why doesn't Hamilton take over another broadway theater?- Page 2

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:41am

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)

[massofmen]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 11:48am

Economics is a difficult subject. I understand that this is difficult for some people to comprehend. They have no more Tix to sell for the next year..Year and a half? Open up a block to 2019. Sell them out then open up a new Hamilton production and you can sell all those new Tix too. The previous sold batch will not depreciate because YOU ALREADY SOLD THEM. then you will have 4 years in the span of 2 of Tix sold. 

Updated On: 3/15/17 at 11:48 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 12:07pm

This thread has so many ridiculous ideas floating through it that it is hard to pick a favorite. But "greedy" has to be my favorite: greedy, on this board, apparently refers to shows that double the number of $10 lottery tickets and that also routinely present entire performances for $10 to under-privileged high school students. Yep, that's quintessential greed.

[massofmen]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 12:25pm

People who love shows that are too expensive for them to see consider those shows and producers of those shows greedy. 

Apparently supply and demand economics are only ok for products people don't care about. And like Hogan said doubling the 10 Tix is probably the most non greedy thing a show has done in it's absolute height of success. I don't remember the producers or Mormon or wicked doing anything close to that. 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 12:35pm

" And then you get the people who will probably demand to go in because they are there and shouldn't have to travel further,  even though they are wrong. I work in retail,  I see this all the time."

This. People will show up late to the wrong theatre and insist they're right. It may not be hundreds nightly but I can see people screaming already. Not to mention the people who will claim they bought a ticket to see cast A but really bought cast B. Not that people seem to mind at all who they see in the show.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 12:37pm

It is possible to think it's nice that they expanded the lottery seating while still thinking it's ridiculous that no other seat in that house is available for dance purchase under $100. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

And as far as the education program, the producers aren't selling the tickets for $10. The producers reduced the price to $70, which was further lowered to $10 by a massive grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Not saying it's insignificant, but it's incorrect to say the producers are presenting the performances for $10. 

[temms]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 1:48pm

The people who would buy tickets to your proposed duplicate production will presumably eventually buy tickets for the original if they have no other choice - why would they give up years' worth of sales and drive down the average price? Especially when it would require a significant outlay in capital to get going. Most people see shows once. I imagine the producers would rather sell those 8000 extra tickets a week to the production that's already open and recouped. The only people your scenario benefits are people who don't want to wait 4 years. They'll still spend that money 4 years from now and the price floor will be slightly higher. 

It's a new world, Golde. No longer is selling the most tickets the key to a huge profit. The trick is selling the same number of tickets at a higher price. Opening a second company undoes that, costs a lot, causes logistical problems, potentially weakens the brand if one production is better than the other, etc.  They don't need the money. Why would they do all that when the profit will be the same either way, just rolling in more slowly?

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 8:55pm

i think this is a legitimate question given how hot hamilton is

several other posters have answered well

being the hottest, hard to get ticket in nyc increases demand desire and getting the premium for tix

also high costs of supporting second nyc cast and likelyhhod this may shorten the nyc run

i think the producers r doing everything perfect on this rollout

nyc

chicago

tour 

london 

tour 2

sit down in either sf la or both

this show is bank....

the movie should be fantastic but that wont happen for 7-10 years min

 

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 9:05pm

Agree with the above posts. Granted, we're talking a revolutionary show here with unprecedented demand, but the producers have been doing a stellar job on the rollout. And should also be commended on the talent they're putting on the road. 

One other point working against a second NY production is that they would be continuously compared against one another, patrons at EITHER show would be dogged by worries that for their pricey tickets, they might be getting the second-best, wannabe version. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/15/17 at 10:48pm

Part of the allure of "Broadway" is the fantasy that at any given performance, one is seeing the very best actors in the country, perhaps in the world, available for those roles. Mounting two companies puts the lie to that prestige factor and, I think, would tend to threaten those $800 ticket prices.

But where are our trivia experts? I know there have been competing productions of classics on Broadway at the same time: HAMLETs in 1925, MIKADOs as recently as 1939, etc. These were different productions (direction, set, costumes as well as cast) of classics.

However, I vaguely recall some instances in the first half of the 20th century when a tour proved so popular the producers brought it into New York and let it run beside the original production. Anybody?

[brdway411]

Posted: 3/16/17 at 12:32am

I know that the Richard Rodgers has been a good luck charm for LMM. But instead of 2 theaters running the show. How about moving it to The Lyric. That barn would be perfect for the show. 

 

[littlemouse921]

Posted: 3/16/17 at 1:08am

brdway411 said: "I know that the Richard Rodgers has been a good luck charm for LMM. But instead of 2 theaters running the show. How about moving it to The Lyric. That barn would be perfect for the show. 

 

"

Because Harry Potter is the other perfect show to fill up the barn

[brian1973]

Posted: 3/16/17 at 2:13am

Wow you are a bit dim aren't you? 

 Do you have special powers to predict the future? Have you even seen it? Maybe go watch it before predicting it's chance of success.

Also the fact you suggest Hamilton opens a second production in the same place shows how clueless you are about the economics.

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. 

 

 

 

"

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/16/17 at 5:17am

broadwaysfguy said: "i think this is a legitimate question given how hot hamilton is

several other posters have answered well

being the hottest, hard to get ticket in nyc increases demand desire and getting the premium for tix

also high costs of supporting second nyc cast and likelyhhod this may shorten the nyc run

i think the producers r doing everything perfect on this rollout

nyc

chicago

tour 

london 

tour 2

sit down in either sf la or both

this show is bank....

the movie should be fantastic but that wont happen for 7-10 years min"

Plus, they were smart enough to come in and film the OBC for a very very very future release.

[Speed]

Posted: 3/16/17 at 5:26am

The Weisslers' GREASE revival tour sat down at City Center in NYC while the Broadway production was still running.  So yes, it's been done.