« Grouchy Pre-Social Network Review Blogging | Main | What Color Is Your Parachute? (Or Making The Pie Higher) »

October 04, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


If you could see me, you would see me applauding this post.

Tony Adams

I never understand why expenses and revenue always seem to be cordoned off in separate discussions as if they are unrelated to each other in decision making.


So true. ON so many levels.

My friend is exactly the person these theaters want to attract -young, successful, savvy. He even KNEW about the great theatre at this specific Bay Area LORT and when I suggested going, he balked at the $60 ticket price. Only when I showed him the Under 30 pricing ($25) did he consent. He's now a superfan of said LORT. Until he turns 30 and can't get a reasonable price anymore...

If I didn't have so many friends to shoot me comps, I wouldn't be able to see theatre either. And I get paid by these institutions! If an artist can't afford to see her artform...

Gotta be a way to fix this. Thanks for your passion and clarity.

Eric Ziegenhagen

"Someone giving to the Sloan Foundation"?

Eric Ziegenhagen

Or I guess I have to say: "Someone giving to the Sloan Foundation"? WTF?


I think there's an erroneous assumption in this whole discussion, which I've been following all around the blogosphere (thanks to Helen Shaw from Upstaged). Lower prices don't necessarily mean less revenue.

Are you selling out every night? Good for you, if you are.

If lower prices help you to sell every ticket, you are likely to earn more than you do at 75% of capacity at a higher price.

I'm a producer and my highest grossing shows don't have the highest average price per ticket--they have the highest percentage of paid capacity. And I'm about to make adjustments to my pricing strategies based on that fact--we'll see how it goes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker