NYT: Why a Fabulous Broadway Show Can Fill Its Seats and Still Close
Posted: 8/9/26 at 11:38am
Um, yeah it was filling seats but everyone went using discount codes and most of these people raving they saw the show numerous times did so because they got $40 Rush tickets. No one was buying the regular priced tickets which are the seats that generate profit to keep shows running. Those $40 Rush tickets couldn’t even cover a performance’s WiFi bill.
Posted: 8/9/26 at 11:42am
BrodyFosse123 said: "Um, yeah it was filling seats but everyone went using discount codes and most of these people raving they saw the show numerous times did so because they got $40 Rush tickets. No one was buying the regular priced tickets which are the seats that generate profit to keep shows running. Those $40 Rush tickets couldn’t even cover a performance’s WiFi bill."
The article addresses that…
Posted: 8/9/26 at 12:52pm
Brody is obviously wrong but people didn't want to pay full price for this show but were willing to for others. The blame for this closing doesn't involve the public, or "hate or intolerance". The marketing was poor, the performances on talk shows were average and still explained nothing about the show, the Tony performance was incredibly low energy, and the "we're such a cool show, the public will just find us" attitude all proved to be fatal. And when 90% of shows fail to recoup nowadays, ALW is right in saying it "practically makes no financial sense". Perhaps he's so awards obsessed he didn't understand it probably would have run at PAC for years and made him money.
Broadway is broken and that's why many shows aren't even bothering, like the brilliant Mexodus. Great shows like Dead Outlaw and Titanique were perfect downtown shows, bringing them uptown made no sense, and I think many people are now realizing this. Just not worth it.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 12:52 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:14pm
And also, it's inaccurate to suggest the average ticket price was around a $40 ticket, like the attendance was high cuz it was all papered.
The reason many are saying the model on Bway is in serious danger is you shouldn't have to sell tickets for $500 to hit your nut every week, get well over a million dollars in weekly gross.
It's not sustainable and was unimaginable 10-20 years ago.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:14 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:25pm
delete - wrong thread
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:25 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:33pm
The average ticket throughout its run was over $100 (no idea what the median price was, which would be helpful to figure out exactly what people were spending without higher prices distorting it) and the average capacity was over 90%, numbers that, not long ago, would have been a recipe for a fairly successful run. Not necessarily a blockbuster destined for years and years, but a solid run that would have likely recouped or at least come much closer to it. That's the issue and it isn't unique to this production. Lost Boys is grossing more, but has such a slim margin of profit that it would likely need to run at its current gross with no decline and no big expenditures for 4 years or more just to recoup. The star-driven limited runs have very limited windows to recoup and only do so if they sustain high ticket prices.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:33 PM
Posted: 8/9/26 at 1:46pm
Jellicle Ball has had a higher average ticket price than Wicked for Months at almost $110. The narrative that everyone was paying $40 a ticket BLATANTLY untrue.
Updated On: 8/9/26 at 01:46 PM
Posted: 8/10/26 at 1:39pm
The interesting thing about these shows is, most of them have a very small set, or no real set at all. The stagehands have greatly relaxed the rules regarding hiring for the load in. The lighting packages go up far quicker than they did 20-30 years ago. Rehearsal time before opening has been greatly reduced. I would love to see how that $18M got spent. And how it compares to shows in the past. You would think running expenses are down. The backstage crew can be 50% fewer than years ago. The orchestras aren't as populated as in the post. Yet, NOW, things are worse than ever? Why? Not to mention salaries, Wich at times regularly went up 4%-6% yearly for the crew, now go up at approx. 2.5%-3.5% a year. I would think with all that, things would be better. No?
Posted: 8/10/26 at 4:05pm
KKeller6 said: "The interesting thing about these shows is, most of them have a very small set, or no real setat all. The stagehands havegreatly relaxed the rules regarding hiring for the load in. The lighting packages go up far quicker than they did 20-30 years ago. Rehearsal time before opening has been greatly reduced. I would love to see how that $18M got spent. And howit compares to shows in the past. You would think running expenses are down. The backstage crew can be 50% fewer than years ago. The orchestras aren't as populated as in the post. Yet, NOW, things are worse than ever? Why? Not to mention salaries, Wich at times regularly went up4%-6% yearly for the crew, nowgo up at approx. 2.5%-3.5% a year. I would think with all that, things would be better. No?"
Exactly. The powers that be are being purposely opaque about all of this, all while the art of theater and the employment it creates for artists is drying up. Jared Harbour did some great work about landlord profits and they factor into this and it's truly astounding. I hope people check this out and we can get a real dialogue going:
https://jharbour.substack.com/p/the-residual
Posted: 8/10/26 at 4:27pm
BwayMusician said: "KKeller6 said: "The interesting thing about these shows is, most of them have a very small set, or no real setat all. The stagehands havegreatly relaxed the rules regarding hiring for the load in. The lighting packages go up far quicker than they did 20-30 years ago. Rehearsal time before opening has been greatly reduced. I would love to see how that $18M got spent. And howit compares to shows in the past. You would think running expenses are down. The backstage crew can be 50% fewer than years ago. The orchestras aren't as populated as in the post. Yet, NOW, things are worse than ever? Why? Not to mention salaries, Wich at times regularly went up4%-6% yearly for the crew, nowgo up at approx. 2.5%-3.5% a year. I would think with all that, things would be better. No?"
Exactly. The powers that be are being purposely opaque about all of this, all while the art of theater and the employment it creates for artists is drying up. Jared Harbour did some great work about landlord profits and they factor into this and it's truly astounding. I hope people check this out and we can get a real dialogue going:
https://jharbour.substack.com/p/the-residual"
What "dialogue" are you suggesting we "get going"? Do you actually think that the Shuberts, the Nederlanders and ATG are going to be publicly "shamed" on a niche Broadway message board and suddenly say "Oh yes you are right! We need to all lower our prices! We're making FAR too much money!!"
Posted: 8/10/26 at 6:56pm
JSquared2 said: "BwayMusician said: "KKeller6 said: "The interesting thing about these shows is, most of them have a very small set, or no real setat all. The stagehands havegreatly relaxed the rules regarding hiring for the load in. The lighting packages go up far quicker than they did 20-30 years ago. Rehearsal time before opening has been greatly reduced. I would love to see how that $18M got spent. And howit compares to shows in the past. You would think running expenses are down. The backstage crew can be 50% fewer than years ago. The orchestras aren't as populated as in the post. Yet, NOW, things are worse than ever? Why? Not to mention salaries, Wich at times regularly went up4%-6% yearly for the crew, nowgo up at approx. 2.5%-3.5% a year. I would think with all that, things would be better. No?"
Exactly. The powers that be are being purposely opaque about all of this, all while the art of theater and the employment it creates for artists is drying up. Jared Harbour did some great work about landlord profits and they factor into this and it's truly astounding. I hope people check this out and we can get a real dialogue going:
https://jharbour.substack.com/p/the-residual"
What "dialogue" are you suggesting we "get going"? Do you actually think that the Shuberts, the Nederlanders andATG are going to be publicly "shamed" on a niche Broadway message board and suddenly say "Oh yes you are right! We need to all lower our prices! We're making FAR too much money!!"
"
Ha, yes, of course!
No, I'm hoping that out of the few thousand who come across this this who *don't* think landlords are to blame for the state of Broadway will change their minds. And I'm hoping that when this topic comes up in conversations outside of this board, those people will say "wait, actually it's mostly the landlords, *not* the hair dressers who are destroying Broadway." You know, boots on the ground, Democracy type stuff. Call it naive, but if even a few people each tell a few of their friends, that helps way more than me holding my tongue and watching youtube for the five minutes it took to write this.
Knowledge is the first step in this, and the NYT/League connected media (who is so often criticized as liberal) really did a number on shifting the blame from landlord producers to unions and workers. It fits a clean "inflation" narrative that we're experiencing across the country, but obviously doesn't paint a truthful picture when one player is making millions of pure profit, and the other is struggle to keep their health insurance affordable.
Posted: 8/11/26 at 11:29am
I'm generally on board with putting a lot of the blame on the landlords, but that logic only carries the day if the rents they've charged have gone up enough, and quickly enough, to explain the skyrocketing production costs we've seen in recent years. Is anyone on BWW in a position to address this?
Posted: 8/11/26 at 6:28pm
Labor costs tend to be one of the most transparent costs of a production by virtue of the fact they're in collectively bargained contracts that most people in the industry have easy access to. The other costs are not transparent at all, from rents to rights to fabrication costs. Which is why it is wild to me that major reporting doesn't dig into them.
The theater owners are more than mere landlords, though. If they were just charging rent, that would be one thing. But they take cuts of box office, put additional fees onto tickets, take cuts from concessions and merch, and push many facility costs onto productions. Telecharge is Shubert owned, so they get fees from any production that uses it; Nederlander owns BroadwayDirect; now MARI owns both TodayTix and the ATG portfolio.
Imagine if you rented an apartment and paid your rent to the landlord, but the fridge breaks and your landlord makes you pay for the replacement. And let's say you also work from home and your landlord finds out and then demands a cut of your salary on top of what you're paying in rent... and also charges a fee for every time you have a guest. Also, your landlord owns the nearest grocery store. And you'd love to move, but your landlord also owns most of the apartment buildings in town and the rest are owned by 2 other landlords who are also doing the same thing.
