The State Of Off-Broadway As Seen From The Box Office
Many of you may know that I work at an Off-Broadway box office. It’s not something I set out to do. I actually began as an assistant house manager. It was very much a situation of, “The last guy quit. Want the job?” I said yes. That was about 10 years ago.
It wasn’t until now, with the industry in a tizzy about how audiences aren’t coming back and artists constantly voicing their apprehensions about critics, that I began to wonder the validity to all these complaints. Is our frustration directed accurately at the problem? If so, how does it reflect in the numbers? Can these things be quantified? Well, I am uniquely positioned to actually investigate, so I did. I created a data set of 31 shows (by 5 different companies—the most I had access to) from as far back as 2014 to now and compared the numbers against each other using multiple variables. Obviously, I would have like to have had more shows to analyze, but the shows I was able to compile in my data run a very wide spectrum in terms of the type of productions (from new plays, old plays, musicals, commercial shows, solo shows, and transfers) that by extrapolation, I think we have a pretty fair representation of the state of Off-Broadway.
As Rutger Hauer said in Blade Runner, “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” Ok I’m exaggerating, but I did find some very interesting patterns that have shifted my views on some things and cemented my views on others. I will get into as much detail as possible, but because I am unsure of the ethics of actually naming the specific shows (even though all non-profits have to disclose their finances anyway), I left little descriptions of each show instead. I also have to note that all the shows in my data set have an audience seating of minimum 170 to maximum 299. I think this is a pretty fair representation of the major Off-Broadway houses in NYC.
After combing the data, I have noticed 5 very important things theatre companies and artists should consider when producing a show:
1. Audiences not returning (if true) is likely the fault of the industry, not COVID.
2. Star power is unreliable.
3. Critics are not the problem, nor are they the solution.
4. Be mindful of previews.
5. Stories matter.
Let’s get started.
Pre-pandemic sales were kinda shit. They still are.
Broadway is not having a good time. Shows are closing left and right including the behemoth of Broadway, Phantom of the Opera. It is fairly logical to assume the trickle-down effect this has on Off-Broadway, but this isn’t totally accurate for several reasons. Broadway and Off-Broadway operate on different schedules and they are (for the most part) different mediums. Broadway is mostly commercially produced musicals that tend to have open ended runs. Off-Broadway is mostly non-profit plays with limited runs. Broadway has more initial capital with higher risks and investors hope to make their money back over the course of the run. Off-Broadway produces plays with the assumption that they will not make any money (we’ll come back to this later) with a hard closing date, even if it extends. In essence, the incentive structure is different and also the audiences are different so as much as Off-Broadway wants to complain their lack of success on attendance, the truth is that it’s always been bad. This is not news.
Since I do not have enough data, I cannot conclude definitively whether or not attendance has declined post-pandemic, but from the 5 shows I was able to analyze, their sales were not completely different from several pre-pandemic shows. Even the worst performing show of the pandemic era (Show 3) still out performed 8 pre-pandemic shows in average daily previews + post-open box office sales (see figure A). Show 5 (pandemic) and 26 (pre-pandemic), which have very similar characteristics, brought in virtually the same amount of sales. This is also the same for Show 3 and 8. Furthermore, within the top 5 highest grossing shows in my data, 2 of them are pandemic era shows (see figure B).
FIG. A. There were many shows that did as poorly or much worse than some pandemic era shows.
Before you try to bring Biden into this, no, it’s not inflation. Ticket prices have kept steady for many years (expensive) without going up. A $99 premium seat now is the same as it was in 2014. We still have much of the same ticketing deals/policies (it’s now 30-under-35 for some theatres) and some theatres have even switched to Pay-What-You-Can (though, admittedly I have no data for those shows). In terms of pricing, this has actually been a control element in the data so tracking the effects of other factors became much easier to see. These pandemic show numbers may be anomalous, but the fact that there are so many pre-pandemic shows in my data set that brought in lower numbers does not inspire confidence.
We also see that some of the top grossing shows were in the pandemic (see figure B). Granted the 2 shows (1 and 4) have a lot of star power attached and were commercial ventures, the fact of the matter is that at least since 2021, the idea that audiences are afraid of returning to live theatre is not true. It may be true that audiences have not returned like they used to. However, based on this data, I firmly believe that most companies simply do not inspire audiences to attend shows. This has been an on going problem before the pandemic and still is now.
FIG. B. Some of the highest grossing shows were in the pandemic era from the data I was able to acquire.
Off-Broadway companies produce with the expectation of losing money. I, unfortunately, don’t know the average budget for a non-profit Off-Broadway production. I’ve looked at a bunch of annual reports and tax returns, but the numbers are undecipherable to me. However, even if box office sales are not a concern, reaching new patrons should be. New patrons are always paid patrons, so high grossing box office sales reflect the reach of the show to a wider audience. For this alone, I think analyzing these numbers are important and companies should strategize the best way to maximize box office sales. At the end of the day, it’s about expanding audience base and retention. This is good for artists and the companies. Nobody wants empty houses.
2. Who’s driving this star vehicle?
Star power is real. A show with a star in the cast will begin box office preview sales at an average $1,500 per day higher than a show without one (see figure C). I’m focusing on preview sales because those numbers are isolated from the quality of the production and heavy media marketing, making it is easier to quantify a star’s sheer popularity. However—and this will not come as a big surprise—the effects of star power truly depends on who the star is. A Tony winning theatre actor who does little TV/film will not be a big a draw as say a Hollywood movie star. Even stars who do TV/film need to be fairly recognizable to the lay person for these effects to have any noticeable effect on preview sales (see figure D).
FIG. C
FIG. D. Notice that most of the 1 and 2 star casted shows are below the average preview performances sales with cast star power. 3 shows are even below the average preview performance sales WITHOUT cast star power.
Even a show with a massive star, does not guarantee great sales, as is the case with Show 20. Average preview sales for that show ($4,370) are about $600 below the industry average of shows with star power ($5,013.25) and $900 above shows without any star power ($3494.61). Furthermore, once the show actually opens and gets panned, sales plateau erasing the effects of any star power that may have existed. Show 20’s post-open average sales are $4,710.74, almost $3,200 below the industry average with star power, and $1,800 below the industry average without.
When a star has a dedicated enough fan base, however, they can haul in an audience and this is where the data is skewed in favor of stars. Shows 1, 4, and 13 were star driven shows that had a large enough draw that even negative reviews has kept box office numbers way higher than other shows. Show 4 is a great example of the power of a star combined with great press, raking in an average $17,300 per post-opening night performance. Show 24 would need to perform almost a full week to make the same amount of sales. In terms of audience, that means Show 4 had almost the same number of paying patrons in their house in one night that Show 24 did in 5 performances (ticket prices were fairly similar).
So is relying on stars a good tactic? Generally speaking, I would say no. Stars have a good chance of selling a show at a per performance sales average of $1,500 more than one without, but that number is weighted for bigger stars. Also, I’m not convinced that $1,500/performance is high enough to justify hiring such a big star—and as I’ve said, you need a big star to have any tangible effect on sales. This is not to say you SHOULDN’T hire stars. You definitely should if it’s viable, but it need not be a priority. It is not uncommon for a show without a star to do as well as—if not better than—one with a star.
Finally, the data does not suggest that you can retain the audience a star brings in for future shows and, to me, that is the most important factor. Star power may be able to sell that particular show, but if audience retention for future shows is a goal (and it should be), the data says that it has no visible effect. A show with a big star can sell really well and the next show without one can flop because there is little audience overlap.
3. Crit Damage?
As a playwright, I understand the anger and frustration artists have with critics. Who are these random people with dubious pedigrees sitting atop their ivory towers, acting as arbiters of taste for the general populous? Who gave them that kind of power and why should we even respect their authority? What does it matter if Jesse Green & Friends™ likes or hates a show? Should we really be listening to the opinion of one institution as the sole authority on whether a show is successful or not?
The answer is no… But depending on how you define “success,” you may have to.
Do Jesse Green & Friends™ have immense power regarding the sales of a show? Yes, they most certainly do. A positive review—aka a Critic’s Pick—will have a multiplier effect on daily sales (see figure E and F). Even if other publications unanimously pan a show, a Critic’s Pick has the potential to override all of them. I guess that’s the power of having 9.6 million paid subscribers. If your definition of success is nothing less than a sold out run, then not only do you need the NYT, you will likely need the rest of the Critics Industrial Complex to shower you with acclaim. Star casting would also help.
However, if success is more nuanced for you (you are more realistic) then I think we can find a healthier artist/company relationship with critics.
FIG. E. The Critic’s Pick is so powerful that even if all other publications disagree, it can still boost the sales of that show on average of 104%. This is based off of 6 shows with this example, so the numbers may be off, but relative to the “Average Sales Growth % w/ CP” and “Average Growth & w/ CP and overall positive reviews,” having a 10% differential, I believe it is in the ballpark of at least +/-6%.
FIG. F. Shows that have garnered a Critic’s Pick citation by the New York Times.
Most shows have a price increase from previews to post-opening night. In my experience working in a box office and as a patron, companies usually do a flat increase on all tickets of $5, $10, or $20 once a show opens. In terms of percentage, this means that the lowest priced ticket has the biggest increase. For example, a $30 ticket becoming $49 is a 63% price increase, but an $89 ticket becoming $109 is only a 22% increase. Taking this into consideration, let’s say on average each show should have a previews to post-opening sales increase of at least 43% (averaging 63% and 22%) if sales plateau, which is admittedly a pretty high bar to clear. Still, 60% of productions will have growth of more than 43%. As a matter of fact, the average growth percentage for all shows is 77%. Again, each company has a different rate of increase (my standard was purposefully on the higher side) and some don’t increase prices at all, yet not a single production I have seen has decreased sales post-open (see figure G).
FIG. G. Shows that have not received a Critic’s Pick citation by the New York Times.
Can reviews kill a show? On Broadway with their open-ended runs, I believe they can. You can only plateau for so long before the audience runs dry and if the show cannot regain its financial footing in time (their marketing fails to inspire new audiences), it will likely close earlier than expected. When dealing with commercial, open-ended runs, critical acclaim feels almost like a requirement. For Off-Broadway with their limited runs? I would say no.
If the financial success of a show is a concern for the theatre company, then banking on critical acclaim is a terrible strategy. In 2022, the New York Times theatre section reviewed 233 shows in NYC (yes, I counted) and of those shows, 77 were deemed Critic’s Picks. That is a rate of 33%, which in the context of a typical 4 show season would be 1 critically acclaimed show (and 2 for a 6 show season).* Anything more is lucky and anything less is unlucky. Knowing that, it would be foolish to lay a show’s financial viability on the shoulders of critics. It would be like attempting to finance your house by gambling. Statistically speaking, companies and artists should assume bad/mixed reviews just to be safe.
*For accuracy, I counted the total number of reviews in 2023 up to May 18th and of the 86, 29 were Critic’s Picks. That is a rate of 34%, which is incredibly consistent. My data set has 16 Critic’s Pick shows out of 31 (vastly over-represented) so anytime I use post-open averages, I adjust for this difference by only including the proper amount of CP shows, chosen at random, into my calculations.
Furthermore you’ll notice that negative reviews don’t actually “hurt” box office sales, as in sales, for the most part, will not dip but plateau (see figure G). Negative reviews largely still benefit the show, even factoring in post-open ticket price increases. I can guarantee you that shows with low growth percentage would have done worse without the exposure of press reviews.** The old adage “there is no such thing as bad publicity” very much holds true for Off-Broadway. The only damage a critic can do to you is emotional. Therefore—and I know some of you will hate hearing this—critics are actually your friends. In terms of getting a show to a wider audience they only add surplus value no matter what they say about it.
**Quick note: There is a show I recorded sales data for but left off this data set specifically because it was so anomalous that it would have actually skewed the results of some factors unfairly. The show in question received only 3 reviews that I could find (none were the NYT), which for a professional theatrical performance with a star is unheard of. The previews to post-open averages were only different by $130. Virtually no growth. They had press coverage of the show, but hardly any reviews.
Since critics—though annoying at times—are not the problem, we should not treat them like they are the solution. We have to stop perceiving reviews like they are the end-all-be-all of a production’s future or even a judgement on the artists (even if it feels like one). At the end of the day, critics are just an extension of the production’s marketing department. As an artform, I think criticism is beautiful and necessary. When done well, reviews can add context, clarity, and open the reader to new experiences. For many patrons, especially those without much theatre awareness, some form of professional guidance is helpful when seeking out the vast array of shows available in NYC. Personally, I love it when I read a review so inspiring, I’m just compelled to experience what they did. Great pans can remind us of art’s role in the perennial discourse of society; act as checks and balances to the artists. In practical use, we—as artists—must see criticism as a tool with a faulty battery. Sometimes the tool works, sometimes it doesn’t, but that shouldn’t be the reason you couldn’t build your house.
This brings me to my next point…
4. Previews: They’re kind of important.
At least a third of a show’s run is in previews, sometimes more. Each production is different. There may be situations in which the creative team needs substantial preview performances to shape their play and other times the show is basically locked in days before opening night. In terms of box office sales, the quicker a show can get to opening night the better since that’s when press marketing kicks in.
Let’s look at Show 5 (see figure H). Though the show doubled it’s daily sales after receiving a Critic’s Pick, it is still only making $5800. That would be great preview sales, but pretty awful post-open sales. Because a Critic’s Pick acts as a multiplier, the base sales a show is making during previews is CRUCIAL to the show’s run. If a show is making around $4~5k daily sales during previews, a Critic’s Pick has the potential to send that show into $8~10k territory. On the flip side, even a pan of the same show can still maintain post-open sales at about $5~$6k throughout the run, which (depending on the company) might even trigger an extension.
FIG. H. Where sales start in previews can determine the trajectory of a show. Obviously, there will be a ceiling since we are dealing with a limited number of seats, but the higher the preview sales are, the better the show will do post-open regardless of reviews.
That being said, simply shaving preview performances is not a great idea, most obviously because you want the most polished version of the play before critics see it. However, preview performances that drag on for about 20+ performances feels pretty excessive, especially if that is going to be half the show’s run. I’m assuming for the latter example, the actual rehearsal process is shortened and they are making up for it in previews where rehearsals can continue while the company collects box office sales which is… Fine, I guess.
Regardless of how long a show’s preview period is, I think it is essential that the industry reassess its approach to marketing and de-prioritize the role of critics. Since box office sales during previews sets the foundation for sales post-open, the marketing needs to be way more aggressive before and during this period. From what I’ve witnessed, the current industry-wide marketing strategy for a show is as follows:
Announce show via press release and social media. Send mailers.
Send updates by newsletters. Discount codes.
Release rehearsal photos and other related media via press release. Maybe a morning show appearance/local news segment.
Show opens. Send newsletter with pull quotes (doesn’t matter if they’re all pans). Keep updating social media.
Release teaser video with music overlay and pull quotes.
Keep sending newsletters. Milk the reviews. Open show up to third party ticket sellers if company hasn’t done so already. Continue basic social media.
Now based on the industry average preview performance sales (see figure J), 22 out of the 31 plays in the data do not meet this standard due to the star power discrepancy. However once the show opens, the number of shows below average in post-open sales drops to 15 out of 31, proving once again how much sales rely on reviews (we’ll get into this more later). It also exposes the fact that the marketing techniques used before opening are relatively ineffective.
FIG. J. 71% of shows are under the average box office sales during previews, but that number shrinks to 48% post-open.
So we know that preview performance sales will dictate post-open sales, but the industry has trouble getting people in during previews without the use of a star. This needs to change. The hype train must leave the station before previews and be running full steam ahead during previews. This requires a concerted effort to bring in more NEW people earlier in the run (papering will not help).
Easier said than done, I understand. What can we change? Well, actually, the answer was right here in front of us the whole time.
5. It’s always been about storytelling.
Almost every single playwriting application has asked me about the importance of storytelling. Why is storytelling important to you? What are the role of stories in our society? How does your story reflect itself in your art? Yet, once that story is actually realized on stage, the company does almost nothing to actually talk about the story.
Stories are why people go to the theatre. It’s always been that way and it will likely remain that way. The industry—both Off-Broadway and Broadway—needs to prioritize this most basic element of theatre when it comes to marketing. Stop trying to sell critics, stars, or accolades. Sell the story!
The major reason why shows become popular is because the audience loves the story. Why is it that when reviews come out, sales grow? It’s because somebody has an opinion on the STORY. Why is it that shows with stars can still underperform post-open? Because the terrible STORY may not be worth seeing the star. And yet, theatre marketing has not figured out a way to sell each unique story being told to an audience. Without this, the point of entry becomes so narrow and increasingly difficult to entice new people to get excited about theatre.
In video games, this is called onboarding. It is the first few hours of gameplay in which the game tries to teach the player the rules of the world, the tactics they can use, the general atmosphere, and the story of the game. Video games with great onboarding can seamlessly teach the user how to play the game while keeping them engaged and not making the tutorial phase feel too much like a lesson. It essentially gets them excited for what is to come later. One of my favorite games, Hunt: Showdown, is notorious for its terrible onboarding experience (which they’ve recently updated). It’s an absolute masterpiece of a game, but the developers have struggled to retain first time players because of its brutal learning curve. Most players quit within the first few hours.
Theatre is very similar in this respect and needs to change. This absolutely begins with marketing. The introduction to any show should communicate to the audience on what to expect: Major characters, themes, setting, and plot. This can begin with actually cutting real trailers like TV and film or something else entirely, but companies must make changes to its current approach. I would highly recommend thinking how a theatre’s marketing can be integrated into the actual story of the play. I personally do not think the storytelling of any show must begin at curtain, but can happen earlier. How a play makes a first impression is important. Why not start telling the story via it’s introduction to the public?
I am not a marketing expert by any means. These may all be terrible ideas. However, the data shows that something needs to be done to increase audiences earlier to retain attendance throughout the run, regardless of critical reception. Critical acclaim should be treated like a bonus, not the goal. Now I know this all feels very commercial and in the non-profit world may feel a bit icky, but Off-Broadway already operates based on commercial metrics. It’s all about money, whether that comes from the box office or the donors, and though the best course of action (in my opinion) is to increase state and federal arts funding, there’s no reason both cannot exist at the same time. Even if arts funding is increased, if attendance doesn’t change, who are these plays for? There are so many great plays—produced and unproduced—that deserve an audience beyond an old, white, upper-middle class (New York Times subscribing) ilk. If we want to see more exciting work within the current non-profit system—which still prioritizes cashflow—there are ways to do that. Bold plays are being written and waiting to be engaged with a 21st century audience and yet most theatre companies are still operating like it’s the 80s. Even after a pandemic, hardly anything has changed. I think it’s time we do.
