Paying Customers + Empty Theaters = Stupid Producing- Page 2

[SingingCats]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 1:44pm

The problem is that the people who post on this board are not indicative of the general public. Your average person won't see a show at $10 if they don't want to see it any more than they would at $100. Your average theatergoer might, but there aren't enough of them to fill every Broadway house every night.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 1:59pm

Exactly my point - if Wicked sells out every night at top price, it proves my point. There are people who could fill the seats at August like in Wicked, they just don't want to.

I'm sure there are a few that can't afford it, but the truth is that those who can don't want to go either.

Updated On: 5/15/09 at 01:59 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 2:13pm

"Your average person won't see a show at $10 if they don't want to see it any more than they would at $100."

Sorry but that's ridiculous. As far as tourists go and people who don't regularly go to the theater, you can't honestly tell me that if you receive an email or an offer to see "33 VARIATIONS starring JANE FONDA for only $25!" that the box office wouldn't see a significant rise in sales. Combine that and papering to get good word of mouth out about shows and more buzz and you have more people spending their money. It's not rocket science.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 2:28pm

I don't know-in my experience, I find that most of the people who ever pay full price are tourists, or people who must see a show on one particular day.

I get to look at every single ticket that passes through the theater, and almost all of them are discounted. I deduce from that that very few people pay full price. Lowering the price brings more people in.

OH-and Producer doesn't automatically =smart at producing.

Updated On: 5/15/09 at 02:28 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 3:00pm

Lowering the price brings more people in.

It also means losing money. This will be a smart risk if it was a new show that has to build a reputation, but not so good with a play that has got every single award and rave review it could.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 3:12pm

That means 50K over, but that's not profit, that goes towards recoupment for the investors.

Actually, about half of that usually goes to the royalty participants, so that leaves 25K for the investors. $25K a week to recoup a $10 million show is not good.

Producers always set the full ticket price higher than they need it to be, because they need the full price tickets to balance out the discounted or unsold tickets. If your full price is too low, no one will ever pay higher than that and there's no way you can ever recoup. If you set your ticket price higher than you need, you can offer discounts and still count on some people paying full price to make enough money every week.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 3:13pm

Until I see on paper how it loses money, I can only go by my own experiences.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 3:18pm

How's this - you said that lowering the price brings people in and almost every ticket you see is discounted.

Great. True. That's why producers offer discounts. Say there's a $100 ticket with a discounted price of $80. The vast majority of people pay $80. But there are a few people who pay full price. If you lower the full price to $80, then EVERYBODY will pay $80 and you'll lose out on the extra money you would have made from the people who would have paid $100.

Producers tend to price their tickets expecting to offer discounts.

[BrianS]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 4:08pm

I agree with Blaxx. Cry-Baby charged $50 a seat for every seat in the house during previews at the very high-profile Marquis theater (which means tourists were very aware of it) and it still didn't get anywhere near full.

When people hear from their friends that they "have to see" a show, they find the money to see that show. I know "starving actors" who drop $40 on a bar tab without thinking twice. They spend it cause they REALLY WANT those drinks even though they say they're expensive.

Make a show that gets great word of mouth and the people will come. Charge $20 for "33 Variations" and some people on this board would see it who normally couldn't afford to, but the house would still be 50% empty because most people have little desire to see the show (even at that price).

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 4:25pm

"If you lower the full price to $80, then EVERYBODY will pay $80"

Let's lower it to $60. Then, you may have 1200 seats filled with $60 tickets ($72,000) instead of maybe 600 seats filled with $100 tickets ($60,000).

[tourboi]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 5:51pm

Yero you are right. I wasn't thinking about the royalty pool.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 5:53pm

That's assuming the demand is there for the lower price. If you still only get 600 people buying tickets at $60, or even 800, you just screwed yourself. That's why producers play it safe by charging higher than they need and offering discounts.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 6:27pm

Let's lower it to $60. Then, you may have 1200 seats filled with $60 tickets ($72,000) instead of maybe 600 seats filled with $100 tickets ($60,000).

Ha ha, yes, lowering tickets to $60 will bring in an extra 600 people a night.

Bottom line: People don't go because they don't want to. For whatever reason.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:05pm

Think how bad the actors feel playing to 10 people a night. That has to be rough

Oh for the days when the balcony was actually called a balcony & not rear mezzanine.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 9:56pm

"Ha ha, yes, lowering tickets to $60 will bring in an extra 600 people a night. "

I'm glad you agree!

Because I'm sure you're not being sarcastic nor snarky.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 10:17pm

"Ha ha, yes, lowering tickets to $60 will bring in an extra 600 people a night.Bottom line: People don't go because they don't want to. For whatever reason.'

Uh-huh, so the reason we have the TKTS booth and various other discounts would be.............EXACTLY- to bring more people into the theater who don't want to pay full price!! I knew you'd get it eventually.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 10:37pm

OK.

This is an apple:


Back in AUGUST this apple was popular, everyone wanted to buy apples! The critics said you should eat that apple!

So, these apples were very popular for a while.

But, now, not many are interested in buying the apples:



Everyone was trying very hard to sell these once popular apples, even lowering apple prices, giving discounts, even stunt apple casting!



Unfortunately, nothing happened. The truth is that as cheap as these apples went on sale, no one was interested



And though apples will be always remembered as a good product, they are no longer on sale.


Better?

Updated On: 5/15/09 at 10:37 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 10:43pm

I appreciate what went into that post, Blaxx. I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:45am

Sure, love.

[yay_gerb]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:15am

if producers decide to lower ticket prices to $10...what will be the student rush price? :P

[jennafan]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 4:13am

I hate to wish a show to close before it opens, but... Spider-Man. WTF

I have issues with this show already and I think it will be a shame when tickets for it are overpriced. There is hardly a way for it to recoup in these economic times.

Does anyone else feel like the "Open Casting" they had for it was a publicity stunt? You can bet they got press at every stop, and I HIGHLY doubt they will pick up anyone from the open auditions for the leads (understudies, maybe). But still, I think it was a total PR move.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 7:04pm

"August" has had it's moment. It was a hit, and great - and I loved it and I can't wait to see it again with Rashad - but it's time has come, I think. It's just no longer the "hot ticket" it once was. And it's a hard sell to a tourist. I mean, 3 1/2 hr play? No one I know - a non-theater person - would willing sit through that. Even as good as it is.

I really hope "Reasons..." gets some love, but it's def. more of an off-Broadway show.

[singtopher]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 9:16pm

good thread.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 11:19pm

the average person has to save and save to go see ONE show. If the prices were reasonable, they could take that money and see two...three shows. Currently, I have about 4 shows I want to see SO bad but if I ever make it to NYC I am going to have to debate on which ONE show I will see since I can't afford all four. Even the actors (well, those on GOLDEN AGE) say that theatres are charging WAY too much money and I agree with them.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 10:48am

There's a reason tickets for the $41.50 section of Billy Elliot or the $36.50 back row of Next to Normal are hard to come by. There is a core audience of theatre lovers who don't have the money to attend as many shows as they would like to. If prices were lowered, it would give these people an opportunity to see more theatre.

That being said, ticket prices would have to be significantly lower to make a difference. The top seat for Irena's Vow is $98, about $20 less than other new plays, but last night it was basically empty.

Musicals can't follow the limited engagement with a big star recoup two weeks before the run ends model, but high upfront costs prevent prices from lowering. Even Rock of Ages, which originally touted itself as not having a seat above $100 now has a base price of $111.50.