Oye: dancing boy, haven't you forgotten something........

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 11:23am

I estimate that Billy Elliot has earned between $80m and $100m at the Imperial Theatre since the show began at the end of September last year.

The stage isn't extravagant compared to other Broadway sets, it has quite a static set with 3 risers that come out of the stage, costumes and lighting would not break the bank and a lot of development cost would of been absorbed in the West End cost, however Billy Elliot does have one unique cost and that is Billy Academy to teach future Billy's and Michael's

Have they forgot to tell us that they gave recouped?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 11:25am

They told me. I heard they were pissed at you, which is probably why they aren't speaking to you.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 11:29am

Actually, based on the figures shown in "grosses" (pull up this week's grosses, then click on the title for a look at all previous grosses) the total take so far is $73M. Without knowing the actual weekly cost, it's not really possible to say if it has recouped.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 12:01pm

The set cost a fortune since the theatre basement had to be made deeper which involved bedrock.

There are a huge number of actors and stagehands on the payroll. Operating costs are enormous.

The fact is that Billy Elliot/NY may not have recouped yet.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 12:05pm

"The stage isn't extravagant compared to other Broadway sets, it has quite a static set with 3 risers that come out of the stage,"

WRONG. The (unnecessary) centerpiece twists and contorts in a mechanically complex manner. It is rather extravagant.

"costumes and lighting would not break the bank and a lot of development cost would of been absorbed in the West End cost,"

Costume and lighting designers receive royalties on top of their initial design work, and in a dance show costumes are replaced often. And those costs aren't absorbed in the original production. While the initial lighting "package" is used, each new production is just that, and it's re-worked as if it's a brand new show again. This is why you will find differences between many different productions of the same show.

"however Billy Elliot does have one unique cost and that is Billy Academy to teach future Billy's and Michael's"

And that is a huge cost. Billy Elliot has a high running cost.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 4:01pm

The weekly operating expense for Billy Elliot is close to 900,000 a week, and grossing at 1.4 million a week, it is a little slow-going to recoupment. The high cost per week is not the physical production costs, but actually the cast size, which is the largest on broadway with all the alternates and swings. Plus don't forget the 15 child wranglers who have fulltime salaries. As one producer told me who was working on Gypsy, "kids are expensive."

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 4:41pm

mybigsplash, I am not certain but I'm pretty sure there are not 15 child wranglers, I would say maybe 4 or 5, and they are paid very little, they are not union members so they get few of the percs of a union job, (vacations, health care etc).
That said, the set is very complicated and did indeed include digging a whole new level under the ground and yes the cast is large, so it may take a little longer to recoup the intial investment, but it most surely will in time.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 6:30pm

Don't they just pay the child dancers in juice boxes and fruit rollups? If they do, it should have recouped months ago :)

[sking]

Posted: 11/24/09 at 8:20pm

They only pay them like that in London...here they are union members...lol(only slightly joking there...kids are paid peanuts in London and some prob get literally peanuts)
That being said even at 900k a week Billy should be recouping oh NOW? If the 18 million cost is correct and its making 300k average so far since opening thats 60 weeks...which was before now.If its costs are really that high(Spiderman territory almost) then I'm afraid for its ability to survive for say 5 years...assuming it comes back down to earth and doesn't do a Wicked(heres hoping though). Updated On: 11/24/09 at 08:20 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 3:22pm

I do not know where the figure 900k comes from, but it is a very unrealistic figure, as leave no room for error, if Billy did not set Broadway on fire, they would have big problems if they could only achieve 85% attendance. Also London would have roughly the same operating costs, theatre tickets here are cheaper, so would not raise a $1m a week like New York , also London does not have premium tickets like Broadway.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 3:56pm

I do not know where the figure $900k comes from, but it is a very unrealistic figure, as leave no room for error, if Billy did not set Broadway on fire, they would have big problems if they could only achieve 85% attendance. Also London would have roughly the same operating costs, theatre tickets here are cheaper, so would not raise a $1m a week like New York , also London does not have premium tickets culture like Broadway.

The biggest cost is venue hire, don't know how much that would cost per week?

Billy Elliot has 10 principle members, say they are on $5k a week, so you would have a cost there of $50k.

40 Ensembles, say they are on $2k, so labour costs there are $80k.

Billy, Michael and other children, not big on wage bill but on training, so say wages, mentors, tutors and Billy academy comes to $75k.

Back of house staff, Stage Manager guess $2k a week
Assistant Stage Manager $1.5k, Wardrobe Dresser $2k, Assistant Dresser $1.5k, say 10x Stage Hands earn guess $1k a week (10x 10k a week), 2x Sound Desk Engineer $2k (4k a week) 3x Lighting Technicians $1.5 (3x $4.5k).

So I have done a uneducated (guess) break down, theatre show and back room staff could earn less or more, I be intrigued to find out the real cost.

Advertising would be low for Billy Elliot, as word of mouth, critics are very favourable.

So got cost of theatre - ??????
Principle cast member - $50k
Ensembles - $80k
Children and Children Support Staff - $75k
Back of House Support Staff - $23k


So cost of Venue Hire - ?????
Personnel Cost - $230k

So I am a bit baffled where $900k operating costs come from, I am sure you put me right on my mistakes and what I have missed?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:36pm

"Billy Elliot has 10 principle members, say they are on $5k a week, so you would have a cost there of $50k."

If you think Greg Jbara and Carole Shelley only get 5K a week then you are sadly mistaken.

"40 Ensembles, say they are on $2k, so labour costs there are $80k."

Contrary to popular belief, ensembles members generally make well above minimum. We're looking at probably $3000 and more per week.

"Billy, Michael and other children, not big on wage bill but on training, so say wages, mentors, tutors and Billy academy comes to $75k."

As the stars of the show, the boys will earn more than the members of the ensemble...and there are three of them. Plus the Michaels.

"Back of house staff, Stage Manager guess $2k a week
Assistant Stage Manager $1.5k, Wardrobe Dresser $2k, Assistant Dresser $1.5k, say 10x Stage Hands earn guess $1k a week (10x 10k a week), 2x Sound Desk Engineer $2k (4k a week) 3x Lighting Technicians $1.5 (3x $4.5k)."

You obviously don't know anything about Broadway salaries. Stage managers (and assistant stage managers) have a minimum salary requirement that is HIGHER than that of the actors minimum. And there are usually three or four stage managers per show. I would put their salaries at over 2K per week.

Stagehands make a LOT more than $1000/week. And I'm sure on a show like Billy Elliot, there are more than 10. You are way off the mark on salaries.

"So I have done a uneducated (guess) break down, theatre show and back room staff could earn less or more, I be intrigued to find out the real cost."

Salaries are negotiated, so no ensemble members are making the same amount of money. No crew member is making the same (and those costs will fluctuate weekly based on the needs of the show from week to week).

"Advertising would be low for Billy Elliot, as word of mouth, critics are very favourable."

It's a fixed cost, but it isn't as low as you would think. I see ads everywhere for this show.

"So got cost of theatre - ??????
Principle cast member - $50k
Ensembles - $80k
Children and Children Support Staff - $75k
Back of House Support Staff - $23k


So cost of Venue Hire - ?????
Personnel Cost - $230k"

I guess the orchestra works for free! Don't forget royalties. The composer gets a fixed percentage, as does the bookwriter, director, lighting designer, costume designer, and of course, the lead producer. That is part of the running cost of the show as well. And despite the fact that the show is renting a Shubert house, the Shuberts are probably receiving a percentage of the weekly income as well. And it all adds up quickley.

"So I am a bit baffled where $900k operating costs come from, I am sure you put me right on my mistakes and what I have missed?"

See above. You have grossly underestimated Broadway salaries and left out royalties. The house staff salaries aren't included in the theater rental, but doesn't even add up to $10K per week. Also, there is a trust fund for the boys set up that essentially will cover their educational costs through college. I'm not quite sure if it is absorbed into their salary or if this is an additional expense.

I don't know that the running cost of the show is $900K/week, but it is probably around 800K/week.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:40pm

The mathematics in this thread is just plain silly.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:50pm

My advice would be not to speculate about the operating costs of Broadway productions unless you know what you're talking about. For the record, the production in the US is much more expensive to operate than in London.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:53pm

Wait a sec - you're telling me that these ensemble members are making $3000 a week times 52 (or do i not multiply it by that?) Those chorus kids CANNOT be making $156,000 a year.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 8:39pm

As Bonnie Franklin says in Applause "For every week you WORK, that is..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89DzMDC6gws

[NeoNormal]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 9:02pm

I'm not a big math fan, but more experience= MORE CASH.

Let's say, Ensemble Member (Insert Name Here) is just beginning
________________
to work on Broadway. As the AEA minimum a week is 1,605 dollars, they would most likely make the min. to 1,750 BEFORE taxes, and Ensemble Member (Insert Name Here) has been on Broadway 4 times, they would most likely make 2,000 to 3,000 BEFORE taxes.


This is Mamma Mia, but this is just some general info about where your $$$ goes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/19/arts/theater-the-tony-awards-and-the-stub-is-all-yours.html

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 10:05pm

So how many weeks of work does the average Broadway actor put in?

[NeoNormal]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 10:11pm

Depends on the show. Actors in successful shows (i.e. Wicked, Hair, West Side Story) will most likely be working much more than actors in Limited run shows and unsuccessful shows, but it also depends on the contract.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:32am

^ and that's why you have actors like George Lee Andrews who stay in their shows forever. It's the only way to guarantee steady Broadway work. [I was just reading that AEA is the only union in the US that averages 90% unemployment.]

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 10:12am

Thankyou for all the contribution it is fascinating to read, bit of a blunderbus missing out the orchestra.

Come back and add more, when I am back from Manchester.