You have a very novel way of adjusting for inflation. You take the price from 1975, adjust it for inflation in 2015, then adjust the 1975 price back down using the 1975 inflation rate.
The old casual method would take the early date, in my article 1966 with a top price of 12 dollars that year and, adjusting for inflation, would find the equivalent top price in 1992 to have been $41.50. Instead the top price in my article, 1992, was $60.00.
The difference between $60 and $41.50 is all price increase to the producer. And since 1992 we've had a lot more inflation and the price differential would be even greater.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/theater/l-ticket-prices-inflation-is-one-thing-179092.html
"As the saying goes, if folks don't wanna see a show, you can't pay them to go to it. "
As an insider, you do not take into account the tourists and the suburbanites and even the Manhattan population, good for maybe three shows a year, whose lives are not centered around Broadway. They want to have those nice paid-for cardboard tickets in their hands. They want good seats and will pay for them if they are not regulars. They no nothing about "papering" as I knew nothing up it until I saw the term used. But I still have to idea on how to get "papered." And neither would a great majority of casual theatergoers. And the only thing they know about the intricate discount maze are the bright pamphlets they get in the mail.
"Yes, current prices are high, but what we know is that when people want to see a show, they pay it."
You got me here. A young family, just starting to save for the children's education, is going to lay out 400 dollars so the parents can have a night on the town. And if they only had to pay 250 dollars it would not affect their decision on whether to go. I know which way I lean on the subject, but have no proof.
"And it is not true that it is only star vehicles and blockbusters that people will pay for."
I make this statement not in general but to the theatergoers that I've described above. Most tourists or suburbanites or casual attendees who take in a show two or three times a year could not name one Off-Broadway show. The local enthusiasts, which are many in Manhattan, can support the low profile show, and they do, but usually not for long as I believe you said one in four or five close at a loss to those who put up the money.
My point was simply to agree that if ticket prices for Broadway shows were less, the number of people attending the shows would be greater. Controversial?
Updated On: 4/4/15 at 02:03 PM
goes to the producer? In fact it goes to pay expenses which are not linear to inflation but much more than inflation. I know it is appealing to say that a show's problems are related to ticket price but as I said at the outset, that doesn't hold up on closer examination. 
