The optimal level of ticket sales on Broadway

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 10:27am

I was thinking about what the optimal level of ticket sales on Broadway was from my PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE (i.e., what's best for me).

Obviously, you don't want them too low. If every show loses money, producers will stop bringing shows to Broadway altogether, so you'll have no new productions to enjoy. Your favorite show will close too quickly, as well. You also want shows to do well so that actors have work and the institution continues in general.

However, ticket sales (in general) that are too good are bad for me, at least, and I'm sure many on here. If shows are selling out, there will be little to no discounts, rushes, or lotteries that allow many of us to see shows when we couldn't otherwise. Also, it decreases the amount of new works being brought to the stage if there aren't any theaters available. I know I cringe a bit when a mediocre "touristy" show, like Little Mermaid or Grease, opens because it will fill that theater for years and prevent it from being used by something I might like more. I'm sure many people on here wouldn't shed a tear if Mary Poppins, Mamma Mia!, and others closed tomorrow because it would open up a theater for something new.

Obviously, in a perfect world, we could have our favorite shows run at a nice 80% capacity forever so discounts are usually available but the show does well enough to stay open, and, at the same time, our least favorite shows would fade out quickly to open space for something new. In my opinion, a good compromise would be ticket sales a bit lower than they are now, so that long running juggernauts wouldn't run quite as long, there was a little more turnover on Broadway, and discounts are more available.

I know there are some people here that want every show to do well, and others are ruthless in hoping that shows they don't like close within a week. I'm curious about how people stand on the issue in general.

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 7:01pm

So, let's close things you think are either open too long, although they are still selling well, or things that you think are too touristy because we shouldn't have anything that caters to the tourist trade so we can open new things that might not make it past the first week?

Any clue how many shows are not opening right now because of the lack of backers? Quick turnover helps the backers recoup and make a profit so maybe they will back something new. Quick turnover is not necessarily a good thing for Broadway, certainly not for the people who work in it.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 7:14pm

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 07:14 PM

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 8:08pm

"Any clue how many shows are not opening right now because of the lack of backers? Quick turnover helps the backers recoup and make a profit so maybe they will back something new. Quick turnover is not necessarily a good thing for Broadway, certainly not for the people who work in it."

I agree. At the same time, though, if every Broadway show sold out forever and there was no turnover on Broadway, wouldn't that be bad for theater as an institution, and for us? No new works, no new interpretations. Many shows aren't being produced because they can't find backers, but some are not opening right now because of lack of a theater, too. Wouldn't you rather (insert crappy bestseller) close so that new shows that can't find a theater can get one? Shows where backers have made a healthy profit and are now just using it as a cash cow.

I'm not trying to make the world revolve around me. In a world with a finite number of theaters and opportunities, there's an optimal medium between long, healthy runs and fast turnover, where every show that can get produced will be, but backers still turn a profit on their investments. Updated On: 9/2/08 at 08:08 PM

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 8:26pm

So, how long is too long or not long enough? Who decides?

Any Broadway show that is sold out forever, deserves to run for that period of time.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 10:50pm

It could be sold out because of effective marketing and a recognizable brand name, not any semblance of quality. Does that not matter? Is that in the spirit of theater or not? (I'm not being rhetorical, I'm curious what people think.)

[george95]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 11:47pm

Are there any specific examples of shows that cannot or have not opened on Broadway simply because there were no theaters available? As in the investment was made, the actors/crew were ready to go, everything was set, but they just didnt' have a theater? I'm not saying this hasn't happened, but I'd be curious to know of which specific show it has happened to.

[midwestsarah]

Posted: 9/3/08 at 12:42am

From what I understand, Brigadoon had investors, but no theatre.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 9/3/08 at 2:29am

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 02:29 AM

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 9/3/08 at 8:46am

You're not breaking anything to me, I understand supply and demand. I guess I'm just a little bitter because my relatively sophisticated tastes mean that my favorite shows run for months while mainstream, mindless entertainment will run for years.

And, since most Broadway audiences are not repeat customers (at the same show), I'd argue that marketing, image, branding, etc., is more important than people actually liking the show. Obviously reviews aren't a definitive determinant of box office success, but besides that and word of mouth, how else does the quality of a show affect a potential first-time customer? I'm willing to bet most attendents of Grease are not there because they've seen the show before or because they read a good review (if one exists) or because of word of mouth. They know the plot and the brand and/or saw an ad and decided to see it. And that fills the theater.