Lots of talk about streaming theatre today. I think it’s probably useful to have a brief discussion of economics.

A fundamental principle of economics (I consider this *the* fundamental principle of economics, but others can disagree) is that if a widget costs $10, two things must be true:

The widget costs less than $10 to be made, and is worth more than $10 to the person who purchases it.

(What is a widget, you ask? It’s a stand-in term for any product. Apple kind of ruined this metaphor when they co-opted the term “widget” but please, just go with me here.)

If you’re thinking, “oh wow, this sounds like it has something to do with supply and demand”...yes! Stay with me.

Non-profit arts don’t operate on the principle of supply and demand. This is because we recognize that the value of making art accessible (I am using that term *very loosely*) is in the best interest of the people. So the art is subsidized through donations.

If non-profit theatres relied only on ticket sales for income...tickets would cost HUNDREDS of dollars.

But I’m really here to talk about streaming commercial theatre. So let’s keep going.

It costs a TON of money to make a quality capture of a piece of theatre. So much money. A really, really large amount of money. Let’s say ten million dollars for the sake of this thought experiment.

So the show is the product is the widget. This theatre widget costs $10,000,000 to make. So it must be sold for over $10,000,00” in order to turn a profit.

“Why does it need to make a profit?” You ask. Because this is a capitalist society and we have all been out of work seven months. We are not going to stream theatre if it means we are LOSING money. But okay, okay, let’s say we will just break even. Hypothetical Altruism!

So we need to sell this widget for $10,000,000. Let’s say this is inclusive of every single cost of getting it from the stage to your computer screen (marketing, salaries, everything).

How much are you willing to pay to watch one show, one time, from your couch? In order for this hypothetical show to pay for itself, 2 million people would need to pony up $5. Or a million people would need to pay $10. This would mean one show could break even.

Now do this same math for every currently running Broadway show.

If you say, “But I would pay $20 to watch SIX!” Cool. How many times would you pay that?

“But television does it!” Television has ads. Proctor & Gamble is not forking over a ton of ad money so that you can complain about where they put the commercial breaks.

Based on the widget principle, it would be a risk to even break even on a streaming model (ahem, you know, the same as a live show). And we really, really need to make a profit.

In conclusion, streaming is not a viable option to sustain/save the theatre industry.

Thank you for attending my Doomsday Lecture.