Official - Avenue Q lost money in Australia.

A 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.

...the debate was focussed on whether the production was well advertised and over the length of it's run in Melbourne. I don't recall there being too much discussion on whether it would return a profit or not. Sorry to quibble but it's a salient point I think.

"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.

Rubbish jmuzz - the debate was would the show "work". it didn't accept defeat

I though the debate degenerated into whether or not certain streets were considered to be part of Melbourne. It all became rather tiresome petty pointscoring. I saw the show during it's Perth season, and loved it. www.meltheco.org.au

The debate actually stated with this post – Prediction - Avenue Q will Author: Walterp (not verified) Date: 14/11/2008 - 08:53 Prediction - Avenue Q will flop in Australia. We didn't take to Little Shop Of Horrors when it was produced professionally - a small scale, and more commercial show than Q. Probus groups etc... - the backbone of selling a musical will not take group bookings, and many others will say - Avenue Q, never heard of it, not interested. In this link – http://www.theatre.asn.au/musicals_and_opera/dates_confirmed_for_avenue_q Now that the show, according to its own producer lost money, I wonder what will be posted next, given “Na” wrote – How about we wait until next year, after the show has been on, and then resume the argument? There's no way to win without proof of sales... I'm perfectly happy to wait til next year to apologise if necessary.

So... Okay we get it lost money overall... But was that a big loss in Melbourne tipping the balance? Or a loss everywhere?

The producer didn't disclose that (above), but my understanding is it didn't make back it's "capitalization" - what it cost to get them to the first opening night of their first city - the cost of the rights, set, costumes, puppets etc... That means it didn't make money anywhere.

I enjoyed it in Perth...I went to see it twice. That's a better result than 95% of the other live shows I go to. (other than ones I see again because I have a work related vested interest). Result: a success. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

"How about we wait until next year, after the show has been on, and then resume the argument? There's no way to win without proof of sales... I'm perfectly happy to wait til next year to apologise if necessary." Naomi Guss. Thank you. I bet a colleague that, even when presented with sales figures - the yardstick you yourself set for success, that you still wouldn't apologise. Your utterly predictable faux pas has netted me twenty bucks. Bye.

I was with you when some of the earler comments boarded on bullying - eg - writing you had a "little girl" voice but not apologising as you said you would is a poor show. even poorer is voting down a post which used your own words to show you were in the wrong. how long til this reply (mine) gets voted down???

As any registered member (such as myself) can moderate down thread messages you have no idea if Na voted down your message or not. Actually I bet she didn't. I however have just voted down the comment this thread refers to. You asked how long? Well, about 3 hours by my count. Avenue Q may not have recovered its initial capitalisation but if the tour had continued to increase the loss it would have been cancelled. Therefore it must have been making its "nut" and better at each of it's interstate stops. It didn't make enough profit on tour to recover the original investment. On the other hand the puppets, costumes, props and scenery still exist meaning if another attempt is made the initial investment will be much smaller. The other thing I don't understand is why you seem so happy that a show has failed. I am pretty sure that I asked this before on the previous thread. Did a puppet scare you when you were small leaving you with a phobia or do you have a personal grudge against Na? I can see no other reason why you actually want a show to fail. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I saw it on broadway and thought it was average at best. Not too surprised that Australians saw through the pretty poor humour. It's not a Wolf, It's an Alaskan Malamute.

She voted down the post - fact. I too think less of NA - for not honouring her word, and frankly you too Tony Moore - for not keeping up with what has already been posted. It's in the previous posts that those who thought the show would fail commercially liked Avenue Q, but thought it would have worked better as a co-op in a smaller venue. As for your justification regarding cost - On the other hand the puppets, costumes, props and scenery still exist meaning if another attempt is made the initial investment will be much smaller. you have no idea of accounting practises and write offs. The show's own producer admits the show lost money. That's good enough for me. A great show (I saw it in Melbourne twice - the second time on a cheap rush ticket - a sure sign it wasn't selling), a swag of awards, but NOT ONE PERSON who invested their hard earned in this production saw their money back. In the word of commercial enterprises, that's a failure.

'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>-/====\---------

Hi crgwllms. Actually, it was Naomi Guss who initially - when this debate started, defined "success" in terms of commerce. Scroll up for the quote, and link to full thread. Your comment re. producers earning money on bankable shows, and using the funds on riskier products is an interesting idea, but isn't how commercial musical theatre is produced today. Was in David Merrick's day, but not in 2010. These days, producers issue a prospectus to potential investors. Several pass my desk each year. Not a one tries to obtain funds by highlighting how risky the show is. Quite the opposite. You see, it isn't the producer's money that's at risk, it's the investors - usually there are plenty. I know of two who got their fingers burnt with Spamalot - produced in Melbourne by the experienced Louise Withers - even talented theatre makers shepherd financial bombs. It's not a case of the production making back 70% of it's capitilization, and paying the investors back 70% of what they put in. The way each prospectus is structured, unless the production makes back it's capitilazation, the investors get nothing. Nothing. Once investors (known in the trade as "angels" - so called as it's likely the only time they'll benifit is in the afterlife!) loose big on a show, it makes it that much harder to attract funding for the next - whether that's the next show from that producer, or another. As for doubts regarding Naomi's propencity to moderate posts that point out her failings, people might find the following exchange insightful. Previously, NA was accussed of being Theatre Australia's chief censor. Naomi objected to this description, and demaded proof. It was provided. She'd written that any post made by a certain writer, or anyone Naomi thought could be that person, ran the risk of having all his/her posts moderated. All. Not because of content (which would be fair enough, in the instance of abuse, for example). This proclamation was made before said posts had been written! 8-) The post poiting this out was then itself moderated down! People can read the full thread here - http://www.theatre.asn.au/theatre_reviews/avenue_q_australian_premiere just look for the minimised posts!

Ah. Thanks for providing the link at the end of that last post. I looked at the thread you're raving about, realised you're a nutter, promptly got bored and didn't read most of the thread, but moderated absolutely everything everybody said 'excellent' just to keep you all happy. I concede that everything you said above to me about money and investors makes sense, and you're quite correct. However, as I made clear in my opinion, none of that really interests me. Thanks. Now rack off. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Craig Williams. As a jobbing character actor, do you think it was wise to potentially antagonize this person? They seem to have inside entertainment industry knowledge. Don't think 'producing today' would offer work to someone who'd called them a nutter, and told them to rack off, especially when he/she's only written a small proportion of the offending thread (most of it was from me). Wonder if you could have made your reasonable points without abuse...

"We of the left don't blacklist." All very interesting. Those on one side of this debate post facts, those on the other side moderate posts down.

You answer your own question when you call me a 'jobbing' character actor. I am jobbing so regularly that I don't need to worry whether one single 'potentially antagonised' person wants to offer me work or not. I choose not to work with such people if I can help it. So they 'seem to have' inside entertainment industry knowledge? Well, all you can know for sure is that they seem to have knowledge about the money side of things. Just because a prospectus passes across their desk doesn't make them any expert on theatre as art. They're still only talking from a point of view of investment, and as I told you all before, I've lost interest (no pun intended). If I made my points with 'abuse', as you say, it was to wisely antagonize this person. I'm a little disappointed if they are only 'potentially' antagonized. I'm sorry if you contributed much of the offending thread. It was argued really poorly, seemed to have an agenda of vendetta, and quite clearly came across as the work of a nutter. As someone trying to establish themselves as a voice of reason, do you think it was so wise yourself to admit to authorship? Wonder if you could have made the points in that thread reasonable...? Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Just read every post at - http://www.theatre.asn.au/theatre_reviews/avenue_q_australian_premiere There were reasons given why Avenue would make money. there were reasons given why it would loose money. We now know it lost money. Nothing can be done about that now, but another big musical starts previews this week in melbourne Hairspray, so lets get along and support this show. its one thing to talk about yoru love of theatre its another thing again to part with your hard earned.

Okay, I did just read every post of that thread. I also paid attention to what was said on or off topic. Do you want the play-by-play statistics? I counted 23 posts that were directly on topic. 24 posts were off topic but reasonably defending a point of view against someone who was obviously just trolling. All of the above were authored by either Na, Murray, Freddie, JeffHansen, DazzaB, Haley, cernunnon, Labrug, Grant Watson, Neville, or Logos. All people here who I have argued with previously and respect their opinions and their contributions to this forum. That leaves 26 posts that were all obviously written by one guy with many names, who came across as a complete dickhead. It was funny to a point, but as I said before, the first time I tried to read the entire thread I simply got bored by him. He reminds me completely of the Monty Python 'Argument' sketch: "Is the right room for an argument? I've told you once. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. When? Just now. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. No, you didn't. Excuse me. Is the five minute argument or the half hour? Oh, just the five minute. Thank you. Anyway, I did tell you. No, you most certainly did not. Let's get one thing straight: I most definitely told you. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. This isn't an argument! Yes, it is. No, it isn't. It's just contradiction. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. You just contradicted me. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, no, no. You did just then. That's ludicrous. Oh, this is futile. No, it isn't. I came in here for a good argument. No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument. Well, argument isn't the same as contradiction. Can be. No, it can't. An argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It isn't just contradiction. Look, if I argue with you. I must take a contrary position. But it isn't just saying No, it isn't. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Argument's an intellectual protest, contradiction just the automatic opposite of any statement the other person makes. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Not at all......" At one stage, he got a tiny bit creative and made up another alias which tried to argue with himself, only so he could be seen to 'win' something, but in general his lame arguments were simply automatic contradiction and only trying to provoke a reaction. I now look up at everything posted in THIS thread, and realise that it was begun by the same anonymous person, who brings up their one-and-only point simply to gain leverage into another trolling match. 12 anonymous posts, all by the same troll with an agenda against those people in the previous thread. 2 posts being cynical, with reason, about the value of continuing this tired argument. (JMuzz, JeffHansen) 3 posts being reasonably on topic, presumably because they hadn't read the previous thread (Tom Camp, Paul Treasure, and myself) 5 posts responding to the increasing stupidity of the anonymous troll. (Logos, Labrug, and again myself.) I notice that when the troll could not reasonably defend himself against my accusation of being a nutter, he made up another persona to try and defend himself. When I refused to take the bait, but proclaimed myself quite happy to antagonise in return, the troll decided (for once) not to automatically find fault and oppose every sentence that was said, but to deflect back to his original tired argument . However he made the mistake of pointing me back to the first thread...as if that would somehow make his argument seem justified. ? But it simply and finally pointed out that this troll has lost his reason to exist. Nothing he can now say will hold any further credulity. I've seen through him, and therefore he now becomes invisible. If he wants to return he'll have to do a damn sight better job at disguising himself. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Perhaps site admin could clarity this, but my basic computer sleuthing has revealed that the posts you dismissed as the view of a single "dickhead" were actually posted from different parts of Australia, sometimes within the same day.