Memorandum submitted by the Society of
London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association
1. This is a joint submission of evidence
from the Society of London Theatre (SoLT) and the Theatrical Management
Association (TMA) as a contribution to the Committee's inquiry
into the nature and adequacy of public support for theatre in
Britain.
BACKGROUND
2. SoLT and TMA are trade associations representing
the interests of those engaged in the production and presentation
of medium- to large-scale dramatic and lyric theatre in the UK.
(The interests of small to medium scale theatre are represented
by the Independent Theatre Council, which we understand to be
making a separate submission).
3. SoLT represents members based in London
as defined by the London postal districts. TMA represents members
throughout the UK. The two organisations are run from a joint
office with a largely shared staff.
4. Although SoLT is commonly thought of
as representing only commercial theatre and TMA as representing
only subsidised theatre, the facts are otherwise. Membership of
SoLT extends also to all major subsidised organisations in London
(including the four great lyric and dramatic national companies,
producing theatre companies from Wimbledon Theatre to the Theatre
Royal Stratford East and from the Tricycle in Kilburn to Greenwich
Theatre and venues such as Sadlers Wells and the Barbican Centre).
Membership of TMA includes also commercially run theatre venues
throughout the UK as well as a large number of commercial producing
companies and all the major producers.
5. Enclosed are the most recent annual reports
of both organisations, which indicate the extent and range of
their work.
THE SUBMISSION
6. The remainder of this submission is in
three parts. The first addresses some of the factual background
to the issues which the Committee has indicated that it wishes
to consider. The second concerns the short- to medium-term future
funding prospects for the subsidised sector. The third draws attention
to recent developments with regard to the capital needs of commercial
theatre buildings in London's West End.
FACTS AND
FIGURES
(a) Attendances
7. SoLT collects comprehensive production
and attendance statistics for all theatres represented in membership.
8. Attendances in London are running at
+/- 12 million a year, of which about 10 million are attributable
to the commercial sector. Towards the end of 2004 there were a
number of alarmist press reports suggesting that attendances were
in serious decline. These had no substance in fact. While there
are of course always short-term fluctuations in attendance reflecting
the success or otherwise of the particular productions on offer
at a particular time, the year as a whole ended very strongly,
not least given the successful opening of major musicals at three
of our biggest theatres. Although final figures for the year will
not be available for another two to three weeks, our best estimate
is that 2004 will prove to have been the equal of 2003 and one
of the best years on record. Enclosed is the latest available
published box office data report, for the calendar year 2003.
9. Figures for attendances in the rest of
the UK are less comprehensive, partly reflecting the devolution
of responsibility for funding the arts to Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, and partly the fact that no one organisation
covers the whole of what is a very diverse pattern of venues and
producers. However, in the latest period for which figures are
available, attendance reported by TMA members across the UK were
broadly stable at some 6.5 million a year. Total attendances across
the whole theatre economy will have been very considerably higher.
(b) Audience Profile and Response
10. Reliable data in these areas depend
upon in-depth venue-related surveys which, by their nature, can
be conducted only on an occasional basis. The TMA does not undertake
such surveys. SoLT does so at intervals of 4-5 years. The most
recent SoLT survey was undertaken by MORI in 2003-04. Enclosed
is a copy of the subsequently published report, The West End Theatre
Audience. Among the key findings of the report are:
— 37% of the current audience is drawn
from London, 36% from the rest of the UK and 28% from overseas;
— of the visitors to London, 42% cite
theatre as the main reason for their visit and a further 36% as
a fairly important factor in their visit;
— 92% of the total audience rate their
visit as either very good or fairly good in terms of enjoyment;
— 80% rate their visit as either very
good or fairly good in terms of value for money;
— 73% of the audience has an income
of less than £40,000 a year;
— those surveyed indicated that they
were personally spending £116.30 per head on average because
of their theatre visit.
(c) Economic Impact of Theatre
11. Surveys of this kind provide a necessary
tool in assessing the economic impact of the theatre sector.
12. Following on from the previous West
end audience survey in 1997, SoLT commissioned from Tony Travers
of the LSE a study of the economic impact of London's West End
Theatres. Among the key findings of the resulting report, known
as The Wyndham Report, published in 1998, were:
— the total economic impact of West
End theatre on the UK economy in 1997 was some £1.1 billion;
— West End theatre-goers spent £433
million on restaurants, hotels, transport and merchandise;
— West End theatre generated tax revenue
of over £200 million and contributed a £225 million
surplus to the UK's balance of payments;
— 41,000 jobs depend on West End theatre,
27,000 directly and 14,000 indirectly.
Regretfully, copies of the report are now available
only in photocopy. A copy in that format is enclosed.
13. The more up-to-date data yielded by
the 2003 MORI survey imply that the current headline figure for
the total economic impact of West End theatre should be revised
upwards to approaching £1.5 billion.
14. In 2003, Arts Council England, SoLT,
TMA and ITC came together to commission from Professor Dominic
Shellard of the University of Sheffield a new study of the economic
impact of theatre across England as a whole. The Arts Council
England submission will no doubt give a detailed account of his
subsequent report, published in May 2004.
15. Professor Shellard's "headline"
conclusion is that theatre activity outside London has an overall
economic impact of £1.1 billion annually. Taking this together
with the figure of £1.5 billion for West End theatre gives
a total figure of £2.6 billion for the economic impact of
theatre across the UK. Alongside this must be set the total amount
of public subsidy for theatre (excluding lyric theatre) from the
four UK Arts Councils, which is currently little more than £120
million a year.
16. These various studies and surveys demonstrate
beyond doubt the huge significance of an industry which, in economic
terms, punches far beyond its weight. That significance is felt
not only in terms of the national economy, but no less importantly
also to the local and regional catchment areas of individual theatres
up and down the country. Within London in particular, it would
be hard to overestimate the importance of West End theatre to
the central London Boroughs of the City of Westminster and Camden.
(d) Relationships Between Subsidised
and Commercial Theatre
17. The heading for this section is taken
from the title of a book by Robert Cogo-Fawcett commissioned and
published by Arts Council England in July 2003. We assume that
the Arts Council will itself supply the Committee with a copy.
18. The relationship between subsidised
and commercial theatre has strong historical roots and is today
perhaps stronger than ever. What one might call the most traditional
arrangement is the situation in which a subsidised theatre company
mounts a production which subsequently attracts the interest of
a commercial producer who then arranges and raises finance for
a transfer into a commercial West End theatre or a commercial
tour.
19. Though such arrangements continue, there
is now a much wider variety of "deals" struck between
commercial and subsidised producers. To give just three examples,
a commercial producer may share the origination costs of a subsidised
company's production with the intention from the outset that it
should transfer to the West End or go on commercial (or partly
subsidised) tour to other venues outside London; a commercial
management may choose to `sponsor' a subsidised production in
return for an option on its transfer to the West End should it
prove to have commercial potential; or a commercial producer may
share the costs of commissioning a new play in the interest of
developing a relationship with the writer for the future.
20. All such arrangements have advantages
for both parties. For the subsidised company, they may allow for
higher production values and stronger casting; they may offer
the opportunity for far longer and greater exposure for a successful
production that would otherwise have to close in accordance with
predetermined seasonal requirements; they can greatly enhance
the national profile of a regional company; and of course they
can provide a continuing income stream from the proceeds of commercial
"exploitation". For the commercial producer and his
or her investors, one of the most important benefits is that they
offer an opportunity to assess a production's commercial potential
before committing to it the very considerable additional costs
involved in a West End transfer.
21. In 2003, 21 productions originating
in the subsidised sector were seen in London's West End. At the
time of writing, six productions originated by subsidised companies
are enjoying commercial presentation in West End theatres. These
include one of the West End's longest running shows, Les Miserables,
which was originated by the Royal Shakespeare Company and is now
presented commercially not only in London but across the world.
In addition, the Royal Shakespeare Company is itself presenting
at The Albery theatre a season of Shakespearean tragedies and
at the Playhouse Theatre a season under the title The Spanish
Golden Age, both of which originated at Stratford.
22. In this context, the Committee may be
interested to note too the activities of Stage One (the operating
title of the charity registered as the Theatre Investment Fund
Ltd), which has among its objects the support and training of
commercial theatre producers. With funding from Arts Council England
and major support from both SoLT and TMA, Stage One runs seminars
and workshops on commercial theatre production and also offers
bursaries to trainee producers. All these are available to individuals
from both the subsidised and the commercial sectors. In 2004,
90 people attended seminars, 20 attended workshops and 17 bursaries
were awarded.
(e) The West End Out of London
23. Apart from co-productions with subsidised
theatre, the West End has a much more direct relationship with
theatre provision across the UK. Several commercially produced
West End shows are commercially toured before they come into the
West End. A considerably greater number are toured after a successful
West End showing. To date, no-one has collected statistical data
on this.
24. For the purpose of this submission,
SoLT has undertaken a quick survey of its commercial producing
Members. The results indicate that, for the year ending August
2004, West End-related touring amounted to 562 weeks in total
and played to an estimated 2,640,000 people. These are minimum
figures. The actual total will be somewhat higher.
25. The number of touring weeks provided
would be sufficient to fill eleven regional theatres 52 weeks
a year. Given that they are widely dispersed around the country,
it is reasonable to estimate that they sustain some 50 regional
theatres, for which such productions make the difference between
viability and non-viability over a 12 month period. The out-of-London
audience reached, added to the out-of-London audience attracted
into the West End amounts to some seven million a year.
26. The Wyndham Report took no account of
the economic impact of such touring in the UK regions.
FUTURE FUNDING
PROSPECTS FOR
SUBSIDISED THEATRE
27. The information given above combines
to indicate a theatre industry with very considerable economic
and cultural importance, reaching out to the furthest parts of
the United Kingdom. All this is sustained on a modest base of
public subsidy. By the standards of western continental Europe,
it is indeed a uniquely low level of subsidy.
28. Through much of the 1990s, subsidised
theatre was subjected to a severe process of attrition. The demands
made on it grew to embrace the provision of educational and other
outreach/community work. Audience expectations of production standards
rose inexorably. Marketing costs increased in the face of growing
competition for people's leisure time. Subsidy levels failed to
keep pace. The consequences were all too evident—depressed
salary levels for artists and most people employed in the theatre
and theatrical companies; fewer and smaller productions with less
and less rehearsal time; an increasing concentration on two- and
three-handed plays; less risk-taking, particularly in the commissioning
and presentation of new work; and growing financial deficits as
managements tried to maintain artistic standards with inadequate
resources.
29. In 2000 the then Arts Council of England
commissioned and published what became known as the Boyden report,
which adduced firm evidence of the problems being faced and argued
forcefully for the injection of a significant increase in the
real levels of funding for theatre. Partly in consequence, the
then Arts Council Chairman, Gerry Robinson, and Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport, Rt Hon Chris Smith, succeeded in
persuading Downing Street and the Treasury that something had
to be done to reverse these trends. The 2002 spending review led
to an uplift in funding for theatre of £25 million over two
years. There were real terms increases too for lyric companies.
All this came as a huge and necessary relief to the performing
arts sector. Although both the Arts Council and the DCMS acknowledged
that more would need to be done in succeeding years, it seemed
that years of decline were at last beginning to be reversed.
30. The additional monies have been well
used. The range and quality of work offered has significantly
improved. It has again been possible for major repertory theatre
companies to produce work across the whole of the repertoire,
including plays requiring larger casts. New work has begun to
move beyond the confines of the studio theatres and onto the main
stages of the main regional companies. There has been a palpable
improvement in the quality of both aspiration and achievement.
Managements have been able to make progress in addressing the
chronic problem of low pay within the industry, as illustrated
in the TMA's most recently negotiated agreement with Equity. Not
least important, the sector as a whole has begun to recover its
confidence and morale.
31. Against this very positive background,
the industry as a whole was dismayed by the DCMS's announcement
before Christmas of a freeze in future funding for Arts Council
England over the period to 2008. This view is shared equally by
SoLT and TMA, by the Independent Theatre Council and by the three
entertainment trade unions (being Equity, the Musicians Union
and BECTU). For the first time in their history, all six organisations
came together to sign a joint letter to The Times expressing
their concern.
32. We are aware of differences of interpretation
between DCMS and the Arts Council as to the precise implications
of the freeze. These are to say the least unhelpful. Some outsiders
have sought to apportion blame for such a negative outcome of
the public spending review more heavily in one direction rather
than another. We do not wish to engage in such argument.
33. Our concerns are straightforwardly practical.
Whatever recriminations may be bandied about, whatever the fine
print may reveal in due course, it must be abundantly clear that,
should the eventual outcome be a freeze in funding for theatre
(both dramatic and lyric) over the next few years, it is bound
to throw recent progress into reverse. Within the space of a very
few years, subsidised theatre will have moved from Stop to Go
and back to Stop. No-one can plan sensibly on such a basis—not
the Arts Council, not the performing arts sector as a whole, and
certainly not individual arts organisations.
34. Had the freeze been announced in a period
of general economic retrenchment, with cuts in government spending
across the board, its implications would have been no less serious,
but at least one would have been able to understand the reasons
for it. As it is, it comes at a time when the economy is healthy
and overall public expenditure is rising. One is bound then to
ask what is the justification for requiring Arts Council England
to make economies which are of negligible significance within
the wider framework of public expenditure. The "savings"
it will have to find represent no more than the smallest loose
change in the pocket of the Exchequer. They will inflict major
damage on the Theatre sector, and may put at risk its undoubted
and disproportionately beneficial impact on the wider economy.
35. Before moving on, we should make clear
that these observations are addressed only to the situation in
England, in accordance with what we understand to be the Committee's
remit. The Committee will no doubt be aware that subsidised performing
arts organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland derived
no benefit from Arts Council England's Theatre Review monies nor
have they enjoyed any equivalent increase in their own national
funding levels. The current position in the devolved nations is
necessarily a matter of continuing concern to trade associations
which have a UK-wide remit.
THE CAPITAL
NEEDS OF
COMMERCIAL THEATRE
BUILDINGS IN
LONDON
36. The Committee indicates a wish to consider
"progress with significant (re)development projects as may
be brought to its attention". In this context we draw attention
specifically to the enclosed report on modernising London's West
End theatres published by The Theatres Trust in October 2003 under
the title Act Now!
37. The report was the outcome of a two-year
survey of the current fabric of West End theatres. It concludes
that a major programme of renovation and adaptation is necessary
to ensure that theatre-going remains attractive to the next generation
and beyond; and it estimates that a total of £250 million
(at 2003 prices) will need to be spent over a period of some 15
years.
38. The report also summarises the conclusions
of an independent study commissioned by The Theatres Trust into
the economics of theatre ownership. The study demonstrates that,
despite its wider economic impact, commercial theatre operates
on very tight margins of profitability. Moreover, the extent to
which the industry can develop its capital assets is seriously
constrained by planning/user restrictions and by the fact that
all but a handful of West End theatres are protected by listed
building status.
39. As Act Now! concludes, there is no prospect
of the industry's being able to find from its normal operating
profits the full £250 million which The Theatres Trust identifies
as necessary. While the industry will of course do all it can,
there is, as the report says: "no alternative but to look
to Government or other outside agencies for some kind of matching
assistance."
40. Sir Cameron Mackintosh's recent refurbishment
of the Prince of Wales theatre demonstrates what can be achieved.
At the same time it illustrates the severity of the economic constraints
faced by theatre owners. Sir Cameron spent some £8 million
of his own money on the refurbishment, not as an investment decision
but as an act of personal philanthropy. Despite this expenditure,
the market value of the building is thought now to be little if
any more than it was before the improvements.
41. In May 2004, the Secretary of State
and Minister of State convened a seminar with members of the Society
and other potentially interested parties with a view to finding
a way forward on the issues identified in the Act Now! Report.
SoLT and The Theatres Trust are now represented on a DCMS Working
Group to pursue the matter in detail.
42. For its own part, SoLT has been working
on the assumption that the theatre industry will need to find
a way of contributing half the estimated total capital programme
(ie £125 million over 15 years or so); and we are confident
that we will be able to do this. We are working on the assumption
that the balance of the £125 million may be forthcoming over
the same time period from a consortium of cultural, heritage and
economic interests.
43. If a package can indeed be put together,
SoLT would envisage establishing a new independent charity for
the receipt and disbursement of funds. We also envisage that all
grants made should be made subject to the charity's taking a lien
on the theatre buildings concerned to be exercised in the event
that they should ever cease to be used for theatrical purposes.
44. We very much hope that the Working Group
will be able to identify an agreed solution, at least in outline,
within the next few months.
CONCLUSION
45. The subsidised and commercial sectors
of theatre enjoy an increasingly close inter-relationship marked
by a wide range of collaborations. When each is in rude health,
the other benefits both directly and indirectly. But when one
sector sneezes, the other tends to catch a cold.
46. The commercial sector has a strong interest
in a subsidised sector that is robust, confident and adequately
funded for the production and presentation of top quality theatre.
Equally, the subsidised sector has a strong interest in a commercial
sector that can provide an extended life for its best work in
a theatrical setting that fully reflects the increasingly sophisticated
expectations of contemporary audiences. That both should flourish
is not only culturally desirable but also essential to the nation's
economy.
47. We hope that the above submission may
both serve to underline the timeliness and significance of the
Committee's present inquiry and represent a helpful contribution
to its conclusions in due course.
January 2005
| 
