Ticket Prices on the Rise... Again! — Page 2

The whole ticketbroker thing is dumb. I don't understand how the producers "lose money" because of them. Here's my reasoning...

The ticket was going to be bought for $111.25 anyway! Even if it wasn't going to, at least they're doing you a favor! So if no one was going to pay $500 for it, the ticket would still have been bought. Producers just want in, that's all, so they make everyone else suffer for ticket brokering.

---

Hah...Mr. Roxy...LOVE the Barnum quote! So true....this MUST STOP!!!!!

It seems to me that I remember a bunch of new americans who weren't happy with the state of affairs about 225 years ago and they DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT! If the colonists had the guts to stick it to a war mongering king, I think that maybe we could organize a protest or form picket lines outside the box offices. It could bring a little attention to this extortion and possibly plant a few seeds of sedition and people might actually think to boycott these prices! A run-on-sentence i know, but I just get so mad.

I want to at least start a campaign to boycott premium seats and orchestra seats until they are lowered, although I'm nevous it would close shows.

I did some math:

WICKED has a production cost of 675,000 a week. Weekly they exceed this at 1.4 million.

This is how low prices could go for them to keep getting close to a million WITHOUT premium seats:

PROPOSED PRICES (without the restoration fee or any other surpluss charges)

ORCHESTRA: $75
FRONT MEZZANE: $70
Rear Mezzanine: $35

With a week of 100% capacity: $925,680!!! would be made for the week. That's a profit of $250,680!

*My math and sections of the theatre were based on the information from this site: http://www.nederlander.org/wicked/gershwin_seats.html

In actuality, I'd hope for more varied prices. I was giving this as an example to show how much cheaper prices could be.

---

Updated On: 4/23/06 at 04:02 PM

I totally agree, Jordan. Why does every show feel they can charge what the latest big budget musical does. Is there some rule that every musical must now charge $111 since Pajama Game (or whatever show it was) pushed it up that extra bit? Must every play charge $96? Sure, some shows can get away with it and sell out, but others can't and close early.

I'm going to use Taboo as an example here. Top prices, no preview discounts, not on TKTS for a hell of a long time, a shoddy "deal" for students (what student can pay $50 for a show, let alone find a friend to shell out that much, so you can do the buy one get one nonsense). The show was at, what, 45% for most of the run? There's no need for that. Wouldn't you rather slash prices and come close to filling the house rather than play to 30-40% houses at full price? And hey, if you're getting more asses in the seats at a discount, that's all the more people to spread the word if your show is decent.

And what's with the $100 seats creeping all the way through the mezz? The Wedding Singer with the whole house at $90-110, except the last two rows??? Come on! I was looking through some old InTheater magazines when I was home over my winter break and found it quite surprising to see so many $30-75 tags in there. Sure, the occasional show has a couple rows for $35 like Sweeney, but even that's becoming a rarity.

---

Mabel, the answer to your question is either they have to charge that much money to pay the big star salaries they have and also every show would like to believe that they're going to be the next big thing to hit Broadway so of course they should charge top dollar. Why if they didn't they'd be losing money, in their eyes! It's absurd and it's not going to change any time soon.

This post is a bit long, I apologize.

Though I'm not in NY and the big name tours rarely come to my area, I still enjoy live theatre. It is insanely expensive though and I always have to alternate which of my children can go with me. It's not exactly an affordable family evening out, and I often have to miss a show entirely. Bills or a show, bills or a show.....not hard to do the math.

All of this big business greed strikes me as blatantly elitist and has served to keep the numbers of those that attend live theatre at it's low percentage for decades. There are literally millions of people who would give theatre a chance if not for the absurd prices. Simply because the rich and the tourists, who have saved quite possibly for years, will pay the steep prices does not excuse the obvious lack of access those prices make the shows for the rest of the population.

I find it appalling and morally telling that even local libraries don't have a medium through which the economically challenged can learn about and see what Broadway theatre has to offer. Not everyone can even afford to go to college, so a student discount won't help them.

If the prices are going to remain high, and even if they bring them down a bit, all shows should have at least the OBC recorded and sold on DVD. People with money to burn would still pay the high prices to see the show live, as would tourists and those devoted to live theatre; so there would be no money lost, quite the contrary. They would vastly broaden their fanbase and eliminate the "need" for (ahem) those illegal thingies (ahem) altogether. Not to mention, continued revenue for shows that are now closed.

I for one would be more than happy to pay $100+ for a DVD of a musical and STILL see the show in NY, once I had the funds.

I think everyone is effected by live theater. It's just entertaining and it's so cool to be sitting in the same room as them. Seeing it unfold right infront of you. It has to be all the production costs or the idea of spectacle. Shows cost so much to produce now because of production costs. Shows like Sweeney and Bee shouldn't cost as much as they should. I'm glad I saw Sweeney, but I agree that they should have lower ticket prices. I'm sure Michael and Patti aren't getting that much in salary. They've already made back their invest.

Actually, Spamalot was the first, followed quickly by Wicked- (AKA: the big-name shows that people would pay just about anything for anyway). All the other shows quickly upped their prices to match so they weren't missing out on an opportunity to capitalize.

The same mentality finds theaters changing around their student policies and lottery policies. While these "cheaper seats" are still available, us lucky winners/students are rapidly being relegated to the less desirable seats. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels moved their lotto winners from the front row in to the boxes... Jersey Boys moved their student seats from Row W in the orchestra to the side obstructed view seats... it's capitalism, folks. Plain and simple. And as long as Americans, on the whole, continue the "grumble but pay anyway" attitude, there isn't much to be done about it.

---

Rich people or people who would do anything to see a hyped show.

---

Yeah well they are now going to start raising the ticket prices now that it's Tony season as well. One the Noms go out on Tuesday the shows that are up for one will most likely rais their ticket prices. It's what happened last year so I'm sure they will do the same this year.

Everybody's got great points here, but I think there's an element missing from the "united in price" argument. It's a psychological thing - think of it as quality control.
People want and expect more bang for their buck. Pricing shows equally puts the perceived show quality - this is all in terms of tourists, mind you - on a level playing field. They strive to avoid the mentality of "Well, if Wedding Singer is 111$, and Piazza is only 95$, Wedding Singer must be better, since they're able to charge more for tickets". Additionally, the higher price tag raises the "sense of occasion" associated with seeing a Broadway show. "Events" like that are more likely to be surrounded by dinner, drinks, hotel stays for those who are coming in from a longer yet commutable distance, etc. It's not just greed - it's keeping up appearances.