"Wonderful Town" takes a look inside theatre's numbers
By Chad Fasca
The scarcity of hard data on theatre as an economic engine or educational powertool troubled many panelists at "Wonderful Town: The Future of Theater in New York."
Jed Bernstein, president of the League of American Theatres and Producers; Fran Reiter, former executive director of the New York Shakespeare Festival/ Joseph Papp Public Theater; Susan Chin, assistant commissioner for capital projects of the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs; and Marian Godfrey, program director for culture of The Pew Charitable Trusts; each voiced concerns about this research vacuum during the panel discussions. They were not alone. Arts researchers echoed their concerns as well.
Figures are considered crucial to the renewal and expansion of public support for the arts. Without data to quantify exactly how much money theatre contributes directly and indirectly to the city, it is hard to bend the ears of elected officials.
Wanting such data is one thing, spearheading the research to uncover that information is another thing. In part, the NAJP hopes to supply some of the needed data itself. Later this year, the NAJP will publish the conference report, which will include findings from original research done by NAJP and other arts researchers as well as new information culled from the "Wonderful Town" discussions.
To give attendees a sense of what is out there and what is missing, NAJP assembled a panel of researchers to provide an overview of recent research findings and some analysis of local and national trends. "Reports from the Research Frontlines" covered substantial ground from quantitative studies on Broadway itself to a qualitative study comparing theatres to museums.
Broadway Cycles
George Wachtel, founder of Audience Research & Analysis, cited an interesting article lamenting the "lost audience" for theatre. In this clipping, the author claimed that high prices and inaccessibility were the limiting factors keeping people ages 21 to 35 away from the theatre. The clipping read like something pulled straight from a page in a recent newspaper; however, the article actually appeared in 1951. It provided the perfect lead to a discussion of his findings demonstrating the cyclical nature of Broadway over the last 70 years.
In 1929, according to Wachtel, an estimated 10.5 million tickets to Broadway shows were sold. In the period between 1958 and 1964, Broadway attendance would drop below 8 million. In the mid-sixties it would climb to between 9 and 10 million, before charting a steady decline to 5.4 million in 1973. After 1973, it began a remarkable, steady climb that would climax in 1981 when Broadway attendance topped 11 million.
He gave a few reasons why this climb took place. For one, the post World War II baby boom had taken root. Theatregoers between the ages of 25-34 represented 57 percent of Broadway's audience. There also were significant marketing developments. The first 'slice of the show' TV commercials began and credit cards became accepted at the box office (meaning you would not have to visit the box office twice, once to buy the ticket and once to pick it up and see the show). Also the first 'I Love New York' commercial began in 1978.
Ticket sales tumbled over the next five years. By 1986, sales stood at 6.5 million tickets. And the number of new productions also plummeted from 61 in 1980 to 33 in 1986.
In the 1990's, dramatic increases in tourism and income coupled with a dramatic drop in crime contributed to unprecedented growth in theatre attendance. The total audience grew to 11.7 million in 1999.
Another interesting figure raised by Wachtel was the average age of Broadway, off-Broadway and BAM audiences. Surprisingly, the youngest of the bunch is Broadway, where the average age is 40, followed by off-Broadway at 45 and BAM at 46.
Reports from the Research Frontlines
MODERATOR:
Andras Szanto, deputy director, National Arts Journalism Program
PANELISTS:
Randall Bourscheidt, president, Alliance for the Arts
Karen Hauser, director of research, League of American Theatres and Producers
Kevin McCarthy, social scientist, RAND Corporation
Christopher Hawthorne, NAJP research fellow
George Wachtel, president, Audience Research & Analysis
9/11 Exposes Risk
"The good news is that you have got a market out there; the bad news is 9/11 happens and you've got a greater risk," said Kevin McCarthy, a senior social scientist with RAND.
In his presentation, McCarthy, the author of two recently-completed studies on the arts, laid bare some of the challenges to theatre's future. In the aftermath of September 11, ticket sales have become a key survival issue. Theatre companies are more reliant on ticket sales and subscriptions, which account for more than half of many companies' budgets, than other arts organizations. In a normal slice of time, theatre professionals could take heart in the fact that theatre is not as heavily subsidized as other art forms; however, September 11 and possible future attacks have put all future ticket sales in jeopardy, putting the theatre at risk.
But theatre's challenges are not solely 9-11 related. McCarthy noted that arts organizations face increased competition from both the diversity of entertainment options and the amount and structure of people's leisure time.
His research confirmed the already accepted notion that Americans participate in the arts more through the media than through attendance. While total attendance has been up, he attributes this spurt to population growth. He also said that theatres rely heavily on frequent attenders.
On a positive note, he also noticed that hands-on involvement by theatregoers is increasing.
Small Groups Face Greatest Risk
Randall Bourscheidt, president of Alliance for the Arts, presented research findings pretty much in agreement with those of Kevin McCarthy. He opened his presentation by asking the rhetorical questions:
'Why should we care about the future of theatre?' and 'Why should the city and ordinary people, citizens, care?
His answer was that the arts represented a $13 billion industry that played a key role in attracting customers for hotels and restaurants.
Bourscheidt is working on a study to track arts income called "Who Pays for the Arts?" He offered some figures from the as-yet-unfinished and unpublished study.
His data suggests a wide gulf exists between the haves and have nots in the arts. Twenty-nine companies with budgets of $10 million or more, representing the largest arts organizations, account for 70.7 percent of the total revenue among arts groups. Meanwhile, at the bottom of this pyramid, 185 organizations with budgets under $100,000 constitute one half of one percent of total revenue.
Concurring with other researchers at the conference, Bourscheidt found that admissions and rentals contribute half of performing arts organization budgets with more than a third coming from private contributions and the remaining tenth coming from the government.
"All small cultural organizations are extremely vulnerable," Bourscheidt said.
To illustrate that point, he noted that during the economic boom period of the late 1990's, the income of large arts groups increased by 24 percent, while the income of small arts groups decreased by 12 percent. Meanwhile, corporate donations rose 28 percent for the largest nonprofits, while falling 37 percent for smallest nonprofits.
"The future lies in the hands of the people creating theatre who will allow it to survive in a very adverse climate," he said.
Theatres as Destinations
Christopher Hawthorne, an NAJP research fellow, suggested in the research panel's final presentation that theatre directors should examine more closely the course charted by museums in recent years for survival tips. Hawthorne analyzed museums as centers of culture and compared them to the theatre. According to Hawthorne's analysis, museums have transformed themselves from stodgy playgrounds devoted to intellectuals into destination points that can satisfy a variety of people with multiple endeavors.
The use of modern architecture (read: The Guggenheim Bilbao) adds an attractive force to the museum's and the museum experience. Hawthorne likened his recent trip to The Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain to a pilgrimage, because the museum is difficult to reach, but has become a place that millions of visitors have to experience.
Inside the museums, the inclusion of cafes, classes, movie houses and bookshops lends a building block quality to the museum experience, offering people the opportunity to tailor their use of the space to suit their sometimes vastly different needs. Some of these endeavors may not involve admittance into the museum at all. For instance, you may choose to meet a friend in the cafe before screening a film in the museum's theater or before heading off to lunch together. Regardless of whether they are viewing the museum's exhibits or sipping lattes in the cafe, people are making the museum a center of their leisure activities and cultural experiences. Hawthorne contrasted this experience with the theatre, where the focal point is the eight o'clock show. In this sense, theatre offers an either/or proposition. Either you go to see a show or you do not.
Hawthorne's presentation, which ended the conference's Monday discussion, surfaced often in conversations at the reception immediately following. His model is one that HERE Arts Center and Manhattan Theatre Source have adopted on a small scale. HERE has a cafe and art exhibit space as well as theatre space. Manhattan Theatre Source has a cafe and bookshop/reading library as well as its theatre space. Whether a large off-Broadway or Broadway theatre will seize on Hawthorne's finding as a blueprint for its own facilities remains to be seen.
