Regular blog readers know that here at Curve Communications we are big on measuring the results of marketing campaigns for live performances. With this in mind, we wanted to share an interesting article with you from the New York Times’ Arts Beat Blog. The post, written by journalist Jason Zinoman, discusses the tricky definition of what constitutes a “hit” in commercial theatre and how this definition may not, in fact, be the best measurement for theatrical success:
Theater Talkback: How Do You Measure a Hit?
Laura Bell Bundy, center, in the musical “Legally Blonde,” which opened on Broadway in 2007.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” the massive Julie Taymor musical opening in the fall, defies its doubters by earning glowing reviews, blockbuster word of mouth and a rise to the top tier of the box office charts. Not on the level of “Wicked,” exactly, but more like “Billy Elliot.” In other words, it’s consistently grossing somewhere in the ballpark of $1.1 million a week. Does that make it a hit?
That depends on what you mean by hit. If you use the standard measuring stick of the commercial theater – which is to say, whether it recouped the investment it took to bring it to the stage — then the reportedly $50 million musical could stay hot until next year’s Tony Awards and easily not qualify. In fact, it could remain a popular show for two or three years, maybe more, and still never see a profit.
“Spider-Man” may be an extreme case. But “Legally Blonde” ran for 595 performances and never recouped before closing on Broadway (though it continues to tour the country and make money on the road.) “Race,” however,” ran for only 320 performances and did recoup. So is it fair to call David Mamet’s intimate play a hit and “Legally Blonde” a flop? Of course not. However, that’s exactly what happens.
Producers now regularly roll out announcements of their show recouping and then turning a profit, which the press treats as news, as it should. But what kind of news is it? Popularity has something to do with making a profit, but so does whether a producer negotiated salaries effectively. Reports about cost, however, are less reliable and well known than that of grosses, so one half of the accounting ledger often gets overlooked. The numbers about profit don’t lie, but they tell only part of the story.
This matters because in the theater, perception often dictates reality. If a show is considered a hit, then it’s more likely to get produced again and the careers of its artists will receive a boost. Even if recouping your investment on Broadway isn’t a perfect metric, it’s unclear if there is a better one. Good reviews? Fat chance. Word of mouth and cultural impact are hard to quantify. And judging by how long a show runs is also problematic for the same reason that profit is. Surely part of the secret of the success of the revival of “Chicago,” for instance, is that the bare bones show is not terribly expensive to produce.
So how do you think we should measure success? What exactly is a hit?
