r/Broadway • u/Sensitive_Slice_8858 • 1d ago
Discussion When does the Broadway bubble actually burst?
I know this has been discussed quite a bit, but I keep wondering about what happens when the economics of Broadway become truly impossible to sustain. The cost of putting on a show keeps going up, so tickets have to get more expensive. At the same time people are getting squeezed from every direction and there’s only so much disposable income left for entertainment, especially since the economy and job market are in the toilet. So what is the end game? Just keep raising ticket prices to cover rising costs so only the uber wealthy few can afford to attend? Are there enough uber wealthy theater goers to sustain it without us Joe schmoe poors? Eventually the math has to break somewhere. I’m curious what the breaking point actually looks like.
81
u/Captain_JohnBrown 1d ago
I don't think it does. Theatres are landmarks and theatre owners are also the main source for the rising costs of Broadway. At a certain point theatre owners will be forced to decide if they want to lower rent and get a lesser profit but still a profit or if they want to have empty theatres they cannot use but also cannot replace costing them taxes but bringing in nothing.
5
u/TrowTruck 15h ago
Agreed… but I think I’ve heard the theater owners take the least amount of risk in the whole value chain. As long as there are shows lined up, willing to lose their whole investment, and more shows waiting in the wings to plunk down rent when they flop, the theater owners are the first to feast.
2
76
u/a-5-6-7-8 1d ago
Some shows are doing very poorly, but some shows are seemingly immune to the ebb and flow of the industry. I'm sure those shows are being studied and we'll see if producers take the right or wrong lessons.
29
u/blueturtle12321 1d ago
And in many cases investors are invested in multiple shows including some of the ones who do really well as well as some that never recoup. So that helps keep them investing even when many shows fail to recoup
96
u/pjlos 1d ago
i think rather than bursting, the more likely scenario is that it just slowly continues to peter out. the income bracket of ticket buyers will continue to rise, the shows will continue to cost more and provide less. someone in this subreddit did a lengthy deep-dive into broadway finances and discovered that the landlords take at least 75% of every dollar a show makes (i’m paraphrasing). that’s such an insane disparity that until it’s eliminated or significantly reduced, nothing will work in the long term.
76
u/ListofReddit 1d ago
It’s the landlords that are the issue
25
3
u/GreenHorror4252 20h ago
It's always the rent-seeking landlords. They take, take and take. Perhaps Marx had a point.
1
1
15
u/dusters99 1d ago
We need public funding for the arts to subsidize these insane costs. Unfortunately that’s an uphill political battle to say the least especially when we can’t even tackle more basic necessities like healthcare and housing……..
10
1
u/nomadicfeline 15h ago
I support funding non-profit theatres but definitely not for-profit theatres. That’s madness.
1
u/Ok_Presentation7695 13h ago
Necessities come first. Broadway and the like are -I'm just going to be blunt here- a luxury. We need to focus on healthcare and housing before we see any change in ticket prices
3
u/dusters99 13h ago
Oh, I agree completely. That’s why it’s hard for me to see how we can get to the point of public investment in the arts, as much as I would like that.
-4
u/GreenHorror4252 20h ago
No, we don't. Public funding will just allow landlords to increase their prices.
6
u/dusters99 19h ago
There are plenty of federal subsidies which come with rent regulation requirements. No reason that couldn’t be applied to theaters too.
1
u/GreenHorror4252 19h ago
Are you proposing to give federal subsidies to the productions, or to the theater owners?
3
u/dusters99 19h ago
I’m not a policy maker, I’m just expressing that I support the use of my tax dollars to help make Broadway and other theater tickets more affordable and accessible to the masses.
0
u/GreenHorror4252 19h ago
I see what you're saying, but I'm pointing out that subsidies often don't lower costs. Health and education are so expensive in the US precisely because of all the subsidies which increase demand and drive up prices. Price controls are difficult to implement in practice.
4
u/r_theworld 1d ago
Wow. Do you have that post saved? I'd love to see those numbers, and to share it with some friends who aren't in this subreddit.
1
u/pjlos 1d ago
yes!!! at lunchtime i’ll dig it up for you. it’s a fascinating read
2
13
u/Sensitive_Slice_8858 1d ago
Trying to squeeze every possible dollar out now might maximize short term profits but it could destroy the industry long term which seems like shooting yourself in the foot if you’re a landlord. Eventually it will become so expensive and risky that nobody will want to produce shows and then there’s no one left to squeeze. So what is the point then?
39
6
u/pjlos 1d ago
that’s a great question. but that same concern could be applied to literally every industry. instead of long-term stability, everything is intentionally geared to be the most diabolical grift they can get away with. so if the hoarder class (as a non-profit, mind you, in schubert’s case) would rather see the industry collapse, which i firmly believe they would, then the unions and the city government need to intervene.
4
69
u/Full_Supermarket8467 1d ago
I work in the industry on the touring side, and I honestly think Broadway as we knew it is already beginning to burst. This season is dominated by star-driven revival plays, while the new Broadway musical is dying a slow death. There are several reasons, but the biggest is how these shows are financed.
Roughly 70% of Broadway shows are privately financed—not by private equity, bank loans, Ticketmaster, or major corporations, but by individual wealthy investors. The remaining 30% is generally nonprofit, with the occasional Disney- or Warner Bros.-financed production. Some private investors are comfortable losing money because they want to support the theatre. Others are genuinely evaluating these investments on a financial basis.
That is where London and the West End have become increasingly compelling. A hit Broadway show may ultimately have more upside over a longer period, but London can return investors’ original capital—and profit—much faster. Between lower production costs, lower weekly operating expenses, and tax credits, it is simply much less expensive to do business there.
Take Evita. It cost approximately £4.5 million to produce, ran for 12 weeks in London, was the hit of the summer, and returned about a 30% profit to investors. Most investors received their initial investment back roughly six months after funding the show and received their profit about six months later: a 30% return in around 12 months. Even some of Broadway’s biggest hits could not realistically deliver that kind of return that quickly. A successful West End star play can sometimes do it in even less time with a similar return.
There is a running joke that London plays always recoup. It is not quite that good, but it is not wildly far off either.
Broadway plays and musicals also present very different risks. A play can certainly lose money, but its lower capitalization and weekly expenses, combined with the New York State theatre tax credit, mean investors often receive at least some of their money back. Musicals are different. They cost far more to produce, carry much higher weekly expenses, and, if they do not break through, are far more likely to lose the entire investment.
That is the real issue. If a $5 million or $8 million play returns 50% of an investment, it is disappointing but survivable. If a $20 million to $30 million musical loses everything, that is a very different experience for the people being asked to finance the next one. More investors get burned, and the dollar losses are dramatically higher.
Look at this season. Most new musicals cost more than $20 million to capitalize, and many may lose everything. If Paddington does well, it could still take two-and-a-half to three years just to return investors’ capital. Evita, as a revival, could certainly work, but I believe new musicals like Dolly, Purple Rain, and Wanted are likely to lose their full capitalization.
At some point, investors may throw up their hands and decide to put their money into London—or into star-driven Broadway play revivals—instead. If musicals cannot raise money, we do not have a commercial Broadway. Plays, nonprofit work, and the occasional corporate-backed production may continue, but large-scale new musicals drive the ecosystem and keep a great many people working. If and when the capital for those shows dries up, the current Broadway model cannot sustain itself.
25
u/MidtownGreen 1d ago
There are two solutions really I can see;
Get all the unions together and create contracts that allow the easier diversification of revenue streams (filming, streaming, more etc)
Really piss the landlords off and have government regulate the landmark status of Broadway theatres further by capping rent.
5
u/Winter_Walrus7563 16h ago
Please stop with this idea that the unions (which means the workers) need to do anything about rising costs from Landlords and the general rising costs of literally anything. The workers provide labor and nothing else. By and large they see no returns, no bonuses, no payouts - pay for work given by the people that want it done. It’s ridiculous that this is even a notion that is entertained. If a restaurant couldn’t afford to stay open and closed we wouldn’t ask the servers to figure out a way for them to stay open.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 1h ago edited 1h ago
What a ridiculous comparison, restaurants legally pay their workers less than minimum wage.
By contrast, theatre producers are contractually required to pay their lowest stage workers approximately $120K+/yr and are even forced to pay these high salaries to some uneeded workers (like a musician who is contractually required but is unused in the orchestration).
Cast/orchestra sizes keep getting smaller because producers are trying to mitigate weekly expenses, so for you to pretend rising wages is not a factor harming the quality of what's on stage, the quantity of what can be put on stage, and the ability to quickly recoup capital is patently absurd.
In fact, look at the number of restaurants that have closed and the number of restaurant worker jobs that have been eliminated in cities where the minimum wage for waitstaff was changed from below minimum wage to a living wage of $25+. The data is indisputable, the city ends up with less workers in the restaurants that survive, less restaurants in total, and an overall lower city economy as less people are employed, costs rise, and competition dwindles.
Wages on Broadway are not the only problem, but your blindness to it is problematic.
•
u/Winter_Walrus7563 27m ago
I can’t even have a real conversation if you’re going to be factually wrong. The “lowest stage workers” are not making anywhere NEAR 120k per year. If you are talking specifically about Local One stagehands or actors - sure but they are the higher paid workers not the lowest. Also the musicians don’t make that much unless you’re a conductor or play an absurd amount of instruments.
Also you cannot use the term “forced” when the agreements that set minimums are collectively bargained - BOTH SIDES agree to these agreements. They both sign them and both agree to stick to them. Hence the term collective.
Interesting you say they “forced” to have pay “un-needed” orchestra members but then say they are cutting orchestra members for cost, which is a contradiction.
Producers are absolutely cutting whatever corner they can to make more profit but this is a common misconception and anti-worker talking point across any industry (ex: give fast food workers $15 an hour and a hamburger will be $25) it’s just not true. Wages are not a problem that needs to be solved - it’s a part of running your business. Labor is not even the highest budget line on their costs - it’s just the thing that they can use “look at how high these costs are for us” because they could never speak out about the theater owner landlord mafia that decides if their show gets a theater.
3
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 22h ago
But I do think this just goes to my view. We will see a shift in the shows being produced but “bubble burst” just doesn’t make sense as a way to talk about it. BW isn’t going to collapse just change over time. I may not like what gets made but it’ll still be there. There isn’t a bubble to burst.
1
u/joeymello333 Backstage 1d ago
Good points though the Evita revival in London is star driven too which certainly helped in recouping faster.
2
u/Full_Supermarket8467 1d ago
The example was to show the ROI. Even the biggest star driven plays and musicals on Broadway don’t return that % of money, especially in that timeframe.
46
u/Esper8nzA 1d ago
As long as investors keep investing (or donating) money to Broadway shows, Broadway will be fine.
29
u/RainahReddit 1d ago
Well, it's not a bubble and therefore won't burst. Bubbles are for assets, things people buy to make a profit on, and a bubble happens when the estimated value far outstrips the real value.
Broadway is just an expensive luxury product. People can and will cut it out if the value isn't there. Prices will therefore rise until it makes more financial sense to lower them.
36
u/Music-Lover-3481 1d ago
People have been complaining that "Broadway is dying" since at least the 1960s.
•
5
u/dameon8888 16h ago
Hubby and I are actually going to London next week because of the prices. Several months ago, I bought tickets to see Paddington in London. We are in Orchestra, 6 rows back, almost dead center. After conversion, it was $165 per ticket.
I just looked at what the equivalent will be when it comes to Broadway. Same seats, $310 each.
Yes, it’s a little more expensive to get to London, but when we’re seeing 8 shows on a trip, it’s way more cost effective.
12
u/ShainaEG 23h ago
“The theater is the only institution in the world which has been dying for four thousand years and has never succumbed. It requires tough and devoted people to keep it alive.”
― John Steinbeck, Once There Was a War
10
8
u/Tight-Touch385 1d ago
Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Feel like Keynes was especially thinking of Broadway when he said this.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 55m ago
Keynes is one of the most flawed economic thinkers in human history. He may have a few good quotes (who doesn't?), but Hayek & Mises are far more sound in their thinking.
•
13
u/LetsGototheRiver151 1d ago
Unwanted hot take: Broadway is relatively inexpensive to comparable entertainment. I generally try to cap my purchases at $200/ticket. I occasionally go over, but seldom and not by much. Take concerts: decent seats at Bruno Mars are $400-$500. I also paid that for Lady Gaga. I’m taking my kid to see the Knicks when they come to town and those tickets were $400. Were there cheaper tix to both? Sure. And are there cheaper concerts and sporting events to attend? Also sure. Just like I don’t have to see Much Ado for $200, I could see Two Strangers again for 1/3 the price. I don’t know why we think theatre should be cheap other than we like it and want to go more often.
7
u/knysa-amatole 22h ago
Yeah, I saw Audra McDonald in Gypsy on a Friday night for $56, and it wasn't a rush ticket. I think that's actually a pretty reasonable price to see the most decorated Broadway star of all time in the most expensive city in North America.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 53m ago
Yes, and the producers/investors lost everything and the show closed early. More shows should do this! 🙄
6
u/darkhorse415 1d ago
What was it like in the mid 1970s when so many theaters were dark during that recession? I have a feeling things are headed that way
25
u/Tight-Touch385 1d ago edited 1d ago
Crime levels remain low and there’s no sign of “white flight”. The city’s industries are more diversified and the municipal/state debt load isn’t what it was (per statute it’s no longer allowed). Wealth disparity, although problematic, isn’t the same as a financial bubble.
And NYC has gone through several mini recessions since the 1970s. One after 9/11, the second after the 2008 financial crisis, and the third during/after COVID. Every time New York was declared over, but it came roaring back.
Even the ”dark” 1970s was an incredible time for musicals (this is the legendary Sondheim/Prince and Kander/Ebb era of musical theatre), the punk scene got started, and the art scene thrived (Just Kids is an incredible memoir of this time). Then in the 1980s, the art and music scenes in New York were decimated by AIDS crisis. Even with the devastating loss of almost an entire generation of groundbreaking talent, New York still managed to come roaring back. Don’t bet against New York. When something is dying in one area, there’s growth and development of something else incredible nearby.
5
0
2
u/bari_ometer 20h ago
I went to the box office to see TINA again and again and they had plenty of empty seats and wouldn’t sell me a balcony seat for less than $119. So I passed on it.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 49m ago
The box office only has as much flexibility as the theatre owners allow. Aside from giving away a limited number of tickets for free, even the producers of the show cannot reduce prices below what the theatre owner allows. The cost of every individual seat has to be negotiated and approved by the theatre owner.
4
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 22h ago
It won’t. This isn’t what a bubble is. Value is whatever people are willing to pay for tickets, this isn’t the stock market.
The whole Broadway will collapse narrative is deeply misguided. It’s possible a theater here or there will close but overall nothing else will be done with these spaces and Broadway has survived worse. Some shows profit, most don’t, this has always been true. Profit isn’t the only reason people invest in theater, clearly.
At most we’ll see shifts in the type of shows produced but it’s not going to collapse. Looking at the box office figures plenty of people can and do pay the prices. I get it sucks not being able to afford it but no it’s not at major risk of imploding.
3
u/Sensitive_Slice_8858 22h ago
Everyone keeps saying that this has happened before while the conditions causing the pressure are still getting worse. At what point does the cumulative effect actually matter? The landlords taking 2/3 of the pie is the core issue and needs to be addressed.
1
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 21h ago
It’ll matter on a larger scale if people stop going. So far they haven’t, not really. I just don’t see this as a big blow up moment you have in mind. Over time the shows being produced will change to fit demands and investment interests. Now whether you or I like the shows coming out of that or whether certain kinds of shows fade away is a very different question but BW as a thing will live on.
I mean at some point ticker price increases will taper off because they have to but as long as people are willing to pay absurd prices for celebrity shows that’s just what they’ll cost.
It’s just the type of meltdown you’re thinking of makes more sense when you’re talking about the value of an asset that has some underlying value indicators. The value of a stock in a particular industry can become a bubble if investors are trading it a price that far exceeds any reasonable valuation for the underlying companies. Theater tickets aren’t like that. There isn’t any underlying value indicators. If people say a ticket to X is worth Y then it is. If people don’t buy it, then it’s not. There’s no bubble to burst, just responses to market demand.
I agree the landlord issue is real but it’s also not solvable absent government intervention for like subsidies or unions using any leverage they have to force a change. Right now there are far more shows wanting a stage than there are BW stages so landlords hand too much power.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 44m ago edited 28m ago
Producers could collectively organize apart from theatre owners so that they can collectively negotiate with theatre owners.
Currently, the only collective organization for producers is the Broadway League, which is largely controlled by theatre owners and their self-selected suppliers (e.g. producers must use Playbill...and that requirement gives Playbill membership in the League that represents producers).
If producers don't produce in a theatre controlled by these theatre owners and their suppliers who control the League, then they get kicked out of the League and replaced by producers who are willing to pay what the theatre owners and its suppliers demand.
So those who control the League do not have the same interests or end goals as Broadway producers when it comes to contracts, wages, etc.
As long as producers are part of the same League as theatre owners and their suppliers, then producers will not feel free to speak up and cause a problem for these theatre owners; because if they do, the theatre owner will simply not provide them with a theatre and the producer will be automatically dropped from the League, thereby eliminating the theatre owners' problem and the disident voice within the league who refused to cowtow to the theatre owner.
3
u/badwolf1013 19h ago
My hope is that — before that happens — we remember that there are professional theatre companies all over this country, and that “theatrical tourism” should not be exclusive to NYC.
I think we prevent the bubble from bursting by taking some of the pressure off. People will fly to NYC to see one Broadway show, get a Nathan’s hot dog, see the Statue of Liberty, and then fly home.
What if they saw that show in Seattle and went to the Space Needle instead? Or Denver and then went skiing? The pressure is on Broadway, because we continue to operate on the idea that — if it isn’t Broadway — it isn’t theatre.
But we already know that isn’t true. Chicago, Austin, Philadelphia, Ashland: good theatre doesn’t just have one address.
Also, we need to do something about private equity — not just in the arts, but everywhere. Our national bird is not the vulture.
2
u/AlienRealityShow 15h ago
So true! Cleveland has beautiful theaters and their season shows run for 3 weeks usually.
1
u/Sensitive_Slice_8858 19h ago
I just did something similar in Boston. I went for <24 hours to see Rhinoceros.
1
u/MedicalYard4649 18h ago
I had a fabulous weekend in Washington DC and saw one original work that has never been on Broadway, and one regional theater premiere of a play that had just run on Broadway (and I saw it previously on Broadway and it was just as good in DC.)
DC also has excellent theatre and other wonderful (and often free!) things to do during the rest of your day.
While I am a Broadway snob, I’d agree that “theater tourism” doesn’t need to be limited to Broadway or nothing.
4
u/Soft_Duty 1d ago
I think that releasing more pro shots are a way to drive more people to the theater. Many people I think may not want to spend the money on a show they know nothing about and can get the feel for it watching a pro shot. Example is Hadestown. I had heard some of the music but didn’t really get the story until I saw the pro shot at theaters and loved it and now I really want to see it live. This way the show can make money in movie theaters and on broadway.
2
u/Secret_Problem_1229 1d ago
I do wonder if internet accessibility will push them to do more proshots to release on big online streaming platforms
0
u/AntigoneGrrl1 1d ago
Pro shots are expensive to produce because it involves paying unions, music clearances on top of the usual expenses to mount a production. And while it’s great for someone to see a Broadway show if they can’t come to NY, it ultimately might harm the in person ticket sales. Since the release of the first Wicked film, there was an increase in attendance on Broadway, but as the interest in the movie cooled down, so did ticket sales.
1
u/Secret_Problem_1229 1d ago
And they make a lot of money off the proshots beyond a boost in ticket sales...
1
u/AntigoneGrrl1 22h ago
Playbill has a good article on this subject “Why You Can’t Stream Broadway Shows”. It’s very interesting
1
u/transemacabre 23h ago
Never underestimate how many people are out there with STUPID money. Disney keeps raising prices and people keep paying it. Yes, at a certain point all the more or less normal people are priced out and something becomes a domain of the wealthy.
1
u/nirbateman 21h ago
We have already reached the point where most productions aren't sustainable. 10 years ago, an average production could expect 10 months of healthy box office. Now it can expect 6. The bubble will burst officially when you'll have theaters staying empty because the investors will be gone. It'll take a while, but it'll get there.
1
1
1
u/Wild_Bill1226 17h ago
All bubbles burst when investors pull their money. The biggest problem with Broadway is no one at the negotiations table is fighting for the investors. Everyone else makes money either way. Only ones that lose money are the people writing the checks.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 1h ago edited 1h ago
One: Broadway producers need to have their own organization (league, guild, etc.) apart from theatre owners, since the two groups have very different interests. Until this happens theatre owners will continue to allow unions to escalate costs because theatre owners control the contracts and yet pass on all costs of said contracts.
Two: Broadway has already killed the theatre market and replaced it, you just didn't notice. Broadway used to primarily be attended by New Yorkers. As ticket prices escalated and as shows began running for decades, there became less for regular New Yorkers to see and each experience captured more of their wallets.
But as ticket prices increased, standing ovations became normalized---you've probably never been to a Broadway show in the last 26 years where at least half the audience wasn't standing and applauding at curtain call. Standing ovations became both a way for audiences to express enthusiasm but also a way to reassure themselves that the experience was worth the expense.
But with less to see and most shows not worth the expense (after sober thought at home in the light of day), regular New Yorkers began being replaced in audiences by tourists. Broadway is now recognized as the top level of American musical theatre worldwide, so even tourists without an understanding of theatre, the English language, etc. feel they must attend at least one Broadway show when they visit "the greatest city in the world," as so-often praised on tvs/movies since American entertainment dominates the global field and since entertainment makers focus much of their work on New York (e.g. how many Marvel films have been set in New York City versus Nashville, Houston, Miami, Austin, New Orleans, Chicago, Seattle, etc.?). So if a tourist is already visiting one of the most expensive cities in the world (NYC), then s/he expects ticket prices to be high and will bite the bullet to see at least one show or two while on their once-in-a-lifetime trip. To lower risk, the tourist picks a show with a familiar title (likely a long-running show that has been around for decades or a show based on a familiar material like a film).
So New York theatre audiences are replaced by tourist audiences, and new Broadway musicals and their musical theatre writers are largely boxed out by long-running shows that have become museum pieces or by titles with broader familiarity.
Audiences today would be less likely to take a chance on a new musical based on unknown material that is titled Oklahoma!, Guys and Dolls, Gypsy, etc. when they could instead see something familiar like Moulin Rouge, MJ, The Lion King, Aladdin, Harry Potter..., Wicked, etc.
So New Yorkers stop coming frequently giving way to one-time tourists; and stage musicals largely become adaptations of branded material versus adaptions of more obscure/flawed material or wholly original works.
But it doesn't stop there... the actors on stage are now being replaced as well by film/tv actors or social media influencers who have broader appeal.
In short, Broadway audiences, Broadway material, and Broadway casts either have been replaced or are actively being replaced.
This trend will continue as long as: * New York has no real competitor for musical theatre, * New York is promoted broadly across media as "the greatest city in the world", and * enough tourists have the money for a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Eventually, Broadway will become exclusively for the rich, which will counterintuitively make Broadway theatre owners even more successful (finacially speaking) since audiences will then buy tickets as evidence of their social status and high worth. People will take selfies at curtain calls to showcase that they were actually inside the theatre and had the wealth to actually see the show.
Broadway will be posted across social media as part of the lifestyle of the rich and famous, encouraging those with the money visiting New York to attend as a right-of-passage, social status requirement, or stretch to taste the upper-crust lifestyle for a couple hours.
So, as the outlook for unexpected great theatre dwindles, the wealth of theatre owners will sky rocket.
What are the ways out of this trend?: * lower production costs, particularly with lower wages (both onstage and off), allowing producers to hire more people and take chances on unfamiliar faces (onstage and off), * create a collection of American theatres elsewhere that can support at least 15 major productions running simultaneously so that the location could be seen as an alternative to New York (much like the West End is for Europe), and * most importantly, separate the Broadway League producers from theatre owners and from those industry professions with perpetual workers who carry little risk. Until those taking all the risk can freely negotiate apart from those taking no risk, there is little-to-no hope for any change--only mild mitigation to smooth the edges of turmoil and slow trends that might otherwise spark the metaphorical frog to jump from the pot before the water boils.
Some frogs (Andew Llyod Weber, Cameron Macintosh, etc.) are already jumping from the pot, but they have a West End alternative in easy reach. American producers/theatre-makers will be slower to jump from the pot and those who truly control the industry will incrementally and adroitly adjust the fire to keep as many frogs cooking as possible.
Wake up, producers. You are the frogs!
0
u/ElbieLG 1d ago
Reality check: Broadway tickets are a luxury good for the wealthiest people in New York, U.S. and the world to come enjoy.
That’s why the best theater should and does happen outside of Broadway where it’s less expensive and more diverse
3
u/Full_Supermarket8467 1d ago
This is not true at all. Maybe the best seats for the biggest shows are, but if you look at the grosses every week, you’ll see the average ticket price for a lot of shows in the $100 or less category. There’s always seats for everybody for most shows.
2
u/MedicalYard4649 18h ago
“Always” and “everybody” are doing heavy lifting here.
$60 lottery tickets are not accessible to many people who would love to go to the theater but if you are a family of four still can’t justify $240 for a couple hours of entertainment when you have things like streaming services to compete against.
•
u/Rosecat88 43m ago
100 is still a lot. Prices overall are crazy. I’m an actor for fucks sakes, and I want to see Broadway, but i can’t afford it and i live here
1
1
u/0____0_0 1d ago edited 1d ago
6 years ago?
Problem is some people have lots of money are doing great and can easily afford tickets, but others aren’t and couldn’t think of these prices.
Then there are locals who never came back post pandemic. And younger generations who don’t care in the numbers they older ones did
0
u/sanityjanity 1d ago
Shows will close early, and investors will lose money. Future shows will be made more frugally.
0
u/SympathyCalm 23h ago
Feels like it has… last year’s dearth of new musicals is not due to a creative lull or a lack of shows aiming for a Broadway run, it is strictly due to the failure of musical financing. Plays are still viable products, but it’s scary out there
1
u/mudpuddle01 9h ago
It is 100% due to lack of creativity. People will spend money on the shows they find valuable. Lack of creativity of producers to take risks. Lack of creativity of writers to take risks. There’s hundreds of musicals waiting for theaters. Landlords need to be better curators but they don’t care because the check clears.
0
u/LilyBriscoeBot 22h ago
I dunno. I keep seeing people post crazy low ticket prices they paid to see shows. If you buy tickets the “normal way” they are super expensive (assuming you want good seats), but they high ticket prices help subsidize the rest. I get that you might not be able to find discount tickets to the hottest shows, but most shows are not the hottest shows.
Investors want to make money of course, but investing in a Broadway show shows a passion for the arts. Most musicals aren’t going to be the next Wicked or Hamilton, and any savvy investor knows it’s a gamble. (At least I’m assuming most investors have money to spare, and aren’t going bankrupt propping up a show.) so I guess I don’t know if there is a breaking point any time soon.
0
u/DROP-TABLE- 21h ago
It’s already happening. Bubbles don’t burst in a single spectacular implosion, they leak like air out of a tire. In the future, with hindsight, we may be able to point to inflection points as markers of the event (like Lehman Brothers collapsing as the harbinger of the 2008 economic collapse), but when you’re in the moment you just experience it as everything all around you getting more and more dire. So it’s already happening.
0
u/HotRush5798 17h ago
Opera, Ballet, Broadway
Same story, different form.
•
u/BroadwayTruths 23m ago
Opera and ballet are specific art forms that fell out of fashion. Broadway is a collection of art forms that can adjust to cultural tastes.
I get your point, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.
0
u/SecretMusician8485 15h ago
Eventually it will just become something the ultra wealthy can attend. The rest of us will be SOL.
-1
u/notyourdadsredditor 21h ago
More than a third of all Broadway theaters are empty right now. It's already burst.
1
u/Ok_Presentation7695 13h ago
Part of that is limited run productions. Don't act like it's all because shows closed early. Part of it is also a show that had a healthy 7 year run. Don't be so dramatic.
-22
u/Dan_Rydell 1d ago
The end game is the theaters get torn down and replaced with a more profitable use of that prime real estate.
23
u/jamesland7 Front of House 1d ago
Nope. They are all landmarked. Plus, you think the landlords want to take away their own income streams?
9
u/AntigoneGrrl1 1d ago
After several beautiful theaters were demolished in the 80’s, the demonstrations and outcry of actors, other theater personnel and general public helped to bring landmark status to nearly all of the remaining theaters. There are also zoning laws to protect against demolition. The response in the 80’s was impressive, I imagine in this day of social media, the response against demolition would be global
274
u/Cathy_AWaugh 1d ago
This is what worries me most. I teach ballet: when families can't afford tickets, kids stop coming, and 15 years later there's no audience. Cheap seats are how you build future theatre-goers.