With Creative Scotland due to be launched next month, following several years of political wrangling and rebellion, Eleanor Turney finds out from Chief Executive Designate Andrew Dixon what happens next.

Creative Scotland’s (CS) creation has been a bumpy ride, but Andrew Dixon is confident that the new quango will be “the right model for Scotland”. The new body set up to support Scottish arts is being constructed through the contentious merger of the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Scottish Screen, after years of to-ing and fro-ing with the Scottish Parliament and the arts sector. Dixon himself is new blood. He was previously in charge of the NewcastleGateshead Initiative, the marketing agency that promotes the region as a place of culture-led regeneration, and prior to that he was Chief Executive of Northern Arts and a member of the national executive team of Arts Council England. Dixon freely admits to not having spent much time in Scotland prior to his appointment, and brings a (perhaps necessary) outsider status to the role, as well as a wealth of experience.

With NewcastleGateshead he learnt that “artists and arts organisations are at the heart of everything”, and also how to “package and promote arts and culture”, properly. The ingredients, he says, are all there in Scotland, but it is CS’s job to “shine a light on all the hidden gems” as well as to take risks. Dixon enthuses about the “phenomenal energy” he has already encountered in the Scottish arts community, and sees his role as one that should be “keeping the momentum and building momentum”. However, he insists that he is not just planning more of the same: Dixon says that CS aims to “develop a different model of working” when it comes to funding and supporting Scottish arts. CS will have a “much more flexible way of working… taking a holistic view. We will carry artform specialists, but they will also have a higher responsibility for an area of geography, and for projects such as the Commonwealth Games or capital projects.” He is clear that the body will have as wide a remit as possible, and will “promote everything, whether we fund it or not”. There are several mentions made of CS being “a rallying call, not an institution”, but despite the repetition, he remains a little woolly about what a “rallying call” might actually mean in practice.

SCOTCH MIST?

CS’s new head has not been in post very long – he is in charge of a national organisation that does not technically exist yet – but it will be interesting to see whether the sound-bites will translate to a genuinely new vision, or are just enthusiastic rhetoric. Dixon is keen to “create a different language about how we spend money”, choosing to refer to the money CS gives away as ‘investment’ not ‘subsidy’ or ‘funding’”. Sceptics will note that it is going to take rather more than a change in language to introduce a new way of working and substantially differentiate it from, say, SAC. If a change in language truly reflects a new way of thinking, then all is well, but changing the language does not change CS’s relationship with the arts sector – at its heart CS is still a large public body with millions of pounds of public money to distribute. That’s not all it does or will do. CS also calls itself “advisor, advocate, investor and broker,” but whether you call it investment, subsidy or funding, money has to get from CS into the bank accounts of arts organisations somehow.

The Scottish Government lost £332m in last week’s efficiency savings. It has deferred making these cuts until next year, which will leave Scotland facing budget cuts of around £1bn. I suggest to Dixon that all of his hard work now, particularly soothing the arts sector, could come to nothing if the financial rug is swept from under his feet next year. But he is upbeat: he suggests that the Scottish Government’s decision to directly fund its National Companies (which has been successful [AP217]) demonstrates its commitment to the arts, and tells me he is “getting every message that the Scottish Government is committed to Creative Scotland”.

This potential uncertainty makes Dixon’s role itself a tricky one – is he a messiah or a guinea pig? “Scotland is a little bit different” from the other UK countries, he thinks, with “distinctive cultural differences”. He has to get his head round them pretty quickly and make CS a body that works with a sector that is wary of the change. There is a fear that the new body will be leaner, and therefore meaner, but this does not have to be the case. In his first few weeks in the post, Dixon has spent time talking with, and listening to, the arts sector. He is aware of comparison with other countries’ arts bodies, and acknowledges that “people will be watching” to see how it turns out.

FUTURE FUNDING

In his hands, CS has the potential to change the traditional funding model and also to become a model of best practice. However, unlike the arts quangos in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the new body no longer mentions ‘arts’ or ‘culture’, but rather concentrates on the all-encompassing ‘creative.’ Dixon defends this decision: “’Creative’ and ‘Scotland’ are good words”, he says. Well, yes, but so is ‘arts’. The jury is still out as to whether CS’s broad scope will prove to be its greatest strength or biggest weakness. Only time will tell whether such scope gives CS, and its Chief Executive, a deep and thorough understanding of the entire cultural sector in Scotland, or whether it stretches already-thin resources too far. In any case, now that the ball is finally rolling, Scottish arts organisations should sleep better – after all, CS has been too long in the planning to fail now.

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional issue 219. Monday 7 June 2010. www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Belts are tightening and cuts are looming: are local authority arts officers fighting a losing battle? Eleanor Turney talks to arts officers from across the UK.

As the recession continues, it is clear that local authorities’ (LAs) budgets are being cut, and arts departments cannot be immune from this increased financial pressure. AP spoke to arts officers from across the UK, and there is no doubt that money is tight and likely to get tighter in the coming months. All but one of the 30-plus arts officers contacted, mentioned potential or actual cuts as a key issue, with an increasing need to demonstrate value for money. Arts departments are either in danger of being squeezed out altogether, or are being asked to “deliver more with less”. It seems obvious that this is not a sustainable way to continue.

So what can arts officers do to fight their corner? Adele Poppleton, Arts and Creative Economy Development Manager at Kirklees Council, believes that “the strength of local government is that it is responsive to local need”, so perhaps some of the responsibility lies with local people and organisations to demand (and vote for) councillors who are enthusiastic about the arts. One ex-arts officer points to “the ignorance within most LAs regarding the value of the arts”, while several mention that all non-statutory services are an easy target for budget cuts. Another summarised the situation: “Whilst arts officers have always been good at developing projects on a shoestring, it feels more like creating a full-scale opera on a bootlace at the moment.”

For Art’s Sake

Among the LAs where the arts are valued, there is another fear emerging. None of the arts officers who spoke to AP mentioned the intrinsic value of the arts – except those who highlighted the lack of recognition for this crucial aspect. The arts are increasingly being used to deliver other agendas, to the extent that instrumentalism is in danger of overpowering artistic vision. The arts have necessarily become adept at making the case for the instrumental benefits they can bring, but this is now happening at the expense of entertainment, enjoyment and artistic worth. One arts officer, who wished to remain anonymous, told AP that she had observed “a move from enjoying the arts, to viewing arts as a tool for social change, often when every other service has failed”. Not only does this attitude seem to set the arts up to fail, but it puts arts services in the place of the last resort rather than top of the bill.

Many arts officers highlighted an increased demand from their councils for partnership work, particularly in environmental or health-related projects. One said, “the community/health/well-being benefits of cultural projects have to be highlighted for them gain support”. Emma Andrews, from Warwickshire District Council thinks “we’ve seen a real step-change in how arts is viewed within the authority, particularly in terms of how arts can be used to meet other agendas”. There is a whiff of desperation about some of these collaborations – excellent though the results may sometimes be: a sense of chasing the money rather than developing projects for their own sakes. Another arts officer puts it more bluntly, “Arts and health is something of a boom area and, as funding is available, we are working more closely with the Primary Care Trust and health providers.” While there is a place for the arts in health provision, and it can only be a good thing that the benefits are being recognised, it can’t be a case of either/or. People might begin to wonder if they have to be ill before someone will fund their arts activity.

Double Jeopardy

Arts officers are under a double pressure to forge these partnerships, and to make them work. Not only are LAs pressing for the arts to address their social agendas, but the money is in these other areas and the arts therefore need to fit in with the funders’ visions. There was a lot of talk among the arts officers AP spoke to about “how to add value”, how to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in the absence of concrete statistics and how to “make the value of [our] spend as visible as possible”. Patricia Dixon, Arts and Young People Manager for Birmingham City Council, mentions the problems of “how to respond to the challenge of accessing budgets held in education and social care by improving the evidence base to support commissioning of arts organisations to deliver against their objectives”. Loz Samuels, Arts and Play Development Officer for Wyre Forest District Council, says that they are “under increased pressure from the community to deliver. It’s fantastic that the hunger for arts development work has increased”. While local demand must be a cause for celebration, Samuels warns that “we are starting to see real impacts on our service… less resources and budget cuts”. Beate Mielemeier, Arts Development Officer in Rochdale, highlights the need for projects to be “well documented and evaluated”.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however. Chris Dixon at Ashford Borough Council was remarkably upbeat. He sees these partnerships as “new opportunities” and is aiming to “devise a long-term plan for a new Arts Vision”. Peter Salt, Arts Development Officer for Bath and North East Somerset Council, is also thinking about the future, and planning ahead: “We are increasingly augmenting our financial support to arts provision with packages of advice and training for arts organisations, artists and sole traders. Our aim is to… enable them to be more strategic about how they generate income and reduce their dependence upon local authority support. Skilling people as well as subsidising activity seems a more logical route to building sustainability.”

Polar Opposites

As arts officers are forced to develop partnerships across departments to survive, let alone flourish, the support and advocacy of the regional officers for Arts Council England (ACE) becomes even more important. Interestingly, questions about relationships between arts officers and the regional offices of ACE elicited very mixed responses. The best relationships are “very supportive” and take arts officers’ views into account, although many felt this was down to shared history, and that new officers in either post would find it harder. However, several arts officers were unstinting in their criticisms (they all, unsurprisingly, wish to remain anonymous). “The LA liaison officers do not liaise,” one told AP, while another accused their local ACE officer of “not really grasping the problem or the scale”. A number describe the relationship as “very poor” or “nonexistent”, with “intermittent support”, and there are fears that the imminent restructure of the regional bodies will be detrimental.

Looking to the future, there was a feeling of uncertainty, although there were places where the future looks either “reasonably positive” or, conversely, “grim”. Several arts officers said that financial hardship has forced them to work more creatively, but many felt that “discretionary services are seriously under threat”, and one feels “like I need even broader shoulders than ever before”. The only person who went against the expected opinion that arts services deserve to be fought for was the Manager of one Arts Development Service, who said, “Our service is not sacrosanct and I can’t argue that it’s more important than other council services, because it’s not.” This sentiment might well dismay arts organisations in her area.

Shining Examples

This all seems pretty bleak. There are glimmers of hope, but they are mostly found outside England. Belfast City Council is doing things differently. Kerrie Sweeney, Tourism, Culture and Arts Manager, says, “Our objective is to create a vibrant, cultural capital where arts and culture are… at the centre of economic, social and environmental regeneration… which inspires, empowers and elevates.” She recognises the benefits of the arts to help regeneration, but places them at the centre rather than shoehorning them in as an afterthought. She is also aware of the intrinsic benefits, as well the arts’ ability to boost the city’s cultural and economic infrastructure. Lorraine Grant in Aberdeenshire is similarly refreshing: “I hope we are developing a reputation for being supportive of and committed to our resident artists and arts organisations, even in times when resources are tight, because without

them many lives in Aberdeenshire would be far less rich.”

When non-statutory services are under attack, there is a sensible argument to be made for piggy-backing on a statutory one – hence the increase in partnerships with health work. However, during difficult times, the sector needs strong, committed arts officers who will fight to preserve and extend their service for its own sake. While most of the arts officers AP spoke to remain convinced of the importance of their service and determined to fight on, there was a worrying lack of talk about the intrinsic value of the arts. By working more creatively, and harder, many arts officers are making the best of a challenging situation. The lingering question, though, is when did the instrumental agenda become the only thing anyone can find time or money for? When was that argument lost?

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional 208. 14 December 2009.
www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Dodgy seats, wobbly sightlines and a controversial closure have given the Bristol Old Vic plenty of trouble in the past, but its prospects are looking up with Tom Morris at the helm. He talks to Eleanor Turney about his plans for the theatre’s future.

Tom Morris reminds me of a proud parent. He counts the ways in which he adores the Bristol Old Vic (BOV), asserts that it is “the most extraordinary theatre in the country”, and eulogises about his hopes for its future. Just as one would be loathe to tell a new dad that his baby is anything less than exquisite, I refrain from mentioning the shabbiness of the auditorium, the bum-achingly uncomfortable seats, the poor sightlines. It was once a beautiful theatre, and I’m convinced (partly by Morris’s enthusiasm and partly by Arts Council England’s (ACE) £5.3m cash injection) that it will be again, but at the moment it leaves something to be desired as a space to watch a show.

BUILDING EXCELLENCE

“The kind of theatre that I like is theatre that celebrates the presence of the audiences, rather than pretending or wishing they weren’t there,” says Morris. This can only be a good (if slightly obvious) thing for an artistic director to think – after all, audiences mean tickets which in turn, mean money, something the BOV is sorely in need of. Morris’s beloved auditorium is, he says, “ripe for that kind of programming” as he believes it is a “uniquely intimate, interactive theatre”. Unique it may be, but I can’t help thinking that’s a good thing, given how uncomfortable the experience of watching a show there can be. As a former associate director at the National Theatre, probably best-known for his success with ‘War Horse’, Morris is not unfamiliar with the challenges of unusual staging. He dismisses criticism that the BOV’s auditorium is flawed, suggesting that “if you engage with the auditorium in ways that are influenced by its original design… and if you think intelligently about the sightlines and how to improve people’s comfort and how to engage with the playing area, you end up with something that is a really exciting place for a theatrical project to meet an audience”.

ACE has put its money where its faith is by granting the theatre a large contribution towards its restoration, which will go some way towards fulfilling Morris’s vision of returning the theatre to “architectural principles that are much closer to an Elizabethan theatre than Victorian”. Again, it seems churlish to quibble with him when he is trying to take an intelligent approach, but Elizabethan audiences were rather different to theatregoers today, who expect a seat where they can see and hear the action. The space may be a marvellous one for a theatrical project to meet an audience, but it’s not such a great place for the audience to meet the project: a good third of the stage is invisible unless one sits dead centre, and the seats lurch enough to cause seasickness, distracting from the action on stage. Perhaps this will just set the theatrical bar very high – if the performances are good enough the backache will be forgiven, if not forgotten.

COMMUNITY SPIRIT

Morris, who took over artistic management of the theatre just over a year ago, is nothing if not enthusiastic (he uses the word “exciting” a lot during the course of our chat), and animated about the BOV’s possibilities. He is, for obvious reasons, keen to look to the future and put the building’s “period of inactivity” (when the theatre suddenly went dark for 18 months, many staff lost their jobs, and renovation costs crept up from an estimated £7m to £9m) behind him. Although he does not criticise his predecessors, he does admit that “the [previous] operating model for the theatre had not worked for some time”. However, he has big plans, beginning with “re-engaging [Bristol]”, a city which he describes as “very culturally active and potentially very, very culturally fruitful”. He also emphasises his ambition to restore the theatre to its former glory – both architecturally and artistically.

Bristol may well be the place to do that. Morris often returns to the importance of the city and its residents. He would like to position the BOV as a responsive site, one that allows the city’s creative community to come up with ideas that might turn into pieces of theatre. “There has been a slight shift away from thinking of theatre simply as a product to be put in a shop (or a theatre) and sold,” he explains, keen to emphasise the idea that theatre should exist as part of an ongoing debate with artists.

Morris also acknowledges that ticket prices are a substantial obstacle to the casual but curious theatregoer (echoing findings from the most recent Society of London Theatre report [AP215]), curiously referring to the BOV’s £5 tickets as “an invitation” rather than an audience development initiative. His commitment to programme theatre that lures in new audiences is another high priority, he wants “work that doesn’t seem alien to non-theatregoers”. Morris has no shortage of experience and creative ideas. As he reels off the triumphs of the city’s assorted cultural venues, it is easy to be convinced of his fondness for the area. More than that, it is reassuring to come away feeling that, finally, the Bristol Old Vic is in a safe pair of hands.

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional 216. 26 April 2010.
www.artsprofessional.co.uk

It’s typical of Barbara Matthews that she should see her current tenure at Arts Council England (ACE) as her “National Service”, and equally typical that she should worry that it makes her sound pompous. Following a postgraduate diploma from City University, Matthews has spent her entire adult life in the performing arts. She refers to her 17 years touring Cheek By Jowl to 47 countries as her “magnum opus”, but it would be easy to see her current post as ACE’s Director of Theatre Strategy as an equally important role. She is unequivocal when asked whether it is important that someone in her position is steeped in practice: “It’s essential.” She explains, “If we want our funding bodies to really understand the industry and the audiences that they’re there to support, then we have to make sure that people move in and out between the Arts Council and the sector.”

OPEN DOORS

When Matthews first arrived at ACE, she commissioned the Theatre Assessment to start a dialogue with the sector, and to show that “it’s not just us decreeing from on high what’s going to happen”. It’s this sensitivity to the complicated relationship between funder and funded that gave the sector a sense of optimism when she was appointed in 2007. In Matthews, theatre has a passionate advocate, who understands the needs and fears of the sector. She is clearly adept at treading the line between policy and practice: she admits that at times the “stop-startism [of] yet another pilot that we’re not able to embed” can be frustrating, but defends the cumulative effect that many small initiatives pulling in the same direction can have in changing attitudes. She is not afraid to take the side of the sector when the Theatre Assessment reveals a consensus that there are too many short-term initiatives, although she chooses her words carefully: “I’m a bit ambivalent… there are definitely very frustrating short-term things that happen where everyone rushes around and learns the language and then it disappears again, and that’s very annoying.” She remains pragmatic and points out that sometimes it’s worth jumping through hoops to secure the money, although she does not seem the type to jump just because someone says jump. She is mindful that ACE has a responsibility to remember the big picture and to “encourage movement in a certain direction”, and argues that even though ACE sometimes has to make unpopular decisions and “individual artist or arts organisations might resist being pushed in that direction, it’s our job to see the long-term direction of travel”. It is easy to imagine how hard it might be for a former practitioner to implement decisions that may not be easily accepted or understood.

PERSONAL PASSION

Matthews cheers down the phone when the subject of touring is brought up. It is clearly something she is passionate about. A Touring Strategy is currently being developed, and should be published in the New Year, “which is fantastic news”. Again, drawing on her varied career, Matthews “understands the difficulties that both presenting venues and touring producers have with the way we [ACE] work with them at the moment”. She explains that although Grants for the Arts has supported many projects and artists, “it can present challenges, particularly when tour schedules, casting or other things change during the time it takes us to make a decision”, and acknowledges that “we need to build better relationships with venues we do not fund but which rely on work that we support”. Although she is not responsible for leading on the Touring Strategy, she has made it a personal priority to work closely on it because she understands “how crucial touring is, to ensure that the best of our theatre reaches the widest number of people”.

Matthews’ admission that the relationship between ACE and the theatre sector needs work is refreshing, and suggests that the sector is lucky to have a strategy director who is attuned to its needs. She seems genuinely to want to know what works and what does not, hence the Assessment, and is committed to fixing the bits that do not work. Through anecdotal evidence she is aware that although audiences are holding up well in the recession, “you naturally worry when you do not know what you’ve got to deal with”, and that political uncertainty is having an effect. I bring up the Conservatives’ White Paper ‘Control Shift’, which, amongst other things, proposes giving local citizens the power to call referendums if 5% sign a petition within a six month period. Ed Vaizey, Shadow Culture Minister, has suggested that these could be about funding for local theatres, and that if a theatre has not worked on its relationship with its community then it might suffer as a result. Matthews thinks these proposals present “an incredible challenge and opportunity. It’d be very scary for a theatre to put itself on the line like that… on the other hand, those theatres that really have thought about their role in the local community should have nothing to fear.” She suggests that theatres that have strong ties with their communities “understand that receiving public money… gives them certain obligations… there are theatres that have really engaged with their audiences, communities, partners etc, and are much more vibrant and exciting places because of it”.

She clearly enjoys her job, but as Matthews says several times “it’s a partnership”. None of the strategy is about ACE issuing orders, and her willingness to see and to understand the knowledge and the front-line information that theatres can bring to the table is clear from the Assessment and how the research is being used to move forward. If this is Matthews’ National Service then she is clearly a volunteer not a conscript, and for as long as she continues to serve, theatre will have a powerful ally.

Barbara Matthews is Director of Theatre Strategy at Arts Council England.

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional issue 206, published Monday 16 November 2009. www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Student leaders from a group representing higher education arts courses across the UK have called for legislation to regulate the practice of using unpaid internships as a route into the creative professions. The Arts Group, which represents the interests of 50,000 arts students, has accused the creative industries of “outright exploitation”. In its highly critical report, ‘Emerging Workers’, the group highlights the “astonishingly low worth” attributed to creative graduates and points out that “disturbingly… National Minimum Wage (NMW) and employment rights… seem alien [in the creative sector]”. It calls for employers to be compelled to contribute to interns’ travel expenses, and insists that no fixed hours of work or specific responsibilities should be required for unpaid work experience. The group is also demanding that all graduates undertaking placements of more than a month should be paid at least the NMW. It was supported in the preparation of its report by Skillset, Arts Council England, Creative & Cultural Skills, and Central Saint Martins’ Innovation Centre. Speaking to AP, Kit Friend, Chair of the Arts Group, said that “the mass exploitation of interns and unpaid workers in the creative industries… is beyond a joke. We cannot continue to defend these as an accessible route to employment, when the reality is that they place yet another barrier in the way of social mobility and ridicule many of the positive moves to widen access.” He accused business and Parliament of being “incapable of restricting or reasonably limiting unfair practice independently and persist[ing] in breaking even existing legislation”, and called for “new guidelines and action to curb their behaviour before it’s too late”.

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to introduce a ‘Paid Internship’ which would pay a training allowance of £55 a week, at no cost to employers. This works out at less than £1.40 an hour – well below the NMW (up to £203 a week) or the National Apprentice Wage (£95 a week). It does not solve the problem of how interns could support themselves without financial assistance from parents or elsewhere.

The Arts Group’s demands coincide with the publication of another report, ‘Creative Graduates, Creative Futures’, which examines the career patterns of UK graduates in art, design and media. Prepared by the Institute of Employment Studies, the Council for Higher Education in Art and Design, the University of the Arts London and 25 other higher education institutions, and based on a survey of graduates from 2002 to 2004, the report reveals that creative graduates are facing fierce competition for fewer jobs. Forty percent undertake voluntary or unpaid work after graduating and a third experience a period of unemployment. The report also supports the assertions of The Arts Group, observing that “those from more advantaged backgrounds have more chance of gaining more relevant work experience (by working unpaid or undertaking internships) because their parents… support them”. It highlights the difficulty of finding work: “Jobs tended not to be advertised, and work was accessed via a combination of personal contacts, work experience, networking and speculative self-promotion.” When graduates do find jobs, they are often not paid enough to live on, and short-term contracts, temporary work and portfolio working are commonplace. Almost 80% of those who were employed at the time of the survey were only in part-time work, which is “very likely a reflection on… less stable working patterns as a result of fluctuations in supply and demand”. This suggests that the increase in creative courses is not matched by a willingness or ability to employ the resulting creative graduates, despite the creative industries growing faster than other sectors.

First published in ArtsProfessional issue 211, 15/02/10. www.artsprofessional.co.uk

The Arts Council England (ACE) initiative to give away 618,000 free theatre tickets over the next two years will mean “young people have their lives changed by ground breaking and inspirational theatre”, according to Alan Davey, Chief Executive of ACE. The new scheme was launched two weeks ago, under the banner ‘A Night Less Ordinary’, and aims to have a lasting impact on the theatre-going habits of young people. But just how much difference will the free tickets make to theatres’ tireless efforts to appeal to new audiences? Ed Vaizey, Shadow Culture Minister, wants to know if it is “a gimmick or a genuine policy”, and says that while “no one would oppose a plan to open up access to our theatres… this proposal has been rushed through without proper consideration”.

First reactions
Judging by information that AP has gathered from 20 participating theatres of various sizes and types, most theatres support the scheme, but the administration associated with it has generated a heavy workload, especially for small venues and touring theatre companies. ACE guidelines stipulate that for every ticket sold, a name and postcode must be taken, so that a subsequent analysis of box office data can shed some light on the geographic spread of audiences. Fair enough: ACE is using this is a pilot scheme and the data is needed for evaluation. However, although most theatres we spoke to supported the scheme, their box office staff were feeling the pressure. Clare Simpson, Marketing Director at the Royal Exchange in Manchester, said that they are proud of their scheme, but “it is an administrative nightmare”. This was a common feeling, and ACE’s claims about the scheme’s administration sometimes conflict with the view from the box office. An ACE spokesperson said that the scheme is “keeping data collection at ‘point of sale’ to a minimum”, but for many box offices, the fact that all free tickets have to be processed over the phone rather than through their websites is proving difficult. ACE also requires all tickets to be collected individually from the box office with photo ID, which means theatres have seen long queues before shows start. One box office staff member at a large London theatre said, “the new system is incredibly time consuming, and I’m not looking forward to having to deal with it”.

Despite the obvious teething problems, theatres in general are largely positive about the project. Almost all of those I spoke to are adapting the ACE scheme to suit their marketing strategies, touring schedules, budgets and capabilities. Most are using it to build on existing student or young people’s deals rather than offering free tickets in splendid isolation. Adrian Grady, of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester summed up the general mood when he said, “it is a great opportunity to enhance and build on what we have started”. Every marketing officer was keen to emphasise that working hard to engage new audiences is something they already do, and that the ACE scheme needs to fit into their current outreach and audience development efforts.

Costs and risks
Although Grady is keen to accentuate the positive, the scheme could end up costing theatres money. Simpson points out that although the Royal Exchange is giving away 10,000 tickets after receiving a £30,000 grant, this does not mean they are generating £3 in revenue for every ticket. “If we had that money purely to market the scheme, we could do a lot… [but] this money needs to go some way towards compensating the box office.” Even if they had £3 for every ticket given away, it “doesn’t get anywhere near our usual yield”.

For shows playing to less than full houses, there is a fine line between the scheme being a valuable marketing tool and a costly one. Simpson points out that “the trick for us is to encourage higher attendance, rather than converting those who already come to stop paying”. Regular theatre-goers might be put off paying if they know there are free tickets available but they can’t get their hands on one, resulting in a tendency to wait for the next release of freebies rather than booking there and then. Furthermore, if a new theatre-goer consistently fails to get hold of a free ticket, this may whip negative publicity for the venue and could lead to young people feeling excluded – the opposite of what is intended. There is also a possibility that they will see a free ticket as without value, and will therefore feel less pressure to turn up after booking it. ACE is trying to pre-empt this by warning that anyone who defaults on one booking may be excluded from the scheme elsewhere.

Different approaches
As far as audiences are concerned, maybe it’s too early to tell whether the scheme has the potential to turn the notoriously indifferent under-26 age group into enthusiastic theatre-goers. In a highly unscientific poll of Cambridge residents, conducted last Saturday outside Topshop, only nine of the 100 young people we asked had heard of the scheme. Only one venue in Cambridge is participating, so perhaps awareness is higher elsewhere. In London, the National Theatre is giving away 15,000 tickets, and has pledged to give them to 15,000 different people. Sarah Hunt, Head of Marketing at the National, emphasised that “we want as many people as possible to get a free ticket”, and that after getting new people in it is “up to a theatre how to continue the relationship”. This means just one free ticket per person, but by signing up to its Entry Pass scheme, all under 26s can then book £5 seats for the next two years. While the scope of the National’s scheme – and those at other theatres where you can only book one ticket at a time – is clearly ambitious, it does have its drawbacks. For example, there are no guarantees that ticket-buyers will be able to sit with a friend. For many, sitting alone could make the idea of a night at the theatre a whole lot less appealing.

The West Yorkshire Playhouse is trying a different approach. Every young person can book up to five different shows for free, meaning that someone who sees a play that they don’t enjoy can try again. When their five free tickets have been used up, they can then book another five tickets for £5 each, and then a further 10 tickets for £10 each. This ensures that those who enjoy the freebies are encouraged to come back, and that by the time they are asked to pay full price for a ticket, the jump from £10 to full price is not so great.

All’s well that ends well?
So, why are theatres bothering to run this “clunky”, time-consuming and revenue-losing scheme? Perhaps because it is getting new bums on old seats. Rosie Cross of the Highlights Rural Touring Scheme recalled, “One volunteer at our launch event said ‘I feel like Father Christmas’,” and it is not hard to see her point of view. Lighthouse’s Box Office has been “noticeably busier”, the entire allocation of free tickets for this season at the Oxford Playhouse and Young Vic has sold out, and the RSC has given away over 1,000 tickets already – more than half to first-time RSC-goers. These are all good signs. But, as Simpson points out, “the crunch will come when the money has gone and the scheme has ended and the theatres have to find the time and the budget to convert that potential into a lifelong audience”. If every person who receives a free ticket falls in love with theatre and becomes a paying customer in two years’ time, that would be a very positive outcome. If not, then theatres could spend thousands of pounds and a lot of effort marketing a scheme to people who would have attended anyway.

Eleanor Turney is Editorial Co-ordinator at ArtsProfessional.

This article first appeared in Arts Professional no.189. www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Right. I’m barricaded in my safe house (a secret location somewhere in Leamington Spa). I’ve blacked out all the windows. Taped shut the letterbox. Bought some heavy-duty earplugs. Insured myself. Assumed the Brace Position. And now I’m ready to surf the wave of public disapproval that has so far varied from accusations of grumpiness to the opinion that I should be shot. OK, here goes: I do not like Harry Potter. In fact, I’ll go further. Really stick my neck out. I actively dislike Harry Potter. Before you ask, yes, I have forced myself to read them all, just so that I can defend my point my view against the forceful tide of popular opinion. The books’ popularity continues to astound me, because they are so…average. I like to pretend to be a reasonably balanced and open-minded person so I’m not going to carelessly rip them to shreds. 

I’m going to meticulously rip them to shreds.

Firstly, they are unoriginal. This, I feel, is a fairly major flaw. There is an argument that there is no such thing as ‘new’ story and that all plots follow one of 7 basic plotlines. I concede that to write a totally original story is impossible; it would need the invention of a new language, culture, society, mindset. However, this argument simply highlights the importance of combining familiar elements in exciting, unexpected and intelligent ways -none of which Rowling does. Stories of boarding schools are hardly innovative, and neither is the idea of a school for young witches and wizards. Magic is always a tricky problem because it can provide a handy get-out clause for characters in sticky situations. Masking the spells with pseudo-Latin words does not hide the fact that there is, if you are super-clever enough to *shock* use the library, a spell for everything. This removes any tension that the books could have mustered and means climaxes fizzle out rather than exploding.

Furthermore, Rowling’s writing verges on the Enid Blyton-esque in places, (I say Harry, pass the sardines. Scrummy) and she deals in nothing but clichés and formulae. Her writing style is patronising (us Muggles are a bit slow) and her world is often poorly realised –why bother being consistent when inconsistencies can be explained away with magic? The ‘clues’ that she puts in the earlier books are just a way of allowing self-congratulatory fans to second-guess the forthcoming plotlines, which removes what little suspense she has managed to create. 

Rowling’s characterisation is unrealistic and two-dimensional; and her idea of how teenagers behave is outdated and, in places, ridiculous. The idea that our hero would not notice girls until his fourth year is frankly laughable. The entire social fabric of a school is based on who likes who and whether either party is going to do anything about it. I’m tempted to invite Rowling to Peckham and show her what mixed schools are actually like, but she might not survive the experience and I have nothing against her personally. Perhaps wizards are late developers. 

Harry as a character is so fantastically annoying, self-pitying and whiny that I’m surprised the stereotypical geek-with-a-heart and wimpy sidekick who save his hide don’t just leave him to the dragons/dementors/basilisks/dark wizards/pixies. Especially the pixies. 

Generally the “good” characters are all too smug and self-centered, except when they’re being noble and sacrificing themselves for their friends. They verge between the two extremes with no middle ground, thus rendering them impossible to empathise with. Dumbledore is annoyingly understanding and good and noble, buck up, man, or there’ll be anarchy at Hogwarts. Harry’s enemies on the other hand are so pantomime that the potential threats get trivialised in the unintentional comedy.  A friend argues that it is impossible not to be drawn into Harry’s world because Rowling has imagined it so vividly, but, as you may have gathered thus far, I found it possible. Easy even. I’m afraid that my view is that if Harry’s world is so prefectly formed in Rowling’s head I’d much rather it stayed there.  I have yet to be even slightly persuaded that the entire Harry Potter phenomenon is anything more than a mediocre children’s book, hyped beyond sensible proportions until no-one actually reads the books critically any more. Oh, and one more problem: Voldermort is not scary. 

Here Endeth the Rant. 

Next Week: Dan Brown Bashing.