the Economist’s Money Talks has the episode about how the money works for broadway shows:
TL;DR: broadway revenue on shows. Each show is like an investment — you put in millions of dollars to put it on stage, with a small probability it becomes a hit and earns huge return. However, post-pandemic the return distribution has shifted a little so that this business model becomes less sustainable.x
The episode focus on economic of broadway, but at the end it shed light on a really insightful problem: for general art products with huge positive externality but low investment incentives, how should government subsidize them? (Though some entertainment are powerful enough to be able to feed itself on TikTok, arts are tricky, and often remains unpopular for a long time way further than its dedicated creator go broke)
The government subsidy positive externality argument — “Yes, that investing in live performance art also increase surrounding restaurants and things” but it is what everyone who wants government subsidies says. It’s always what people say. It seems that people who like the medium always think that they carries extensive positive externality.
At time that the French government gave all 18-year-olds an art-only voucher and they spend most of them on comic books.
Broadway is a very exquisite yet restrictive form of live performance art. OK… what about ballet companies who do 30 Nutcrackers every winter season?