8

Impact

Introduction

The two previous chapters have included a discussion of two issues: first, the extent to which people go to the theatre or a concert when they are tourists and second, how important the arts are in attracting people to a destination (whether it be town, city or country). Both of these were looked at, first, from the viewpoint of the arts and then from the tourism viewpoint. It was seen that there can be large numbers of tourists in some audiences and that the arts can play an important role in attracting tourists to a destination. It looks therefore as if the two (arts and tourism) are mutually beneficial. The continuing interest, by tourism and arts organizations, in the arts–tourism relationship suggests that there may be some benefit for both in the relationship. The beneficial aspects of the relationship were recognized early by the American Council for the Arts (1981). The English Tourist Board considers that the arts and tourism ‘have a complementary relationship and are heavily reliant upon each other’ (ETB, 1993: 4). The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), as the body responsible for transportation and port facilities in the region (including the airports), clearly has an interest in tourism. It has carried out major studies of tourism in the region but also, significantly, of the relationship with the arts. The Port Authority’s most recent study showed they are ‘closely intertwined’ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993, 1994). In the Policy Studies Institute report mentioned in previous chapters, it was stated that ‘it is self-evident that the arts and tourism enjoy a complementary relationship. The arts create attractions for tourism and tourism supplies extra audiences for the arts’ (Myerscough, 1988: 80).

It is the issue of ‘benefit’ that is examined in this chapter. There may well be a relationship between the two but is it in their best interests to have this relationship? Importantly, are there disadvantages (or costs) arising from the relationship?

This chapter includes a discussion of:

  the effects of tourism on the arts;

  the effects of the arts on tourism;

  some of the more undesirable effects;

  the significance of the two for regeneration of cities;

  the effects of this joint promotion;

  the economic aspect of arts-related tourism with special reference to multiplier analysis.

Tourism’s impact on the arts

In the case of New York it has been observed that ‘arts-motivated visitors … are critically important to the arts industry’ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993: 4). Tourists have also been considered to be important for the well-being of London’s West End theatres. In the early 1980s it was believed that ‘if it were not for the visits by several million tourists each year, the West End theatre would be in serious difficulties’ (Society of West End Theatre, 1982: 6) and it was doubtful if, in particular, theatres could remain open throughout the summer. The significance continues to be asserted: ‘In earlier years, midsummer was usually the period in which there were large numbers of theatres closed but as overseas tourism levels have been improving, more theatres have been staying open during the summer’ (Gardiner and Dickety, 1996: 8). Theatres in seaside resorts and other holiday destinations are almost wholly dependent upon tourists for their existence. Tourism can provide another source of audiences and revenue for the arts (see Figure 8.1). It can therefore support artistic life and activity and contribute to the existence of the arts. ‘Tourism provides a significant opportunity for cultural and heritage organisations to attract more visitors and increase revenues. This, in turn, will help them thrive and prosper’ (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b: 10). Tourism can contribute to the survival of live theatre, which, of course, has experienced considerable problems related to the growth of the home-based leisure technology of television, video and the computer.

Figure 8.1   Tourism: its effect on the arts

At its simplest, tourists are just another potential market that can be targeted and which can therefore generate extra revenue. There are also a number of other possible impacts of tourism.

Extra revenue

Extra revenue may be the result of:

  audiences over and above those previously attained (extra ticket sales);

  higher ticket prices paid by tourist;

  greater tourists’ spend on theatre souvenirs and merchandise.

Assuming that additional revenue does result then there are several possible outcomes, dependent upon the initial situation. Some companies would exist and survive anyway and the tourist revenue is a ‘bonus’. For others it may make the difference between survival and extinction. Theatre companies in coastal tourist towns and some tourist cities will depend almost entirely on such tourist revenue for their survival. Tourism can therefore make a difference in that, in some cases, the arts are able to continue when they otherwise might not have done so (perhaps in the West End and on Broadway) and in other cases arts are initiated when they otherwise would not have existed (in seaside holiday towns).

Tourism may also make some productions viable or more profitable because an extended run is possible. A production in a city such as New York may have an extended run because of tourists or a production may tour to a holiday area in summer months as well as being in a city for the rest of the year.

Employment

Extra employment may also result. There is a greater number of jobs because some companies survive that otherwise would not do so. In some cases jobs would have existed for a while but employment is lengthened because the companies stay in business and/or because production runs are longer. The employment effects are therefore twofold:

  increase in number of people employed;

  same number of people employed but opportunity for individuals to obtain longer periods of employment and to be employed throughout the year. There is continuing employment for individuals if theatres in cities remain open during the summer (as has been claimed for West End theatres). There are also opportunities in seaside entertainment for those employed in theatre but who would have been unemployed during the traditionally ‘dark’ season in many towns and cities. (This seasonal cycle of employment is probably less than it used to be.)

These extra jobs and more secure jobs attract people into the profession and they also mean that people may stay in the profession. By providing more employment opportunities and continuity of employment, many who work elsewhere – in city theatres, in television, radio or film – may be able to survive and continue. For some performers, such live theatre is welcomed as an alternative to their more usual employment in the recorded media.

Other work

The extra revenue generated by companies that are already profitable may enable them to carry out activities which are desirable but were previously impossible. This will include educational work, outreach and experimental work.

Residents

Because of the survival of the arts, local residents benefit by being able to visit the theatre or hear a concert. They benefit by having the opportunity to see productions that would not exist if reliant wholly on a local market. Some arts activities including many festivals were established because of tourism (or have become dependent on tourism) and the ability to experience these would otherwise not be available. There is also a benefit to the locals through the income and employment generated.

Vulnerable art forms

Survival may be especially important where it is felt that a particular art form may have been in danger of disappearing or particular venues lost (Prohaska, 1995). Tourism may therefore allow the continuance of productions, art forms and venues that are considered to be important enough to survive but whose financial position is weak. Certain cultural activities and venues, once lost, may never be recovered. Limited interest may mean productions are unviable but the plays may be considered to be so important as to be preserved. The tradition of performance and knowledge about the plays are preserved so that others may have the option of attendance at some later time. If, for instance, Shakespeare plays were not performed currently, it would be less likely that there would be an opportunity for future generations to experience them. Current production at least offers the opportunity for those who are currently uninterested to become interested and to pass on that interest to others.

In the same way, if theatres do not succeed they may be demolished or turned to new uses meaning less opportunity for future generations to experience live theatre and concerts.

Undoubtedly some experiences would not exist at all but for an original strong tourist-orientation on the part of companies who produce in order to attract tourists (such as seaside entertainment and some festivals). The survival of variety and its components of dance, song, comedy, magic, etc. is due largely to seaside entertainment. This has been particularly associated with the seaside and despite there being audiences for this elsewhere, seaside holiday venues and audiences have contributed significantly to ensuring its survival.

Standards

There is not just a contribution to the survival of live performance but there may also be an effect on standards. In order to attract tourists (long-distance audiences) the production may need to be particularly ‘professional’ in content (and marketing approach). It may need to be particularly spectacular and/or ‘unique’. The ETB (1993) considers that visitors, as outsiders, may ‘bring a new perspective’ to the arts and thus ‘can challenge and enrich everyone’s perspective’.

Audience development

Seaside entertainment also has a specific significance in audience development. It was seen in Chapter 7 that a visit to the theatre is, in some cases, a common holiday experience and that some people are more likely to see a show or concert whilst on holiday. It is possible that such visits could lead to the development of visits once back home. In this way the holiday can be an ‘easy’ introduction to the performing arts.

Sponsors and support

Although tourism is similar in its effects to any other additional source of revenue, the very fact that this market segment is made up of tourists may bring additional benefit:

  Sponsorship: the ability to attract tourists may make the arts more attractive to sponsors as it gives a wider geographical spread to their message. Sponsors may also be attracted by a high-spend audience and by the prestige of being associated with high quality productions, performers and events, which might be evident in the case of some festivals in particular. High-profile events such as festivals may result in considerable leverage of private sector finance for the arts.

  Wider support: hoteliers, bar and restaurant owners benefit from tourism and therefore look favourably on the arts. They may offer financial support to the arts, they may themselves sponsor productions and may lobby on their behalf. As noted in Chapter 6, this wider impact may strengthen the case that the arts make for support from local government and arts and tourist boards.

Benefits of the arts

If the arts are believed to be beneficial and tourism contributes to the existence of the arts, then tourism can claim to have contributed to those benefits. The arts are believed to enrich people’s lives and live performances have merits of their own such as social interaction and community, escapism, a sense of contentment, fulfilment, happiness, satisfaction, etc. They can be more satisfying for many than television, recorded music and computer games and many other aspects of popular culture. The arts, more mundanely, are believed to contribute to the regeneration of cities (see below). Tourism can claim some credit for these and many other positive aspects of the arts through ensuring the survival of the live arts. More particularly, these attributes of live performances would not be experienced by some people if it was not for tourism. For some, seeing a show on holiday is more likely than seeing one when at home. Without theatres and shows in holiday destinations a large number of people would not experience these particular satisfactions.

The arts’ impact on tourism

It is undoubtedly claimed that the arts stimulate tourism (see Figure 8.2). Reports on the West End and Broadway are quite clear in believing this to be the case. ‘Broadway is the strongest tourist attraction in New York’ (Hauser and Lanier, 1998: 1) and ‘We know that the West End theatre is a key driver of in-bound tourism’ (Travers, 1998: 9).

Figure 8.2   The arts: their effect on tourism

The case for the arts is increasingly made in terms of ‘tourism’ generated. As arts organizations have been faced with growing difficulties in obtaining government funding they have pointed to their income, employment and tourism effects as justification for their existence and for further support. (This is also ‘evidence’ of the perspective of the arts as an industry, which is discussed later in this chapter.) In the economic impact study of the Adelaide Festival it was stated that ‘cultural events such as festivals are not only a significant promoter of a destination for interstate and international tourism but also provide a significant injection to the local economy’ (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996: 7). The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first published a report on the arts in 1983. Its stated interest as an organization was to ‘bolster economic activity in this region, including the promotion of tourism and travel … The arts industry … draws millions of people here from all over the world’ (Cultural Assistance Center and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1983: 1). This view of the arts was confirmed in their more recent study where Broadway was identified as ‘one of New York city’s most enduring tourist attractions’ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993: 3).

In the mid 1980s the Arts Council of Great Britain advocated an increased public ‘investment’ in the arts partly because ‘the arts are a substantial tourist attraction and foreign currency earner’ (ACGB, 1985: 6). It is significant that the 1988 Policy Studies Institute study should have been of the economic importance of the arts and, within that, a whole chapter was devoted to the arts–tourism connection (Myerscough, 1988). The Wyndham report on London’s West End theatres was commissioned specifically to identify the impact on the London and UK economies and a significant part of that impact was considered to arise from tourism and the industry was therefore a ‘significant contributor to our balance of payments’ (Travers, 1998: 5).

Extra revenue

As noted above, the arts may generate extra tourists and revenue for tourism businesses. In Chapters 6 and 7 it was seen that the extent to which the arts could attract tourists was not always clear cut but nonetheless they do have some drawing power. The arts therefore stimulate a flow of business for tour operators, travel agents, hotels and restaurants, etc. This spending (on hotels, food, etc.) is known as ‘ancillary spending’. In the case of the West End, for every £1 spent on tickets there was a further £1.76 spent on meals (43p), accommodation (46p), transport (62p), programmes and souvenirs (20p) and other items (5p) (Travers, 1998) (see Figure 8.6). It was estimated that international visitors to the Adelaide Festival spent A$5.60 on accommodation, meals out, transport and the like for every A$1 spent on tickets (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996). Arts-motivated visitors to New York-New Jersey spent nearly 60% of their expenditure on hotels and meals, 19% on air fares and 11% on shopping (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993).

New markets

Tourism related to the arts is believed to be a new and expanding market made up of high-spend and up-market consumers. In the case of urban tourism, for instance, it is considered that such tourists are ‘typically well-educated, affluent and broadly travelled, (and) they generally represent a highly desirable type of upscale visitor’ (Holcomb, 1999: 64). In Chapter 7 it was noted that this tourism market is regarded as additional, growing and a premium one. The tourism market is becoming less of a mass market and more segmented. Arts-related tourism is part of the product differentiation, which fits with this segmentation and with the new demands for more meaningful tourism (Jansen-Verbeke, 1996). It is claimed, too, that satisfaction levels and willingness to repeat are high (Myerscough, 1988). Because of these features, the arts are considered favourably by the tourist industry.

Extends season

The arts extend the tourist season as they are less dependent on the weather. ‘Dedicated music-lovers … will attend events at any time of the year to satisfy their desire for special experiences’ (Getz, 1991: 7). In some cases, events are deliberately planned as a strategic response to seasonal problems (Hall, 1992).

Fulfilment

Tourism also benefits in a less direct way as the arts can add to the meaning and satisfaction derived from a holiday. Arts and entertainment are often considered to be part of the holiday experience and for some they are only experienced on holiday. For some tourists therefore they are an essential part of the holiday experience. Their absence would, for these people, either reduce the likelihood of taking a holiday or of the holiday being pleasurable.

Extra tourism

Not only do the arts create extra business for the tourism industry directly they may succeed in doing so in a less direct way. It was seen in Chapter 6 how people who visited New York for non-arts reasons (perhaps business or visiting friends or relatives) extended their stay because of the arts. It was estimated that 16% of ‘visitors’ to the Adelaide Festival had visited South Australia for other reasons and extended their trip in order to attend the festival (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996).

In a similar way tourists may combine an arts-based visit with a stay in other places. It is claimed that the Edinburgh Festivals result in more visits to the rest of Scotland than would otherwise occur. Nearly a third of International Festival tourists spent at least one night (average 6 nights) in another part of Scotland. ‘The Festivals are a major attraction of tourists to Scotland. These tourists not only spend time in Edinburgh but also take the opportunity to … holiday elsewhere in Scotland’ (Gratton and Taylor, 1992: 40). The Festivals are therefore regarded as a catalyst for a greater flow of tourism. Around 40 per cent of visitors to the Adelaide Festival stayed overnight elsewhere in South Australia and/or took day trips elsewhere in the state (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996).

The arts also raise the profile of a place and this may lead to tourism indirectly. The arts influence the image of a place and define a place, which may, in turn, attract tourists (Weiner, 1980). Music is considered by Cohen (1997) to be a particularly significant element in the production of ‘place’ such as in the case of the Beatles and Liverpool and jazz in New Orleans. Liverpool, a place of many and often contradictory images, is particularly associated with the Beatles and this has been used as a tourist resource. This has not been without contention however, as there are those who believe that it detracts from the contemporary practice and production of music in the city (Cohen, 1997).

Public relations

Tourism may benefit through a public relations aspect. The contribution to the survival of the arts can be used to support the case for tourism and counter-act any adverse publicity such as that associated with some of the worst excesses of mass tourism and with environmental damage in the countryside.

‘Sustainable tourism’

It is claimed that arts-related tourism is ‘greener’ than other forms of tourism (ETB, 1993). It is in the interests of tourism that the heritage and the performing arts should continue and tourism contributes towards the continued existence through the revenue generated to providers. In addition, consumption of these is not so obviously damaging as are some forms of tourism. Some rural and coastal tourism may diminish or destroy the physical environment on which it is based. The ETB goes on to point out that tourism fits in with the growing trend for individuals to seek more learning and enrichment whilst treating the environment more responsibly. The UK government in a recent strategy for tourism states that ‘tourism is largely based on our heritage, culture and countryside and therefore needs to maintain the quality of the resources on which it depends. Tourism can provide an incentive and income to protect our built and natural heritage and helps to maintain local culture and diversity’ (DCMS, 1999: 8). Myerscough (1988) considered that cultural tourists are themselves likely to press the case for preservation and sensitive development. They are articulate and powerful enough to press this case successfully.

Nonetheless art forms can be modified by tourism and, in this sense, the performing arts are not sustained (see later this chapter). Heritage is also similarly altered so that a particular view of the past is preserved. It is also evident that the numbers of tourists in some heritage sites, whether battlefields, castles or churches, can erode the physical fabric of the site and building and also ‘spoil’ the experience for those seeking a more personalized, less crowded or managed, interaction with the past. The success of cultural tourism ‘has generated costs that can no longer be dismissed as a marginal and acceptable inconvenience … Continued success threatens the quality and even continued existence of the resources’ (Ashworth, 1993: 13). These comments were directed particularly at heritage tourism but nonetheless they may be equally relevant for the performing arts. There is, of course, the particular issue of entertainment and re-enactments in heritage centres and heritage theme parks. This very process is considered to be part of the process of trivializing and commodifying history and its conversion into the heritage industry. The performing arts play a significant part in it.

The benefits of tourism

It was noted earlier how tourism could claim that any intrinsic benefits of the arts could be attributed in part to it because it helped sustain the arts. Similarly the arts may be viewed as sustaining tourism and therefore any benefits that it might have are partly due to the arts. Invariably these benefits are stated in economic terms (see later this chapter).

Some problems in the relationship

Despite the many benefits claimed for both the arts and tourism from the relationship, there are a number of problems that need to be recognized. Most of the problems relate to the influence on the arts rather than on tourism (see Figure 8.3).

Figure 8.3   Some disadvantages of the influence of tourism on the arts

In the less industrialized parts of the world, tourism is often accused of destroying local cultures, arts and traditions so that a society’s identity is altered. These arguments are not so extreme in industrialized countries such as Britain, Australia or the USA but nonetheless have some relevance. Tourism may cause problems for the arts such as:

Vulnerability

The flows of tourism can work against the arts. Any company that is dependent on tourism will prosper only so long as the tourism flows occur. A downturn or slowing down of growth in tourism will cause problems. The high proportions of overseas visitors in West End theatre audiences mean that those theatres have been, in the past, vulnerable to any changes in the number of tourists visiting the UK. There are ‘strong correlations between the trends in theatre attendance and those for overseas visitors to the UK’ (Dunlop and Eckstein, 1995: 4). It is noticeable that whereas increased ticket sales for West End theatres had come from overseas tourism during the 1980s, by the mid 1980s this was no longer true and sales to overseas visitors were falling (Gardiner, 1991). The number of overseas visitors in West End audiences continued to fall between 1991 and 1997 (MORI, 1998) though there were years such as 1995 when there were large increases in overseas visitor sales (Gardiner and Dickety, 1996). These changes are beyond the direct influence of the theatres as they are determined by many complex factors including air fares, relative exchange rates, prices in competitive destinations and fear for personal safety.

Regardless of year-by-year fluctuations in tourism it is obvious that much tourism is seasonal. The establishment of a strong local core audience may be necessary for long-term viability. Despite the many references to the beneficial effects of tourism on West End theatre it is recognized that the nurturing of a strong core local audience is desirable for the long-term stability and well-being of the industry. Such a core does exist in both London and New York. New York residents accounted for nearly a quarter of all Broadway ticket sales in 1997 (from a fifth in 1991) (Hauser and Roth, 1998). As a result, despite the vulnerability to tourism shifts, ‘fluctuations in levels of overseas tourism tend to have less effect on theatre than on other tourist attractions such as museums’ (Gardiner and Dickety, 1996: 64). The vulnerability of the arts to fluctuations in tourism is most obviously seen in the fate of traditional seaside entertainment discussed in Chapter 5.

In addition, the ability of the arts to attract tourists is often dependent on ‘heritage’. It was noted in Chapter 7, in particular, that heritage was the factor within the UK that was most often cited as influencing the decision to visit. Theatre was of lesser importance for most. Theatre itself is not sufficient to attract most of these overseas visitors. The decision to visit the theatre is often a ‘secondary’ one dependent on the ability of heritage to attract in the first place or a joint one also dependent upon the ability of others to attract. If the decision to visit the theatre is tied in with the decision to visit other attractions then the fortunes of theatre are reliant upon the quality and marketing strategies of those heritage and other organizations.

Trivialization

The process of attracting tourists may lead to pressure to produce ‘popular’ artistic works and the product may become in some way commercialized and trivialized. Artistic aspiration may clash with the requirements of a tourist market. Some producers and performers may resent the fact that they have to appeal to the widest possible audience and to present productions that are ‘entertaining’ and light rather than original and meaningful. In some cases those in the arts have expressed concern about the fact that their work is not appreciated by tourist audiences who regard it as ‘a night out’ (Leader-Elliott, 1996; Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b).

Although not directly referring to the performing arts, ‘tourist art’ in Craik’s (1997) view involves some degree of modification of indigenous art so that outputs are standardized and simplified. Objects that had a function become separated from that function and become decorative. In the same way, performing arts that are new, experimental, dissenting, are of minority interest or performances that are community-based may be discouraged since they may not be the sort of production that appeals to the tourist audience. These art forms are already under pressure as they are unlikely to generate large audiences and revenues. The tourism dimension adds to this pressure.

The upsurge in beach-related tourism in Spain from the 1960s onwards was accompanied by tourist shows that included flamenco dancing. This is an Andalusian or Castilian art form and is ‘foreign’ to Catalonia. Performances in Catalan resorts on the Costa Brava and Costa Dorada were staged solely to conform with North European tourists’ perceptions of Spain. They did not represent authentic Catalan culture and were purely tourist spectacle.

Theatres in London and New York have been criticized as being geared towards a tourist market leading to standardization, blandness and emphasis on spectacle (Hughes, 1998b). The West End has been termed a ‘theatrical theme park’ as it is regarded as part of the circuit that the tourist believes it necessary to visit whether or not he or she really has a liking for the theatre (Brown, 1996). The effect has been to make it more difficult for new, innovative and experimental productions to be mounted in the West End.

This trivialization occurs because leisure tourism continues to be predominantly a ‘mass’ phenomenon made up of packaged collective experiences, despite the suggestion in earlier chapters of this book that there is a move away from mass tourism. Even though there is increasing diversity in the tourism market in the form of adventure holidays, special interest holidays, heritage and arts holidays, etc., most tourists still seek amusement and diversion rather than profound experiences. The holidays are standardized, predictable and ‘safe’. This was their original attraction and it remains so for many people today. Because of this standardization and the similarity to much of the fast-food industry, tourism is said to have been ‘McDonaldised’ though the term has been amended to be ‘McDisneyised’ (Ritzer and Liska, 1997). It is spectacle and signs that tourists desire rather than underlying authentic and meaningful experiences.

Not only are the products of the tourist industry standardized, so too are the arts. Leisure as a whole has become increasingly commodified in the sense that industry transforms many leisure pursuits into experiences that are bought and sold as commodities (Britton, 1991). Limited plots, spectacle and the emphasis on music and dance make musicals accessible to the more casual theatre-goer and to international audiences. They require little or no accumulated cultural capital for them to be enjoyed. The process has been encouraged by the view of the arts as having a role to play in attracting tourists. This has contributed to unadventurous cultural policy in cities (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993). The arts and tourism are both made ‘safe’ and predictable through packaging and they require limited consumer involvement. The two industries offer superficial sensation without appreciation or understanding. Holidays and arts are packaged and choice is limited.

This trivialization is not always or necessarily the case however. This is most obvious in arts core cases where artistic events attract a significant tourist audience without any concession to popular appeal or loss of artistic integrity. A production is so ‘good’ that it attracts a widespread audience. It is possible that a minority-interest production, for instance, could only survive by appealing to a widespread audience. There may be few people in any one place with that interest but when added together across several places they can constitute a large audience. Such an audience is tourist more in the sense of being drawn from a large area rather than being ‘holiday-makers’. Many high-arts festivals will fall into this category of tourist-oriented performances that are not trivialized.

It is also the case that many forces have been responsible for any trivialization that is believed to have happened. The influence of the mass media and television may be particularly relevant in this respect in creating a society that is interested more in inconsequential than in profound matters. The need for the arts to be more commercial in order to survive will have contributed to the process. Less financial support from government has meant a need to seek out new audiences perhaps by popularizing the product and presenting fewer limited-interest but meaningful productions.

Arts as an industry

The stress on the arts–tourism relationship may contribute to a view of the arts as an industry, as evidenced by statements such as ‘London’s West End theatre is a large and growing business’ (Travers, 1998: 7). The arts are increasingly seen as a product (as evidenced by the title of Chapter 5 of this book!) and those who are involved in creating the product are in an industry like any other. This has the effect that the arts are seen as an activity that has no extraordinary distinguishing characteristics. Rather than seen as being worthy in their own right and for their own sake, the arts are regarded as important for the income, employment and balance of payments effects that are generated. The organization and packaging of the arts as a tourist resource is a significant contributor to this process. The arts remain favourably regarded until some other activity is shown to have more favourable effects. ‘The problem with this justification is that the arts are asked to be something that they are neither designed nor intended to be … They may lose by these rules if another sector with a greater economic impact comes along’ (Schuster, 1989: 14).

It has already been seen earlier in this chapter how the Arts Council, Policy Studies Institute and the Wyndham report had viewed the economic aspects of the arts in generating tourism to be of great significance. The Port Authority study of the arts perhaps overstated its case in saying that it sought ‘to change the way people think about the arts … Too often we forget its importance to our economic vitality’ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993: 1) but nonetheless it is significant that it and many other studies choose to identify the economic consequences of the arts. The economic consequences identified invariably include discussion of its tourism impact. A recent Policy Studies Institute study barely mentioned tourism but was, significantly, entitled ‘Culture as a commodity’ with the sub-title of ‘the economics of the arts and cultural heritage’ (Casey et al., 1996).

Tourist boards are not unaware of some of the dangers. The ETB, for instance, warns ‘it should always be remembered that the desire to increase visitor numbers while sustaining the environment – physical and intellectual – that attracted them in the first place is a challenge and objective both spheres share’ (ETB, 1993: 6).

The extent to which tourism contributes to this view of the arts needs however to be kept in perspective. In most towns and cities there are relatively few tourists in performing arts audiences (with the exception of tourist cities and festivals). It is also the case that it is only a few arts that attract tourists and which are affected by tourism. Tourism may influence the performing arts product but its influence is limited. The nature of the performing arts in most towns and cities is increasingly the outcome of commercial pressures regardless of the tourism dimension. Corporations in the arts have also themselves taken the initiative, seized the opportunities and exploited the tourism market and it is therefore not entirely the fault of tourism. Cultural policies may well though have intensified these influences by emphasizing the commercial and economic perspective through, in part, the tourism potential of the arts (see later this chapter).

Irrelevance

Arts aimed at non-local audiences face the criticism of not meeting the needs of locals. Some artistic events with a strong tourist input may be seen to lack local significance and they become open to charges of irrelevance and, in some cases, elitism. This may be the case with festivals, especially those that focus on the ‘high arts’ aimed at high-spending audiences across the country and the world.

Urban regeneration

As well as the effect of each upon the other, the arts and tourism have a joint effect, which is the effect of arts-related tourism upon urban regeneration (see Figure 8.4). Each activity – tourism and the arts – refers to the other in justifying its existence but, in addition, they both lay claim to very similar positive attributes. They are growth industries, they preserve culture and buildings, they create jobs and help regenerate inner cities. (See early statements of this in, for instance, ACGB, 1985 and ETB, 1981.) The connection between the arts and tourism is reinforced by the fact that both are seen as helping economic regeneration. Each is seen (individually) as helping regenerate cities but the regenerative effects of each are seen to partly depend upon the other. Not only therefore do the arts and tourism industries see merit in their relationship, so too do those on the outside, such as local government, who have an interest in urban regeneration. They are both viewed, in cities in particular, as having the potential to assist in reviving run-down areas and to create prosperity where there was little before.

Figure 8.4   Urban regeneration, the arts and tourism

Many cities across Europe and North America have been facing the challenges of adjusting to the requirements of a world that differs greatly from the one when most of them were prosperous. Most cities are the product of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and of industrialization. Recently their industrial base has diminished, associated with globalization and the international division of labour. The outcome is that inner cities in particular have experienced a fall in employment and a net population outflow (to the suburbs). Inner cities are often characterized by a high population density, poor quality housing, deterioration of infrastructure and environmental dereliction. All lead to high levels of ill-health and morbidity, a high incidence of social problems (including crime) and low educational achievement.

Encouragement of the arts and tourism in many cities has been, in part, a response to this economic and social decline and a desire to re-position themselves as centres of services and centres of consumption rather than of production and, in particular, as centres of consumption of leisure and pleasure: sports, shops, theatres, cinemas, pubs, restaurants, clubs (Hannigan, 1998). Prospering cities are those associated with services (though not solely leisure services) and information technology. Tourism strategies for urban areas have frequently been based on the regeneration potential of tourism, though how great an impact it can make is arguable. The English Tourist Board has been promoting the role of tourism in urban regeneration for some time (ETB 1980, 1981) largely based on early experiences in USA such as in Baltimore (Maryland) and Lowell (Massachusetts) (Falk, 1986). The possible role of tourism is recognized by the UK government (Department of the Environment, 1990). The arts and heritage are particularly strong tourist assets of many urban areas and the tourism promoted in cities is usually based on these (see Figure 8.4).

At the same time, regeneration has appeared in arts and cultural policies that have been developed in many West European and North American cities. Cultural policies may serve many purposes but serving the objective of urban regeneration is a relatively recent development (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993). Cultural policies have shifted their emphasis from ‘social welfare’ or ‘benevolent’ provision for local residents and the development of local initiatives to economic ends and a concern for ‘city-image’. In a study of local government in London it was concluded that there was ‘a growing recognition of the value-added potential of arts and cultural input to urban and economic development’ (Evans, 1993: 26). Culture may lead to urban regeneration in a number of ways including:

  Improving the image of the city and using it in ‘place marketing’: This hopefully will enable a city to compete in the international market for investment and encourage industry and commerce to locate in the city (Figure 8.4). The role of the arts in making a city an attractive place to live and work is emphasized by many. The New York-New Jersey study referred to the fact that 56 per cent of people who had moved to New York city cited the variety of cultural attractions as a major motivation (Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, 1993).

  Attracting tourists: The benefits of cultural policy are also expected to show themselves through tourism and the employment and income effects of an injection of tourist expenditure. The arts attract tourists directly and indirectly by influencing image (Figure 8.4). Tourism is itself dependent on a good image and this is helped by the arts provision. The artistic and cultural activities of a place will affect the image and perception of that place by those outside. Tourism is at the forefront of urban cultural policies though, for some, ‘whether these facilities include significant numbers of tourists among their visitors … is less important than the perception that the leisured city, or the cultural city, is the successful city in the post-industrial world’ (Voase, 1997: 237).

Tourism and the arts are regarded as contributing to each other’s role in regenerating cities. They are each a necessary part of the other. Arts-related tourism is therefore regarded as being a significant contributor to reviving economic activity in cities. There has been widespread agreement about the role, so much so that the arts and tourism might almost be regarded as operating in a ‘coalition’, or informal linking. There has been a common view on the way forward.

Cultural policies have been designed with a view to encouraging inward investment and tourism but the middle or service classes have had considerable influence on them. What arts to develop in a city, along with other aspects of urban redevelopment, has been influenced by these particular classes. They have been able to express their wants more coherently and persuasively than others. They are often better organized and are able to influence those who make the re-development decisions, even though they will be fewer in number than others who live in cities. The outcome has been a ‘gentrification’ of cities, a transformation into the work and leisure places for the middle and service classes (O’Connor and Wynne, 1996; Bianchini, 1999).

Gentrification has not always been welcomed. The jazz history of the Filmore district of San Francisco is being used as a catalyst for the district’s regeneration. The opening of the Blue Nile club (a sister club to one in Greenwich Village, New York) and other jazz clubs is regarded as a final part of an extensive regeneration programme that will entail attracting visitors to the district. It has led to comments however that the local African-American community has been marginalized and their interests not being recognized (Wheat, 1999).

This ‘gentrification’ process has been assisted by the reduced influence of local government in urban regeneration strategies. Business interests have become more influential through the rise of ‘coalitions’ promoting urban regeneration (Shaw, 1993). This has been claimed to be so especially in the USA and, to a lesser extent, in the UK. Local government has become less important and their priorities have shifted from social welfare to economic development. The encouragement of private–public partnership and the establishment of development agencies outside local government have assisted in this process. The influence of such non-elected bodies on local growth has perhaps been greatest in the USA but business has influenced policy in a variety of informal as well as formal ways including through the pressure of interest groups and informal net-working.

‘Business’ and the middle classes have generally held similar views on which arts to develop and promote and on the need to promote cities as tourist destinations. In effect it is a ‘coalition’ of diverse groups who hold similar views. They may or may not operate together but their similar views and objectives ensure an outcome that furthers their common interests. Tourism, cultural and regeneration policies are the outcome of this coalition – basically representing a particular view of the world.

Some problems

Criticisms centre on three issues (Bianchini, 1993a, 1993b; Griffiths, 1993; Hannigan, 1998) (see Figure 8.4):

Restricted benefit

The argument has been that the emphasis has been on prestige projects and ‘flagship’ schemes at the expense of community-based schemes and of widening access to the arts. In particular, it is argued that local relevance and talent and the nurturing of long-term cultural development have been neglected and the emphasis has been on the high arts and prestige projects. Encouraging people to produce and perform themselves and promoting theatre-going by the local population may have been sacrificed in favour of providing buildings such as theatres, concert halls and event centres and arenas. Wider cultural activity may have been disregarded in favour of activity in theatres and concert halls. The focus has been on down-town, city-centre activity. Production by local cultural industries and artists may have been neglected as consumption of prestige activity has been encouraged. Temporary spectacle such as festivals may have been cultivated at the expense of longer-term artistic and audience development. Tourist and cultural policies have been supportive of only the safe and the prestigious in the arts. This may have been at the expense of more indigenous and adventurous cultural activity. In this way, tourism may have had a distorting effect on the arts encouraged in urban areas. Non-locals and local middle and service classes benefit most.

These views were expressed about Glasgow’s year as European City of Culture in 1990 (Hughes and Boyle, 1992) and about the cultural development programmes launched in Barcelona in the years leading up to the 1992 Olympic Games (Dodd, 1999). The Spoleto Festival held in Charleston (South Carolina) since 1977 draws a high proportion of visitors into its audiences. The festival did not grow from the community and it could have been established anywhere. The General Manager of that festival has recognized that there are problems in terms of relevance to the local population. ‘Charleston has a large black population and, in general, black populations in American cities are disenfranchised from the arts. This issue must be addressed’ (Redden, 1989: 41).

New facilities

The pursuit of cultural policies and arts-related tourism has often led to the construction of new facilities (such as concert halls or arenas) or infrastructure. This has long-term consequences which are often not foreseen (or are ignored). New buildings and infrastructure require long-term financing and user programming. Many of these projects have been conceived and implemented as ‘civic boosterism’ in order to raise the status and profile of a city, without the benefit of rational, objective analysis and evaluation beforehand (Roche, 1994). Decisions have been the outcome of powerful leadership and power politics with justification and evaluation occurring afterwards. Alternative strategies may not have been considered. Projects have been activated without thorough evaluation or before the evaluation process is completed. It is possible that some favourable data is used to support the project and other data suppressed. The effects are over-estimated and, in practice, are difficult to determine with any degree of precision and ‘the supply-driven approach to cultural tourism is allowed to thrive in a climate of boosterism’ (Richards, 1999: 30).

The construction and development of any new facilities such as concert halls or arenas does create employment and income during the construction period and, in that sense, it is beneficial. It is, however, comparable to the building of anything else and the project can only really be considered beneficial if it generates revenue. Expenditure on construction is a ‘cost’ (rather than a benefit), which may or may not generate a ‘return’. Facilities will be available for use by locals, they may act as a tourist attraction in their own right and it may be that the construction and associated infrastructure do act as a catalyst for some economic regeneration. If, however, facilities are under-used after an event such as a festival then there may be very real financial burdens. In addition, funds for construction are beneficial only if they are a net injection and not a diversion from other uses, perhaps with greater social impact including education and health (Loftman and Nevin, 1992). Prestige project elements of tourism and cultural strategies may have been misjudged and inappropriate.

Limited impact

Tourism and the arts are likely to have only limited impact as part of regeneration strategies. The nature of the world is such that action at city (local) level to reverse economic decline may be insufficient and international and national strategies may be necessary. It is also unlikely that tourism and the arts (separately or together) would be sufficient to revive cities and adequately replace their lost employment base. They will have only a limited impact given the magnitude of the problems faced by cities. It has already been seen that the extent to which the arts really attract tourists is not clear-cut (see previous chapters). In addition, what benefit there is, is likely to be focused down-town with little impact on city-wide growth.

Economic perspective

The benefits of cultural and arts-related tourism are often expressed in economic terms as the expenditure, income and employment generated. At the Adelaide Festival, interstate and international visitors were 18 per cent of all ticket-purchasers but accounted for a quarter of all attendances (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996). In the case of the Edinburgh Festivals the tourism impact is believed to be considerable. The Festivals generated extra direct expenditure of £44 million (in Edinburgh and the locality) of which £37 million was expenditure by tourists (Scotinform, 1991).

Estimates of the direct effects of any form of tourism are, however, difficult to calculate given limited comprehensive data and the necessity of relying on survey material for expenditure data (Sheldon, 1990). Figures of expenditure need always to be treated with caution because of the strong possibility that people may not be able to estimate future expenditure or to remember past expenditure accurately. Survey respondents may guess or even mislead.

It was seen in Chapter 5 that not all expenditure on the arts is necessarily beneficial. Expenditure by local audiences is not a net injection into the local economy in the same way as tourist expenditure is, as it may have been spent there anyway even if not on the arts (see Figure 8.5). It may well be diverted from one item of expenditure to the arts and as such adds nothing. To claim locals’ expenditure as a benefit to an area can be misleading. It is conceivable, though, that the strength of the arts is such that locals spend locally rather than elsewhere. In the case of the Adelaide Festival, some adjustment was made for this. It was estimated that 20 per cent of the residents who went to the Festival had stayed at home to attend the Festival rather than go away on holiday (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996) and their expenditure was therefore considered to be a gain. In a similar study, 12.5 per cent of Adelaide residents in audiences for the Wagner Ring Cycle 1998 would have gone away but for the Cycle (South Australian Tourism Commission, 1998).

Figure 8.5   Economic impact of arts-related tourism

The spending by visitors is more clearly a ‘benefit’ as it is an injection into the locality as opposed to a re-circulation of money (see Figure 8.5). Within a country, however, even expenditure by domestic tourists is ‘local’, though to any one particular town or city spending by domestic tourists is an injection. They bring money into a town from outside and it adds to the flow of expenditure and income. The expenditure of foreign tourists is an injection into a country. It is additional money which is an inflow on the balance of payments and which may create extra income and employment in the country concerned.

Unfortunately not all tourist expenditure is beneficial either. As has been seen in earlier chapters, there are problems of attributing tourism (and its consequences) to the arts and of making adjustment for any displacement of expenditure from other tourist attractions in the area. How certain can it be that the expenditure in the theatre might have not been spent in the area anyway in say museums or theme parks? Some expenditure, as noted in Chapters 5 and 6, is ‘deadweight’ as it is not induced by the arts and would have occurred anyway. An adjustment for this non-attributable element of the expenditure should be made, though this too is not easy to do.

Total expenditure generated by the arts needs to be adjusted therefore for:

  locals’ (however defined) expenditure;

  tourists’ expenditure that is displaced from other tourist attractions;

  tourists’ expenditure that would have occurred anyway.

Earlier in this chapter it was seen that tourist audiences would spend on a range of other services in addition to tickets. These ‘ancillary’ purchases were usually on accommodation, transport, meals, souvenirs and the like (see Figure 8.6). There is however a further aspect of expenditure that can be examined and that is what happens to this expenditure after having been received by theatres, hotels, restaurants and taxi-drivers. There is further spending by, for instance, the theatre companies on supplies and to suppliers (and by them in turn) and further spending by employees of theatres, etc. A chain of further expenditure occurs which is termed the ‘multiplier’ effect (see Figure 8.6). The value of this multiplier is affected by ‘leakages’ as some of this initial increase in expenditure does not continue to be passed on. Some is saved and not passed on, some is paid in tax and is therefore not available to the consumer to spend and some is spent on foreign goods and services and therefore does not generate further expenditure in this country. The value of the multiplier can be quite low in a country that is very dependent on imports.

Figure 8.6   ‘Spill-over’ effects of spending by arts-related tourists

There are a number of variations of the multiplier. A commonly used one in arts and tourism studies relates the original direct expenditure to final total expenditure (see Figure 8.7). In his Glasgow study, Myerscough (1991) considered that the multiplier value would be 1.2. In the West End study it was stated that ‘multipliers typically used in studies of this kind suggest the multiplier effect will be in the range 1.0 to 1.5’ (Travers, 1998: 11). The implication of such figures is that an initial increase in expenditure of £1 or $1 will result in multiplied expenditure in these ranges of 1.0 to 1.5. Other estimates are higher as is shown below.

Figure 8.7   The multiplier effect

  New York-New Jersey: visitors who came primarily for the arts (or extended their stay because of the arts) were responsible for direct expenditure of $1300 million (26.3 per cent of total direct expenditure), which resulted in an overall impact of $2300 million (a multiplier of 1.76) (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993).

  Broadway: spending by visitors (additional to ticket sales) was $971 million with a total impact of $1719 million (multiplier of 1.77). This ‘visitor ancillary spending component is the most significant contributing factor to Broadway’s economic impact’ (Hauser and Lanier, 1998: 7).

  The Wyndham report on the West End did not separately estimate visitors’ impact but total expenditure by all audiences (and theatre companies) was £715 million. This resulted in an overall economic impact on the whole economy of £1075 million, a multiplier of 1.5 (Travers, 1998: 11). There was no attempt to determine how much of theatre-goers expenditure was directly due to the drawing-power of theatre.

A variation of the multiplier is to relate the direct expenditure not to the final amount of expenditure created but to the income created (the ‘normal’ multiplier) (see Figure 8.7). Expenditure will create income for the firms that receive the expenditure and for employees of those firms (direct income) and for suppliers (indirect income). Some of the income will be spent by employees on goods and services, as would any other consumer, and that creates further income (induced income). The value of this ‘multiplier’ is the total of this direct, indirect and induced income related to the original change in expenditure. A rise in consumer expenditure of £10 million may result in total income of £3 million – a multiplier of 0.3 – which may seem not to be a multiplied amount at all but in this case it is the income that is multiplied not the expenditure.

  The Adelaide Festival generated ‘new’ expenditure of A$13 million leading to (wage and salary) incomes of nearly A$8 million (multiplier of 0.6) (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996).

  The Edinburgh Festivals generated £258 million of direct expenditure in the city and surrounding region and that, in turn, resulted in £63 million of local income (multiplier of 0.2) (Jones Economics, 1996).

The multiplier concept has many shortcomings, most of which are widely recognized, but it continues to be applied routinely and indiscriminately (Hughes, 1994b). Inadequate data and restrictive and unrealistic assumptions limit the value of the technique. Calculated multiplier values are widely mis-understood and mis-used and the apparent precision of the technique leads to undiscriminating interpretation of values. Significant effects are often claimed but:

1  It does require considerable resources to calculate accurately and, as a result, rough estimates are often made. In Myerscough (1991) and Travers (1998), multiplier values from other studies were transferred across to Glasgow and the West End. In the 1991 study of the Edinburgh Festivals it was stated that ‘we use a multiplier of 0.2087 to convert direct expenditure to total local income; this figure is taken from Myerscough’s study of economic importance of the arts in Glasgow’ (Scotinform, 1991: 99). This suffers from two problems, namely that the figure relates to a different place and to a different time (at least three years earlier).

2  There are many different types of multiplier which are often confused (see Figure 8.7):

  the expenditure multiplier that relates original expenditure to final expenditure;

  the ‘normal’ multiplier that relates total income to original expenditure;

  the ‘ratio’ multiplier that relates total income to direct income. It was seen above that the values of each can be quite different (e.g. 1.2 and 0.2) and sometimes the wrong value is applied to a particular situation, by claiming for instance that £1 of expenditure leads to £1.20 of income (i.e. applying an expenditure multiplier to a ‘normal’ multiplier situation).

3  There are problems in obtaining reliable data on numbers of tourists (which usually rely on site surveys) and on tourist expenditure.

4  Relationships between expenditure and income or between expenditure and jobs are estimates of the current situation and they would not necessarily hold in the future nor for any increases in expenditure (as they are average figures not marginal). It would be misleading to claim that a future increase in expenditure would generate expenditures and incomes of the same magnitude. This was emphasized in the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey study (1993).

5  Attribution: The authors of the New York-New Jersey study (1993) recognized that there could be reservations about the extent to which the expenditure was actually caused by the arts and how much would have occurred anyway.

In addition employment figures are conversions of unreliable expenditure figures. In the Wyndham report on the West End, it was estimated that between 55 and 75 per cent of expenditure went on labour costs (Travers, 1998). These costs would then be divided by an average wage to give an estimate of direct jobs. In the New York-New Jersey study it was estimated that over 40,000 direct jobs and over 60,000 other jobs were associated with the expenditure. In Edinburgh the number of jobs was estimated at 2500 full-time equivalents in 1996 and in Adelaide at 270 full-time equivalents. In reality, however, much of the effect of ‘new’ expenditure may be in terms of additional hours worked by existing employees rather than new jobs. Many new jobs may also be casual and have little long-term effect.

Many indirect jobs (and even some of the direct jobs) may exist anyway despite the audience spending. It may well be justifiable to attribute direct jobs to audience spending but it becomes rather more problematic to claim indirect jobs (i.e. jobs in suppliers) in the same way. ‘About 41,000 UK jobs depend on West End theatre – 27,000 directly and 14,000 indirectly’ (Travers, 1998: 18). The implication is that if it were not for the direct expenditure these indirect jobs would not exist and if the expenditure fell then the jobs would fall. Direct jobs in theatres and concert halls may not exist if it was not for audience expenditure but jobs in hotels and restaurants may exist anyway. The effects of arts audiences’ spending may be marginal on any one business (though together may appear substantial). Some of the tourists would have come to the country anyway. Even if they had not come it may be that the effect on jobs would have been marginal because some employment will be indivisible and discontinuous and not possible to adjust finely. The effect on any one organization may be slight.

The same argument can be applied to expenditures and incomes apparently generated by tourists’ spending. If jobs would have existed anyway it is possible that some proportion of the indirect and induced expenditures and incomes would similarly have occurred and have been earned anyway.

6  A final comment on the multiplier is that the technique distracts from other fundamental issues. As a mathematical concept, it is relatively easy to estimate and it may overshadow issues, such as the alternative use of resources, which cannot be expressed so easily in figures. The economic evaluation of effects usually ignores wider issues such as opportunity costs. In the case of prestige events or projects, in particular, resources may be diverted from other uses which might be considered more ‘productive’ or ‘useful’ activities but comparative multipliers are rarely estimated.

There is an obvious tendency to assess the worth of tourism in economic terms, often to justify public expenditure. Tourism, like many other forms of activity, is not often nor as easily evaluated in non-economic terms. It is evident that the determination of the economic effects of arts-related tourism is subject to considerable speculation and margins of error. Expenditure figures are estimates derived from surveys and employment figures are frequently conversions of those expenditure figures. The unreliability is especially acute in the case of the effects beyond the direct (indirect and induced effects) which are estimated utilizing the multiplier technique.