Official - Avenue Q lost money in Australia.
Thu, 9 Sept 2010, 10:33 amJack.Reid25 posts in thread
Official - Avenue Q lost money in Australia.
Thu, 9 Sept 2010, 10:33 amA while back, there was quite a debate on this site regarding Avenue Q - would the musical work commercially down under.
The results are in.
According to the show's local producer, it didn't.
Full article below.
It was on page 4 for people with a hard copy of The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/behind-this-american-puppet-is-michael-butel/story-e6frg6nf-1225914508191
Behind this American puppet . . . is Michael Butel
* Michaela Boland * From: The Australian * September 06, 2010 12:00AM
FOR the past year, Mitchell Butel has toured the nation as the lead puppet in the quirky US musical Avenue Q His performance earned the musical, produced by Adelaide company Arts Asia Pacific, one of eight nominations for the national performing arts industry's Helpmann Awards, which will be announced at the Sydney Opera House tonight. But for all the accolades and strong word-of-mouth, the show with a Sesame Street bent found itself competing for audiences with a slew of musicals when the musical theatre industry re-energised in the latter half of last year.
The surge of activity not only in musicals but also in the concert industry and other performing arts resulted in a total $1.1 billion at the box office last year. Across 10 distinct live performance sectors, 15.2 million tickets were sold to December, according to new figures released by industry body Live Performance Australia. Overall, ticket sales were down 4 per cent on the previous year but LPA president Andrew Kay said last year was better than expected.
"The reason live entertainment doesn't necessarily suffer is because we can respond to the economy by changing the product," he said. Australia's showbiz industry peaked with the broader economy in 2007 when 20.1 million tickets generated $1.2bn at the box office. Ticket sales then fell by 25 per cent in 2008. Mr Kay said the growth in ticket prices reveals the strength of the live entertainment economy.
Avenue Q producer Torben Brookman said a breakdown of the figures would reveal a much-stronger second half compared with early last year when some shows were cancelled and others sold weakly because of the grim broader economy. High School Musical, for example, was cancelled early last year, which led to empty theatres in some cities.
"Before the really big shows like Wicked and Jersey Boys kicked in, there was a lull," Mr Brookman said. Avenue Q opened last year, and audiences brave enough to buy a ticket to a musical by puppets loved it. It toured for more than a year before it closed in June, yet it failed to return a profit, a fact hidden by LPA's figures.
"The most dramatic impact was sponsorship dollars dried up so it was harder to offset additional marketing costs, which all flows on to lower gross sales," Mr Brookman said.
Yes, you're absolutely right - but you sound like a prat.
Sun, 12 Sept 2010, 01:26 pm'In the world of commercial enterprises, that's a failure'.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Happy now?
Money was invested, returns didn't cover costs, profits weren't made, money was lost, investors didn't win, etc, etc, blah blah blah...therefore, in your 'world of commercial enterprises' view, it was a failure.
Okay, can't fault your logic, so you win.
One question I would like to ask though, is: Since when does any of this really matter when it comes to art (particularly theatre)?
Success or failure in theatre is usually judged by artistic merit, audience satisfaction, peer approval, the number of songs you can remember and quote when you leave the theatre, etc...and never really equated with box office takings.
Of course box office is important, and making some returns is the way companies try to sustain themselves to be able to continue to put the next shows on. Everybody obviously wants to be able to make money from their art....but is that really the goal? Is that really how you determine if something is a success?
In my opinion, some of the most boring theatre I've ever seen has been the shows that actually do draw enough crowds to be called a 'box office success'. But most shows that blow me away never see a profit, and it was never their intention that should be the case.
If I was a rich Cameron Mac- type presenter, who had established enough big moneyspinners to guarantee that I had funds to risk so money wouldn't be such an issue, I'd be definitely looking to create a show that was different and exciting and had artistic merit, in the full knowledge that I'd possibly be blowing my whole budget for a monetary loss. Why would that concern me? If I had the money to burn, my main goal would be to put on the best show I could, regardless of whether it made a dollar.
In fact, that's what I already have been doing, for most of my life...albeit on a much smaller scale. The end result is the same - I've made less than I've invested, but I've experienced more successes than failures.
Your argument is purely clinical and financial, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the inherent nature of theatre or art. It therefore seems odd that you are getting so much pleasure out of 'winning' your argument against people who really don't care about the position you're taking, but are only concerned with 'success' in a theatrical sense.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···