LJ's overall average was $35.83, it reached under $20 once during the middle of the 'run' but in the end was close to $50. I still think Leap of Faith might hold the record for the lowest amount of money people are willing to pay to see a musical.
Lysistrata Jones got itself down to $19.90 as their average ticket price for one week in December. Another thing to consider: the St. James is significantly larger than the Walter-Kerr. More seats = more seats that are considered "far back" = more discounts and cheaper seats to sell. Considering that the mezzanine and balcony of the Kerr are relatively small, and considering the massive size of both the orchestra and mezzanine of the St. James (PLUS the balcony), LEAP does in fact have worse seats to sell at an available discounted rate. The decision to put that show in such a massive theater is beyond me, but I'm just saying that it is hardly comparable to LJ considering the production value is nearly the same but the theater's used have almost a 1,000 seat difference.
for reference: St. James has 1690 seats. Walter-Kerr has 975.
Either that or better sales in general. All I'm saying is that I have sympathy for them considering how large the St. James actually is, and probably extremely difficult to fill 8-times a week, especially after the reviews.
Thanks for the additional info. As I said, I haven't followed that data very steadily so I wasn't sure how uncommon a $24 average is, but it seemed stunningly low to me. I'm assuming not only were they papering heavily during previews, but the post-opening performance attendance has been sparse.
Okay, I just have a question. I see some of these average ticket prices and I just wonder,"How are people getting tickets for this price?" Like Starcatcher for example, I'm looking at seeing it next month and the cheapest tickets I can get in orchestra are about $99. Is everyone just sitting is the rear Mezz? Surely one section per night can't drastically impact a show's average ticket price. The same goes for GHOST. Are very few people just sitting in the orchestra for these shows, or is there some secret ticket thing I have no clue about (lol)?
I find it interesting that two shows that transferred from the same off-Broadway venue and that received raves galore from the critcs don't seem to be the smashes one would have expected from such praise.
Peter and the Starcatcher was obviously an ill-advised choice for Broadway. It's too high falutin for children, and too boring for both children and adults. In other words, there's no audience for it at all, and no one is going. (32% potential gross.) If only the creators had cared more about pleasing audiences than with being oh-so-pleased with themselves. perhaps they could have crafted a good show.
Then there's the much-ballyhooed Once. In previews it did 55% potential gross, and people were saying how impressive that was, what with comping and all. Well, now, many weeks after previews, and having received rave reviews, it's doing 63% potential gross. Not exactly a huge leap, of faith or otherwise. True, once it wins a slew of Tony Awards that will probably change, but why is word of mouth not causing people to stampede to the box office?
Well, it probably doesn't cost that much to run. It sure doesn't look expensive; her mud-colored outfit is no Balenciaga, that's for sure. More like a Brezhnev.
^Your intense disdain for a work of theatre that makes you attack it in every possible thread even when it isn't relevant is, quite frankly, appalling. No, it isn't blowing up the box office but with no orchestra, a small cast, and a relatively small/inexpensive set, I think Once is making money even now. If not, it certainly isn't losing anything substantial and it does have a good shot at a lot of awards/nominations which will only help at the box office.
$610,000 is an amazing take for an off-broadway to Broadway transfer, I think. What other recent transfer of an off-broadway show has grossed so high? ONCE must be making a TON of money. FOLLIES cost 625k a week to run, this show must cost half of that to run. The show is a success.
Don't be so defensive, and stop blowing your stack.
I'm not "attacking" it. I would honestly like to know why a show that received near unanimous approval fom the critics, that is raved about by 90% of the people here, is not generating sell-out business. That's all.
If you can explain that to me, rationally, and sans insults, well then, I would appreciate it.
Some recent examples I can think of are In the Heights, Avenue Q, and Spring Awakening. There's also Rent and A Chorus Line (that started off-Broadway didn't it?) More often than not, it seems, off-Broadway shows have a difficult time with the transfer but ONCE is doing perfectly well for now.
After Eight - that's not an unusual circumstance. Just last season The Scottsboro Boys received almost universal raves here and from critics but was a flop. Good word of mouth + good critical reviews sadly don't always equate to financial success. Ultimately the people who pay big money and keep shows on sustained runs are the tourists. Until Once gets to that market (if ever) it's not going to be the sell-out hit you've described.
even if Once's weekly nut is around $400K, it's still making over $200-$300K each week. It'll recoup rather quickly because of this. also, since opening, it's average ticket price has been between $85-$90. not too bad.
Very happy to see "Other Desert Cities" well into its second year on Broadway. It's what used to be called "A well made play" and it's no surprise that it would attract top tier talent on stage. I don't know who would root for Ghost except members of the technical unions - sorry.
I'm sure Seminar wouldn't have dropped dead had the lead been recast with Jeremy Irons.
Linda Lavin is giving the best performance on any stage right now (at least of the performances I have seen) and I would advise catching it while the catching is still good.
joined:6/29/08
Posted: 4/30/12 at 07:38pm