6

The arts perspective

Introduction

In the previous chapter the product on offer to the tourist or that was likely to appeal to the tourist was examined – the chapter looked at the supply of the product. This chapter, and the next (Chapter 7), continue with this examination of supply. Both the arts and tourism are seeking to attract customers. They may have different objectives and different types of organization and different strategies but their interests and activities overlap in arts-related tourism (see Figure 6.1). In this chapter the product and the arts–tourism relationship are examined from the point-of-view of the arts organizations and arts managers (the left-hand half of Figure 6.1). (In the next chapter, Chapter 7, the point-of-view shifts to the other element of supply – the tourism industry – the right-hand half of Figure 6.1.)

This chapter includes a discussion of:

  the reasons that arts organizations and managers might have for trying to attract tourists;

  the ways in which they attempt to attract those tourists;

Figure 6.1   The perspective of chapters 6 and 7

  whether or nor there actually are tourists in audiences;

  a comparison of the tourist and the non-tourist in audiences;

  the influence of arts on the decision of tourists to visit a particular place.

Reasons

It is not immediately obvious why any arts organization would want to attract tourists into the audience. Where audiences are from and whether or not they are on holiday is, in many ways, of no concern as long as the artistic and financial objectives of the theatre are being met (Leader-Elliott, 1996). If productions are playing to capacity houses and the organization’s income at least matches its expenditure then little else may be of interest. It may be of interest and use for arts managers to know where their audiences come from in order to focus marketing activity but the fact that some are tourists may be of little direct interest. (It is of more obvious significance for tourist bodies.)

There may, though, be a desire to extend the catchment area for audiences. The tourist market may be one of several they choose to explore and exploit in order to catch the more ‘distant’ market. The live performing arts are, like most services, only consumable at the point of production and the consumer needs to travel to the theatre or concert hall in order to consume the product. Each theatre has a geographical threshold (see Figure 6.2) from within which most of their audience comes. The threshold marks the distance beyond which the willingness to travel drops rapidly. For most audiences a visit to the theatre is ‘a night out’ and is similar to many other forms of localized leisure including eating-out, clubbing and drinking. Even the West End and Broadway have sizable ‘local’ audience cores: respectively, 70 per cent from London and South East England (MORI, 1998) and 54 per cent from New York city and suburbs (Hauser and Roth, 1998).

Figure 6.2   Audience threshold

For people outside the threshold, any perceived benefit from seeing a production will be outweighed by the extra cost of seeing it: cost in the form of time, effort, cost of travel, perceived distance and so on. In Figure 6.2 the threshold is given by the break-even point where perceived benefit is equal to cost. At any point to the left of the break-even point, the consumer believes that it is worth travelling. To the right of the break-even point, the costs outweigh the benefits and it is not worth travelling. The aim of an arts manager will be to raise the level of perceived benefit (to raise B in Figure 6.2). This may mean ‘adding-value’ by promoting its special qualities (star performer, the only production, etc.) or offering as a holiday package. It may simply be a matter of drawing the attention of the potential audience to the existence of the production. An alternative strategy is to reduce costs (lowering C in Figure 6.2) perhaps by offering a reduced price package of tickets and accommodation. The convenience of this may, in itself, be perceived as reducing the cost of the trip.

Some arts productions do attract non-local audiences and push back the threshold or break-even point with little or no effort on the part of management. In Chapter 4 it was noted that some people will travel and stay overnight in order to see a production because it is not available elsewhere or because it is of a high standard that cannot be seen elsewhere; they are arts-core. To see it at all or to experience that particular standard requires travel. Others are present because it is part of the holiday experience. For these (arts-peripheral), where the production is not the main reason for the trip, the threshold and break-even concepts apply to the decision to visit the destination rather than to travel to see the production.

Managers may however choose to target a tourist audience. This may be for several reasons. Tourists may be the ‘obvious’ market for some but in other cases there may be a need to fill seats from any source. Some arts organizations may not need to target tourists but feel that tourists are in some sense desirable or even preferable:

Principal market

  In some places tourists are the ‘local’ audience. Management of arts organizations may actively seek a tourist audience because the theatres and halls are located in holiday areas. Productions have a strong tourist orientation and are aimed at tourist audiences as there is a market to be exploited. Likewise some productions, especially festivals, are established (partly at least) as tourist attractions.

Need

  Need arises from the continuing desire to find sources of revenue in view of the fact that financial support from central and local governments is less generous than in the past.

  A limited local audience. In non-holiday places the audience may be limited in any one of several ways such as size, interest or ability to pay, and thus tourists are an extra source of revenue. It could reflect a wider disinterest in theatre as a result of the spread of other forms of entertainment.

It could also be the outcome of production of particular art forms that have limited appeal in a relatively remote rural area where a large audience is unlikely to be found locally though it may well exist for other more popular art forms. Productions at the ‘cutting-edge’ of the arts, such as many modern music, dance or drama compositions, may have limited appeal too.

Certain productions (especially the ‘high’ arts) are likely to be characterized by high prices and this too limits the local audience. Those of a high standard may charge high prices.

Desire

  Higher revenue. Tourists may be willing to pay higher prices. If so, then the appeal of such an audience is obvious (see later this chapter).

  An indicator of quality. Many theatre managers point out how far some people in their audience have travelled and use this as if it were proof of excellence.

  Justification for existence. As with the previous reason many theatres point to the tourists in the audience as a contributor to the local economy. Claims for financial assistance from local government, arts boards, tourist boards or local industrial sponsors often refer to the ability of the theatre to attract tourists and therefore to be of benefit to others. The impact of tourists is claimed to be greater than that of others such as day visitors because of the expenditure on accommodation, eating-out and any other holiday activities they engage in during the stay. It may be undesirable for many in the arts to see justification for supporting the arts expressed in this way but it is common. Many believe that the arts are justifiable on their own merits without reference to such economic matters.

Strategies

When targeting a local audience, theatre management has the benefit of targeting a limited geographical area (see Figure 6.3). Because tourists are non-local, additional problems arise when targeting them. The market is:

  distant;

  dispersed.

The potential audience may be anywhere in the country or world and is unlikely to be concentrated in one particular place. Decisions have to be made as to how these problems may be overcome. It may be appropriate to target particular categories of people and/or particular parts of the country (or world). These decisions can only be made on the basis of market research that identifies who and where potential audiences are. Such information is increasingly available but much of the marketing effort is often based on guesswork and intuition.

Given these two dimensions to the target tourism market it is almost inevitable that the effort and cost involved in attracting non-locals will be high relative to that of attracting a more local audience. It is likely to be more of a scatter-gun approach than more localized efforts where market knowledge may be greater. The marketing message may have to be transmitted some distance and with a very wide circulation (see Figure 6.3):

Local (market: near and concentrated)

Tourist (market: distant and dispersed)

(a)  Distance: the greater the distance and the less local the market then marketeers are less likely to know about the markets and distribution costs are likely to be greater.

Figure 6.3   Characteristics of local and non-local or tourist markets

(b) Dispersion: it may be considered more economic to convey a very broad message that appeals to the maximum number of (different) people in different parts of the country (or world). This may be cheaper than constructing a larger number of specific messages that appeal specifically to differences between people. Because it is so general, however, it may be less effective than the more specific approach.

‘Most cultural marketing effort has been directed to local audiences. To bring in audiences from a wider base … it is necessary … to add techniques of tourism marketing to the more traditional marketing techniques’ (Leader-Elliott, 1996: 57). Arts organizations may find it difficult to adopt ‘tourism marketing’ techniques because of their limited marketing expertise and limited financial resources (Silberberg, 1995; Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997b). It therefore seems appropriate to seek the assistance of tourism boards and tour operators either in terms of expertise or in joint ventures (see below and Chapter 9).

The message transmitted to tourists will also differ from that aimed at more local audiences. Tourists, if arts-peripheral, are more likely to be seeking diversion and a ‘night-out’. Many in the potential market may be unfamiliar with theatre in their home towns but regard a visit as part of the holiday experience and will respond to a less formal publicity and booking strategy.

Promoting the arts to tourists may hit a particular ‘time’ problem however. The decision time of the tourist may be such that the arts are not able to supply detailed information about their programmes at the time. This has frequently been the case where the tourism trade has been unable to obtain detailed information in time for the marketing campaigns carried out by them. This is especially the case for (but is not confined to) receiving theatres. Tour operators and tourist boards and city and resort marketing bodies, for instance, may prepare their brochures 12 to 18 months ahead of the relevant season whereas, at that time, many theatres and concert halls have not finalized their programmes. This problem has arisen partly because of uncertainty about government funding. The arts and entertainment can therefore only be promoted in general terms in tour and resort brochures. The arts world is frequently implored to provide information to tourist bodies as soon as possible (Leader-Elliott, 1996).

Approaches to promoting the arts to non-local audiences include the following, each of which is discussed further below:

  promotion, inside the destination, of the arts;

  promotion, outside the destination, of the arts (including joint marketing);

  promotion of the destination itself.

Promotion inside the destination

This would usually be aimed at arts-peripheral tourists. The most direct approach involves reaching out to tourists who are already in a town or city (especially a holiday town) or to those who are considering a destination. Marketing messages will be transmitted using channels similar to those used for a local population (see Figure 6.4). The approaches may be modified to include the distribution of flyers and posters to hotels and the encouragement of hoteliers and key persons such as receptionists, concierges and porters to promote the entertainment. A strategy of familiarizing staff of hotels and tourist information centres with local theatres through tours and talks will increase knowledge and hopefully also enthusiasm for the arts and therefore for encouraging tourists to buy tickets. Some resorts and tourist cities produce specialist entertainment brochures that give details of productions for a period of time such as a week or a summer season. These are circulated to hotels, tourist information centres and other tourist businesses including restaurants and taxi and coach companies and other tourist attractions.

Figure 6.4   Tourism and promotion of the arts

It may be effective to cultivate locals not only as an audience but also as a publicity vehicle. This will apply not only to hoteliers and others in the tourism sector but also to the wider population. People visiting friends or relatives may be persuaded or taken by their local hosts to see a show or hear a concert. The use of the local media for generating good publicity will be important as will generating good public relations through a variety of community involvements. Word-of-mouth recommendations from local residents can be very effective.

In addition, if it is known where holiday tourists usually come from, then some of the promotional effort can be directed to the catchment area. Theatres in Yorkshire seaside resorts may advertise in papers in Leeds and Sheffield.

Promotion outside the destination

The approaches here are largely directed at the arts-core tourist and are aimed directly at the potential tourist wherever he or she lives. Some of these outside-destination strategies will also, however, be relevant for the arts-peripheral tourist.

For arts-core tourists, the production is more important than the location or the intent to go on holiday and then see a show (see Figure 6.4). It is the production or performer, rather than the destination, which is the key element in the marketing strategy. Approaches include:

  advertising in specialist ‘arts’, music and theatre magazines and periodicals and relevant newspapers. This approach may also be more suitable for urban tourists;

  mail shots: circulation of publicity material through the mailing lists of other arts companies. This approach makes the marketing less scatter-gun and more focused by directing material to those who have already shown an interest in the same or similar type of production. Mail-shots may be directed at relevant target groups individually or collectively through interest groups and group organizers. ‘Membership lists of clubs and associations can be a powerful marketing tool and local clubs and associations can be used to promote the event to their wider membership’ (Getz, 1991: 245). The mailing lists of local hotels can also be used in order to distribute promotional material and priority booking and special discounts at theatres given to hotel guests. This will enhance the product offered by the hotel.

  reviews: many arts-lovers will be attracted (or not) to a production by the reviews written by critics in newspapers and journals. It may be that some people are not even aware of certain productions until reviews are read. It therefore could be beneficial to obtain the widest coverage possible of productions by the newspapers and magazines read by the target audiences.

  tourist information centres: distribution of promotional material to tourist information centres in the region is appropriate, as is use of these centres for the booking of theatre tickets. Many already provide accommodation-finding and booking services. One-stop booking of accommodation and theatre tickets may be a particularly attractive proposition for tourists.

  packages: theatres can make more use of own mailing-lists by enclosing details of selected accommodation and a contact number of an accommodation bureau. One step further is the development of packages linking accommodation with theatre tickets. There is some potential for theatre, etc. as a component of such holidays offering transport, accommodation and performance tickets at an ‘all-in’ price (see further discussion in Chapter 7). These, to date, have had only limited success in the domestic market with exceptions such as ‘theatre breaks’ to London. Trade fairs are held to bring together the arts and tourism with a view to develop such packages. As part of the same strategy, the Society of London Theatre (SOLT) publishes a ‘Guide to London’s West End theatres’ as a manual for the travel trade with details of theatre capacities, seating arrangements and contact names and numbers.

  contact with the travel trade: it is relatively difficult to aim successfully at overseas visitors. They are usually interested in a limited range of arts activity and in visiting ‘pleasant’ places. They are also difficult to reach in their home countries through marketing campaigns. They may be reached by distributing material through the foreign offices of national tourist boards, though in many cases it would probably be more cost-effective to target foreign tourists once they are in the destination country. Even then, it may be most productive to target the travel trade including coach operators, group travel organizers, incoming tour operators, conference and incentive tour operators by means of direct mail-shots and the like. Targeting the organized package tourist is likely to be more productive than targeting the independent tourist and links with in-coming tour operators may therefore be particularly useful.

For both foreign and domestic tourists it may be effective to target ‘organizers’ in a similar way, rather than target individual tourists. The arts product offered may be made more attractive through ‘value-added’ elements such as backstage tours, talks, meetings with artists and backstage staff, meet-the-cast parties, receptions, etc. In all of these instances where arrangements are made with others, hotels, tour operators, travel agents and other booking agents will usually expect theatres to allocate blocks of tickets and offer discounts and commission. Arts organizations may not be prepared to do this if they do not feel confident about a return in the form of overall increased revenue. The advice pack published (1997) by BTA and the Arts Council for England suggests that the travel trade is most likely to be interested in arrangements that potentially involve a sizable number of people if they are to be financially worthwhile. Computerized theatre booking services through travel agencies would also make the arts a more attractive tourist resource for the trade.

Joint marketing

Marketing campaigns aimed outside the destination, whether the domestic or foreign market, arts-core or arts-peripheral, may be more effective and economic if carried out on a joint basis. It may include a variation of an ‘arts-card’ scheme whereby tickets may be purchased at discount prices. Joint marketing may be especially relevant for several arts organizations to promote the arts attractions where it is not certain, far in advance, what the programmes will be (see above). A joint effort can focus on the generic aspect and the fact that the destination is a centre for a variety of arts and entertainment without specifying any one particular show or concert. The Festival of Arts and Culture 1995 initiated by the BTA was such a generic campaign and ‘by pooling funds to present Britain as the world’s leading and liveliest cultural destination, generic campaigns provide a backdrop of cultural awareness and a platform from which individual providers and consortia can project their sector-specific image and develop their own marketing tactics’ (Varlow, 1995: A95). Many festivals in the UK have contributed to a joint marketing effort organized by the British Arts Festivals Association that promotes all without indicating individual programmes. This effort is particularly targeted at foreign markets and brochures are distributed through the BTA overseas network. The diverse nature of the arts, including both the ‘high arts’ and entertainment, may however make such co-operation difficult in practice. In addition, many arts organizations may be reluctant to contribute to such activities if it is believed they will benefit competitors.

Campaigns such as ‘British Arts Cities’ and ‘Arts Cities in Europe’ are an example of a combination of destination marketing (see below) with this direct appeal to those with a primary interest in the arts. Cities in Britain such as Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff and Manchester are promoted as centres for the enjoyment of ‘culture’. The brochures feature theatre and dance, music, art and heritage in each city along with descriptions of the cities and of hotels. In reality, however, the ‘British Arts Cities’ campaign has not been a great success in terms of take-up.

During 1999, tourist boards in Britain recognized an opportunity to capitalize on the ‘foreign connection’ of specific theatrical productions in promotion of the country to overseas visitors. About one-third of advance bookings for the Abba-based show ‘Mamma Mia’ were from Scandinavian visitors. A large number of Germans were also booking to see ‘Chicago’ which had a number of German leads including Ute Lemper.

The co-operative ventures may extend beyond the destination (whether town, city or country) to include ‘competing’ destinations. Theatres in several resorts or other potential tourist destinations may find economies of scale in combining to organize joint programming, funding and marketing of productions. They may also co-operate in the development and promotion of special events and promotions.

Co-operation with other non-arts attractions for development of joint products and promotion may also be vital as the arts are often not the main reason for a tourist visit (Leader-Elliott, 1996). ‘Probably the most important form of partnering and packaging is among cultural and non-cultural tourism products … It offers the variety of experiences that most people are seeking and greatly widens the market’ (Silberberg, 1995: 364). It may take the form of joint advertising or a ‘passport-type’ package allowing discounted entry to several attractions both cultural and non-cultural. As with joint arts efforts, the fact that competitors may benefit without any guaranteed benefit to the arts organization itself may mean they are reluctant to contribute. This strategy, like so many others, is not new as evidenced by this comment from the US Department of Commerce:

Tourism has tended to segregate the elements of cultural resources in its promotional efforts and market identification. Yet it is the totality of vehicles through which a community releases its cultural energy that creates the unique metabolism of a place … A comprehensive approach to cultural resources uniting the arts, humanities and historic preservation should be more thoroughly explored.

(Wiener, 1980: 6)

Packages that offer admission at a discount to several attractions (arts and other) can add to the appeal of a destination as well as increasing the possibility of increased revenue for any one attraction.

Promotion of the destination

This would be most appropriate in seeking to attract arts-peripheral tourists. In addition to promoting the arts and entertainment themselves it might be productive to contribute towards any strategies that market the town as a tourist destination and thus encourage tourists in the first place (see Figure 6.4). In seaside resorts and many cities the visit to the theatre is often secondary to the decision to go on holiday. Sometimes the visit is an ‘accidental’ one in that there was no intention to visit the theatre at all when the holiday decision was made so getting tourists into the resort or city in the first place is vital.

In addition, informing potential tourists through destination marketing that arts and entertainment exist in a location may influence the choice of holiday destination. It is also possible that a production or performer may be a primary cause of a decision to go on holiday.

Reviving domestic tourism in the UK may be extremely difficult but, at least, the short-break market offers considerable potential for both coastal resorts and for inland cities. Arts organizations may therefore:

  contribute to the general marketing of a place (whether town, city, region or country);

  influence the place-marketing so that it recognizes the significance of arts and entertainment.

The contribution of the arts sector can be to either finances or policy-making, or both. The process will be important even in the non-holiday situation as the willingness of people to travel and stay in order to see a production will be influenced by the image that people have of a place. This influence may be exercised through lobbying or through membership of tourist boards and similar place-marketing organizations. These often have a strong local government connection and input and it may therefore also be helpful to lobby local government to bring about desired results.

As part of the process, arts managers may need to raise the awareness of the significance of arts and entertainment as part of the holiday experience among tourist boards, city and resort marketing bodies and local and national government politicians and officials. They need to be made aware too of the potential for attracting long-distance audiences in the cases where it is less of a holiday experience (often arts-core). It follows that arts managers should ensure that the availability and range of the performing arts is given appropriate prominence in tourism marketing strategies as in the examples above in ‘joint marketing’.

Audience composition

There are not many published studies that provide clear information about whether or not there are tourists in audiences for the arts and entertainment. There are two possible sources of information (see Figure 6.5):

1    Arts studies: audience surveys may determine whether or not there are tourists in audiences and ‘why’ tourists are present in those audiences. This approach catches those tourists who attend the arts and not those who don’t and therefore cannot determine extent of or reasons for non-attendance. It may miss some tourists who do attend the arts but are not in the audiences on the occasion of the surveys (represented by the left-hand part of Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5   Approaches to surveys

2   Tourism studies: these range more widely and will include people who are not arts-attenders. Surveys of tourists will indicate the existence of those who attend and those who do not attend arts performances while tourists and how far tourists are attracted by the arts to visit a destination. (Represented by the right-hand part of Figure 6.5.) This second approach is examined in Chapter 7.

The remainder of this chapter deals with arts studies (1 above) rather than with tourism studies. There are not many published studies of audiences in popular tourist destinations such as seaside resorts and most studies relate to urban areas that are not particularly associated with tourism, with the exception of London and New York. Some audience surveys confirm that there are tourists in theatre audiences though the number of surveys that provide clear information is limited. Most tend to identify how far audiences have travelled and/or their home area or specify that they are ‘out-of-region’.

Some studies that do give relevant information include those below. The number of overseas visitors in audiences is more often identified than is the number of domestic visitors (probably reflecting the economic dimension to most studies). See Table 6.1 for a summary of some of the more significant figures.

  Broadway: in 1997 international visitors were 11% of audiences (from 9% in 1991). Domestic visitors were 35% (down from 41% in 1991). The Broadway audiences were increasingly ‘local’ with residents of the city accounting for 24% of audiences in 1997 (from 22% in 1991) and residents from the suburbs accounting for a further 30% in both years (Hauser and Roth, 1998).

  New York and New Jersey: people from outside the region and from outside the USA were 36% and 13% respectively of attendances at theatres and museums (1992) (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993). This study, like the Broadway study above, did not distinguish staying from non-staying visitors.

  Adelaide Festival 1996 (Australia): 18% of audiences were out-of-state (South Australia) and, of these, over four in ten were from Melbourne or Sydney and one in eight were from overseas (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996).

Table 6.1   Proportion of audiences that are tourists: summary of some of the studies

  Broadway (1997):
international visitors 11%
domestic visitors 35%

  New York-New Jersey (theatre and museums) (1992):
outside region 36%
outside USA 13%

  Adelaide Festival (1996):
out of state 18%

  Adelaide Ring Cycle (1998):
out of state 66%

  West End (1997):
UK from outside London 43%
international 18%

  Edinburgh International Festival (1996):
UK from outside Scotland 30%
international 21%

  The Adelaide Ring Cycle: this cycle of Wagner’s operas, the first in Australia, attracted audiences that were 66% out-of-state including 12% of all audiences from overseas (South Australian Tourism Commission, 1998).

  West End theatres in London: audiences have been regularly surveyed since the early 1980s (Society of West End Theatre, 1981). Surveys showed an increase, between 1982 and 1985–86, in the percentage of West End theatre audiences that is from overseas (from 32% to 37%). Such visitors had been responsible for most of the overall increase in attendance over this period (Gardiner, 1982, 1986). The 1990–91 survey concluded that some of the 1986 results might have been temporary as overseas visitors were down to 32% of the audiences (Gardiner, 1991). By 1997, the share of overseas visitors in audiences had fallen to 18%. There had also been a fall in their number (MORI, 1998).

The 1990–91 survey identified domestic visitors. A third of attendances were by UK residents from outside London, most (61%) were on day trips but over a third were staying at least one night, i.e. were domestic tourists (Gardiner, 1991). By 1997, UK residents outside London had risen from 33% to 43% of the total. The proportion that were staying overnight was about half (Martin, 1998) but it would appear that it has fallen reflecting the increase in the number of ‘locals’ from the south east of England (MORI, 1998).

  London: the PSI report estimated that 40% of theatre and concert audiences were tourists (i.e. both domestic and foreign with an ‘over night stay’) (Myerscough, 1988).

  Outside London: in audiences elsewhere in Britain, the proportion of tourists is often low. The same PSI report identified tourists as being only between 2% and 8% of theatre and concert audiences in Britain, elsewhere than London (Myerscough, 1988). In Northern Ireland, tourists (from outside of N. Ireland) were only 2% of theatre and concert audiences but 18% of visitors to museums (Myerscough, 1996).

  Edinburgh Festivals: between 43% and 67% of the 1990–91 audiences were tourists (domestic and foreign) (Scotinform, 1991). At the 1996 Edinburgh International Festival, over half of audiences were from outside Scotland (including 21% from outside UK) and just over half of the visitors were overnight visitors (Jones Economics, 1996).

  Although they did not focus on the arts as such, some related studies have also identified ‘tourists’. Visitors to ‘cultural’ sites in Europe covered by the 1992 ATLAS survey were classified as international tourists (60%) and domestic tourists (25%) (Richards, 1993). Nearly 80% of respondents surveyed at heritage sites in the Isle of Man (1988–91) were ‘holiday tourists’ (Prentice, 1993).

Tourists are therefore identified in some audience studies and it is evident that in some urban areas and festivals the proportion can be quite high. There is little information about the number of tourists in audiences in seaside resorts and other holiday areas but it is likely to be high here too. Elsewhere, most audiences are probably local.

There is, of course, no necessary connection between a person being in an audience and the influence of that show or concert on the decision of that person to visit the town, city or seaside resort. It is possible that the influence may be very slight but many tourists nonetheless go to see a show once at a destination. This influence, the drawing power, is discussed later in this chapter.

Few if any surveys ask if audiences are on holiday as such but they do often show the proportion that are on other particular types of visit. In the West End 8% of audiences were in London on business, work or study trips and 9% were visiting friends or relatives (MORI, 1998). The New York-New Jersey study showed that 22% of the audiences had come to the region for business reasons and 8% to visit friends and relatives (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993).

Audience composition: by type of production

Some of the London West End surveys also indicate the composition of audiences in particular types of production. For many types of production such as drama, classical play, comedy, opera and ballet, the number of London residents in the audience does dominate, but for musicals and thrillers, visitors (including ‘day-visitors’) dominate (MORI, 1998).

Non-locals, from the rest of the UK outside London and the south east and from foreign countries, are high proportions of audiences for musicals (34% of audiences) and for thrillers (44%). They are only low proportions of the audiences for opera and ballet (11%) and classical plays (18%). Within this there are differences between foreign and domestic visitors. Musicals had the highest percentages of domestic visitors: 35% were from the south east of the UK and 16% were from the rest of the UK. Thriller audiences had the highest percentages of foreign visitors (33%) and drama audiences the highest percentages of North Americans (13%).

It is significant that there are high proportions of non-locals in musical and thriller audiences though this has not always been the case. In 1990–91 non-locals were in the majority in most audiences (and in the minority in opera and dance audiences only) (Gardiner, 1991). Some of this change can be accounted for by the fall in the number of foreign visitors in audiences by 1997. Nonetheless musicals and thrillers would appear to be the types of production at which the greatest proportions of non-Londoners are to be found, whether local day-visitors from the South East or visitors from elsewhere in the country or from other countries. Certain types of production are therefore likely to have a high tourist component.

This does not, however, indicate what tourists prefer or what most of them attend. The fact that the proportion of overseas visitors in audiences for musicals is greater than that in audiences for classical plays does not mean that more foreign tourists go to musicals than go to see classical plays. Productions such as musicals and thrillers certainly have audiences with the highest proportion of visitors from outside London and it may perhaps be assumed that these are the sort of production that they prefer but it is not certain. Londoners are apparently more attracted by other types of theatre such as drama, opera and ballet.

Tourists and non-tourists

It was noted earlier how arts managers might want to target tourists for several reasons including the hope that they might pay higher prices than others. Although some surveys do identify tourists, there are very few that identify differences between the tourist and non-tourist in the audiences. Such studies would not only confirm (or otherwise) the view about ticket prices but could potentially yield information that would assist the marketing activity, by not only showing their demographic characteristics and where they come from but also where they obtain information about theatres and concerts, how and when they book and the type of productions they prefer. Below are some of the few studies where differences are recognized:

  Broadway: visitors and non-visitors were not compared but it was noted that 60 per cent of tourists purchased theatre tickets before arriving in New York (Hauser and Roth, 1998). International visitors, however, were more likely to purchase after arrival, which suggests that they were less concerned about what they saw. The very fact of having visited Broadway and of having seen a Broadway production is probably sufficient for most.

  London West End theatres (1990–91): although the domestic staying visitor was not distinguished from the day-tripper, domestic visitors generally paid more for their tickets than did Londoners (or overseas visitors). A significant number were in large groups and they were more likely than others to have booked their theatre tickets in advance. They were also the most likely group to have booked through a ticket agency. Press advertising was a particularly important source of information for them.

With respect to overseas visitors, USA visitors were the single largest group (44 per cent of overseas visitor sales). Overseas visitors were the group most likely to book tickets on the day of the performance (43 per cent of sales) and to buy tickets at the box office. They were less reliant upon the press and media for information and the most important source of information was the London Theatre Guide. The average price paid was more than that paid by Londoners but less than that paid by domestic visitors (Gardiner, 1991).

  London West End theatres (1997): this confirmed that overseas visitors were more likely than others to book on the day of the performance (40 per cent compared with 21 per cent of all ticket sales). With respect to ticket prices, however, the situation was apparently different from that in 1990–91 with overseas visitors spending more on average than UK theatregoers did. Visitors (domestic and overseas) were also more likely to eat out in connection with their theatre trip (MORI, 1998).

  ATLAS: this study did not compare tourists with others (locals) at cultural sites but it did report the characteristics of the tourists. They had high levels of educational qualification and a surprisingly high proportion were young (over 30 per cent were under 30 years old). They were usually heavy consumers of culture at home and many were themselves employed within the cultural industries (Richards, 1996).

There is, therefore, little in these studies that gives a clear picture of significant differences between tourists and non-tourists in audiences. The fact that international visitors to New York and London tend to buy their tickets after arrival, and particularly on the day of the performance, suggests that what is seen is relatively unimportant.

Drawing-power: arts perspective

In Chapter 4 it was seen how tourists in audiences could be categorized as arts-core or arts-peripheral. Some would be drawn to a particular city or seaside resort in order to see a certain performance whereas for others the main reason for being in a place could be sun and sea and going to see a show would be an afterthought. In the first case the influence of the arts in bringing a person to that city or seaside resort was considerable but in the second it was insignificant. This ability of the arts to attract tourists – ’drawing-power’ – is difficult to determine but can be assessed, at its simplest, by asking audiences to indicate the importance of the arts in the decision to visit the town. In the few relevant audience surveys, audiences are usually asked:

  whether or not the performance is the main reason for the visit to the destination, sometimes as a choice of several alternatives
e.g. ‘What was your one main reason for visiting …?

–  to go to the theatre

–  business

–  sightseeing

–  shopping, etc.

  to rate theatre in ‘importance’ as a reason for the visit to the destination. This is usually done in isolation in that the same is not asked about other possible influences.

e.g. ‘How important a factor was theatre in your decision to visit …?

–  sole reason

–  very important

–  quite important, etc.

In some cases, both questions are asked but in others only one.

The surveys do not, however, usually link the reason for the visit to the section of the audience who are tourists. The reasons are applied to the whole audience or to visitors without identifying tourists as such. Studies that do include relevant information on the influence of the arts on tourists in the audience include the following (see Table 6.2 for a summary of some of the more significant figures):

  New York and New Jersey: in the case of the performing arts, over half (58%) of the audiences from outside the region indicated that ‘attending cultural activities’ was the main reason for the visit to New York-New Jersey. (They were termed ‘arts-motivated’ visitors.) A further 20% indicated that they had extended their visit in order to attend arts and cultural events (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993). These figures include non-staying, more local visitors as well as tourists. The drawing power of museums would appear to be less. Just over a third of those surveyed at museums said that cultural activities were the main reason for the visit to New York-New Jersey and visiting friends and relatives and sightseeing were more important than for the performing arts attenders. The visitors most likely to be drawn by cultural activities lived closer to New York-New Jersey than did others.

Table 6.2   Drawing power of the arts: summary of some of the studies

  New York-New Jersey (1992)
main reason: 58% of all visitors
extended stay: 29% of all visitors

  Adelaide Festival (1996)
main reason: 52% of all visitors
residents ‘diverted’: 20%

  West End (1997)
sole reason: 48% of all visitors
main reason: 61% of all visitors, 30% of international visitors

  Edinburgh Festivals (1990–91)
sole reason: 39% of visitors from outside Scotland

  ATLAS
important or very important: 60% of tourists
specific: 9% of tourists

  Broadway: drawing power was not considered in the 1997 study.

  Adelaide Festival 1996: just over half of visitors in the audience said that the festival was the ‘main reason’ for the visit. In addition, 20% of Adelaide residents at the festival would have gone away on holiday if not for the festival (Market Equity and Economic Research, 1996).

  London West End 1990–91: a third of all visitors and 1 in 10 of overseas visitors in the audiences said that theatre was the sole reason for the visit to the city. The draw therefore was greater for domestic visitors than for overseas visitors. In response to a separate question about what was the ‘main reason’ for the visit, 50% of all visitors specified theatre (business: 16%, sightseeing: 13%). Theatre was the main reason for 32% of overseas visitors (sightseeing: 25%) (Gardiner, 1991).

  London West End 1997: the same questions were asked in the 1997 survey and 48% of all visitors said that theatre was the sole reason for the visit to London (overseas visitors: unspecified). The percentage stating theatre as the ‘main reason’ for the visit had risen to 61% (sightseeing: 9%) though for overseas visitors it was little changed at 30% (MORI, 1998).

  Edinburgh Festivals 1990–91: 39% of attenders who lived outside Scotland indicated that the Festivals were the sole reason for the visit to the country (Scotinform, 1991). For a further 17% it was ‘very important’. (This was not done in the 1996 study.)

  Northern Ireland: a quarter of tourists in theatre and concert audiences gave the event they were at as the main reason for the visit to the province (Myerscough, 1996).

  ATLAS study: nearly 60% of visitors indicated that the attraction was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in the decision to visit the city/location. It was also estimated that ‘specific cultural tourists’ were only ‘9% of tourists visiting cultural attractions’ (Richards, 1996: 314). This was assessed on the basis of those who travelled to the destination specifically to visit the attraction.

For many it would appear, therefore, that the arts do have an important influence on the decision to visit festivals or a city especially with concentrations of theatres. Those tourists would not be there but for the arts. Audience surveys seem to suggest that there are a high proportion of arts-core tourists in audiences. For instance, it would appear that at least 48% of visitors in West End theatre audiences in 1997 are arts core by reference to ‘sole reason’, or 61% by reference to main reason. This and other surveys did not however distinguish tourists within the visitor category.

There are, nonetheless, noticeable proportions of arts-peripheral tourists in audiences. At least 29% of visitors in West End audiences considered theatre to be only ‘quite important’ or ‘not at all important’ in the decision to visit London (MORI, 1998). If judged as not being the ‘main reason’ then nearly four in ten of visitors in audiences in New York-New Jersey and just over half of visitors in audiences in Adelaide would appear to be arts-peripheral. There are a few problems, however, with such surveys.

Some problems with audience surveys

Where a distinction has been made between members of the audience who are local and those who are not, the studies usually (see Figure 6.6):

  do not identify separately the day visitor and the staying visitor (tourists);

Figure 6.6   Audience surveys: characteristics and weaknesses

  do not show whether staying visitors are staying in the area of the performance or elsewhere.

Even those surveys that do distinguish between visitors and tourists:

  do not relate tourists to other questions such as production attended and ticket prices paid or to ‘drawing-power’;

  do not differentiate between tourists who are on holiday and those who are not.

In addition, the exact nature of the drawing power remains unclear and drawing power is often overstated:

  Surveys do not always indicate whether the decisions to attend related to specific events or to a more general desire to attend the performing arts.

  The answers of tourists surveyed in audiences may be distorted or biased. Their assessment of ‘importance’ may be influenced, however unconsciously, by being in the theatre or concert hall at the time. If they were interviewed elsewhere their answers may be given with equal consideration of all possible factors and therefore be less distorted.

  The answers may be distorted further by surveys asking about the arts and entertainment in isolation, such as asking ‘how important’ the arts were in the decision to visit. Surveys do not present this question for the other possible reasons for the visit and the survey respondents focus only on the arts without consideration of other factors. The significance may therefore be exaggerated.

  Even where audiences are asked to consider other reasons – such as to choose the main reason from several – there is no indication of the ‘strength’ of that main reason compared with the others. The arts may be the main reason for a visit to a town but this could range from being only slightly more important than other reasons, such as sight-seeing, through to being totally dominant over any other possible reasons.

  Associated with this is the fact that surveys do not indicate what connections there might be between reasons for the visit. Some in the audiences may claim that the arts were the main reason for the visit but the reality may be that it was only so in combination with others. There will be instances where the arts alone are the reason for the visit but for some in the audiences it may be a combination of reasons and these may be interdependent. A person may visit a town with a ‘main reason’ of going to the theatre but only if some other attractions are also available. Equally, the main reason for a visit may be sea or sight-seeing but the visit only occurs if entertainment is available. Holiday-makers would not visit if there was no entertainment available, even though it was not a main reason. Decisions to visit a town or a country are often based on a combination of factors and any one by itself may not be a critical influence.

  For some people arts and entertainment are not a necessary part of the visit and their complete absence may have little effect on the decision to visit. Other factors, even though none by themselves may have been as important as the arts, may in combination be sufficient to encourage visitors. Some people claim they would visit a place anyway despite having claimed that the arts were ‘very important’ in the decision to visit. On occasion, this has been assessed by asking visitors in audiences what effect an absence of entertainment would have had on their decision to visit. This sort of question is rarely asked but in such an imaginary situation of ‘no theatre’, over 60% of overseas visitors surveyed in London audiences would have visited the city anyway (Myerscough, 1988). Nearly half of visitors in Adelaide Festival audiences would have come to the city anyway if there had been no festival (Market Equity and Economic Research Consultants, 1996). (See also Chapter 7.)

  Tourist spending which is due to the arts is exaggerated by ‘claiming’ the spending of anyone who stated the arts were of any importance at all (of ‘some importance’, ‘very important’ or sole reason). In the PSI study it was claimed that 68% of all spending by foreign tourists in London who attended the arts was due to the arts (Myerscough, 1988) though the study established that only 15% of foreign tourist audiences in London gave the arts as the sole reason for the visit. In the case of the International Edinburgh Festival nearly three-quarters of the tourists’ expenditure was considered to be Festival-related (Scotinform, 1991). These estimates were derived by weighting the expenditure of tourists in audiences by ‘importance’ in their decision to visit the town:

  all of the spending by tourists whose sole reason for the visit was the arts is attributed to the arts

  the percentage of each tourist’s spending that is attributed to the arts is reduced as the importance of the arts as a reason for the visit becomes less; e.g. none of the spending by those for whom the arts were ‘not a reason at all’ and perhaps 50% of the spending by those for whom the arts were ‘of some importance’.

  The material gathered in audience surveys is sometimes wrongly applied to all tourism. There is a temptation to claim any results are about all tourists when, in fact, they apply only to tourists in audiences (see, for instance, Myerscough, 1988).

Despite these problems in determining drawing power and in overstating the power, it is important to appreciate that the arts and entertainment may have considerable indirect drawing-power and influence that are very difficult to determine precisely. The influence of the arts and entertainment may be more subtle than surveys can suggest. Factors such as arts and entertainment create atmosphere and act as a ‘signifier’ or marker of a place as a place for a holiday even though people may not have any intention of attending a show when choosing their destination and may not even attend when on holiday (see Chapter 7).

The information in this chapter about drawing-power has come from audience and site surveys. This is a relatively narrow approach, which may give a misleading impression. It was noted above that those surveyed in theatres and concert halls may give ‘biased’ answers. In addition the studies obviously relate to those tourists who actually attended performances rather than to tourists in general – they are audience studies – and may not give a complete picture of arts-related tourism. An alternative is to consult more general surveys of tourists conducted at a range of other locations which include theatres and concert halls but also other places where tourists might be found such as hotels, restaurants, historic sites, beaches and shops (see Figure 6.5). This is explored in the next chapter.