THE TOXIC AVENGER on Broadway soon?- Page 2

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 10:47am

frontrowcentre2, interesting concept but I see a few issues. While there is a large community around Broadway, that doesn't change the fact that it's a business. There's a large community around Dave Matthews Band too. But when they tour, it's a business venture. They will try and get the maximum amount for a ticket.
There's little money to be made in off-broadway productions. In my opinion, producing comes down to passion and profit. most producers are passionate about the work they stage, but at the same time are looking to make a sizable income. mid-level shows won't produce the same kind of profit... you might as well stick with off-broadway. like anything in life, there's different scales or levels. broadway is a mercedes, off broadway is a toyota. a lot of people want mercedes, but that doesn't mean they should lower their prices. it costs more to produce the car and maintain the brand value.
You seem to have a clue, but so many who complain about ticket prices are just naive. It's simple economics... All in relation to production costs, inflation etc. Producers aren't making ridiculous markups on tickets, profit margins are thin. They're forced into pricing tickets as such.
Updated On: 12/13/10 at 10:47 AM

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 11:00am

And to all those who complain about ticket prices... it's simple. Go out and raise a few million dollars to subsidize a production, then producers will be able to charge less. Sound ridiculous? It's just as ludicrous as people saying lower ticket prices! Where else will producers get that money from to cover their costs?
If you have a rational fix for the situation, you're likely one of the world's greatest economists. This is not a single faceted issue of union regulation, etc. It has to do with inflation... Look at suppliers of Broadway shows, lets take theater owners as an example. They charge more because their costs have increased. That's because it's more expensive for the suppliers of Broadway theaters to do business. And so on etc... If you have a fix, you've found a way to completely bypass inflation!

[JRTO]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 5:23pm

"Why should someone pay more ($135) for a MILLION DOLLAR QUARTET with a cast of 6, a small orchestra - 2 pieces, one set, and no special effects that runs with much lower break-even."

To complain about a ticket price being too high because a show has low running costs is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure with MDQ they're paying a crap load in royalties as well, so it's not even as low as you think.

That's like complaining about paying $12 to see a comedy that cost $20 million to make and still having to pay $12 to see Avatar. It's not the money put into it, it's the value you get out of it.

People obviously value Wicked more, since it's Average Ticket Price last week was $115, compared to MDQ's $90.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/13/10 at 7:37pm

But I think value can equal price. If I'm paying $135 for Wicked, I'd be like "okay, I can see where the money is going." If I'm paying $135 for "Elling," I'd be pissed because there's just one set, etc.

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/14/10 at 1:05am

RippedMan, it's all relative. Your theory that value should equal price is not feasible. Lets use Elling as an example... A limited run play operates on a slightly different model than a musical that's expected to last for years. Elling needed to recoup its costs and profit in a shorter period of time. Granted the production crashed and burned, so they lost a generous amount. However, in order for Elling to succeed they needed to charge the most they possibly could during that limited time frame.
You're right that it's hard for shows like Elling to compete with Wicked, but it's all part of the game. Producers and investors know the numbers and not all vehicles are created equally. As an example, look at movies... a mid-level comedy cannot possibly compete with Iron Man. But producers aren't trying to. They're hoping to make a nice profit, but they're well aware it won't generate the same kind of profit as a huge international property. So why still do the mid-level comedy? There's an audience demand for all levels of entertainment. And ticket prices are pretty consistent. Recently movie theaters have been charging more for 3D films. You can make a similar comparison to Broadway... the spectaculars like Wicked and Spider-Man command higher ticket prices.
Updated On: 12/14/10 at 01:05 AM

[tourboi]

Posted: 12/14/10 at 2:05am

marcblank, you're my favorite poster officially.

[TheatreDork3]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 12:34am

Mr Roxy:

Reviving Lestat!? Great Idea!! Maybe Julie Taymor's producing partners can produce that show after Spiderman (yes that was said tongue-in-cheek).

TD

[TheatreDork3]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 12:40am

Marcblack:

I agree a lot with what you're saying. However, the Broadway Theater League has been reeling over the problems that many houses have been having financially this year. At some point, someone has to realize that charging $100+ for a ticket only works for a small handful of shows. I'm an educator and get a lot of discount tickets because of that. Without my discounts, I wouldn't see half the shows that I do. In our current economic environment, theaters and producers need to rethink their economic model realizing that exorbitant prices for a theater ticket is a luxury that most people cannot afford. Sure people pay more for a 3D movie, but that more is $10 to $25 dollars, not $100 to $150.

TD

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 1:23am

TheatreDork3, I can only revert back to my comment that if you have a rational fix, you're likely one of the world's greatest economists. It's one thing to complain about a problem, but entirely different to offer a solution. I agree, if prices were cheaper more tickets would be sold on Broadway each year. Due to inflation however, it's difficult to rethink the economic model for producing Broadway. There's a lot of fix costs involved. One of the largest expenses is marketing/advertising. You'd have to drastically reduce those costs to lower ticket prices. And that's usually not a great business decision on most shows.

[JRTO]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 12:07pm

there is one way to lower ticket prices: reduced wages for all unions, including equity. this is the biggest expenditure, not advertising (which is usually around 30%). the union rates are completely out of scale and make no economic sense and increase 3% a year. but good luck with that.

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 12:19pm

Yes, marketing/advertising is only a chunk of the overall budget. I listed that as an example since it's not a fixed expense (ex. theater rental, etc.). Productions can decide how much they'd like to spend on getting the word out. Union benefits are very expensive but far from the biggest expenditure. There's several large chunks that make up the overall pie, one is not more prevalent than the other. This is why you can credit rising ticket prices to inflation, because several issues come into play across the board. And are you suggesting they lower minimum union wages? Broadway actors don't get paid a whole lot. It won't put a big dent in the budget if you lower their wages.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/15/10 at 1:22pm

"But I think value can equal price. If I'm paying $135 for Wicked, I'd be like "okay, I can see where the money is going." If I'm paying $135 for "Elling," I'd be pissed because there's just one set, etc."

I really hope that was a joke