Coverage from Variety here. So what, exactly, is the difference between Roundabout's Broadway production arm and a commercial producing house? That they have subscribers? Actually, I think it's the rather sweet deals on labor costs that Roundabout gets as a result of being a nonprofit.
Why do you object to Roundabout subsidizing their operation with earnings in addition to contributions? Is it really better to beg than to strive for self-sufficiency? Yes, they get favorable union deals on the basis of being not-for-profit--but not-for-profit means that earnings are ploughed back into the org not that there should be no earnings. And those favorable deals still result in some of the most attractive jobs in the theater. The subscriber base ensures a decent run because the shows are less vulnerable to the press. Who is the big loser here?
Posted by: jb | June 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I think everyone has to pay attention to a specific paragraph included in the Variety piece.
"In the nonprofit model, shows operate at a budgeted loss, with fund-raising covering a major chunk of the overall costs of producing as well as of maintaining an organizational infrastructure that includes development and education programs -- plus the occasional theater renovation."
The money from the higher single ticket prices goes to funding for education and other community programs. The Education programs are used in public schools and can really make a difference in the lives of students.
Posted by: ag | June 22, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Just look at average ticket prices in Variety. Most not-for-profit shows have average ticket prices way lower than the commercial sector. There are endless membership programs, subscriptions, $10 previews, kids programs, student programs that help people afford tickets. And all the profit goes back into making theatre.
Posted by: Frankie | June 22, 2009 at 06:00 PM