5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 26, 2016 9:00:33 GMT
The National Theatre Story book by Daniel Rosenthal is quite good. It is better on the early AD eras (Olivier, Hall, Eyre) where it explains a lot of the behind the scenes politics. Coverage of the later era tends to descend into a list of synopses of plays. However, what is very interesting to me is information on the money - how much does it cost to stage productions (bizarrely one of the biggest overruns in NT history was the Peter Hall 3 Late Shakespeare season which cost something like £700,000 against a single production budget about ten times lower than that), what happens when they go over budget, how much do the ADs get paid and what is their income from other work (eg. Trevor Nunn's royalty income from his previous West End musicals was still £2million a year when his NT salary was 20 time lower, Peter Hall's personal income from the Broadway transfer of Amadeus (the NT production) was around £800,000 when again his NT fixed salary was 20 times lower). It is clear that successful NT productions are very very lucrative (especially for the authors - it seems a single successful play which transfers can set them up for life) and flops are very very damaging. It is a fine balance. It seems the breakeven point is that plays need to achieve 60-65% financial capacity (that is not actual capacity but rather a percentage of total capacity at full-price tickets so it accounts for discounting). When they don't achieve that they have to act quickly - this has happened under all ADs. There are various strategies they have to cope with financial problems, for example:
1) Run successful productions longer so they can cancel new productions
2) Close unsuccessful productions early
3) Co-productions with other theatres, and bought-in shows where the NT is effectively a receiving house
4) Bring back former popular hits in new productions or revivals
5) Put on musicals with higher ticket prices
6) Run fewer plays in rep in each theatre (Hall ran 5 in each, Eyre ran 3) and run some productions straight-through with nothing in rep with them
7) Cut productions budgets (sets, costumes etc.)
8) Partner (ie. take money from) commercial producers developing plays at NT with the sole aim of a commercial transfer
9) Transfer successful Cottesloe shows to one of the bigger theatres
Given all that, what do you guess the current NT is running at as % financial capacity ? I'd say they must be struggling.
|
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 26, 2016 14:41:15 GMT
Read the book and only one thing to do when I finished, was to read it again.
Because the National is a experimental theatre, it has always had flops and always will, even under the auspices of Hytner. However I would say the losses on something like Wonderland, which they must of taken a kicking on, thankfully it was a 3 way co-production. But they must have cashed in on the the Deep Blue Sea/The Young Chechov Season/The Flick\Ma Rainey Black Bottoms that all virtually sold out at a high ticket yield. Amadeus and the Red Barn looks to be a good seller too.
But Hytner biggest legacy to the National is the Understudy, which is packed on a nice summers day, such as today- and people visit, who are not seeing a production and just want a nice cold beer on the South Bank. Stet for the Kitchen Restaurant.
So hold off writing your obituary.
|
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 26, 2016 14:50:49 GMT
Read the book and only one thing to do when I finished, was to read it again. Because the National is a experimental theatre, it has always had flops and always will, even under the auspices of Hytner. However I would say the losses on something like Wonderland, which they must of taken a kicking on, thankfully it was a 3 way co-production. But they must have cashed in on the the Deep Blue Sea/The Young Chechov Season/The Flick\Ma Rainey Black Bottoms that all virtually sold out at a high ticket yield. Amadeus and the Red Barn looks to be a good seller too. But Hytner biggest legacy to the National is the Understudy, which is packed on a nice summers day, such as today- and people visit, who are not seeing a production and just want a nice cold beer on the South Bank. Stet for the Kitchen Restaurant. So hold off writing your obituary. They can't be making much on Young Chekov because they are just providing the theatre for it, any profit will be split with Chichester. The real advantage of it is they have saved money on developing their own production to fill the schedule. |
|
7,179 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 26, 2016 14:58:25 GMT
The loss of War Horse likely left a hole in the finances but they still have Curious Incident doing well for now. The restaurants and the Understudy are likely a revenue generator but likely not enough to produce a surplus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 15:00:22 GMT
I think it's fairly clear they've having a dip at the moment - maybe not a big dip, but a dip. There will have been a lot of money poured into things like the Understudy and the Green Room, and these things must surely take some time before they're paying for themselves. Sunday opening is no longer a thing, they've sent begging letters for drum revolve refurbishment, War Horse was killed off as it was no longer a cash cow, and ticket prices aren't so much creeping up as leaping up. Looking back at the first part of the Norris tenure, I don't think there have been as many stinkers as we like to say there have been - for every wonder.land, we've had a Les Blancs, for every Suicide, there's been a Deep Blue Sea - so I expect tickets are, overall, still moving themselves fairly steadily. Maybe there isn't a dip, maybe they've just decided to tighten their belts in case of future dip, or maybe they're planning on pouring an absolute TON of money into Angels In America, but there are certainly visible signs of frugality, which doesn't usually mean "hey guys, we have all the money in the world right now", especially as they're so visible to the casual observer.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Aug 26, 2016 15:48:30 GMT
I'll just say, Nathan Lane ain't cheap.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 26, 2016 17:40:11 GMT
Coincidentally I'm sure, I've just received an invitation to backstage thing or whatever ( frankly seen enough stage props blah blah) which is specifically for asking for legacies in wills. So you can expect the premature deaths in suspicious circumstances of well padded theatre supporters not too long in the future......
|
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 26, 2016 18:14:12 GMT
Okay - So the profits from the Young Checkov season is being split with Chichester theatre - BLOODY EXCELLENT.
The National should take in more outstanding regional productions, it doesn't have to produce everything.
Nathan Lane will not come cheap, but he is one of the finest stage actors in the whole word, he is the American Mark Rylance, he will put bums on seats, so you have to pay him the going rate.
Hate the idea of theatre asking money from your estate, it is not that deserving.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 26, 2016 18:48:59 GMT
Interesting thread. I don't see how popular shows in the small spaces (like The Flick) do any better than break even, because it's such a small house and they brought over two actors and the director from the U.S.
But I wonder if NT Live is a money-spinner for them?
|
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 26, 2016 19:19:29 GMT
Interesting thread. I don't see how popular shows in the small spaces (like The Flick) do any better than break even, because it's such a small house and they brought over two actors and the director from the U.S. But I wonder if NT Live is a money-spinner for them? The book I mentioned lists every show the NT has ever done with % capacity (actual and financial) for each. It is notable that on the two bigger stages many productions that I remembered as being very good and successful didn't make the 65% financial breakeven, so it is very hard to tell when you are sitting in the audience. Of course the notable failures like Damned by Despair (31% financial) are easier to spot. Look at my list of what you do when you are in difficulties: Angels in America and Amadeus are new productions of their mega hits from the past, I don't think the NT have ever done that before ? Just as an aside Nathan Lane won't put many bums on seats, he is almost totally unknown by the general UK theatre audience. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 26, 2016 19:30:05 GMT
Everyone who saw Nathan Lane in the Hitler show will book for this. So that's a few bums as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 19:47:28 GMT
My understanding, which could easily be completely wrong, is that there are no star salaries at the National- the pay scales are the regardless of who you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:00:05 GMT
Angels in America and Amadeus are new productions of their mega hits from the past, I don't think the NT have ever done that before ? The Royal Hunt of the Sun had a new production and The Mysteries was revived, both several decades after the original hits. Mind you, The Mysteries in the Cottesloe would always cost far more than 100% box office capacity income and The Royal Hunt was a Travelex production, so I'm not sure that either quite fits this proposed financial theory. |
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 26, 2016 20:00:43 GMT
My understanding, which could easily be completely wrong, is that there are no star salaries at the National- the pay scales are the regardless of who you are. I suspect that's a myth. In Olivier's day it may have been true but Peter Hall abandoned that practice. Not sure if it was subsequently reintroduced. |
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 26, 2016 20:07:54 GMT
Angels in America and Amadeus are new productions of their mega hits from the past, I don't think the NT have ever done that before ? The Royal Hunt of the Sun had a new production and The Mysteries was revived, both several decades after the original hits. Mind you, The Mysteries in the Cottesloe would always cost far more than 100% box office capacity income and The Royal Hunt was a Travelex production, so I'm not sure that either quite fits this proposed financial theory. That Royal Hunt revival played to 88% capacity (84% financial) which is a surprise as it wasn't much good. The Mysteries were not really revived for financial reasons but as an appropriate event to mark the Millenium. Jack Shepherd said it was like a bunch of old professional footballers taking part in an exhibition match. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:14:48 GMT
Didn't most of those early Travelex shows gave high % capacity attendance? The low prices did genuinely draw in a lot of people. I attended Royal Hunt out of curiosity, thinking that I might never have an opportunity again, and because it was relatively inexpensive. I didn't find it to be of much interest.
|
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 26, 2016 22:50:37 GMT
I was at the National this evening, I went to see the 9pm show of Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour.
So I was at the river stage at 8:30, which was heaving, just like Glastonbury by the river, anyway I hazard a guess that most of the people there, would be non attendees of a National Theatre production that evening, so with the Understudy and two additional bars out on the piazza, there was a line for people who required a substantial refreshments. This is a positive income stream that contributes to the National Theatres's artistic programme from people who aren't seeing a Production.
Also the additional taxes raises by VAT and alcohol duty from people not attending and theatregoers going to a performance from both the bars along and restaurants, along with VAT on ticket sales and taxes raised from employees on Income Tax and National Insurance and the VAT they spend their salaries, then add to this income the National raises from West End and Tours and these people still need to be fed and watered so then again raises more taxes, so at the end of the year the National Theatre's number crunches can use all this evidence to demonstrate to the treasury and the government why publicly funded theatre is crucial part for the National and the economy as a whole.
So Nick Hytners vision to turn a bin storage area, to a revenue generating concern, will be his biggest legacy to the National.
|
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 27, 2016 8:23:08 GMT
Didn't most of those early Travelex shows gave high % capacity attendance? The low prices did genuinely draw in a lot of people. I attended Royal Hunt out of curiosity, thinking that I might never have an opportunity again, and because it was relatively inexpensive. I didn't find it to be of much interest. It does indicate though that as even an indifferent revival of a hit show was itself a hit they are onto winners with Amadeus and Angels in America, although I suppose many who were interested in seeing what the fuss was all about may have seen the former at Chichester a couple of years ago. Just scanning the numbers quickly the Travelex show do seem to have had decent % capacity so yes low prices draw the crowds and as they had Travelex money and drastically reduced production budgets (for sets etc.) I expect they were financial successes too. The choice of what type of show to do as Travelex seems to have changed over the years though, now it seems to be used to try to get people to see things they wouldn't normally have booked for rather than getting entirely new people into the building for popular mainstream shows. That Understudy bar is notably full but I doubt it is contributing much to the NT finances in the overall scheme of things, bars and pubs don't make that much profit. |
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 27, 2016 8:27:58 GMT
Just as an aside Nathan Lane won't put many bums on seats, he is almost totally unknown by the general UK theatre audience. "The Producers" sold out 100% on his name at Drury Lane, and the second he left, the box office nose-dived. I'd say they have a pretty good chance of shifting tickets... particularly as I'm already getting emails asking when booking will open, from both the UK and overseas. Maybe but that was more than a decade ago in a smash Broadway production that he had starred in, he's not known generally in UK for anything other than that. I accept he has a loyal following amongst theatrical insiders, as has that particular play, but I doubt the general audience are so interested. To me that NT production looks like a try-out for a Broadway transfer. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 8:35:47 GMT
Re playwrights being sorted for life if they get a transferred hit Playwrights get (and this was 2012) around 11.5k for a play at the Nat. When it's up and running they get royalties (minus the £11.5k) as follows - for the first 25% of box office capacity the playwright gets 10% of the takings, the next 25 5%, next 25 7.5% and last 25% 10% To get the rights for WE or touring the playwright gets another £4,600 If it does over 50 performances after the initial run they get 20% royalties so yeah a bit of a money spinner Anyway, if u got an hour writersguild.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/WGGB_booklet_jun12_contracts_i1.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 8:46:19 GMT
I think that the NT must find it difficult to make each distinct potential audience aware of each of its diverse shows. In the past, they had much too high a reliance on a large core audience of repeat attenders, so they are right to branch out in all directions and to make different shows for different people. Maybe if I were a member of a particular target group for one specific show, I would know from experience how the NT engaged with that sector, but it's not clear to the general or core NT theatregoer. I think that a lot of the dissatisfaction with some NT shoes comes from core audience attending shows which are really not for them, but which didn't make that clear to the core in pre-publicity. One massive example is wonder.land, which Rufus Norris has said was specifically created for teens and was loved by them (and that is exactly what I thought and said when I saw it) - but was pointlessly hated by people who seemed to be expecting a big musical in the tradition of West End and Broadway musical theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 9:52:28 GMT
I may not have been the target teen audience, but all I was expecting was something clever and original. Didn't care about the genre, just wanted it to be interesting. Failure on every single level, even as a piece of theatre in general, for me. But if you're making theatre which directly addresses teens, then "truthful" is more important than "clever", and "original" has low priority because they will have seen far less theatre than jaded old you. You make my point. |
|
5,018 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 27, 2016 9:52:33 GMT
Re playwrights being sorted for life if they get a transferred hit Playwrights get (and this was 2012) around 11.5k for a play at the Nat. When it's up and running they get royalties (minus the £11.5k) as follows - for the first 25% of box office capacity the playwright gets 10% of the takings, the next 25 5%, next 25 7.5% and last 25% 10% To get the rights for WE or touring the playwright gets another £4,600 If it does over 50 performances after the initial run they get 20% royalties so yeah a bit of a money spinner Anyway, if u got an hour writersguild.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/WGGB_booklet_jun12_contracts_i1.pdfInteresting. My comment about being set up for life was actually from a playwright quoted in the book. I forget who. Someone who got a Broadway transfer. I bet Patrick Marber falls into that category, Closer has had so many productions around the world. |
|
5,056 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 27, 2016 11:04:44 GMT
Peter Shaffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 11:28:40 GMT
Totally agree with you TM, and that's something that makes me sad about the Shed going and prices in the ex-Cottesloe rocketing - the lower prices meant I took a punt on all sorts of things that I thought might not be for me that I ended up loving and sent me off in a lot of directions I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. Now I am really selective and conservative about what I see there as it's mostly too expensive to take a risk. Of course there are loads of other places you can do it but I miss the NT being a core part of my theatregoing.
|
|
