Download Review of Building-based Theatres

Scottish Arts Council Review of
Building-based Theatres
Final Report
(PAL8)
Report written by Erika King and Matthew Rooke for the Scottish Arts Council.
April 2001
Scottish Arts Council
12 Manor Place, Edinburgh EH3 7DD
Telephone 0131 226 6051
Facsimile 0131 225 9833
Typetalk please prefix number with 18001
Help Desk 0845 603 6000 (local rate)
E-mail [email protected]
Website www.scottisharts.org.uk
CONTENTS
PAGE NUMBER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2
SUMMARY OF THE VISION
3
SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
6
THEATRE VISION SCOTLAND
9
1.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FINDINGS
22
2.
DISPOSITION OF RESOURCES
27
3.
RECENT TRENDS
46
4.
BEST VALUE
70
5.
THEATRE VISION SCOTLAND: A REPRISE
79
6.
COMPARISONS
85
7.
NATIONAL THEATRE INITIATIVE
92
8.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE NATURE AND SCALE OF ANY ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENT IN THE SECTOR?
95
9.
BENCHMARKING
98
10.
CONCLUSIONS
106
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although responsibility for the contents, conclusions and recommendations of this report are completely our
own, the process of this review has been a truly collaborative venture: it simply would not have been
possible without the advice, support and guidance of a wide range of people, from across the spectrum of the
drama in Scotland. In particular we would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by Tricia
Coe and more recently Kirsty White, who made up our administrative support team here at SAC; Sarah
Coleman, Len Paterson and John Anderson our Research Associates, who contributed extensively to the
statistical analysis and digest of statistics; the staff of SAC for providing such an extensive range of material
at our frequent request; the Review of Theatres Steering Group and colleagues from the National Theatre
working group who provided a forum within which to share and test our ideas, The Museum of Scotland,
who provided such a welcoming and conducive environment for our work on Theatre Vision Scotland;
Martin McCallum, Vice Chairman of Cameron Mackintosh, who so ably guided our deliberations there; and
last and most importantly of all, the artistic and administrative leaders of each of the theatres who despite the
extremely tight time-scale and considerable ongoing demands engaged so constructively and contributed so
fully to our work.
Erika King & Matthew Rooke
April 2001
3
SUMMARY OF THE VISION
A Review of buildings-based producing theatre companies in five years time would still reveal a diverse
array of companies but common to all would be:
9
The ability to deliver an extensive range of material, embracing classic texts, neglected masterpieces
and modern work, in a style and scale commensurate to its original conception
10 The capacity to engage with new work in a comprehensive integrated manner, teasing out talent and
fostering creativity at a local level in all areas of theatre activity, right the way through to main stage
productions and beyond
11 The resources to mount sufficient productions and performances to sustain such a programme of
work on a year round basis, and at a range of times which reflect increasingly diverse contemporary
leisure times
12 The capacity to explore new artistic boundaries, both within theatre and across art form divides
13 The facility to engage in true collaborations with other arts companies working in their venue, in a
way that maximises benefits for the visiting company, the host company and the audiences which
they serve
14 An adequately resourced and rewarded creative, technical, craft and administrative staff base with
which to support such a programme
15 An effective training and development programme to support the professional and personal
development of each and every member of the company
16 Buildings and public spaces that are equipped and regularly updated to meet the challenges of an
increasingly sophisticated and technically advanced leisure market
17 Provision of the means by which the sector can engage more fully and creatively with the
commercial theatre sector and other creative industries as a pro-active partner, enjoying
commensurate rewards
4
18 Inbuilt resources to help underwrite creative risk and to foster commercial flair
19 The staffing and operational resources and a commitment to engage with a wide range of socially
desirable objects through:
19.25Youth and other community activities
19.26Formal education curriculum support and delivery
19.27Social inclusion partnerships
19.28Mentoring/supporting particular sectors of society
20 The ability to be an effective partner and focus for:
20.25Economic Development
20.26Tourism
20.27Business communications
20.28Training and development for the business and wider community
9
The resources to meet the challenges of an increasingly sophisticated leisure market in terms of:
9.25Comfort, ambience and secondary leisure facilities
9.26Technical resources to improve efficiency as appropriate to each area of activity (on
stage, back stage and in the office, etc)
9.27Fully exploiting the new media as means of promoting and sustaining audiences and
supporters, and developing ancillary income sources
9
A new partnership with the funding system of which the hallmarks will be:
9.25A renewed sense of trust and mutual respect
9.26A funding framework which acknowledges the particular features and requirements of
sustaining buildings-based companies
9.27Reduced bureaucracy
9.28Greater clarity and cohesion of objectives
9.29A more strategic approach to funding timescales
9.30More freedom from “processes” to deliver these outcomes
9.31Enhancement of the unique contribution that funders can make as strategic agencies through
being freed from lower level bureaucratic burdens
5
6
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Extending the number of buildings-based producing theatres should not be a priority
for addressing gaps in geographic provision. Rather we would advocate the development of comprehensive
local drama strategies, within the context of which it may be appropriate for existing buildings-based
producing theatres (not necessarily to the exclusion of other potential providers) to develop and deliver a
range of products suitable to local needs.
Recommendation 2: SAC should offer firmer guidance in respect of strategic artistic policy to ensure that
people throughout Scotland are treated equitably in respect of generic issues such as equal opportunities and
provision for young people, as well as in terms of overall range of repertoire, etc.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that SAC, In consultation with the sector, develops more
sophisticated mechanisms to monitor and analyse audience trends on a more systematic and scientific basis
Recommendation 4: SAC in partnership with other stakeholders should take swift action to ensure that the
skills base is:
10 Adequately resourced
11 Suitably remunerated
12 Able to access resources to facilitate and encourage professional and personal development across
all areas of activity
In order to ensure that the sector can be seen as a valid, sustainable and desirable career choice.
Recommendation 5: Given the theatres’ own efforts demonstrated so far in respect of increasing yield whilst
surviving significant real terms cuts, it is recommended that sufficient financial resources be granted to the
sector to address the fundamental fixed and related costs of running a full-time, fully-utilised building- based
company, coupled with access to appropriate funds to underwrite creative and commercial risk on a strategic
basis.
Recommendation 6: It is recommended that SAC regards cutting funding to existing companies as means of
investing in other members of the grouping as a tool of the last resort. Rather it is recommended that SAC
actively seeks additional resources to invest in the sector and fosters self-help through new ways of
exploring practical collaborations, reaching out into the wider sector to:
7
13 Achieve greater operational efficiency, sharing and utilisation of resources
14 Reduce expenditure
15 Increase the collective buying power of the sector
Recommendation 7: That SAC gives priority to encouraging the development of commercial exploitation of
the theatres’ resources, particularly in the context of commercial theatre and the other commercial creative
industries applications by means of reducing administrative burdens so as to:
16 Allow individual artistic and administrative leaders time to explore and develop commercial
opportunities
17 Introduce new/prioritise existing funding packages for such ends
18 Encourage other public funding and development agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise to
follow suit.
Recommendation 8: It is recommended that SAC makes representations and submissions to the Scottish
Executive, highlighting the extensive ways in which the theatres can deliver across each of the published
National Cultural Strategy Aims, with the objective of securing additional and appropriate levels of funding
for the theatres and the sector as a whole.
Recommendation 9: Whilst there is a strong and pressing case for a substantial increase in investment in the
buildings-based companies, it is recommended that SAC should follow the Irish and English examples of
any such investment being made in the context of a holistic, sector wide review of drama strategy.
Recommendation 10: It is recommended that any model for the proposed National Theatre resource be
subjected to detailed and independent scrutiny in the form of a cost/benefit analysis, so as to take account of
potential negative operational and financial impacts that may arise for the buildings-based companies (and
indeed the sector as a whole) as a result of its adoption, with appropriate mechanisms/funding being put in
place to underwrite any such outcomes.
Recommendation 11: It is recommended that SAC introduces a system of benchmarks as detailed in this
report, to be applied equitably and transparently across the ten theatres and that the information required to
operate this system is updated on a systematic and routine basis. In the process, SAC should also take the
opportunity to review its current demands upon the theatres in respect of servicing the funding relationship,
wherever possible seeking to reduce administrative and operational burdens.
8
THEATRE VISION SCOTLAND
Although it did not take place until well into the review process, perhaps the most appropriate starting point
for this report is the fruits of Theatre Vision Scotland. On 13 March 2001 the artistic and administrative
leaders of the ten theatres gathered together at the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. This gathering had
one objective: to explore the notion of a shared vision that was capable of reflecting, embracing, nurturing
and celebrating each and every one of the theatres under review in a manner that presented a coherent
argument for investment in their future development.
This was a unique gathering from a number of perspectives. For example, the sheer diversity of the group,
in terms of communities served, artistic philosophies, and individual circumstances meant that achieving a
single vision would be no mean feat. Furthermore, this was the first time that the buildings-based companies
had ever gathered together to participate in such an exercise.
As the day unfolded however something very special happened. Out of this wealth of diverse talent and
philosophies and histories, the foundations for a shared vision emerged which would be capable of
underpinning these essential elements of Scotland’s theatre infrastructure. The vision has the potential to
guide their future growth and development in a manner that preserves the essence of their individuality
whilst delivering an extensive range of additional benefits for the art form, the theatre-going public, the
creative communities as a whole and the wider community beyond.
This report therefore takes this vision as its starting point and holds it as a constant reference point
throughout. If one accepts this vision as a desirable goal and recognises the unique and extensive
contribution that buildings–based companies can make to our cultural, economic, civic and social life it
follows that, as a matter of priority, action must be taken to bring such outcomes to fruition. To do
otherwise would simply mean turning the pending crisis that has been universally acknowledged within the
sector and by its funding bodies into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given the immense value offered by the
sector this would be a tragedy, not just for the arts in Scotland but also for Scotland as a whole.
9
A SHARED VISION FOR BUILDINGS-BASED PRODUCING THEATRE COMPANIES
In its ideal form, a buildings-based theatre company can deliver a comprehensive and richly varied range of
benefits on a number of levels. Although there will always be local variations and shifts of emphasis that
arise from the diverse range of theatres under review the following sets out the key ingredients of a shared
vision for a template for the “ideal” buildings-based theatre company in Scotland.
WITHIN THE ARTFORM
In terms of access to the art itself, there is a dual role of creating access to a shared cultural heritage whilst
also providing a showcase and springboard for new and emerging talent. This dual function reflects the
symbiotic relationship that exists between new work and the rich theatrical heritage that is available to us,
which we separate at our peril. One of the vital functions of any buildings-based company is in introducing
a community to key works of the established canon of classic and modern dramatic work, thus connecting
audiences with both their own cultural heritage and helping them connect with wider contemporary, and
often international, culture. Whilst in other art forms there are separate bodies, such as museums, galleries
and libraries that have separate remits for sharing access to our cultural heritage, quite distinct from the
activities of bodies such as SAC and the organisations that it funds in these sectors, the fact of the matter for
theatre is that such work can only be truly accessed through the medium of live performance, at which stage
the notions of “old” and “new” work dissolve (as each new production of even the most established
warhorse offer the potential of a fresh and insightful creative journey). Buildings-based companies therefore
often provide the only sustained means of access to this aspect of our cultural heritage. If as demonstrated at
the outset of Scotland’s National Cultural Strategy, minding our past is to be given equal consideration to
creating our future, the ability to present and explore the core works of the dramatic canon at an appropriate
and fitting scale must form a key part of any vision for the future. In an ideal future therefore this would
mean that no director would rule out a production of say, Shakespeare or some similar key historic work,
simply because the number of actors involved would endanger the entire season or the very company itself.
This issue of being able to present work from the established canon of our theatrical heritage is not simply
about the freedom of artistic direction or about creating access for audiences: it is about nourishing the
profession as a whole. The ability to present such work creates opportunities for actors to engage with core
repertoire in a contemporary context at a scale that creates new opportunities and sets fresh challenges in
terms of ensemble work, be they an established actor getting to grips with a major role, or a newcomer
getting their first break and, in the process, observing and learning from the ranks. This is not only more
rewarding for actors in terms of the job at hand. It also enhances their future employment prospects.
10
These benefits similarly flow to other members of the creative and technical team, where often the challenge
of rendering, say, epic-scale scenes and events within the context of contemporary theatre spurs creative
imagination and craft skills to new heights. (However intrinsically rewarding, a sustained diet of one-set
four-handers often offers limited scope for such challenges).
Moving beyond the creative and technical spheres, the ability of theatres to present high impact productions
which celebrate the unique qualities of having live artists giving exhilarating performances on stage with
designers being able to deliver breath-taking “coups de theatre”, sends positive energy throughout the whole
company, be it the marketers and fund-raisers who have products that begin to sell themselves, through to
the box office staff who are picking up the buzz from word of mouth sales, through to the janitor who, on
reading the rave review in say his or her daily newspaper, gets the personal satisfaction of being part of
something that is special, that is making a difference.
But there is much, much more than creating access to a shared cultural heritage. A buildings-based
company, through its ongoing relationship with the public and through the trust it has developed with its
audience over the years, is capable of taking risks with the development and presentation of new work, new
talent and new ways of working in a manner that smaller-scale and project-based companies are often unable
to achieve. For example, once paid for, an ensemble company (or similar group of actors who have
developed a level of inter-personal understanding and trust) can also be a resource for testing and developing
new work through readings, workshops and studio-scale performances. Such a resource can also benefit
emerging directors and designers who seldom have the experience of working with first-rate performers
outwith career “make or break” commissions. The security and resources of a buildings-based company
could provide the ideal environment in which the process of new work and nurturing new talent can unfold
at its own pace without it being dictated by the necessity to present every single work on stage. Rather such a
process would enable writers and directors to be able to discard “journeyman” work, move on and learn from
the experience and allow theatres to present only work that they believe truly demands an airing.
Whilst issues of range and quality of repertoire and innovation and fostering new work are of major concern,
it is vitally important to remember the value of basic marketing principles such as continuity and an ongoing
presence in the market place. It is self-evident from the impact on audiences of the various closures and
disruptions experienced by the sector during the period covered by this review that there is little value in
investing considerable resources in a building and in the creation of a dedicated artistic, technical and
administrative team if the building is to be dark for significant periods of time purely on account of financial
expediency. A further key element of the vision for the future therefore is that companies will have the
11
facility to sustain a programme of work appropriate to meet audience and wider community demands across
the course of the year. This is not just in terms of current conventions but also in terms of being able to offer
performances at various times of the day to take account of the increasing number of people in our society
for whom the old conventions of a 9 to 5 working day are no longer relevant.
Looking beyond the subsidised theatre sector, we can see that when properly resourced, buildings-based
theatre companies have played a vital role in testing and developing new product for the commercial theatre
sector. There are numerous examples in the UK of companies which have been able to bear the risk of
developing new work and new productions which could not be justified by the commercial sector, which
have subsequently more than paid for themselves in terms of tax revenues and, of particular importance,
royalty revenues for the companies in question. It is clear that there is a healthy degree of commercial
creative acumen in the sector which could, if supported by some form of creative “risk capital” be used in a
strategic manner to meet these needs, with all the benefits that would accrue from such initiatives.
Whilst there are sound arguments for the support of theatres that are dedicated to single issues, such as new
writing, it should be clear from the above that new work is not their sole preserve. The inbuilt ability to
support and present new work could be a vital part of the vision for all of the theatres, however apparently
traditional they might seem. This is not only on account of the benefits discussed above but also because of
the role the building itself plays in sustaining and nurturing audiences. A buildings-based company is often
the one fixed point of reference for the public in respect of drama provision in their community or area (and,
as can be seen from the theatres under review, it is often the sole focus for high quality performing arts as a
whole in their community or area). As such, the capacity to deliver new work is an essential ingredient in
both leading existing audiences who have come to trust the venue into new areas and in delivering products
that might appeal to a new one. It must be stressed however that the development of new work is a complete
issue. It must be appropriate to the context of the individual theatre and its artistic team.
When one is dealing with issues such as social inclusion, ethnicity, gender and disability, it is very often the
case that new work is the most appropriate way of working as it provides an opportunity for people to create
work that actually fits and reflects their concerns and circumstances without constantly trying to work
through the means of a historic repertoire that is ill-suited to their purposes without extensive or perhaps
obtrusive mediation. If a theatre is to be able to reach out to creative talents of the wider community
therefore, whatever its location, it must have the resources to support this through new work. In short,
without the capacity to support and deliver new work in a holistic manner the buildings-based companies run
the risk of becoming stale and ultimately marginalized.
12
The buildings-based companies also act as the repositories and training grounds for the sector. They are a
major source of trained technical and craft workers for the profession as whole. Without the buildings-based
companies as a bulwark and centre of excellence, the entire profession, be it project companies, receiving
houses or commercial theatres or the like would be the poorer. Given this unique role, a key element of any
vision for the future will be to ensure that this capacity to train and sustain core technical and craft expertise
for the sector as a whole is fully exploited with sufficient resources to enable an effective retention and
training programme to be built into the fabric of the company.
Buildings-based companies can also provide a career development structure for administrators and other
professionals as well as representing the concentration of a wealth of physical, human and financial
resources. As such they provide a training ground for individuals who subsequently go off to take on more
advanced positions in touring and project-based companies and the like, and also provide a focus for
aspiration for people who are seeking a new level of challenge or scale of operation to that experienced
elsewhere. However, such skills are not exclusive to theatre and there is an issue across all areas of
technical, craft and administrative competencies concerning the ability to attract and retain appropriate
skills. In an ideal vision for the future lack of finance and poor levels of personal remuneration, job
insecurity and frustrated personal development should not be principal reasons for people either leaving or
failing to enter the sector. We see there being particular value in theatres discussing how they might be able
to advance these issues in partnership with each other to minimise duplication and maximise opportunities
for trainees.
A buildings-based company’s sustained and evolving presence in a particular community reaps benefits not
just for the buildings-based companies themselves but for visiting companies as well. Presenting work from
other companies is an important element of the work of a buildings based company: it provides a
complement to their own activities and provides a powerful tool for audience development. Visiting
companies are not just hiring a space. They are benefiting from the ongoing investment in audience
development, marketing and outreach work that is undertaken on a year round basis by the host company.
Without this resource, considerable additional effort and expenditure would have to be incurred by visiting
companies. As well as offering this service, buildings-based companies can also play a nurturing role to
smaller, emerging companies by becoming active partners in the development and delivery of their projects
in a way that goes well beyond a straight-forward commercial hire or box-office split. In this way they add
value to the sector as a whole, remove duplication of effort and maximise investment in both companies. It is
essential therefore that any vision for the future of buildings companies encourages these relationships
whose objectives must be more about a mutually beneficial creative approach to sharing and collaboration
rather than simply a process in which cost reduction is the number one priority.
13
The willingness to support and share within the sector is apparent from the myriad informal and ad hoc
relationships that exist in relation to access to and use of facilities. The extent and nature of these
relationships is often dictated by the capacity within the buildings to sustain and service such relationships.
In an ideal world, the buildings-based companies would be resourced in such a way as to promote and make
such services available on a strategic and equitable basis. (This may well require, however, changes in
management and operational structures within the companies to accommodate and reflect a more formalised
role as a resource for the wider creative community).
With the benefits of receiving significant amounts of public funding comes the responsibility of providing
mentors and leadership for the profession as a whole. With this comes a responsibility to make resources
available and to speak out on behalf of others whose voice might not be heard or whose very existence might
be put at risk should they do so. However, to do such notions justice there must be time to take these matters
forward on a systematic and equitable basis. To be a truly effective resource for the sector one must have
the means and capacity to make such things available on an equitable and open basis. Even something as
prosaic as sharing a rehearsal space or accessing a workshop needs someone to promote the opportunity,
maintain a diary and manage the relationships: it is difficult to run a flagship on a skeleton crew.
THE WIDER CREATIVE AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY
The benefits that flow from buildings-based companies extend beyond their immediate sphere of drama. As
has been noted, buildings-based companies can often be the principal outlet or resource for large-scale
performing and indeed other arts in their communities. We are now living in a culture in which the biggest
competitor is not other art forms or indeed other cultural events such as cinema and sports. Rather the
biggest challenge is from the stay at home/self-interest activities. As well as providing an outlet for arts
activities such as dance, live comedy, music, book and poetry readings, storytelling, craft-display and sales
and visual arts exhibition spaces, for example, the theatres could provide a valuable role in sustaining the
whole concept of communal social gatherings. In an age in which the close-knit family unit is no longer the
norm for everybody, theatres can provide the focus for social interaction and communal activities.
Whilst in one sense, live theatre can be seen as an alternative to a global digitised media industry, it is also
one of the principal sources of its raw materials. Government, the theatre sector and the film industry itself
now universally accept the role of the subsidised theatre sector in bringing on new ideas and talent in film.
(We have our very own example in the form of “Trainspotting” to show just how potent a source this can be,
with a theatre helping an author make the transition from the printed page to film). Similarly, buildings14
based theatres play an important role in nurturing acting and creative talent for radio and television and the
potential to do so for the newer media outlets. Given the rich rewards that can flow from such media projects
and the continued growth of this sector it is vital that the theatres should have the means to be pro-active, not
simply passively protecting their rights or trying to pull together a deal at the last moment, but by having the
means to operate at a strategic level as a player and reap the benefits accordingly.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Much of the focus so far has been in relation to a vision for the prime creative outputs of buildings-based
companies and their relationship to the wider theatre and creative communities. In Scotland, perhaps more so
than anywhere else in the UK, artistic issues have always gone hand in hand with a concern and a desire to
connect with the community at large. Accordingly there has always been a commitment to reach out beyond
a core theatre audience and to deliver work of direct relevance to the lives of a wide range of people,
particularly those experiencing some form of exclusion or disadvantage or oppression in some aspect of their
lives. Buildings-based companies, because of their fixed position in a particular community can deliver a
wide range of socially desirable goals. For example, the sector has a long established relationship with the
formal education sector designing and delivering product to meet the curricular needs. They also open up
their resources through their provision of youth theatre that often provides a forum for young people to
address important issues at a vulnerable stage of their social development and engage with a wide range of
interest groups through an extensive programme of outreach work.
They can also be particularly effective in getting to the heart of the social inclusion agenda through
providing a means for particular communities to explore issues directly affecting their lives, often as a result
developing a sense of self-worth and social skills which enables people to articulate their concerns and needs
more effectively. There is extensive evidence of the many ways in which the sector has worked across the
full spectrum of social groups that illustrate the range and potential of this work. At the deepest level of
engagement, companies can provide communities with the resources to explore their own concerns,
priorities and objectives over an extended period in a secure and supportive environment and provide a
platform for people who would otherwise have limited outlets to engage the wider community in a dialogue
(as can be seen through the work of companies such as Theatre Workshop). The ability to embrace these
issues is a central element of the vision for the sector. Such an approach requires commitment on the behalf
of theatre leaders that may require rethinking certain priorities and also access to resources to sustain such
activities in a variety of ways, be it through a core commitment to engage with the Social Inclusion Agenda,
through to the support of specific, long terms partnerships in chosen areas of concern. A key part of the
vision for the future is that all theatres would be equipped with specialist staff and adequate resources
15
outwith those provided by project-funding to sustain and enhance the level of service offered in this vital
area of concern.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Buildings-based companies have the potential to bring forth a range of economic and civic benefits that
accrue from their constant presence in a community. Besides being economically important in their own
right, in terms of jobs sustained directly and indirectly through their own activities, they can be partners and
a focus for a range of other economic activities, such as projecting the civic profile of their host
council/communities, adding to the general amenity of town (through providing conference and social
facilities or simply a great place to eat or meet) helping tourism and inward investment. They also offer a PR
and marketing resource for the business community (as reflected through sponsorship) and increasingly, in
an age where mainstream business is placing a premium on soft skills and creativity, a source of professional
expertise to assist business meet commercial challenges. A key element of the vision for the future is that
these many benefits will not only be more widely acknowledged and supported but that they can be actively
pursued not only as a source of additional revenue but as part of a campaign to constantly remind the public
and key decision makers of the wide range of economic benefits that can flow from the sector operating at its
best.
THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
If one accepts that theatre is in the leisure market, it is vital that the prime objective of offering a unique live
experience is not undermined by secondary issues, such as comfort and quality of the venues and their social
and other value-added facilities; the backstage technical and production facilities and the ability to seize
advantage of opportunities afforded by the digital revolution to communicate and sustain interest.
Whilst the lottery has proved valuable in addressing some fundamental historic concerns, primarily in
relation to the fabric of the theatres, a future vision for the sector will see capital resources being available to
tackle the “softer” issues of creating environments in which people want to spend more of their leisure time,
the ability to explore, evaluate and adopt more advanced technologies in all aspects of the companies work,
and the ability to sustain communications and promotion of the facilities on offer via the new media.
16
RELATIONSHIPS
Given the importance of public investment, the nature of the relationship with funders such as the Arts
Council and Local Authorities will continue to be of significance to the performance of the sector. The
theatres fully appreciate the responsibilities that come with public funding and also recognise that their
funders, from their unique viewpoints can add value to their efforts over and beyond funding. Underpinning
this whole vision is a desire for current relationships to be recast in such a way that reduces uncertainty,
clarifies expectations, and minimises unnecessary administrative burdens. Thus freed from some of the
current bureaucratic conventions with regards to servicing the funding relationship, theatre leaders will have
more time security and support to dedicate to achieving their full artistic and financial potential, whilst
funders will be freed from some of the more quotidian aspects of their current relationship to provide real
added value from a unique national and/or regional strategic viewpoint.
Key signs of success in recasting this relationship will be a new mutual respect, whereby buildings-based
companies are seen as desirable investments, whose particular (and often unglamorous, prosaic needs) are
properly accounted for in the funding system rather than being regarded in certain circumstances as a simply
a drain on resources. In return, the companies will find ways of engaging with the operational requirements
of SAC and contributing to the development of new funding mechanisms that more accurately reflect the
operational and planning cycles of the art form. Risk is a vital element of any artistic enterprise. However,
in the future, risk should not be about whether a particular artistic decision would take the entire company
down. Rather it will be about building in the capacity to take risk into the operational budgets of the
companies, who in return will devise and then be judged by their own criteria and assume full responsibility
for their actions. A further hallmark will be the capacity to seize commercial opportunities and to be given
the freedom to pursue creative commercial instincts on both an opportunistic and strategic level.
The theatres also have a role to play in being ambassadors for Scotland. There is seemingly innate desire
within the sector to work and collaborate internationally, regardless of its particular area of specialist
endeavour. In the future vision, this capacity will be enhanced and offer a fresh way for Scotland to reach
out and promote itself internationally.
17
1.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FINDINGS
1.1
In November 2000, SAC commissioned Scottish Cultural Enterprise Limited to undertake a
programme of research and consultation, which had as its target the following outcomes:
19 “To ensure the most effective disposition of resources across Scotland, and address any geographic
gaps which exist
20 Indicate how best use can be made of the existing infrastructure, and how the infrastructure should
be supported or modified in order to deliver maximum benefit for audiences and artists and
stakeholders in Scotland
21 Identify a number of models that would make the optimum use of the theatres’ resources (artistic,
human, and physical) with particular reference to the National Cultural Strategy, and the objectives
of the Scottish Arts Council. These models should take into account the range of functions that ,may
be appropriate to different theatres
22 Comment on the appropriateness of developing benchmarks for current activity and whether it is
practicable to develop Performance Indicators to evaluate the contribution of the theatres to the
public in Scotland.”
A copy of the brief in full is included in the Appendix F. It is perhaps important to stress at the outset of
this Report that it is not a review of Theatre in Scotland. Whilst there are a number of issues touched on
of general concern for the theatre sector as a whole, it has as its sole focus those theatres identified for
inclusion within its remit and should therefore be read strictly in this context. The issue of the wider
implications of its conclusions will be tested in the process of drawing together a wide range of reviews
that are currently under way, or have been recently completed at SAC’s instigation, thereby facilitating
the development of a comprehensive strategy for drama in Scotland.
9.25
The ten theatres embraced within the scope of this review are:
The Arches, Glasgow
The Byre, St. Andrews
The Citizens, Glasgow
Dundee Rep
18
Perth Theatre
Pitlochry
The Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh
Theatre Workshop, Edinburgh
The Traverse, Edinburgh
The Tron, Glasgow
Whilst we have looked in detail at the budgets, activities and objectives of each individual company,
our report reflects the brief to account for them as a sector in their own right. Rather than attempt to
add to the already bewildering range of acronyms in the arts, we will simply refer to them
collectively as “the theatres” throughout this report, only highlighting individual companies where
there are points discussed of particular relevance to the company concerned.
1.3
This review has taken place at a time of significant change and development for the sector. Recent
years have seen:
9
The introduction of a special time-limited “Re-invigoration of Scottish Theatre” fund
10 Development of “Scotland on Stage” as one of the means of encouraging innovation and
access to excellence
11 A major review of touring provision
12 A new SAC policy and Report on arts provision for Children and Young people
13 A new SAC policy on Drama for/by people with disabilities
14 A renewed interest in provision for Aberdeen
15 The introduction of a National Cultural Strategy for Scotland
16 The Boyden Review of Theatre in England
1.4
In terms of the temporal frame of reference for this review, our statistical analysis covers the period
1994/95 to 1999/2000 (although we also take account of significant developments in public funding
to date). In terms of policy development, we took the publication of the Charter for the Arts as our
point of departure. Appendix A, E and F give a detailed account of the methodology adopted by
Scottish Cultural Enterprise as well as details of team members and associates employed during the
course of the review.
19
1.5
This report takes primarily a narrative form, constructed on the basis of extensive statistical analysis
and consultations undertaken during the course of this review. (This detailed statistical and
attitudinal research is located in the Appendix A-D, which contain a Digest of Statistics, Subsidiary
papers, and other material generated or used during this study).
1.6
The SAC brief sought answers to a wide range of questions of concern to the sector. Whilst
extensive, the various questions posed in SAC’s brief can be summarised into the following four
categories of questions, as follows:
9
What is the current disposition of resources? What should it be?
10 Are we making best use of existing resources? Could they be used in a more effective
manner?
11 Could there be more appropriate models of provision and/or operation that could be adopted
to deliver the new strategic priorities?
12 Benchmarking: is it appropriate to the sector? If so, how should it be adopted?
1.7
The current disposition of the Scottish buildings-based producing theatres under review is not the
product of a directive national strategy. Rather it is primarily the result of organic growth, extending
over decades. It has been driven by the passions and commitment of particular individuals at a local
level, resulting in a diverse (and not necessarily inter-connected) range of theatre provision.
1.8
This unfolding story is not unique to Scotland. Peter Boyden’s English Regional Producing Theatres
Report gives an excellent account of the development of repertory theatre in England since the
World War II, detailing Maynard Keynes “Mission to Civilise” with the state’s assumption of public
patronage; Jennie Lee’s “Mission to Socialise” with the state giving greater prominence to the arts as
a tool for advancing wider social objectives; Margaret Thatcher’s “Mission to Commercialise” with
the state signalling a greater expectation of the arts to sustain themselves without recourse to
additional public funds; and the priorities and issues facing New Labour at a UK-level as inheritor of
these various state policy objectives. At the end of his survey of the last half of the twentieth
century he concludes:
20
“For over 50 years, supporting the production of drama (whether in buildings or touring) has
been close to the heart of public subsidy of the arts. The funding system has not however
always been clear about what it seeks to achieve from the application of public money or
how the English Regional Producing Theatres should respond. Individual theatres have
therefore developed their own survival strategies as the pressures have increased. The result
has been an ad hoc development of a geographically skewed regional network working
through a range of processes in different kinds of buildings and with idiosyncratic patterns
of funding. No national policy framework has existed in which to test the relevant impact of
these different funding approaches. There has been no common basis for funding
partnerships in which all parties can clearly see the nature and extent of the services they are
supporting.”
We make no apology for citing Peter Boyden’s work in England at the outset of our report:
for forty-five years out of the fifty years in question, the English Regional Producing
Theatres and their Scottish Buildings-based Producing counterparts have shared a common
history and operated under the same strategic framework as set out by their common
paymaster, the Arts Council of Great Britain. Even though there has been a devolved arts
funding system since 1995, the fundamental issues facing the sector throughout the UK have
remained steadfast with little variation on either side of the border. Scottish and English
theatre economies are also entwined in myriad ways at micro-economic level, with skills,
services and resources being exchanged through a UK-wide marketplace. Accordingly, the
English and Scottish sectors therefore not only share a common history – they also share a
common future. Whilst there are indeed specifically Scottish issues to be addressed, to
ignore this wider context in coming to solutions for the deeply entrenched structural issues
facing the theatres would be detrimental to the interests of the theatres, the practitioners and
the public that they serve.
21
2.
DISPOSITION OF RESOURCES
2.1
Moving from the shared UK history to the specifically Scottish scene, the following offers a sketch
of objectives o f each of the theatres under review as set out in their SAC Funding Agreements:
9
Theatre Workshop, Edinburgh: coming from a radical, community-action perspective
(rather than a solely theatre one) Theatre Workshop is committed to providing a
forum and outlet for marginalized people throughout Scottish society, with a
particular emphasis on people with disabilities.
10 The Byre Theatre: The Byre Theatre produces and presents a summer season of plays for a
local and visitor audience.
It also presents a range of drama, and other performing arts by
other producers. It co-produces with other Scottish producers.
11 Royal Lyceum Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Royal
Lyceum Theatre Company (RLTC) to undertake the programme of work as described in the
organisation’s plan, submitted to SAC in September 2000. This support is offered because
SAC sees RLTC as helping to achieve the following of its objectives:
9
To give people access to arts of the highest quality
10 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
11 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
SAC sees THE Royal Lyceum Theatre Company as the major producing house in Edinburgh
and the Lothians whose role is to provide a programme of quality work, including classic and
contemporary texts, together with associated education and outreach activities. The
organisation also co-produces with, and presents a range of Scottish and non-Scottish theatre
companies. RLTC has a commitment to employing Scottish-based theatre artists. It offers
opportunities for Scottish freelance Directors to direct main stage work, and allows audiences
the chance to see the work of non-Scottish theatre artists.
The Theatre also acts as a key drama venue for the Edinburgh International Festival.
22
9
Perth Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to Perth Theatre (PT) to
undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan, submitted in
September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees PT as helping it to achieve the
following of its objectives:
10 Work to give people access to work of the highest quality
11 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
12 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
13 Increase and widen audiences and participation
The final bullet-point above relates to the visiting programme.
Perth Theatre is one of the two producing theatres in Perth and Kinross. It produces a range of
text-based work for audiences principally drawn from Perth and Kinross, Fife, Dundee and
Angus, in the period September to April. It also presents a range of popular touring drama by
Scottish and English companies. PT co-produces with other Scottish companies.
14 Pitlochry Festival Society: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to Pitlochry
Festival Theatre (PFT) to undertake the programme of work as described in the
organisation’s plan, submitted in September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees
the PFT as helping it to achieve the following of its objectives:
14.25Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
14.26Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
14.27Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
Pitlochry Festival Theatre produces and presents a summer season of drama that is appropriate
for a tourist audience drawn from Scotland and beyond. It strives to achieve the highest quality
possible.
15 Traverse Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Traverse Theatre to
undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan, submitted to SAC in
September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees the Traverse as helping to achieve
the following of its objectives:
23
16 To give people access to arts of the highest quality
17 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
18 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
19 To encourage international exchange and promote the best of our arts abroad
20 To improve creative skills
SAC sees the Traverse as the key theatre in Scotland for new writing. Its role is to commission
develop and produce new plays be Scottish playwrights. It encourages dialogue and exchange
between Scottish playwrights and dramaturgs, and their counterparts in other parts of the UK,
and abroad. It encourages interest and understanding of, and participation in, new
playwrighting among young people and others. It has a responsibility to ensure good relations
with other Scottish producers, and to encourage second productions of new work.
The Theatre also acts as a key new writing venue for the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
21 Dundee Repertory Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to Dundee Rep
(The Rep) to undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan,
submitted in September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees the Rep as helping
it to achieve the following of its objectives:
22 Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
23 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
24 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
25 Remove barriers that prevent people from taking part in the arts
26 Improve creative skills
Dundee Rep is a producing theatre serving Dundee City and its region with a range of work
including classics, and new work. It acts as a performing arts provider for its area. It has a
major Community Drama role that is delivered through its Community Department. It is also
home to Scottish Dance Theatre that is separately funded through the Dance Department. It coproduces with other Scottish companies
It has a year-round company of actors (separately funded through the Lottery New Directions
fund), and has a role in providing product for other Scottish venues. Through this scheme it
24
collaborates with theatre artists (including directors) of international standing, whose work
would not otherwise be seen in Scotland. Through the New Ways of Working the Rep also
helps to promote economic development, and business investment in the arts.
27 The Citizens’ Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Citizen’s
Theatre (CT) to undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan,
submitted in September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees CT as helping it to
achieve the following of its objectives:
28 Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
29 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
30 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
SAC sees CT as the major producing house in West Central Scotland providing a programme
of quality work, including classic and contemporary texts. The organisation also presents a
range of Scottish theatre companies.
31 Arches Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Arches Theatre (AT)
to undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan, submitted in
September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees AT as helping it to achieve the
following of its objectives:
9
Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
10 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
11 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
12 Remove barriers that prevent people from taking part in the arts
13 Increase arts for particular groups, including young people
14 Improve creative skills (refers to the Directors’ development scheme, and providing
opportunities for new entrants to the profession).
SAC sees AT as an entry point for people to Drama , and an organisation that offers theatre
artists the opportunity to develop their skills, as well as providing a programme of quality
work. AT states that the core grant is used only for marginal production costs and does not
contribute to the organisation’s overheads.
25
The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Citizen’s Theatre (CT) to undertake
the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan submitted in September
2000. This support is offered because SAC sees CT as helping it to achieve the following of
its objectives:
9
Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
10 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
11 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
We see CT as the major producing house in West Central Scotland providing a programme of
quality work, including classic and contemporary texts. The organisation also presents a range
of Scottish theatre companies.
Tron Theatre: The Scottish Arts Council (SAC) offers support to the Tron Theatre to
undertake the programme of work as described in the organisation’s plan submitted
in September 2000. This support is offered because SAC sees the Tron Theatre as
helping it to achieve the following of its objectives:
9
Work to give people access to arts of the highest quality
10 Support artists of quality and provide appropriate conditions to promote creativity
11 Develop and sustain an appropriate arts infrastructure
12 Encourage international exchange and promote the best of our arts abroad
13 Remove barriers that prevent people from taking part in the arts
We support the Tron to produce and co-produce new and contemporary work, by Scottish and
international companies nd artists; to present a programme of quality contemporary touring
work from Scotland , the rest of the UK, and abroad. It is seen as an international venue with
an emphasis on text-based work. It is also a resource for Glasgow-based companies through
collaboration.
2.2
This brief survey highlights the sheer diversity of artistic and operational styles and aspirations of
the theatres under review. This is very opposite of a homogenous sector: each theatre has evolved in
response to its own community/geography and has its distinctive artistic vision. As such the factors
26
that distinguish them are as great (if not greater than) the reasons that have resulted in them being
grouped together for the purposes of this review. It is vitally important to bear these separate
histories, traditions and functions in mind throughout the course of this report, particularly in respect
of any generalisations/recommendations with regards to the “sector as a whole” or such-like
expressions: whilst there are general observations that can (and must) be made, these will not always
apply in equal measure to all of the theatres in question and any actions will need to be tempered
accordingly.
2.3
There are numerous ways in which one can look to the disposition of resources. This can be in terms
of:
9
Geographic Spread of Resources
10 Communities served
11 Artistic Objectives
The following sections consider each of these in turn.
2.4
Geographic Spread
2.4.1
Current provision of Buildings-Based Producing Theatre Companies covers the central belt and the
lower portions of the Central Highlands and North-East coast. As such, the major cities and urban
centres, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Perth all have buildings-based producing theatres.
Scotland’s third largest city, Aberdeen, does not. Nor does Scotland’s newest city, Inverness, the
capital of the Highlands. In terms of other areas of the country, SAC does not fund any conventional
buildings-based producing theatres in the Highlands, nor in the South-West nor in the Scottish
Borders. Whilst it would be possible to apply a crude mechanistic, population based formula to
govern either re-allocation of existing resources or prioritisation of any fresh funds in the sector to
address these gaps in provision it is by no means clear that such an approach would be the most
appropriate or indeed welcome in these various areas.
2.4.2
One starting point would be to pose the question of whether SAC’s funding is distributed equitably
across the country. Broadly speaking, at the time of this review, the theatres serve approximately
50% of the Scottish population (this has been calculated by summing the populations for the various
centres of population that they serve) and in return receive approximately 50% of SAC funding for
drama. There are of course numerous qualifications that one could offer (for example some of the
27
drama project funding goes into communities already served by the theatres but conversely some of
the theatres also use their funding to provide services for others outwith their area). However this
simple indicator suggests that looked at from the perspective of population, SAC is not putting
disproportionate funding into the buildings-based companies at the expense of the rest of the sector
or population. We recognise that an increase in funding would shift this balance in favour of the
theatres but would hope that the prospect of opening them up as resources for the whole sector on a
more effective basis would go some way to address this shift.
9.25.1 Furthermore, the allocation of resources between the centres of population currently hosting the
theatres is also broadly commensurate to their populations.
REGION
SHARE OF
SHARE OF
DIFFERENCE
POPULATION
SAC DRAMA
IN SHARE
THEATRES
BUDGET
Dundee &
8%
5%
-3% Dundee Rep
7%
3%
-4% Byre Theatre
17%
16%
Tayside
Fife
Greater
Glasgow
Lothian
-1% Arches,
Citizens, Tron
15%
17%
+2% Royal
Lyceum,
Traverse
Perth and
3%
9%
Kinross
TOTAL
+6% Perth,
Pitlochry
50%
50%
Table 1.
Population/Drama Allocation for Theatres funded by Drama Committee, prior to transfer of Theatre
Workshop from Combined Arts
Whilst a more sophisticated development of this approach might yield further insight into the
individual variations and “wrinkles” that may require individual attention, it would be fair to say that
28
at this level that from a geographic perspective SAC has been fair in its allocation of resources
between those parts of the country who have building-based producing theatre companies and those
who do not and between those centres of population who host them.
2.4.4
So what does this mean for those centres of population identified above – Aberdeen, Inverness and
the Highlands, the South West and the Borders – that currently do not enjoy buildings-based
producing theatres in their areas? Firstly, it must be recognised that creating and sustaining a
buildings-based producing theatre company is a costly enterprise. SAC is by no means the major
player in this sector. Whilst in 1999/00 SAC funded the sector to the tune of £2.9m per annum, this
represented only 32% of the total funding required to sustain the theatres (and once one takes into
account the ways in which Local Authorities also sustain and provide the “core plant” in the form of
the actual theatres themselves, this proportion decreases further still). To deliver a buildings-based
producing theatre company for say Aberdeen on either the more modest scale of Perth or the more
diverse range of work delivered by Dundee would require SAC funding to the tune of some £260270,000. Unless SAC were to be prepared to assume a greater share of the burden, some £230,000
would also need to be found by the local authority. Being realistic, there would also need to be
significant start-up funding, or guarantees against loss over and above these sums to allow the
company to develop and present a sufficiently attractive programme of work to generate the
additional, self-generated income that would be required to sustain the venture on an ongoing basis.
This might need to begin at some £500,000 or so a year, tapering downwards over perhaps a three
year period. Given the circumstances, simply from a financial perspective we think that it would be
unwise to consider expanding the sector on the basis of creating new buildings-based theatre
companies.
9.25.1 More compelling than the financial considerations, however, are the artistic and developmental
reasons that people from these communities cite for not simply wishing to proceed with a rolling out
of existing models of provision. For example, when talking to a group of arts development
specialists from the Highlands, Shetland and Dumfries and Galloway it was pointed out that a
buildings-based model was not necessarily a priority for them as regional geography and transport
infrastructure meant that no one venue could realistically service the needs of diverse, often small
communities. Similarly, within the urban areas of Aberdeen and Inverness a different model of
provision has evolved around a major receiving house (His Majesty’s in Aberdeen and Eden Court
in Inverness). These venues have developed their own ways of serving and developing audiences
through their ability to programme a wide range of work, not just from Scotland but also from
elsewhere in the UK and beyond. It is unlikely that the audiences which they serve would wish to
29
surrender this range of work in return for having their own buildings-based producing theatre
company. Whilst both venues see potential benefits arising from a more in-depth engagement with a
producing company, it is unlikely to be in the form of a full-time resident company.
2.4.6
However, whilst there is not a strong demand for the creation of additional buildings-based
producing theatre companies to fill gaps in geographic spread this does not mean that there is a
demand for touring product from the existing companies either. Whether it is the representatives of
small scale rural venues or major receiving houses it is clear that simply extending touring of
existing product would not be the preferred way ahead for their communities. From a small-scale
rural arts development perspective there are artistic and practical reasons for not wishing to go down
this route.
2.4.7
First, there are technical reasons why much product originated by the theatres would be unsuitable,
on the grounds of size, technical requirements and appropriateness of the space available. (Whilst it
is possible to overcome these issues with planning it is questionable whether the core of say a major
theatre’s artistic programme should be dictated by the technical facilities of a remote rural village
hall). Second, of even greater importance is the issue of relevance of material presented to both rural
communities and local arts development plans. This is not to pander to any simplistic “town v
country” debate about rural communities wanting “The High Road Live” whilst urban based
companies are only offering drugs and deviancy. It is something which goes to the heart of the
relationship between the arts and their audience: any product offered by the theatres must not just
meet technical requirements, it must also allow for local promoters to contribute to shaping the
product on offer as well to ensure that it truly meets their local needs.
2.4.8
At the opposite end of the scale, the major receiving houses also want more than a transfer of
existing product. Their venues demand product that is capable of delivering a big impact to
audiences that are used to seeing major drama and lyric theatre companies from a wide range of
sources. A major concern is the absence of large-scale product with a distinctive Scottish identity
that will have an immediate resonance with local audiences. Whilst the National Theatre should be
able to demonstrate that to “think glamour, to think big, to think excitement, to think Scottish” is not
a contradiction in terms it will (on the current model) only provide a certain amount of product. If
there was a way however for the major receiving houses to get alongside producing theatres to
encourage and support them in developing product that could meet these criteria and play up to the
major touring venue league there might be a way of delivering this objective. As in the case of the
30
small-scale promoters, therefore, the focus is on developing appropriate product with appropriate
input from the receiving communities to guarantee that the work available fits their purpose.
2.4.9
We do not considerate it appropriate therefore that SAC should give priority to increasing the
number of buildings–based producing theatre companies, either by re-allocating existing resources
or by prioritising fresh funds to embrace those areas of the country currently lacking such facilities.
Nor do we considerate appropriate to simply offer additional funds to the existing producers to sell
on their existing product. Rather we would urge SAC to engage with the local authorities and other
agencies representing Aberdeen, the Highlands and Islands, The Borders and the Southwest to
develop a local drama development strategy for each area. This will provide the context for the role
of producing companies within these communities and the potential role that non-locally based
producing theatre companies could have in the delivery of their objectives.
2.4.10 Any funding to deliver these ends should be negotiated over a minimum of a three-year period with
firm tie-ins for all parties. Whether these funds are granted to the local authority or development
agency or within the hands of a theatre company is not a prime consideration. Rather the principal
concern should be that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that any funds invested are drawn
down on the basis of joint control and responsibility, mutual respect and shared understanding of
the issues involved by the artists and local community representatives concerned.
2.4.11 This recommendation flows from our observation of a number of initiatives already being advanced,
such as Dundee Rep’s growing relationship with His Majesty’s Aberdeen, The Traverse in the
Highlands and The Arches relationship with the Borders. These relationships could be built
strengthened and extended by such an approach and would provide the framework for allowing other
communities which currently lack access to the benefits which flow from a long term relationship
with a producing theatre company in their midst to articulate and explore their needs.
2.4.12 This recommendation should not be confused with current project-based approaches to touring.
Whilst there may be some companies that would like to develop their relationships with particular
communities over and beyond one off touring dates, we think that it is essential that SAC retains a
flexible market place that enables producers and buyers alike to access a wide range of product on a
regular basis. Rather we are advocating a more strategic approach that will most probably operate to
maximum effect through taking advantage of the resources and operational structures sustained
within buildings-based companies – provided that it represents a genuine partnership in which the
local community has an equal say.
31
2.5
ARTISTIC ISSUES
2.5.1
Another way of looking at the disposition of resources is from the perspective of the variety of
artistic models supported. The process of organic growth within the sector has produced a wide
range of models, such as:
9
“Conventional” repertory theatre model
10 Production by production casting
11 Full time, fixed-term funded ensemble company
12 A company exploiting a “found” theatre space
13 Specialist new work companies
14 An integrated theatre company
15 A multiplex theatre
16 Theatres in which drama is the principal activity
17 A theatre in which drama is the minority activity
18 An artistic policy designed to meet national/international tourism needs
19 Artistic Director-led companies
20 A Producer-led company
21 Sole providers of theatre/performing arts to their communities
22 Theatres that operate in the midst of a range of other theatre provision
These approaches are not mutually exclusive.
2.5.2
We believe that SAC has done the theatre community in Scotland a service by fostering and
sustaining a diverse range of theatre practice – there has been no doctrinaire or ideological policy
pursued that would have rendered some of the various approaches outlined above as not being
worthy of support. (Indeed, given the strength of opinions that exist around topics such as producerled or artistic director-led companies it would have been divisive and not necessarily productive for
SAC to have pronounced in favour of one way or another). However, such a laissez-faire approach
has not been without cost.
2.5.3
Whilst there is a diverse range of approaches to artistic strategy within the sector, it is not the case
that these strategies have been adopted as matter solely of artistic choice. Rather they often reflect
compromises or simply what the companies see as the sheer luck of the draw. For example, in an
32
ideal world the question as to whether a theatre operates on an ensemble basis or production by
production casting should be primarily a question of artistic choice with the artistic director/leader
being able to choose the artistic tool most suited to her or his needs. However, the Royal Lyceum,
for example would clearly wish to be given the same opportunity as the Dundee Rep to operate an
ensemble company model. Conversely, whilst Dundee Rep is able to explore this model it is only on
a lottery-funded project basis without any security as to whether this preferred way of working might
be sustained within its core programme. Similarly there are those occasions for a number of
companies when directors cross-cast not because this is absolutely ideal but because in part in makes
the finances work in a way that production casting would not.
2.5.4
The role of new work and innovation is also point of concern. Whilst there is one theatre, The
Traverse, which is dedicated to new work and has assumed the mantle of being the national centre
for new writing, all of the other theatres see new work and the need to nurture innovation as being
essential to their artistic health for a wide variety of reasons. For both the Royal Lyceum and the
Citzizens’ there is a compelling audience and professional development need for them to be
supported in delivering new and innovative work at full-scale on their main stages. The logic of this
however is that they also need to be supported to bring talent up through the organisation via writing
and creative direction workshops, readings, studio-scale work and the like. Both strive to undertake
such work wherever possible but often their capacity to think long term and take risks is
circumscribed by short-term financial realities. This capacity to deliver new work is equally (if not
more) of an issue to those theatres such as Perth, Dundee, The Byre and also Pitlochry who represent
the sole source of professional theatre provision in their communities. As in the cases cited earlier,
the process of developing talent and stimulating audiences and leading them into fresh artistic fields
demands “joined-up” thinking with regards to product development, marketing, audience outreach
and the like. It also requires a funding environment that does not drive people to put work on stage
and recognises the high levels of natural wastage that are intrinsic to the process of developing new
work. In short, new work and innovation is not a discrete specialist activity; it is a fundamental tool
that should be available to all buildings-based producing theatres.
2.6
Access For Communities
2.6.1
Another way of looking at the disposition of resources is in terms of the various communities served
by the ten theatres as a whole, to see whether there are particular groups or elements of our society
who are less-well served than others. As has been pointed out above, the “laissez-faire”, or “organic
development” approach to artistic objectives has resulted in some key areas of development, and
33
hence communities, almost by-passing the theatres. It has been strongly noted by a range of
commentators across the sector that the biggest growth area for theatre in Scotland has been work
for children and young people (as distinct from participatory work such as youth theatre). The
advocates of such work cite a number of compelling artistic, developmental, and social and also
financial reasons, supported by in-depth research, for giving prominence to work designed expressly
for children and young people. Such work however does not feature large in the activities of the
theatres as a whole. It is recommended therefore that both SAC and the theatres look closely at the
opportunities afforded by such areas of artistic policy so that it can be supported in an appropriate
manner.
2.6.2
The adoption of Theatre Workshop by the drama committee throws up a number of important issues.
Theatre Workshop is rightly proud of the fact that it has made a commitment to running a company
that integrates able-bodied actors with those with disabilities. However, just as it would be wrong to
see new work as the province of only one company, it is difficult to see how the issue of disability
should be left to just one company. The advent of the Disability Discrimination Act heralds a new
way of thinking about and protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. The very existence
of Theatre Workshop’s approach throws down a gauntlet to SAC and the rest of the sector.
Shouldn’t the issue of integration of people with disabilities be a fundamental concern for all the
companies? If women can play male roles (and vice versa) and black people whites, what defensible
barriers could there be for not actively seeking to open up all aspects of buildings-based producing
theatres on and off stage to people with disabilities? Whilst in the past the issues of physical access
and the cost of adapting historic buildings have been cited as a reason, it is not clear that such
reasons will be sustainable in a world governed by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the
European Convention on Human Rights.
2.6.3
The further challenge is this: disability is an important issue but so are those of gender and ethnicity.
If one accepts the arguments (as one should) for the need for a dedicated company for people with
disabilities why has this been given preference over one led by or exclusively for women? (The
research indicates for example that the theatres under review are exclusively led by males; generally
employ more males than females and are governed disproportionately by males). And where do
Scotland’s minority ethnic groups fit into this, either as artists, managers or audiences? Now the
issue of equal opportunities is clearly one of major complexity. However, the point that we wish to
make is that whilst for a public funder/service provider there are moral (and indeed legal) rules
governing these matters, the ad hoc nature of the development of the artistic strategies adopted by
each of the companies has allowed inconsistencies to develop most notably with individual
34
companies adopting a lead role in different areas of activity (with some important social issues
apparently falling to the wayside) and without offering the rest of the sector the means or
opportunity to adopt similar tools to advance these concerns in their own communities.
2.6.4
The issue of capital resourcing is of fundamental importance to the whole issue of disposition of
resources. As the Systems Three research in respect of the previous National Theatre exercise
confirmed, along with ongoing TGI results, the provision of an appropriately resourced venue within
easy reach of communities plays an important role in the stimulation of sustained attendances in
those areas. Whilst the nature of the establishment of the National Lottery meant that pressing
operational and revenue needs could not be addressed (the “fund the art not the buildings”
argument), the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in their favour. The lottery has never been
particularly strong on addressing the apparently low added-value capital needs of the buildings in
respect of operational plant and the fabric of the building. The reductions in capital funding render
it an even more unlikely source of support for routine capital expenditure such as roofing, and
drainage, etc. Furthermore, the historic nature of much of the building stock means that there are
fewer opportunities to reduce costs or take advantage of modern alternatives in respect of such work.
There is also the issue of technical resources. There is a level of technical specification and
provision that is standard within the commercial sector and other creative industries that theatres
currently cannot even begin to address. Whilst some of these might be in respect of “sexy”
innovations in terms of the use of new technologies in performance, there is a whole range of areas
whereby there is scope for increased ease of use and productivity if only there were sufficiently
flexible means of accessing appropriate capital funds. Furthermore, if one accepts that theatres are
competitors in the leisure market, there needs to be greater emphasis in the area of capital funds by
looking at ways in which the whole leisure experience of the venue from the moment one walks into
the door is enhanced and to allow for venues to explore these issues in a creative manner. (Let alone
any discussion of the role of “total new build” buildings in meeting the audience and art form
requirements of the 21st century).
2.6.5
The prospect of a National Theatre as a mechanism for delivering more of the creative outputs of the
theatres also highlights the potential need for continued capital upgrading of venues in communities
that would not be suitable for the proposed small-scale touring theatre to fully engage with this
initiative. Finally, there is also the issue of ensuring that venues are capable of catering for
contemporary society. As highlighted elsewhere, in the future, the theatres could be open to legal
challenge if they are seen to operate in a manner that discriminates against people with disabilities,
35
either explicitly or implicitly, as a result of their current building stock. There must be sufficient
capital resources to ensure that the theatres can meet these challenges.
Recommendation 1: Extending the number of buildings-based producing theatres should not be a
priority for addressing gaps in geographic provision. Rather we would advocate the development of
comprehensive local drama strategies, within the context of which it may be appropriate for existing
buildings-based producing theatres (not necessarily to the exclusion of other potential providers) to
develop and deliver a range of products suitable to local needs. Additional funding, although built
into the relevant theatres annual budget for ease of planning, will also be subject to the agreement
of local stakeholders, to reflect the mutual nature of the partnership. We recommend that funding
for any such partnerships should be for a minimum of three years.
Recommendation 2: SAC should offer firmer guidance in respect of strategic artistic policy to
ensure that people throughout Scotland are treated equitably in respect of generic issues such as
equal opportunities and provision for young people, as well as in terms of overall range of
repertoire etc. Having established a standard level of expectation across the sector, SAC should
then negotiate specific roles in respect of these issues with each theatre in a way that is seen to be
open and logical to the sector as a whole, granting, in the process, any of the theatres in question
the opportunity to “pitch” for taking on a lead role in a particular area of concern. Funding should
then be made in accordance with these objectives for a minimum of a three-year period.
36
3.
RECENT TRENDS
9.25
Before considering the issue of how the current disposition of resources might be altered or
suggesting new models of operation, it is sensible to begin with a survey of what has been happening
to the theatres over their recent history. In part this review has been prompted by SAC’s concern at a
number of key indicators such as financial performance and diminishing audiences and the theatres
concern at the diminution in resources available to them to deliver their objectives. SCE has
undertaken a detailed analysis of a wide range of statistical information concerning the theatres that
were in receipt of SAC drama funding over the period to provide answers to these and other
questions. It is perhaps worth noting that we have had to make a number of adjustments to take
account of significant variations across the period in question. For example, whilst there are ten
theatres under review, two of them, The Arches and Theatre Workshop have only recently become
regularly funded by the Drama Committee. The impact on our research is that these companies do
not feature in the statistical information collected via the Drama Department for the research period
in question. Our analysis of the full ten theatres is therefore restricted to information collated
concerning the last year in question, 1999/00. There are also significant factors to note in respect of
the remaining eight theatres, as the buildings of two of these were closed for significant periods (2
years or more) on account of major capital developments. The digest of statistics in Appendix A and
B therefore provides analyses across various control groups of ten, eight and six theatres, adjusted as
appropriate to permit like with like comparisons across the period in question. The following takes
the form of “questions and answers” based on our statistical analysis, grouped by broad category
headings.
3.2
Artistic
What Is The Scale Of The Decline In Audiences?
3.2.1
SAC cites a decline in audiences for the eight theatres that were funded consistently throughout the
period in question from 627,856 in 94/95 to 435,019 in 99/00. This represents a decline of almost
one third of all attendances – a significant fall which merits exploration. However the period saw an
unprecedented number of the closures for redevelopment arising from the successful introduction of
lottery capital funding in general and the impact of changes in Local Authority funding as a result of
re-organisation, the scale of the problem reduces considerably. As detailed in Appendix A and B,
once all the closures are factored out of the equation, the sector suffered a decline in audiences of
10%.
37
What Are The Reasons For The 10% Decline In Audiences Once One Has Factored Out The
Planned Closures?
3.2.2
There is not sufficient contemporary evidence available in the sector to give a definitive answer to
this question. However, a survey of the range and amount of product available to the public over the
period offers some plausible suggestions. The number of performances given fell by 13%, whilst the
number of productions fell by 9%. The inference is therefore that the decline in audiences might
primarily be as a result of something as simple as the fact that there were commensurately fewer
opportunities to see commensurately fewer numbers of productions. This is perhaps an over
simplification but it is supported by the more generic arts market research of companies such as
System Three and TGI which consistently demonstrate that there is a core theatre audience that will
turn out if it is given the opportunity to do so. If these assumptions are correct, there may well be a
crisis in the sector but it is not about any fundamental collapse in public interest in the sector. It is
vitally important therefore to ensure that any misapprehensions of this nature are countered in the
public domain as it is clear from the attitudinal research findings (which follow) that a range of
influential parties believe there is a fundamental decline in audiences for the theatres’ product, often
with damaging consequences.
What Sorts Of People Are Interested In Going To The Theatre?
3.2.3
Anecdotally, a number of people raised issues about their perceptions of the audience for theatre,
often critically in terms of its social profile. Whilst the 1998/99 TGI results show that highest
proportion of people attending plays in Scotland come from social groups AB, when one looks at the
more detailed characteristics of theatre attendances against the rest of the arts sector a number of
particularly heartening features emerge. Gender uptake reflects the balance of the genders in
society (also suggesting that whilst there are important issues in relation to gender in respect of
employment, power and leadership issues within the sector, the work created appeals to both
genders). There is also a high level of interest from 15-19 year olds and 20-24 year olds, with youth
audiences therefore outnumbering any other category (thus underlining the high importance of
provision of work for children and young people). Again drawing on the 1998/99 TGI data, Theatre
is the most popular of all of the performing arts in terms of audiences attendances: it is 3.75 times
more popular than opera, ballet and jazz; 4.5 times more popular than dance; 1.8 times more popular
than classical music; more popular than galleries; and perhaps surprisingly, even more popular than
going to a rock/pop concert. Contrary therefore to the typecast image of theatre being a minority
38
interest, for an aging middle class audience, theatre is the most popular live art activity, exceeding a
greater level of attendance amongst the general population than all other subsidised performing arts
(attracting almost as many people as opera, ballet, classical music and dance combined) as well as
being more popular than seemingly more “populist” commercial activities such as popular music. It
also appeals to a wide range of age groups with young people achieving the highest levels of
attendance by age group. Theatre therefore is in the vanguard of delivering access to the arts to the
wider public.
Is There Too Much Product Available?
3.2.4
It is at this point the caveat concerning the paucity of consistent and relevant information concerning
audiences for the sector as a whole needs restating. The figures above show that over the period, the
theatres extracted a greater yield from their activities, with a 13% decline in the number of
performances only yielding a 10% decline in audiences. Qualifications accepted, it is possible to
begin to address some of the questions that have been raised in relation to the mix and nature of
product available. The 8 core-funded companies saw their share of total performances remain static
over the period and therefore the actual number of performances and productions by visiting
companies also fell over the period, thus emphasising the close integration of the buildings-based
and touring companies. Given that the general trend has been for the range of product to diminish
over the period of audience decline it is difficult to sustain the argument that there is over provision
of product on the basis of the basic evidence available.
How much of the work presented is new work?
3.2.5
Of the ten theatres work in 1999/00, 108 out of 322 productions presented and/or produced by them
were premieres, representing one third of the product. At present there is little evidence to sustain
the criticism that there is too much new work. Even if there were too much new work, the extent to
which this is a problem for the buildings-based companies in particular is not apparent. As cited
above, the general trend for productions and performances is downward with a commensurate
decline in audiences.
Could the quality of productions have an impact on audiences?
3.2.6
A crude measure of quality (and by no means applicable in all circumstances) is that of the amount
of money spent on productions. In our research we discovered a strong co-relation to the amount of
39
money put on stage and the amount of box-office income these productions generated. In general,
the more money put into product the more the takings at the box-office, with the reverse also being
true. There was strong anecdotal evidence from the sector to the effect that a “cheap” production
philosophy in respect of down-sizing acting, design and general production resources simply
resulted in failing to deliver exciting “must see” productions and hence under-performance in terms
of potential box-office takings. This evidence suggests that the anecdotal concerns of the sector are
founded in fact. Give them the potential to offer high-impact productions and you will enable them
to secure commensurate increase in box-office takings. (Given that for all of the theatres with one
exception, core production costs generate a small net contribution to core costs, such an approach
need not necessarily result in an ongoing additional burden with regards to cost of productions:
underwrite the risk and it would most likely pay for itself on an ongoing basis). In its submission,
Equity, highlights the fact that although audiences as a whole may have declined for the theatres
under review, it would appear that there has been a significant increase in audiences for the
commercial theatre, as exemplified by the performance of the Edinburgh Playhouse, which is one of
the most successful theatres in the UK. Needless to say the majority of material presented at the
Playhouse is originated or presented by the English commercial theatre sector which is able to offer
the high quality, high impact theatrical experience that has Scottish theatre goers willingly paying
handsome sums to enjoy. We would agree with Equity’s view that the scale of Scotland’s theatrical
infrastructure is such that Scotland would be unlikely to be able to sustain a large-scale commercial
theatre-style operation without recourse to the resources of the subsidised sector. Therefore there is a
sound argument for resourcing the Scottish theatre sector at an adequate level to offer distinctively
Scottish material at this scale of operation, capable of delivering the same scale of experience as
visiting counterparts.
What are the links with the commercial sector?
3.2.7
Whilst a number of the theatres expressed a desire to develop links with the commercial sector, there
was only one commercial co-production in 1999/00. The theatres cited lack of security to plan, lack
of risk capital, and sheer lack of physical time to devote to developing such relationships as being
the principal reasons for this relatively low level of commercial collaboration.
What is the scale of co-production within the subsidised sector?
40
3.2.8
During1999/00 there were 11 co-productions within the subsidised sector. Whilst there is an
appreciation of the potential of collaboration as a means of artistic progression, people are wary that
it could be used as a compromise simply to get enough product on stage at a lower price.
There are also hidden costs in collaboration in terms of servicing and sustaining such relationships
that often are not catered for in the package. For one company at least extensive artistic
collaboration, in terms of core artistic programmme would run contrary to their entire philosophy of
an ensemble-based approach.
3.2.9
Beyond on-stage collaborations, there are extensive ad hoc arrangements between individual
companies in respect of access to and sharing resources. These could be extended further but the
framework would need to become more formalised if one were to open up the sector as a more
effective resource for the wider theatre and creative communities.
What is the extent of touring in the work of the companies?
3.2.10 Touring grew over the period from 121 performances to 149 performances, an increase of 23%.
This is admirable for a number of reasons: it sees a greater return being offered from existing
investment; it marks a wider interest in the work of the theatres and hence raises self-esteem within
the companies and respect beyond; and it helps fulfil an ambassadorial role for the local
communities which host the theatres and Scotland as a whole. However, the infrastructure
supporting such initiatives remains fragile. It is very often out of necessity that productions are
trashed at the end of their run and so work that could be suitable is, out of practical necessity, often
destroyed. There are still too few resources and security to be able to plan on a tour, or research and
develop a proposition on a strategic basis. There are also generally limited production budgets so
there is a financial decision in respect of the durability of the set build, etc. Even if one is able to
plan and build on a more secure basis, there is the issue of storage of sets, etc and last and by no
means least, there is generally little or no security to offer actors commitments with regards to
extended runs, etc on a proper lead-in. (It should also be accepted however that actors might have
reasons for not wishing to undertake extensive touring/tie-ins outwith the theatre’s financial ones).
These factors result in an operating ethos that actively works against the notion of extracting
additional value on a strategic basis by touring productions. As such, instead of asking whether we
are producing too much work, it might be more sensible to ask if we can afford to work on such a
wasteful, short-term production philosophy. This also has knock on effects for other parties, for
example the sector as a whole loses out on a showcase for its talents; audiences within Scotland are
not able to fully share in the diverse cultural products of its various cities and regions; the theatres
41
and the host communities and Scotland as a whole lose out on the opportunity to promote its work
and its dynamic cultural products. Now there are many reasons why touring will not always be
suitable, on the basis of suitability of the product, technical demands or simply the quality of work
as revealed through performance. However, the pendulum does need to swing the other way in
favour of allowing the possibility of touring to be a more realistic option in respect of a greater
proportion of the work being produced by the theatres. (This issue will become particularly critical
in respect the viability of a National Theatre season: unless the theatres are able to work with greater
security at a strategic level, the National Theatre may find that its options are limited by being
forced to make good the practical deficiencies of the current system by coming up with guarantees
and “purchases” of productions for its future touring needs on the hoof).
What is the nature of other arts activities?
3.2.11 In 1994/95 the 8 theatres presented 43 non-drama productions. This went down to 39 by 1999/00.
This means that the capacity of the sector as a whole to serve other interests within their community
also declined, thus resulting in a diminishing range of cultural products and the commensurate
negative impacts such a decline has on overall audience development for the venues.
What is the demand for theatre-originated educational and outreach products?
3.2.12 Between 1994/94 and 1999/00 the theatres increased their output and participants for education and
outreach work from 584 workshops for 11,762 people to 675 workshops for 27,281, increases of
16% and 132% respectively. It is also worth noting that those theatres with dedicated departments
and staffing and resources for such work achieve the highest levels of penetration.
3.3
Artistic Questions Summary
3.3.1
Despite initial appearances, there has not been a substantial sudden decline in audiences: the core
audience for the work of the companies remains strong. The crisis rests in the area of the degree
and nature of support for the core infrastructure to sustain and stimulate future growth in
audiences.
3.3.2
The principal factors affecting audience size appear to be, the number of productions presented; the
number of opportunities to attend performances and the quality of the work available.
42
3.3.3
The research suggests that assisting the companies to increase the number of productions and/or
performances presented and enhance the quality and/or range of material presented could result in
a commensurate increase in attendances, with the hint that there might even be a greater yield per
total number of productions presented if they were of sufficient “high impact”.
3.3.4
Overall the sector has shrunken or have remained static in terms of other areas of artistic
endeavour: links with the commercial sector are extremely limited; touring static, co-productions a
limited activity; opportunities for visiting companies declining; non theatre arts activities
diminishing.
3.3.5
In essence these sorts of activities depend on two things: the ability to take risks and the security to
plan and enter into commitments on a strategic basis. It is not the case that such activities will
automatically demand additional public funds on an ongoing basis: some may be sustainable
following the injection of some initial risk capital.
3.3.6
Not withstanding the various issues detailed above, contrary to certain misconceptions, theatre
remains the most popular of all performing arts activities, including attending rock/popular music
and appeals to a wide range of social groups with young people achieving the highest levels of
attendance of any age group. As such theatre is reaching out to the highest number and range of
people of all the performing arts, so logic suggests that any public policy to achieve access to the
arts should be utilising the fullest potential of theatre as one of the most effective ways of engaging
with the wider public.
3.3.7
Whilst declining funding has resulted in a reduction of core product on stage, the growth of project
support has helped stimulate significant growth in key areas of concern such as the Social Inclusion
agenda. The variation of resourcing across the sector however means that the communities served
by the theatres are not enjoying these benefits equally.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that SAC, in consultation with the sector, develops more
sophisticated mechanisms to monitor and analyse audience trends on a more systematic and
scientific basis. It would seem that a key thesis is that if one reduces product audiences decline
accordingly. This can be tested by the converse of increasing funding for the sector to allow the
range, quality and amount of product available to rise to the its previous levels for a minimum of a
three-year trial period. Such an approach could not only yield up valuable information to follow the
impacts of public investment but also, if shared across the sector, provide a valuable management
43
tool within the companies themselves. This should take place as a matter of priority, so as to inform
the effectiveness of any additional funding granted the sector and contribute to the development of
benchmarks and Performance Indicators.
3.4
The Skill Base
What is the state of play with regards to attracting, sustaining and developing talent?
3.4.1
Although referred to as the core infrastructure of the sector, the creative, technical and
administrative resources sustaining the sector are very fragile. According to our survey of the ten
theatres in 1999/00, only two of the ten theatres employed resident designers; and one out of ten a
resident lighting designer on a full-time basis. There were only two music directors on a part-time
basis and two theatres employing a total of three literary managers/dramaturges. Only one of the
theatres employed a full time ensemble of actors and none of the theatres employed a Director who
was not also equally responsible for the general management of the venture as a whole. The sector
as a whole therefore is predominantly dependent on talents that have been paid for and developed
elsewhere and bought on an ad hoc basis from the open market. Whilst there is an element of choice
in terms of people taking up freelance status there is also a degree of financial necessity. (It was
noted ruefully by one contributor from outwith the sector that the only way one could have any
chance of exercising one’s directorial talents and receive a living wage for doing so was by
accepting the responsibilities of general management/chief executive status regardless of one’s real
desire or suitability for such work)
What are the implications of the state of the skills base for the sector?
3.4.2
Buying a significant proportion of ones artistic and technical talent from a free-lance pool is only
sustainable if the wider market conditions permit. The difficulties facing theatres in attracting talent
in the face of film, television and commercial work are well known. However there are also similar
problems within the subsidised theatre sector as well. On the one hand, in times of “famine” in the
sector as a whole, dependence on others to train and sustain one’s prime artistic resources means
that one’s interests are always subservient to someone else’s priorities and decisions (and
accordingly, one can never be in a truly leading or strategic position). On the other, if there is
significant expansion in buying power elsewhere in the sector, it is increasingly difficult to attract
and retain talent if one has extremely limited financial resources, or little to offer in the way of an
attractive working environment. (One only has to think of a scenario of an agent advising his or her
44
client on two job offers – one from, say, a newly enriched “post-Boyden” English regional theatre
offering enhanced pay, bigger productions, better rehearsals, possible touring/transfer plans and
better general facilities and the other from a hard-pressed Scottish counterpart).
How many actor/performing artists are sustained by the sector?
3.4.3
In terms of actor weeks, returns showed that the ten theatres in 1999/00 created a total of 2,691 actor
and 210 musician weeks. This rises to 3,158 actor weeks if one includes those supported by Dundee
Rep’s New Ways of Working Ensemble company. In terms of activities supported by core funding,
the Lyceum makes the largest contribution in this area, delivering 596 actor weeks in 1999/00.
Unfortunately this sort of information has not been collected on a systematic basis by SAC for all of
the theatres under review so it is not possible to track trends across the period. However given that
the number of performances and productions have declined over the period of the review, it would
not be unreasonable to assume that there has been some form of commensurate decline in
employment opportunities for actors and other performing artists over the period.
3.4.4
According to Equity, there is also a growing problem with the nature of the employment on offer for
actors. As shown above, the headline figures tell us that fewer actors are getting opportunities to
work and the range of productions on offer also declined over the period. At a qualitative level, it is
becoming increasingly difficult and/or unpalatable for established actors to take employment on the
basis of the wage deals on offer within the sector. Only the Citizens manages to pay its actors above
the average UK manual salary of £324 per week (source: Labour Research) and none of the theatres
comes close to the national full time earnings figure of £411.30 per week. With “minimums” being
effective “maximums” for the sector, the prospect of working for less than £300 a week with
subsistence payments that rarely meet the true cost of living away from home are not attractive or
realistic for many actors. It is one thing to operate a single company wage as part of a coherent
artistic philosophy it is another when this is simply a means of pegging fees to the lowest common
denominator. The net result of these trends across the sector, again according to Equity, is that more
senior/established actors effectively subsidise the Scottish theatre from income secured (or
foregone) elsewhere; the spaces left are filled by young actors who are perhaps more willing to
accept the prevailing circumstances as they need to work to establish themselves; whilst in a number
of instances students and nominal “trainees” are brought into lesser well paid positions that once
would have been delivered by fully professional actors. It is highly unlikely that any of the arts
administrators reading (or to indeed, writing!) this report would wish to work on the terms offered to
actors in the current environment. Equity’s own research also suggests a significant reduction in the
45
total spend on actors as a proportion of total expenditure and in its own survey of the Traverse,
Lyceum and Dundee Rep’s programmes over the period 1995 to 2000 shows an increase in the
number of administration staff being credited, thus suggesting that there has been a shift in priorities.
This may be on account of “tooling up” to meet emerging funding system priorities, such as
education and outreach work but certainly this concern certainly merits further investigation
(although the overall overheads budgets do not suggest increases – to the contrary total overheads
costs have fallen in real terms).
3.4.5
The relationship between subsidised theatre and the commercial and wider creative industries is
generally a one-way track. For example, the investment of the subsidised theatre in acting talent
often means that its brightest stars are, on the current financial model, inaccessible in the ordinary
course of the theatre’s work (it is one thing to do a run in London at the Donmar for a basic company
wage in between film or other work: it is another to expect the same actor to up sticks and do the
same in a relatively small town in Scotland). Pay back of past favours, old loyalties and intriguing
projects will only go so far in attracting top talent back into the Scottish theatre on a more regular
basis. If we want live theatre to be considered as an equally valid area of activity as the more
financially rewarding work on offer, we must put in place adequate resources to make the subsidised
theatre sector an attractive (or simply realistic) place to work. Without this, we run the risk of their
being two sorts of entertainment: a mass popular commercial enterprise, delivering talent which is
well known throughout all sections of society primarily through screen based experience and a
marginalized, “low rent” cultural activity, dependent on an almost monastic pool of talent,
effectively tied to vows of poverty and perhaps unknown to the wider public.
3.4.6
The craft skill base is similarly under pressure. In terms of full-time employees or equivalents, the
sector in 1999/00 employed an average of just fewer than 2.5 people each in making; just fewer than
3 each in technical and just over 1 in stage management. The Citz is unusual in that it eschews a
full-time based approach in favour of a seasonally based model, with short term hires equating to
some 25 FTEs (but remember this model depends on someone somewhere else providing sufficient
employment for such staff to enable them to be available to a free-lance market place – it is unlikely
that such a model would be sustainable if applied across the whole of the sector). The Lyceum and
Dundee Rep represent the highest levels of staffing (but it should be noted that Dundee’s resource
base is highly dependent on the fixed-term Lottery funding). When one considers these averages
across the sector one becomes immediately aware that such staffing levels offer very little room for
manoeuvre and smooth running depends on a range of exceptional circumstances. Illness, injury, or
the departure of any one of these technical staff could (and, in certain circumstances, has) created
46
significant problems for each company in a way that is disproportionate to what should be expected.
It should not be the case that a multi-million pound enterprise is at risk on account of something as
simple as illness or the like of a relatively junior member of the staff.
Similarly, a local “fix” has only temporarily solved issues such as the EU Working Directive by
allowing hours worked to be considered over 52 weeks as opposed to a 32 week period. A stricter
application of the Directive would result in additional costs and operational difficulties for the
sector, in terms of bringing in additional staff and /or incurring greater staff costs to comply with
regulations (although the impact of this is most likely to be even greater on touring companies). In
terms of areas that are particularly at risk, there are pressing concerns in areas such as carpentry and
electrics, given the high level of demand for these skills in the wider business community.
3.4.7
Retention of staff is one thing: bringing on the next generation is another. Rightly or wrongly, in an
age in which the hallmarks of life for those in employment is increasingly marked by short-term
contracts and a greater emphasis on self-reliance, there is an increasing emphasis on the need for
employers to offer competitive packages consisting of more than just adequate wages. According to
BECTU even within the theatre sector, technical and production staff can earn upwards of twice as
much in commercial enterprises. From a craft union perspective, the subsidised sector is seen as a
being more of a vocation than as a career (and it is worth bearing in mind that it took the advent of
the minimum wage to enhance pay for some people in the sector). There is a further hard edge of
reality at the entry level: students saddled with loans and overdrafts tend to look more closely at the
bottom line in terms of remuneration. A profession that has the air of being a mission rather than a
career might still prove attractive to some individuals but in general it does not bode well for
attracting key administrative, technical and professional staff in a competitive market place.
3.4.8
For those staff currently in post, there is little available in the way of resources to support an
effective professional and personal development programme. The sector itself only supports two
directorial trainees and has no other equivalent training programme for other key talent. In short the
sector lacks the ability to take a pro-active role in nurturing and developing its talent base, thus
leaving it unduly exposed to the vagaries of others and chance.
What about issues such as equal opportunities?
3.4.9
As noted above the theatre as a whole is successful in attracting female audience members but
according to the snapshot taken of the ten theatres in 1999/00, the sector is skewed in favour of
males, who make up 70% of the boards, 88% of the directorial talent, 73% of designers, 72% of the
47
writing talent; 58% of actors and 100% of the full-time Artistic directors. People with disabilities
for example, constituted 1% of performers but did not register at all as writers, directors or
designers. People from minority ethnic backgrounds fared comparatively better, constituting 2% of
writers; and 4% of performers, whilst registering no appearances as designers or directors. Given,
for example, the high proportion of people with disabilities as a percentage of our population
compared to their involvement with the sector as a whole, the commitment made by Theatre
Workshop to serve this area of concern is particularly valuable. There are also indications from
development work such as that undertaken by the Traverse that a much higher proportion of female
writers are coming thorough but the findings suggest that whilst this is just a one-year snapshot,
without the support of five year’s of trends, these matters need to be considered very carefully by the
theatres themselves and their funders to identify the reasons behind these figures and what
appropriate action should be taken.
Who governs the companies?
9.25.1 There is a diverse range of board structures and operational models within the sector, ranging from
one company which has a board of 5 meeting quarterly through to another with 19 people which
meets monthly. The issue of best governance is a major topic in itself and it is not possible within
the remit of this review to express preferences for particular models. In terms of other observations
however one might have expected, given the high level of LA inputs to boards and the role of SAC
as an observer that the issues in respect of equal opportunities would not be so stark. There was also
more than one wry comment during the course of the review that unlike some other major arts
companies, the sector’s innate sense of responsibility, perhaps arising from its board representation
meant that budgets were always balanced and that any risky activities were limited accordingly. As
a result, the cumulative effect of each standstill grant, etc. has been the reduction in the scale, range,
and aspirations of repertoire and also of the number of performances and productions being
presented. This in turn has resulted in the commensurate drop in audiences. Whilst virtue is a
reward in itself it has been somewhat galling for the sector to take the pain whilst seeing others
apparently reap the benefits of not living within their means.
Recommendation 4: SAC in partnership with other stakeholders should take swift action to ensure
that the skills base is:
9.25Adequately resourced
9.26Suitably remunerated
48
9.27Able to access resources to facilitate and encourage professional and personal development
across all areas of activity
In order to ensure that the sector can be seen as a valid, sustainable and desirable career choice.
3.5
Questions About Finance
How have the companies fared in terms of income overall?
3.5.1
Using the 8 theatres which were funded constantly throughout the period as our measure, it becomes
apparent that income overall has fallen from £10.4m in 1994/95 to £9m in 1999/00. This represents
an unadjusted fall of £1.4m of 14% for the period in cash terms. If funding had risen inline with
inflation over the period to £11m, the real terms loss increases to 219% or some £2m.
How have they performed at the box-office?
3.5.2
Total box office takings for the period have once adjusted for closures remained broadly static
declining by around 3% in real terms (£3.07m in 19994/95, 2.9m in 1999/00). Whilst attendances
have gone down, the yield per individual attendance has gone up from £4.89 in 1994/95 to £6.77 in
1999/2000, an increase of 38% in cash terms, and in excess of 25% in real terms. In terms of
efficiency therefore, the theatres have in a period of general retrenchment made significant growth
through yielding more attendances per production/programme offered, and significant growth of
some 38% in terms of ticket yield per attendance. This is a considerable achievement in the face of
such adversity.
Are ticket prices too high?
9.25.1 However, there is a certain unease in the sector with regard to the possible impact of increased ticket
yields on the diversity of audiences, with the possibility that tickets are being driven out of the reach
of poorer members of society. As there is no systematic account of audience profiles for each and
every one of the theatres over the period it is difficult to offer a definitive view on this topic. Whilst
the Citizens has pursued an extensive cheap ticket policy, there does not appear to be any solid
statistical evidence that can be subjected to scrutiny in respect of the profile and background of
attendees taking up the cheap tickets. Similarly, although there was a perception that the Lyceum
was an expensive theatre, the Lyceum does in fact offer a broad spread of ticket prices catering for a
49
wide range of income bands, with tickets ranging from £1. There is a more detailed survey of ticket
pricing across the theatres in Appendix A (2a).
9.25.2 Often in other aspects of this review, cinema was cited as a competitor and benchmark with an
aspiration that theatre ticket prices would be the same as those for cinema. At present the cheapest
non-concession tickets in the sector range between £3 to £14, with a median price of around £7.50,
compared to £4.50-£5.50 for cinema. However as has been demonstrated in Gallop’s independent
market research for Key Note, such assumptions can be falsely grounded. Just as dining out and
staying in were shown to be bigger competitors for leisure time than cinema, the notion that flat
ticket price structures are something to be pursued are actually being challenged within the cinema
industry itself. The cinema industry is beginning to question the one price fits all notion. Already
there are differentials in newer complexes based on seat location and at a strategic level people are
questioning the sense of offering an absolute must see blockbuster, with scope for significant
demand with a more obscure/unpopular work. The indication is that we may see cinema complexes
move away from such simple models. There is also perhaps a fundamental error in judging the
economics of the theatre by the standards of a mass global entertainment industry. Not only does the
notion of matching cinema prices fail to deal with the fundamental economic differences of selling a
bespoke, unique time-limited product compared to those of a mass product that can be duplicated at
marginal cost with an infinite shelf life as the schedules of any cable film channel will
demonstrate!). It also potentially debases the value of theatre by casting it in the same frame as a
fundamentally different cultural activity.
3.5.5
The research that has been done into ticket pricing, perhaps kicked off by the seminal work
undertaken by Milward Brown in the early 1990’s suggests that price is not the principal factor in
deciding whether to attend or not. Rather there is a whole process beginning with “what is it about”;
“where is it? (do I like that place?)” “when is it?” “What time is it?”, etc. The key issue with ticket
pricing was shown to be not what the top ticket prices were but whether there was a ticket available
at a price that the potential attendee wished to pay. The issue was therefore of offering a range of
ticket prices that facilitated this process. The notion that price is the fundamental issue governing
the decisions of potential attendees also fails to take account of the fact that many people on very
limited means still chose to spend comparatively large sums of money on attending popular culture
events, concerts, festivals or even musicals which are often priced far in excess of concessionary or
non concessionary tickets in the theatre. The key determinant in these decisions does not appear to
be cost. Rather it is a more fundamental one as to whether the event is culturally relevant, enjoyable
50
and ultimately, whether it is value for money. A £1 (or even a free) ticket may still not seem good
value for time and money against these criteria.
3.5.6
The other key finding of the Milward Brown research was that there were some people who would
automatically wish to have the best seats and were quite comfortable with paying top prices for them
(indeed they would often feel that they were getting a “cheap” experience if they were not being
asked to pay such prices). To ignore this diverse range of social and individual preference dynamics
in ticketing policy could not just lead to much lower yields (at a rough calculation, adopting such a
policy in the sector for 1999/00 would have resulted in a potential loss of some £750,000 or so) but
also dissatisfaction amongst particular sections of the market which could lead to a further loss of
attendance. Rather we would urge a detailed assessment of ticket pricing policies over a three to five
year period to establish quantifiable impacts in terms of cheap ticket prices (or the alternative). Our
hunch is that the best approach is likely to be in offering a broad range of ticket prices geared to
maximise both the diversity of attendances but continuing to ensure that those who can and are
willing to pay top prices continue to do so, whilst continuing to offer a proportion of the very best
seats at concessionary prices to ensure that less well off members of society were not excluded on
the grounds of cost alone.
What has happened to other sources of self-generated income?
3.5.7
Surpluses from trading and ancillary income fell for the control group of theatres from £568,000 in
19994/95 to £435,551 in 1998/99. It is important to bear in mind however that this downward trend
was not uniform for all of the theatres with some achieving positive results and growth over the
period. Again this is perhaps only to be expected. By definition, ancillary income is dependent on
the prime activity of putting work on stage. If in general one has fewer productions with fewer
performances and fewer attendances it is likely to be the case that this source of income will fall.
How has the public funding system treated the sector?
3.5.8
Overall the income for the sector for 1999/00 broke down as follows:
9
Earned income
46%
10 LAs
22%
11 SAC Core
30%
12 SAC Other
2%
51
The principal source of income for the sector as a whole therefore was efforts of the theatres
themselves through their trading activities. Total Public investment in the 1999/00 was £6,075,519.
52
Has Public Funding kept pace with Inflation?
3.5.9
No. The following table sets out SAC core funding for the period compared to inflation:
Year
Inflation
Actual Grant
Grant in line with
(%)
(£)
Inflation
Difference
94-95
2.4
2,563,900
2,563,900
0
95-96
3.5
2646,024
2,653,637
-7,613
96-97
2.4
2647,043
2,717,324
-70,281
97-98
3.1
2,706,693
2,801,561
-94,868
98-99
3.4
2,716,268
2,896,814
-180,546
99-00
1.5
2,742,778
2,940,266
-197,488
TOTA
-550,795
L
Table 2: Total SAC funding compared to inflation (Bank of England)
As can be seen, whilst the figures show a modest increase of 7% across the period, the level of
erosion on account of inflation across the eight theatres between 1994/95 and 1999/00 was some
£550,000 in real terms.
3.5.10 Local Authority funding has also experienced major setbacks. The advent of Local Authority Reorganisation resulted in a sharp loss of funding. By 1999/00 Local authority funding had only
reached 91% of the levels being granted in 1994/95, taking no account of inflation. (Theatres have
however fared better than the rest of the arts over this period). The sector therefore has experienced
a triple whammy over the period: Core SAC funding declined in real terms, trading activities were
disrupted understandably by the companies’ implementation of lottery funded capital programmes
and local authority re-organisation struck at one of the three pillars of their ongoing support.
53
How has SAC treated the sector in relation to other areas of activity?
3.5.11 There was considerable concern expressed at the apparent “schemification” of SAC funding, with
the concern that SAC was favouring project funding over enhancing core grants. Overall SAC
expenditure on drama remained static over the period at c. £4.6m. Overall, however, between
1994/95 and 1999/2000 drama as a percentage of overall SAC expenditure fell from 20% to 18%.
There are well documented reasons for the additional increases in funding for SAC relating to the
funds earmarked for the National Companies but it is still informative to see that the sum which
would have come to drama had its share of the budget had remained at 20% would have been over
some additional £500,000 per annum, which if split between the various areas of interest would have
been equal to the sums lost in real terms due to the erosion of inflation in public core funding.
3.5.12 In 1999/00 and 2000/2001, the drama budget enjoyed increases of 9.6% and 9.1% respectively both
of which were in excess of SAC’s overall settlement. In 2001/2002 drama received a 9% increase in
funding overall (although overall SAC funding rose by 13.3% so drama had reverted to lagging
behind the headline increase identified between 94/95 and 99/00). The majority of this increase was
made available via a special “Reinvigoration of Scottish Theatre” fund of which 16% was passed on
to the theatres under review. Furthermore, the trends within drama do show a trend away from core
funding towards project funding. In 1994/95 revenue funding represented just under 60% of total
funds. By 2001/2002 this stood at 48.8%, thus supporting the claim of “schemification” over core
funding. The most likely way in which a buildings-based company is to enjoy an increase in funding
under the current system is for it to be in the form of a short-term, competitive project award against
criteria which may or may not take account of the particular factors influencing the operations of a
company with the responsibilities of maintaining a building as a resource for the sector.
Competitive schemes are not intrinsically bad. The key element in assessing them is perhaps in
judging their suitability to secure the desired outcome and whether the schemes themselves are
capable of embracing the interests and operating environments of their target beneficiaries. Seen
from this perspective it is questionable that going down the path of schemes will provide suitable
tools to address the particular circumstances of buildings-based companies.
What was the net result of these reductions in funding?
3.5.13 The sector has been responsible with regards to striving to trade within known resources. Deficits
have largely been contained at manageable proportions (and in the notable case of the Lyceum, it has
54
been converted through its own efforts and with the support of SAC’s National Lottery
Advancement Programmes from a £384,600 deficit in 1994/95 to a £104,000 surplus in 1999/00).
The Citizens, Lyceum and Theatre Workshop have all been granted Advancement funding as a
means of assisting them to improve income generation in the future. In general the theatres have
responded to these reductions in funding by reducing those areas of expenditure where they have
flexibility and attempting to peg expenditure in those areas that are ongoing. This has resulted in the
problems identified earlier: the only flexibility has been to scale down or cutback on productions.
Total production related expenditure remained static (£2,953,072 in 1994/95, £2,933,082 in
1999/00).
3.5.14 In terms of other areas of the budget, payroll was £3,378,705 in 1994/95 and £3,411,848, a 1% rise
in cash terms but a major cut in real terms given that inflation was cumulatively in excess of 14% for
the period in question. Overheads fell by 7% (unadjusted for inflation) for the same period, from
£1,717,449 to £1,598,594, but it is not clear the extent to which this was the result of collateral
reductions in expenditure that are production/performance related or as a result of specific costreduction policies. As might be expected there are two financial currents running within buildingsbased companies: the buildings-related and core company infrastructure overheads which are
invariable fixed and hard to reign in in respect of general inflationary forces; and the artistic product
which is the only element where the company can exercise real choice as to what is spent. The
unfortunate outcome of prudence throughout the period has been that the primary reason for the
buildings being in existence to deliver has been the one area that has been forced to be cutback.
How well have the theatres done in respect of Lottery funding?
3.5.15 Overall the theatres have done comparatively well out of lottery funding. Between 1995 and 2001
the theatres have received £19.1m, of capital funding, representing 42% of the funds requested and
17% of total awards, with the greater part (£18.2m) going on buildings. In terms of project funding,
the theatres have received £1.8m or 8% of the total lottery funds available since project funds were
introduced in 1997/98. This lottery funding represents a significant boost for the sector. It is perhaps
worth noting however that the major concern over the period has been for investment in mounting
sufficient product of a sufficient quality to sustain and enhance audiences. From this perspective the
theatres have not done well with only the New ways of working award for Dundee Rep seeing any
real money finding its way into core artistic activities. As noted above, although the total spend is a
significant proportion of the lottery funds, the challenges facing the buildings as service providers in
55
an extremely competitive leisure market have by no means been fully addressed by the awards and
schemes undertaken to date. It is a false assumption therefore to assume that the capital needs of
theatre have been addressed for this current generation as we envisage ongoing demands for
refurbishment of public spaces; adopting new technology on stage; and taking advantage of
technological developments in promotion, production and administration.
3.6
Summary Financial Issues
9.25.1 Once one takes account of inflation, the theatres have experienced serious reductions in core public
over the period. Given that the underlying purpose of this funding is to sustain the basic
infrastructure and programme of work, there has been a reduction in programming and also in the
range and diversity of repertoire. However in spite of these diminishing resources the theatres have
protected artistic programming costs by increasing their ticket per attendee by 38% and achieved
real terms cuts in overheads approaching 14% in real terms
Recommendation 5: Given the theatres own efforts demonstrated so far in respect of increasing
yield whilst surviving significant real terms cuts, it is recommended that sufficient financial
resources be granted to the sector to address the fundamental fixed and related costs of running- a
full time, fully-utilised building-based company, coupled with access to appropriate funds to
underwrite creative and commercial risk on a strategic basis.
56
4.
BEST VALUE
4.1
So far in this report we have had the opportunity to set out the current disposition of resources in
broad terms and then explore key financial and operational issues through a series of detailed
questions tracking trends across the recent history of the sector. This section of the report is
dedicated to the issue of whether existing funding and/or resources across the sector could be used
more effectively, perhaps under different models of operation. Indeed it is essential to consider
whether there is any more juice to be squeezed from the current set up before any consideration can
be given to issue of additional funding resources. As before the format follows that of question and
answer.
Is there any fat or slack in the system?
4.2
Normally one would look to see if there were any obvious areas of duplication/waste that could be
driven out of the system to deliver efficiency gains. Whilst there is a diverse range of approaches to
delivering theatre represented in the sector, and there are at a micro-economic level, examples of
good practice developed in various parts of the sector that could be applied effectively elsewhere,
such considerations are primarily about adding value rather than saving costs. Given that the
theatres as a whole have reduced their total amount of productions by 13%, reduced their number of
performances by 10%, coped with a fall in income of around 10%, held their overheads to just below
inflation and increased their ticket yield by 13% it might be fair to say that circumstances and five
years of retrenchment have very effectively driven “fat” out of an already very lean system.
4.3
The principal slack in the system relates to under-utilisation of resources. Unless fully utilised, a
buildings based company will see a disproportionate amount of its expenditure go on simply keeping
the facility in place and available for a limited programme of work. As our subsequent analysis will
show, this resource can be utilised if there is a major uplift in basic resources without it thereby
needing constant additional public funding. Our study relating to the 6 companies funded and open
for business consistently through the period shows that for 5 out of 6 the theatres, putting on
productions actually enables them to generate income that is in excess of production costs, and
hence also make a contribution to core overheads. A shift in core funding to embrace the concept of
the core infrastructure being covered will liberate any “profit” from box office to be used to promote
the strategic interests of the company without necessarily resorting to additional public revenue
funds.
57
Is there any unnecessary duplication in the system?
4.4
Taking the example set by Scottish Opera/Scottish Ballet, a fair question would be to see if there
could be any funds released through merging or sharing activities. As that exercise has shown
however there are only particular circumstances in which one can share resources and produce
greater benefits all-round over and above any initial financial savings. A great deal of time in all the
theatres is spent on management of and upkeep of buildings. One obvious approach would be to
consider whether companies might share buildings. This issue is of little relevance to the Byre,
Perth, Dundee, and Pitlochry as they are the sole operators in their community. This leaves in
essence the issue of Glasgow and Edinburgh. At present the volume of activity in both sets of
companies is such that there is greater demand for theatre space than could be accommodated by say
just using the Citz or the Lyceum with a dedicated studio theatre space. There is also the issue of
clashes for access to the facilities and suitability/scale of space for the work. (Even if there was a
perfect time/availability fit for Theatre Workshop for example to use another of the Edinburgh
theatres, fundamental issues of disabled access etc. would rule out such collaborations. There is also
the issue of the way in which people respond to different venues and programme them in respect of
complementary incoming work. Often companies looking for ways of releasing capital look to their
buildings as a potential source of revenue. With the exception of Pitlochry, nobody owns the theatre
in which they operate. Even if they did wish to dispose of them or release capital in some way, the
market value of an A listed 19th century Theatre is likely to be very poor. As such, release or sharing
of major capital resources is unlikely to be an option.
4.5
Given that the majority of talent is hired in the form of freelance workers, often at or near minimum
rates there are few (if any) savings to be had in this area without continuing the negative cycle of
reducing scale, range and numbers of performances and productions. Dundee could theoretically
strip out around 14% of its payroll costs in respect of NI and other employer’s costs of its ensemble
company but then this would simply mean a reversion to old ways of working and then one would
once again prey to the vagaries of sourcing talent on a freelance model.
4.6
There are many areas where the identical functions are being carried out in the sector, such as
making, props, technical staff, etc. Whilst it would be imprudent to make hard and fast
pronouncements on this without commissioning a very detailed internal cost comparison exercise, it
is unlikely to be the case (with one major exception, as discussed later on) that such collaborations
could be sustained at a practical level. The geographic spread of the theatres is such that there
58
would be inherent difficulties with say having a theatre in Perthshire running a props service for say
a theatre in Glasgow and wigs for a theatre in Edinburgh. There is also the practical factor of the
barely adequate resources available to each theatre as a whole. If you only have an average of one
member of stage-management and three staff in making on a full-time basis, there is barely enough
staff to deliver your own core activities let alone service a joint venture for a consortium of
consumers. This area is worthy of a study in its own right. We would therefore encourage SAC to
facilitate a systematic process of identifying common areas of expenditure and activity and review
the scope for joint action from the perspective of cost savings; increased productivity; and added
value. If there is to be any collaboration of this sort it must be thought of in respect of the whole
sector and not simply in terms of what is after all a largely artificial grouping of theatre companies
who happen to have buildings as well.
4.7
The one exception could well be in Perthshire. We believe that of all the theatres under review,
Perth Theatre and Pitlochry meet a number of key criteria governing such collaborations: There is
sufficient diversity within their operating schedules to permit resources to be shared without
clashing; there is geographic proximity to facilitate shared working; and there is a common local
funding body to provide a coherent strategic framework for any moves toward collaboration. Any
such development however must also take into account the fact that Pitlochry operates not just as a
national theatre resource in the area of arts tourism but also has a key role to play in provision of
resources and services for the whole of the theatre sector on account of its unique location, periods
of operation and resources.
4.8
Whilst there is scope for striving for efficiency gains through collaboration, it might be more
sensible to see collaboration as a means of creating added value amongst the theatres and potentially
for the sector as a whole. This, as mentioned before, might be through strategic artistic
developments such as addressing the childrens’ and young people’s arts agenda or through
straightforward financial issues. There are for example a number of ways in which the buying power
of the sector might be used with greater muscle, perhaps through group purchasing of supplies or
services, such as print or advertising. For any such developments to be successful there must be a
sense of full ownership by the sector themselves rather than it simply being an imposition. We
would recommend therefore that SAC, in consultation with the ten theatres and the FST should
encourage the development of a forum for business-to-business type exchange which would enable
theatres to share resources more effectively in practical ways, as well as explore scope for joint
purchasing, etc to lever better deals for the sector across a variety of services.
59
4.9
We would also recommend that a more sophisticated approach is adopted to sharing market
intelligence. As the English theatre has shown, it is possible to share key market intelligence and
ensure that there are mechanisms in place to stop predatory behaviour. At present the sector is
littered by “dead” or under-exploited information both lying within the SAC and within the theatres
themselves that could be used to improve financial and operational performance.
Could self-generated income be improved on?
4.10
Yes. Sponsorship for drama is relatively small in Scotland as a whole and falls well below that of
levels obtained in England. We believe that there are practical reasons such as the inclusion of the
RSC and National in the English sponsorship returns but it is clear from talking to Arts & Business
that sponsors do not consider theatres to offer as good a value as other art forms. There may be
intrinsic reasons related to the nature of the art form in question for sponsors choosing to put their
funds elsewhere. (For example, it is one thing to have the scenes of abuse and degradation taking
place as depicted by an old master within an ornate gilded frame behind you as you chat with your
guests at a smart drinks party at say the National Gallery – it is another to bring one of your target
customers to sit through their graphic representation on stage, fifteen feet from their noses).
However, given the extensive range of work on offer and the many other social benefits listed at the
outset of this report, we believe that there should be further scope for winning sponsorship for the
sector. We would recommend therefore that this matter is considered carefully by the sector and
that every encouragement is offered to them by the funding system to “tool up” to operate more
effectively in this area.
4.11
We also believe that the capacity to increase earned income from touring, commercial tie-ins and
cross-media exploitation could be exploited if the companies had greater security of planning and
access to either some form of “creative risk” funding, preferably built into core funding for a start up
period and/or funds from other public agencies such as the enterprise and local business
development network to support the more speculative areas of linkage with the commercial and
creative industries sector. For example, an ensemble company might be supported by exploiting the
different talents of its members in say talking books, or radio production, or providing a readings for
hire service for advertising/film/commercial drama companies or, a web-based soap or drama, or a
spin off documentary production company, or by developing arts-based training for the business
community, etc. A technical/production team might be able to develop additional income through
developing tie-ups with conference/events/trade fair-type promotions companies. These are just
some ideas that might yield benefits. We are convinced from our discussions within the sector that
60
there is a lot of commercial acumen that at present is being bogged down in dealing with shorttermism and uncertainty. If one can begin to remove these unproductive burdens we are sure that
this sort of commercial flair could be brought forward to the benefit of all concerned. If the 1980’s
say the advent of marketing and the 1990’s the emergence of education as a major component of
theatres’ work we see this first decade of the new century as being the time when we find new ways
of unleashing creative potential in the commercial field and therefore recommend that SAC
considers an effective means of stimulating and nurturing such approaches to self-generated income
in all of the companies within its charge.
Could performance be improved by changing management structures?
4.12
A number of people during the course of the review brought up the issue as to whether artistic
director-led theatres were the most appropriate way of operating. Without wishing to side-step this
issue, we believe that it is difficult to make definitive judgements about the producer-led model
versus the artistic director-led model when nobody is able to operate to their best on account of the
limited resources available and constraints under which all of the sector is operating. It might be
more productive to look at the issue of how the theatre itself functions as a resource for the wider
sector and community, as opposed to the “host season” productions originated under what ever
artistic model is in place for delivering the core season. If in return for any increase in investment,
the sector puts its role as a resource for the community on a more formalised basis, there will be a
greater need to look at the potential of the theatre as a public building quite separate from its role as
a home for the “in house” productions. This would cover both the service levels and support offered
to visiting companies, access to other production and promotional facilities and other services
drawing on the wealth of expertise within the company as a whole. We see the need therefore for
someone within the organisation to become the champion for these wider interests with perhaps
someone at board level being charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the company’s role as
a resource for the wider sector is effectively promoted and delivered.
But what about a more radical approach?
4.13
During the course of this review a number of people have put forward the suggestion that we need
radical change to liberate funds for dispersal elsewhere in the sector. We think however that once
one actually looks at the financial consequences such an approach would be unwise and counterproductive. First of all, as pointed out in the early stages of this report, the ten theatres are
delivering a diverse range of objectives, under different models in different areas of the country.
There is little duplication between functions on an artistic, geographic or on a “communities-served”
61
basis. There is also the problem of what provision would need to be put in place in respect of the
various part of the country/ community served by the theatre which has had its funding cut. (For
example, it would be an unusual argument that left any of the “single theatre” communities, such as
Perth, Dundee or North East Fife without such a facility when they had enjoyed one up until that
point, or trying to explain to, say, writers or people from minority groups that the one theatre that
served their interests is being cut).
4.14
Even if one surmounted these hurdles there is the issue of the net benefit that would flow to the
sector from shifting funds elsewhere. As has been shown above, whilst a major influence on the
sector, SAC is a minority stakeholder in the whole enterprise, in that it only holds an average of a
32% stake in the ten theatres total income. Whilst SAC is perfectly at liberty to take its 32%
elsewhere, there is no guarantee that the remaining 68% will follow. The most likely result of a
radical shift therefore will most probably be the loss of one major area of theatre production as well
as the loss of a facility for the rest of the sector (given the high level of work presented by visiting
companies this is a major concern), and the likely haemorrhaging of more than twice the amount of
money being invested elsewhere. As such SAC would need to be extremely sure of its capacity to
deliver sufficient residual services to the community losing its theatre, as well as levering in
sufficient added value elsewhere to make cutting one or more of the theatres a sensible option.
9.25
Summary
9.25.1 There are a number of useful, radical and exciting options that can be pursued in respect of reducing
costs, increasing buying power and adding value to the sector, both collectively and through
supporting individual commercial development as appropriate to each company.
9.25.2 However, simply opting to cut funding from one and give it to the other should only be seen as a last
resort as the net result is likely, in the initial and perhaps longer term, period in a loss of up to twice
the size of the funds liberated being lost to the sector through loss of box-office income, related
trading income and other public sector funding.
9.25.3 The experience of the period in question has resulted in the theatres already increasing trading yields
and driving down expenditure to the bone. To attempt to go deeper within the existing financial
resource base would simply result in either the overall reduction of benefits offered by the
companies to the sector and wider community as a whole, or would mean adopting a policy of short
term cannibalism, with the sector consuming itself over what would be a very short period, as
62
companies were dismantled to feed the operational needs of a dwindling group of survivors. (The
scale of the financial problems is such that the sector would end up stabilising at a very small
number of theatres).
Recommendation 6: It is recommended that SAC regards cutting funding to existing companies
as means of investing in other members of the grouping as a tool of the last resort. Rather it is
recommended that SAC actively seeks additional resources to invest in the sector and fosters selfhelp through new ways of exploring practical collaborations, reaching out into the wider sector,
to:
9
Achieve greater operational efficiency, sharing and utilisation of resources,
10 Reduce expenditure and
11 increase the collective buying power of the sector
Recommendation 7: That SAC gives priority to encouraging the development of commercial
exploitation of the theatres resources, particularly in the context of commercial theatre and the
other commercial creative industries applications by means of reducing administrative burdens so
as to:
9
Allow individual artistic and administrative leaders time to explore and develop
commercial opportunities
10 Introduce new/prioritise existing funding packages for such ends
11 and encouraging other public funding and development agencies, such as Scottish
Enterprise to follow suit.
63
5.
THEATRE VISION SCOTLAND: A REPRISE
5.1
We believe that in the context of what has been discussed so far that the vision that began to emerge
from the Theatre Vision Scotland exercise represents the most appropriate way for SAC to progress.
If SAC, and through its advocacy, other key players in public funding, such as Government, Local
Authorities, and the Enterprise and Tourist networks, can find the means of increasing support and
investment in the sector, there will be a wide range of added-value benefits over and above the
pressing issue of restoring the infrastructure that will flow across a wide range of constituencies.
Given that these benefits are desirable to the Scottish Executive in the form of the National Cultural
Strategy and SAC in its own interpretation of the same, we believe that there are compelling reasons
for making additional support for the sector a priority.
5.2
The National Cultural Strategy sets out five aims:
9
Promote, encourage and support excellence and innovation in the arts
10 Broaden the range and increase the numbers of people experiencing and taking pat in the
arts
11 Support the arts sector to help them meet the needs of society today
12 Promote the arts in all aspects of Scottish life
13 Ensure that SAC is effective and responsive to the needs of society and the arts today
The following offers an analysis of how the theatres can and do meet these objectives, taking as its
frame of reference a paper entitled Aims and Priorities objectives prepared by the |Scottish Arts
Council in response to the NCS.
5.4
Promote, encourage and support excellence and innovation in the arts
5.4.1
The NCS rightly considers enhancing existing structures and recognising current achievement in the
arts as a major priority. We believe that the many benefits which can and do flow form the theatres,
in terms of theatre, wider cultural and broader social objectives as demonstrated throughout this
64
report make concrete the reasons for doing so. The theatres under review can provide the ideal
conditions for a broad range of artistic and other talent to flourish and have an important role to play
as partners and supporters of creative endeavour elsewhere in the sector.
5.4.2
Scottish theatre has also played a valuable role in the promotion of Scotland’s diverse linguistic
traditions and cultural traditions, as the examples of work with Gaelic, Scots language, Doric, and
traveller and other minority ethnic groups demonstrate. This work not only reflects giving voice to
these different traditions but also provides a forum within which the languages and traditions can be
explored in a wider context.
5.4.3
The theatres, whilst strongly rooted in their own local communities also operate at a national and
international level, and there are numerous examples of how they have forged partnerships with
companies and communities outwith Scotland that foster a level of contact, mutual understanding
and exchange that “top down” governmental and agency approaches often find difficult to achieve.
As discussed earlier in this report however the theatres are very much constrained with regards to
touring and international collaboration: a go and see fund for individuals ideally also needs to be
supported by a “Go and Do” fund, capable of operating to a specifically Scottish agenda.
5.5
Broaden the range and increase the numbers of people experiencing and taking part in the
arts
5.5.1
The principles informing Social Inclusion have been at the heart of Scottish theatre practice for a
very long time now. There is extensive evidence of the ways in which the theatres engage with a
diverse spectrum of the community, be it through special promotion, marketing and pricing
initiatives for their work on stage; through a wide range of education and outreach projects; through
opening up the resources of the theatre to youth and community theatre groups; or by engaging
directly as partners with specific marginalized sectors of society to provide a forum and showcase
for their creative talent.
5.5.2
Building on their extensive work in curriculum support, the theatres are well placed to support and
partner the new schools co-ordinator posts. Whilst firmly rooted in local communities the theatres
have demonstrated a variety of ways in which they can begin to address gaps in geographic
provision through creative collaborations, as demonstrated by the work of the Traverse in the
Highlands, Dundee Rep in the North East and the Arches in the Borders.
65
5.5.3
The sector also can provide a valuable resource and test bed for the development of digital
technologies and has the potential to become a valuable player in respect of content production in its
own right.
5.6
Support the arts sector to help them meet the needs of society today
5.6.1
The paper entitled “The Wider Context”, Appendix D, sets out in detail the challenges facing the
arts in respect of the changes underway in our demographic, social, cultural, technological and
economic lives. The theatres as both the providers of the most popular form of public arts
entertainment and as major centres for the promotion and delivery of a wide range of other artforms
in their communities could provide a useful “test bed” for ideas for meeting these challenges. It is
also worth noting that these problems also afflict attendance and participation in major sports such
as football, rugby, hockey and cricket and therefore there is an excellent opportunity to unite the two
halves of the ministerial brief for Sport and Culture in a joint initiative to explore and tackle these
threats.
5.6.2
The proposal that the sector be supported to create practical working forums, or business-to-business
market places, so to speak, at which they can look to ways of sharing resources on a cost-effective
basis and explore the potential of their combined buying power in respect of routine and special
expenditure, give substance to the concept of networking enshrined in the NCS.
5.6.3
The issues of training and staff development are rightly highlighted as areas of concern in the NCS
and it is clear from the evidence of this report that initiatives that seek to address these issues within
the theatres are welcome. The issue of enhancing business skills is reflected in the discussion of
fostering commercial creativity within the sector and the issue of developing proper apprenticeship
schemes across each area of employment in the theatre is also to be encouraged.
5.6.4
The suggestion that the gaps in geographic provision are best advanced through encouraging local,
mutually-beneficial partnerships between individual companies and communities outwith their home
base, is an example of how local partnerships can be fostered throughout Scotland, as well as being a
way of showing how existing resources can be harnessed across a wider geographic spread to
address specific local strategic objectives.
5.6.5
The whole issue of promoting partnerships between public and private bodies is key to future
success of the sector. As has been recorded above, the sector is already a major source of training
66
and talent for the commercial theatre and creative industries sector but could also become a much
more active partner or service provider in its own right in respect of commercially-desirable creative
products. The level interest demonstrated by business in respect of arts-based training is also a sign
of partnerships just waiting to be brought to fruition between the sector and the world of commerce
that have the potential to deliver additional income to the sector outwith the public purse.
5.7
Promote the arts in all aspects of Scottish life
5.7.1
The extensive range of work undertaken under the umbrella of the theatres means that they can be
seen as excellent partners for making contributions across all areas of Scottish Executive policy.
Their work in relation to Urban regeneration and tourism, for example is well noted and there are
robust independent evaluations of this work.
5.7.2
The role in respect of research and development for the film and broadcast medias needs to be
embraced in a more effective manner in respect of public policy for film and television. If the NCS
is to achieve its ambitions for these sectors, any strategies governing their future support must also
recognise and embrace the role of theatre as a major source for talent and innovation.
5.7.3
The extensive work already undertaken within the sector and the potential contained within
experiments such as Dundee Rep’s ensemble company, means that the sector is well placed to
develop and deliver live and recorded-format educational services. This could be delivered through
partnerships with commercial enterprises focussing on education and interpretative materials.
5.8
Ensure that SAC is effective and responsive to the needs of society and the arts today
9.25.1 SAC, in the way it sets out policy and makes funding decisions, plays a powerful role in the thinking
and actions of the sector. Its role as a commissioner and disseminator of research has the potential
to improve decision making across the sector and foster collaboration in key areas such as market
intelligence. The sector might also, given the range of its activities provide an ideal starting point
for developing benchmarks and suitable performance indicators for gauging public investment in the
arts. We would also recommend that the ten theatres could be used to pilot new ways of managing
funding relationships, with the goal being to roll back bureaucracy to the barest minimum required
to comply with accountability, in a manner which reflects the operational needs and culture of the
sector.
67
Recommendation 8: It is recommended that SAC makes representations and submissions to the
Scottish Executive, highlighting the extensive ways in which the theatres can deliver across each
of the published National Cultural Strategy Aims with the objective of securing additional and
appropriate levels of funding for the theatres and the sector as a whole.
68
6.
COMPARISONS
6.1
Throughout the course of this review a number of people have spoken enviously of the funding
accorded to theatres elsewhere, such as in Denmark or Holland. The funding available is indeed
extensive Indeed it is of such a different scale of magnitude that there is little merit in the context of
this review on dwelling on the many ways in which theatre is funded in these countries. The scale of
funding afforded is not simply because of any intrinsic value of theatre over other art forms: there is
a political and cultural consensus that has produced much higher levels of public investment across
all of the arts. If there is a message from this for theatre in Scotland, it is one that extends beyond
the relatively narrow confines of the review at hand. Rather the most appropriate starting point for
any comparisons with other countries is within the British Isles, where there is both a commonality
of cultural and political heritage; a common medium for the language of theatre; and also extensive
integration of the theatrical economies.
6.2
Ireland
6.2.1
The scope of the Irish Review of Theatre included the whole of the theatre sector (79 companies and
venues). Although the population base of Ireland and Scotland is similar, it is unfortunately not
possible to draw many conclusions by comparing findings of the review because the Scottish
exercise is limited to ten building based production companies revenue funded by the Drama Panel.
However, some of the percentages are useful and are listed below. In Ireland 15% of companies are
venue based production companies that also operate as receiving venues (12 companies). There are
therefore a similar number of building based production companies in both companies. This
includes the Abbey Theatre, the national theatre that Scotland does not at this time have.
6.2.2
Breakdown of income in 1995 across the sector
Ireland
Scotland
Commercial
52%
55.6%
Arts Council
30%
25%
Local Authority
2%
18.7%
69
FAS/other
6.2.3
16%
1.4%
Training agency etc
In 1995 the Arts Council’s drama budget was IR £5.05 (approximately £4.54m). The equivalent in
Scotland in 1995 was £4.41 at that time sterling was worth more than the punt.
6.2.4
The largest 7 companies (including the Abbey) provided 355 full time equivalent jobs. The ten
Scottish theatres reported 278 full time equivalent jobs in 2000.
6.2.5
62% of companies surveyed agreed that ‘Any problems with Irish Theatres are primarily caused by
inadequate funding’. There was strong concern expressed about the relative funding position of
Dublin and the regions. This is in marked contrast with Scotland where there is a correlation
between the catchment populations of the 10 theatres and the percentage of SAC Drama funding
they receive. However, had a similar research study been undertaken on the whole of the drama
budget it is possible that this exact fairness would not be borne out across the board. Concerns
regarding the sustainability and development of theatre in Ireland centre around: the increasing
number of companies competing for funding; and the relatively low level of income whereby staff
are paid below the average industrial wage level.
6.2.6
In Ireland 91% of correspondents considered that the Arts Council criteria for funding to
theatre/drama are unclear and/or inadequate.
6.2.7
When asked what their priorities for funding were, the ratio of responses in favour of the various
options were:
9
17% consolidation of existing companies
10 14% conditions of employment
11 14% touring of professional Irish theatre
12 6% young people/children
13 4% supporting the work of emerging new professional groups
14 3% consolidating the work of the national theatre
15 0% international touring
70
6.2.8
The Irish database of repertoire shows 522 productions originated in Ireland between 19909-94
almost half toured. 83% of work was 20th century and 46% were staged for the first time. Most
respondents considered the repertoire was a strength of the sector, although there was some criticism
of the emphasis on new writing. No equivalent database of repertoire exists for Scotland.
6.2.9
37% of the Irish population go to plays compared to 45% in France. This was an increase on 1981.
It is the third most popular arts event after films and popular music The Scottish equivalent in 1998
was 38% ranking third after cinema, musicals/variety shows.
6.2.10 The National Theatre received 44% of the Arts Council’s total available funding and the review
reports that they are extremely dissatisfied with their level of funding. Key informants’ criticisms of
the national theatre focused on how they spend their money rather than on how much it is (benefits
are limited to Dublin) and how little they do to nourish new talent.
6.2.11 Recommendations for changes made to the Arts Council of Ireland:
9
Clearly setting out its policy for funding,
10 Making clients more accountable for their actions- i.e. by tying funding to ‘deliverable goals’,
11 Setting up a formal client appraisal process, with active communication and feedback,
12 Introducing three year rolling plans with funding allocated on the same basis.
6.3
England
6.3.1
As highlighted at the outset of this report. For all their distinctly Scottish attributes, Scottish and
English repertory theatres and their later incarnations operated under a single overall UK policy
framework for 45 out of the last 50 or so years. They therefore have much in common not only from
a policy perspective but also at an operational level. There is extensive integration of the Scottish
and English theatre in terms of actors, directors, writers, technical and administrative staff as well as
common union frameworks and contractual agreements that operate on a pan-UK level. They also
compete to buy other services from a UK wide pool, such as equipment and other capital items.
6.3.2
In one sense, this review of the ten theatres is covering common ground to that explored by Peter
Boyden in his report into English Regional Producing Theatres. Because of the extensive areas of
overlap between the two sectors we have constructed key components of our statistical research to
71
mirror questions posed in England so as to allow comparisons to be drawn. Like for like, English
Theatres are able to:
9
Support 69% more actors,
10 Support 34% more musicians,
11 Enjoy 57% more making dept jobs,
12 Draw on 66% percent more technicians,
13 Employ 44.7% more stage managers,
14 Undertake 407% more tours.
15 Enjoy aggregated production budgets that are 34% higher (£8.74m as opposed to Scotland’s
£6.52m)
And this comparison is made before taking into account the recent major investment by ACE.
9.25.1 However, there is also a message from a financial comparison of the two sectors.
Item
English Equivalent
Scotland Actual
% Income that is earned
68%
57%
Arts Council grants
21%
25%
Local Authorities
11%
18%
TOTAL
100%
100%
Programme Costs
48.3%
32.2%
Overheads
51.7%
67.8%
Table 3 Comparison of key item of income and expenditure, England v Scotland
9.25.1 Whilst superficial reading of this could be that Scottish Theatres are less commercial, more
dependent on public funding, with heavier overheads, the previous work shows that in fact the
Scottish Theatres are under resourced in comparison to England in all of the key areas. As such,
these figures simply prove that unless one invests sufficient money to sustain the companies
programme of work, a disproportionate amount of money is simply required to sustain an
infrastructure that lies under-utilised for significant periods of time. In England, every £1 spent on
overheads is matched by £1 for product and other activities. In Scotland for each £1 of overheads,
there is just 50p for product and other activities. Given that our analysis shows that programme
72
costs are generally more than matched by box-office and other trading related income, there would
be every likelihood that additional investment to release the full potential of the theatres should all
better ratios of overhead to product related expenditure to be achieved.
9.25.2 In terms of boards and staffing, overall the ERPT’s comparator shows smaller boards, fewer LA
representatives, more practitioners and fewer other categories than their Scottish counterparts. In
terms of staffing, the ERPTs show 12% more full time posts, with a 22% lower dependence on parttime employment.
9.25.3 As can be seen from above, even before the recent major uplift in funding from ACE, the English
sector was still better resourced from a number of important perspectives. With a separate funding
system and indeed a devolved Parliament one might say “So What?” Well, as pointed out above the
Scottish and English theatre economies are not hermetically sealed. For example, Scottish actors
work throughout the English theatre sector. The English regional producing Theatre sector is almost
five times the size that of the Scottish theatres under review. One of the effects of Boyden will be to
increase either the quality of terms currently on offer to actors or the number of acting opportunities
even further by producing more work or enhancing the current scale of productions. There is the
potential therefore that the ERPTs could make Scotland less attractive to talent by either offering
better terms or tying it up into longer rehearsal periods and runs. One of the correctives to this might
be the impact of unions forcing higher wage settlements, but unless there are resources to absorb
this, the net result will most likely be a continuation of the trends of offering fewer acting
opportunities. As well as performing and creative talent there is also the issue of a brain drain of
other key talent. First there is the issue of people leaving Scotland to take up better-paid
employment in better equipped environments where one can focus on the task at hand rather than
dealing with the constant stresses of attempting to run an organisation on fewer resources than it
deserves. Second, there is the issue of people simply not choosing to enter the profession in
Scotland. Theatre talent be it creative, performing or technical is highly transferable and as has been
shown repeatedly in other sectors, “boom towns” often pull the brightest and best. In this scenario it
is the English theatre economy in general that is the boom town in question. The issue of Boyden
and the ensuing ACE funding settlement is therefore a matter of particular concern for the Scottish
sector and the funding system as a whole, not simply in a copycat manner but because of the
potential impact and pull the English system will exert on the sector in Scotland. In closing it is also
worth noting that, as in Ireland, the needs of the buildings based producing theatre companies could
only be satisfactorily assessed in the context of a sector-wide strategic review, not simply by looking
at the buildings-based companies in isolation.
73
Recommendation 9: Whilst there is a strong and pressing case for a substantial increase in
investment in the buildings-based companies, it is recommended that SAC should follow the Irish
and English examples of any such investment being made in the context of a holistic, sector wide
review of Drama strategy.
74
7.
THE NATIONAL THEATRE INITIATVE
7.1
The National Theatre Initiative (NTI) is a major development in its own right. The model under
consultation is still in the process of detailed financial modelling and therefore is still very much at
the level of establishing basic general principles. Whilst it has the potential to add value to the work
of the ten theatres it would be unwise to see it as a panacea for the problems facing the sector.
Indeed the impact and reach of the National Theatre initiative is largely dependent on the health of
the ten theatres as keystones of Scotland’s theatre community as its ambitions are largely defined as
being additional to existing provision. There is an extensive programme of consultation and a
dedicated group of theatre professionals advancing the notion of a National Theatre. Our remit is
limited to looking at the potential impact such a venture might have upon the sector.
7.2
It is important to bear in mind that the ten theatres are only one element of the potential sources of
productions. The NTI intends to source its material from across the full spectrum of the theatre
community in Scotland. There would be wide spread anger therefore if the NTI were simply treated
as core funding by other means. Similarly the volume of work proposed means that whilst a NTI
production might a fill particular hole in a budget at a particular time, the fundamental problems
identified in this report would still remain unaddressed. Because there are no detailed financial or
operational projections available at present it is difficult to offer any substantive comments on the
topic rather it might be more sensible to point out those areas which might have a negative impact on
the sector so that one can at least set up a check list of potential problems that would need to be
addressed from the perspectives of the ten theatres before any decision to proceed were made.
7.3
First there is the issue of artistic direction. Whilst the notion of reviving/adapting extant productions
would not be open to conflict with existing artistic policies the creation of a major commissioning
force within the sector does open potential for conflict. To draw an example from another sector,
the desire to deliver artistic product to suit the needs of the Edinburgh International Festival has
arguably led to Scottish Opera channelling its financial and artistic resources in such a way that is
not necessarily beneficial to their ongoing programme. There are also practical implications of
selecting material to tour. If one is to put out tours hot on the heels of a home-base performance one
needs to have follow on contracts in place well in advance, with the cast etc catered for in budgets
for other talent and technical staff. Also, in many instances, productions need to be made to suit
touring requirements (one production manager in the sector reckoned as a rule of thumb that
set/design costs are double for any given touring production as opposed to a home-base production).
They also need to be stored in between their initial showing and a possible tour, possibly some time
75
in the future. The issue of new work poses the question of what happens to the work once
commissioned. Is the set, etc destroyed or will it too be stored? (and if so, by whom?).
9.25.1 There are also other issues that can have a direct financial and/or operational impact on the sector.
For example, even the modest proposals of four tours at medium scale represent a possible increase
in competition for actors and other creative resources. If this touring pattern follows the seasonal
approach adopted by Pitlochry there will be little impact. If however it is operating at the same time
as the sector it will be in direct competition. As one of the theatres under review pointed out, it is
one thing for the NTI to commission their company to deliver a particular project: it is another for it
to bring in another company to compete for its audience at a key time. There is also the issue of
inflationary/distorting pressures. The investment of £1.5m is not an inconsiderable sum in the scale
of the sector and is unlikely to pass quietly without some unexpected side effects. It is likely to be
the case that the NTI will be exemplary in all areas of its activities including remuneration of talent
and other theatre professionals. This too can create difficulties. There is also the issue of fundraising. The view of Arts and Business is that a NTI would have to be able to compete with other
national companies, but in so doing it is likely to have a significant advantage over other theatres
and hence there is scope for competing for limited (rather than necessarily expanding) sponsorship
for the sector. This may seem to be a litany of potential problems. As stated at the outset of this
section, there are many intrinsically good reasons for developing a NTI. What we would urge
however is that before fixing on a final model, SAC in partnership with the Scottish Executive
should undertake a detailed cost/benefit analysis of the proposed model in relation to the existing
infrastructure making provision accordingly, to ensure what has been conceived as a jewel in the
Scottish theatre crown does not turn out to be yet another bone of contention and cause for concern.
Recommendation 10: It is recommended that any model for the proposed National Theatre
resource be subjected to detailed and independent scrutiny in the form of a cost/benefit analysis,
so as to take account of potential negative operational and financial impacts that may arise for
the buildings-based companies (and indeed the sector as a whole) as a result of its adoption, with
appropriate mechanisms/funding being put in place to underwrite any such outcomes.
76
Overall Comparison
All Six
£000s
Citizens
£000s
Dundee
£000s
Perth
£000s
22667
20664
2157
4797
2528
1499
4145
3960
1069
-2640
1029
27153
14802
10287
0
-2064
4211
3892
3120
Pitlochry
£000s
Lyceum
£000s
Traverse
£000s
4874
3685
5831
4104
3132
2619
185
1189
1727
513
4370
1786
1610
3521
1634
1562
3526
1449
605
7914
3470
2878
3611
2571
512
2801
-974
-325
-1472
-1566
-528
-995
161
55
-140
-283
161
-15
2847749
1024
447907
125
411596
238
511292
167
382786
67
757309
122
336859
305
Variable Income/Attendences
SAC grant/attendences
LA grant/attendences
p/l/attendences
£7.96
£5.20
£3.61
-£0.35
£4.82
£8.69
£6.97
£0.36
£6.14
£4.34
£3.91
£0.13
£8.11
£3.20
£3.06
-£0.27
£12.73
£3.79
£1.58
-£0.74
£7.70
£4.58
£3.80
£0.21
£9.30
£7.63
£1.52
-£0.04
Variable Income/Productions
Sac grant/productions
LA grant/productions
p/l/productions
£22,136
£14,455
£10,046
-£972
£17,256
£31,136
£24,960
£1,288
£10,622
£7,504
£6,765
£231
£24,820
£9,784
£9,353
-£838
£72,746
£21,627
£9,030
-£4,224
£47,795
£28,443
£23,590
£1,320
£10,269
£8,430
£1,679
-£49
Contribution Analysis
Total Variable Income
Total Variable Costs
Surplus/Deficit of theatre
programme
Fixed Costs
Total SAC Grants
Total Local Authority
Surplus/Deficit on overheads
p/l
Attendences
Productions
77
94/95
95/96
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
Total
Citizens
Attendences
113991
105907
67162
52140
66981
41726
447907
Productions
30
27
11
15
26
16
125
Performances
455
485
270
261
320
273
0
Attend Indexed
100
92.91%
58.92%
45.74%
58.76%
Prod Indexed
100
90.00%
36.67%
50.00%
86.67%
Perf Indexed
100
106.59%
59.34%
57.36%
70.33%
70596
69400
67839
72790
79633
51338
411596
p/t
Dundee
Attendences
Productions
Performances
42
36
32
49
42
37
238
294
278
277
277
287
240
1653
Attend Indexed
10000.00%
98.31%
96.09%
103.11%
112.80%
Prod Indexed
10000.00%
116.67%
76.19%
85.71%
100.00%
Perf Indexed
10000.00%
105.76%
94.22%
94.22%
97.62%
Attendences
83248
86931
87580
79114
74831
99588
511292
Productions
26
26
17
26
36
36
167
284
297
252
262
263
343
0
Attend Indexed
10000.00%
104.42%
105.20%
95.03%
89.89%
Prod Indexed
10000.00%
100.00%
152.94%
100.00%
72.22%
Perf Indexed
10000.00%
95.62%
112.70%
108.40%
107.98%
Attendences
67078
66615
68860
63726
60550
55957
382786
Productions
23
16
12
6
6
4
67
190
191
206
169
188
144
1088
Attend indexed
10000.00%
99.31%
102.66%
95.00%
90.27%
Prod Indexed
10000.00%
69.57%
52.17%
26.09%
26.09%
Perf Indexed
10000.00%
100.53%
108.42%
88.95%
98.95%
Perth
Performances
Pitlochry
Performances
p/t
76
Lyceum
Attendences
155557
115977
105929
136315
122300
121231
Productions
27
20
16
17
20
22
122
372
296
305
309
298
271
1851
Attend Indexed
10000.00%
74.56%
68.10%
87.63%
78.62%
Prod Indexed
10000.00%
74.07%
59.26%
62.96%
74.07%
Perf Indexed
10000.00%
79.57%
81.99%
83.06%
80.11%
Attendences
51356
48582
62150
48409
83414
42948
336859
Productions
47
56
57
47
48
50
305
490
488
426
380
456
375
2615
Attend Indexed
100%
94.60%
121.02%
94.26%
162.42%
Prod Indexed
100%
83.93%
82.46%
100.00%
97.92%
Perf Indexed
100%
100.41%
115.02%
128.95%
107.46%
412788
2847749
Performances
757309
Traverse
Performances
ALL SIX
Total Attendances
Indexed
Total Productions
Indexed
Total Performance
Indexed
541826
493412
459520
452494
487709
100.00%
91.06%
84.81%
83.51%
90.01%
195
181
145
160
178
100.00%
92.82%
74.36%
82.05%
91.28%
2085
2035
1736
1658
1812
10000.00%
97.60%
83.26%
79.52%
86.91%
p/t
165
1024
1646
7207
p/t
p/t
77
94/95
95/96
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
Total
Contribution Analysis
Citizens
Box Office
382000
358000
297854
158643
227221
151900
1575618
30000
45000
26000
19288
27345
26853
174486
Other Earned Income
0
46000
48000
158875
87195
67588
407658
Total Variable Income
412000
449000
371854
336806
341761
246341
2157762
Direct Production Costs
826789
776841
741220
624437
836178
991777
4797242
-414789
-327841
-369366
-287631
-494417
-745436
-2639480
Fixed Overheads
780211
880159
634780
727173
662521
526510
4211354
SAC Revenue
610000
628000
628377
643378
672761
709830
3892346
Local Authority Grants
577000
592000
507110
429430
437130
578117
3120787
Surplus/Deficit on Fixed Income
406789
339841
500707
345635
447370
761437
2801779
-8000
12000
131341
58004
-47047
16001
162299
Attendences
113991
105907
67162
52140
66981
41726
447907
Productions
30
27
11
15
26
16
125
455
485
270
261
320
273
Variable income/Attendences
£3.61
£4.24
£5.54
£6.46
£5.10
£5.90
£4.82
SAC Grant/attendences
£5.35
£5.93
£9.36
£12.34
£10.04
£17.01
£8.69
Local Authority/attendences
£5.06
£5.59
£7.55
£8.24
£6.53
£13.86
£6.97
-£0.07
£0.11
£1.96
£1.11
-£0.70
£0.38
£0.36
Variable income/productions
£13,733
£16,630
£33,805
£22,454
£13,145
£15,396
£17,262
SAC grant/prod
£20,333
£23,259
£57,125
£42,892
£25,875
£44,364
£31,139
local authority/prod
£19,233
£21,926
£46,101
£28,629
£16,813
£36,132
£24,966
-£267
£444
£11,940
£3,867
-£1,810
£1,000
£1,298
Surplus on Ancillary Activities
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
Year End Result
Performances
p/l attendendences
p/l prod
78
Dundee
Box Office
278000
316000
350281
414486
421472
234639
2014878
Surplus on Ancillary Activities
67000
33000
54695
58831
54663
455
268644
Other Earned Income
13000
61000
41470
40846
41118
47956
245390
Total Variable Income
358000
410000
446446
514163
517253
283050
2528912
Programme Costs
276000
324000
321390
208092
226323
143813
1499618
0
0
0
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
82000
86000
125056
306071
290930
139237
1029294
Fixed Overheads
577000
803000
709296
786786
796078
698832
4370992
SAC Revenue
271000
302000
309816
274276
316776
312504
1786372
Local Authority Grants
224000
406000
283155
231191
233051
233051
1610448
Surplus/Deficit on Fixed Income
-82000
-95000
-116325
-281319
-246251
-153277
-974172
0
-9000
8731
24752
44679
-14040
55122
70596
69400
67839
72790
79633
51338
411596
0
Year End Result
Attendences
Productions
42
36
32
49
42
37
238
294
278
277
277
287
240
1653
Variable income/Attendences
£5.07
£5.91
£6.58
£7.06
£6.50
£5.51
£6.14
SAC Grant/attendences
£3.84
£4.35
£4.57
£3.77
£3.98
£6.09
£4.34
Local Authority/attendences
£3.17
£5.85
£4.17
£3.18
£2.93
£4.54
£3.91
p/l attendendences
£0.00
-£0.13
£0.13
£0.34
£0.56
-£0.27
£0.13
Performances
0
variable income/pro
£8,524
£11,389
£13,951
£10,493
£12,316
£7,650
£10,626
SAC grant/prod
£6,452
£8,389
£9,682
£5,597
£7,542
£8,446
£7,506
local authority/prod
£5,333
£11,278
£8,849
£4,718
£5,549
£6,299
£6,767
£0
-£250
£273
£505
£1,064
-£379
£232
p&l/ Prod
79
Perth Theatre
Box Office
536000
523000
548000
602000
451308
495391
3155699
Surplus on Ancillary Activities
149000
166000
160500
127000
80720
43276
726496
Other Earned Income
26000
46000
22000
32000
71247
66554
263801
Total Variable Income
711000
735000
730500
761000
603275
605221
4145996
Programme Costs
694000
669000
671000
673000
622233
631005
3960238
17000
66000
59500
88000
-18958
-25784
185758
Fixed Overheads
617000
618000
610500
603000
523080
550177
3521757
SAC Revenue
285000
282000
284000
260852
260852
260852
1633556
LA Revenue
308000
275000
275000
230254
234254
239409
1561917
Surplus/Deficit on overheads
-24000
-61000
-51500
-111894
-27974
-49916
-326284
YR END RESULT
-7000
5000
8000
-23894
-46932
-75700
-140526
Attendences
83248
86931
87580
79114
74831
99588
511292
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
Productions
26
26
17
26
36
36
167
284
297
252
262
263
343
0
Variable Income/attendences
£8.54
£8.45
£8.34
£9.62
£8.06
£6.08
£8.11
SAC grant/Attendences
£3.42
£3.24
£3.24
£3.30
£3.49
£2.62
£3.19
Local authority/attendences
£3.70
£3.16
£3.14
£2.91
£3.13
£2.40
£3.05
-£0.08
£0.06
£0.09
-£0.30
-£0.63
-£0.76
-£0.27
variable income/prod
£27,346
£28,269
£42,971
£29,269
£16,758
£16,812
£24,826
SAC grant/prod
£10,962
£10,846
£16,706
£10,033
£7,246
£7,246
£9,782
local authority/prod
£11,846
£10,577
£16,176
£8,856
£6,507
£6,650
£9,353
Performances
p/l / attendences
80
Pitlochry
Box Office
647000
627000
694000
678470
735941
717689
4100100
Surplus on ancillary activities
49000
44000
43000
27897
37791
33826
235514
Other Earned Income
79000
87000
50000
87813
98826
136329
538968
Total Variable Income
775000
758000
787000
794180
872558
887844
4874582
Programme Costs
292000
276000
823000
758577
787623
748432
3685632
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
483000
482000
-36000
35603
84935
139412
1188950
Fixed Overheads
813000
864000
438000
451083
484934
475185
3526202
SAC Revenue
236000
236000
272000
235737
231737
237530
1449004
77000
102000
127000
89556
119556
89556
604668
-500000
-526000
-39000
-125790
-133641
-148099
-1472530
-17000
-44000
-75000
-90187
-48706
-8687
-283580
67078
66615
68860
63726
60550
55957
382786
LA Revenue
Surplus/Deficit on overheads
YR END RESULT
Attendences
Productions
Performances
Variable Income/Attendenceces
23
16
12
6
6
4
67
190
191
206
169
188
144
1088
£11.55
£11.38
£11.43
£12.46
£14.41
£15.87
£12.73
SAC grant/attendences
£3.52
£3.54
£3.95
£3.70
£3.83
£4.24
£3.79
LA grant/attendences
£1.15
£1.53
£1.84
£1.41
£1.97
£1.60
£1.58
-£0.25
-£0.66
-£1.09
-£1.42
-£0.80
-£0.16
-£0.74
variable income/prod
£33,696
£47,375
£65,583
£132,363
£145,426
£221,961
£72,755
SAC grant/prod
£10,261
£14,750
£22,667
£39,290
£38,623
£59,383
£21,627
£3,348
£6,375
£10,583
£14,926
£19,926
£22,389
£9,025
-£739
-£2,750
-£6,250
-£15,031
-£8,118
-£2,172
-£4,233
p/l/ attendences
local authority grant/prod
p/l/ prod
81
Lyceum
Box Office
705825
698587
640060
813051
947469
881129
4686121
62467
45734
111692
145582
117309
176880
659664
Other Earned Income
148880
61082
66836
58992
69618
80418
485826
Total Variable Income
917172
805403
818588
1017625
1134396
1138427
5831611
Programme Costs
672470
551271
656960
742371
763040
717996
4104108
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
244702
254132
161628
275254
371356
420431
1727503
Surplus on Ancillary Activities
Fixed Overheads
1277609
1356232
1272171
1323856
1333095
1352025
7914988
SAC Revenue
557700
585600
578146
573144
564296
611143
3470029
LA Revenue
518600
525100
482675
481630
445786
424485
2878276
-201309
-245532
-211350
-269082
-323013
-316397
-1566683
43393
8600
-49722
6172
48343
104034
160820
155557
115977
105929
136315
122300
121231
757309
Surplus/Deficit on overheads
YR END RESULT
Attendences
Productions
27
20
16
17
20
22
122
372
296
305
309
298
271
1851
Variable Income/Attendenceces
£5.90
£6.94
£7.73
£7.47
£9.28
£9.39
£7.70
SAC grant/attendences
£3.59
£5.05
£5.46
£4.20
£4.61
£5.04
£4.58
LA grant/attendences
£3.33
£4.53
£4.56
£3.53
£3.65
£3.50
£3.80
p/l/ attendences
£0.28
£0.07
-£0.47
£0.05
£0.40
£0.86
£0.21
variable income/prod
£33,969
£40,270
£51,162
£59,860
£56,720
£51,747
£47,800
SAC grant/prod
£20,656
£29,280
£36,134
£33,714
£28,215
£27,779
£28,443
local authority grant/prod
£19,207
£26,255
£30,167
£28,331
£22,289
£19,295
£23,592
£1,607
£430
-£3,108
£363
£2,417
£4,729
£1,318
Performances
p/l/ prod
82
Traverse
Box Office
246000
230236
426926
229003
516246
410316
2058727
64000
64792
76637
41528
35267
59880
342104
Other Earned Income
131000
130110
118284
103599
158473
90202
731668
Total Variable Income
441000
425138
621847
374130
709986
560398
3132499
Programme Costs
339000
325183
483814
359564
550655
560973
2619189
Surplus/Deficit on theatre activities
102000
99955
138033
14566
159331
-575
513310
Fixed Overheads
602000
612451
593649
581839
644358
576750
3611047
SAC Revenue
392000
427638
422727
430628
441485
456740
2571218
LA Revenue
119000
86417
80095
70252
74330
81923
512017
Surplus/Deficit on overheads
-91000
-98396
-90827
-80959
-128543
-38087
-527812
YR END RESULT
11000
1559
47206
-66393
30788
-38662
-14502
Attendences
51356
48582
62150
48409
83414
42948
336859
Productions
47
56
57
47
48
50
305
490
488
426
380
456
375
2615
Variable Income/attendences
£8.59
£8.75
£10.01
£7.73
£8.51
£13.05
£9.30
SAC grant/attendences
£7.63
£8.80
£6.80
£8.90
£5.29
£10.63
£7.63
LA grant/attendences
£2.32
£1.78
£1.29
£1.45
£0.89
£1.91
£1.52
p/l/ attendences
£0.21
£0.03
£0.76
-£1.37
£0.37
-£0.90
-£0.04
variable income/prod
£9,383
£7,592
£10,910
£7,960
£14,791
£11,208
£10,270
SAC grant/prod
£8,340
£7,636
£7,416
£9,162
£9,198
£9,135
£8,430
local authority grant/prod
£2,532
£1,543
£1,405
£1,495
£1,549
£1,638
£1,679
£234
£28
£828
-£1,413
£641
-£773
-£48
Surplus on Ancillary Activities
Performances
p/l/ prod
83
8.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE NATURE AND SCALE OF ANY ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENT IN THE SECTOR?
8.1
Unless one simply wishes to replicate historic funding patterns, one must come up with a framework
that provides benchmarks that can be applied equitably across the sector and which can be judged
against a common agreed set of criteria and outcomes. In terms of categories of funding, we believe
that there are three broad categories of additional investment required:
9.25.1 Reinforcing the infrastructure: this is a comprehensive, ongoing uplift into the core budget of the
company in question on a revenue basis, to sustain a rounded programme of work and resource for
the sector as set out in the vision. We would recommend that funding should be made on a minimum
of a three-year rolling basis (noting that in England the DCMS is suggesting up to six years), with an
assumption of continued support at the levels indicated, unless specifically given prior warning well
in advance of any adverse decisions
9.25.2 Fostering risk/commercial acumen/releasing creativity: this is a fixed period tranche of funding
which is to be used to underwrite creative/commercial risk. It is fixed term in the sense that a single
sum is made available for a fixed period of say, three years. If the company uses it well it is allowed
to keep any income/savings generated. If it invests unwisely, it is not penalised but it is ineligible
for such support for the remainder of the period.
9.25.3 Fostering strategic relationships and collaborations: this represents specific additional funding
which is targeted primarily on outcomes rather than individual companies although for ease of
administration such funds might be built into individual companies’ budgets. These could be used to
support the process of collective buying, etc or sharing market intelligence or to foster initiatives to
fill gaps in geographic spread, as evinced by links developed by Dundee Rep in the north east, The
Traverse in the Highlands and The Arches in the Borders, as well as setting up a fund to enable other
parts of the country to pitch in. An individual company could also use it to support initiatives that
might be of benefit to the whole sector. (For example, Pitlochry mentioned the scope for exploiting
its unique operational season and resources to provide services for the rest of the sector. Similarly,
Theatre Workshop could offer to take the lead in range of activities in respect of disability or other
equal opportunities issues on behalf of the sector over and beyond its own core activities). Given
that we live in a period of constant change, we would recommend that these funds would also be of a
fixed term nature but committed over a period of say three years to permit real strategic development
and to coincide with overall planning and funding cycles.
84
8.2
We do not think however that this sort of development will simply lead to more cries of
schemification. If one is able to deliver a significant uplift in core funds that will enable the
companies to get on and plan their work without having to seek project funds for what they see as
part of their core activities, the great majority of these concerns will fall. Furthermore, there is also
the concern that the schemes on offer do not sit comfortably with the practical circumstances of the
buildings-based companies. Our proposals do just that and therefore should keep the benefits of
competition whilst making it clear to the companies that it is a fair competition.
8.3
When asked what the scale of the additional funding requirement might be, the established theatres
mentioned the need for funding uplifts somewhere in the order of 25-30%, although newer and
smaller companies pointed out that a simple pro-rata increase could not enable them to fulfil the
shared vision in any meaningful way. Others pointed out that if one were to look at the Boyden
settlement on a “Goschen” formula basis, one would have been looking at some extra £2.5m being
available to the sector. We do not believe however that a simple percentage-based uplift is the most
appropriate way ahead. Similarly, whilst it may indeed prove to be the case that the total additional
funding requirement is something of the order of that mentioned above, we strongly reaffirm the
principle that funding decisions must ultimately be made on an individual assessment of each
company. In the event that SAC wishes to explore this matter further, we have asked each of the
companies to provide us with indicative costs as to what they perceive to be their funding
requirements upon which they could begin to deliver the sort of vision set out in this report. This
will be forwarded to SAC in due course. As pointed out earlier, whilst it is possible to suggest
indicative sums to match the scale of the problem, without knowledge of the potential impacts on the
rest of the sector, it is difficult to predict precisely how effective or appropriate such sums would be.
85
9.
BENCHMARKING
9.1
The Digest of Statistics is a valuable compilation of a wide range of information relating to the ten
theatres in the review over the six year period from 1994 - 2000. It is a key recommendation that in
future SAC should ensure that work is done to update it, refine its contents and expand its range to
include all SAC-supported theatre work. Maintained in this way it will be a tool for the theatres
themselves, their umbrella bodies and for SAC in its assessment and planning work.
9.2
In analysing the findings and proposing future benchmarks, it is important to ensure that conclusions
are based on equitable comparisons of like for like. Unfortunately it is not possible to draw trends
and conclusions based on all ten because the Arches and Theatre Workshop were not assessed by the
Drama Committee during the period and information has not been gathered from them in the same
format as the other eight. The Byre was closed for four of the six years and the Tron was closed for
two of the six years.
9.3
This analysis therefore divides the ten theatres into a group of six for whom consistent data exists
(Citizens, Dundee, Perth, Pitlochry, Lyceum and Traverse) and a group of four for whom trends
cannot be captured (Arches, Theatre Workshop, Tron and Byre). The Digest of Statistics contains
information about both groups but the following analysis only relates to the group of six (referred to
as the control group). Of the group of six, Dundee and the Citizens were both dark for three months
of 99/00 and Pitlochry for six months.
9.4
In order to bring out common strands it was assumed that the theatres all receive income from three
sources:
9
Income earned through operating theatrical activities (box office and ancillary trading surpluses)
10 Fixed income in the form of SAC grants
11 Fixed income in the form of local authority grants
9.5
For the purposes of analysis their expenditure is divided into two categories
9
The variable costs of putting on productions
86
10 The fixed costs of the overheads of the theatre that are incurred regardless of whether there are
shows from any source on (full time artistic salaries, administration, building costs etc). This
can also be referred to as ‘infrastructure’
9.6
In global terms the six companies had a joint turnover of £47.77m over the six years and traded
overall with an aggregated surplus of £217k. The cross company comparison indicates excellent
housekeeping across the sector as a whole for the period of the review. Although some companies
have incurred losses in certain years they have managed to cover their trading positions through
either using reserves or making surpluses in other years. This shows a prudent attitude on the part of
the companies that does great credit to them and contrasts with other sectors of the performing arts
in Scotland, particularly those who have consistently been unable to live within their means.
9.25
The next stage is to use two performance indicators
9
numbers of attendances,
10 number of productions.
9.8
The benchmarks are derived by relating the ratios that exist between the two forms of expenditure
and three forms of income and divide them by the two performance indicators. This gives us a
framework for analysis over a six year period for the six companies individually and as a group. The
tables that follow show:
9
how each of the theatres relate to the benchmarks over the whole of the six year period,
10 a year-by-year and company-by-company breakdown of the performance indicators,
11 a year-by-year and company-by-company breakdown of the financial ratios.
9.9
A number of key points emerge from this exercise as follows. The theatres as a group over the last
six years had to generate surpluses from the variable costs of putting on shows in order to cover the
fixed costs of running their organisations. This is established by looking at the surpluses made on
box office ancillary trading and deducting the variable production costs. Across all six theatres for
the full six years, this gives the result that they generated income of £22.66m at a cost of £20.66m,
leaving a surplus to contribute to the fixed costs of running the theatres of £1.06m spread over the
six years. The only theatre that makes a loss on productions is the Citizens Theatre, who confirmed
that their local authority funding is specifically given in order to keep ticket prices low. They lost
87
£2.64m on productions but received £3.12m from their local authority, that left £480k to contribute
to their fixed overheads.
9.10
We therefore have two economic models operating in the sector. Five companies make money on
productions and if freed from the necessity of utilising the surpluses to pay their overheads could reinvest in new productions/revivals, risk taking, staff bonuses, reducing ticket prices etc. There are
two possible reasons why they feel constrained from doing more productions. Because of the high
level of Local Authority participation at Board level it is possible that the companies will not put the
essential contribution to overheads at risk on productions which may or may not be financially
successful. The second possible reason is that the theatres do not have the capacity to take on the
additional work of putting on more productions with their existing staffing levels and other
resources.
9.11
The conclusion for this group is that there is under utilised capacity indicated by the decline in the
number of performances to 87% of levels five years ago. If levels of performances could be restored
profitability would increase. The suggested solution would be either the creation of a central
underwriting fund which theatres could use to spread the risk of additional productions and/or
support for additional overheads to enable increased production capacity to be created. (It should be
borne in mind however, that overheads are no immutable and should constantly be kept under review
and scrutinised in respect of alternative means of provision to secure best value for money.
9.12
The Citizen’s model is a special case. The more productions they put on the more grants they need
from the local authority or Scottish Arts Council. They receive the highest local authority grant of
all the six. This economic model has given them some problems during the period covered by the
review. They lost all of their Strathclyde Region Grant in 1996/97 and were operating on reduced
funding for three years until the local authority restored levels of funding in 99/00. At that point
attendees went down to 58% of previous levels and have yet to recover. It is worth noting that the
Citizens economic model resembles the national companies except they have never incurred a
deficit. By looking at their economic model it is logical that they have been forced to have dark
periods (because it costs money to put on shows) this in turn has put off audiences by lack of
continuity in programming. This tactic would not have worked for the other five theatres because
they rely on their programming to balance the books on overheads.
9.13
The first issue that SAC needs to address is what kind of benchmark is the most appropriate. It
could be that the Citizens is the ideal model for all to aspire towards or it could be that the best
88
starting point is the ‘all company’ benchmarks. The total overheads of the six theatres for six years
was £27.15m covered as follows:
SAC grants
£14.80m
Local authority and other grants £10.28m
Contributed by productions
9.14
56%
39%
£1.06m 5%
It is not a new argument that if funding bodies could jointly cover the full costs of the overheads of
the theatres and free them to use all of the proceeds of running the theatre to spend on productions it
would create a more vital relationship between funders and theatres. The Cork Report on English
Theatre amongst others advocated it. This exercise shows that to do this for the six theatres over six
years would only have cost a total of £1.06m and could have given good results. For 1999/00
additional grants of £706k would have allowed all six theatres (not just the Citizens) to have their
overheads covered entirely.
9.15
It is important for SAC to be aware that it only covers part of the costs of the overheads of the six
theatres, enabling them to put on productions by partly paying for permanent artistic staff,
administration and other fixed costs.
9.16
The Citizens Theatres follows the Cork Model very closely. The overheads were £4.21m and SAC
grants totalled £3.89m. Local authority funding was used to keep ticket prices low and the model
would have worked well had withdrawal SRC funding not undermined their capacity to put on
productions.
9.17
In order to boost productivity in the theatres under review, SAC should give consideration to
extending the funding model of the Citizens Theatre so that overheads are covered jointly by SAC
and local authorities with additional local authority funding used to keep ticket prices low. This
should be undertaken in the context of a negotiated relationship with the local authority integrated
with agreed ticket pricing models.
9.18
The tables show that the benchmark SAC subsidy per seat occupied over the six years across all six
theatres is £5.20. In itself this is not a meaningful figure although it compares favourably to other
art forms such as opera, ballet and concerts. However, its value is as a framework for comparing
support across the six theatres. The Citizens Theatre (£8.69) and Traverse (£7.63) audiences both
receive a subsidy in excess of the benchmark All other theatres are below the benchmark, ranging
89
between £3.20 and £4.58. It is worth noting that the Citizens and Traverse are at opposite ends of
the spectrum in the terms of local authority support: the Citizens get the highest of all and the
Traverse the lowest. They also suffered the highest percentage decrease in local authority funding
(Citizens 25% and Traverse 48%). What is important here is that SAC should be clear as to why
this should be so.
9.19
The trend over the control period (6 companies for 5 years) was that SAC subsidy per seat occupied
increased from £4.34 in 1994 to £5.10 in 1999.
9.25We recommend that SAC should aim to give an equitable level of subsidy per seat occupied throughout
the country and variations from the benchmark should be within a strategic framework (relating to such
matters such as programme policy, ticket pricing, local agreements with local authorities etc) and not
due to accidents of history. Used in combination with the recommendation on grants covering
overheads, SAC will have a powerful tool for understanding and shaping the future of this sector.
9.21
The Digest of Statistics shows that local authorities funding to the 8 theatres declined by 12% over
the review period. For the control group of 6 companies over 5 years, the corresponding decline was
16.3%, thereafter the trend starts to reverse back upwards. Although the theatres had to suffer a
sudden drop in the middle of the review period, in cash terms, the situation has now started to
recover in global terms. Over the period the only theatres to see their local authority support grow
were Dundee Rep and Pitlochry, all others have seen cash reductions, some temporary and some
permanent. Over the five years, the Traverse lost 48%, the Citizens 25%, Perth 24% and Lyceum
14% (for the Lyceum local authority continued to decline beyond the control period).
9.22
What the review cannot get to is how much additional support goes to the theatres through the local
authorities owning the buildings. The Citizens, Tron, Theatre Workshop, Lyceum and Perth are all
owned by their local authorities and it is quite possible that a hidden level of subsidy is going in
through this route. This is something that the local authorities under their regime of best value will
eventually be able to ascertain.
9.23
All of the companies in the control group suffered a decline in the contribution ancillary trading
made to their earned income. Overall the decline was 27% with variations between how badly the
companies suffered. This is re-enforcing the feedback from the companies who say that they find it
increasingly difficulty to maintain a competitive edge in the food and drink marketplace.
90
9.24
The importance of the benchmarks is that they give the SAC an average over a six year period for
six companies. The average will not necessarily be the future norm and SAC may decide that one of
the six companies is the benchmark and relate the other companies to that one. Having agreed where
the ideal set of ratios lie, SAC can start to expand the framework to bring in the other four
companies at appropriate levels but without the benefit of historic trends for them. However it will
allow a common currency of assessment to be gauged over the next five years. It will be necessary
for work to be done with the theatres to ensure that they all present financial and statistical
information in a standard way and SAC may want to start collecting additional information (for
example, on scale of productions related to sources of productions and how that relates to box office
performance).
9.25This system will require a change in the way SAC sees itself in relation to the sector and also the way
the sector sees itself. If SAC accepts that one of the ways of removing uncertainty from the system
would be for SAC to change its focus of funding to maintaining the core infrastructure at a level that any
‘profits’ from box office could be kept by the companies to be re-invested in their ongoing programme
of work. Provided therefore that one is able to develop a set of measures that could be applied equitably
across the sector so that each theatre was getting fair treatment and that there were no historic
imbalances built into the system. This does not mean to say however that SAC would be limited to
funding mundane operational needs. We would still expect SAC to be fully engaged in the strategic
picture and participate in a creative dialogue with regards to artistic policy with each company so as to
ensure national strategic objectives and quality standards are obtained. However what would be
different would be the fact that SAC was also guaranteeing the basic infrastructure. The responsibility
for delivery of artistic policy and its result in terms of box office would be solely in the hands of the
individual companies. This process would also assist local authorities, helping to make clear the precise
reasons for SAC’s support, allow them to judge their decisions in a wider national context and account
for their own investment, something that is particularly important in a culture that is significantly driven
by Best Value.
9.26
It may be appropriate to set out a band of values rather than a single fixed sum to allow for regional
variations and also to allow for “convergence” as the sector responds to a new single set of explicit
criteria.
Recommendation 11: It is recommended that SAC introduces a system of benchmarks as detailed in
this report, to be applied equitably and transparently across the ten theatres and that such
information as required to operate this system is updated on a systematic and routine basis. In the
91
process, SAC should also take the opportunity to review its current demands upon the theatres in
respect of servicing the funding relationship, wherever possible seeking to reduce administrative
and operational burdens.
92
10.
CONCLUSIONS
10.1
Perhaps it might be more appropriate to call this closing reflections as we hope some very clear
conclusions and recommendations have been set out during the course of this report. In essence we
have charted the erosion of Scotland’s core drama infrastructure. Starting from a premise of a
catastrophic audience decline (with the inference of a fundamental crisis in drama as an artform), we
have since found that the crisis is not about the work of the theatres per se. Rather it is crisis
concerning the Scottish theatre infrastructure, primarily in relation to public investment.
10.2
In a period of almost constant erosion of core support, the companies have achieved a significant
growth in yield from their trading activities, expanded their commitment to socially desirable
education and outreach programmes, increased their commitment to opening up access through
touring and absorbed major real terms cuts in overheads to enable them to attempt to sustain an
acceptable programme of work. Or rather what at the time of each decision seemed an acceptable
programme of work. For the reality is that each company in its own way has entered a Faustian pact
with regards to a series of short term compromises that has aimed at keeping the balance sheet clean
but over time has culminated in a damaging cycle of retrenchment, feeding loss of opportunity,
erosion of creative aspiration and impact thus feeding a further cycle retrenchment, etc. The
relationship between cash and quality is a complex one. However, the impact of such a state of
affairs on quality is implicit throughout this report. Whilst the injection of additional funds will not
automatically guarantee success, the failure to do so will almost certainly guarantee failure to
achieve the full potential of all involved, be they the writer, whose vision is constantly directed to a
handful of players; the actors on stage; the directors and designers struggling to achieve their vision
within minimal budgets; the technical team striving to support them and their administrative
colleagues fighting to maintain the structure that supports them all. The romantic notion of the
struggling artist achieving greatness through deprivation should have no place in modern thinking,
particularly in respect of theatre, which utterly depends on marshalling a wide range of people and
capital resources in a common endeavour. Too much time of theatre practitioners is spent on
dealing with basic yet fundamental problems rather than being dedicated to creating new and
exciting artistic products. By definition talent is not a common quality – it is a scarce commodity
and we must ask ourselves whether we as a nation can afford to haemorrhage scarce talent and
creative potential in this short-term, non-productive way.
10.3
Our research shows that it need not be this way. There is a strong inter-relation between availability
of product and audiences, as demonstrated not just by our own research but through that of others
93
such as TGI and System 3. The theatres have demonstrated that there is an audience that will pay
enough money to sustain the costs of the work - indeed they will pay enough that their work in
putting on programmes ends up subsidising their core administration. We have arrived at a situation
therefore that rather than subsidy playing a vital role in keeping theatre affordable to less well off
members of society and giving companies the security to plan their work and develop their
audience, -for what is, afterall, the most popular of all the performing arts, rock and popular music
included – the purpose of putting on work stage has almost without exception appears to be about
making good the shortfall of public subsidy, which has for whatever reason failed to keep pace with
inflation over the period of the review.
10.4
The sector has through a process of attrition been cut to the bone. There is no real fat in the system ,
no neat little financial tricks, no ruthlessly efficient cuts that will either address the fundamental
problem or deliver sufficient resources to patch over the problems on a strategic basis.
10.5
There is however a vision capable of sustaining a diverse range of companies and a strong case for
support offering an extensive range of benefits that can flow from a properly resourced
infrastructure, not just for the artform but for the wider community as a whole. An uplift in the core
investment for the sector will be more than repaid through the trading and other developmental and
socially beneficial activities of the companies. Whilst the proposed National Theatre resource has
the potential to be a jewel in the crown for Scottish theatre it will not and cannot be the panacea for
the engrained problems of the core theatre resource which it will itself depend upon.
10.6
We realise that the scale of investment revealed and intimated through this report is substantial and
is most likely to be outwith the present resources of SAC. We also wish to re-emphasise the need for
any investment to be made on individual merits but with the context of a wider drama strategy for
Scotland. Furthermore, we recognise and appreciate the dynamics and evolving priorities of a
devolved funding system and our new Scottish Parliament. It would however be the bitterest of
ironies if the one sector that had done so much to sustain the public debate about Scotland’s future
and sustained the cultural case for a devolved parliament over that long haul since1979 should in the
process prove to be significantly worse off than it would have been under the old system. The
National Cultural Strategy, however, can banish such fears as for the first time we have a
government document that articulates a clear set of priorities and aspirations for Scotland, which the
theatres are so manifestly well placed to deliver. The time is now right to cast off the shackles of the
past and invest in this exciting vision for the future.
94
Scottish Cultural Enterprise
74 Victoria Crescent Road
Glasgow G12 9DR
www.scottishculture.co.uk
95