|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 9:30:22 GMT
Well, I agree with everyone about the ticket price situation. I had to rush buy my tickets for this because there were limited seats at a price I was prepared to pay. This is top of my list of Broadway transfers (along with Hello Dolly) but that doesn’t mean I was prepared to pay £150+ a ticket.
I understand it’s a business and whilst I don’t blame them trying to maximise profits (I suppose...) I am becoming more and more disturbed by the new pricing highs we keep seeing. It’s all very well saying a show will eventually discount, but we’re now getting to the stage where a discounted price isn’t a discount: it’s a reduce to what the damn thing should have been priced at in the first place.
It’s the model that’s the problem. It seems like they try their luck with high prices that will reduce over time, rather than just pricing it reasonably and having a sell out run in advance of opening night. My guess is it probably works out roughly the same anyway.
Sadly I don’t see things improving. We are in this situation because some people are buying the higher price tickets and continue to do so. It’ll be interesting to see how dynamic prices become as I do want to see this a few times.
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers.
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 9:32:10 GMT
Company was a short run, from a relatively new production house compared to the behemoth ATG. With Patti. Lu. Pone. Arguably of far more theatrical prestige than Jake Gyllenhaal (granted, JG is a bigger 'name'). Prices were nowhere near the same for Company as SitPWG is seeing so I don't think the 'short run' argument is a valid excuse. But did Company actually make a profit? It really staggered towards the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 9:49:27 GMT
Company was a short run, from a relatively new production house compared to the behemoth ATG. With Patti. Lu. Pone. Arguably of far more theatrical prestige than Jake Gyllenhaal (granted, JG is a bigger 'name'). Prices were nowhere near the same for Company as SitPWG is seeing so I don't think the 'short run' argument is a valid excuse. But did Company actually make a profit? It really staggered towards the end. Who really knows? UK Producers don't publish production accounts like the US. Surely if the logic is that Company didn't do well towards the end, charging two or three times the amount for a production bordering on the same amount of obscurity isn't justifiable by any means. Also, I'm not sure 'staggered' is a fair term to use. When I was checking seating plans in the final months, seats were still moving and prices still fairly unmoved. Don't think they ever closed the Grand Circle off, etc. And if it was a financial failure would Elliot & Harper really be taking it to Broadway? |
|
19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 18, 2019 9:54:31 GMT
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers.
And I think there should be special tickets at day seat prices but available in advance only to people living outside of London because it’s really really hard for us 🙂 Back in the real world I consider myself to be a regular theatregoer and I’m paying full price because a) discounts aren’t really a ‘thing’ outside of London and b) when I’m booking for the West End it has to be planned way ahead. Everybody celebrates the today tix, dayseat and lottery options as being great, even those of us who can’t take advantage of them. I think everybody could do with a having a bit of empathy for others who don’t share the same circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 9:58:01 GMT
I mean of course higher prices wouldn't solve an issue of poor ticket sales (for Company), but my point is that sometimes we should have to expect to pay more for these shows because they need the money to earn back the investment.
I don't know how the economics of these shows work in the West End - but in NYC, despite the high ticket prices, with few exceptions no one is making large amounts of money in this business because the costs to mount and run these shows are just so high. People think it's 'greedy producers' but with few exceptions, it really isn't. The majority of shows in NYC (and I expect Company's transfer will be yet another) either close at a loss or make a very small profit. I assume it's a similar story here.
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 9:58:17 GMT
I mean of course higher prices wouldn't solve an issue of challenging ticket sales (e.g. for Company), but my point is that sometimes we should have to expect to pay more for these shows because they need the money to earn back the investment. I don't know how the economics of these shows work in the West End - but in NYC, despite the high ticket prices, with few exceptions no one is making large amounts of money in this business because the costs to mount and run these shows are just so high. People think it's 'greedy producers' but with few exceptions, it really isn't. The majority of shows in NYC (and I expect Company's transfer will be yet another) either close at a loss or make a very small profit. I assume it's a similar story here. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 10:01:16 GMT
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers. To me these oozes of entitlement. 10 pounds? So you think you should basically have a free seat in the stalls for every show? It doesn't seem fair on the people making the investments..how will they ever make it back if people only want to pay 10 or 20 pounds? Nor is it fair on the other audience members who have to essentially subsidise your 'free' ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 10:05:14 GMT
So I think there is a bit of hyperbole going on here. Prices certainly are high, and Premium seats are very high and account for much of the stalls. But top price non premium is 90-100 ish which is in line with where top price non premium has been for other "in demand" shows of late. Personally that is what I went for as I don't think the Premium seats are worth it. But if others do, that's fine.
And a ticket is only ever worth what people will pay. That is how supply and demand works and all theatres are now pricing dynamically where they respond to these demands. The Les Mis Concert has been the same and there hasn't been quite the same outcry. I also was slightly amused when someone in the Joseph cast joined in re the SITPWG pricing 'scandal' when Stalls and Circle for the show he is appearing in have been well over the West End average all Summer.....
On the other hand I am lucky, mid 40s good job no kids etc so I can just about afford it. But through my 20s and 30s I paid less, sat in the Upper Circle more and waited for last minute deals. That's life. Of course I wish they were cheaper. But I understand the business model that means they are not.
Everyone also has different priorities. People on same income with same outgoings will have totally different views on what they would feel happy paying for a theatre ticket.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Aug 18, 2019 10:07:21 GMT
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers. Why? I don't get a discount on my Harvey Nicks' swallows' nest soup just because I eat it every day. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 10:12:04 GMT
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers.
And I think there should be special tickets at day seat prices but available in advance only to people living outside of London because it’s really really hard for us 🙂 Back in the real world I consider myself to be a regular theatregoer and I’m paying full price because a) discounts aren’t really a ‘thing’ outside of London and b) when I’m booking for the West End it has to be planned way ahead. Everybody celebrates the today tix, dayseat and lottery options as being great, even those of us who can’t take advantage of them. I think everybody could do with a having a bit of empathy for others who don’t share the same circumstances. As I suggest, if available from the on-sale date you can buy months in advance if you need to. I personally dislike the whole lottery and day seat thing since it moved online. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 10:28:46 GMT
If only someone somewhere could insert a rule that there has to be a row of £10-£20 seats in the stalls or dress circle for every date, for every west end production (available from the on-sale date) for us regular theatre goers. To me these oozes of entitlement. 10 pounds? So you think you should basically have a free seat in the stalls for every show? It doesn't seem fair on the people making the investments..how will they ever make it back if people only want to pay 10 or 20 pounds? Nor is it fair on the other audience members who have to essentially subsidise your 'free' ticket. Perspective, please. It is something quite a few shows have done successfully over the last few years, including the Michael Grandage season at the Noel Coward and the Kenneth Branagh season at the Garrick. Everyone here loved it and made extensive use of it. Other productions have done similar pricing too that we have all made use of - Photograph 54 with Nicole Kidman, The Lieutenant of Inishmore, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, etc... with many of us getting great seats at a great price because of this community we are all a part of. If ticket prices keep increasing into an average in excess of £100, personally I think there should be subsidised affordable seating, yes. Almost every show does it anyway, with lottery tickets and day seats - but why should the cheapest seats be restricted to same-day purchases? This thread has discussed the disadvantage of buying tickets (almost) a year advance as having a higher ticket prices that we all expect to drop once the show is up and running. Why shouldn’t there be an incentive of heavily reduced seating for the early bird? Why shouldn’t there be some bargain be had, if a theatre is charging upwards of £150 a ticket for stall seats? To avoid confusion, by regular theatre goers, I refer to all of us that watch the industry heavily to remain in the know about what is up and coming and going on sale. It is the regular theatre goers that suffers, that is very possibly being priced out by producers hoping tourists will pay the higher prices they’re setting, and it is us hoping tickets will drop once a production gets going. Reducing a row of say 20 seats per show in a location of the theatre that isn’t the back of the highest level - bookable way in advance - should be a thing imo. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 10:48:53 GMT
I like the idea, but the price shouldn't be free - which is essentially what you're asking for. Otherwise, it's alright if poor tourists get ripped off and you can essentially go to the theatre for free?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 11:14:29 GMT
I like the idea, but the price shouldn't be free - which is essentially what you're asking for. Otherwise, it's alright if poor tourists get ripped off and you can essentially go to the theatre for free? Aren’t tourists being ripped off anyway? The pricing point I mentioned is exactly the same as it was for the examples I mentioned. The Michael Grandage season, for example, was £50 for all five productions, if booked at the same time or £15 each if booked separately. It was the same price in the same seat location (back of stalls and back of dress circle) for all five productions, and seems to have had no adverse implications. I refuse to believe that industry costs have increased in the last few years to a point where a top price ticket of £65 now needs to be sold at £100+. Particularly on long runners that have certainly recouped. I also therefore refuse to believe that reducing around 20 seats to £10-£20 has a huge implication for the bottom line. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 11:23:12 GMT
There is SO much theatre in this city, there is theatre available at all price points, it is accessible - but that doesn't mean that every single show has to be available at any price point. Commercial theatre is commercial, the producers do not have a responsibility to provide Jake Gyllenhaal in Sunday in the Park With George to anyone who fancies it. Saying 'theatre is not accessible' on the basis of the top end West End productions is not reasonable. Can’t argue with any of that. But it’s a shame that a family of four looking to see it in decent seats, maybe after a spot of dinner, could be looking at around the £750+ mark for an evening out. The majority of the stalls and circle are priced at £100+, going up to £250. I agree it’s commercial theatre and it is business, but we all know £55 for grand circle seats is excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 11:30:09 GMT
I like the idea, but the price shouldn't be free - which is essentially what you're asking for. Otherwise, it's alright if poor tourists get ripped off and you can essentially go to the theatre for free? Aren’t tourists being ripped off anyway? The pricing point I mentioned is exactly the same as it was for the examples I mentioned. The Michael Grandage season, for example, was £50 for all five productions, if booked at the same time or £15 each if booked separately. It was the same price in the same seat location (back of stalls and back of dress circle) for all five productions, and seems to have had no adverse implications. I refuse to believe that industry costs have increased in the last few years to a point where a top price ticket of £65 now needs to be sold at £100+. Particularly on long runners that have certainly recouped. I also therefore refuse to believe that reducing around 20 seats to £10-£20 has a huge implication for the bottom line. Offering around 20 seats at 10-20 won't impact the bottom line because others are willing to actually pay the price needed for the show to survive. If shows offer this maybe that is a good thing and we should be grateful, but I don't think we should feel we are entitled to it. I constantly find that as theatre goers we apparently 'love' the theatre, but we apparently aren't willing to contribute much to pay the bills for the actors, rent, directors and producers who all make it a reality for us. |
|
2,416 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Aug 18, 2019 12:12:32 GMT
Expecting to see a Hollywood A-Lister in a Broadway transfer of a Sondheim revival at The Savoy for £20 is utterly baffling to me. It's like complaining that you can't buy an iPhone on Amazon for a fiver. And not every seat is upwards of £100. I've just checked several dates and there is a lot of availability at £55 or less. Plus it doesn't open until June and isn't going to sell out any time soon, just save up for it if you want to go!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 12:35:21 GMT
Aren’t tourists being ripped off anyway? The pricing point I mentioned is exactly the same as it was for the examples I mentioned. The Michael Grandage season, for example, was £50 for all five productions, if booked at the same time or £15 each if booked separately. It was the same price in the same seat location (back of stalls and back of dress circle) for all five productions, and seems to have had no adverse implications. I refuse to believe that industry costs have increased in the last few years to a point where a top price ticket of £65 now needs to be sold at £100+. Particularly on long runners that have certainly recouped. I also therefore refuse to believe that reducing around 20 seats to £10-£20 has a huge implication for the bottom line. Offering around 20 seats at 10-20 won't impact the bottom line because others are willing to actually pay the price needed for the show to survive. If shows offer this maybe that is a good thing and we should be grateful, but I don't think we should feel we are entitled to it. I constantly find that as theatre goers we apparently 'love' the theatre, but we apparently aren't willing to contribute much to pay the bills for the actors, rent, directors and producers who all make it a reality for us. Theatre is big money - but how much money does it need to make, and subsequently, how much above the break even price are we paying? To bring in a sales total of £250,000 a week, a show needs to sell around 8000 tickets at £31.25. I understand it’s expensive putting a production on and there are numerous things that impact on ticket sales, but even selling half that and having a sales value of £125,000 a week is nothing to be sniffed at, and should be able to cover all expenses comfortable. Of course I’m being incredibly simplistic, but when you start to think the average cost is £100+ a ticket for Sunday (to bring us back on topic) you have to wonder what exactly the profit margin is and whether or not you’re being ripped off paying that full price or not. I mean, I’m sure Sunday could sell out 12 weeks at £31.25 a ticket, collect its £3,000,000+, pay everyone and surely still turn a profit. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Aug 18, 2019 12:43:09 GMT
It's a business I'm afraid. If you were a car salesman with 100 Ferraris to sell, would you price a couple at £100 just to be fair to people who couldn't afford top whack?
The West End is getting more expensive year on year, but I'm always just thankful I don't have to pay Broadway prices.
I saw Hadestown in London for £15 and got roughly the same seat in NY for nearly £300. Same story for many shows. We should be grateful we have access to fairly cheap seats at all shows if you're vaguely organised and book early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 12:47:46 GMT
Expecting to see a Hollywood A-Lister in a Broadway transfer of a Sondheim revival at The Savoy for £20 is utterly baffling to me. It's like complaining that you can't buy an iPhone on Amazon for a fiver. And not every seat is upwards of £100. I've just checked several dates and there is a lot of availability at £55 or less. Plus it doesn't open until June and isn't going to sell out any time soon, just save up for it if you want to go! I think you’ll find no one complained about that. There has been a discussion about the overall cost of tickets, and a suggestion made that all productions could easily have a row of 20 seats in the stalls or dress circle at a reasonable rate per performance, from the on-sale date, like other recent west end productions have done so rather successfully (and utilised by this board). Also, plenty of a-list, oscar winning actors have been in performances in the west end for £20 or less over the last decade. Even the recent Maggie Smith play had tickets in the stalls for £15. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 13:02:22 GMT
It's a business I'm afraid. If you were a car salesman with 100 Ferraris to sell, would you price a couple at £100 just to be fair to people who couldn't afford top whack? The West End is getting more expensive year on year, but I'm always just thankful I don't have to pay Broadway prices. I saw Hadestown in London for £15 and got roughly the same seat in NY for nearly £300. Same story for many shows. We should be grateful we have access to fairly cheap seats at all shows if you're vaguely organised and book early. Agree - business is business. But when we are all complaining (generally) about high prices, dynamic pricing and simply know to wait for discounts (not that I did for Sunday, I’m booked) then where does it end? As I’ve said, it was only until very recently you’d have an average top price of £65 ish across the entire west end - have expenses really gone up that much in the last 4 or 5 years, or are we just being charged more because they can? |
|
2,416 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Aug 18, 2019 14:53:59 GMT
Expecting to see a Hollywood A-Lister in a Broadway transfer of a Sondheim revival at The Savoy for £20 is utterly baffling to me. It's like complaining that you can't buy an iPhone on Amazon for a fiver. And not every seat is upwards of £100. I've just checked several dates and there is a lot of availability at £55 or less. Plus it doesn't open until June and isn't going to sell out any time soon, just save up for it if you want to go! I think you’ll find no one complained about that. There has been a discussion about the overall cost of tickets, and a suggestion made that all productions could easily have a row of 20 seats in the stalls or dress circle at a reasonable rate per performance, from the on-sale date, like other recent west end productions have done so rather successfully (and utilised by this board). Also, plenty of a-list, oscar winning actors have been in performances in the west end for £20 or less over the last decade. Even the recent Maggie Smith play had tickets in the stalls for £15. I'm aware of what the discussion has been about, thank you. Maggie was at the Bridge Theatre, a little different from The Savoy. Most West End superstar appearances have been expensive - Glenn Close in Sunset, Bradley Cooper in The Elephant Man etc. At the end of the day, as others have said, it's a business and they want to make money, not just 'enough' money. Yes it can be construed as greed, but it's the nature of the beast. And again as others have said, it's still leagues cheaper than Broadway. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Aug 18, 2019 14:56:52 GMT
Offering around 20 seats at 10-20 won't impact the bottom line because others are willing to actually pay the price needed for the show to survive. If shows offer this maybe that is a good thing and we should be grateful, but I don't think we should feel we are entitled to it. I constantly find that as theatre goers we apparently 'love' the theatre, but we apparently aren't willing to contribute much to pay the bills for the actors, rent, directors and producers who all make it a reality for us. Theatre is big money - but how much money does it need to make, and subsequently, how much above the break even price are we paying? To bring in a sales total of £250,000 a week, a show needs to sell around 8000 tickets at £31.25. I understand it’s expensive putting a production on and there are numerous things that impact on ticket sales, but even selling half that and having a sales value of £125,000 a week is nothing to be sniffed at, and should be able to cover all expenses comfortable. Of course I’m being incredibly simplistic, but when you start to think the average cost is £100+ a ticket for Sunday (to bring us back on topic) you have to wonder what exactly the profit margin is and whether or not you’re being ripped off paying that full price or not. I mean, I’m sure Sunday could sell out 12 weeks at £31.25 a ticket, collect its £3,000,000+, pay everyone and surely still turn a profit. Again I can't speak for the West End but in NYC a show would typically have a running cost of double what you have quoted (and much more for a big show). In addition, you have to pay off the initial capitalisation cost - and these are expensive. For example, the cost to mount The Band's Visit in NYC was about 7.5 million pounds. You quickly realise when you go the maths that the economics for Broadway theatre just doesn't add up in most cases. |
|
2,371 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 18, 2019 15:15:42 GMT
I can't really understand all this fuss about ticket prices. This is a limited run with American stars who will command salaries and costs higher than you average. The limited run has limited time to recoup costs and make a profit, after all it is a business when all is said and done. As others have said no one is forced to buy a ticket and there are cheaper tickets available. Anyway that's my say in this rather heated debate as Mrs Merton would have said!
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 18, 2019 15:49:54 GMT
Breaking Even isn’t really good because it will mean a show won’t be making back its investment.
Also making a show affordable doesn’t really work. Both The Full Monty and The Girls both closed early despite having affordable prices
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 18, 2019 16:12:17 GMT
Both The Full Monty and The Girls both closed early despite having affordable prices In addition to being affordable, it helps if your show is also good... |
|
