Can Theater Sustain Itself?

In analyzing Shakespeare as a product, I've spent some time researching the costs and revenue of theatrical productions, from both current and past productions.  Since that research is ongoing and incomplete, I will address it later in a more substantial post.  However, I wanted to share an interesting idea on a similar note, that relates theater to the industrialist entrepreneur Andrew Carnegie.  In a New York Times article from 1904, writer John Corbin addresses the issue of whether or not the theater would be worthy of an endowment from a wealthy businessman such as Carnegie. He then gives Carnegie's take: "The only way to endow a theatre is to buy a ticket at the box office."  Corbin also quotes Daniel Frohman, who said, "An endowed theatre is only a fad.  It is for a class, and not the masses.  A play that does not appeal to the masses would not be a success."


Both Carnegie and Frohman connect to an idea from my previous post: theater is subject to the laws of economics.  An endowment to a theater would essentially be a subsidy.  With the subsidized cost, theaters would produce more, creating a surplus in the marketplace.  In this case, the surplus would result in lower demand, and probably lower quality performances as well.  The poor performances would reflect negatively on the theater and hurt marketing, revenue, and business as a whole.  To put it simply, an endowment would push the theater on a slow, painful downhill slope as performances worsened and attendance decreased.  However, as long as theater relies on the demands of the consumers, the quality and quantity of performances will create an equilibrium with demand, and the theater will maintain itself.  With the help of Andrew Carnegie, this short article helps defend my thesis that since theater is a product, Shakespeare was probably very motivated by the financial results of his plays.