Those Darn Youth: Perspectives on Programming and Venues in Adelaide
by Jane
“To share an audience we need to grow it, but perhaps it’s our fault because we’re focusing too much on the target audience, and maybe by focusing on that target audience we’re neglecting everyone else, and it’s maybe our fault that other people don’t come to theatre.”
Sitting in the audience at Thursday’s In Conversation With: Building arts audiences collaboratively not competitively, (follow through for recording of the event) at the Adelaide Festival Centre and feeling increasingly disillusioned by the four panelists – Wicked producer John Frost, Kate Gould from the Adelaide Festival of Arts, Pamela Foulkes from the State Theatre Company, and Ian Scobie from Arts Projects Australia – this comment came out of the audience. I feel it was perhaps the most astute observation of the whole debate: if you feel you don’t have the audience, maybe we need to look at where that audience is coming from.
But what was the answer from the stage? A (shockingly) resounding “No.”
Followed by a “We’ve spent money on that.”
Well, I think that is exactly the point.
I say I sat there feeling increasingly disillusioned, because it has never been more obvious to me that when these organisations say their core audience is “well-educated, professional women, over the age of 45” (you would really expect the core audience to be over 45, by virtue of the fact it’s just a much larger bracket than Under 30, and 30-45, no?), that not only are these companies quite happy with that being their core audience, they have absolutely no want to broaden their horizons outside of this. If other people want to come to these shows, fantastic, but they’re certainly not going to – gasp – look at a different programming model to look at what else, and thus who else, they can look to the table.
“We’ve spent money on that.”
They’ve done their Market Research, they’ve increased their marketing budgets, and the “great unwashed” (an actual reference from Frost) still don’t want to come.
I’m not going to say anything here more perceptive than Ianto Ware over on the Renew Adelaide blog: It’s The Content, Stupid. (The whole post is actually brilliant – make sure you read it if you haven’t already.)
I made a comment on twitter that the reason so many young people are seeing Wicked is because it’s not about middle-aged men. I don’t for a moment believe that Wicked’s entire success is due to it being a story about young women, friendship, finding and being honest to yourself, but I do believe that these are major contributing factors to its global popularity amongst teenage girls, and teenage girls are a major contributing factor to its status as a global phenomenon.
In short: I guarantee you more teenage girls are seeing Wicked then are seeing Jersey Boys, and the fact that this is even a statement I am writing down is a tad ridiculous.
Beyond the multi-million dollar megaplex musical, it comes down to the same core issue: different people want to see different work. That’s fine. That’s great! But no amount of marketing is going to replace that gap if the content is always created for the “well-educated, professional women, over the age of 45”, and not, say, The Youth with “no concentration span”, who “don’t read anymore”, who “don’t actually listen to the spoken word.” In short, they’re not interested, so why bother?
Why bother? Because we are interested. We’re interested in seeing good work done well, but we are also very interested in the topic the panel was supposed to be about – collaboration – rather than what it came to be about – competition. Despite our lack of attention span, we’ve managed to do things like get university degrees, work full time, work on fifty projects on the outside, and see and actively participate to art and art culture in this city. And from this, we’re interested in art that is about us, or excites us, or which makes us think and feel and want to collaborate more.
Organisations like the Adelaide Fringe and Format prove that there are audiences from a large cross-section of the community for a large variety of work. It’s not so much about creating new audiences, but creating work for existing audiences.
Then, when the conversation inevitably moves to the lack of venues, or more specifically, the lack of venues with cushioned seating, nice toilets, and air-conditioning, this is when I start to get truly worried. Because I worry that the argument that people won’t see art if the seats aren’t comfortable leads to the argument that people won’t see art if the art isn’t comfortable.
And where are we left then?
A conversation about lack of venues certainly should happen – and is actively happening within the state’s independent theatre sector. But, just for now, rather than constricting our thinking not only by age and education of the audience, but also by the proscenium of the stage, shouldn’t we think of work that can be created and presented in the spaces we do have?
Even if they don’t have air conditioning.
Talking about collaboration, wouldn’t it be great to see Renew Adelaide collaborate with the Festival of Arts to bring out large scale, site specific works which have been developed to work in abandoned buildings? Because we have many of those.
(In particular, British theatre company Punchdrunk have been getting outstanding notices for their installation theatre work Sleep No More. Whoever arranges it so I can see their work gets rave reviews for a year.)
Just as I think organisations could be creating and presenting work which are relevant to more people in this city; couldn’t we be creating and presenting work which is relevant to the particulars of the city itself? Rather than only looking at what we don’t have, why don’t we look at what we do?
I don’t want to only see work about young women any more than I only want to see work about middle-aged men. I do enjoy theatre that has the benefits of a cushioned seat and air-conditioning. But to have a panel presented where anything that fell outside of their norm was completely shut down was bizarre and frustrating.
I want to see and hear ideas across a spectrum: particularly if you are talking about topics of collaboration and competition. I’m disappointed there wasn’t more diversity on the panel. I wish the AFC had the narcissism to put someone from that organisation on the panel: because I think they are a large organisation actually programming across a broad spectrum of work and audiences. They’ve even programmed a site-specific work to Adelaide’s streets this year! In winter!
Collaboration rather than competition is the primary ethic among most artists and arts organisations. As Tricia Walton from Carclew said from the audience, for many people it isn’t just done for financial reasons, but philosophical ones, too. Why weren’t the people who are actively doing this invited to be on the panel?
“To share an audience, we need to grow it”: now, can we get on that, and stop our bickering?
No Plain Jane 
Bravo.
Programming and marketing are two separate issues in this blog. You can’t sell something to people if they don’t want it… State Theatre has examples of this sort of programming throughout their seasons of pieces that might be artistically vibrant and interesting but even the best marketing and communications with a wide audience cannot get people in their seats.
Marketing is a science and John Frost particularly has proven that investment in the right places can raise millions – as have experts from around the world.
While your voice is important perhaps some respect for the panel as experts in their particular field would not go astray.
But you see, I think that’s the issue: not finding things people want. On the Renew Adelaide blog I linked to, Ianto pointed out that the Format festival had ~3000 to 4000 attendees over two weeks, and work off a total yearly income from public funding for the 2010-2011 financial year of $13,000. THIS is the sort of programming that I’m talking about.
I certainly respect them in their field: I’m just disappointed their field is so narrow in light of the discussion which I (and many people in the audience) expected to hear. In particular, your comment on Frost is correct, and I absolutely respect him on his honesty. He said “it’s about making the buck for me at the end of the day”: great. His job is about marketing, it’s about finding a big commercial product which can sweep across the largest audience possible. His job is also about spending $1.2 million dollars on said marketing per city per show. And because of this, I would hate to think we are asking every show to be a Wicked.
I’m still spitting chips about not being in Adelaide to attend this forum, especially in light of the fantastic responses it’s generated.
I’ve just finished downloading the audio from the event, and look forward to listening to it for myself before commenting more fully.
However, for now, I’d have to say I agree with a lot of what you and Ianto have said about the forum’s (apparent) dismissal of young people as uninterested and unattainable. Having spent the last almost three months immersed in the arts cultures of cities to Adelaide’s east, and knowing the brilliant work of Ianto, Renew Adelaide, Tuxedo Cat, Magazine and others in Adelaide to attract young people to the arts, I also find this hard to believe.
Maybe too part of the answer lies in (and apologies for this if it seems I’m having a go) ‘Arts Worker SA’s’ response above that
“You can’t sell something to people if they don’t want it… State Theatre has examples of this sort of programming throughout their seasons of pieces that might be artistically vibrant and interesting but even the best marketing and communications with a wide audience cannot get people in their seats.”
For generations becoming increasingly individualistic, used to one on one communications with friends on social networking sites, and very wary of the mainstream media, maybe marketing messages thrown out to appeal and be communicated ‘with a wide audience’ are never going to work. (and individualism doesn’t just apply to generation y.)
Just a thought.
More soon.
(and isn’t it great that we’re having this debate!)
Stephen
Great point Stephen. I agree that marketing messages and tactics definitely need to change. That said, I think STCSA do a rad job of their marketing… it’s just that, at the end of the day no matter how great the marketing is, if the show doesn’t appeal then it doesn’t appeal. So then it surely comes down to programming, doesn’t it? But this is such a tough one! Art shouldn’t be directed by how ‘marketable’ it is, nor should it be directed by how well it will go down with the ‘target audience’. But at the end of the day, without an audience it’s completely unviable. What to do?
Jane, like you, I was disappointed in the flat out ‘NO’ response to the question you highlighted. I’m sure they have done their research, but it’s a disheartening, dismissive answer. I also agree with your statement about comfortable seats = comfortable art. But if comfortable people are the ones buying tickets, then… it’s disappointing, but the appeal of new/experimental/challenging work is much less than that of existing works, no matter what the quality. For example the Rep recently had a killer season for Are You Being Served! Go figure! (But seriously… good for them.)
I’m so interested in this debate, but I find it really difficult personally, as I am involved with Format and Renew at one end of the scale, and Brink, which is not really at the other end, but I suppose sits somewhere in the middle.
I wonder (and would love to know if this has been brought up elsewhere), if our growing expectation that things should be free – fuelled by the internet – is the reason that things like free exhibitions and bands at Format draw over-capacity crowds, while theatres charging $30+ go half empty? If cost vs risk of it being crap or unfulfilling is the issue, how then do the artists make their living? Should pay-what-you-want pricing be put in place for new/risky shows that people are reluctant to shell out for?
I guess another thing that successful about Format is that it’s not just about the art, but about hanging out with friends and likeminded people whilst enjoying the art. Which is where audience development programs like Red Carpet come in, where it’s not necessarily the play but the after party that is being marketed. STCSA appears to be on the right track in this regard.
Anyway, I’m crossing my fingers (for all of my interests) that a collaborative approach to the arts can be stepped up a notch, whether the panellists want to get on board or not. (Please audience/industry/other, suggestions are welcome! Feel free to throw in your ideas!)
PS: “STCSA appears to be on the right track in this regard.” – Which is then sad, that the focus has to be socialising not art. But if that’s what the audience wants, then that’s what we in the arts need to at least offer, I guess.
Speaking of what the audience wants – do arts orgs ever actually ask this question? Should it be asked? Discuss. 🙂
I agree with Jane. Like I said in the forum, I don’t think the funded and major Arts sector has adapted to the Long Tail market. By and large I don’t think most of them even know what it is. Their version of ‘marketing strategy’ seems to be ‘ask for more money’, not ‘market and program different’. That’s less about John Frost and the big musicals, which seem to have retained audience, than the Festival, State Theatre and the Festival Centre. Every other portion of the cultural markets has adapted to the Long Tail. Or they’ve gone broke. The music industry dealt with this shift in marketing and programming in the early 2000s after Napster, the book industry dealt with it with Amazon in 1999.
This isn’t an issue of ‘respect’. There’s nothing disrespectful in Jane’s comments. One of the things I think made so many members of the audience angry at the forum is that when we raise criticism of cultural policy it’s rapidly written off as a ‘youth’ issue, a lack of respect, needing to pay our dues or whatever else. Jane, from memory, is 22. I’m 31. Jen Greer Holmes is, what, 32? I talked to Cass from Tuxedo Cat afterwards and she’s 40. We are not ‘youth’. We are people interested in, and working in, the Arts. The framing of what could easily be straight forward debates about audience development as some sort of generationalist issue is empty rhetoric which, deliberately or otherwise, very effectively stifles debate on this topic by reducing everyone who raises as critique as a ‘silly young person’, regardless of age or qualification.
Does this explain why the best shows are in the smaller venues? The independent compaines seem to be delivering where the biggers orgs slip up. There has been some great theatre with characters and ideas that appeal to younger audiences but most of it doesn’t have government funding.
The AFC generally asks something along the lines of “What would you like to see at the AFC?” in their end of festival / end of season online surveys – I don’t know how much credence is given, but I’m always happy to put in my 2c and it’s nice to be asked. I don’t believe they’ve ever taken up one of my suggestions, but I would be happy to take credit if they did 😉 I think it’s great to ask, even just to get a taste for works that may be on the radar of the (potential) audience.
hear hear. why must everyone else speak more succinctly, and better than I?
[…] can read another response on the same forum up at the No Plain Jane blog, which looks particularly at the moment in the forum when the panellists remarked that they saw no […]
It is a shame that they have to push the ‘social’ angle to get people to the arts – no different from DEPARTURE run over the way at the State Gallery. I wonder at the long-term success of these programs, if a person attends Red Carpet until you’re 26 or 30 (can’t remember which age is the cut-off) for the social aspect, how likely is it that they would return when they turn 27 or 31 just to see the play?
I’d like to see some shows take take that approach – pay what you think it is worth!
Artists/producers/directors etc could consider using crowdfunding pages (like Pozible or StartSomeGood for example) to fund the start-up costs for the production and discounted tickets for those who donate… perhaps an up-and-coming group could post three or so plays that they would like to produce, create crowdsourcing pages for each and then see which play is best funded. That way you are producing a work for those who already support it and want to see it, you’ve found your existing audience and can expand on your promotional activities from there should you wish to.
I’ve written and rewritten a bunch of different responses without feeling satisfied by any of them. There’s a mass of important issues being teased out both here and on the Renew Adelaide blog that deserve in depth debate. Ianto & Jane, maybe an alternative panel discussion held at Format? I’m up for it.
As I’ve been writing and then deleting over and over I keep coming back to John McCallum’s 2010 Phillip Parsons Lecture. It’s great reading if you’ve got a minute and i think resonates wonderfully within the ‘InConvo’ debate:
http://www.belvoir.com.au/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=1084123
for those that don’t have the time, one small quote:
(referring to Kosky’s ‘The Women of Troy’)
‘ This sort of theatre is difficult, it is challenging. But difficult is good. Challenging is good. That is what theatre and performance should be. If you don’t like it then visit the ‘uplifting’ museum theatre of clever Pulitzer Prize-winning lounge room comedies about people having trouble with their relationships; sit bereft at home on a Saturday night lamenting the passing of ‘The Bill’; get a Gold Ticket to Hoyts and sink into a plush chair with the 3D glasses and the popcorn; or float down in merry laughter, as the great transgressive American comedian Bill Hicks said just before he died, onto the comfy soft scrotum cushion of Dick-Joke Island.
If theatre can’t do more than that then I’ve wasted my life. The next time I go to a show I want to be theatre-fucked.’
Amen.
Unless an artistic expression is faithful to the spirit, there will be no audience. You can’t manufacture an audience, even as you can’t manufacture an authentic art to reach some imagined one. There are very few successful artists.
Just be faithful to your art, and be willing to suffer no audience. Fuck statistics.
I’m a month shy of 34. That’s nearly mid-thirties. And definitely not youth…
That’s an amazing speech from Geordie, especially ‘dick-joke island’ haha. But how often do we feel that in Adelaide? How often do we really feel satisfied by the mainstage programming? Is theatre for the new generation or for the blue-rinse set? When I go to theatre I’m always surprised at how old everyone is. The critics are (mostly) old too. How can new ideas be given a voice?
I agree with everything that is being said, and I was present on Thursday for the In Conversation With….I have also listened to the podcast. I am a young (22) theatre maker…well attempting to anyway….and I cannot express my annoyance at the issues that were (not) discussed and were so flippantly disregarded. My question is…if you are not ‘youth’, as you say yourselves, why are you taking so much offence and getting so riled up about the notion of youth? Honest question…I am not having a go.
To the comment “Just be faithful to your art, and be willing to suffer no audience. Fuck statistics,” I say this…
The real argument that is beneath all this, is “how on earth can we make people want to watch theatre?”
If we were all perfectly honest we would agree that theatre, to many, is considered to be a dead or dying art form. Our society has become dependent on the propagation of knowledge; the continual duplication and circulation of images, facts, words, music, video and ideas through technology. This leaves theatre appearing like a phenomenal, useless relic.
To non-theatre goers, theatre is an old grandfather in the arts community rotting away in a dusty old corner, slowly waiting to die. They have fond memories of him… often a memory of performing in a school play. They have a level of respect for grandfather theatre. But… they’re not going to go out of their way to pay him a visit… and if they do it is with a level of reluctance. They don’t know what to expect when they see him – is it a good day for him, or a bad day? Is he going to engage with us? Is he going to make us laugh or cry? Is he going to have a loopy day of ranting away without seeming to make an effort to engage in a conversation? Or is he going to lecture us about all the wrong things that we are doing with our lives? The non-theatre-goer knows that they probably should love and appreciate him more… but they don’t quite know how or why.
The fact that theatre can’t be copied, that it can’t be possessed, locked away, or stored safely somewhere, makes it special. Because it’s a live event, because it’s temporal, theatre is ultimately a collective experience shared by a group of strangers. The memory of this experience is the only remnant of a show after it’s closing night. Moreover, a friend of mine recently defined theatre simply as a relationship between actor/s and an audience. I wholeheartedly agree with this definition; theatre can not, and does not exist without an audience. Bottom line. I know this fact is painfully basic… but I feel that it is easily forgotten while striving for artistic brilliance. Dismissing our need or desire for an audience is a big mistake. If there’s no audience to watch our work, what the fuck is the point of doing it? What’s that old cliche corny saying – if a tree falls in a forest and no one’s around to hear it does it make a noise… or something along those lines.
I feel that there is an attitude that creating theatre is creating art for an audience to appreciate. By doing that, we are telling audiences “Look at what we can do! Look at how clever and talented we are! Respect us! Love us! Applaud us!” This attitude is not doing us any favours. Instead, our focus should be on creating an experience FOR and WITH an audience.
Moreover, we can never expect audiences to come and see what we do… just as we can’t blame people, in particular, “youth” for not wanting to come. They have no obligation to come!!!! They don’t owe us anything!!!! Instead, we should be asking ourselves why they’re not coming, and what we can do to cater our work to their needs and desires, rather than finding ways of tricking them to buy our tickets. And yes, I’m talking specifically about marketing here.
The famous Einstein quote, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results,” reinforces my point.
The audience doesn’t need to change… we do.
Hi Cassie, not to answer for anyone else, but I’ll have a go. The problem is partly because Jenn and Ianto and Cass must sit there and listen to the same rehtoric which was thrown around when they were youth, and it sucks that it’s still being thrown around; and partly because while conversations often talk about “youth”, it’s a discussion which often also surrounds people who choose to work in fringe and independent arts, and so the actual word youth in these contexts really has no true meaning.
[…] Arts Blogger Jane Howard’s blog post (to which I immediately shot off the below, admittedly not researched, response.): https://noplain.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/those-darn-youth-perspectives-on-programming-and-venues-in-a… […]
I’m not youth, in fact I fall into the identified demographic of 45 year old, educated, professional women and I don’t want to see most of what’s on offer here or on most stages around Australia and I am a person who has studied theatre and loves it. I don’t think it’s irrelevant in this age.
I also think that if theatre makers, programmers start pandering to what they think ‘youf’ wants ( social events rather than gripping theatre) then that is a mistake, its as ridiculous to generalise about what ‘youf’ wants as it is to assume that every woman my age wants to see three act plays about bourgeois sucks bemoaning their lives/children/relationships…
I think that the risk/cost thing that someone raised is very germane, sometimes you just don’t want to risk $30, $45 $70 bucks on something that turns out to be crap or just plain mediocre… I can preview music on itunes, now why cant I see a 1 minute snatch of that show Im debating going to see…
[…] Young people have no attention span. […]