West End ticket Prices

That’s a good point, the ticket prices don’t reflect those who want to wait until they know what the travel arrangements are like. In my case, I like to wait until I know what the weather will be like.

Agree entirely about Premier Inn. I used to stay in the Hubs and you could get a night for a decent price. Now when I look, it's around £170 for a random Wednesday night, so I no longer use them. I just look through booking.com now to see if I can get a deal. I also have to factor in airport car parking, flights to London and train/coach to/from the airport so it all adds up when the ticket prices themselves are now boogaloo. And I can't do rush tickets because I have to plan my London trips like a military operation to arrange cover for childcare, work etc.

Well it just means that if it's something I really want to see, I have to book in advance at often wild prices and can't leave it to chance for a last minute deal.

The headline looks pertinent, I can’t read it though as I’m not a subscriber 😂. What’s the summary?

It doesn't share a direct link, but stick the Times link in here and it should be readable:

12ft.io/

From ChatGPT...


The article discusses the escalating ticket prices in London's West End theatre district and the growing discontent among both actors and audiences. It highlights examples of top seats for popular shows like Cabaret and Plaza Suite reaching as high as £300, with additional costs for premium experiences. Many people, including actors like David Tennant and Andrew Scott, have criticized these prices as exorbitant and unaffordable.

Producers argue that the high costs are necessary to cover the increasing expenses of running a production, such as rising wages, production costs, and theater rentals. They also point out that the average ticket price, according to the Society of London Theatre, is around £57.13, showing a decrease in real terms when adjusted for inflation.

However, some producers acknowledge that the £300 price tag for top seats is a bad look and may deter potential theatergoers. They emphasize efforts to keep prices accessible, such as offering cheaper seats and implementing lottery systems for discounted tickets.

The article also explores alternative pricing strategies, such as offering all seats at the same price, as seen in productions like Operation Mincemeat, or maintaining a range of prices to cater to different audiences.

Overall, while there is acknowledgment of the financial challenges faced by theater producers, there is also a call for more transparency and efforts to make theatergoing more affordable and inclusive.

It's a taboo in life full stop though - I'd be fascinated to know what all my mates earn but none of them would ever tell me!

I work in the public sector so they can look my pay scale up online lol. 

I wish it was the case here! There's a lot of passive aggression from certain members of my friendship group re who earns what! 

Not everyone is staggering around London with easy access to the rush. 

Exactly this! As a foreigner who visits London, I know I will pay higher prices up-front to ensure I have a seat for the shows I want to see. I am willing to pay that price to ensure that I get my schedule sorted and fit all the shows i am desparate for into my limited schedule. If I do have an extra slot or two free, maybe I do go to one of my maybes with rush; but yeah as someone who doesn't want to risk missing out [at least in terms of certain shows] I am willing to pay that price. 

Foreign traveller here, too, mostly focused on musicals. I really mourn the loss of in-person day seats as they were something you could actively control by being there early enough. And being a tourist with nothing to do, it was great for me, get to the theatre around 8-9am (depending on a show's popularity), wait in line with a coffee and a good book, get a cheap ticket, walk off happily.

Today's options are all a game of luck - getting tickets in online rush/lottery is by no means guaranteed, dynamic pricing can go any which way and you never know what seats are left. It's great for locals who can just keep checking the booking website until a great seat at a dynamic discount pops up for a show they want to see and head out - but not for anyone outside London.

And as others have mentioned, hotel prices have become insane as well, so between that and being forced to book theatre tickets at full price ahead if I really want to see something, my London trips have become so much more expensive, that I struggle to justify them.

An additional factor for me is that when I spend half a day traveling from the continent to get to London, I want to see something big and spectacular. Small "quirky" shows with a cast of four and one basic stage set certainly have their own merits, but are just not worth travelling for. I might squish one of those in if I have a free slot and the subject interests me (which has become rarer and rarer, too).

Funny enough this has steered me more towards Broadway of all places. While lots of people moan (rightly) about the (regular) prices on Broadway, it's much easier for out-of-towners to get discounted tickets to all but the most hyped shows - most do in-person rush at the box office and TKTS still does 40-50% off for lots of shows on the day of. And right now Broadway has tons of interesting new big shows with half a dozen more already in the pipeline. And while hotel prices in Manhattan used to feel insane, London is now almost on par with them, so the only "obstacle" that remains is the higher flight price to get across the Atlantic.

I struggle to feel concern for star names who think they've been underpaid, when it's apparent they are significantly wealthier than most people we'd consider to be rich.

I have some sympathy to the notion that if someone signs up for something that goes onto become very financially successful, especially a multi-part film series (whose role is more important than some would have initially assumed), then they should get a share of that success. As budgets increased, so should fees for the actors, but it was a large cast and I expect a lot went on the special effects. So I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I read a recent interview by a well known, but not mega-famous Hollywood tv actor who has had a successful career, especially in the last few years. He seemed to be moaning* about how he wasn't as rich as people think they are, and made reference to the salaries of the cast of Friends. Which I interpreted as him being surprised that he's not as wealthy as he dreamed he'd be. He was talking in part in the context of the actors' strikes and that after several months of not working he was beginning to wonder how he'd pay his mortgage. 

I was on the side of the actors during the SAG actors' strike. But when a Hollywood star talks about their income not always matching their mortgage, I can't help wonder if he has a house in a fashionable part of LA with a pool, a wardrobe full of designer clothes and high end cars in the drive? And I do appreciate that many actors believe, possibly correctly, that if you want to be seen as a Hollywood star then you have to live the part off-screen as well as on. 

* I realise the apparent moaning may have been a bit of journalistic spin, but celebrity salary expectations often seem to be more about ego than whether or not they can pay their bills.