Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: To the Producers of KIMBERLY AKIMBO | |
| Posted by: carolinaguy 04:59 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: To the Producers of KIMBERLY AKIMBO - theaterisok 04:34 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I feel like this excellent show would have been better served by opening in the spring when it could get immediate attention from the Tony season. I realize there are issues of actor/theater availability, etc. that have to be considered, but it's a long, cold winter for shows like this that need help to find an audience. And you're right, they're doing themselves no favors with their "campaign." |
|
| reply to this message |
| following the Spring Awakening playbook? | |
| Posted by: nyhkguy 07:20 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: To the Producers of KIMBERLY AKIMBO - carolinaguy 04:59 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Whether or not it's deliberate, Kimberly may be hoping to follow Spring Awakening's path to success: - both are transfers from acclaimed runs at Off-Broadway's Atlantic theatre, which hosted the show's world premieres 6-9 months before moving to Broadway - the Booth's fall availability probably forced Kimberly's hand, lest some other show claim the theatre and stay put into the spring, blocking Kimberly from a spring berth - Spring Awakening started previews in November 2006 and had a pretty rocky preview period (business-wise), grossing $200K/week (1/4 of gross potential) and 40-50% capacity - rave reviews when it opened December 2006 brought it to break-even (70-80% capacity, around $400-500K/week) through the winter, and then the Tony noms and wins lifted it up to 90-100% long enough to recoup. - comps: David's Stone other quirky musical comedy, 25th Annual..., had an easier time, immediately transferring from Second Stage to Circle in the Square, so the "heat" of the off-Broadway reviews helped market the Broadway transfer, so its grosses were decent from the first Broadway preview. Gentleman's had a similar trajectory as Spring Awakening (fall opening, winter run at 50% gross potential, then success after the Tonys) but without such a dire preview period. Kimberly has a harder time than all 3 shows because traditional audiences haven't fully returned, and the Booth's smaller capacity means word of mouth is growing at a slower pace, plus the show may not be as universally loved as Spring Awakening or Spelling Bee. Hopefully Stone & co have a sufficient reserve in the capitalization to keep the show running through the Tonys. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:30 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: following the Spring Awakening playbook? - nyhkguy 07:20 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting comparison. One question: what is the "traditional audience" and is that really the show's target? (I guess that's two questions, but in 1 sentence :-) ) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? | |
| Posted by: nyhkguy 09:25 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? - ryhog 07:30 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| By "traditional audience" I meant the older crowd that pays attention to reviews, pays full price and could reliably turn a show that's just received raves into a hit long enough til the show's natural constituency and tourists could find it. As for the show's target, I would guess David Stone wants the same audience who made the similarly quirky Spelling Bee a hit - I would guess the 2022 equivalent might be GenX and millennials and families with sophisticated older kids? I'm sure he would love to get the Dear Evan Hansen constituency as well - I would never have guessed it would become the hit it did. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "the same audience who made the similarly quirky Spelling Bee a hit" | |
| Posted by: Dale 10:49 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? - nyhkguy 09:25 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| That was in 2005. Over two decades ago! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Math | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:17 am EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: "the same audience who made the similarly quirky Spelling Bee a hit" - Dale 10:49 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| It’s 2022. Minus 2005 is 17 years, which is less than 20. So Spelling Bee was not even two decades ago, much less “over” two decades ago. If you’re trying to go by decades as a unit of 10-year time (i.e. The Oughts, the Teens), then you would not include The Twenties until we were at the end of it, so that The Oughts would be only “two decades ago”. In any event, I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically. And while I wouldn’t necessarily compare Spelling Bee to Kimberly, that’s an argument based on aesthetics and dramaturgy, not spurious math and a vague idea that comedy has changed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically" | |
| Posted by: Dale 08:34 am EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Math - Singapore/Fling 12:17 am EST 11/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| It has. Both on stage and in the audience! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically" | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:16 am EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: "I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically" - Dale 08:34 am EST 11/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| It hasn’t! Both on stage! And in the audience! (Awesome, do I win the argument now?) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically" | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:02 am EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: "I don’t think Theater has changed that drastically" - Dale 08:34 am EST 11/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| and yet you again fail to put any meat on the bones. Hard to pay much attention when the strongest point you make is at the bottom of an exclamation point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "the same audience who made the similarly quirky Spelling Bee a hit" | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:17 am EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: "the same audience who made the similarly quirky Spelling Bee a hit" - Dale 10:49 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| 2022-2005=17 2 decades=20 I won't rule out the possibility that there is a causal shift but it'd help if youu could put some meat on the bones. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:59 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? - nyhkguy 09:25 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| That's what I thought you meant. To me, that's the Leopoldstadt audience and they have not had a problem because of non-returning oldies. I would suggest the problem here is that there is nothing in the marketing that is drawing them in. To be fair, I don't know that thy are drawable but I think the pitch could be better than what we have seen. I just think there have been miscues but yes Mr. Stone can loan the production as much as he wants (and not miss it in the least). Hopefully that money would be spent on a rethink of what's being conveyed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? | |
| Posted by: nyhkguy 10:38 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: following the Spring Awakening playbook? - ryhog 09:59 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree - I'm fully expecting a revamped ad campaign within the month. David Stone has been with Serino since at least Wicked so I wouldn't expect him to with mid-stream. They were at least smart to blanket the theatre sites, local tv with the raves the day after opening and bombard ticket buyers with email blasts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| $456k last week | |
| Posted by: dramedy 05:04 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: To the Producers of KIMBERLY AKIMBO - carolinaguy 04:59 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Down $35k from week before which was opening week which usually is less because of comp tickets opening week. Even worse is the 79.7% capacity that does include comps this last week. If things don’t improve dramatically (like increase by $300k or more consistently) the show is probably closing in January. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: $456k last week | |
| Posted by: nyhkguy 10:38 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: $456k last week - dramedy 05:04 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I wouldn't read too much into opening week and post-opening week grosses. There's second night press likely using up post-opening tickets, and maybe a lot of Tony voters booked tickets last week as well. With the lucrative holidays coming up, and presumably raves boosting future business, it would make sense they might try to give away near-term unsold tickets to award voters who could also cultivate industry word of mouth. I have no inside knowledge of operating costs but the show has an onstage cast of only 9 plus understudies and an orchestra of 7, so perhaps they can sustain just minor losses til awards season. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A strange loop has similar size cast | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:41 pm EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: $456k last week - nyhkguy 10:38 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Was making around $5-600k a week and is closing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: $456k last week | |
| Posted by: standingO 09:00 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: $456k last week - dramedy 05:04 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have very little idea what the show is about but the rainbow logo seems so generic (and 1980s Care Bears) that it held almost no appeal for me. This thread is the first time I’ve reconsidered my ambivalence to the show. Based on buzz here and elsewhere, it seems like the hot new musical of the season is Some Like it Hot. Is Akimbo better? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.097863 seconds.