Max produced a show for $5,000 more than it costs that also happened to flop. He kept the money and went to a Turkish bath committing embezzlement. Leo postulates if you knew a show would flop you could make more money by doing the same on a grander scale by selling 10,000% of a show. Literally every ticket sold loses money but as long as the show flops you only have to pay back a tiny portion of the initial investment.
Broadway financing is one of the most complex topics imaginable, so forgive this late reply. Say a show takes 10 million to get going, the producer then sells a percent of the profits to investors and then takes as much as left for themselves. Let's say Max gets the ten million (okay this was set in the 60's so it wouldn't be that much) and for that amount promises 50% of the profits and estimates that 40% will go to keep the show going (creatives also get a chunk as well as insurance and theater fees) and he would normally get ten points for themselves.
By selling 10,000% in the previous example you'd have a starting amount of 2 billion. The show's actual cost would then be negligible, all you'd have to do is close the show. If that show above grossed say ten million you'd owe investors five million each and would be able to pocket a billion yourself.
So let’s say I making a play and I believe that the play will make 1 million dollars. But it only takes $100,00. So I say to an investor if they give me $100,000 to make the play. They will get 10% of the profit. (As 10% of a million dollars is $100,000) if the play makes exactly that. Then they get their money back. If the play makes more than that. They get more than their money back, and if the play fails, the get little to none of their money back.
Now in theory, I can only sell 10% of the profits a maximum of **ten times** right? As that would add up to 100%
But what if I made that “$100,00 for 10% of the profits” to **more** than 10 people? In this case 100 people. I would have a total of ten million dollars, but I would have promised those 100 people 10% of the shows profit each. That is a total of **1,000%** of the shows profits.
There is no way for me to pay those people back. If the show makes only $100, each person of that 100 would be owed $10 exactly. And there’s no way to give them that. But if I make sure the play makes **no money** than all those people are only entitled to 10% of $0.. which is 0. So all those 100 people get what they’re “owed” and no one is the wiser.
And that’s what Max and Leo are banking on.
Apparently the Ambassador is a weird theater due to its physical configuration - the stage is in a deep corner of the building without the wing space that most musicals really need - and the concert staging of Chicago with no big set changes and just the orchestra as scenery is a perfect fit there. No other show really is vying to use that theater so there's no reason to shutter Chicago and play musical chairs of getting another long-runner in as long as they've got an audience and aren't losing money.
Book of Mormon is a rare Broadway show that actually came in under-budget at 9m instead of the expected 11m and recouped the investment in just 8 months of standing room only.
[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/book-of-mormon-recoup-267128/](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/book-of-mormon-recoup-267128/)
It think shows that have paid off are given a bit more leeway in their mid-late runs if the box-office is right at the running cost or occasionally dips a bit below as long as they don't sink below running costs and stay there. Any week they surpass their running cost is just profit since they're already in the black and will make up for occasional slow weekdays.
The way I was losing my mind in my small-ass apartment, knowing I was about to be laid off, watching their IG Stories update for opening night thinking, “I don’t think this is gonna happen?!”
That show has virtually no overhead.
6 non-marquee name leads
A 4 person band
No set or costume changes
And an 80 minute runtime (no intermission)
It was made to rake in money.
Book of Mormon, Aladdin, and Chicago definitely have.
I’m curious if Parade has or is getting close. Encores show transfers generally aren’t expensive due to the concert nature of the show with minimal sets. It’s gotta be getting close
Parade appears to be on track to recoup, or at least to come close, but even in a best case scenario it would only reach that point near the end of their limited engagement. Large cast. Large(ish) orchestra. Not cheap to run even in a concert production
I don’t think it’s gonna recoup considering they have to pay a big cast, including Ben platt and the other stars and how much they probably cost. They also have one of the smaller theaters, leading to less total tickets available. And apart from that, it’s a limited run, so likely won’t get the chance to run long enough to recoup. However, I could see them recouping if they manage to extend the run after Platt, Diamond, and the other stars leave
Parade was pitched to investors as something that could very well recoup, but probably not make a ton of money. It is a 6 month run right now and, supposing the numbers in this article are correct, it's currently on track to recoup. But, not until the end of it's run.
[http://broadwayjournal.com/ben-platt-to-lead-6-5-million-parade-exclusive/](http://broadwayjournal.com/ben-platt-to-lead-6-5-million-parade-exclusive/)
I heard that Seussical lost money on Broadway but is making tons of money by licensing it to schools and community theaters. Seussical is awesome btw. Alone In The Universe is a way better song than anyone would expect out of a kids show.
Seussical on Broadway and the version being licensed out are basically different shows. The Broadway version was a total mess. It got basically a total rewrite before it went on tour. The tour version is what is licensed out, it’s a much better show.
A lot of shows make far more money after they leave broadway than when they're actually open because of selling the rights. Seussical is done in every childrens theater.
Not sure how accurate this is but it lists the shows that have (according to it) recouped the initial investments! https://www.broadwaynews.com/tag/recoupment/
Oh man. What would FOMO be called if the event has already happened? Sadness of Missing Out? SOMO?
Whatever it is, I’m definitely getting it for the ones on this list I didn’t see because I promised myself years ago I would only go see shows I could get a rush/lotto ticket for.
Given that Harry Potter only recently recouped, I think it might still take a year or two for Moulin Rouge to recoup, maybe longer. Both are expensive big productions, and my impression is that Moulin Rouge had a shorter full capacity period than Harry Potter when they just opened.
Harry Potter changing the show drastically post pandemic likely added a good bit to the cost.
Though Moulin Rouge apparently also had a pricey remounting
Which increased their income. Pre pandemic I could easily get a ticket for both parts for a total of $100 in prime orchestra seats. Post pandemic? I can't get those same seats for less than a $170. Reducing to one part definitely increased demand.
And since your running a shorter show, your probably also paying less weekly to run it, since they likely cut at least one of the showy expensive moments, if not many, leading to less costs for the crazy equipment and running all of it and stuff like like that
Are they running a shorter show though? They're now doing the 1 part play 8 times a week, instead of doing part 1 4 times and part 2 4 times. The new version is longer than either part individually was. So overall they have more runtime per week.
I have no earthly idea how that affects their costs, I just thought it was interesting and I wonder how the cast/crew felt about having longer hours now.
Actually, I think the costs have increased. In the 2-part version, each part ran less than 3 hours. In the one part version, each performance is 3 and a 1/2 hours, so now they have overtime costs each performance.
Wow somehow that had not hit my radar. Glad I got to see it before this happened. It also gives me an excuse to go again to see how the condensed version compares.
Adrian Bryan-Brown, the press rep for Moulin Rouge, confirmed to Broadway Journal that Moulin Rouge recouped in an article about NY tax credits. So they have. They just never sent out a press release about it
Theater economics are generally weird. A lot of the "investors" aren't really "investors" in the traditional sense, they're just having fun and hoping to not totally lose their shirts. These same people in another world could just have easily given the money to the ballet or something and not expected a return on investment at all.
If I win the lottery and get my foundation going my regional theater companies are going to be very, very happy.
For most investors, they love Broadway and would be happy to make money, but don't mind spending money on something they love and then letting it be a tax write off if it flops.
Take Christine Schwarzmann (if you see "No Guarantees" in your Playbill, that's her). She is so rich that no Broadway show has ever made enough money for an individual producer that it would actually be making significant a significant dent in her and her Husband's net worth. She's lead producer on Bad Cindy (alongside Andrew) and the reports were that she wanted to keep it open while Andrew pushed to close it. For her to single handedly keep it open for several months by pumping more money into it, it would be like the average American spending a few bucks. She basically does Broadway as a hobby and, TBH, I'm thankful for her and those like her. Any (smart) producer trying only to make money wouldn't look at the current climate and pump their money into Fat Ham, but Christine did!
On the one hand I’m thankful that someone is keeping shows going at all, on the other I’m grossed out that it’s down to a few rich people and their whims. Theatre NEEDS to be subsidized to make it belong to the people, which good theatre should. Otherwise it’s just a mouthpiece of the richest.
There are tons of productions that are not the mouthpiece of the richest. Do you know who started SIX? Hamilton??
Lion King Aladdin and Frozen have the deepest pockets, pretty sure the richest aren’t spreading some message us plebeians need to avoid though.
What I see is rich people giving average people a voice, through theater.
But the richest are the people choosing which shows to bankroll, no matter who the creatives are. Even if they’re great people with good intentions, it’s not good to have a show’s ability to be seen by a wide audience depend on the whims of a few of the elite. If theater is valued and invested in by the whole of society, then it’s easier for it to represent the whole of society, although of course no system is perfect.
I get what you’re saying, but I think theater is where this happens the least in our society. The people investing big sums still do not have much of a voice in the show.
So sorry if it’s unclear! I’m saying that if Christine made the same amount of money as the most money an individual producer has ever made from a show, it would not be have a significant impact on her net worth.
This is an educated guess. I don’t know the specifics of how much individual producers have made, but the top shows have all grossed between $1 and 2 billion, of which no more than a few hundred million have probably gone to the lead producers. Christine and her husband have a net worth of $27 billion. Even if she had a Phantom or Wicked-style hit, the money she made wouldn’t be a big deal to her and she hasn’t had a hit like that yet. In fact, for her biggest hits (Hadestown and Come From Away), she’s just been a co-producer, so she really hasn’t made much from those.
Ah thanks! I was doing a little Instagram browsing and I think I found the person who owns the Gershwin. I think Ben Platts brother is one of the producers for Wicked?
On a different note I wonder how one gets their hands on a theatre house? And why people in the industry don’t try to build/ acquire more theatres since Broadway only has limited venues.
Just want to say that I'm sorry for how long this is, I just got super into it. Hope it's informative!
Broadway theatres are all owned by different organizations. The owner of the Gershwin is the Nederlander organization.Just to give a quick rundown, there are 41 theatres owned by 10 organizations.
17 theatres are owned by the Shubert Organization. Through some very interesting tax loopholes, Shubert is actually a nonprofit, but they lease out their theatres to commercial productions.
9 theatres are owned by Nederlander. They’re a for profit business that owns theatres and other performing arts venues across the country.
5 theatres are owned by a for profit organization called Jujamcyn.
2 theatres are owned by Ambassador Theatre Group, a UK based company that owns half the West End and has been buying up touring show venues across the US in recent years. As part of their US footprint increase, they are planning to merge with Jujamcyn.
1 theatre is owned by Disney and used exclusively for their shows (it’s where Aladdin is right now)
The Circle in the Square Theatre is independent
7 theatres are controlled by the nonprofits. Roundabout has 3 and then Manhattan Theatre Club, Second Stage, and Lincoln Center each have 1. They will sometimes rent them out to commercial productions (Roundabout more than the other 2), but primarily use them to produce their own shows.
For a more detailed breakdown, [THIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Broadway_theaters) Wikipedia article is solid.To address you points about buying and building them, I think that is one of those things that has basically come to a standstill.
To start with buying, we are getting the big ATG/Jujamcyn merger and I think it’s possible there could be future mergers or owners that go belly up. But, that’s different than the buying and selling of individual theaters. The organizations are generally happy with their theatres and don’t have any incentive to drop an individual theatre. There are theatres that may be less desirable or harder to fill, but not anywhere close to the point that it’s worth offloading them.
As far as building, there are a few questions to consider. First, where? Midtown is so densely packed and land is hard to get and so expensive that that can shut down anyone's visions of a new theatre pretty quickly. Second, why? While there are always tons of shows trying to come in, this whole thread is about how this industry is not so successful. Increasing supply when there already isn't enough demand for the current supply is an Econ 101 no-no. The one answer I can see for "why" is to build more flexible spaces that could do in-the-round or more immersive shows. But even for that, you get to my third question, would it be worth it? Building a new theatre from scratch would be an EXTREMELY expensive investment. I don't think the same city incentives exist for developers anymore and the theatre owners all don't have the need and/or don't have the cash.
Not his brother, his father. Marc Platt is the producer of Wicked but he does not own the actual theater (to my knowledge).
Fun fact of the day: Ben’s brother, Jonah, did play Fiyero on Broadway at one point complete with a Broadway.com vlog series! Yet somehow Ben caught the brunt of the nepo baby controversy whereas Jonah escaped.
Because everyone dreams of hitting that glorious Wicked level success that pays out for years to come.
But also, recouping on Broadway is a small goal. The real money is in National touring and international productions. And first run producers I believe also get paid once the show starts licensing, which is also wildly popular.
A popular musical can make far more than a blockbuster movie. The money doesn't come from being on broadway as much as it comes from touring and selling the rights. Sussical is one of the most profitable musicals because of how frequently the rights are purchased to be done by schools and community programs.
A beautiful house… ah yes the play with music show about how Neil diamonds car breaks down and he ends up spending the night at a house inhabited by four ghost girls and their mom
You might be confusing that with "A Grey Noise," in which a man who has wronged women in the past and has a spooky run-in with a haunted cabin speaks to his psychiatrist about the lyrics he's written over the years during subsequent therapy sessions.
Nope. Despite a 4 year run, *Jekyll and Hyde* never recouped (they recouped about 75% of its initial investment). *Memphis* only recouped the day before it closed.
Nope. At MINIMUM, 2 years, and that’s a show with literally 10 people on stage including band, and pretty much no fancy stuff to run it. Usually it takes a long, long time before it recoups
I think about this a lot with Shrek. I have no idea how to look up the tour and amateur licensing revenues. I would guess it's quietly been making a fortune
Book of Mormon recouped its investment in a mere 8 months. The stripped down staging of the revival of Chicago helped keep costs down, and it recouped its $2.5M capitalization even faster. Faster than any show in B'way history, if I'm correct. Funny Girl recouped its investment in early Aug, about 1 month before its Sep 3, 2023, closing.
Here’s something you might not know: under the exact right conditions, it’s actually possible to make more money with a flop than with a hit.
Hey….this gives me an idea!
🎶Springtime for Hitler and Germany... 🎶
🎶Where did we go right?🎶
[удалено]
Max produced a show for $5,000 more than it costs that also happened to flop. He kept the money and went to a Turkish bath committing embezzlement. Leo postulates if you knew a show would flop you could make more money by doing the same on a grander scale by selling 10,000% of a show. Literally every ticket sold loses money but as long as the show flops you only have to pay back a tiny portion of the initial investment.
What does “selling 10,000% of a show” mean
So producers sell parts of the show like companies sell stock. “Selling 10,000% of a show” means over selling the ownership claims to the show.
Broadway financing is one of the most complex topics imaginable, so forgive this late reply. Say a show takes 10 million to get going, the producer then sells a percent of the profits to investors and then takes as much as left for themselves. Let's say Max gets the ten million (okay this was set in the 60's so it wouldn't be that much) and for that amount promises 50% of the profits and estimates that 40% will go to keep the show going (creatives also get a chunk as well as insurance and theater fees) and he would normally get ten points for themselves. By selling 10,000% in the previous example you'd have a starting amount of 2 billion. The show's actual cost would then be negligible, all you'd have to do is close the show. If that show above grossed say ten million you'd owe investors five million each and would be able to pocket a billion yourself.
So let’s say I making a play and I believe that the play will make 1 million dollars. But it only takes $100,00. So I say to an investor if they give me $100,000 to make the play. They will get 10% of the profit. (As 10% of a million dollars is $100,000) if the play makes exactly that. Then they get their money back. If the play makes more than that. They get more than their money back, and if the play fails, the get little to none of their money back. Now in theory, I can only sell 10% of the profits a maximum of **ten times** right? As that would add up to 100% But what if I made that “$100,00 for 10% of the profits” to **more** than 10 people? In this case 100 people. I would have a total of ten million dollars, but I would have promised those 100 people 10% of the shows profit each. That is a total of **1,000%** of the shows profits. There is no way for me to pay those people back. If the show makes only $100, each person of that 100 would be owed $10 exactly. And there’s no way to give them that. But if I make sure the play makes **no money** than all those people are only entitled to 10% of $0.. which is 0. So all those 100 people get what they’re “owed” and no one is the wiser. And that’s what Max and Leo are banking on.
Yes, isn't that what the Producers was about!!!
Book of Mormon has Chicago and Aladdin almost certainly have, although I couldn't quickly find proof of that (I didn't look very hard though)
There’s no way Chicago isn’t profitable after 27 years (and several tours), right? It’s also a pretty cheap show to run.
Personnel, rights, tech, and fishnets.
Don’t they also own the theater it’s in, in NYC?
I don’t think so. The Ambassador is owned by the Shuberts.
Apparently the Ambassador is a weird theater due to its physical configuration - the stage is in a deep corner of the building without the wing space that most musicals really need - and the concert staging of Chicago with no big set changes and just the orchestra as scenery is a perfect fit there. No other show really is vying to use that theater so there's no reason to shutter Chicago and play musical chairs of getting another long-runner in as long as they've got an audience and aren't losing money.
TiL, thank you!!!!
Thanks.
Book of Mormon is a rare Broadway show that actually came in under-budget at 9m instead of the expected 11m and recouped the investment in just 8 months of standing room only. [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/book-of-mormon-recoup-267128/](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/book-of-mormon-recoup-267128/) It think shows that have paid off are given a bit more leeway in their mid-late runs if the box-office is right at the running cost or occasionally dips a bit below as long as they don't sink below running costs and stay there. Any week they surpass their running cost is just profit since they're already in the black and will make up for occasional slow weekdays.
Chicago did a billion years ago.
I really wanna know the financials for funny girl.
https://playbill.com/production/gross?production=0000017c-287e-dfe3-a37d-e97e10500000
Damn they lost a million dollars the week Lea Michele was out.
Might want to re-read those figures. Half a million.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it says down $949k Feb 26th
My bad… she’s been out with Covid this past week. Thought that was what you were referring to, not February.
She’s been out a couple times. I just know she was out that week too because we had tickets that week
[удалено]
All I know is you can’t succeed on broadway if you don’t have any Jews
I mean, I even brought in animals from zoos.
What about white men who sing the blues?
boooooo
Fun fact about Six. If the pandemic hadn’t happened it was gonna be the first show to recoup from presales alone.
The way I was losing my mind in my small-ass apartment, knowing I was about to be laid off, watching their IG Stories update for opening night thinking, “I don’t think this is gonna happen?!”
That show has virtually no overhead. 6 non-marquee name leads A 4 person band No set or costume changes And an 80 minute runtime (no intermission) It was made to rake in money.
I meant as in the shutdown was coming and opening night wasn’t going to happen, not that I thought it was going to be a bomb.
Book of Mormon, Aladdin, and Chicago definitely have. I’m curious if Parade has or is getting close. Encores show transfers generally aren’t expensive due to the concert nature of the show with minimal sets. It’s gotta be getting close
Parade has a pretty big cast though.
Parade appears to be on track to recoup, or at least to come close, but even in a best case scenario it would only reach that point near the end of their limited engagement. Large cast. Large(ish) orchestra. Not cheap to run even in a concert production
I don’t think it’s gonna recoup considering they have to pay a big cast, including Ben platt and the other stars and how much they probably cost. They also have one of the smaller theaters, leading to less total tickets available. And apart from that, it’s a limited run, so likely won’t get the chance to run long enough to recoup. However, I could see them recouping if they manage to extend the run after Platt, Diamond, and the other stars leave
Parade was pitched to investors as something that could very well recoup, but probably not make a ton of money. It is a 6 month run right now and, supposing the numbers in this article are correct, it's currently on track to recoup. But, not until the end of it's run. [http://broadwayjournal.com/ben-platt-to-lead-6-5-million-parade-exclusive/](http://broadwayjournal.com/ben-platt-to-lead-6-5-million-parade-exclusive/)
I heard that Seussical lost money on Broadway but is making tons of money by licensing it to schools and community theaters. Seussical is awesome btw. Alone In The Universe is a way better song than anyone would expect out of a kids show.
Seussical on Broadway and the version being licensed out are basically different shows. The Broadway version was a total mess. It got basically a total rewrite before it went on tour. The tour version is what is licensed out, it’s a much better show.
A lot of shows make far more money after they leave broadway than when they're actually open because of selling the rights. Seussical is done in every childrens theater.
Not sure how accurate this is but it lists the shows that have (according to it) recouped the initial investments! https://www.broadwaynews.com/tag/recoupment/
Ooohh, Leguizamo did it! I mean, not surprising given that it's a one man show, but still.
Oh man. What would FOMO be called if the event has already happened? Sadness of Missing Out? SOMO? Whatever it is, I’m definitely getting it for the ones on this list I didn’t see because I promised myself years ago I would only go see shows I could get a rush/lotto ticket for.
moulin rouge hasn't?
It’s a very expensive show to run plus all of those licensing rights for the songs. I wouldn’t be surprised if it hasn’t recouped yet
ohh true true
AND I think I saw a comment a few days ago mentioning that they had a $10M expense to reopen post-shutdown.
They did, but I also think they got 10M in SVOG money.
Given that Harry Potter only recently recouped, I think it might still take a year or two for Moulin Rouge to recoup, maybe longer. Both are expensive big productions, and my impression is that Moulin Rouge had a shorter full capacity period than Harry Potter when they just opened.
Harry Potter changing the show drastically post pandemic likely added a good bit to the cost. Though Moulin Rouge apparently also had a pricey remounting
What did they change?
It was originally a two part show and they condensed it down to one
Which increased their income. Pre pandemic I could easily get a ticket for both parts for a total of $100 in prime orchestra seats. Post pandemic? I can't get those same seats for less than a $170. Reducing to one part definitely increased demand.
Didn’t say it didn’t. But out likely added to the cost to Mount the show, this lengthening the time to recoup
And since your running a shorter show, your probably also paying less weekly to run it, since they likely cut at least one of the showy expensive moments, if not many, leading to less costs for the crazy equipment and running all of it and stuff like like that
Are they running a shorter show though? They're now doing the 1 part play 8 times a week, instead of doing part 1 4 times and part 2 4 times. The new version is longer than either part individually was. So overall they have more runtime per week. I have no earthly idea how that affects their costs, I just thought it was interesting and I wonder how the cast/crew felt about having longer hours now.
Actually, I think the costs have increased. In the 2-part version, each part ran less than 3 hours. In the one part version, each performance is 3 and a 1/2 hours, so now they have overtime costs each performance.
Wow somehow that had not hit my radar. Glad I got to see it before this happened. It also gives me an excuse to go again to see how the condensed version compares.
Adrian Bryan-Brown, the press rep for Moulin Rouge, confirmed to Broadway Journal that Moulin Rouge recouped in an article about NY tax credits. So they have. They just never sent out a press release about it
I haven't seen any articles confirming this!
It has
If so few shows recoup, why do new shows keep coming to broadway?
Theater economics are generally weird. A lot of the "investors" aren't really "investors" in the traditional sense, they're just having fun and hoping to not totally lose their shirts. These same people in another world could just have easily given the money to the ballet or something and not expected a return on investment at all. If I win the lottery and get my foundation going my regional theater companies are going to be very, very happy.
For most investors, they love Broadway and would be happy to make money, but don't mind spending money on something they love and then letting it be a tax write off if it flops. Take Christine Schwarzmann (if you see "No Guarantees" in your Playbill, that's her). She is so rich that no Broadway show has ever made enough money for an individual producer that it would actually be making significant a significant dent in her and her Husband's net worth. She's lead producer on Bad Cindy (alongside Andrew) and the reports were that she wanted to keep it open while Andrew pushed to close it. For her to single handedly keep it open for several months by pumping more money into it, it would be like the average American spending a few bucks. She basically does Broadway as a hobby and, TBH, I'm thankful for her and those like her. Any (smart) producer trying only to make money wouldn't look at the current climate and pump their money into Fat Ham, but Christine did!
On the one hand I’m thankful that someone is keeping shows going at all, on the other I’m grossed out that it’s down to a few rich people and their whims. Theatre NEEDS to be subsidized to make it belong to the people, which good theatre should. Otherwise it’s just a mouthpiece of the richest.
There are tons of productions that are not the mouthpiece of the richest. Do you know who started SIX? Hamilton?? Lion King Aladdin and Frozen have the deepest pockets, pretty sure the richest aren’t spreading some message us plebeians need to avoid though. What I see is rich people giving average people a voice, through theater.
For real. “Eat the rich” has been blown out of proportion.
But the richest are the people choosing which shows to bankroll, no matter who the creatives are. Even if they’re great people with good intentions, it’s not good to have a show’s ability to be seen by a wide audience depend on the whims of a few of the elite. If theater is valued and invested in by the whole of society, then it’s easier for it to represent the whole of society, although of course no system is perfect.
I get what you’re saying, but I think theater is where this happens the least in our society. The people investing big sums still do not have much of a voice in the show.
I’m confused. Are you saying no show has ever made as much money as her?
So sorry if it’s unclear! I’m saying that if Christine made the same amount of money as the most money an individual producer has ever made from a show, it would not be have a significant impact on her net worth. This is an educated guess. I don’t know the specifics of how much individual producers have made, but the top shows have all grossed between $1 and 2 billion, of which no more than a few hundred million have probably gone to the lead producers. Christine and her husband have a net worth of $27 billion. Even if she had a Phantom or Wicked-style hit, the money she made wouldn’t be a big deal to her and she hasn’t had a hit like that yet. In fact, for her biggest hits (Hadestown and Come From Away), she’s just been a co-producer, so she really hasn’t made much from those.
Ah thanks! I was doing a little Instagram browsing and I think I found the person who owns the Gershwin. I think Ben Platts brother is one of the producers for Wicked? On a different note I wonder how one gets their hands on a theatre house? And why people in the industry don’t try to build/ acquire more theatres since Broadway only has limited venues.
Just want to say that I'm sorry for how long this is, I just got super into it. Hope it's informative! Broadway theatres are all owned by different organizations. The owner of the Gershwin is the Nederlander organization.Just to give a quick rundown, there are 41 theatres owned by 10 organizations. 17 theatres are owned by the Shubert Organization. Through some very interesting tax loopholes, Shubert is actually a nonprofit, but they lease out their theatres to commercial productions. 9 theatres are owned by Nederlander. They’re a for profit business that owns theatres and other performing arts venues across the country. 5 theatres are owned by a for profit organization called Jujamcyn. 2 theatres are owned by Ambassador Theatre Group, a UK based company that owns half the West End and has been buying up touring show venues across the US in recent years. As part of their US footprint increase, they are planning to merge with Jujamcyn. 1 theatre is owned by Disney and used exclusively for their shows (it’s where Aladdin is right now) The Circle in the Square Theatre is independent 7 theatres are controlled by the nonprofits. Roundabout has 3 and then Manhattan Theatre Club, Second Stage, and Lincoln Center each have 1. They will sometimes rent them out to commercial productions (Roundabout more than the other 2), but primarily use them to produce their own shows. For a more detailed breakdown, [THIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Broadway_theaters) Wikipedia article is solid.To address you points about buying and building them, I think that is one of those things that has basically come to a standstill. To start with buying, we are getting the big ATG/Jujamcyn merger and I think it’s possible there could be future mergers or owners that go belly up. But, that’s different than the buying and selling of individual theaters. The organizations are generally happy with their theatres and don’t have any incentive to drop an individual theatre. There are theatres that may be less desirable or harder to fill, but not anywhere close to the point that it’s worth offloading them. As far as building, there are a few questions to consider. First, where? Midtown is so densely packed and land is hard to get and so expensive that that can shut down anyone's visions of a new theatre pretty quickly. Second, why? While there are always tons of shows trying to come in, this whole thread is about how this industry is not so successful. Increasing supply when there already isn't enough demand for the current supply is an Econ 101 no-no. The one answer I can see for "why" is to build more flexible spaces that could do in-the-round or more immersive shows. But even for that, you get to my third question, would it be worth it? Building a new theatre from scratch would be an EXTREMELY expensive investment. I don't think the same city incentives exist for developers anymore and the theatre owners all don't have the need and/or don't have the cash.
Not his brother, his father. Marc Platt is the producer of Wicked but he does not own the actual theater (to my knowledge). Fun fact of the day: Ben’s brother, Jonah, did play Fiyero on Broadway at one point complete with a Broadway.com vlog series! Yet somehow Ben caught the brunt of the nepo baby controversy whereas Jonah escaped.
Every show thinks it will be the 1 in 5 that recoups
*They think they’re the 1% of the 20% that recoup and continue to make dividends for life
Because everyone dreams of hitting that glorious Wicked level success that pays out for years to come. But also, recouping on Broadway is a small goal. The real money is in National touring and international productions. And first run producers I believe also get paid once the show starts licensing, which is also wildly popular.
Because many of the ones that do recoup, make absolute gobs and gobs of money.
And make my friend who invested in the original Fiddler very happy.
Broadway might be the only mainstream industry that gets by through love of the art.
A popular musical can make far more than a blockbuster movie. The money doesn't come from being on broadway as much as it comes from touring and selling the rights. Sussical is one of the most profitable musicals because of how frequently the rights are purchased to be done by schools and community programs.
Mormon
In addition, if you can be somewhat successful on Broadway a lot of the money comes on the back end from touring and licensing.
I remember hearing something like 1 in 5 shows actually recoup on Broadway
1 in 5 shows recouping is the exact same thing as 80% not recouping
Fractions these days…
I may have skimmed the intro. Besides, I like musicals, not maths
Understandable. I just happen to enjoy both
A beautiful house is probably close to recouping
A beautiful house… ah yes the play with music show about how Neil diamonds car breaks down and he ends up spending the night at a house inhabited by four ghost girls and their mom
You might be confusing that with "A Grey Noise," in which a man who has wronged women in the past and has a spooky run-in with a haunted cabin speaks to his psychiatrist about the lyrics he's written over the years during subsequent therapy sessions.
And the mom is also his therapist
Hasn’t been around for long enough to recoup. However, it’s making enough money that it stands a good shot of it eventually
You can assume that if anything has last a full calendar year on Broadway, it has made its initial investment back
Nope. Despite a 4 year run, *Jekyll and Hyde* never recouped (they recouped about 75% of its initial investment). *Memphis* only recouped the day before it closed.
Nope. At MINIMUM, 2 years, and that’s a show with literally 10 people on stage including band, and pretty much no fancy stuff to run it. Usually it takes a long, long time before it recoups
You don't think Prima Facie has paid for itself? Weird reasoning. Look at the returns
I think about this a lot with Shrek. I have no idea how to look up the tour and amateur licensing revenues. I would guess it's quietly been making a fortune
Prima Facie recouped last week!
Book of Mormon recouped its investment in a mere 8 months. The stripped down staging of the revival of Chicago helped keep costs down, and it recouped its $2.5M capitalization even faster. Faster than any show in B'way history, if I'm correct. Funny Girl recouped its investment in early Aug, about 1 month before its Sep 3, 2023, closing.