British Theatre Guide Blog

In the BTG Newsletter on Sunday (14th June), I wrote:

“A Night Less Ordinary” is a new initiative, launched lst December by Arts Council and the DCMS, to offer free theatre tickets to young people under the age of 26. Funding was given to theatres across the country which applied to join the scheme, ranging from £10,00 to £30,00 to £50,000. The scheme will run for two years and 618,000 tickets will be given away.

I was talking recently to the Marketing Manager of a participating theatre who told me that 200 tickets have been applied for since the theatre began the scheme but only 20 of the ticket holders actually turned up. “When we offer cut-price tickets, more or less everyone who buys them turns up,” he told me, “but free tickets clearly aren’t valued and anything from bad weather to ‘I’m feeling a bit tired’ will put them off.”

It would be interesting to know whether this has happened across the country. It’s early days, of course, but I have to confess that I’m not surprised. And on this showing the scheme certainly won’t succeed in its aim of getting the notoriously difficult to attract 18- 26 age range into the theatre.

In fact I have since heard from elsewhere that this is not uncommon. One correspondent - not referring to this particular scheme - wrote, “We used to negotiate batches of free tickets for disadvantaged groups – elderly people or young people in care etc.  After a while, we realised that people did not value free tickets, and often would not turn up to collect them.   We then started to charge £1 for the tickets.    We  found that people not only took up the offer, they were much more likely to  turn up on the night.     The small charge gave people a “stake” in the event – they were having to pay something, so they would not take the ticket unless they were serious.  Even a 50p charge had a positive effect.”

Actually, that’s fairly elementary psychology, I think.  I wonder whether the 20 mentioned above who did turn up would have been likely to go to the theatre anyway and were delighted to be able to go for free.  It seems a strong possibility.

However A Night Less Ordinary is a two-year pilot scheme.  It will be interesting to see the final results - and I would be very interested to hear from other theatres about their experience of it to date.

Surely there is no one in the theatre world so naive as to think that it would escape the effects of the recession?  There is always the hope (and, in some quarters, firm belief) that in times of trouble people will spend on escape from reality viatheatre, but I suspect that is more wishful thinking than reality.  It is true that, at the mment, box office receipts seem to be standing up well but these are early days and the recession, we are told, will be long and difficult - and it’s the worst  since the depression of the thirties.

We’ve been hearing recently that people may be beginning to try to save and that, certainly, they are spending much more carefully.  I also hear that cinema box office takings are already down.  I suspect that film-going is more of an impulse thing than theatre-going - “I’m fed up: let’s got to the pictures tonight” - but where, in situations like this, cinema leads the way, theatre will almost inevitably follow.

However, as this week’s announcement from Arts Council England makes clear, even if theatre box office remains resilient, there is every chance that next week’s budget statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer will begin the process of clawing back already committed monies in an attempt to minimise the effects of the massive bail-outs to the banks and other industries.

ACE - sensibly - is preparing for the possibility of cuts of 1.5, 2.5 or 3 per cent (the latter representing £14m) in 2010/2011 and working out ways of preserving grant-in-aid to Regularly Funded Organisations. Which is, of course, what one would expect.  However that would mean that new projects will either not get funded at all or will get much less than might otherwise be expected.

Presumably the Lottery-funded Grants for the Arts programme will not be affected - unless, of course, the Lottery itself experiences a fall in the numbers participating - although I would not discount the possibility of the Lottery being again “raided” for the 2012 Olympics.

But the main problem is that funding for 2011/2012 will be part of the next Comprehensive Spending Review and even if (Hmmm…) we are out of the recession by the second half of 2010 when the CSR is due, there will still be massive public debt to pay off, so the Treasury will almost certainly take the (reduced by whatever percentage) settlement for 2010/2011 as the baseline.  It should have been £467m but could be as low as £454m - unless (God forbid) ACE is being too optimistic.

The arts are going to be hit.  There is no doubt about that.  It is only the severity of that hit and the amount of time it lasts which are in question.  We must just hope that the cuts will be smaller and their duration shorter than our fears, but we would do well not to bury our heads in the sand and think that all will be well.  It won’t.

Phelim McDermott of Improbable has been running Devoted and Disgruntled - What shall we do about theatre? “open space” events in London and elsewhere for some time, but last week was the first time that D&D came to the north east, under the auspices of The Open Space, the NE theatre development agency.

Held in the magnificently high Victorian Great Hall of Newcastle’s Discovery Museum over two days, the event was signed up to by around 70 people, but in the event between 30 and 40 actually turned up.

It was quite a varied crowd of actors, directors, producers, writers, dancers, choreographers and others, together with a fair representation from ACE NE.  Essentially it was an event for theatre-makers so the commercial sector was noticeable by its absence. Many of the region’s smaller companies were well represented, as were Northern Stage and Live, and of course I was there wearing two hats, as BTG editor and AD for KG Productions.

It could so easily have turned into a whinge-fest.  McDermott simply provided the structure for the two days and it was left to the attendees to choose the subjects for discussion.  Eight break-out spaces were provided for groups to convene and discuss the chosen topics and a further two had to be added on the second day to accommodate what people wanted to talk about.

Each discussion was given an hour and a half: some finished early, others ran the full time  (and on the second day, one in which I took part had not finished by the end of the allocated time so three of us adjourned into the sunshine outside (yes, in Newcastle!) to continue for another hour.  Some people flitted from one to another, like bumble bees cross-pollinating a series of flowers.

Topics were as varied as the participants:

• what should writers be writing about in 2009?
• the links between dance and theatre
• how do we help new and emerging artists to develop?
• how do we stop the NE being just a stepping stone on the way to London?
• how do we assess the quality of work?
• who wants to have a laugh?
• the loneliness of the director

and many, many more.

It was also an opportunity to meet old friends and make new ones and - most important of all - to feel that we are not alone, that others have the same frustrations and joys, for, although there were obviously whinges (although fewer than you mights have expected!), there was also a considerable amount of sharing of good ideas, of experience and expertise.  And there were practical outcomes: the directors amongst us agreed that we should meet on a regular basis in a kind of mutual support group; there is to be an email group for sharing ideas and providing mutual help; we all have a greater understanding of what The Open Space is for - and we all came away energised.

Hopefully it will become a regular event, as it is in London. And next time, perhaps, some of those major fisgures in NE theatre who had their names down but didn’t turn up, will bring their experience along.

I confess that I greet the news of the proposed reorganisation of Arts Council England with mixed feelings. On the one hand the freeing up of £6.5m for investment in the arts is more than welcome, but on the other I worry that the restructuring into four “areas”, thus downgrading the nine regional offices, together with the centralising of Grants for the Arts processing, is a centralising step too far.

One phrase which is used about the Grants for the Arts processing also worries me: “making grant-giving more equitable” is a laudable aim, but what precisely does it mean?  Has it not been equitable up to now?  Or does it mean that the same pattern of grant awards must now be followed in all regions?  If it’s the former, then we should be told and know why: if the latter, might that not reflect the particular circumstances of an individual region, so how can one size fit all?

There are, of course, concerns about the loss of jobs, particularly in the current economic climate.  The loss of 149 jobs as unemployment rises towards 2m may seem small beer but each job lost is at least a personal problem and could be a personal tragedy for those involved.  On the other hand, if, as promised, the money is ploughed back into the arts, then one administrator’s job loss will be an artist’s job gain.

Mixed feelings indeed!

Whilst being able to channel more money to the arts is of the utmost importance, there are some other issues which need to be addressed, issues which are of central importance to the reputation of and trust in ACE, but which are far less easy to deal with than a simple restructuring, no matter how traumatic or profitable in the long run that may be.

There’s the issue of transparency in grant-giving, for example, which caused so much furore in the last round of RFO funding. Then there are the twin issues of peer review and arts professionals’  input into decision making.  Also of vital importance is the arm’s length principle: how does that square with ACE’s requirement to fall in with the government’s political or social targets so that, for example, it sometimes seems that social inclusion becomes more important than artistic excellence.

And  of course - although this is beyond the power of ACE to do anything about - there is the issue of “raiding” arts money for government pet schemes, such as the 2012 Olympics.

It would be good to see these issues being addressed.

The Edinburgh Fringe is in deep trouble.  Reading the Scott-Moncrieff report on the box office computer system fiasco of last year is deeply depressing.  “Weak governance”, “lack of strategic direction and transparency”,  “fundamentally flawed”, “poor project and change management”, “inadequate risk management”, “no effective contingency planning”: these and other similar comments are a damning indictment of the Fringe Society and its directors and they are taken from the executive summary which begins the report. Once we actually start to read the full details, the picture darkens even more.

What is even more worrying is the sense we get from the Society’s comment on the report that it is shying away from accepting responsibility. It welcomes “the work of the Steering Committee in commissioning the report” and says that “many of the recommendations mirror changes that are already well underway for this year’s festival” but that’s it.  There is no mention of some of the particularly damning criticisms: the lack of detailed planning and risk management; inadequate internal and external communication; the fact that the two preferred contractors had been “independently assessed by Dunn and Bradstreet as being of high risk of business failure”.

Then there is the possible (probable?) loss of Fringe Sunday, the financial rescue package which was urgently needed towards the end of last year, increasing complaints about the high cost of taking part in the Fringe and of tickets,  claims that the Fringe is getting too big, the seeming splintering into a number of different “fringes”, the domination of what are now being called the “super venues”, the growing dominance of stand-up comedy, the complaint that there are far too many “big names” which negates the spirit of the Fringe, falling ticket sales…

The problems are piling up, and this coming year they will undoubtedly be compounded by the effects of the recession which would well reduce both performers and audience. Couple that with the damage to the Fringe’s reputation caused by the box office fiasco and the outlook for 2009 is not good.

Can the Fringe Society rescue the situation? I doubt that it is possible for the 2009 festival.  The whole system of governance needs to be updated - what served in the fifties when the Society was set up is no longer appropriate more than fifty years later. A root and branch review is required and there is no way that can be done in time, for it is a mere seven months before this year’s festival gets underway on 7th August.  But it must begin now, otherwise the Fringe Society will be failing its constituents and stakeholders, the people of Edinburgh, the performers and especially the hundreds of thousands who pour into the city from all over the world every August.

It’s been a bad year for the Edinburgh Fringe.  First there were the problems of the new box office computer system which led to tickets not being sent out on time and over-booking.  Then there was the dreadful weather which drove people away from the city.  There was the 10% fall in ticket sales, the controversy over the Comedy Festival within the Festival and the repeated accusations that it was getting far too big.  We thought it had reached its nadir with the resignation of new director Jon Morgan who hadn’t even been in post for a year, but now we learn that many companies - and therefore individuals - have not yet been paid.

Interviewed by The Telegraph producer James Seabright forecasts a fall in the number of companies and therefore shows in future.

“I fully expect” he said, “that there will be less shows next year at the Fringe for a variety of reasons, ranging from the problems this year putting people off to financial issues meaning they haven’t got the money to do it.”

There is no doubt that the huge number of shows can cause ticketing problems.  31,320 performances of 2,088 shows in 247 venues, all crammed into three weeks, is a hard task for any box office computer system to handle.  But there is another problem which does not seem to have really been thought through.  Edinburgh is crammed during the three weeks of the Fringe.  To be certain of getting reasonably priced accommodation, one has to book well in advance.  This year, for example, I booked my room in February.  The number of available beds is limited so if the number of shows continues to increase, there is no way the number of visitors can expand to keep pace so the competition between shows for the audience can only become more fierce and some - if not most - will suffer.

For the majority of companies, performing at the Fringe is a kind of loss-leader: the number of shows which make a profit is tiny and, generally, those which do are shows by very well established names who “parachute in”, often with ticket prices two, three or more times those of the average Fringe show, which, while it may be good for the stars, can only make things worse for the mainstays, the small companies bringing new and different work.  Further expansion can only make things worse.

This year the reduction in visitors was noticeable.  I was in Edinburgh in week one, when the rain drove many people home, and in week three when, although the weather had improved considerably (although it wasn’t what could be called summer weather, even for Edinburgh), numbers were considerably down on the previous year.  Admittedly this is based on observation rather than statistics, but one way of seeing how busy the Fringe is is to judge by how easy it is to fight your way up or down High Street during the day.  This year it was easier than I have known it in the twelve years I have been covering the event.

What will happen in 2009 we obviously don’t know, but if the recession turns out to be as deep and as long as the pundits are predicting, we will see a decline in numbers of both performers and visitors, which is not good for the Fringe or for Edinburgh.

Matt Boothman’s report Brickbats in Cyberspace makes interesting reading.  Although it deals specifically with the effect of theatre blogs on print media, with people like the Telegraph’s Charles Spencer fearing for the survival of the professional critic, it is actually just a part of the wider problem faced by newspapers: falling cirulation due to the increasing number of people who get their news from the Web and mobile phones as well as radio and TV.  With easy Web access via the latest generation of mobile phones, together with new developments such as RSS feeds, more and more people are forsaking the traditional print media with the inevitable consequence of falling circulations and reduction in advertising.

Newspapers are having to put more and more of their content online and offer additional services.  Quite a number of local and regional papers are equipping their reporters with digital video cameras to beef up their online content and at the same time reducing their staff and relying on freelances.  I was talking only this week to the chief photographer of a NE local paper who is now, in fact, the only staff photographer.  Gaps in coverage are now filled by former staffers who have taken redundancy and now work on an occasional freelance basis for the paper.

I asked about the scribes - those who do the actual writing of news stories - and he said they had not been affected yet: although they had been offered voluntary redundancy, no one had taken it up.  Can compulsory redundancy be far away?  I suspect not.

As far as theatre is concerned, many local papers rely on freelances to review.  That can be a good thing - I know of at least two local/regional papers whose freelance opera critics are experienced and extremely knowledgeable, far more so than anyone on the staff. 

But I think Charles Spencer was more concerned about the national papers and their critics.  It is possible, I suppose, to foresee a future in which theatre criticism in the national newspapers will go the way it has been for wome time in some sections of the local press - anyone who is willing to go to the theatre gets to review because there is no specialist critic, but I really can’t see that happening with the broadsheets at any rate - and probably not the tabloids either, I suspect. Their readers are hardly likely to accept Joe Bloggs instead of Spencer or Billington et al.

However one of his major concerns - and one, I have to admit, that I share - is the quality of the critical writing in the blogosphere.  National newspapers - and websites like the BTG - vet their critics carefully, both for their writing skills and their knowledge and understanding of the art form, and what they write is, in newspaper parlance, “subbed” - read and, if necessary corrected, by a sub-editor.  A blogger is simply someone who wants to write a review and has the online space in which to do so.  They could be major experts or totally ignorant, and their writing skills can range from excellent to atrocious.

Which is why, I think, the contribution to the debate made by the BTG’s London editor Philip Fisher is absolutely correct.  People will learn whom they can trust; they will recognise who knows what they are talking about and who writes well.  The others may continue to publish, but they won’t be read - or believed, if they are!

The Internet has changed so many aspects of our lives that we would be foolish to think it won’t have an impact on theatre criticism.  If we think back ten years or so to when Net access became so much easier and more common, we will remember the plethora of personal pages which made up so much of what was available online.  Where are they now?  Most have gone - or vanished from sight - and those which still exist have changed into something different because they fill a niche and offer content which is both of interest to visitors and is of a quality which attracts.  The blogosphere is the noughties’ equivalent of the personal pages of yore: most won’t be around in two or three years and those which are will be either recognised as being of real value or be just voices crying in a wilderness of no visitors.

Content, we are told by Internet experts, is king, and so it is.  But it has to be content which is accurate, reliable and of interest.  The same applies to blogs which offer theatre criticism. Some of them will survive and go on to become imnportant parts of the world of theatre: others will vanish.  There will always be a place for good, reliable, trustworthy and accurate content, whether in print or in digital form

We’ve had the results of the TMA Awards and the nominations for the Manchester Evening News Awards and the Evening Standard Awards with, still to come, the Oliviers, the Critics’ Circle Awards, the Whatsonstage Theatregoers’ Choice Awards and the Critics’ Awards for Theatre in Scotland (CATS).

The Evening Standard, Theatregoers’ Choice, Oliviers and Critics’ Circle awards all concentrate on theatre in London, while the MEN Awards concentrate on Greater Manchester and CATS on Scotland, leaving just the TMA Awards to cover the entire UK.

Of course London is of huge importance but it isn’t necessarily the place where you are going to see the best theatre, as distinct from music theatre.    In fact, if you look at the number of plays which were nominated in any category in the Evening Standard “long list”, the West End only appears four times, and two of those were transfers from outside of London.  In fact, nine nominations went to productions which had originated outside of London.  Otherwise nominations went to a very limited range of theatres: the National (8, including one import), Donmar (and Donmar West End) (7), Almeida (5), Old Vic (3), Globe (2), Royal Court (1) and Young Vic (1).

I haven’t mentioned the Barbican, although one of its shows gained two nominations, but that was the National Theatre of Scotland’s Black Watch, another import. Not did I mention the Roundhouse which was home to the RSC in the year in question.  And Kneehigh’s Brief Encounter, which garnered two nominations, actually played in a coverted cinema.

So what’s my point?  Quite simply that three of the most influential awards - Olivier, Critics’ Circle, Evening Standard - focus on just a tiny proportion of the theatre being produced in the UK: theatre seen in London.  It could be argued, I suppose, that if a production is really good, it will eventually find its way to London, but that isn’t necessarily the case.  Of the London theatres which we mention above, only the National, the Young Vic and the Barbican present “imports”, and they are only a very small part of the National’s programme - inevitably.

So no, it is not true that if a production is any good it will get to London, at least not in the leading playhouses or the West End.  This would not matter - not really - except there is a general public perception that if a production isn’t seen in London, then it can’t be of a high enough standard, and that is manifestly not true.

As a North East patriot, I was delighted that Live Theatre’s The Pitmen Painters won the TMA Award for best play and has been nominated for an Evening Standard Award in the same category.  I should not be surprised if it is nominated in other awards too, but had it not been picked up by the National Theatre, it could never have won anything more than a TMA Award.  It’s an excellent play and an excellent production, but Live has produced others equally as good in the past, as has Northern Stage, and so have theatres like Manchester’s Royal Exchange and Nottingham’s Playhouse - and many others throughout the country.

Fascinating though the awards season may be and wonderful though it may be to be honoured, it does present a very skewed vision of theatre in the UK!

Earlier this week I was contacted by a BBC Radio station and asked if the credit crunch is affecting theatre.  I had to admit that I didn’t know.  I had heard things but they were - at least - secondhand so I didn’t feel justified in making more than the vaguest of comments.  However I did decide to investigate further.

I have heard it said that the number of West End shows which have announced closure recently is proof that the crunch is having an effect (and certainly the media seem to be taking this line), but shows are always closing for one reason or another and sometimes it does seem to happen in clumps.  And when we look at those which have closed or are about to close, we see that some have reached the end of their planned runs, others have been panned by the critics and one was unable to persuade its cast to take a cut in pay when moving to a smaller venue.  Hardly evidence of a major downturn.

In fact, SOLT and those producers who have commented have been very bullish.  Nica Burns of Nimax Theatres was a little cautious, suggesting that theatre is bound to be affected in the coming months but insisting that the autumn season has been good.

I decided to take a sample of North East theatres - a 1,300-seater receiving house, a 400-seater receiving house and a producing/receiving house with two auditoria.

Philip Bernays of Newcastle’s Theatre Royal said, “We are currently on target in terms of audience figures and Box Office income, but we are reaching these targets slightly later than we usually do as people are booking later.

“We are generally not putting prices up in 2009 as we recognise that people are being cautious with the amount of money they have to spend, and are concerned that, from the Spring when there may well be a squeeze on pay rises, the situation will get tougher. Of course, not putting up prices whilst our own costs rise is also going to create pressure on our budgets.”

Peter Darrant of the Customs House in South Shields agreed.  He said that last minute booking had increased greatly and walk-ups (people paying at the box office on the night rather than booking in advance) were up 100%.  A children’s show this week had 60 walk-ups for one performance and 54 for another - a most unusual situation.  In fact, advance booking patterns have changed.  For example, a recent mail-out three days before one show brought in 100 bookings rather than the usual ten.

Group bookings, too, are down, as are school bookings for the panto, but - and this is the significant thing - actual attendance is up.  He believes that people are less willing to commit to spending in advance, but are still turning up.

 The Customs House, he believes, is lucky in that the bulk of its audience tends to be retired people - “Kids gone, income secure, mortgage paid” - but still he thinks all theatres are going to have to change their marketing strategies to deal with the new situation.  And, of course, things will change once the recession begins to bite.

Northern Stage reports no change in booking patterns.  In fact, their spring production of Look Back in Anger is selling well, as are the two children’s Christmas shows.

The theatre’s spokesman suggested perhaps the credit crunch and impending recession had not hit the north as badly as the south (and, in particular, the south east) - yet.  He expects Northern Stage to feel the effects in the new year.

The situation in this part of the country, then, is not too bad, but theatres are bracing themselves for a downturn but, instead of throwing up their hands in despair, they are, as Peter Darrant said, preparing to adapt their marketing strategies to the changing conditions.

A report in The Stage tells us that ATG has cancelled a musical - Houdini the Musical - that had been booked into the Regent Theatre, Stoke, because the actors were not being paid but employed on the basis that, if the show had a life beyond the Stoke run, they would receive a full wage for that.  The TMA agreed that the arrangement was unacceptable and Equity pointed out that the whole affair could fall foul of employment legislation.

It seemed absolutely right and I found myself nodding in agreement.  However I decided to do a bit more checking and discovered that the company behind the production is, in fact, run by very young actors, not long out of drama school, and, they say, this is the only way they could do this new musical on which they are so keen.

Then I began to think.  On Friday evening I went to see a new play written by a friend of mine in a new venue.  It had a cast of six (playing 19 parts between them) and it ran for one night.  How did they get funding? I asked.  They didn’t: they did it because it was something they wanted to do and they knew that this would be the only way they would get to do it. Hopefully it will have a life beyond the one night and they will have some profit to share, but that’s unknown.

 I chatted to the writer, who was also one of the actors, and she told me they were sick of waiting around for auditions but there’s not very much original theatre being produced in the region and applying for Arts Council grants means having to jump through so many hoops to fit into the “priorities”, the forms are complex and time-consuming to complete and there is certainly no guarantee at the end of the day that any money will be forthcoming.  So they decided to go it alone on a profit-share basis.

They are not alone.  That’s how we did A Cold Coming last year and very recently a group of NE actors have got together to form a group to put on their own work on the same basis.

These people I’m talking about are all professional actors, directors and writers, some with decades of experience, but they feel that their only chance of working, given that the number of plays produced in one year in the region is in single figures, is to do it themselves. 

It’s a dreadful situation.  There is TIE work around and corporate work, but real theatre? the sort of work we came into the business to do?  Forget it! 

Or do it yourself.