Revivals versus original Musicals

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 7:05pm

Not sure why next season has so many musical revivals. They haven't proven more profitable. 

While the cheap tours coming in look good on paper, the Wiz didn't make money in town - running costs to bring those shows onto a broadway stage make it tricky. Let's see how Mamma Mia and Beetlejuice do. 

This year Sunset Blvd, Gypsy, Floyd Collins, Mattress, and Last Five Years all lost money. 

Last year Cabaret, Spamalot, and Tommy all lost money. Only Merrily made a profit. 

& Juliet is the last musical to recoup but this season has Happy Ending, Buena Vista Social, Death Becomes Her and Just in Time all looking like they could break into a profit someday. 

Just interesting that there is this sense that revivals are somehow safer bets. 

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 7:17pm

"interesting that there is this sense that revivals are somehow safer bets."

I wonder if it's less that revivals are considered safer bets (because as you point out there isn't much evidence to back that up) and more just coincidence that this season is revival heavy. You have CHESS which has been delayed for several years due to the pandemic and other reasons, you have CATS which is only moving to Broadway because it caused a sensation, and RAGTIME and ROCKY are at nonprofits that typically do musical revivals. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 7:26pm

The reality of so many of these revival projects (notably Sunset and Gypsy) is that they're not produced expecting to turn a profit. They've crunched the numbers, they know it's not likely. I dont think any production but the original production of Gypsy turned a profit. They're vanity projects. If they by twist of fate actually turned a profit, then wonderful. If they don't, well that's an investment they can include on their taxes. 

Tours making a stop on Broadway is historically a good investment. Mamma Mia brought in almost $1.8M last week. 

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 7:36pm

And a revival could be a safer bet, but still lose money. 

So little is guaranteed or reliably predictable in this business.

[ScottK]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:08pm

Theatre Fan---what do you mean that Sunset/Gypsy werent EXPECTING to turn a profit?  That must be the most uneducated thing ive EVER heard about theatre investing.  What investor goes in saying "I COULD USE A PASSIVE TAX LOSS THIS YEAR"!?!?!?--of course the investors were hoping to make a profit--of course the producers were hoping to make a profit (how do you think most producers get paid?!?!?)  VANITY projects for WHOM? the producers? the investors? the other cast members/creatives who may have turned down other projects? What utter nonsense!!!

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:19pm

ScottK said: "Theatre Fan---what do you mean that Sunset/Gypsy werent EXPECTINGto turn a profit? That must be the most uneducated thing ive EVER heard about theatre investing. What investor goes in saying "I COULD USEA PASSIVE TAX LOSS THIS YEAR"!?!?!?--of course the investors were hoping to make a profit--of course the producers were hoping to make a profit (how do you think most producers get paid?!?!?) VANITY projects for WHOM? the producers? the investors? the other cast members/creatives who may have turned down other projects? What utter nonsense!!!"

For Actors, Producers, and Investors. The reality that 80% of Broadway shows fail to recoup. Sometimes the reward is in the accolades and awards they receive. Why would anyone think that this would be the first Gypsy to profit in decades? Like, many of these producers also work in film where the investments are far bigger than Broadway and they do so because of the clout that is attached, not how much money is made on it. 

They knew Sunset had to run longer than Nicole was willing to stay to turn a profit. They knew how much salary she was demanding and how much ALW was taking. This is the economics of it. 

Updated On: 8/31/25 at 09:19 PM

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:31pm

The investors I know in both shows thought audra was a game changer and sunset was hot after London -- they thought they were going to make a ton on both!

 

 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:39pm

Well that's a pretty stupid idea to have tbh. 

[Kad]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:44pm

Sunset not recouping wasn't because it was a revival. As discussed elsewhere, shifting its run later into the season likely would've helped it substantially, including capitalizing on its Tony wins, but it was always constrained by Scherzinger's schedule and pay demands. 

But with a cast of almost 30, and it being a show that isn't exactly a beloved classic, it always had a bit of an uphill battle. But it ended just as it was at its hottest. 

Updated On: 8/31/25 at 09:44 PM

[ScottK]

Posted: 8/31/25 at 9:50pm

For sure, it is true that 80% of shows fail to full recoup.  (Most) investors know that. The accolades/awards are for the producers, not the investors (tho there is a tangential "thrill" for the investors when accolades appear.) And tho you said "many" of the producers also work in film, I would say that only a small few actually do. If you look at the LEAD producers of most (non-Disney) shows, they are NOT active film producers. If you were to have read the recoupment schedule for Sunset/Gypsy, they would certainly show that it was POSSIBLE to recoup. NO show is highly likely to recoup as you well noted, but potential investors were given financials that showed it COULD be done.  And, yes, I've been investing for a long time (perhaps almost as long as you've been alive)

[Idiot]

Posted: 9/1/25 at 1:21am

Ensemble1711444445 said: "The investors I know in both shows thought audra was a game changer and sunset was hot after London -- they thought they were going to make a ton on both!

I think this explains it.  The investor mindset isn't necessarily an artistic one.  I think it's easy for them to think they're skipping over the 'getting people to love the show' step by mounting a revival.  It's not true... but they're thinking with their wallets, not from a love of theatre. 

"

 

[ScottK]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 2:52pm

And, yet again, another harsh assessment of (us) investors.  IF we only cared for our wallets, there would NEVER be a theatre investment since 80% of shows fail to recoup. SO, obviously, there IS love of theatre. As for selecting projects because of "artistic merit", that's a bit tougher. Why invest in Audra's Gypsy? Has Gypsy always been profitable? Has Audra always been profitable? SO, perhaps, those investors thought there was some "artistic merit", or OTHER merit for mounting the production. What about investing in a South Korean musical about robots falling in love? Wallet-focused? Artistic merit focused? Love of theatre focused? What about investing in a dance musical from a composer that a theatre audience never heard of? Or some random Brit musical with "MINCEMEAT" or "CAKE" in the title? Investors dont always think wallet first....

[Idiot]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 2:59pm

ScottK said: "And, yet again, another harsh assessment of (us) investors. IF we only cared for our wallets, there would NEVER be a theatre investment since 80% of shows fail to recoup. SO, obviously, there IS love of theatre. As for selecting projects because of "artistic merit", that's a bit tougher. Why invest inAudra's Gypsy? Has Gypsy always been profitable? Has Audra always been profitable? SO, perhaps, those investors thought there was some "artistic merit", or OTHER merit formounting the production. What about investing in a South Korean musical about robots falling in love? Wallet-focused? Artistic merit focused? Love of theatre focused? What about investing in a dance musical from a composer that a theatre audience never heard of? Or some random Brit musical with "MINCEMEAT" or "CAKE" in the title? Investors dont always thinkwallet first...."

Yep - my brevity led to sounding more judgy than intended.   I don't think it's wrong to want a return on investment and to try to make smart choices.  Sent you a PM, ScottK. 

[Kad]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 3:01pm

Investors certainly aren't a monolith. They range the gamut from folks like ScottK who love theatre, believe in a project, or want to support the artform to people who are speculators looking to make money to people with money to burn who want to make a name for themselves socially and buy an award or party invite. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 3:08pm

The other obvious point is that 'Broadway' is a collection of independent entrepreneurs in a free market not some kind of planned system, so there isn't and cannot be any kind of systemic higher-level planning about the kind of material that is on stage (unless it gets so bad that someone tries to creates rules around these things). 

If you look at every show you mentioned and take it independently they all made sense: Sunset and Cabaret had a lot of hype (and proven sales) in London, Gypsy had the greatest diva of her generation get her star turn in a long traditional of the show etc. 

If there was more higher-level programmatic planning it would have been better to spread both the new musicals and revivals of last season over multiple seasons - there was too much competition.

It just is what it is. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 5:26pm

ScottK said: "And, yet again, another harsh assessment of (us) investors. IF we only cared for our wallets, there would NEVER be a theatre investment since 80% of shows fail to recoup."

First, I realize that factors other than the bottom line influence investors to support shows, and I've seen quite a few productions that I loved but that lost money, and that everyone involved probably knew would lose money (just one example: Scottsboro Boys). So I am thankful to you and your fellow investors!

That being said, I've always assumed that the investor pool as a whole - across all productions - must, on balance, make more money than it loses. The many flops must be offset by the profits from the hits, especially the long-running ones. It's hard to believe that a commercial industry can survive if this isn't the case. Is that a naive assumption on my part? Does Broadway really operate entirely outside the usual rules of economics?

Updated On: 9/2/25 at 05:26 PM

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 5:44pm

ScottK said: "Theatre Fan---what do you mean that Sunset/Gypsy werent EXPECTINGto turn a profit? That must be the most uneducated thing ive EVER heard about theatre investing. What investor goes in saying "I COULD USEA PASSIVE TAX LOSS THIS YEAR"!?!?!?--of course the investors were hoping to make a profit--of course the producers were hoping to make a profit (how do you think most producers get paid?!?!?) VANITY projects for WHOM? the producers? the investors? the other cast members/creatives who may have turned down other projects? What utter nonsense!!!"

Surely "hoping" to make a profit and "weren't EXPECTING" to turn a profit are two seperate things. Investors can go in saying, "I know I'm taking a chance here, but it's would be nice to make a really good return on my investment."

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/2/25 at 7:55pm

I think investors take shots with shows they love that feel like they could be successful. Rarely do I hear anyone say "I knew it was going to lose money but I did it anyway." I suppose the real question is why do theater owners keep booking revivals over originals -- especially this season -- when the business needs new shows for touring and licensing? 

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 6:42am

This thread begins with the statement: "Not sure why next season has so many musical revivals. They haven't proven more profitable."

Why is profit gain/loss the only explanation being explored in this thread?

Isn't it at least possible that there's very simply a lack of new musicals being written? If that's the case, what's left to produce but revivals?

[ScottK]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 7:12am

Hey John Adams!--NO, it is NOT possible that there is a lack of new musicals being written.  There are about 41 Bway theatres. Lets say 20 have longer run shows in them (m too lazy to actually check).  That leaves 20 theatres available. Let's say there are five incoming plays  (new OR revivals again). That leaves 15 available theatres. Go into the BMI Theatre Workshop or ASCAP (IF they still even have them anymore)--and those two yearly classes have over 20! Multiply those two classes by years! And other NYC musical festivals.  And the NYU musical theatre programs. Multiply by the rest of the United States, and then Britain, and then the world!!! Plenty of product. Also, producers DO also want to introduce new generations to classic musicals (to inspire/educate, as well as make money). It really is so complicated. BUT, it's NOT for lack of new material.

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 9:09am

ScottK said: "Go into the BMI Theatre Workshop or ASCAP (IF they still even have them anymore)--and those two yearly classes have over 20!"

That’s the line in your algorithm where it completely breaks, and becomes unusable. “IF they” (the workshops?) no longer exist, then there’s no data to calculate. You also don’t define what that number "20" might represent Were you referring to “theaters” (the subject of the previous lines)?

Out of all the new musicals being written, which one(s) do you feel are being overlooked by producers in favor of producing a revival?

[ScottK]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 10:45am

MY bad about the repetition of the number "20"--when referring to the classes, there were usually about 15 new projects in BMI and 5 in ASCAP--so it doesnt really matter if they still exist or not--there are so many trunk musicals from past years.  And all the new ones being created at NYU--and those submitted to festivals in the US.  Its never about lack of material/product.  I'm SO SO SO low on any totem pole, I really dont know what is out there. I had gone to a musical reading 6 months ago of a show that really cracked me up.  Obviously, it is the hands of a producer and itll prob take quite a while for rewrites, theatre availability and then fundraising. It really is a miracle when any (truly) new show gets done (re: Six, Maybe Happy Ending, In the Heights (!!!)) even those with BIG lineage (Hercules, Hunchback, Mystic Pizza (!!!))....It's just really hard.

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 11:31am

Also... people are writing musicals who aren't ASCAP/BMI lab participants. Some are pop/rock songwriters, some are indie/DIY musical theatre people (like me). Every so often a show from outside the main musical theatre lab DOES make it to the mainstream, but most often it's because of a name attached to it.

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/3/25 at 12:18pm

ScottK said: "-there are so many trunk musicals from past years. And all the new ones being created at NYU--and those submitted to festivals in the US. Its never about lack of material/product."

Agreed. And I should have included some kind of added description in my statement that indicated a new musical that the public wants to pay to see.

ScottK also said: "I'm SO SO SO low on any totem pole, I really dont know what is out there. I had gone to a musical reading 6 months ago of a show that really cracked me up. Obviously, it is the hands of a producer and itll prob take quite a while for rewrites, theatre availability and then fundraising. It really is a miracle when any (truly) new show gets done (re: Six, Maybe Happy Ending, In the Heights (!!!)) even those with BIG lineage (Hercules, Hunchback, Mystic Pizza (!!!))....It's just really hard."

Also agreed. I tend to lean into your thinking that, "It really is a miracle when any (truly) new show gets done". Regardless of how you feel about your position on any kind of totem pole, I feel like your thoughts contribute to the conversation re: why the pool of revivals is larger (and safer) to draw from, than for new musicals (per my poor wording, "a lack of new musicals being written").