Variety: Any Broadway producer will tell you there’s no magic formula for Broadway success. But that doesn’t stop some people from trying to find one.
Particularly statisticians. Suspecting there’s a golden ratio that might help explain “The Phantom of the Opera,” “The Lion King” or “Wicked,” mathematician Marc Hershberg gave it a go, crunching the numbers as part of his graduate studies in the Department of Organizational Behavior at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
10 comments:
One of the larger implications of this article is that it introduces and supports the idea that a Broadway show's life can be predicted scientifically. One of the things that I was wondering as I read this article was that if producers would be welcoming to this data if it were offered. For example, if a show were predicted to only run for 90 performances, would a producer back out if he or she was emotionally and artistically connected to the show. The article begs the question why should we believe in a show? What if we think it can fight the odds? I think one of the problems with the article is that it tries to fit an artistic product in a mold, which is defeats the purpose of the art itself. But perhaps a producer would not see it as art, and instead a business.
I think it is interesting that this formula has worked at predicting many shows. Many people would not think you could predict the success of art because it is so subjective. The size of the cast and the type of show definitely make sense in calculating the lifespan of a show. What Ben said was interesting because I wonder why a producer would continue with a show if it is predicted to have a short run. I think more producers should use this formula in the future to have the longest running shows they possibly can.
This formula has some definite implications for the future of Broadway. As well as what Ben pointed out about producers backing out due to the projected run time being shorter than expected, there is also the point of the news getting to the actors, technicians and other people involved with the show. It's not the best new to hear that the show your in, is projected to have a very limited run. This realization might affect members of the cast and crew, and be detrimental to the production as a whole. As well as, if the audience knows the projected run time, will they still see the show? Will that shorten the run?
The headline and beginning blurb of this article are a bit misleading, as I read it as though there was something inherent about the script being performed which could be tested. While this is interesting, I believe that there needs to be a much larger sample size tested in order for this to be considered valid. I also question whether this is really necessary, helpful, or could indeed create self-fulfilling prophecies. If a show is not predicted to run for very long, would people still invest in it or perform in it, therefore leading to the very short lifespan predicted? I do however like the attempt to use science to look at theatre, to sort of disprove the idea that science and art are on two completely different ends of the spectrum, and have nothing to do with each other.
My “favorite” part of this article is how it gives no indication of where or how to find this formula or any real details about it. The idea makes sense though, If you could figure out all (or at least most) of the factors that have a large influence on a shows success or failure, you would theoretically be able to make the perfect formula. It sounds like that is what he did. The article says there are 14 variables id be curious to know what they are, but I would guess that there are at least a few dozen more minor ones. My biggest question is whether or not it takes economics into account. A show is probably less likely to last if it opens during a market crash, and more likely to last if it opens during market stability or growth. So how much of the formula is about the musicals itself and how much is about the people going to see them?
This is a dangerous game.
Broadway continuously churns out similar material now, but all originality will soon perish at the hands of the mathematical formula proven to produce major hits and dollar signs.
Theatre is a business, yes, and it is treated as such. But where is the art? Where is the magic of the dangerous, the challenging, the "WHAT JUST HAPPENED?!"
Once a formula begins to make hits, soon there will be no more hits. Everything will be the same. At least, that is what I fear.
I guess it’s like they say, don’t ask a question you don’t want the answer to. This article brings up several thoughts.
First off, what a feat! I bet that was a lot of data for the statistician to go thru. Take it from someone who has taken David Holcomb’s Production Resource Management course, deciphering years of financial records from theatre companies takes quite a bit of time.
And while I understand that time and personell is a limited resource and not all Broadway years could be accounted for, but why those years? What sets the shows that occurred from 1988 to 2003 apart from all of the rest that came before and after? I would be really interested to find out how the researcher picked her/his data. Most likely, I assume, the record keeping for these years was superior than others? Although that doesn't sound so likely either, considering that record keeping now has only improved since 2003.
Ultimately, I am looking forward to reading a future article about the first producer to empty out her/his pockets to get their hands on the formula.
I think this is a very interesting idea. I do wish this article had gone more in depth though into what the actual model was instead of just talking about it generally and its accuracy. For instance, I would have liked to see the criteria that they were using for each of the shows. I do find it captivating that he was able to get so close to the actual number of shows with the model. This also seems to me like that type of thing that on its surface has been around for a while. People have just been predicting the success qualitatively instead of quantitatively. This study just really adds numbers to what we already know.
Being a person who loves math, I love that someone tried to figure out how long shows will run. I have a certain fascination with figuring out how things work, like how long can a broadway show run.
However, whatever the good intentions are, this could hurt the industry. It's meant to help actors audition for shows that will be successful, but what happens when no one auditions for a show that is predicted to only be semi-successful? Suddenly that show can't get the actors to make it a semi-successful show, and it instead becomes a flop. That is a slippery slope, but I think this algorithm can only work as long as people aren't really aware of it; by knowing about it, they will change the results.
Just instinctively, I don't like this idea. Trying to predict the way art affects people is not a mathematical concept. Some of the listed factors are obvious; a show with a large Tony will, of course, run longer than others because a) it was good enough to receive a Tony and b) they get to hang a big-ass sign above their theatre that says "WINNER!"
Other than that, though, I don't see how one person can accurately predict the trajectory of something so subjective. I would be very interested to hear more about what the equation includes, because I am fairly skeptical at the moment.
Post a Comment