why doesn't Hamilton take over another broadway theater?

No show has ever done this but why not? There is already a year long or more wait for tix, just take over the August Wilson when Groundhog day closes in September and open up a second Hamilton. Make double the money and it will be incredible. They wont have a problem selling tix.
i bet it could work.

I remember this being brought up last year. The thing that is working best for Hamilton is that it's hard to get into, which makes the tickets sell out. Opening another theater would be smart for maybe a few months, but then demand would die down. It wouldn't happen.

Demand is high because supply is low. How does increasing the supply make any economic sense?

It would run half as long.



And without the "DEMAND" to get tickets, they would lose out on premiere ticket demand - thus losing that extra, all profit money.

.

so you are saying that national tours depreciate the value of the broadway show because people won't travel to NY to see shows? Kinda the same thing.
If the demand is there, make more supply. The demand is there. THe product is sold out. People want more. if its already sold out until 2018 sept then if you had another Hamilton open up sept 2017, they would make more revenue. there are 350 million people in the country and tons more overseas. The demand won't die, its the biggest hit in the history of broadway.

they would make a mint and it would be amazing. So you are saying, that coke should only make 1 million coke cans a year because if they make more their value would depreciate? that makes no sense. People want to see Hamilton, there aren't any tix. Make more Hamilton shows. Its basic economics. Build more product. especially because the product is already tapped out.

ladypresent said: "i don't think you are looking at this in the limited economic environment that broadway shows are in and in this specific economic case.
the tix are already sold. they cannot make any more profit than they already have in the bank. They arent depreciating the current value because the product has been sold.



"

This would crash and burn for a number of reasons.

If you want it so bad, why don't YOU put up the $12 million + to mount a second production here in NY?

Lots of reasons:

The less tickets they have, the more they can charge, Selling six months worth of tickets for $998 is one thing, but when you have double the amount, the more people might balk at that. Ultimately, as high as the demand is, it would cheapen the brand. If there are two concurrent NY productions, the one at the Rodgers suddenly becomes less special.

They're also about to have three additional companies nationally, not to mention a London production. And yeah, the show is basically minting money, but all of these additional companies cost a considerable amount to put up. If they were to take over another Broadway theatre, they would have to build an additional set, cast another production, hire crew, build costumes, etc. That's not cheap.

I also think, in general, it would be bad press for them. Sure people would buy tickets, but it reeks of hubris to open a second production in another theatre when no other show has done that. There is always a high demand for Broadway houses, and such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary.

Updated On: 3/14/17 at 02:14 PM

if i were the producer, or if the producer gave me permission, i would set up a backers meeting and raise that money in about an hour. I would think it would be the safest bet to recoup monies and make money consistently following. thats not the point of this discussion though.

ladypresent said: "if i were the producer, or if the producer gave me permission, i would set up a backers meeting and raise that money in about an hour. I would think it would be the safest bet to recoup monies and make money consistently following. thats not the point of this discussion though. "

Recoup what money? The show has already done that. And it is consistently making money as it is.

Hamilton performed initially with high demand and low supply. The Chicago sit down and now 2 national tours will be running. Call me crazy but it seems that producers are more than willing to increase the supply. If anything I preferred that they added a 2nd national tour. In the long run it can provide for cheaper tickets for patrons for those not living within the metro NY/NJ area if you factor in booking flights, reserving rooms in hotels, etc. They wouldn't have set up 4 productions (5 come this fall in London) if they knew that demand would die down. Demand is obviously there, across the country and across the pond, although the latter is yet to be seen.

Yes, there is a huge difference in having a production in NYC, Chicago, and 2 touring productions nowhere near each other, versus 2 in a 10-15 block radius in NYC. Plus do we know if some of the demand is still scalpers? Like I know the limits for ticket purchase is still low, but someone could still make a nice profit off of a few tickets.

wonderfulwizard11 said: "...such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary."

While I agree with much of your post, this show has been perceived by many as "greedy" since they jacked the house (i.e., non-reseller) ticket price to $849.

Lot666 said: "wonderfulwizard11 said: "...such a move could easily be seen as greedy and unnecessary."

While I agree with much of your post, this show has been perceived by many as "greedy" since they jacked the house (i.e., non-reseller) ticket price to $849.



"

And I still will repeat: I'd rather see that money go into the pockets of those that made it happen, then to scalpers! (And many of us feel that way)