189 YEARS OF THEATRE FINANCE!
THEATRE MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
A chapter by Paul Iles in Judith Strong, Encore: Strategies for Theatre Renewal, London, The Theatres Trust, 1998.
The glorious uncertainty of the boards almost rivals that of the turf.
- Jerome K. Jerome, On the Stage - and Off, 1885.
How are theatres restored and organised, how do they grow? If one could run through in quick review the history of all the ventures that have been launched this century, I doubt if two theatres could be found with an identical origin and development. Their fabrics themselves have seen countless vagaries of fortune. Their organisation is equally diverse.
Theatres usually operate either by housing a company which creates the productions - a producing theatre - or by providing a stage for a series of visiting companies: the touring theatre or “receiving” house”.[1] The majority of case studies in this book [available from The Theatres Trust] are examinations of touring theatres, each of them buying-in shows for different programme mixes and lengths of run. Other operations [in this book] include the Stephen Joseph Theatre in Scarborough, run by a producing company which, like many repertory theatres today, also presents some visiting artists and companies; the Lancaster Grand Theatre which is the home of an amateur company; and the Theatre Royal, Glasgow, owned by Scottish Opera [now operated by Ambassador Theatre Group].
Two key areas need to be addressed by theatre management. Artistic decisions about the choice of production, casting, production and design occupy the foreground. The background is concerned with the social and financial contexts in which a theatre operates as an institution. It is these non-artistic conventions that are the subject of this chapter. Nevertheless, there is a middle ground where the two areas meet. This is especially true in a theatre which presents touring productions, where the manager has to find a successful and continuous combination of drama, dance, ballet, opera, musicals, concerts and light entertainment. In touring houses, the manager has a role of 'curator', selecting the programme. This can be a creative job, but audience tastes will change, and a stable audience may become a highly vocal public, bored with the same experiences. Thus, even the most successful theatre manager must change the diet of companies from time to time. Prosperity is never assured. The critical element in theatre management is, therefore, an understanding of the nature of the community of which the theatre is a part, coupled with the ability to create an environment conducive to enabling artists to reach their full expression.
There has been a change in structure and management - a gradual shift in control of theatres from those which are run by artists and theatre makers to those local authorities or non-profit trusts which are, hopefully, knowledgeable and motivated by a love of theatre. The art of the theatre and the politics of subsidy tend to be the current preoccupation of producing theatres, which are usually led by value-driven beliefs, whereas the box-office and the core business of theatre management are the principal factors in determining success in most touring theatres. To understand how these changes came about, we need to look at the history of theatre management.
An Industrial Revolution in the Theatre: Producing Theatres and Touring Theatres
A characteristic of the organisation of producing theatres is decentralisation, with theatres run as independent entities for their communities. The forerunner of this repertory theatre model was the stock ensemble of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, over which actor-managers had complete control, often playing leading roles themselves, surrounding themselves with other resident actors and occasional visiting stars. Having their own company meant that there was little inducement to establish business relationships with other theatres and, in turn, these had nothing to offer to a stock company. They were entirely self-sufficient, with their own actors under their own management, both in production and administration. They owned their sets, properties and wardrobe. They did not even have to look for plays to produce, for besides the standard classical dramas that were in the repertoire, they could, in the absence of adequate copyright legislation, readily obtain, at low cost, pirated versions of newer successes.
Each case study in this book is about a provincial theatre, except for the Hackney Empire Theatre. Historically, theatre in Britain has been perceived largely as a view of the London stage, despite the fact that there has always been a vast amount of activity in the regions. Revolutionary political, social and economic changes brought about the decline of stock companies in the 1880s. Theatregoing assumed a class division with the growth of industrial cities, especially in the North. Music halls began and big profits could be made on smaller outlays in variety theatre. The railway network brought entire touring companies to perform in these big new theatres, making the stock companies redundant and London dominant. The breakdown of the stock company system and its replacement by touring changed the character of theatre economics as completely as the advent of power machinery and the evolution of the factory system had changed the character of manufacturing industry. It is therefore possible to speak of an “industrial revolution” in the theatre, since this term suggests all that is inferred in a shift from resident theatres to touring. Touring caused the separation of theatre buildings and theatre production. One is quite as important as the other. Neither can succeed without the other, but the building infrastructure became a different element in theatrical management and today the two strands of theatre usually require separate subsidies.
Many of the case study theatres were built at the end of the last century, when “bricks and mortar” management became, from an economic point of view, the dominant factor in theatre business. At various times in the history of theatre management the balance of power shifts between the theatre building interests and those of the producer. The reasons for this are pertinent to the organisation of the industry today. The first reason why “bricks and mortar” may be the dominant interest is that a theatre is relatively permanent while a production is of very short duration. Theatres, of course, do not last forever (and frequently burned down in the 1800s) but six months on the road is a long life for a touring production. In short, the stability of the theatre is, as against the instability of the production, the first factor in the favour of buildings. When the stock company system finished and, later in the twentieth century, the subsidised repertory theatres lost the relative security and continuity of a resident company, there followed a new focus on theatre buildings. The second reason is concentration of control: the extensive Moss’ Empires and Howard and Wyndham circuits were attractive to new investors and threw the balance of control in their favour as the circuits expanded. This has recurred in the 1990s with the expansion of Apollo Leisure’s chain of touring theatres. A No.1 theatre[2] in a big city called for a large investment of capital, while a big production required a relatively small amount of investment. A theatre building was considered to be a more stable investment than production, and for that reason attracted capital more readily.
However, there were counteracting factors to steer capital towards productions. In the first place, a production held out the promise of a tremendous profit in relation to the investment. After the Copyright Act of 1911, and the rise of cinema, live theatre held out the possibility of picture rights, foreign rights, and overseas touring rights in addition to the profit of the original production. Big successes were rare, but there were always possibilities to lure the investor. Moreover, it has always been the production and not the theatre building, which holds the glamour. The natural tendency for buildings to dominate the theatre business is often interrupted by market conditions. Theatre chains, whether Moss’ Empires[3] yesterday or Apollo Leisure today [later, Clear Channel then Live Nation], have to be careful to check an over supply of theatres in relation to the supply of productions, for there may not then be enough good (meaning popular) attractions to fill the touring circuit. The construction of big new Arts Council National Lottery financed lyric theatres such as the Lowry at Salford, the Regent Theatre in Stoke-on-Trent, the Milton Keynes Theatre, the enlarged Sadler’s Wells Theatre and the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff are increasing the size of the national circuit: it is a serious challenge to administer, for more theatres have to be continually supplied with attractions. [The image on right is a table: 'Particulars of Capital and Dividends of Leading Joint Stock Companies Engaged in Theatrical and Kindred Businesses', from The Green Room Book, London, J. Sealey Clark, 1908].
A good relationship between theatres and production companies is vital, for although producers choose to make their living by sending productions on tour, they do not need to produce a show in the way that a theatre must present one: a producer’s standing costs while doing nothing are generally lower than those of a dark theatre. This might give underlying financial advantage to producers in negotiating terms with theatres, but a theatre should be more knowledgeable about its audience and market than producers. A chain of theatres, such as Apollo Leisure[4] or Ambassador Theatre Group, can reduce the producers’ advantage by offering more than one date, thereby giving their theatres a financial advantage which allows for stable conditions in contracting productions.
To counteract the vagaries of finding attractions, non-profit touring theatres are sometimes associated with “resident” companies.[5] Nevertheless, theatres managed as individual organisations encounter increasing difficulties in competing for the best shows and, therefore, usually require local authority subsidy.[6] There are only a few exceptions, notably the Mayflower Theatre Southampton (a well managed monopoly theatre with a large catchment area which made a surplus of £313,426 in 1997)[7] the Birmingham Hippodrome (at the centre of an enormous population, making a surplus of £846,966 in 1996)[8] the Theatre Royal Bath (at the centre of a wealthy catchment which is willing to pay London ticket prices) and the Grand Theatre, Blackpool (sustained by an annual eighteen weeks, twice-nightly summer variety season).
The theatre must be carried on as a business or it will fail as an art. A theatre is not the easiest thing to manage: it needs foresight, tact, urbanity, thrift, good taste, eternal vigilance and, above all, the support of the public.
- Sir Henry Irving, 1889.
The deal with producers is foundational to financial success. It is a principal cause of the financial difficulties or failure of many touring theatres singly managed by local authorities or independent trusts. Separation of the function of theatre ownership from that of production has created an area of competition within the theatre: the division of receipts from the attraction, and in terms of the other terms of engagement. Furthermore, every touring theatre is potentially the competitor of every other theatre in respect of the production it wants at the time it wants it, so the negotiation of favourable terms is paramount: a theatre must retain as much of the box office income as possible.
Most touring theatre management practice is preoccupied with receipts. Cash is more important than the recording of seat numbers sold, whereas subsidised theatres report to local authority and arts funding agencies who are also interested in attendance statistics. Running a touring house is a high-risk, cash oriented business, even when standing costs are strictly controlled and minimised. The link between theatres and producers is made by the contract, whereby a production occupies a stage for a period of time, with the parties dividing box-office income and certain expenditures with terms agreed upon.
The cycle of tour organisation begins by “pencilling dates”, which can develop into chaos if no specific time is allotted to a “pencilling”. It is courtesy and custom that given a reasonable period no “pencilling” is erased by the theatre manager until calling the producer to declare a confirmation or otherwise. When a producer is booking a tour and suddenly has an important date cancelled peremptorily, it may cause much trouble and expense, such as jumping from Aberdeen to Plymouth and back to Edinburgh; conversely, a manager might see a lot of good productions pass by for a date only to be told that, after several months, when too late to book another good production, the “pencilling” is off.
During the “pencilling” period, the parties will begin negotiation for terms. Modelling in a theatre’s estimates is built upon a range of contract possibilities, beginning with “box-office splits”, with risk thereby shared between the theatre and producer. Until the 1960s, when most No.1 theatres were commercially owned and most productions were unsubsidised, the division of box-office income was usually 60 per cent in favour of the producer, whereas 70 per cent going to the producer is today’s theorem. The actual share varies significantly from production to production and from theatre to theatre. The producing company often asks the theatre manager for a “guarantee”, or fee, which it would receive irrespective of the level of box-office receipts and, usually, on account of their share. Often royalties are paid to the producing company “off-the-top”, on behalf of the creative team of author, director, set, costume and lighting designers and, additionally, the tour-booker: these can total 22 per cent for musicals. This form of contract is the highest risk to the theatre.
The parties may be prepared to negotiate this into a “first-call” on the box-office receipts rather than a guaranteed fee. In this case, when the producing company’s costs are not achieved, they would be losing money, and the theatre would receive no income to redeem overheads. When agreeing to either a guarantee or a first call, the theatre should be in a position to agree a higher “second call” on the box office receipts than may be represented by 30 per cent or a sum in excess of the theatre’s standing costs. For the theatre this is return for taking the risk of paying a guarantee or first call. Theatres achieve widely varying positive annual margins, ranging from zero to about 23 per cent in the best managed. They need to develop a trusting contractual relationship with many producing companies, so that both parties are confident of predicting the potential performance for their attractions. Slippage of the annual margin invariably occurs when theatres consistently pay guarantees, because however experienced the parties are they cannot, in reality, anticipate success. Only one or two failures will plunge a theatre into debt, from which it is very hard to recover from future margins and other trading income. A tough approach from the manager is critical to the operation, developing a portfolio of deals with the theatre’s board or a finance committee monitoring them carefully.
Contractual negotiations also include detailed arrangements for shared marketing expenditure and agreed items to be recharged to producing companies. These number at least forty potential categories in the “contra account”, such as get-in, fit-up, the supply of performance stage-staff, rehearsals, get-out and piano tuning. The main heads of a standard contract were agreed upon some years ago by the Theatrical Management Association: they publish a basic form for modern management, which may be cited for as groundwork for adaptation, local conditions being different in every case. The theatres also operate barring clauses, for period and distance, limiting competition from tours to adjacent towns. These interdictions often seem unnecessary: in reason, can Edinburgh bar Glasgow or Kirkcaldy? Can Manchester bar Salford or Blackpool? Or naturally, vice versa.
The experience of contracts, and their link to realising the theatre’s artistic programme, stands testimony to the pressures and contradictions of trying to wrestle the ground between commerce and art, and this tension will ebb and flow through the operation of all theatres. They are all fraught with a very high degree of risk - but that is by no means the same as saying that they are gambling enterprises. Those managers who are skilled succeed in reducing the percentage of risk against them. On the other hand, those managers who are unskilled increase the natural hazards and this may, in part, account for the large subsidies required in some touring theatres run by local government controlled trusts or leisure departments.[9] (Because of their size, local authorities have differences in organisational culture and their financial systems are often unhelpful to the smaller world of theatres which have to be more entrepreneurial.) Whatever the deal with producers, there will be an appreciable element of risk for everyone. It is innate in the touring system and there is no insurance against it. There is no theatre and no producing company which has stayed in business for any length of time which has not suffered some downright failures.
The Programme Mix
The art of popular theatre is a permanent revolution.
- Jean Vilar, Theatre as Public Service, 1953.
The programming of touring theatres is guided by a number of important factors. These include the aspirations of a theatre’s mission statement and a definable artistic policy, its known theatregoing market, the availability of productions, the size of the stage, the potential box-office receipts and the energy and aspirations of the manager. There never was, and there never will be, an ideally programmed theatre. As Harley Granville Barker wrote, “Theatres are too complex and delicate a machine, depending on the harmonious co-operation of too many talents and influences, ever to reach perfection for more than a passing moment. Good theatres at their best periods have been severely criticised, not, as a rule, without reason”. The following table is a summary of the programme mix at the 937-seat Buxton Opera House, a good example of a local authority owned, non-profit trust managed theatre.[10] Over eighty distinct productions are staged annually. The theatre’s policy cites the eight demands and tastes of audiences as defined by John McGrath, offering “directness, comedy, music, emotion, variety, effect, immediacy and localism”.[11]
Buxton Opera House: programme mix, 1997-1998
|
Art form
|
No of Performances Staged |
Seats Sold |
% Capacity |
Theatre’s Margin Retained |
% of Performances per Art Form |
|
Ballet |
8 |
3,500 |
47% |
24% |
3% |
|
Classical Concerts |
6 |
3,680 |
65% |
24% |
2.4% |
|
Modern Dance |
1 |
277 |
29% |
20% |
0.4% |
|
Children & Pantomime |
31 |
16,661 |
57% |
27% |
12.2% |
|
Other Dance |
10 |
2,614 |
28% |
16% |
3.9% |
|
Drama |
81 |
17,184 |
23% |
14% |
31.8% |
|
Folk and Jazz |
5 |
2,602 |
56% |
24% |
2.0% |
|
Variety |
41 |
21,729 |
55% |
23% |
16.1% |
|
Music Theatre |
43 |
20,563 |
51% |
28% |
16.9% |
|
Opera |
29 |
20,368 |
75% |
15% |
11.4% |
|
Hires |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
261 |
109,178 |
45% |
21% |
100.0% |
Theatres’ ability to programme is affected, additionally, by the arts councils who take a strategic stance on the cities and towns to be played by funded companies: many of the productions in Buxton are subsidised by the Arts Council of England Touring Department. Touring theatres have been neglected by the arts funding system, with almost all revenue grants going to the producing company - but marketing, ticket pricing, press relations, audience development, outreach and education practice are a shared responsibility of a company and a theatre. Theatres welcome the introduction of small “venue development grants” from the Touring Department, for whatever the terms of contract with a producer (unless the company is renting the theatre on a “four walls” contract), the theatre is also speculating on the success of the attraction.
Organisation, Staffing and Overheads
One must never underrate the importance in the theatre of the machinery of organisation and staff. Think not of plans but of persons.
- Harley Granville Barker, The Exemplary Theatre, 1922.
Now a few words on the costs of running a theatre. Theatre costs are of two kinds - overhead expenditure and running costs. The former are fixed charges which must be met whether the theatre is idle or has a production. Touring theatres generally expect to be open year round (perhaps closed for two weeks’ annual maintenance or for part of the summer) and therefore merge these costs into “overheads”. The chief item might be rent, but non-profit theatre operators outside London tend to be lessees whose local authority owners waive such charges, but may expect the non-profit distributing company to cover repairs.
The biggest cost is staffing, but there is an enormous variation in personnel, due partly to differences in size of theatre but also to differences in the requirements of the productions and whether or not the theatre is engaged in new arts objectives and occupations such as education, outreach, workshops or access schemes. Buxton Opera House has a full-time staff of sixteen, a part-time staff of twenty-two and a pool of volunteers for front-of-house stewarding. Most touring theatres are staffed with minor variants to this structure, which sets out a clear management framework, with a “head of department” team responsible for the administration of their department.
The following table indicates estimated expenditure for a hypothetical 1,000 seat touring theatre (1998).
|
Fixed Expenditure |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wages and Salaries |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Administration |
|
|
74,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marketing and Sales |
|
|
104,640 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stage |
|
|
|
68,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
House and Catering |
|
|
137,250 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
383,890 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
National Insurance @ 10.45% |
|
40,117 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pension @ 5% |
|
|
19,195 |
443,201 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Occupancy |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rates (50% charity relief) |
|
12,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heat and light |
|
|
28,800 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Insurance |
|
|
|
16,800 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cleaning materials |
|
|
9,600 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Repairs and renewals |
|
|
12,000 |
79,200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Administration |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Computer consumables |
|
|
3,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Postage and printing |
3,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Staff recruitment |
|
|
2,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Telephone |
|
|
|
10,400 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equipment hire |
|
|
5,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Audit / Accountancy |
|
|
10,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bank charges (including credit card commissions) |
7,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Entertaining |
|
|
2,500 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Office supplies |
|
|
3,500 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Late night staff taxis |
|
|
1,500 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Travel and subsistence |
|
|
3,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Depreciation |
|
|
40,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal |
|
|
|
2,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Licences and subscriptions (inc. T.M.A.) |
2,500 |
95,400 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marketing |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marketing: theatre share, inc. press advertising |
25,000 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Membership and other promotion |
|
5,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Postage and distribution |
|
15,000 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Season brochures |
|
|
60,000 |
105,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Education and Outreach |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Schools packs, etc. |
|
|
10,000 |
10,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stage |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stage, sound and lighting supplies |
|
12,000 |
12,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ADD: Contingency @ 5% (excluding wages) |
|
15,080 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TOTAL EXPENDITURE |
|
|
£759,881 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Weekly Theatre Overheads |
|
£14,613 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The theatre aims to recover its weekly overheads (which can reach £40,000 in the biggest independently managed lyric theatres) from its box office share and other earned income such as the net profit on bars, catering, programmes, merchandising, sponsorship and friends’ membership schemes. A 1,000 seat theatre might expect to make £3,500 net profit per week from ancillary income, leaving a target of £10,000 per week to retain at the box office. If this annual margin for the theatre averages 20 per cent, the weekly box-office receipts would need to average £ 50,000 net of VAT.
Ticket prices preoccupy the organisation: these may reflect the production’s cost, are variable to suit the zone of the auditorium, the art form and, often, the individual production. Pricing (and discounting with concessions or special offers) is a sophisticated aspect of theatre marketing: charging what the market will bear is easier said than done. The income for this hypothetical 1,000 seat theatre might breakdown as follows:
|
ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE |
||
|
Box Office Receipts: 48 playing weeks - average 55% attendance x 288 performances (158,400 theatregoers; 550 paying theatregoers at each performance) x £ 9.50 ticket yield (net of VAT) |
£ 1,504,800 | |
|
LESS Production Company Share |
1,203,840 | |
|
RETAINED by Theatre (Annual Margin of 20 %) |
300,960 | |
|
ADD Other Earned Income |
||
|
Bars (62% margin) |
92,000 |
|
|
Ices (50% margin) |
30,000 |
|
|
Soft Drinks (64% margin) |
2,000 |
|
|
Programmes (67% margin) |
23,000 |
|
|
Cafe (35% margin) |
10,000 |
|
|
Sweets (31% margin) |
4,000 |
|
|
Merchandising: facility fees |
6,000 |
|
|
Room Hires |
1,500 |
|
|
Sponsorship and corporate memberships |
25.000 |
|
|
Friends of the Theatre |
8,000 |
|
|
Kiosk Rental TOTAL Ancillary profit (£ 1.30 per theatregoer) |
5,000 |
206,500 |
|
TOTAL EARNED INCOME |
£ 507,460 | |
|
LESS EXPENDITURE |
759,881 | |
|
NET OPERATING LOSS |
£ 252,421 |
We have reached the bottom line: whatever the annual loss in the commercial operation of a touring theatre, arguments for subsidy have to be made to government. Much material is published on this subject and the producing theatre companies are generally more experienced advocates. We must tell the government what the theatre can do for them not what they ought to do for the theatre. A new accountability is demanded, to “stakeholders” and the communities served by theatres. In addition to unfashionable polemic about the art of the theatre, grants have to be justified by every conceivable reason - as good for business, cultural diversity, international profile, tourism, the creative economy, education, social inclusion, employment, reducing crime, health, urban or rural regeneration and national or regional identity. Theatres are judged as one element of the “cultural industries”. Partnerships and collaborations with the community and with government are as important for a theatre as are those with artists and theatre makers.
Art isn’t easy
Even when you’re hot
Advancing art is easy
Financing it is not.
- Stephen Sondheim, ‘Putting it Together’, Sunday in the Park with George, 1984.
The fascinating thing about theatre management is that nothing is certain. There are few rules and no magic bullet. Week by week, year by year, the unexpected is constantly turning up. Whether it is favourable or the reverse depends very much on luck. Luck is probably the most important influence that anybody connected with theatre management must have. Luck, and a sense of dedication, or put less high falutingly, a complete and absorbing interest in the theatre to the exclusion of everything else. To run a theatre successfully needs much clear thinking, patience and forbearance on the part of the board and the manager. It also calls for great care and flair in programme building so as to achieve balance and a consistent standard. This breeds confidence. It is futile to present shows to rows of empty seats. It is also wrong to think of what we do as some kind of social duty. We must remember that it can all be great fun too - an alluring adventure of unlimited variety and multiplicity of detail.
I am grateful to theatre consultant Crispin Raymond for his ideas. A former Theatre Director of the Theatre Royal, Bath, Crispin is author of Essential Theatre: the successful management of theatres and venues which present the performing arts, Arts Council, London, 2000. For practical discussion of this subject see an interactive version of the book at this link.
Notes
[1] Managers in producing theatres often describe touring theatres as “receiving” theatres or “venues”. This tension began when Miss Horniman, founder of the repertory movement at the Gaiety Theatre Manchester, had to disband her permanent company in 1917. She described the Gaiety’s new touring role as being a “lodging house theatre”, for she was in no way responsible for the companies that played there. The Arts Councils now prefer to describe the best of these as “presenting” theatres, where the manager insists on reading all plays or seeing attractions before they visit, networking in the creative side of the business.
[2] Theatres (and pay for artists) were graded according to size and reputation. All Moss’ Empires and Howard and Wyndham theatres were No.1 (such as the Theatres Royal Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham and Glasgow). A No. 2 theatre was usually smaller and often located in a seaside resort (such as the Gaiety Theatre, Ayr and the Royal Opera House, Scarborough), a spa town (Buxton Opera House) or small industrial town (such as Wakefield Theatre Royal and Opera House or Doncaster Grand Theatre). No. 3 theatres were located in market towns or suburbs (these often had fetching names, such as the Dalrymple Theatre Fraserburgh, the Theatre De Luxe Keighley and the Bostock and Wombwell Royal Italian Menagerie and Opera House). Today there are still different circuits of different sizes of theatre.
[3] This company was forerunner to Stoll Moss Theatres Limited, now principally a London West End theatre owner. Its Profit and Loss Account for the Year Ending 31 December 1997 shows a profit of £ 6,531,000 before tax, on a turnover of £73,349,000.
[4] Apollo Leisure Group plc. The Group Profit and Loss Account for the Year Ending 29 November 1997 shows a profit of £ 5,131,908 before tax, on a turnover of £ 95,038,447 (1996: £ 6,026,536 profit on a turnover of £ 64,484,303). This company owns or manages twenty five theatres, often in partnership with local authorities. It has additional independent ticketing and cinema interests and, in 1997, moved into the sport and recreation business. When founded in 1977, it set its ambition against what seemed an inexorable decline in touring theatres and has become the new colossus of the circuit: in only twenty one years it has created the second biggest theatre group in the world.
[5] Examples of companies occupying a core role at a touring theatre include Birmingham Royal Ballet at the Birmingham Hippodrome, Welsh National Opera at the Cardiff New Theatre, Scottish Opera at the Theatre Royal Glasgow, Opera North at Leeds Grand Theatre, Théâtre sans Frontières at the Queen’s Hall, Hexham, the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company at the Grand Theatre, Wolverhampton and the English Shakespeare Company at the Tyne Theatre and Opera House, Newcastle upon Tyne.
[6] For example, Belfast Grand Opera House Trust, which manages this 1001 seat restored Frank Matcham touring theatre, gave 371 performances in the year ending 31 March 1997, selling a remarkable 74 per cent of capacity (275,000 theatregoers). It made a surplus of £ 22,169 on a turnover of £ 2,864,372, but received a grant of £ 590,000 from the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.
[7] Mayflower Theatre Trust Limited, Report and Accounts 31 March 1997. This 2,299 seat theatre gave 346 performances, selling 460,000 tickets with a turnover of £ 6.9 million. Included in revenue was ancillary profits from bars, catering and merchandise of £ 495,000.
[8] The Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Limited, Report and Accounts 31 March 1996. This 1,887 seat theatre had a turnover of £ 8.5 million. Year on year trading conditions fluctuate: in 1997 this theatre turned over £ 7.7 million and made a small loss of £ 99,519.
[9] Research into local authority subsidy levels in touring theatres was last undertaken by Crispin Raymond in 1992, when he found that middle-scale theatres (average capacity 540 seats) run by local authorities cost between two and three times more in subsidy than those run by independent trusts.
[10] High Peak Theatre Trust Limited operates this Edwardian theatre for its historic value and its contemporary use; it had a turnover of £ 1.1 million in the year ending 31 March 1998, making a surplus of £ 23,609 after subsidy from the local authority of £ 43,050. The Opera House occupies a strong role in a small town at the centre of a large rural area (there are only 87,000 people in the immediate catchment), attracting an average of 416 paying theatregoers at each performance.
[11] See John McGrath, A Good Night Out, Methuen, London, 1981, pp. 77-82.
