Excerpt:
When are people going to wake up and smell the garbage? We're all focusing on putting bandaids on an old business model that no longer works. What about the BIG PICTURE?...
Theatres, operas, orchestras are going out of business. State arts commissions have been eliminated. Broadway shows are available for $25 or free. Shows open at discounts. Off-Broadway never makes their money back anymore. People don't have jobs, how can they go to the theatre? Small theatre is in the toilet. Funders don't care about us and nobody has money for fees. We don't seem to accept that this situation is not going to change, no matter what political peptalks you listen to. Like weathermen don't have windows, Washington doesn't seem to have a front door. Come down here and walk amongst the peasants! Hundreds of small theatres have closed in NYC over the past few years. Children are not getting arts programs in schools and they can't get it from our dedicated theatre troupes because they have no budgets even to give us a small fee. And, I do mean small. Something must be done. Is anyone trying anything on a large scale to deal with this ongoing disaster? Or, can we at least discuss how serious this is?
Michael Rolfe •
According to The Stage, London, the transfer of
The Mountaintop to Broadway from London where the budget was 30,000
pounds, incurred a budget of $3.1 m. It closed and got back its
investment budget. Go figure that one, Melba!
Michael Rolfe • My point is, how the hell can a play with two actors involve a budget of
$3.1 m---unless the performances included the cast from the Met and the New York
Philharmonic in the pit? This is looney tunes stuff: NY and B'way is becoming like the
script of The Producers. When "Driving Miss Daisy" opened in London last year, after a
season around America, there were more producer's names on the marquee than cast
members. Clearly, money is going around, but WHERE????? Here in Sydney the Sydney
Theatre Company had an ensemble cast for a few years. Lead actors were paid $100,000
a year.If you wanna make that sort of dough you
should be working in tv or film, not theatre.
should be working in tv or film, not theatre.
To get a sense of the #s (money, people, etc), look through the Broadway League's web site (linked to Research here) http://www.broadwayleague.com/index.php?url_identifier=research-and-information-1
For a long discussion on the trials/tribulations of production on Broadway, you can watch the American Theatre Wing panel discussion at : http://americantheatrewing.org/wit/detail/producing_commercial_theatre_12_05
Finally, go to the Internet Broadway Database and look at a couple of your favorite Broadway shows -- who are the producers? who are the managers? What questions does that make you wonder?
For-Profit 101 will be our focus this week. The key is understanding that commercial theatre is like any other for profit -- it is there to make money and has one of several business structures available: sole proprietorships, partnerships (general or limited), corporation (like Ford Motors, but in product), limited liability corp, S- or C- corporations (I will be talking through all of these on Thursday, but you can wikipedia them before if you are curious). Question to you: if you are producing a piece of theatre to make money, what will determine the business structure you might take? profit maximization? liability mitigation? ego?
The tone presented in the articles on the blog this week is a great shift from the tone presented the first two weeks. The first few articles were not necessarily idealistic, but had a hint of hope and fun to them. This week, the articles seemed more frantic, a common theme that seems to run through for-profit theater.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, the first part of the Linkedin conversation is frantic but makes perfect sense. It infuriated me that small theaters in NY (the theater capital of the the United States!) are closing down and have funders which do not care about them or their future. It is acceptable to assume that for-profit productions are going to make more money and be presented with more than non-profit productions. But the difference is ridiculous. When I read that lead actors at the Sydney Theatre Company were paid $100,000 a year, I almost fell out of my chair. Also, when I saw that a production of Driving Miss Daisy had more producers listed on the marquee than actors, I knew that this world was in trouble.
This brings me to my next point. It seems that in todays world, in order for a production on Broadway to make a great profit, the show must be extremely commercial/Disney or family oriented. For instance, shows like Anything Goes, Godspell, and Chicago, three very stereotypical and wonderful Broadway shows, albeit mildly unknown to some outside audiences, only make around an average of $420,119. Meanwhile, shows like The Lion King (Disney), Book of Mormon (created by South Park writers), and Spider Man are making around $1,404,849. If this is not proof that people seem to only go to theaters in NYC for major "designer shows" as I like to call them, I don't know what is.
This fact isn't ALL that bad, though. In the for-profit world, the producers are going to pick the shows that are appealing to a wider audience, and therefore make more money. This only makes sense because they are in it for the money. Also, the three aforementioned big shows, are either being produced by huge name producers and/or major companies. Lion King is produced by Disney, Spider Man is being produced by dozens of people including Marvel Comics. Meanwhile, Book of Mormon is being helped out my MAJOR names like Scott Rudin, who has produced shows such as Equus and Gypsy) and Anne Garefino, who has been a producer for South Park since its debut in 1997. Even Wicked is being produced by Universal Pictures! Wow! The productions which are not making a lot of money seem to be produced by theatre companies as a whole, and some that have previously only produced the stereotypical Broadway shows shows. These include Broadway Across America, Roundabout Theatre Company, and Lincoln Center Theater.
If I were to produce a show, I would ideally try to find a show that fit somewhere between the regular Broadway show and family friendly commercial show (think something along the lines of Wicked). SHows like this only tend to come around once in a blue moon however, so if I were truly in this profession for money, and money alone, I would have to gravitate towards major titled shows that people even far outside of the theatre world would hear of and flock to see.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteBroadway is an interesting animal, indeed. Location, however, does not equal for-profit. Roundabout Theatre Company, and Lincoln Center Theater are NONprofits. Lincoln Center has twice worked on pieces that have moved to Broadway for long runs: CONTACT and now WAR HORSE. The show usually gains additional producers and then operates as a forprofit with the proceeds coming in as in 'income' to the nonprofit. Roundabout moved from the West Village to its Broadway location to enable consideration in the Tony Awards . . but it works under its own unique contract with Actors Equity. (check out it annual report to get a sense of all that it does).
We hope that someday one of our shows will find a longer run, home on Broadway . . . but it would likely be at "the new vic" which is Imagination Stage in NYC -- another nonprofit breathing the forprofit airs of Broadway.
If we take a look at the Musical, The Book of Mormon, we can understand why Arthur Greisiger says that “too many cooks spoil the stew.” There are twelve different producers that are helping to stage the show. Meanwhile there are 4 executive producers to help run the show. There are three managers; production manager, production stage manager, and stage manager. This seems a little too excessive and makes me wonder why there needs to be so many producers and managers doing the same job.
ReplyDeleteIf I am a producer in todays market, I might want to take a look at various people who are trying to survive in it. On the blog there was some great ideas. First I would limit the amount of managers, and produce a play that the market wants; “smaller leaner theatrical productions.” I would definitely play the idea of comp tickets up for my benefit; honoring comp tickets to people wihen a show is doing poorly or not selling at all, but making sure they do not sit somewhere that is usually reserved, but rather make them pay. However, for certain season seat holders and investors, I would give one or two comp tickets. However, I think comp tickets should always be given out, to drive in more people to my theatre. If the regular house is full, I would have a section reserved for comps, with limited seating, so that the word would get out to more people. If ticket prices are doing bad, and I am extremely desprite, I would drive prices up, and then cut them in half to state that I am selling tickets, 50% off.
Sean,
ReplyDeletePricing is a whole other conversation . . . which we will have later in the semester :-) Interestingly, Book of Mormon doesn't have that problem -- they can charge $400 / ticket and sell out. As a point of information, however, ever theatre has "house seats" that are reserved until the day of the performance for last minute VIP comps or releases. Thus, friends just saw Book of Mormon short notice because the lighting designer was able to get them 2 house seats. House seats are NOT always comp, but are at a designated rate. . .(in fact, no seat is ever truly 'comp' as it is either an 'opportunity cost' or the giver of the comp takes it out of their budget -- thus, if the marketing department wants to give comps, the value of that ticket is taken from their budget).
Finally -- a preview on pricing -- a price and perceived value to that price are the same, as the price is not set in a vacuum. Thus, if my audience feels my show is 'worth' $20 per ticket, they will pay that -- either as full price or as a discount. For example, BLOOD BROTHERS, when it opened on Broadway, was not perceived to be worth the face value of the ticket. It was perceived as worth $40 per ticket. If they had bumped the ticket to $160 to try to get $80 buys, that would not have worked. It was worth, to the audience, $40 ... it is based on competition and on actually product.
This week articles helped me gain an understanding of commercial theatre.Realizing that theatres that was once popular are now going out of business from many profit reasons. One of the reasons discussed is because of enconomy; broadway shows aren't selling or have to discount their tickets to make it more afordable for the public. Because if people are out of jobs then clearly they do not have money to attend theatres which is flushing theatres. But I find it absurd that part of this reason is poor budgeting for somefor-profit companies. They are paying way more money then they should be.
ReplyDeleteIf I were producing a theatre piece to make money I would prabaly go for the profit maximization structure. I mean, why not go above and beyond if most of my focus is on making money. If my focus was just doing it because it was something I love then maybe I may take another approach. Its like you get what you pay for. As much money and time I willd put into the production cost and output level, that will determine my profit goal. If I place my theatre in a "richer" area and put my max into the theatre and company then the public shouldn't have any problem payinf for a good perfomers, with good actors, in a good area with nice seating and proper parking lots. As long as I don't raise prizes for no reason.
After reading these articles, I have gained a great understanding for commerical theatre. It saddens me that alot of popular theatres are going out of bussiness. I think a big reason for this is that Broadway show ticckets arent afordable to the general pubic. Who decides the price for these broadway shows anyway?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous? Who are you?
DeleteI agree... I have this conversation all the time at my internship with Everyman. Is it a theater's responsibility to lower ticket prices in order to get more people into the theater? How about to keep theatre alive as a whole? I work within the marketing dept. and we always try to weigh the cost of the effort it takes to get people (especially younger audiences and young families) into the theater against the cost of what we are actually charging them to come.
ReplyDeleteI think broadway and Disney have a huge advantage being that they appeal to people who don't necessarily consider themselves avid "theater-goers." They can afford to charge whatever they want for a ticket to their show because they have such a large audience to pull from. I don't think this is a bad thing, the fact that non-"theater-goers" are going to see theatre in general is proof enough that theatre is still alive. Commercial theatre can inspire people to dive deeper into the world of theatre, which is something we should all hope for.
If I were producing a Broadway show I would also have to go with profit maximization. I also think this is one of the most commonly used business structures in for-profit industries.
ReplyDeleteWhile some people may think Broadway is greedy or a dying business, I wanted to mention the profit of Broadway just a couple of years ago. According to The Broadway League, during the 2008-2009 season, the Broadway industry contributed $9.8 billion to the economy of New York City and supported 84,400 jobs. This on its own is one of the greatest things about for-profit theatre. Arts boost the economy, and this doesn’t even include the success of all of the restaurants, shops and hotels in the area that see business because of the surrounding theater industry.
While individual theatre tickets are a bit expensive, let’s remember that NYC has a large and thriving tourism industry, and more commercial theatre such as Disney and Book of Mormon are show titles that people unfamiliar with theatre recognize. Maybe the key to a successful show is the marketing. If I were producing a show about a story that tourists are not familiar with, I would probably launch a national marketing campaign that targets out-of-towners. I would try to get as much national exposure as possible to get the show’s name out to the entire country, not just the New York theatre industry.
I agree with Nicki. I would also have to go with the goal of making a the maximum profit possible if I were creating and producing work that is on the same scale as Disney or Book of Mormon. Disney produces multi-million dollar productions and are in the business for making money, not solely the love of the art. As Samantha said, Disney has a huge pool to pull audience member from because of the name they have and the types of shows they produce. Not only are they able to hold a high ticket price because their shows are in demand, but they also need to create revenue to make back the money they have spent on building and maintaining their shows.
ReplyDeleteWell when i think of producing a show my first thought is the exact point people are bringing up, where? At a theater in like Baltimore or Off Broadway the business structure would be alot different than if i was producing a popular Broadway, Disney or touring show.
ReplyDeleteAt a smaller theater my business would think about profit a little at least, enough to keep the business running well enough that we can put on the shows we want while still being affordable and accessible to the public and audience we want. But that's where the trouble comes in because that is usually the audience who cant pay alot and are locals in Baltimore or NYC.
Where in a larger theater like Broadway the main focus would be money because that is what Broadway lives off of. They make money to use money to produce the BIG shows, especially the musicals and popular shows like Disney. Their audience is wide enough to charge as much as they do because people pay for Broadway shows and they can range from poor to rich and that's how they can also afford to give away tickets and make them cheaper at times.
I agree with Sam in the fact that a huge part of the reason why Broadway shows and Disney shows bring in more money is the fact that they appeal to a larger, not necessarily "typical" theatre audience. Especially in NYC. Tourists who are there simply for the "old-fashioned" feel of a broadway spectacle will pay the money to see just that. As much as theatre artists are constantly trying to delve into new ideas and explore the "experimental" side of things, I feel like really, only other theatre artists interested in those ideas are going to be the ones coming to that sort of experience.
ReplyDeleteI have actually had this conversation a few times with others throughout this semester. As much as I love the idea of new theatre being expressed in our arts world, explaining this type of performance to a non-theatrical crowd is extremely difficult, and rarely would ever gain interest. In today's society, that's not where the money is.
If I were to produce a show in a larger, more popular venue, I'd definitely stick to the more popular side of things (at least at first), not only for the money, but for the idea of spectacle. I feel like when spectacle is successfully achieved, THAT is when you gain the most attention from society.
The idea of liability mitigation just leaves a foul taste in my mouth, even though I do understand the value of not wanting to ruin your career because of a commitment to produce an avant garde piece of Theatre. Especially in the current economy. Truly, if profit maximization is my model, then I'm asking my friends what they would pay to see. That has amounted to two shows in the past five years -- American Idiot and The Book of Mormon.
ReplyDeleteCurious, though, as I checked the Book of Mormon on ibdb.com, as many of us seem to have done, I was not only struck by the number of plays this group has collaborated, but also that they collaborated my favorite play of the past couple of years -- Jerusalem -- a three hour, three act meditiation of the decline of pastoral England. Granted, it was also about drugs and an eccentric ex-daredevil, but the point is that this does not seem to be the move a for-profit would take.
Finally, I wanted to echo what Nicki wrote, in that a successful theatre industry contributes greatly to the economy of the surrounding area. It is also helpful that Broadway's grosses seem to go up every year. What's more is that the touring industry suffered its worst year since 2004 last year. You might think that there's no better way to contribute to the surrounding economy than to bring a touring company through, but performances, attendance, and profits were all down. Perhaps everyone has decided they are better off paying more and seeing a show in New York, not that this helps locals going out of business and struggling. At what point does a struggling troupe drop its hope to make money through the nobility of their work and tries to stay afloat by any means necessary?
Before reading this article I really didn’t have a full understanding of commercial theater. I can’t say that I am surprised that many popular theaters are going out of business because like many have already said, people can’t really afford tickets anymore. As a cast member at Disney World I can definitely say that Disney does have an advantage as far as ticket sales. When I first started working here I couldn’t understand how thousands of people could pay so much for tickets until realized how big their fan base was. With such a huge audience, Disney is able to charge people high prices and still stay in business.
ReplyDeleteit is also a once a year experience versus the 'community engagement' model of a nonprofit theatre like Arena Stage or Center Stage or Everyman
ReplyDelete