Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Currently Hanging | Lunchtime Quickie »

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Theater The Ballooning Broadway Price Tag

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Bloomberg has a good, run-the-numbers story about the inflating costs of producing a Broadway show, using the critically savaged Impressionism—expected to soak its investors for millions—as a case study.

I called Emanuel Azenberg, a Broadway gadfly who has been mounting plays and musicals since becoming Neil Simon’s producer of choice in the mid-1970s.

In 1982, Azenberg produced the first play in Simon’s semi- autobiographical trilogy, “Brighton Beach Memoirs,” for $500,000. The revival he’ll present next season, he said, will run $3 million.

“Over the last 25 years, all the costs have spiraled with no constraints,” Azenberg told me. The physical production, he said, “cost $100,000 then; it will cost $500,000 now.”

“The director’s fee was $25,000 then,” he continued. “It will be $100,000 now. An ad in the Times was $20,000 then; it’s $110,000 now. With payments to the pension fund and health plans, the cost of union labor today is $100 an hour.”

That’s the reality facing “Impressionism” producer Haber.

The show has a limited run of 16 weeks. The week of the opening, when “Impressionism” earned $289,057, ticket sales covered rent, advertising and payroll. The following week, sales bumped up to $325,000, attesting to the positive word of mouth I was talking about. Still, in order to recoup its $3 million cost, it will need to nearly double its box office income, which seems highly unlikely.

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

No DUHHHH-anybody point out to this dumbass that 1982 is 27 freaking years ago????
I hate stupid shit like this-bitching that you can't buy a horse for $5 or that a Belltown studio cost $175 in 1982 and now they are so expensive is just shit-for brains.
WTF where TICKET prices in 1982? SHREK is $175 a freaking seat on TUESDAY NIGHT - whine about making your money back on plays some other way.

Posted by Chk_It on April 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM

That story is bizarre. I went to the trouble of reading the full article, thinking that surely there would be some mention of how the "spiraling" costs compared to the rate of inflation and the escalating costs of all those same things (advertising, worker benefits, salaries) in the non-theater world. Nothing.

Nor any comment on how/whether ticket prices have changed since 1982.

Posted by leek on April 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM

uh, that was nearly thirty years ago; someone needs to explain inflation to Mr Azenberg.

and cigarettes were .80 cents a pack and paperback books ran you $2 and movies were $5 and you could buy a nice house in Seattle for under $100k and.....

Posted by michael strangeways on April 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Nice story, though of course the union musicians get mentioned as a cost rather than a benefit. The NYT had a nice story today about producers of "Hair" breathing the relief-type of sigh now that it's going to pay after all.

Locally, it would be cool to hear from Ken Alhadeff, the racetrack/downtown property heir/philanthropist who backs shows at the Fifth Avenue. He looooves him some musicals.

Posted by gloomy gus on April 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM

And yet, despite the souring economy, B'way had another "boffo" season in 2007-2008, grossing just under the previous season's $1 billion record box office take.

The problem ISN'T that production or labor costs are too high (the new multi-Gazillion dollar "Spider-Man: The Musical!" not withstaning), but that producers like Haber mount mediocre material, that get panned by the critics, and that relatively few people want to see.

If he had real confidence in his product, it would be on an open-ended run, like almost all other Broadway shows, rather than on a limited-run engagement, where it's almost impossible to recoup that large of an investment, even at Broadway's current $100 standard ticket price.

And really, he should consider himself fortunate. His show made it all the way to Broadway, where it at least has a shot at getting some of its investors money back. Just think about how pissed he'd have been if he'd produced a steaming pile of drek like "Princesses!"?

Posted by COMTE on April 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM

...and what was tired jokey shit in 1982 will be tired jokey revivalist shit in 2009.

Does theater make people whiny, or are they that way already and then decide to go into theater? "Oh the critics don't like us! Oh, everything costs so much! Oh why are THE ARTS being supported?!"

Posted by tiktok on April 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Oh, by the way, that show sounds TERRIBLE! The radio ads running here in NYC have soundbites from the show and they are laughably bad. The writing is just AWFUL. I don't know how they managed to waste such good actors so utterly.

Posted by Cracker Jack on April 14, 2009 at 1:23 PM

I see you all have beaten me to the punch. Inflation since 1982 is 125%, and real estate in Manhattan is probably closer to 500%. Boo fucking hoo.

Posted by Fnarf on April 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM