Paying Customers + Empty Theaters = Stupid Producing

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 2:56pm

I know that box office numbers have been dropping like bricks lately, especially with plays like DESIRE UNDER THE ELMS, AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY and the amazing REASONS TO BE PRETTY (three shows in my opinion that deserve much better sales) but I'm wondering why it has to be this way...

I saw AUGUST again the other night and highly recommend everyone going back to see the phenomenal Elizabeth Ashley but I was one of a handful of people in the mezz. It actually took me out of the whole experience sitting alone in that house, and sitting in the audience for shows like DESIRE UNDER THE ELMS and REASONS TO BE PRETTY, I feel like I'm at a tech rehearsal it's so dead in there. I feel HORRIBLE for the actors onstage who look out at empty houses and pour their hearts out each night to nobody and at the same time I feel sorry for the paying customers who have paid their $60 - $120 to sit in an empty theater, creating (at least to me) an uncomfortable experience for both sides.

When are producers finally going to take their heads out of their asses and realize that people just are NOT going to pay $120-$80 for these shows?? With discounts, $50-$70 is still way too much. Even actresses like Jane Fonda, Joan Allen, Susan Sarandon and Angela Lansbury can't pull in a full house and to me that's really saying something about how people are spending their money nowadays.

So I guess my question is - with all this talk (even in the press) about houses being empty, why aren't producers doing anything to remedy the situation? Wouldn't they be happy to fill 500 seats at $25 each than 25 seats at $110 each? It just seems like good business to me. But than again, maybe that's asking too much of certain people in this industry.

[Drunk Chita Rivera]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:11pm

Whenever I am deciding wether to see a show or not normally I think about how full the theater will be. I hate being in an empty theater, it depresses me.

[JenNYferTheatrical]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:14pm

Despite the constant griping about the prices of tickets these days, that's just not how the economics of theater work. People pay top price for Wicked, Billy Elliott and Jersey Boys because they want to see them no matter what - they're not going to be lured to a show they don't want to see just because the tickets are cheaper. Additionally, tickets they could have sold at $100 to the people who do want to see the show, are now only going for $25. It's just not the right marketplace for your suggestion.

[Rudy2]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:14pm

I agree with you in that these piss-poor sales/attendance levels are a sign of a problem, but I can also see why ticket prices have not gone down - the producers are also folks who are worrying about their income. Setting the bar lower wouldn't exactly be in their interest. On the other hand, I don't understand raising prices either, which is what a lot of these producers are doing, to the likes of $126.50. What the hell is that?! $101.50 wasn't enough?

Updated On: 5/14/09 at 03:14 PM

[BrianS]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:17pm

Jordan, I'm sure you have the best intentions, but it's an issue that is much more complex than you are addressing it. Of course, they're aware of how bad that looks (that's why papering exists), but they have to balance that with meeting costs you wouldn't believe. I remember seeing a budget for a show I was in previews on and I was kind of in awe how crazy expensive costs are across the board. I'm not defending high ticket prices or producers necessarily, but rather that unless the industry as a whole undergoes an adjustment (and I'm including my own union in that), it would be near impossible to produce shows at a significantly lower top-ticket price.

And p.s., the real number to look at is average ticket price since they know going in on harder sell shows that they are going to discount to add incentive.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:25pm

I completely understand what you guys are saying (more than you know) and I know you mentioned papering but many shows aren't papering and just letting their shows go unseen by people who could actually do them good. Empty theaters create bad to no word of mouth, plain and simple. I'm always asked the question "Was the house full"?

Lately the answer is "no".

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:29pm

You get the same amount of money when 10 people buy $1 lemonade as when 100 people buy $0.10 lemonade.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:33pm

Jordan, I agree with your point of view. The way I see it, empty seats won't help pay as many bills as discounted ones can.

Lower prices may also increase my interest in seeing a play/show that I wouldn't consider seeing with the current prices.

[JenNYferTheatrical]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:35pm

You get the same amount of money when 10 people buy $1 lemonade as when 100 people buy $0.10 lemonade.

Yes, but while you could probably find 10 people to buy lemonade for $1, you may only be able to find 60 people to buy lemonade for 10c. And then the 10 people willing to pay a dollar will have only paid 10c. And you'll be stuck with $4 less than what you could have had (and far less lemonade, though that's not a perfect analogy).

[Rudy2]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 3:49pm

Good point Jane.

[hubee]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 4:48pm

Or you get 200 people willing to pay $0.10 and get $20. it all depends and everything else has a price point, i don't know why theatre seems to be stuck on being so stubborn, at least on a show by show basis. i mean, if everyone is clamouring for Billy Elliot, Wicked and WSS tickets, by all means, charge away (though please Have SOME lower priced category).

I'm also all for the tiered prices. Why do most shows now only have 2 prices. Expensive and REALLY expensive? In London, Toronto and elsewhere, there always seems to be more pricing gradients based on where the seats are AND what day of the week.

Most people I know want to see more shows, but just can't afford it (everyone's thirtysomething or late 20's). (Thank god for Roundabout's young person deals).

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 5:30pm

Just to play Devil's Advocate, lets remember that these shows cost MILLIONS of dollars to put up and the producer has a responsibility to the investors to RECOUP that.

You want ticket prices to come down? Don't first blame the producers. First, look at the start up capitalization that the show requires. Then, stop and think.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 5:31pm

I don't know how producers are going to make their overhead in this economy.

I was surprised that Broadway shows did as well as they did over the winter.

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 5:35pm

Right.

The fact of the matter is that theatre has always been expensive. Always will be. It costs a lot to put up, and a lot to run. People see a gross of 650,000 a week and think "OMG They are making a killing!" ... well, most musicals cost 600K a week just to RUN! That mean's 50K over, but that's not profit, that goes towards recoupment for the investors. And how long with an avg of 50K "profit" every week will it take to recoup investments of 5-10 million? Lonnnnnng time.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 5:42pm

Having worked in the FOH on Bway for decades, the "psychological" factor still amazes and distresses me, re: "papering at least the mezzes and balcs when biz is really bad. OK, it's BIZ, Show BIZ, and greed and recouping the investment is tantamount. However, the "vibe" in the houses that are heavily papered are soooooo much better, not only for the actors and the patrons, but it seems to me that A LOT of empty seats creates BAD publicity, BAD sales, BAD everything. I have overheard a zillion intermission convos regarding this exact topic. Psychologically, people think a play or musical is "better or worse" depending on how full the house is. It's not based in reality or fact, but in PERCEPTION.

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 7:52pm

Typically, plays have a lower cost to produce versus musicals (smaller/less sets, small casts, etc), right? So why are their tickets almost always the same price range?

[Plum]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 8:20pm

I suspect the reason all the tickets are the same price range is prestige. If all the shows on Broadway charged $100 for orchestra seats and one show decided to charge $70, the fear is that it would look like a "discount show", and not in a good way. Tourists who only have time to go to one or two shows and aren't terribly familiar with the local scene want to be as sure as possible that they're getting the Real Broadway Experience, not necessarily the bargain basement version.

So when The Producers pioneered the $100 seat due to its massive popularity, everyone else followed suit because they wanted to look just as good, and because people were still shelling out. But it's pretty much impossible for the reverse movement in prices to take place, because it would require cooperation rather than just straightforward avarice.
Updated On: 5/14/09 at 08:20 PM

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 8:33pm

that makes sense, so i guess the real question is: will shows stop increases ticket sales for a while?

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 8:42pm

Plays also run a FRACTION of the time hoped for most musicals, and they still have to recoup.

Everyone always throws the word GREED into the mix when discussing producers. Do you even know what they make? Unless the show recoups, very little. They get a (very small) royalty each week, and in some (many) cases a small office fee.

Each show is a business, it's own registered legal entity (usually an LP or an LLC).

Think of the producer as the president, or CEO. Let's assume that the producer puts on a show that becomes a runaway hit like WICKED, recoups, and continues to make money. Firstly, producers work their butts off because as "CEO" of that company, its their job to oversee everything. They deserve whatever they get after recoupment.

One doesn't go into the Gap and complain about how much the person that owns the company is making each year. But for some reason producers (which are basically the same thing, only they run a show, not a chain of retail stores) are always termed GREEDY. EVERY company has a president, CEO, owner, whatever you want to term it. ANd they're always making the most, because they have the most responsibility.

Having produced shows before (not on Broadway), I can tell you that yes... Producers work hard. And they earn whatever they can get. But you know what? We don't usually make a lot unless we have one of those (rare) hits that recoups and the continues to do well.

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/14/09 at 8:42pm

Plays also run a FRACTION of the time hoped for most musicals, and they still have to recoup.

Everyone always throws the word GREED into the mix when discussing producers. Do you even know what they make? Unless the show recoups, very little. They get a (very small) royalty each week, and in some (many) cases a small office fee.

Each show is a business, it's own registered legal entity (usually an LP or an LLC).

Think of the producer as the president, or CEO. Let's assume that the producer puts on a show that becomes a runaway hit like WICKED, recoups, and continues to make money. Firstly, producers work their butts off because as "CEO" of that company, its their job to oversee everything. They deserve whatever they get after recoupment.

One doesn't go into the Gap and complain about how much the person that owns the company is making each year. But for some reason producers (which are basically the same thing, only they run a show, not a chain of retail stores) are always termed GREEDY. EVERY company has a president, CEO, owner, whatever you want to term it. ANd they're always making the most, because they have the most responsibility.

Having produced shows before (not on Broadway), I can tell you that yes... Producers work hard. And they earn whatever they can get. But you know what? We don't usually make a lot unless we have one of those (rare) hits that recoups and the continues to do well.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 12:33pm

Just because something is only running a fraction of the time another show is is no reason to just let it sit there and tank. There's no reason for 33 VARIATIONS to be half full each night. There's no reason for DESIRE UNDER THE ELMS to have 6 people in a huge house each night. Those empty seats create no positivity about a show and producers lose money because of their own stupidity.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 12:43pm

I've already seen AUGUST once and I have no reason to ever see it again. I've already gotten all there is to get out of that play. So I won't be going back even if it helps the cast feel less horrible.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 12:50pm

Lowering ticket prices to even $10 / ticket doesn't mean a full house! Producers are not that dumb, they knew that if lowering ticket prices guaranteed more people watching the show, they would do it just for the word of mouth.

The point is that, either at $120 or at $10, people are just not interested in seeing the shows. I'm positive that when audiences really want to see a show, they will buy tickets, even at top price, and no matter how low the ticket price, if they have no interest, they just won't go.

[clever name]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 1:13pm

If tickets were 10$ I would have seen every single show on Broadway. That price is worth the chance of me not liking it.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 1:15pm

No, blaxx, I don't think so. I would've gone out for every single one of the classics this season if I could've afforded it; the high ticket price combined with hard-to-manage rush/lotto policies meant I didn't see them.

I agree that it would help if we returned to a more realistic tiered pricing system. You can't just have Expensive and Real Expensive seats, and not expect even long-time theater patrons like me to just shrug and say, I guess I wasn't meant to see that one.