"Good Old Fashioned Theatre" vs "Innovative New Creativity"

It's a common dilemma.

You want to produce a well-selling show, but nothing seems to sell. Do you join the plethora of other companies in using past success as a guarantee for the future, or do you take a risk on something new?
To clarify, do you trot out a classic again, a la Free Rain or Philo's 2014 seasons, or do you produce a new play, or new concept piece, and trust that if you build it, they will come?

There is much to be said for and against each option.

Bringing In An Old Favourite

Classics are classics for a reason. They have, for the most part, many more good qualities than bad. They have sold well in the past. Everybody knows them, so they are a safe bet.
BUT
If you trot them out that once too often, the magic wears off. Not only have your audiences seen it recently (within the last five years, in some cases), but most of the last cast to perform that show are still around. Depending on the individual, this can either lead to "I'm not doing it because I've done it before", which is fine, or it can lead to "I played this role last time, but THAT role is the one I deserve now". I have heard both phrases (or similar) used regarding repeated shows over the last few years.
More than that, do you produce it the exact same way? How many different ways can people direct the older shows, where the blocking is effectively in the script and the choreography is so ingrained into people's ideas of the show? How do you express individuality, when producing the same shows as everyone else has? If you DO do something original with it, it will upset the purists. If you don't, you'll bore the regulars.

New Theatre
I love "new" stuff. It's great, it's fresh and it often challenges whatever views I have of theatre at the time. It is an opportunity for new writers, directors, actors and techies to really come into their own, make a name for themselves and, more than anything, change the theatre scene as we know it. All the while, voicing a new opinion to current issues.
BUT
With ticket prices what they are, and the constraints on my budget (not to mention the surprisingly few hours in a day), I don't often want to pay to see something that could go either way. My money goes to a safe bet, whether it's an old show that I've seen/done before and know I'll like, or if it's a show that has many quality performers in it, who I know will do a great job. Even if it's a show that's been tremendously successful overseas, but never performed here.
Another problem with "new" theatre is that, like "new" theatre everywhere, it is not always great. In fact, it rarely is. Every piece has its moments, sure, but stunning and mind-blowingly great "new" theatre pieces are few and very far between.

So what do you do? My money (literally, in this case) is on finding new things to do with a classic. Not "new" as in "I'm going to produce The Sound of Music, but the Von Trapps are all drug-addicted transvestites, and the whole thing takes place in Auschwitz", but finding new things to do to a classic, things which make theatre practitioners and Average Joes alike think "Gee, that's clever. Why didn't I think of that?" or "How did they do that?". One needs only look at a few recent productions to see examples of this: Rep's Under Milk Wood  and Pride and Prejudice, Supa's War of the Worlds, and heck, even Philo's Les Miserables, while the direction, choreography and music were all a bit "paint by numbers", the multi-purpose, re-positional set was a looming, monstrous tribute to the newly industrial settings of the show.

What are your thoughts?
What shows would you like to see done? Do you have any coup de theatre's up your sleeves for them?