Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Live sports vs. theater | |
| Posted by: mikem 01:55 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
| In reply to: Live sports vs. theater - singleticket 12:26 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think one big difference is that most people are already watching sports on television rather than in the stadium. So most sports consumers are going to get a similar experience whether there's a live audience or not. In general, taped theater performances don't have a huge market, because they aren't the same to the consumer as the live version. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Live sports vs. theater | |
| Posted by: mattyp4 06:32 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Live sports vs. theater - mikem 01:55 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| I was just talking about this with my boyfriend. I feel like Broadway theaters aren't going to be operating at full capacity for quite some time. At least a year. Even when things start reopening this summer there's probably going to be an audience cap, and no Broadway producer is going to want to run a show at half-capacity (or less). Unless they triple the ticket prices or something! Broadway needs paying audiences, unlike sports (which have broadcast deals in place), and TV show tapings (where tickets are already free), etc. So I was thinking, what if they find a way to test the cast/crew/musicians (antibody testing perhaps?), put on shows and broadcast/stream each performance somewhere for a fee? Maybe do this daily, or once a week. I know, I know, theater is best experienced live, but I just don't see us able to gather for a while. I would rather stream Broadway shows for the next year than have nothing until next spring. I mean, I had tickets to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf for the day after Broadway shut down. Given the option I would GLADLY pay the cost of a ticket to watch Laurie Metcalf as Martha on my television. I'd rather that than have nothing! And yes I realize it would be a huge financial/technological/union undertaking, but I'm just spit-balling here. The only other option I see is half-empty houses with spaced-out audiences, required face masks & exorbitant ticket prices. I would be fine with watching a few shows from home. I'd pay for something like that. Again, just temporarily! Like until there's a vaccine. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Advertising is already in place for sports | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:35 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Live sports vs. theater - mikem 01:55 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| So nothing new to invent or grow to have commercials for sporting events. And like you pointed out, probably 90% of audience already watch sports on tv. Theater has terrible track record on tv. Only big names draw in anything close to acceptable numbers on these live musicals. The award theater ceremonies pale in comparison to movies or pop music. So where would these advertisers come from. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Advertising is already in place for sports | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:18 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
| In reply to: Advertising is already in place for sports - dramedy 02:35 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is not just advertising, the broadcast deals are in place. TV revenue for baseball is roughly twice gate receipts as I recall and over $2 billion so it is a no brainer that broadcasting in empty stadiums is a successful business model. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Advertising is already in place for sports | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:48 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
| In reply to: Advertising is already in place for sports - dramedy 02:35 pm EDT 04/26/20 | |
|
|
|
| Not to mention that there's an advantage to watching sports on TV. For example, you can see much better, and you avoid fans who can be much worse than any theatre-texter ever was. And the regional, competitive nature of sports and the history make it a slam dunk (pun intended). Two very different things. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.015145 seconds.