything else I write on the subject (although I assume this subject is nearing its logical conclusion anyway).

The original poster sort of introduced this element by saying "I assume that since this ran almost a year the investors either made a profit or secured a good return."

If HogansHero just came into a thread that was celebratory and everyone saying how much they enjoyed the production with no one discussing the investment/grosses/profits/etc, and he just kept saying "But it was a money pit!!!!" then perhaps the point would be stronger.

I've never understood peoples aversion to this "barn". Yes it's larger but basically because most Broadway houses are tiny. In Toronto phantom played ten years in a 2800 seat theatre. Several other long runs at the 2200 seat princess of Wales. Most of our theatres are 2000 seats except the royal Alex and winter garden. With the lyric it seems even getting people in the seats doesn't make the profit. Could it be seeing as how the theatre keeps changing hands the rent may be too high. I mean the shuberts and nederlanders and the roths have owned most of their theatres forever and are probably all paid off. But for someone who has just paid millions for this theatre may need to charge more.

No need to reiterate what others have said except that this thread title is misleading:

On the Town was a financial failure, which you can see easily from looking at the grosses provided by the Broadway League.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/grossesshow.cfm?show=ON-THE-TOWN&year=2015&allall=on

To the OP: the lead producers, the Kagans, gave this interview to the NYT, citing the break-even figure as $675k each week. Not only is that high for a musical, they rarely made it. Just the facts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/theater/on-the-town-producers-keep-faith-in-their-investment.html?_r=0

Updated On: 9/8/15 at 09:37 AM