The Rum Tum Tugger is awful annoying

Just watched a YouTube video arguing that the reason Cats: The Jellicle Ball underperformed on Broadway was because “people hate CATS too much to buy into the concept of this production.”

Respectfully, I completely disagree. As a Cats fan who has also been closely following this run's grosses and predicted the closing based on its financial trajectory, I don't think that's the full story.

Firstly, if people hated CATS so much as a concept, we wouldn't continue having regular productions consistently touring internationally, non-replica licenses being purchased, and ongoing productions like Oasis, Shiki, and Budapest. The show has had an audience for decades. It's fine to dislike the musical while still acknowledging that there continues to be a market for it despite its "reputation." 

Secondly, the Jellicle ball as a concept has already sold well off-broadway, being extended three times. The challenge on Broadway would be to draw that same audience in with Broadway ticket prices.

Regardless, I think the larger issue lies in how the Jellicle Ball was positioned and marketed to Broadway audiences. 

A lot of the marketing seemed almost hyper-aware of the backlash and negativity surrounding CATS, especially post-2019 film. That the campaign frequently defined itself in opposition to the original production, by quoting and creating slogans like “Cats finally makes sense now” and “Cats is finally forever” even the official account amplified such sentiments in their comments, and several creatives behind the show reiterated that framing in interviews.  (Andrew Lloyd Webber's CATS 2019 is directly your fault; stop blaming everyone else.)

Now, I understand why they wanted to distance themselves from the film and therefore the original musical; regardless of anyone's feelings, that film did damage the CATS brand, so distancing themselves is a fair decision, especially becauseCats: The Jellicle Ball has very little in common with the original production. 

But I think that strategy fails both audiences familiar with cats. Existing fans are unlikely to enjoy being told the show they love has finally become "watchable." On the other hand, people who already have negative opinions on cats aren't necessarily going to be convinced to buy a ticket on "This is a better version of something you already dislike," especially when audiences are becoming much more selective on where to spend their money. 

In the current Broadway economy, people, especially tourists, are generally more willing to take a chance on something they're confident they'll enjoy rather than on something they're already skeptical of. Constantly reminding potential audiences of the "baggage" surrounding Cats may have reassured some people, but it also risked reinforcing the very association the production was trying to escape.

That was the creator's main argument: that "by constantly evoking the imagery of the original, they turned off their audiences because everyone hates cats" (because their playbill is a cat disco ball), but I want to go further, to the broader marketing of the show.

Comparing the Broadway run to the PAC run specifically, there were already many eyes on the show from the viral rehearsal footage of "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats" (this is important for later). The PAC marketing understood that people were interested because they had never seen anything like this before. The rehearsal footage didn't go viral because people thought, 'This is a better version of Cats' (though some undoubtedly did), but because it built intrigue and curiosity. To build off that momentum, the official page honed in on selling an experience and building a clear identity for this production. Broadway looked at that and decided "we're not your grandma's cats" was the sell.

Now before I dig into my many issues with how they continued to market the show post-Tonys, I want to highlight some positives on the Broadway marketing—the videos where choreographers explained different elements of ballroom culture were great. They addressed a potential barrier for audiences who were unfamiliar with ballroom and worried they wouldn't understand the context of the production. There were also good community-building strategies, like opportunities for fans to submit messages or photos to be featured on the theater marquee and social media. helping audiences feel involved and connected with the show. 

But it seems as ticket prices began waning, these strategies were disregarded for more desperate tactics. Like highlighting which celebrity guest judge was appearing at what performance. That might be exciting for the people attending those specific nights, but it’s not necessarily a strong enough incentive for someone unfamiliar with the show to buy a ticket, especially since the guest judges aren't prominent in the show. and advertising the guest judges doesn't answer the larger question: why should someone buy a ticket for the production itself? You aren't watching Cynthia Erivo or Eva Noblezada belt for two hours, after all.

Even the live promotional performances had a similar issue. All good performances, but many of them centered around variations of the same number: “Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats” leading into the ball. reinvoking the same viral moment again and again.

After a while, it starts to feel repetitive—pivoting to performing Skimbleshanks on Jimmy Fallon was a good decision (but I fear it happened at the worst timing possible for the show as hype had died down, and the Jimmy Fallon controversy was out of their control). It did take attention away from the performance amid the outrage.

What I want to highlight is that the production had access to one of the most recognizable songs in musical theater, "Memory," and how the song wasn’t featured more heavily in mainstream promotion outside of a singular radio appearance. 

If your goal is to reach people beyond existing Cats fans, “Memory” is arguably one of your biggest bridges to a wider audience. It’s a song that many people recognize even if they have never seen the musical, and their hesitation to perform it or upload more than a few seconds of it felt like a missed opportunity.

Now, none of this marketing alone caused the early closure; that is, no doubt, the economics, which I find is frequently glossed over in these discussions. To be clear, I don't think this production underperformed because of its content alone or one evil mystery producer cutting the cord.

Their sales had been softening for a while, and losing the Tony Award for Best Revival—whether you think the result was deserved or not—didn't help their sales. A main category Tony win can provide a significant marketing boost, and without that momentum, The Jellicle Ball seemed to settle into decent but not exceptional grosses before gradually losing steam.

In a healthier Broadway economy, with lower operating costs and more room for newer productions to find a consistent audience over time, it might have been given longer to recoup its investment. Instead, Broadway remains incredibly expensive to sustain; based on the publicly available grosses and reports, it's very likely a stop clause was enacted (where the theater exercised its contractual right to end the run once the show fell below its required minimum grosses for two weeks. ) There have also been rumors that the theater already has its next production lined up, though nothing has been officially confirmed.

To be clear, I don't blame audiences; there was a market for this show, but Broadway tickets have just become so expensive, and tourists usually stick to what's familiar. It's just a shame, as it feels like The Jellicle Ball had only just arrived and settled into its block on Broadway before the economics of Broadway caught up with it.