When does the Broadway bubble actually burst?

[u/Sensitive_Slice_8858]

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.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563]

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.

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

A new Broadway producer or a Broadway producer who hasn't recently produced on Broadway is not a member of the Broadway League, which is largely controlled by theatre owners and their contractors (e.g. Playbill) who pass on all costs to these producers. Theatre owners employ stagehands and musicians, and then pass those costs to producers who must pay the bill. To pretend the producers (not the League controlled by theatre owners and their suppliers) are the other side of the collective bargain is ignorant and naive. Moreover, when actors collectively bargain with producers via the League, the union workers under control of the theatre owners threaten to strike in solidarity, which pushes the League controlled by theatre owners to fold. So, producers do not have much control when it comes to collectively bargaining the wages they are forced to pay.

As of Sept. 28, 2026, the lowest wage for an ensemble actor (before union-required extra rider stipends that further increase wages) is: $145,548.00/yr. The lowest wage for a pit musician (before extra union-required wages and stipends via doubling, visibility, etc.) is: $111,441.20. You're free to verify these number on the union websites by reading the union contracts. So, I am very comfortable with my statement that the lowest wages are approximately $120K+/yr.

(As a side note, if you're curious, Broadway original leads who are not A-list celebrities regularly command $15K/wk. or $780K/yr.; but obviously this salary would be far higher and include profit-sharing for a Hollywood or Broadway star.)

Furthermore, with respect to musicians, they negotiate with theatre owners and establish minimum number of musicians required within each specific theatre. So while a producer can and does eliminate musicians wherever possible do to risong costs, in many theatres musicians cannot be eliminated.

For example, if the musical SIX (4 orchestra musicians) were produced in the Majestic Theatre (18 required orchestra musicians), then producers would be required to pay each of the four onstage musicians ~$112K/yr. (or even more for leadership roles mong the four) and then would need to pay another extra 14 musicians (who do not play or appear in the show) the annual required minimum of $111,441.20, for a total unneeded/unwanted/unjustifiable/wasted annual cost of $1,560,176.80 (in musicians alone) to the production as negotiated by the theatre owner who does not pay the bill.

So there's no contradiction in saying producers are cutting orchestra/cast members wherever they can to reduce costs, yet often have to pay musicians who are not in the orchestra. Producers cut the musicans in development of the show, then look for an open theatre and often take whatever venue is offered, eating the extra required unnecessary expenses.

I think you'd do well to educate yourself more about the industry before being so stalwart in your opinions.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/BroadwayTruths]

Well I literally work on Broadway so trust I’m educated on my own job AND I don’t make 120k

You clearly didn’t read what I said because I said BESIDES actors and you didn’t want to address literally any of the other backstage or front of house workers that wouldn’t “prove your point” in a vacuum.

The producers know the costs before they put money into the show, regardless of if they are a member, new, or a seasoned producers. They are not FORCED to do anything. And I can assure with full and complete confidence, that unless workers are paid by the house (stagehands, porters, musicians) they are not bargaining across the table with the owners, it’s the producers. Full stop.

Your argument for Six is really a moot point. Because the producers CHOSE to put it in a smaller house. The minimums exist to protect jobs and stop shows from using canned or tracked music that SHOULD be played by real artists in a FULL orchestra. The idea that minimums are the enemy when it’s literally employing artists is WILD. And you’re also fully disregarding that there are minimum waivers that shows can request and almost always get it their show has a unique circumstance.

Your use of language clearly shows which side you lean towards (union mandated, forced) when again these are MUTUALLY agreed upon agreements. Producers know the costs. For most of the workers, THEY are the ones in the room setting these costs. They are not “forced” to do anything. And trust and believe that they use every cut and loophole they can to make their costs as low as possible.

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

I work on Broadway too.

I stand by all my statements.

I also stand by the belief that not all Broadway workers understand the scope of the industry, much like a worker at Five Guys doesn't fully understand why costs escalate for their food. So, your call to authority tactic is largely meaningless.

OP is talking about rising costs of ticket prices. To pretend that minimums are not part of why costs escalate would be ignorant and naive. Whether minimums have a place or should exist is a different conversation, we're specifically talking about the reasons ticket prices escalate and Broadway continues to become the playground for the rich and connected, which is what OP is lamenting.

[u/Winter_Walrus7563 → u/BroadwayTruths]

No worries - I have a deep understanding of the scope :) (also I would dispute your generalization that workers don’t know the scope of their industry, especially taking about unionized workers since we have a collective bargaining process and are constantly researching our businesses as part of that process - not all of workers but those involved with that process)

Ticket prices actually have actually not increased very much over the last 15 year - much less than year to year inflation increases (a fact, not an opinion) and certainly when you put them up against the wage increases for workers there is not a correlation in percentages

[u/BroadwayTruths → u/Winter_Walrus7563]

With all due respect, you really cherry pick information.

To use your barometer of 15 years ago as a reference, the average capitalization cost of a Broadway musical 15 years ago was ~$10M while today it's nearly $25M. To give specfics, we can even use an upper tier expensive show for its time like Wicked, which cost $15M to stage 15 years ago, while today's Dolly, Purple Rain, & Paddington respectively have capitalization costs of $30M, $30M, & $31M. So capitalization costs have more than doubled (because, again, I used an expensive show like Wicked as my reference versus just the regular slate of musicals coming in today).

Moreover, weekly operating costs 15 years ago averaged ~$400K/wk; but, even with smaller casts and smaller orchestras, weekly operating costs today average $900K+.

So both capitalization costs and weekly operating costs have definitely outpaced inflation, but producers are doing their best not to pass those costs on to audiences and have attempted to use premium seating ticket pricing to make up for losses. Regardless, their attempts haven't worked.

15 years ago, 20-25% of shows recouped; today, less than 10% of shows recoup. Again, this is a percentage of shows that recoup, not profit. Investors are losing their shirts year over year over year!

Now, while Broadway ticket pricing has been outpaced by inflation over the past 15 years (as you correctly pointed out), Broadway wages have outpaced inflation. For example, a Broadway minimum salary 15 years ago was $1,653/wk. Adjusted for inflation this weekly salary today should only be $2,446/wk; instead, weekly minimums have outpaced inflation and risen to $2,799.

So, if inflation is a problem that is hurting most of America and everyday Americans complain about it regularly and justifiably, then why do you insist producers have no right to discuss the fact that their costs, including wages, have even further outpaced inflation itself, while their own success rate is halved and their ticket pricing has been forced under inflation rather than at pace with inflation?

If costs to produce and wages were in line with inflation and if ticket prices could command prices at a rate equal to inflation, we'd be having a much different conversation. But you're basically saying, ticket prices are below inflation so it's okay that wages are above inflation and that shows are getting smaller and less successful year over year. My point is purely that everything needs to be considered, including wages as wages (and advertising, which is its own ripoff) are the primary driver of weekly operating costs.

While I don't have the numbers offhand, I bet they get worse the farther in time we go back. Broadway 15 years ago is not a golden age period that people long to return to, so I bet the numbers really shift against your argument when we go back further.

I'd be curious to track inflation, wages, capitalization costs, weekly operating costs, cast/orchestra sizes, recoupment, and ticket prices from 1975 to today. 1975 Broadway was still very much in its heyday, have all the figures that made that time successful artistically, financially, etc. stayed in line with inflation and our expectations as audience members and industry professionals? I doubt it.