9
Introduction
From a tourism perspective, the focus of this book has been a particular form of tourism. From the arts perspective, the focus has been the members of an audience who are not local. Previous chapters have examined a number of issues including how the relationship between the arts and tourism has developed and discussion of the factors that have influenced it. Chapter 8 focused on the effects of the relationship. It was seen that the effects were complex and wide-ranging and say something about the way in which societies are developing. It is more than a simple business relationship with implications for marketing. There are wider ramifications of what is going on and it is symptomatic of much wider transformations in society. There are, of course, marketing implications and some of these will be discussed in this chapter along with other consequences of the relationship and its effects.
conclusions arising from the issues raised in previous chapters;
discussion of some of the implications and of some appropriate strategies for future development.
Conclusions
This book has concentrated on tourism and the performing arts rather than on the whole of cultural tourism. Existing studies of cultural tourism have often included activities which were so different that they should be studied in isolation (at least at first) (see Figure 9.1). There is also an omission in many studies: that of entertainment. In addition, the term cultural tourism has been frequently used to cover all visits to museums, historic houses or theatres regardless of whether or not those were the reason for being a tourist in the first place.
Figure 9.1 The performing arts and tourism and the relationship with cultural tourism
There are two perspectives on the relationship between arts and entertainment and tourism (see Figure 9.1). One is the arts-core situation in which a person travels with the sole or primary purpose of seeing a show or concert. The other is the arts-peripheral situation where the arts and entertainment are not the main reason for travel and something such as a business trip or a holiday for sun and sea or for heritage are the most important reasons. The visit to the theatre or concert hall in these situations occurs as something that is incidental to the main purpose or even is accidental in that it did not feature at all in the visit decision.
The existing discussions of cultural tourism tend to view the interest in culture as more core than peripheral and are also more focused on heritage than on the performing arts. The analyses are concerned with explaining its recent emergence and the justification for believing it to be a new form of tourism that will continue to grow. This approach is not wholly appropriate for the study of the performing arts in the tourism context where it is probable that there has long been participation by tourists and as a secondary activity (arts-peripheral) when on holiday.
Arts-core tourism may be considered to be part of ‘cultural tourism’ whereas the arts-peripheral may be best considered as a separate distinct activity. It is probable too that the former may be concerned with the arts (as traditionally defined) and the latter with entertainment though this distinction is by no means unequivocal.
Entertainment has certainly featured in all forms of tourism from the earliest times. The growth of seaside resorts and ‘mass’ tourism from the mid nineteenth century encouraged the development of a large tourist-related entertainment business. The places that holiday tourists now wish to visit have changed but there is still a demand for visits to theatres and concert halls whilst on holiday, whether domestic or international, city or coast. Surveys of audiences and tourists have deficiencies which mean it is difficult to obtain a clear picture of the arts-tourism relationship but it would appear that many tourists do not go to see the arts and entertainment. Nonetheless a good number do and, of these, many are there as a result of a decision to visit the place for some other reason; they are arts-peripheral. A similar view is emerging that ‘increasing attendance at cultural heritage sites is primarily the result of a growing number of ‘passer-bys’ … Usually culture is not the prime motive for visiting a city or region’ (de Haan, 1999: 124).
There are also, in some cases, large proportions of tourists in audiences who are arts-core for whom the arts or entertainment have been the only or the main reason for the visit. It is probable that the motivations and socio-demographic characteristics of such tourists will differ from those of arts-peripheral tourists. This remains unexplored.
Further development
The ways forward include:
greater information about the arts–tourism relationship;
practical operational strategies.
There is not a great deal of information available generally about the arts–tourism relationship. The reality is that ‘little to nothing is known about (cultural) tourists’ motivations’ (de Leeuw, 1999: 10) and some of the requirements for a more complete picture are summarized in Figure 9.2. The number of surveys is limited and there are problems with individual surveys. The number needs to be expanded and refinements to surveys are required before the exact role of the performing arts can be established and the several types of arts-related tourist identified. For instance, the size of an arts-related tourism market, the intent of tourists and the drawing power of the arts are currently difficult to determine with certainty. Much of the encouragement from bodies in the arts and tourism is based on hunch and a few successful cases. It is not yet possible to see the complete picture.
In part, this is because cultural tourism studies have analysed global concepts such as the arts or culture or heritage. This will be clarified ultimately only by further studies which analyse at the level of individual art forms – the performing arts, museums, art galleries, etc. – rather than at less focused levels. There is a need for more such focused studies and the places covered need to be extended. With respect to the UK, for instance, surveys are confined to London or to the country as a whole and a few major arts events. The scope of studies requires widening to include more individual towns, cities and regions with perhaps a special need to analyse seaside resorts.
Where studies have been more focused, other issues arise. In constructing audience survey questionnaires, day-visitors and staying tourists, those on holiday, and domestic and overseas tourists are not always separately identified. In addition, it would assist strategic decision making if these categories were cross-referenced with questions relating to the reason for visit to the destination and the importance of the performance within that. Finally, when examining the influence of the performance in the decision to visit the destination, it is not sufficient to evaluate the importance of it in isolation. More meaningful responses would result from the requirement to evaluate in relation to other influencing factors.
Surveys conducted amongst the tourist population in general (and not just those in audiences) have greater potential for evaluating drawing power. Surveys do, however, need to be conducted with greater consistency in the coverage of influencing factors and the terms used in evaluating the factors. More significance will be attached to tourists’ evaluation of factors where the range evaluated is wide though the factors included must be pertinent. The influences on destination choice are numerous and varied but the focus should be on the attributes of a destination. Some such attributes are ‘determinant’ in that they determine choice whereas others may be salient, i.e. significant and conspicuous features, but which do not necessarily influence choice. The identification of ‘determinant’ attributes requires analysis beyond the surveys that are current. Other apparently important factors in consumer choice (such as ‘recommendation’) are not destination attributes at all and cannot validly be combined in the same analytical process.
A further issue associated with tourist surveys is – given that the consumer choice decision is a complex one – that it is not sufficient to expect individual attributes to be determinant in isolation from each other. Attributes of the destination will be determinant in combination, and studies should acknowledge this. There is a need for studies that demonstrate the ‘strength’ of various combinations of attractions and activities in influencing a decision to visit a destination. (For relevant approaches such as multi-attribute models and conjoint measurement, see Ryan, 1995.)
Tourist surveys do not yet permit the assessment of arts-core and arts-peripheral. Most published material does not link arts participation with the significance of the arts in the visit decision.
Both audience and tourist surveys have been preoccupied with foreign tourists and data on domestic tourism, and the role of the arts within that is limited. Further information about this segment is required if more meaningful management strategies are to be developed. There has also been a neglect of entertainment. It is not, for instance, recognized in UK national tourist board data collection where the list of activities is limited. It needs to be recognized and monitored more closely, in resorts in particular both over time and across the whole country.
It is also apparent that there is limited knowledge currently not just about consumers but also about firms in the arts and tourism sectors. The dynamics and market behaviour of theatre firms, of arts and entertainment producers in cities and resorts, of the tour operators (especially in-coming) and of hotels and clubs in providing entertainment and of how the two sectors relate to each other are all poorly researched.
Particular areas for future research include, for instance, audiences and tourists at seaside resorts. The audience composition is not known from published material and it is not known what the drawing power is of the arts and entertainment in such holiday areas. Similarly, there is no distinction in such local tourist studies either of participation in arts and entertainment or of their drawing power. The arts-core, arts-peripheral breakdown is not known from either audience or tourist surveys.
The survey approach clearly has its limitations. The adoption of more qualitative approaches may add to knowledge about the arts–tourism relationship. These approaches could be used to explore the ‘holiday experience’ – whether at the coast or in the city – in order to determine what it is that people believe constitutes a holiday. Such studies would seek to discover what are the necessary ingredients, the extent to which certain activities and attractions are important singly or jointly and to determine the role of arts and entertainment in that holiday experience. It would indicate how far people feel that entertainment and the arts are a necessary or significant part of the whole holiday experience or whether it is regarded, for instance, as a secondary diversion.
There is little knowledge of the arts-core market in terms of its size, its growth and its product preferences. The potential for further growth and development is unexplored, as is whether or not the motivations and socio-demographics of the arts-core tourist differ from those of the arts-peripheral tourist.
Strategies for the individual theatre
Despite the limitations to current knowledge discussed above there is, as seen in Chapter 8, a firm belief amongst many that there is a significant arts–tourism relationship and this is basically beneficial and should be encouraged. What then are the options open to the individual theatre, concert hall, hotel or tour operator to pursue this relationship further? There is an abundance of relevant practical advice in publications such as The Arts Tourism Marketing Handbook published by the ETB in 1993 and Tourism and the arts: advice pack published by the BTA and Arts Council of England in 1997. There also practical recommendations in the studies of cultural tourism in Canada (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997a, 1997b, 1998) and in South Australia (Leader-Elliott, 1996). Marketing of services, of not-for-profit services and specifically of the arts are also well covered in a number of books (such as Hill, O’Sullivan and O’Sullivan, 1995 and Getz, 1991). In the remaining part of this chapter the intent is to avoid unnecessary duplication with these and the discussion relates to the more specific issues that have arisen from the earlier chapters of this book. It does though also draw, where appropriate, on these and related publications and seminars and on strategies previously discussed in Chapter 6.
This discussion will, for the sake of clarity, be from the perspective of the individual arts organization: a theatre. From this it will become apparent what the implications are for the arts sector as a whole and for the tourism industry. The particular issues surrounding festivals are dealt with in detail in, for instance, Getz (1991).
It is clear from the earlier chapters of this book that a relationship between the performing arts and tourism does exist. In Chapter 4 it was suggested that tourists in an audience could be classified according to whether (i) arts-core or arts-peripheral and (ii) holiday or non-holiday. Strategies for attracting each may well differ.
A word of caution is appropriate however. The arts–tourism relationship is not of significance to all in the arts and tourism (despite the fact that this book has focused on the relationship). It is easy and tempting to over-exaggerate the relationship but there is not always a need nor the opportunity for a productive arts–tourism relationship.
For some arts organizations a local audience may be sufficient to fill seats and there is no obvious need to attract an audience from further afield.
In other cases there is little opportunity because not all towns and cities or arts products have significant potential for attracting long-distance audiences or for holiday tourism.
There are those in the arts who would regard it as undesirable to target tourists for reasons that have been discussed in Chapter 8. There is a reluctance on the part of some to regard themselves as a tourist attraction.
The effort involved in determining who is in the audience in such a way as to identify market segments and in targeting those segments may be beyond the capabilities of many individual arts organizations and the pay-off may not be worth the effort. This suggests a case for some form of joint activity with others in both the arts and tourism (see Chapter 6).
Similarly, each tourist market segment may not be large enough nor readily identifiable nor reachable in a cost-effective way.
The arts–tourism connection needs to be kept in perspective as it is not applicable to all.
For any arts organization, tourism can however be seen in un-threatening terms as part of the normal process of attracting more customers. The prospect of widening the catchment area may be something a greater number of arts organizations might find worth considering, even if they do not pursue it. In some cases there is no point in developing the relationship. In others however there may be great potential but this is not yet recognized or acknowledged. In such cases there is a fairly fundamental hurdle to be crossed before action occurs but a first step is the determination and evaluation of the potential returns from any extra effort involved in attracting a non-local audience. Some of the problems faced in attracting non-local audiences were discussed in Chapter 6, along with a number of possible strategies.
Market research
The strategy that any one arts organization adopts will depend on many factors but a fundamental requirement is to be aware of the characteristics of the existing audiences through market research. Not all arts organizations have that information and many rely on their mailing lists as indicators of their audiences. This has a number of defects, in particular, the fact that mailing lists and audiences are not necessarily the same. People buy tickets without being on the mailing list and not all those on the mailing list buy tickets or are necessarily keener or more frequent attenders than those who are not.
Audience surveys assist in building up the picture of audiences but are time-consuming and costly. In addition, it has already been noted that audience surveys do not always contain information that bears directly on tourism. Once existing audiences are identified, arts organizations can move to the next step, that of identifying potentially productive markets to target. This may be evident from audience surveys which reveal tourists (if any) as coming from a particular geographical area or belonging to a particular socioeconomic group and having a particular reason for travelling to the location and for being in the theatre or concert hall, i.e. where in the arts-core, arts-peripheral, holiday, non-holiday matrix they can be located.
If tourists are not present in audiences currently, arts managers can utilize secondary sources of information compiled and published by others to enable them to target non-local audiences if they so wish. These will include surveys and reviews of related tourism markets (such as published by tourist boards) and more general sources of consumer expenditure patterns such as ACORN data and the Target Group Index which indicate, amongst much other information, the characteristics and location of consumers of the arts and holidays.
Product development and promotion
Once convinced that there is potential then an individual arts organization may adopt one or both of two broad approaches: product development and/or promotion.
Product development
The modification of an existing arts product so that it is more likely to attract audiences from outside the locality. This is probably especially relevant for arts-core. It implies the production of something distinctive:
rarity: performances of rarely produced pieces – music, plays, operas, etc.
– that will be of interest to a large but perhaps scattered audience;
quality: productions that are similar to those elsewhere but which are distinguished by high standards in production and/or performance;
star names: in productions that can be seen elsewhere (without such a star) or as star concerts on a one-off basis or on tour.
If it was to appeal to a holiday audience (often arts-peripheral) then the product development may take a different form such as the production of plays, concerts, shows, etc. that are relatively light and diversionary. This will include some of the more popular shows, such as musicals, that are produced in non-holiday areas as well as up-dated variations of the traditional variety show.
In coastal resorts it may be necessary to accept the challenge of other places of entertainment (such as hotels and clubs) and create something different in style and presentation that others cannot offer. It may be appropriate too to develop an interchange of ‘package’ summer shows with other resorts so that costs are shared.
Product development may lead to the setting up of special events or festivals that have particular tourist dimensions. The initiative and development of these will extend beyond the resources of any single arts organization.
Promotion
The product may well have tourist appeal (whether holiday or non-holiday) and the appropriate strategy may lie more in the promotion of such an existing arts product that has unexploited tourism potential. Campaigns directed at the nonlocal target segments may take several forms; they were discussed in Chapter 6. Those approaches fell into three broad categories: (i) promotion outside the destination, (ii) inside the destination and (iii) promotion of the destination itself. These should be referred to during the following discussion.
The need for communication and consultation
Some of the strategies suggested go beyond the individual efforts of any theatre, concert hall or arena. Some require working with others in the arts and some require a relationship with sectors of the tourism industry. Much of the advice by bodies such as the BTA and ACE focuses on the benefits to be achieved through working with others (ETB, 1993) or, at the least, through the achievement of a greater understanding by each of the other’s objectives and interests (Austwick, 1991). ‘Success requires the development of a mutually reinforcing relationship between the cultural, heritage and tourism sectors’ and of improved communication between them (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997a: 1). Implicit throughout is the view that each sector can benefit from the other in the ways identified in Chapter 8. Much of the practical advice centres on how the two sectors may be enabled to reach a greater understanding and a greater degree of co-operation in order to facilitate a mutually beneficial development.
Limited contact between the two parties in the past has led to limited awareness and to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. There have been few formal joint communication mechanisms between arts and tourism. As each sector works independently of the other, at the least it seems desirable to have a means of communicating. Contact between the tourism and the arts has been intermittent and haphazard which, given the nature of the two, is not surprising. Tourism in particular is characterized by a large number of firms, especially hoteliers, and each sector has had quite different objectives, with commercial considerations being of more importance to tourism and artistic considerations to theatres. Differences in revenue sources have contributed to different approaches and philosophies with tourism relying more on earned revenue and the arts more on subsidy and sponsorship (see Chapters 2 and 3). In addition, each has not necessarily seen any need to talk to the other about the relationship.
The opportunities that arise from the relationship are, though, becoming more evident and the development of the relationship more necessary for many. In practical terms, there are already many close relationships between organizations in tourism and the arts, which have the effect of identifying opportunities and the means of profiting from those. Many arts organizations are becoming more commercially minded.
The communication and cooperation can be at many different levels, from the individual hotelier and theatre manager through local tourist and arts boards and trade associations to national government bodies and ministries. Local and regional bodies may need to take the initiative to bring individual arts and tourism companies and organizations together with a view to those individuals ultimately working together. There may be an unfortunate lack of co-ordination within each sector let alone between the sectors especially within the arts and cultural sector itself (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b). In Scotland, for instance, it has been considered that event organizers tend not to co-ordinate their activities and, as a result, dates conflict (Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group, 1993). The getting together of the two sectors could facilitate the sharing of information that each has, such as databases and market research. Theatres could be offered the opportunity to include questions on any local tourism surveys and surveys could be jointly commissioned by arts and tourism. The ETB itself offers to supply information from its own comprehensive databases that would be useful for targeting particular markets. Local, regional and national bodies (arts and tourism) may need to improve the nature and extent of information available about the arts–tourism market.
The development of umbrella bodies such as tourist boards (at national through to town and city level) and of arts boards permits an easier dialogue and means of co-operation between the two sectors. It may be partly an ‘educational’ function. Misunderstandings about each other may have limited the scope for co-operation (Leader-Elliott, 1996; Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b). The tourism industry may underestimate the potential for arts-related tourism and lack understanding of the rationale for and methods of operation of the arts. Similarly people in the arts may be suspicious of tourism as being something that would compromise their standards and creativity and they may have limited appreciation of the way in which the tourism industry works. There is a view that within tourism, there is limited personal interest in the arts and a consequent under-estimation of the potential for related tourism. There is a need therefore to ‘educate’ the tourism industry about the arts (Leader-Elliott, 1996). Apart from tourist boards providing opportunity for dialogue and co-operation there is also opportunity for the arts to influence the promotional strategies of boards and ensure adequate significance is attached to this sector in the marketing of a destination.
Tourist boards and arts boards in Britain are, however, different types of body and a working relationship may be difficult to achieve. Tourist boards are open to commercial membership and their main function is marketing (usually promotion) whereas arts boards tend to be funding and development bodies that also have an interest in marketing. Appropriate action recommended often includes arts organizations joining tourist boards and for the tourist industry to be represented on arts boards. Any communication and cooperation may therefore need to occur by any of several means and not relying solely on tourist and arts boards, including through trade associations such as local chambers of commerce or hoteliers’ associations.
The communication and consultation processes may also result in activities such as joint initiatives for marketing and promotion discussed in Chapter 6. It is a common view that the arts and cultural sectors lack marketing expertise and the resources to develop the product. There is opportunity for the tourism sector to assist here and for the two sectors to engage in joint activities (Leader-Elliott, 1996; Silberberg, 1995). Many arts organizations may need training and business development assistance including improvement of market knowledge and of marketing practices (Scottish Tourism Coordinating Group, 1993). Arts organizations may also have particularly limited knowledge of the tourism market and of trends in that market.
The tourism industry (including transport operators) can be encouraged to sponsor arts events that will in turn encourage people to travel. An arts board or equivalent may contribute to joint familiarization tours for the media. Each sector may advertise or seek to be featured in the publications of the other and arts organizations can participate in travel trade fairs to directly reach the tourist trade. London theatres have themselves (through SOLT) organized a similar trade fair where theatres and the travel trade have been brought together to discuss potential but more importantly to provide an opportunity to undertake business with each other. SOLT also produces a manual aimed at the travel trade.
At another level, co-operation may include the development of training programmes in areas such as customer care or languages. Such joint activity and sharing of resources may avoid duplication of effort and the achievement of economies of scale.
The development of long-term strategy statements that focus on joint needs, aspirations and activities is probably desirable as is the identification of the opportunities for each to contribute to the other. Tourism and cultural and arts strategies need to acknowledge, where appropriate, the possible contribution of the ‘other’ sector. The drafting of joint arts–tourism strategies would take this one step further and this may include statements of intent and of support from national bodies and relevant government ministries. The two industries might join together in any lobbying they undertake of government or funding bodies. In a review of cultural tourism in Canada, it was concluded that there was a lack of knowledge on the part of governments of the positive economic benefits of the arts and their contribution to the tourism sector (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b). At individual town and city level, tourism action plans may include and even be largely based on the arts.
Approaches for each segment
This discussion has been in general terms but it may be that different approaches may be applicable to each of the segments identified in Chapter 4. Undoubtedly some approaches are common to all and, as noted previously, if each segment is a small or not easily identifiable one then it would not be cost-effective to apply a different approach to each anyway. There are, nonetheless, certain strategies that do seem to be especially relevant to a particular segment in being able to ‘capture’ that segment (see Figure 9.3).
Figure 9.3 Approaches to the arts-related tourist
Such a trip is likely to be undertaken by someone with a keen interest in arts or entertainment. A product that is distinctive (in whatever sense) may be most successful in attracting such a segment. It may be particularly attractive if offered with other productions and if offered in a pleasant place. Making it easy to book tickets, accommodation and transport in one package will assist the process.
It is the product rather than the destination that has priority in the promotion process and the product will need to be publicized outside the destination in the ways discussed in Chapter 6.
Arts-core, holiday
This segment is also likely to be drawn by a distinctive product. The provision of packages, especially short duration, may be successful in making the trip more desirable especially if offered with other attractions and in a ‘holiday’ place. It may be that such products pick up a larger number of holidaymakers if offered out-of-season as main holidays are often sea and sun and additional holidays are more likely to be arts-based. Some however will want an arts-based main holiday.
Here too it is the product rather than the destination that has priority in the promotion process.
Arts-peripheral, holiday
For those on a ‘fun’ holiday (whether seaside or city), light and diversionary productions would seem appropriate. This, of course, is not necessarily so as some will come to see ‘heavier’ productions whilst on holiday. This may be because they are different from what they usually see or because they have a certain status-enhancing effect. An easy system for booking through informal channels would encourage holidaymakers to buy tickets and, for many, it may be necessary to remove the mystique surrounding theatre-going making it an informal, easy-going event.
Theatre would be promoted as part of the holiday experience. The destination promotion would be first, followed by promotion of the production. It is possible, though, that destination choice may be influenced by theatre and its productions in which case it is a parallel rather than two-step process.
Theatres therefore would need to help promote the destination, ensure ‘entertainment’ is emphasized in the destination promotion and promote to holiday-makers when in the destination.
Arts-peripheral, non-holiday
The product and approaches here will be similar to the equivalent holiday segment. For some in this segment, being away from home may be an opportunity to see ‘heavier’ productions that they were unable to see at home.
Much of the promotional activity will be centred on consumers when they are in the destination and could include targeting local hotels and also local firms who are known to have regular visitors and targeting local conference and exhibition venues. It would seem appropriate to help promote the destination as a business, conference and exhibition location and to target conference and exhibition organizers. In that promotion the arts and entertainment elements should be emphasized. It is also important to establish knowledge amongst local residents especially for cultivating the friends and relatives market.
Destination promotion would be first followed by promotion of the production. Here too, though, destination choice may be influenced by theatre and the process would be a parallel one rather than two-step.
Target segments for each product
When considering which segment to target particular arts products at, it may seem, at its simplest, that light entertainment at the seaside is most suitably marketed to the arts-peripheral holiday-maker. Similarly, opera in a city might be thought of as being suitable only for marketing to arts-core, non-holiday-makers (see Figure 9.4). It is obvious, however, from the previous discussions that virtually any arts product can be aimed at any of the target segments.
If a product at the seaside or in a city is ‘distinctive’ or not available elsewhere then it may draw a non-holiday market and it can be promoted directly outside the destination. It can, of course, be made more attractive by having a holiday context. For a product at the seaside or in a city which is not particularly distinctive or which is more widely available, the holiday context may be more important in order to draw non-local audiences. It may be more significant to promote the destination and promote the product to the target markets once they are there in the destination.
With regard to light entertainment, it might seem that is most appropriate for holiday-makers at the seaside or in the city especially those whose interest is secondary to sea and beach, or heritage in a city (arts-peripheral, holiday). It may, though, also be successful in attracting holidaymakers whose visit is focused on seeing a particular production as a particular show or star can be the main reason for holidaying in a particular place (arts-core, holiday). Equally it can attract tourists who desire to see the production but whose visit and stay are not regarded as a holiday (arts-core, non-holiday) and those on a conference trip who seek a night out (arts-peripheral, non-holiday).
Figure 9.4 Productions and the arts-related tourist
Similarly, opera in a city (or at the seaside) may seem most appropriate for the arts core, non-holiday segment. It can, though, also be targeted at the arts core holiday-maker as well as at holiday-makers and non-holiday-makers whose visits are secondary to other reasons for being in the city, such as heritage or business.
Strategies for tourism
For hotels, tour operators, travel agents, tourist boards and city marketing boards most of the approaches for developing arts-related tourism are evident from the previous discussion. For them it is largely a case of using the arts product for their own purposes. The need for improved communication and consultation therefore obviously applies here too. It seems obvious too that direct links for the opportunity to negotiate with the arts about use of mailing lists, packages and the selling of theatre tickets should be encouraged. It does also however make sense for tourism to develop indirect links through encouraging the development of the arts and entertainment by financial support and sponsorship or appropriate lobbying. It would appear relevant to encourage development that might be particularly successful in attracting nonlocal audiences. The tourism industry might advise on how such audiences could be targeted successfully. The relevant promotional bodies in tourism should also, where appropriate, recognize the role of arts and entertainment in destination choice and use this in promotion campaigns.
The industry should also be prepared to recognize why the relationship is not always welcomed. Arts-related tourism may not always be in the best interests of the arts, at least as perceived by those who work in the arts. There is some tension here. It may be naive to assume that commercial organizations will forgo revenue and profit in the cause of artistic integrity and creativity and of stimulating new, experimental and minority-appeal artistic creations but, at the least, the tourism industry should be aware of the tension and of the consequences of their activities. It is, of course, not only the tourism industry that exploits the arts as a tourist resource. Much of the change in the nature of productions put on in large cities is due to companies in the arts taking the initiative and taking advantage of the tourism potential. The issue reflects wide changes in society and it may be too much to expect either of the arts or tourism sectors individually to do anything about it. A way forward is for tourism and arts organizations, firms and public sector bodies to be altruistic and support some productions that are not aimed at the tourist market.
The cultural and tourism policies of cities were identified as a particularly contentious issue. The tourism industry and tourist boards should re-consider the arts and culture that are promoted as the attractions of cities, perhaps by drawing more on indigenous and local activity. The likely outcome would be a perspective that recognizes the multi-faceted nature of artistic activity in this country, which may lead to a more successful and sustainable tourism.
It is also necessary to see arts-related tourism in perspective in the economic sense. It is undoubtedly beneficial financially to many theatres and tourism companies but the impact on local economies is often exaggerated. It is difficult to isolate the influence of the arts on tourism and therefore it is a little imprudent to claim a certain value of expenditure, income and employment as being due to such tourism. There are many influences on a tourist’s decision to visit a destination. It is also rather meaningless to identify the supposed economic impact of this form of tourism without comparing it with other forms of tourism or with other forms of economic activity. In addition the shortcomings of the widely used multiplier technique need to be more widely recognized and the temptation to utilize it at all times and in all circumstances should be avoided. Economic measurement may also be a distraction from other issues and there is a need to extend the criteria by which tourism and cultural policies are judged so that opportunity costs and the distribution of income, for instance, are recognized. Strategies, projects and events should be subject to evaluation by the fullest criteria including social and environmental concerns. This is not to suggest that economic evaluation should not be undertaken nor that it is without merit but rather that it should be but one of many approaches to assessment.
Strategies for local government
The role of local government has been critical in the past and is likely to remain so. It has given financial support to theatres, concert halls, arenas and arts centres and, in seaside resorts in particular, has had a leading role in the financing of summer seasons. Its role has been changing and will continue to do so. There is a greater involvement of the private commercial sector, often in partnership with local government. Many ‘tourist’ local authorities see a need for arts and entertainment in their towns and cities as attractions for tourists and despite financial and political pressures, they endeavour to continue the support. The input of the private sector may be considered appropriate as the operation of theatres, concert halls and arenas requires considerable flair and entrepreneurial skill, which may not be so readily found in local government. The private sector may be reluctant to be involved in the arts in holiday areas because of the short season and, in some cases, low visitor numbers. Involvement is most likely where theatres are relatively large, where capacity audiences are foreseen and year-round audiences can be attracted, leaving smaller resorts facing a dilemma. Local government involvement in the arts (more particularly entertainment) at seaside resorts has always been justified in economic terms, as an investment in order to encourage tourism. Local government involvement elsewhere has been seen more as ‘social welfare’, as provision of services for local residents. In this sense, resort local authorities have been ahead of city governments who have only recently turned towards the economic potential of tourism as was seen in the discussion of urban regeneration in Chapter 8.
Overall conclusions
This book started from the point that existing cultural tourism studies were too broad and that only by examining each component could the culture–tourism relationship be clarified. The focus was therefore solely the performing arts and tourism. From the discussion, however, the relationship, even at this level of analysis, is not clear-cut and there are a number of unanswered questions and outstanding issues. There is further research to be undertaken.
The same sort of focused study can also be undertaken for each of museums, art galleries, historic houses, castles and cathedrals separately rather than under the broad heading of culture or heritage. There will then be a build-up of material relating to the component parts of cultural tourism. It may be that they have much in common and that there are considerable similarities and connections, but for the moment it is not known one way or the other.
This book has focused on one part of the culture–tourism relationship, that relating to the performing arts. For this one sector it is suggested that there are several segments that can be distinguished, classified by arts-core or arts-peripheral and by holiday or non-holiday. It is likely that many tourists, and much tourism, discussed within the category of ‘cultural tourism’ are holiday-makers who, as part of that holiday experience, require entertainment in the evening almost as an add-on to the main daily activities of heritage or beach. It might be difficult to justify classifying these ‘theatre’ tourists as cultural tourists and the performing arts and tourism relationship may need to treated separately. This may not, of course, be so true in the case of visitors to museums or historic houses though even here there is a recognition that culture is increasingly an additional rather than a central element of the holiday (Richards, 1999).
It should be recognized too that many of those who go to the theatre as part of a holiday are often not included in the discussion of cultural tourism at all. This relates especially to holiday-makers who go to see a show at seaside resorts. Data is frequently collected through audience and site visitor surveys, usually at theatres in cities and at museums, art galleries and historic sites, rather than through general tourist surveys. The tourist who visits the theatre when on holiday at a coastal destination does not often feature in the data-collection but arts and entertainment in these other places and other forms is a significant part of the holiday experience.
In addition, however, there are tourists in audiences who are drawn entirely by the arts with no concept, for them, of holiday (or tourism) surrounding the visit (arts-core, non-holiday). Although technically tourists, they are not in the same category as the arts-core holiday-maker in whom the tourist industry appears to be more interested if only because of the likelihood of greater expenditure.
These distinctions are not evident when cultural tourism is regarded as an entity. There is justification therefore for examining the components of culture separately. This does not, however, detract from the idea that the influence of any one cultural component may be joint with the others and with non-cultural resources of a destination. The initial suggestion was that the components of culture should be separated out for analysis. In the case of the performing arts this has identified a rather more complex situation than was evident when it was subsumed under the category of cultural tourism. It is likely, for instance, that much of the discussion explaining cultural tourism or special interest tourism, in terms of ‘learning’ in particular, does not readily explain tourists’ interest in the performing arts. It is doubtful whether the continuance in the West End of ‘The Mousetrap’ since 1952, ‘Cats’ since 1981 and ‘Les Miserables’ since 1985 can be explained by anything other than a desire for ‘a good night out’.