How Can We Make Broadway Cheaper Without Making It Worse? Part 1: Rethink The Schedule

by Chris Peterson

Broadway is expensive. That is not new. But in recent years, the sticker shock has become almost surreal. $200 for a midweek orchestra seat, $800 premiums for buzzy musicals, and a rush ticket system that feels more like a lottery than a legitimate access point. For many theatre lovers, the dream of seeing a Broadway show has started to feel out of reach.

And yet, for all the conversations about how costly Broadway has become, what is often missing are solutions. We hear a lot of frustration, a lot of finger-pointing, and a lot of defeatist thinking. The debate tends to land in one of two extremes. Either it is "that is showbiz, if you cannot afford it, too bad," or "just cut everything and throw a bare-bones version on a folding chair." Neither is helpful, and neither is sustainable.

What I am interested in is the middle ground. I want to explore how we can make it more affordable to see a Broadway show without making it worse with AI-designed sets and musician-less musicals. The ideas I will be presenting in this multi-part series, released over the course of this week, are not revolutionary. In fact, I am sure I am not the first person to suggest them. But they are practical, achievable changes that could lower costs, improve working conditions, and expand access, all while preserving the artistic integrity that makes Broadway worth caring about in the first place.

This first installment examines something simple but often unquestioned: Broadway's eight-show-a-week schedule. What would happen if it did less but did it better?

Part 1: Rethink The Schedule

Broadway has always been a place that values tradition. Some of that is good. Some of it is habit. One of the longest-standing habits is the eight-show week. Two on Wednesday, two on Saturday, one every other evening, and Monday off. That rhythm has been in place for over a century. And for the most part, no one really questions it.

But maybe we should.

At a time when ticket prices are higher than ever and production costs are stretching shows to the breaking point, it is worth asking if eight shows a week still makes sense. Does it serve the artists? Does it serve the audience? Does it serve the long-term health of the industry?

Because what if Broadway could be more affordable, more sustainable, and better for everyone involved simply by doing fewer performances?

Putting on eight shows a week is a massive lift. For a typical musical, the weekly operating costs often land around $600,000. For bigger productions, that number can climb even higher. A huge portion of that goes to labor—actors, musicians, stagehands, wardrobe, front-of-house, you name it. All of it covered by union agreements that require certain staff levels and certain hours for every show.

These workers deserve every dollar they earn. No one is disputing that. But what gets lost in the conversation is that fewer shows does not automatically mean lower pay. Most Broadway union contracts are based on a weekly minimum, not an hourly rate. So it is entirely possible to reduce the number of performances without cutting salaries. You are just cutting the number of times the curtain goes up.

And that has real value. Because eight shows a week is punishing, especially for the people on stage. There is barely enough time to rest, much less recover. Fatigue builds up. Injuries happen. Leads get sick. Swings and understudies get overworked. It becomes a cycle. And for shows that rely on star power to sell tickets, the absence of a lead—even for a night—can have a serious impact.

Cutting back to six performances a week could actually lead to better shows. Not worse. Think of it like sports. Athletes do not play every day. They rest. They train. Then they perform. The same idea applies here. A more sustainable schedule could help keep casts healthy, shows fresh, and performances strong. It would also open up space for rehearsals, tech adjustments, and yes, even creativity.

And let’s be honest, Broadway is the outlier here. Most regional theatres do not run eight shows a week. Off-Broadway doesn’t. Even London’s West End, in many cases, doesn’t. The National Theatre has tested earlier curtain times to better serve locals. Back in New York, some Broadway shows have shifted their Tuesday night start time to 7 p.m. But the number of performances remains unchanged.

So there is still room to think bigger.

The financial argument is also strong. If a show costs $600,000 a week to run, cutting two performances could shave off a hundred thousand or more. That is not pocket change. That money could help lower ticket prices, extend the run, or cover operating losses that might otherwise force a show to close early. It could even be used to fund educational outreach or subsidized community programs.

Now, to be fair, there are some valid counterpoints. Cutting performances means cutting ticket inventory. And for high-grossing shows, each performance can bring in serious revenue. Taking one or two off the calendar might feel like a loss. But for shows that are already struggling to fill the house during midweek evenings, the math might work out just fine. Consolidating demand could help maximize capacity and reduce the need for last-minute understudy calls and emergency crew coverage.

There are also real concerns from unions and theatre owners. Workers might worry that fewer performances could lead to fewer jobs or open the door to future cuts. Theatre landlords, who often earn a percentage of box office revenue, may be reluctant to endorse a model that brings in less money.

These are not small concerns. But they are not dealbreakers either. If this change is made in partnership with unions, and if weekly pay and staffing guarantees remain in place, the outcome could actually be more stable, not less. If landlords want tenants who can survive longer and keep their doors open, this conversation is worth having.

There is also the audience to consider. Does the eight-show week really serve theatregoers? Midweek evenings are often the least attended performances. What if Tuesday night just disappeared? What if producers leaned into matinees that better fit the schedules of tourists, retirees, and working families? We already have the data to show when people like to go to the theatre. Why not use it?

This is not about slashing and burning Broadway tradition. No one is saying every show should drop to six performances tomorrow. But we need pilots. Let one or two shows try it. Track the results. Look at the savings. Ask the actors how they feel. Ask the audience if they even noticed.

Because the eight-show week is not sacred, it is just familiar. And if we are serious about making Broadway more affordable, more accessible, and more artist-friendly, we need to be willing to rethink the old assumptions. Doing less might just be the thing that helps Broadway do better.