3 ms·

> Why do you think $40MM is large number? Pocket change, says I! Come on, it's absolutely a large number. Especially when added to the amortized construction

by rory 5y ago

> Why do you think $40MM is large number? Pocket change, says I! Come on, it's absolutely a large number. Especially when added to the amortized construction costs of about $30M (a kind assumption, since it cost around $700M in current dollars to build). > If you sell out every seat every night of the year for $100 a ticket that’s $219,000,000 ...but they don't. I believe program revenue peaked at around $150M, although their site is down. The supposedly nonexistent fixed costs are almost half that! > and so on, are subsidizing the performing arts center not the other way around This is nonsensical in context. Counterhistorical nonexistence requires no subsidy, and these private tours choose the subsidized venue because it's the best deal for them. It's not charity. Edit: I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but obviously they also have to pay the producer for the show! There are also variable costs!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CPLX 5y ago
> program revenue peaked at > supposedly nonexistent fixed costs are almost half that! Indeed. Revenue in excess of costs is the definition of profitable. > Counterhistorical nonexistence requires no subsidy, and these private tours choose the subsidized venue because it's the best deal for them. Sometimes they do sometimes they don’t. There are also for profit venues operating in this space and the PAC’s are for the most part operating in a market rate environment when it comes to pop culture performances and events. I’m just sure. I literally rented an opera house recently. PAC venues compete with hotels and for profit music venues like Livenation and AEG and event spaces for this business and and it’s generally a profitable arm of what they do. They use the profits from pop culture and corporate stuff alongside the arts endowments, donations, and subsidies, to fund their fine arts mission. Like Cats, for example.

by rory 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CPLX 5y ago

> program revenue peaked at > supposedly nonexistent fixed costs are almost half that! Indeed. Revenue in excess of costs is the definition of profitable. > Counterhistorical nonexistence requires no subsidy, and these private tours choose the subsidized venue because it's the best deal for them. Sometimes they do sometimes they don’t. There are also for profit venues operating in this space and the PAC’s are for the most part operating in a market rate environment when it comes to pop culture performances and events. I’m just sure. I literally rented an opera house recently. PAC venues compete with hotels and for profit music venues like Livenation and AEG and event spaces for this business and and it’s generally a profitable arm of what they do. They use the profits from pop culture and corporate stuff alongside the arts endowments, donations, and subsidies, to fund their fine arts mission. Like Cats, for example.