As long as there are always shows waiting for a theater to open up the owners have zero incentive to change. Most shows failing to recoup has been the norm for a while, and yet there remains a line of people just waiting for a theater to open so they too can set their money on fire. Until that stops being the case and there start being theaters sitting vacant for extended periods I don't see the dynamic changing.
I love the conversation about Shucked, and if we think about it, it actually benefits the theatre owners to allow show to stay open longer. They will make more money if they don’t have to close their doors in between shows so the less turnover the better, and it would allow a show to pick up steam and make more money in the long run
Also the high rent might be justified if we did more renovations to Broadway theatres, because with the profit why hasn’t every theatre gotten new seats and bathrooms in the past 5 years?
Having just dipped my toe into (local) theatre producing, I found this interesting. What drives me crazy in the market I'm working in, is theatre owners charge the show to pay for the bartender, but don't share any of the bar revenue with the show. I can't wait til I have a show big enough to fight that one.
I mulled this video over, as one does, and had some questions for you, Katherine. Movies used to rely on video sales to make the money back. They were willing to lose at the box office knowing video sales would/could pay for the movie. That is no longer true. How does touring factor into the producers plans to recoup the money? How long does a show need to run on Broadway to ''ensure'' a good tour or even get a tour? Since the tour is no longer in the one of the 'big threes' theatres are they out of the tour money, or do the owners have some agreement for that money, too?
I don't think a show like Shucked running for a year is necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to see production costs managed so that a show only has to run about a year to recoup. Then the shows that really hit (like Hadestown) can run longer and make a pile, while other shows make their nut, move out, and let a new show move in. For me the problem of Broadway is not enough new original shows.
this might be a Hot take but i don’t actually think we’re doing the art form any justice and mayhaps were not even really making Theatre at all if we refuse to act with altruism and the care of the communities our shows serve at the heart of our decisions. If we’re not considering the morals of our stories and the people we’re representing when we tell the stories in our business decisions, why are we telling those stories at all? thats obviously easier thought than done though, especially on the theatre owner end of things.
This was so interesting and such an important topic to lampshade. Assuming that theatre owners are effectively Ebenezer Scrooge and only motivated by their wallets, they may not have any short term incentives to keep new shows running, but they really should be thinking more long term. If most shows fail to recoup year after year, how long do they think they'll continue to find new investors and other sources of capital for future shows?? The dismal recoup rate not only drains the resources from the people who have already shown willingness to invest in a show, but makes it look like a terrible idea to other potential investors who haven't. I doubt it would solve everything but if theatre owners got a higher % once a show has recouped (or took a lower % before then) it might ease that early growth period. All my other ideas involve scrapping the for-profit model altogether which isn't happening.
THIS. *And* as I mentioned in another comment--it's really such a fragile system. The second anyone offers a contemporary solution, or more comfortable solution, or disrupts the model, the folks operating at 'good enough status quo' will be forced to change or sink. But as it stands--the 3 theater owners DO have all the power...and little incentive (as they perceive it) to evolve.
Well, let's be clear: that's my perception of it. But I really truly would love to engage in conversations with stakeholders within Shubert/ATG/Nederlander to unpack.
@4:04 i do think theater owners are incentivized keep a show -- for certain theaters like Gershwin, Minskoff, Lyric, etc or any extremely large theater. Before Wicked came to the Gershwin, so many shows flopped at the Gershwin. Same thing happened before Lion King went to the Minskoff and Harry Potter at Lyric. I do agree that theater owners have no incentives to keep a show at its midsize or smaller size theaters since there is always a production wanting to rent that space.
Hi Catharine, I love your channel. I was wondering do the national tours (have the same producers?) that send shows on the road I hear they’re always profitable. Is that true? And does that help the producers recoup their investment? when I attend a show at the Dr. Phillips Center ( Orlando ) in Florida? Every seat is always full so I imagine they might be profitable for the producers unless I got wrong? just wondering what you thought or OMG 😮 this topic could be a future video 😀. By the way I am a 30 year season ticket holder. And we see shows in NYC aw well 😀wife and I love the theater❤. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.
@5:05 the Outsiders at least is a well known IP given it’s required reading at most public schools in USA. @10:52 I don’t know solution either but long running shows like Wicked is practically a cash cow for its original investors and the hope or ideal is for those investors to reinvest that money to other .new shows. To me, Broadway climate is fine as long as there are people willing to invest $$$ to mount a new show on Broadway.
It seems it is not just Broadway that operates this way. It all boils down to the greed side of the capitalistic system. We need Compassionate Capitalism where those at the top see it as their duty to help those at the bottom by sharing some of their wealth just to keep them above water. EX. I heard that Dolly Parton could be a billionaire but she gives away so much of her money that she is just a millionaire! Those theatre owners probably could live very comfortablly if they gave back some of their profits to help struggling shows. It is especially hard for those in th arts to make a good living where those who are in an industry like Amazon that sells products have it easier. Amazon is another example of not being a compassionate capitalist system! Just my rambling thoughts! 😊
My thing is--they don't even *have* to be that compassionate. Even if we want to remain our most cynical capitalists about it, there's a much better experience to offer at these prices, and the second ONE entity starts to disrupt the system by providing a better experience, the older entities who have been okay with status quo are sunk. It's actually a fragile place to be.
This because at the end of the day how much money does a person actually need to make sure they and their loved ones are taken care of. When you get into the realms of billionaires who are going into space or buying yachts the size of a small country would it kill them to be a little more altruistic? They can still lead their charmed lifestyles but help to improve the lives of others at the same time
The Center for an Urban Future is having an event on January 7 about how to attract regional visitors back to Broadway. The discussion will be held in-person for free and also shared via livestream. I would share the link to the event, but I think that would make the RUclips forces that be unhappy! At least two elected officials and someone from The Shubert Organization will be panelists. It should be an interesting discussion. One of the focuses of the talk is going to be how to make the Theater District a better live-work-play area. One development that would be really helpful is a modern-day Manhattan Plaza with a commercial theater attached. Both components could subsidize each other to a certain extent. What do you think of the newly appointed CEO of the Broadway League? Do you think he’ll be helpful in guiding the industry through this time and sharing the wealth it generates better? I’m a big fan of this page and your videos, Katharine. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Katharine. So why is ATG/Jujamcyn able to make the money when some of the others are not? Are they charging the most rent? They don’t have the largest theaters even though the St. James is pretty big. Separately, one merch item that most theaters should sell is a show lanyard. No one offers them, but if someone uses a lanyard at work, it is portable advertising in a location where people are employed and might have disable income to buy tickets with. Likely that office workers can afford at least some ticket prices…
I think Jujamcyn was just the company whose profit was disclosed, but we can assume that the Shuberts and the Nederlanders are also making a solid profit
@@ReneeDotyagreed plus remember ATG had Merrily We Roll Along that broke house records at the Hudson in addition to its long running shows like Book of Mormon and Moulin Rouge. I think Nederlander is making $$$ since Lion King and Wicked are always in the top 3 for Bway grosses each week.
Hmm. Longterm. So many movies filmed in the US are filmed in studios outside California. Baseball and football games move to new venues. Manufacturing moves all the time.. Some nations set up a new capital city. It would be cool if NYC and some non greedy donors could acquire and build a huge complex -hybrid of sorts away from Broadway How far? idk. Hollywood has become an abstract word almost. Broadway too.. Seems part of the solution is to move away from the Times square area to cut costs and still be accessible to tourists and locals. Just make sure the theater buildings have the strongest historic landmark designation known to man.
She definitely operates the way she operates, but theater owners should be brainstorming of how to protect their space because they are currently only set up for live entertainment purposes. If shows in general collapsed, then they have no one to rent the space to. A long-term empty space doesn't earn money. If I owned a theater, I would consider future sustainability and what could I do to protect it. It's not an easy fix, obviously, because if it were, then the Shuberts, Nederlanders, etc. would've done it already. I hope they are open-minded and are thinking about how the times are a changing.
Is my idea idiotic, already tried and forgotten or just impractical? If producers could form an association and there were cooperative venues conveniently located not too far away, they could just agree to bypass the Nederlanders and ATGs and Shuberts until better contracts were available. If the draw these days is mostly out of towners who feel the need to say "I saw a Broadway show' then that's sad.
As long as there are always shows waiting for a theater to open up the owners have zero incentive to change. Most shows failing to recoup has been the norm for a while, and yet there remains a line of people just waiting for a theater to open so they too can set their money on fire. Until that stops being the case and there start being theaters sitting vacant for extended periods I don't see the dynamic changing.
I love the conversation about Shucked, and if we think about it, it actually benefits the theatre owners to allow show to stay open longer. They will make more money if they don’t have to close their doors in between shows so the less turnover the better, and it would allow a show to pick up steam and make more money in the long run
I sure wish it worked that way!
Also the high rent might be justified if we did more renovations to Broadway theatres, because with the profit why hasn’t every theatre gotten new seats and bathrooms in the past 5 years?
Or at least the magical green and red lights above stalls that tell you if one is free!!
I was surprised no renovation was done during the pandemic. At least change the upholstery of the seats!
So good and so informative. Would love to watch more like this.
This taught me a lot. Thank you
Having just dipped my toe into (local) theatre producing, I found this interesting. What drives me crazy in the market I'm working in, is theatre owners charge the show to pay for the bartender, but don't share any of the bar revenue with the show. I can't wait til I have a show big enough to fight that one.
I saw WICKED yesterday and it was awesome
So fun, right?
I mulled this video over, as one does, and had some questions for you, Katherine. Movies used to rely on video sales to make the money back. They were willing to lose at the box office knowing video sales would/could pay for the movie. That is no longer true. How does touring factor into the producers plans to recoup the money? How long does a show need to run on Broadway to ''ensure'' a good tour or even get a tour? Since the tour is no longer in the one of the 'big threes' theatres are they out of the tour money, or do the owners have some agreement for that money, too?
I don't think a show like Shucked running for a year is necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to see production costs managed so that a show only has to run about a year to recoup. Then the shows that really hit (like Hadestown) can run longer and make a pile, while other shows make their nut, move out, and let a new show move in. For me the problem of Broadway is not enough new original shows.
this might be a Hot take but i don’t actually think we’re doing the art form any justice and mayhaps were not even really making Theatre at all if we refuse to act with altruism and the care of the communities our shows serve at the heart of our decisions. If we’re not considering the morals of our stories and the people we’re representing when we tell the stories in our business decisions, why are we telling those stories at all? thats obviously easier thought than done though, especially on the theatre owner end of things.
Mayhaps local and state tax boards could redirect some tax credits depending on their support of shows...
Wouldn't that be nice??
This was so interesting and such an important topic to lampshade. Assuming that theatre owners are effectively Ebenezer Scrooge and only motivated by their wallets, they may not have any short term incentives to keep new shows running, but they really should be thinking more long term. If most shows fail to recoup year after year, how long do they think they'll continue to find new investors and other sources of capital for future shows?? The dismal recoup rate not only drains the resources from the people who have already shown willingness to invest in a show, but makes it look like a terrible idea to other potential investors who haven't. I doubt it would solve everything but if theatre owners got a higher % once a show has recouped (or took a lower % before then) it might ease that early growth period. All my other ideas involve scrapping the for-profit model altogether which isn't happening.
THIS. *And* as I mentioned in another comment--it's really such a fragile system. The second anyone offers a contemporary solution, or more comfortable solution, or disrupts the model, the folks operating at 'good enough status quo' will be forced to change or sink. But as it stands--the 3 theater owners DO have all the power...and little incentive (as they perceive it) to evolve.
Well, let's be clear: that's my perception of it. But I really truly would love to engage in conversations with stakeholders within Shubert/ATG/Nederlander to unpack.
@4:04 i do think theater owners are incentivized keep a show -- for certain theaters like Gershwin, Minskoff, Lyric, etc or any extremely large theater. Before Wicked came to the Gershwin, so many shows flopped at the Gershwin. Same thing happened before Lion King went to the Minskoff and Harry Potter at Lyric. I do agree that theater owners have no incentives to keep a show at its midsize or smaller size theaters since there is always a production wanting to rent that space.
Does off broadway houses also operate in this way?
Hi Catharine, I love your channel. I was wondering do the national tours (have the same producers?) that send shows on the road I hear they’re always profitable. Is that true? And does that help the producers recoup their investment? when I attend a show at the Dr. Phillips Center ( Orlando ) in Florida? Every seat is always full so I imagine they might be profitable for the producers unless I got wrong? just wondering what you thought or OMG 😮 this topic could be a future video 😀. By the way I am a 30 year season ticket holder. And we see shows in NYC aw well 😀wife and I love the theater❤. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.
@5:05 the Outsiders at least is a well known IP given it’s required reading at most public schools in USA. @10:52 I don’t know solution either but long running shows like Wicked is practically a cash cow for its original investors and the hope or ideal is for those investors to reinvest that money to other .new shows. To me, Broadway climate is fine as long as there are people willing to invest $$$ to mount a new show on Broadway.
It seems it is not just Broadway that operates this way. It all boils down to the greed side of the capitalistic system. We need Compassionate Capitalism where those at the top see it as their duty to help those at the bottom by sharing some of their wealth just to keep them above water. EX. I heard that Dolly Parton could be a billionaire but she gives away so much of her money that she is just a millionaire! Those theatre owners probably could live very comfortablly if they gave back some of their profits to help struggling shows. It is especially hard for those in th arts to make a good living where those who are in an industry like Amazon that sells products have it easier. Amazon is another example of not being a compassionate capitalist system! Just my rambling thoughts! 😊
My thing is--they don't even *have* to be that compassionate. Even if we want to remain our most cynical capitalists about it, there's a much better experience to offer at these prices, and the second ONE entity starts to disrupt the system by providing a better experience, the older entities who have been okay with status quo are sunk. It's actually a fragile place to be.
This because at the end of the day how much money does a person actually need to make sure they and their loved ones are taken care of. When you get into the realms of billionaires who are going into space or buying yachts the size of a small country would it kill them to be a little more altruistic? They can still lead their charmed lifestyles but help to improve the lives of others at the same time
The Center for an Urban Future is having an event on January 7 about how to attract regional visitors back to Broadway. The discussion will be held in-person for free and also shared via livestream. I would share the link to the event, but I think that would make the RUclips forces that be unhappy! At least two elected officials and someone from The Shubert Organization will be panelists. It should be an interesting discussion.
One of the focuses of the talk is going to be how to make the Theater District a better live-work-play area. One development that would be really helpful is a modern-day Manhattan Plaza with a commercial theater attached. Both components could subsidize each other to a certain extent.
What do you think of the newly appointed CEO of the Broadway League? Do you think he’ll be helpful in guiding the industry through this time and sharing the wealth it generates better?
I’m a big fan of this page and your videos, Katharine. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Katharine. So why is ATG/Jujamcyn able to make the money when some of the others are not? Are they charging the most rent? They don’t have the largest theaters even though the St. James is pretty big.
Separately, one merch item that most theaters should sell is a show lanyard. No one offers them, but if someone uses a lanyard at work, it is portable advertising in a location where people are employed and might have disable income to buy tickets with. Likely that office workers can afford at least some ticket prices…
I think Jujamcyn was just the company whose profit was disclosed, but we can assume that the Shuberts and the Nederlanders are also making a solid profit
@@ReneeDoty Yes! This!
@@ReneeDotyagreed plus remember ATG had Merrily We Roll Along that broke house records at the Hudson in addition to its long running shows like Book of Mormon and Moulin Rouge. I think Nederlander is making $$$ since Lion King and Wicked are always in the top 3 for Bway grosses each week.
And they have Hamilton, which is always in the top five as well as Wicked and Lion King
Hmm. Longterm. So many movies filmed in the US are filmed in studios outside California. Baseball and football games move to new venues. Manufacturing moves all the time.. Some nations set up a new capital city. It would be cool if NYC and some non greedy donors could acquire and build a huge complex -hybrid of sorts away from Broadway How far? idk. Hollywood has become an abstract word almost. Broadway too.. Seems part of the solution is to move away from the Times square area to cut costs and still be accessible to tourists and locals. Just make sure the theater buildings have the strongest historic landmark designation known to man.
She definitely operates the way she operates, but theater owners should be brainstorming of how to protect their space because they are currently only set up for live entertainment purposes. If shows in general collapsed, then they have no one to rent the space to. A long-term empty space doesn't earn money. If I owned a theater, I would consider future sustainability and what could I do to protect it. It's not an easy fix, obviously, because if it were, then the Shuberts, Nederlanders, etc. would've done it already. I hope they are open-minded and are thinking about how the times are a changing.
Is my idea idiotic, already tried and forgotten or just impractical? If producers could form an association and there were cooperative venues conveniently located not too far away, they could just agree to bypass the Nederlanders and ATGs and Shuberts until better contracts were available. If the draw these days is mostly out of towners who feel the need to say "I saw a Broadway show' then that's sad.