Master Thesis
Attracting and reaching audience in the performing arts industry, a qualitative study of collaborations between performing art organizations and venues
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business Administration – Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries
Ceres Bekers 10002187
Supervisor: Dr. A. Alexiev June 2018
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Ceres Bekers who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
ABSTRACT
Performing art companies and venues need audience to survive. Venues and performing art organizations (PAO) can collaborate in this quest to survive and together reach and attract audience. In fact collaboration between venues and PAO is highly recommended by experts in the cultural field. However this topic has never been researched in depth in the literature. This study will thus try to answer the research question how venues and subsidized performing art
organizations relationships collaborate in order to reach and attract audience and what factors influence these collaborations? In order to answer this question a qualitative research method was
used. Empirical data was collected by conducting semi-structured interviews at ten collaborating companies in the performing arts industry. The empirical findings suggest seven collaborative activities with the aim of reaching and attracting audience: (1) advertising, (2) unconditional programming, (3) premières, (4) series performances, (5) organizing special events around a performance, (6) participation projects, (7) moving in one building. Which are influenced by four factors: (1) trust, (2) commitment, (3) vision, (4) location. This study has helped in gaining a better understanding of this complicated field, thereby contributing to the research field in the performing arts industry and literature on collaboration in general. This research has painted a broad picture regarding collaboration between venues and PAOs, but it leaves room for future research that can use this study to examine the actual effectiveness of these collaborations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of originality ... 2
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 6
Literature review ... 11
Understanding the audience ... 11
Collaborations & performing arts industry ... 12
Factors influencing collaboration ... 16
Marketing in the performing arts industry ... 18
Methodolgy ... 22
Research Design ... 22
Data Collection & Sampling ... 23
Case descriptions ... 25
Analytical strategy ... 32
Results ... 34
Why collaborate ... 34
Reaching and attracting audience ... 36
Advertising ... 36
Unconditional programming ... 37
Premières ... 39
Series performances ... 39
Organizing special events around a performance... 41
Participation projects ... 41
Moving in one building ... 42
Factors influencing the collaboration ... 43
Trust ... 44
Commitment ... 45
Vision ... 46
Location ... 46
Discussion ... 50
Contributions of this research ... 55
Limitations and suggestions for future research... 56
Conclusion ... 58
References ... 60
Appendix ... 64
1. Interview guide PAO ... 64
2. Interview guide venues ... 66
3. Coding guide ... 68
4. Example quotes collaborative activities ... 69
INTRODUCTION
Already in the mid-nineties the performing arts industry were warned: the combination of people’s busy life, the increasing number of new media, and the desire for a sensate culture, taken together with impulsive consumer behavior will give the subsidized performing arts industry a hard time (Knulst, 1995). Especially the highbrow performing arts (associated with funding), like classical music, opera, theatre and classical dance, should be worried. Indeed the fast, informal, interactive and multidisciplinary media culture of today’s zeitgeist, together with the cliché image of theatre as distant and elitist results in a small, specific, non-cultural diverse, high educated group of theatre visitors (Commissie Ter Horst, 2015). Another threat rest in the new generation, this generation particular visits popular art, like cabaret, musical, dance, urban, pop music, and movies and the current developments are that this new generation, unlike generations in the past, stick to the culture forms they liked in their younger years (Raad van Cultuur, 2015). This results in an aging audience, without new public being formed.
There is thus a need within the subsidized performing arts industry to attract and reach new audience. Recommendations concerning this need are provided in the report ‘Over het Voetlicht, naar een groter diverser toneelpubliek’ by Commissie Ter Horst (2015). It is for instance recommended that performing art organizations (PAOs) should think on for hand when creating a production, which audience that production will attract, and that they should invest in reaching this audience together with venues. Next to that they recommend that PAOs and venues should collaborate in sharing knowledge about the audience to increase the effectiveness of marketing and communication. Thus these recommendations focus on the importance of collaboration between PAOs and venues in order to reach and attract audience.
Marketing can be seen as the instrument to reach and attract audience, since marketing is a common tool to raise awareness by customers and increase sales, however there is a need for more research regarding marketing in the performing arts industry. The Dutch government emphasized the importance of the use of marketing strategies in the performing arts industry and stimulated this as one possible solution for the participation problem. Although the importance of marketing activities is acknowledged, according to Joostens (2012) the results are not discernible in practice. To develop efficient marketing campaigns there is a need for sufficient data. In the performing arts industry the data sources are divided. The PAOs have the information regarding the product, they know to whom their productions are targeted at. The venues on the other hand own data regarding who the actual audience is. When PAOs and venues would collaborate they can learn from each other, increase knowledge and increase marketing efficiency. Joostens (2012) claims that most marketing activities in the Dutch performing arts industry lack a clear focus, work past each other and are often inefficient resulting in limited attention to target audience policy, positioning, use of competitive advantages and possibilities for collaborations. Research is needed to see if collaborations can overcome these lack of focus. Joostens (2012) recognizes an increase in a conscious integration of marketing thinking in performing arts organizations policy. Since her dissertation stems from 2012, a recent study is needed to evaluate the current situation.
There are only a few studies available on collaboration in the performing arts industry, which emphasize the importance of collaborating. Ostrower (2005) claims that collaborations are important means to realize a common objective. They have a high capacity to boost effectiveness and are therefore becoming increasingly favoured by grant makers and government institutions. The importance of collaborations in the arts is also emphasized by Scheff and Kottler (1996) “Arts
organizations are leveraging their limited resource by allying themselves with organizations ranging from other non-profit arts groups to community groups to business” (p.2). However these
studies are not aimed at collaborations between venues and PAOs, and since the recommendations mentioned above specifically focus on collaborations between venues and PAOs, more in depth research on collaboration between these two parties is needed.
There is one study on collaborations in the performing arts industry that does focus on collaborations between venues and PAOs, of which it appears that one of the most common areas to collaborate for PAOs and venues is regarding the promotion of artistic products (Langeveld, Belme & Koppenberg, 2014). PAOs and venues have a shared priority in finding an audience for a particular production. Although they conclude that marketing is one of the most common areas to collaborate for PAOs and venues, they do not provide more in depth information on what factors influences these collaborations and what exactly PAOs and venues undertake to reach and attract audience. Hence, they address a need for future empirical investigation about collaborative practices in the cultural sector.
The focus of available research regarding collaborations within the business literature focusses on specific relationship forms and pertinent issues within those firms (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). This literature focusses on a variety of collaborative firms, such as supply agreements, co-branding, cross-sector partnerships, alliances, networks, joint ventures, franchising, mergers, consortia, and trade associations. This focus on the form results in difficulties in understanding what activities actually are done within collaborations and why collaborations are formed.
Taking this all together one can conclude that there is in increasing importance in collaboration between venues and PAOs in their quest to reach and attract audience. However concrete literature regarding this topic is lacking. This results in a need for more extensive and in depth research, leading to the following research question:
How do venues and subsidized performing art organizations collaborate in order to reach and attract audience and what factors influence these collaborations?
Answering this question will contribute to existing literature regarding collaborations in general, since research mostly focusses on the how, the why and what question is understudied. This study will therefore contribute on the literature by focusing on the why and what. It will provide new insights in a sector where extensive research on collaboration is lacking. It can either strengthen existing literature on collaborations, or provide new insights. Next to that it will contribute to the literature on the performing arts industry. By conducting an explorative qualitative multiple case study, theory will be built on collaborations between PAOs and venues on reaching attracting audience will be provided, leading to a deeper understanding regarding this subject. Practically, this study will contribute in providing insight in the current status regarding collaborations between venues and PAOs. This is needed since it concerns real time recommendations provided by the Dutch Raad van Cultuur. Thereby it will contribute in evaluating these recommendations and possibly shed new light on collaborative activities to reach and attract audience. Next to that the participating PAOs and venues will gain deeper insight regarding this topic and will possibly learn from these insights.
This thesis will follow the following structure: first relevant literature concerning collaborations in the performing arts industry, marketing in the performing arts industry, and
factors influencing collaborations will be discussed, in order to create a landscape of relevant concepts. Next follows the methodology, where an overview of the research design, data collection and sampling, case descriptions and the analytical strategy will be given. In the next chapter the results of the empirical study will be presented followed by the implications of the results, limitations and suggestions for future research in the discussion. Last this thesis will conclude with the conclusion.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review creates a landscape of relevant concepts which are of relevance in this thesis. It acts as a way to gain more insight in the audience of performing arts, to explore the current state in the literature on collaborations in the performing arts industry, what role marketing holds in the performing arts industry, and what factors influence collaborations in general.
Understanding the audience
Since this thesis focusses on attracting and enlarging audience, it is important to gain more insight in the audience. A way to gain this insight is by looking at what art consumption means to the audience. Botti (2000) distinguishes four benefits of art consumption. First functional or cultural benefits, this stems from the awareness of a need, a need to the thirst for knowledge (Botti, 2001). The second benefit holds emotional benefits, closely linked to the desire for a compelling, fun, and stimulating experience (Botti, 2000). Both benefits are in line with the hedonistic perspective, which analyses the choices of audiences on the basis of the amusement, hedonistic fulfilment, pleasure, imaginary and sensory stimulation and emotional arousal experienced by the audience (Boorsma, 2006). One can make a distinction between two classes of hedonistic experiences, namely surprising, challenging, exiting and/or stimulating experiences and entertaining, comfortable, and/or relaxing experiences (Woods, 1987). The first class is motivated by a search for challenge, stimulation and novelty in line with functional or cultural benefits. The second class is motivated by a search for an escape from overstimulating and stressful life situation, more in line with emotional benefits. Third comes symbolic benefits, these are linked to semiotic aspects, like communicating one’s values and personality via consumption choices (Botti, 2000). Bourdieu’s
(1973) model of the cultural reproduction of social classes have played an important role in explaining symbolic benefits and in the debates on cultural marketing since the seventies. Bourdieu (1973) has made a distinction between legitimate culture (high arts) and low culture (popular arts). Moreover he has demonstrated that dominant classes establish their legitimacy through high arts attendance and practice, resulting in a strong influence of one’s social class on one’s cultural capital and future cultural capital consumption. However a lot have changed since the seventies and it seems that the distinction between preferences of different social classes are diminishing among others because the rise of cultural omnivores. Cultural omnivores are the more eager consumers of both highbrow and popular culture, in this sense culture is used as a tool that enables consumers to enlarge their private and professional social networks since they are associated with people from different social and geographical backgrounds (Peterson, 1992). The rise of the omnivores brings a paradigm shift in the arts marketing: “moving away from a traditional high culture focus, they
should consider the growing eclectic tastes of their visitors, the intensity of their consumption and their motivations. As well, programming choices should better reflect cultural pluralism, using popular culture to make high culture sites more accessible, if appropriate” (Colbert & Courchesne,
2012, p. 278). The fourth benefit is a social benefit, related to the function of artistic products as talking points or gathering places (Botti, 2000), it provides an opportunity to discuss mutual experiences with others.
Collaborations & performing arts industry
Collaborations in the for-profit sector is a well-studied subject. There is however a great difference between the for-profit sector and the subsidized performing arts industry, lying in the market force. Subsidized PAOs receive subsidies since they produce new and innovative productions (product
oriented instead of market/customer oriented) and would therefore not survive in the supply and demand market force, as there is no existing demand for this new and innovative work. Since new produced art is something which enhances the quality of life for all humankind by increasing knowledge and understanding, government support is justified and provides a reason for the existence of PAOs (Wijnberg, 1994). This means that productions by PAOs are not able to realize profit, and thereby are distinctive from the for profit sector. This however does not mean that organizations in the performing arts industry cannot strive competitive advantage. Although the productions created are not customer oriented, PAOs still need to attract an audience, if they have no audience they are of no value to humankind and will lose the right for subsidy. Thus although organizations in the performing arts industry differ from the for profit sector, they do overlap in the goal of reaching competitive advantage.
The focus of this thesis is on collaborations between venues and performing art organizations. The venue, the one to program performances, has the role of the buyer and the performing art organization, the one to deliver the performance, has the supplier role. The collaborative form referring to in this thesis is thus a buyer-supplier partnership. However most literature regarding buyer-supplier relationships is not applicable when it comes to collaborations between venues and PAOs. First most research regarding buyer-supplier relationships focuses on the advantages for the buyer firm. Those advantages include improvements in new product and service development due to synergy of resources, long-term cost reductions, reduced time-to-market through concurrent design, improvements in conformance quality, reductions in capital investments, risk reduction, and improved process technology adoption (Jonston, McCutcheon & Kerwood, 2004). These advantages are mostly focused on improvements within the firm, while the goal in this study is attracting and reaching audience which is focused outside the company. Next to that most literature regarding buyer-supplier relationships are within the supply chain
management context (Giunipero, Hooker, Joseph-Matthews & Yoon, 2008, Holcomb &Hitt, 2007). It thus makes more sense to view collaborations between PAOs and venues as alliances. Alliances are broader and are mostly aimed at pursing mutual goals, defined as: “agreements
characterized by the commitment of two or more firms to reach a common goal entailing the pooling of their resources and activities” (Teece, 1992, p. 19). When looking from this broader
perspective Pargigiani and Rivera-Santos (2011) propose that all interorganizational relationships can be viewed as a combination of traits originating from two pure forms, exploration and co-exploitation. Co-exploration can be defined as “a strategically important, cooperative relationship
to create new knowledge, tasks, functions, ore activities” (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011, p.
1122). Co-exploitation can then be defined as “a strategically important, cooperative relationship
to execute existing knowledge, tasks, functions, or activities” (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011,
p. 1123).
Out of a study from Ostrower (2003) on the benefits and limitations of partnering within subsidized art organizations it appears that the main focus of collaborations in the performing arts industry concerning reaching and attracting audience are of co-exploitation nature. She found three reasons why subsidized PAOs engage in partnerships. Two of this reasons (building organizational capacity, horizons, growth and expanding organizational networks) have no relationship regarding the topic of this study, hence they will not be further explained. However the third reason, expand and diversify audience, falls into the topic of this thesis and therefore deserves more attention. She claims that collaborations regarding this goal are used especially when organizations want to engage audiences that they find difficult to attract on their own. A partnering organization could then be helpful when they have a greater understanding of the target audience and how to appeal to it and by using a more knowledgeable partner’s advice to engage the target audience. Co-exploitation is thus the form, they use existing partner’s knowledge to engage the target audience.
This implies that knowledge about the audience is one of the most important resources regarding collaborating on attracting and reaching the audience. As stated above collaborations can be used to reach competitive advantage. Therefore it can be interesting to see audience data as the most important resource to gain competitive advantage. In this sense audience data can be viewed through the resource based view (RBV). RBV claims that resources need four attributes to hold the potential of sustained competitive advantages (Barney, 1991). First resources need to be valuable, valuable resources enable a firm to conceive of or implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness. Second resources need to be rare. If a resource is possessed by large numbers of firms, than all these firms can exploit that resource in the same way, which will not lead to a competitive advantage. Third, the resource needs to be imperfectly imitable. When other organizations cannot copy resources easily, although they are valuable and rare, still there will be no competitive advantages. Last resources need to be non-substitutable meaning that it should not be possible to replace resources by any other strategically equivalent resources. This study will further investigate if audience data indeed is one of the most important resources and if it will fit to the RBV and therefore will lead to competitive advantage.
Another study focusing on collaborations in the performing arts industry is conducted by Langeveld et al. (2014). Here it appears that one of the most common areas to collaborate for PAO and venues is regarding the promotion of artistic products (Langeveld, et al., 2014). PAOs and venues have a shared priority in finding an audience for a particular production. Their results show that PAOs and venues attempt to intensify the collaboration on the marketing area with the means they have. As a result of major cutbacks on subsidies in the performing arts industry, there has been a change in the sharing of risk: sharing the risk of ticket sales on so-called ‘partage regeling’ or split-up basis is not natural anymore. The responsibility for the ticket-sales has shifted to the side of the venue, since they are more keen on offering a buy-out sum to theater companies. When it is
the case that PAO and venues share the risk and consequences, this is a stimulation for both parties to work on marketing efforts as sufficient and cooperative as possible. However, according to Langeveld et al. (2014) there are some paradoxical tendencies between venues and PAOs. First a tension is created by the wishes of the main subsidy providers. Venues and PAO receive funding from different grant providers whereof the conditions are not adjacent to each other creating a gap between the chain of producing and presenting. Second a tension rises since venues work together with so many PAOs, who all prefer or need a customized marketing strategy, there is not enough time and money for the marketing department of the venue to deliver a personalized marketing strategy for every performance. Langeveld et al. (2014) describe different levels of collaboration on the marketing and publicity side. From very basic, when the PAO distributes publicity materials to the venue and the venue takes care of a specific marketing strategy, to collaboration between the marketing departments of the PAO and the venue to create a joint marketing structure and both parties put effort in ticket sale. Hereby it is important to note that the relationship between PAO and venues is an ever-changing one, it is influenced by external forces such as subsidy-cuts and the wishes and conditions of several subsidizing parties that are involved in the performing arts sector (Langeveld et al., 2014). This study emphasizes that marketing is thus an important reason to collaborate, however it lacks insights in the partner selection choice, factors influencing the collaboration, and deeper insight in collaborative activities.
Factors influencing collaboration
One of the most extensive studied influencing factors on collaboration is trust. Trust is seen as one of the most important mechanisms in developing collaborative and effective relationships (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). When suppliers trust the buyer firm, this leads to positive outcomes (Johnston,
McCutcheon, Stuard & Kerwood, 2004). Positive outcomes yield reducing conflicts and transactions costs (Dyer & Chu, 2003; Zaheer, McEvily & Perrone, 1998), information sharing (Ebrahim-Khanjari, Hopp, & Iravani, 2012), facilitating knowledge transfer (Levin & Cross, 2004), fostering flexibility (Wathne & Heide, 2000) and strengthening innovation and continuous improvements (Capaldo, 2007; Sako, 1992). Most trust definitions focus on two main elements: “the idea of a belief in the other party being dependable or reliable and, the belief that the other
party would act in the best interest of the partner even if there was no way of checking on or policing behavior” (Johnston et al., 2004: p. 27). This benevolence component grows through acts
or behaviors that demonstrate trustworthiness. Trust is needed and acts as a signal that the receiver firm will not engage in the opportunistic misappropriation of knowledge when the sender firm engages in collaborative activities (Squire, Cousins & Brown, 208). Squire et al. (2008) tested the moderating effect of trust regarding inter-firm knowledge transfer in cooperation projects using manufacturing companies. They proved that trust moderates the influences of cooperation on inter-firm knowledge transfer. Meaning that trust should increase the accuracy and completeness of the knowledge transferred, where participants are prepared to expend extra effort to ensure exactness and are willing to take the risk of openness. Selnes and Sallis (2003) proved in their study using medium to large organizations that relational trust has a positive effect on relationship performance and it facilitates relationship learning.
Apart from trust the level of commitment, defined as “an exchange partner believing that
an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p.23) plays a role regarding the effectiveness of the collaboration. As
proven by Selnes & Sallis (2013) collaborative commitment has a positive effect on relationship learning. Specific for the cultural industry power and reputation has an influence on collaborations. Lehman et al. (2018) conducted a study on network interactions in the arts, where they found
interesting power dynamics between the artist and the distribution group. Reputation plays an important role herein. The reputation of the artist had an impact on the amount of control the artist possessed over the production of their art. The other way around, the power (in terms of its market influence and reputation) possessed by the distribution group impacted how and where the artworks might be presented to the art market for consumption (Lehman et al., 2018).
Marketing in the performing arts industry
Marketing can be seen as a tool to attract customers, thus as a tool to attract and engage audience. Marketing can be defined as “helping organizations to detach from their old values and practices
and reorient themselves around market needs” (Lee, 2005, p.1). In this definition the market or
customer orientation is clearly emphasized. Contrary, in the performing arts industry, especially regarding subsidized organizations, context output is often times created to satisfy the artists’ intrinsic needs, after which it is subsequently presented to the art market for consumption (Lehman, Wickham & Fillis, 2012). Art oftentimes is about renewal, experimenting, and confronting, where the end product is thus product oriented, instead of market or customer oriented. When artists produce art within a feature as familiarity, this may increase appeal to audiences, or political expediency, which might help access external resources. However this is not necessarily related to good art (Hill, O'Sullivan & O'Sullivan, 2003). Thus a customer orientation regarding the arts can be seen as problematic. The product orientation of art and the market or customer orientation of marketing result in a, in the literature highly recognized, tension field among art and marketing. In the literature this tensions holds various terms like “the orientation dilemma” (Lee, 2005), “the arts marketing pitfall” (Boorsma, 2006), “the clash of commerce and culture” (Butler, 2000), “the philosophical clash of ‘art for art’s sake’ versus ‘art for business sake’” (Fillis, 2006), and “the
conflict between excellence and accessibility” (Conway & Whitelock, 2004). However, the arts needs audience in order to survive, as stated by Brown and Patterson (2000), there is no alternative for art and marketing to live together in a constructive way, learning from and understanding one another. Most literature agrees that arts marketing should not be applied to the artwork itself, instead it should be applied to the way the work is described, priced, packaged, enhance and delivered (Kotler & Scheff, 1997). In this sense the artist still has his or her artistic freedom and artistic creation and arts marketing can thus be seen as autonomous tasks, each holding on to its own responsibilities and logic. This tension can serve as a driver for collaboration between PAOs and venues. As stated above the responsibility for the ticket-sales has shifted to the side of the venue, since they are more keen on offering a buy-out sum to PAOs (Langeveld et al., 2014). Where PAOs are responsible for the product, and thus develop the product out of a product orientation, the venue needs to sell this product to the audience. It seems logic that the venues need knowledge of the artistic product from the PAOs to adequately market their performance.
The type of marketing to can have an influence on collaboration. Extended research is available on how arts marketing should be designed. There are two important streams concerning marketing: relationship marketing (building strong, long-term relationships with individual audience members) and transaction marketing (building new audiences). A large amount of research among arts marketing focuses on relationship marketing (Hume, 2008; Lee, 2005; Rentschler, Radbourne, Carr & Rickard, 2001; Quero, 2007). Relationship marketing is developed in the service industry and states that the core of marketing activity should be to develop a long-term relationship with customers (Lee, 2005). Most PAOs put greater effort in attracting new audiences, while existing audience members are taken for granted, however they admit that existing audience members are cheaper to maintain and easier to sell to (Rentschler et al., 2001). Rentschler et al. (2001) emphasize the reliability of the arts organization and the audience: “the organization
invests time, money and commitment to its mission to give the patron a rewarding experience. The audience also invests time, money and an emotional and social commitment in the arts organization” (p. 124). Since the audience deliver value to the arts organization, it is key to build
a relationship with them. It is important to note that in conducting a relationship marketing approach, profit maximization cannot be the short-term goal. Building a relationship asks for incentives and discounts to minimize the risk of losing potential repeating audiences. By reducing this risk, participation will increase which will increase loyalty and thereby increase audiences. Eventually this will be more valuable on the long term (Rentschler et al., 2001). Next to provision of incentives a relationship with audiences is built through personalized customer services and improvement of mutual knowledge (Lee, 2005). However when PAOs and venues collaborate on attracting and engaging audiences, relationship marketing seems like a recipe for conflict. In all probability the venue and the PAO will want to bind the audience to their own organization, resulting in a rivalry around the audience ownership. Within this reasoning transaction marketing seems to be an easier strategy to pursue when PAOs and venues collaborate on attracting/engaging audiences.
There is indeed literature available in favor of transaction marketing. Boorsma (2006) states that the desire to build customer relations expressed in marketing policies should not be merely directed at forging bonds with and expanding the group of frequent audiences, but that infrequent and new audiences should be treated as an important market segments as well. The main argument in her paper holds that arts marketing should primarily aim to reinforce and support the artistic functioning of artworks and that it should focus on the artistic experience as the core customer value. Audience should be seen as co-producers in the total art process, in a way that artistic value emerges in the confrontation with an audience. Throughout the art production new, authentic metaphors are created, which create new aesthetic symbol systems and break down existing ones.
Co-production takes place in the final stage of this art production, here the audience complete the art by giving meaning to the new metaphor and by acknowledging its artist value (Boorsma, 2006). Focusing solely on frequent audiences can raise barriers to the optimization of the art process and the societal functioning of the arts. Boorsma (2006) recommends arts organizations to change their marketing communication activities. Arts organizations should investigate the decision-making behavior of these new and infrequent audiences and provide them with meaningful information. This information should leave out artist’s names and technical jargon, since this information is often meaningless for this type of audience. Moreover word-of-mouth processes should be promoted, since a satisfied customer is a good way of convincing others, and it enables a smooth process of spreading new metaphors. Lastly, art organizations should develop educational programs. In this way new audiences can learn about their co-creative role. Walmsley (2016) emphasizes the importance of co-creation and the role of unexperienced audiences. In his study on audience enrichment through online engagement within dance one of the main findings holds that digital platforms are more effective for non- and infrequent audiences than for frequent audiences. The digital engagement throughout the production process removed a common barrier to artistic impact and enjoyment, which was especially effective for unexperienced audiences since the cultural interpretations where now made cognitively easier.
METHODOLGY
Research Design
Since there is not yet much known about collaboration regarding marketing and knowledge in the performing arts industry, this thesis will be of exploratory nature, and therefore is of inductive nature. Exploratory studies give new insights about a phenomenon in order to determine the nature of the problem and understand the problem better (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). The unit of research will then be a multiple case study. A case study is suitable for studying complex social phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context where the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2003). The methodological choice herein holds a qualitative research method, this is appropriate for exploring and understanding social interactions and makes use of narrative data in a natural setting. Within this exploratory, qualitative case study the unit of analysis is the collaboration between theaters and venues. This research design is particularly suitable for an empirical study on collaborations between performing art organizations and venues towards attracting and engaging audience, since most theory on arts marketing does not focus on collaboration and literature on collaboration in the performing arts industry is limited. As previously discussed performing arts organizations differ in such an extent that regular organizational theory on collaborations are most likely not applicable to this sector. Therefore in order to gain a deeper understanding on how performing art organizations and venues attract and engage their audience through collaborations, this in depth study within the real-life context is needed. Through this deeper understanding it is possible to build theory that is accurate, interesting and testable (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Data Collection & Sampling
To gain more insight in how collaboration between performing art organizations and venues takes place cases needed to be selected. These cases were selected in a non-probability way. More specifically purposive sampling was used for identifying the performing art companies and snowball sampling was used regarding the venues. In order to select the performing art companies’ answers from a general survey, part of a research conducted by dr. A. Alexiev, on collaboration between performing arts companies and venues were used. This survey was set out prior to this research to all performing arts companies who are a member of the labor union Nederlandse Associatie voor Podiumkunsten (NAPK). Performing arts companies that declared participating in collaborations with venues in important strategical alliances and marketing have been selected. In this way it was possible to select the most critical cases, yielding the most information and having the greatest impact on the development of knowledge (Patton, 2002). There lies a limitation within this method of sampling since purposive can be seen as subjective. Although by using a survey to find the most applicable cases it has been attempted to remove this subjectivity. The cases were contacted via e-mail and asked if they were willing to cooperate for being interviewed. All of the contacted performing arts companies agreed to cooperate. After the interviews with the performing arts companies, permission was asked for contacting the venues which they had indicated as their most important partner. These venues were then contacted and interviewed. In the end data is collected through ten interviews, four PAOs, three venues and three production houses who both present and perform, resulting in a total of five cases. All respondents were employed at the concerned PAO or venue and hold a position as CEO, director or marketing manager and were expected to have an appropriate insight regarding the topics of this study. The performing arts industry is a quite diverse industry. This diversity is reflected in the participating PAOs and venues,
the PAOs are focused on theatre, and (modern) dance/ballet and the venues include big theaters as well as small theatres. However despite this variety in respondents, they still comprise a small group of all the existing performing art organizations and venues. Therefore the results are possibly not generalizable. Though the cases are part of a single industry this enhances the validity of the research internally, when generalizing the findings to other industry caution is needed. However since this study is conducted specifically to gain more insight in the performing arts industry, lower generalizability to other industries is not thought of as problematic.
Since this research is of exploratory nature, the layout of the interviews were semi-structured to gain new insights in the phenomenon. These semi-semi-structured interviews made use of open-ended questions, whereby the interviewer had a personal interaction with the respondent, offering the opportunity to treat certain issues in depth (Eisenhardt, 1989). The interview guide approach as outlined by Patton (2002) was used for drawing up the semi-structured interviews. By using this method it ensures a systematic handling of the different participants’ interviews and allows for flexibility, while preventing logical gaps at the same time (Patton, 2002). This flexibility offers opportunities for the respondents to emphasize aspects perceived as important, which provides more insight on new and unexpected approaches to the theoretical concepts applied in the performing arts industry. The interview guide was adjusted along the process. For the interviews with the performing arts companies the interview questions were based on the literature study to provide analytical categories (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). After the interviews with the performing art organizations were conducted, the literature review was extended with topics arising from these interviews. The interview guide was then adjusted for the interviews with the venues using information received during the first interviews and the extended theory gathered. The interview guides can be found in appendix 1 and 2.
Next to the semi-structured interviews, various data sources were deployed in order to gain a wider understanding collaborating of theater companies and venues regarding reaching and attracting audience, which makes this a multi method study. These include complementing documents like year reports of the performing art organizations and venues, news articles of the specific companies on relevant topics, and the theoretical framework. This use of multiple data sources adopt to data triangulation, which increases the scope, deepens understanding and provides stronger validation of the research construct (Tracy, 2010). In order to strengthen the reliability of the case study a case study database was used, involving all of the collected data.
Case descriptions
In the following part general information regarding the individual organizations is discussed as well as information regarding the collaboration.
Toneelgroep Oostpool & Introdans & Stadstheater Arnhem
Stadstheater Arnhem is a theater venue with a large (735 seats) as well as a small stage (200 seats). It has a three folded goal: artistically, commercially and socially. Artistically in that they want to show everything the performing arts industry has to offer, all sorts of music, plays, dance, cabaret, musicals etc. Commercially in that they exploit their facilities for congresses or events. Socially in that they want to attract new target groups, more diversity, and do things around education. Toneelgroep Oostpool (TgO) is a subsidized PAO focusing on theater positioned in Arnhem. Its goal is the creation of artistically daring and socially concerned theater performances, thereby asking the audience the question: How to be human nowadays? Introdans is a subsidized PAO focusing on dance situated in Arnhem. It wants to introduce dance to an audience as large as
possible by creating dance performances with high accessibility and being visible all over the country. The fact that these three companies are located in the same city is the main reason that they have formed a collaboration. This first express itself in that both Introdans and TgO are the house companies of Stadstheater Arnhem, resulting in getting the attention they deserve regarding Stadstheater Arnhem’s programming. For Introdans this means that all their productions premiere at Stadstheater Arnhem, and that they perform their Christmas production and their end of season production exclusively at Stadstheater Arnhem. TgO’s productions for large theaters (grotezaalvoorstellingen) too mostly premiere at Stadstheater Arnhem. Next to that TgO organize festival weeks at Stadstheater Arnhem, where they offer the audience a diverse variation of activities. In January 2016 these three organizations, together with Het Gelders Orkest, have formed a deeper alliance, resulted in the “Lauwersgracht Alliantie”. This alliance comes forth out of the wish of all involved parties to get closer to the audience. Trust plays an important factor within the formation of this alliance, the organizations state that they started with trust as a basis, This trust has grown along the process by getting to know each other better and informal contact. They trust that all parties involved approach the alliance realistic and wants what is best for the audience, that emotion does not take the upper hand. The alliance has among others the goal to differentiate, enlarge, and broaden the audience reach in the east of the Netherlands and beyond. With this alliance they want to reinforce each other regarding innovation and strategy developments improving the audience reach. They want to collaborate content wise, organizational and physical. So far it has resulted in a coproduction and (financially) support from the coalition of the township Arnhem for their plans of rebuilding the Stadstheater Arnhem where both TgO and Introdans will settle. . Rebuilding the venue is of great importance in enhancing a better connection with the audience. One shared location will be of added value regarding accessibility, visibility of the creation process, interaction and participation. All parties highlight that the new building needs
to be transparent, that it needs to be an inviting place towards the audience. They want to break out of the image of a venue as a hermetically closed building by for instance education activities, participating activities, open repetitions, lunchbreak performances, and eating and drinking facilities. By settling in one building, they believe that they can strengthen each other content wise, in marketing and audience reach. As Stadstheater Arnhem emphasizes, they, for example will take into account the interests of Introdans, and will therefore never program Introdans and another renowned dance company in the same week. Although moving in one building will result in more connection between the parties, they all emphasize that they keep their own brand, it will not be a merger. But within their own brands, they will reinforce each other and be more visible to the audience.
Toneelschuur / Toneelschuur Producties & Theater Kikker
Toneelschuur/ Toneel Producties (from hereof referred to as Toneelschuur) is an organization who produces as well as presents theatre productions located in Haarlem. They focus on the creation of distinctive theater that matters and is of social relevance. They offer creators customized trajectories, multi-year connections, an adequate budget and a large network of expert and involved coaches, where they can develop their own signature. Theater Kikker is a venue with two small stages (170 and 70 seats) and situated in Utrecht. Its goal is to provide an audience for creators. They see themselves as a mediator, wherein they are selective in what they want to show to their audience. They stage productions that are experimental and/or innovative in their content or form. Next to Theater Kikker has Utrecht one other venue, Stadsschouwburg Utrecht which holds a large and a small stage. Around 7 years ago, Toneelschuur first consulted the Stadsschouwburg Utrecht regarding programming their performances and wanted to program what was left at Theater Kikker.
Theater Kikker then started a conversation, since they did not want to be second choice. In this conversation they discussed which of the creators of the Toneelschuur fit within the profile of Theater Kikker, and this creators then get unconditionally programmed at Theater Kikker. Theater Kikker thus emphasize that they do not program the Toneelschuur as an organization, but program creators of the Toneelschuur. However they do provide a stage for Toneelschuur productions when these productions do not fit at the Stadsschouwburg Utrecht as well as Theater Kikker, since Theater Kikker feels the responsibility towards the Toneelschuur to be able to perform in Utrecht. Toneelschuur nowadays considers Theater Kikker as one of their most important venues. Next to this buyer-supplier relationship Theater Kikker and the Toneelschuur are both part of the so called ‘Coproducers’ and the Vlakkevloer Platform (VVP). The Coproducers were found in 2013 and consist in total of 7 (producing) venues. The Coproducers support two productions per season with a starting capital and a guarantee of at least 20 play turns and provide input in a broad marketing campaign. By doing this they want to attract a broad audience and create a greater support for ‘vlakkevloer’ theatre. In 2018 these same seven (producing) venues have, together with seven other (producing) venues, formed the VVP. The VVP serves the interest of the ‘vlakkevloer’ theatre and strive towards the goal of promoting production, presentation, and audience reach of innovative theatre.
Noord Nederlands Toneel / Club Guy and Roni & Stadsschouwburg Groningen
Noord Nederlands Toneel (NNT)/Club Guy and Roni, located in Groningen, are two different PAOs, but act as one company and share the same artistic and business director. Together they form an interdisciplinary house for productions meant for large theaters where dance, music, and theater are the most important pillars. The want to create innovative productions which they callthe theater of the present and the language of the present, where all kinds of disciplines come together. Stadsschouwburg Groningen, located in Groningen has a large (750 seats) and a small (100 seats) stage. It focusses on the more artistically and newer artists, in this sense they see themselves as product oriented and fulfil the goal of finding and connecting audience. The foundation of the relationship between NNT and the Stadsschouwburg Groningen has been laid out of the wish of the previous general director of NNT. This started with the wish to do series performances at the Stadsschouwburg Groningen. Since then the relationship has grown, nowadays NNT/Club Guy & Roni is the house company of the Stadsschouwburg Groningen. Stadsschouwburg Groningen has around 500 different performances per year that they show, therefor they need to make choices which title to give extra attention. They have calculated that if they would divide their marketing time equally, every title would receive six hours of marketing time, which would result in shallow marketing efforts. As a result they give every performance a minimal basis marketing attention, but some PAO get more attention. Since NNT/ Club Guy & Roni is their home company, and therefore have the most play dates and since they share a common vision they get extra attention. They collaborate on an intense level when it comes to marketing, financially and content wise. They brainstorm together on what kind of promotion activities to do, where NNT/Club Guy and Roni mostly deliver the artistically content and the Stadsschouwburg Groningen advices in how to market this towards the audience. Since the audience buys their tickets at the Stadsschouwburg Groningen they have ownership of the audience data, NNT/Club Guy and Roni is therefore dependent on the Stadsschouwburg Groningen when it comes to reaching the audience. They even exchanged their head marketing managers. Next to that NNT/Club Guy and Roni are able to do series performance of five to twelve times per title, they premiere in the Stadsschouwburg Groningen, they are the first PAO the Stadsschouwburg Groningen talks to when it comes to programming, and they do their montage at the Stadsschouwburg and are therefore able
to organize public repetitions. Lastly on their initiative a Theater workplace, De Wijk De Wereld, is created where together with inhabitants of a certain area in Groningen a performance is created, resulting in theater, dance, music and film performances showed at the Stadsschouwburg Groningen. Their collaboration has resulted in a growing audience and growing mutual interests.
Noord Nederlands Toneel / Club Guy and Roni & Het Nationale Theater
NNT/Club Guy & Roni have formed collaborations with their nine most important venues in the Netherlands. One of these venues is Het Nationale Theater (HNT). HNT, located in Den Haag, is the product of a merger between de Koninklijke Schouwburg Den Haag, Theater aan het Spui and Het Nationale Toneel, and is therefore a producing as well as a presenting organization. They strive to show the best Dutch theater has to offer at the best possible place. Next to that they want to serve an audience as large as possible through their own productions as well as in what they present, they want to matter. They ask question regarding the actuality, politics, life and invite to meet, experience art, and debate. The collaboration between NNT/Club Guy and Roni and HNT, means in the first place that there is a mutual trust resulting in unconditionally programming the work of NNT/Club Guy and Roni in HNT. This comes forth out of a shared vision on theatre. Next to that they have collaborated in promoting a performance of NNT/Club Guy and Roni. They have reached a specific target group, which suited a certain performance of NNT/Club Guy and Roni, who had none experience with theatre. Together they organized a guided tour, informative talks, an introduction and access to the performance itself at HNT. Thus together they reached and attracted an audience who had none experience with theatre, gave them attention and provided the necessary information to make it worthwhile experience. This collaboration has been such a success, that they will continue this kinds of activities with NNT/Club Guy and Roni’s next performance.
Nederlands Dans Theater & Nationale Opera & Ballet
The Nederlands Dans Theater (NDT) goal is to create dance art, resulting in new, innovative modern ballet productions. Every year they produce approximated 10 world premières performed across the Netherlands and international locations. NDT has the preference of doing all the marketing on their own, and therefore wants ownership of the audience data which normally is in hands of the venue. They have two strategies to gain access to the audience data. First by renting the venue, second by being included in the funnel of the ticket selling process. Meaning that the audience when buying a ticket is asked if they agree that their personal data is shared with this particular PAO. The first strategy is seen in the collaboration with the Nationale Opera & Ballet. The Nationale Opera & Ballet has the goal to keep opera and ballet alive as an art form and to develop these art forms, they are a producing as well as a presenting organization with a theatre which has space for 1594 audience numbers. NDT had a wish of collecting data of Amsterdam based audience. They started with collecting this data by doing a project at the Gashouder in Amsterdam. This was needed since they were not able to perform at the Nationale Opera & Ballet because they were involved in a merger, and the other venue they performed in Amsterdam was not willing to share their audience data. However at a certain point, after the merger was complete, the Nationale Opera & Ballet had room for programming NDT. They were willing to let NDT rent the venue whereby giving NDT ownership of the audience data. By renting the venue from Nationale Opera & Ballet, NDT takes responsibility for marketing and the numbers of ticket sold. Nationale Opera & Ballet focusses on classical ballet, although they also have a modern ballet program more similar to the work of NDT. In the opinion of the Nationale Opera & Ballet, giving NDT a stage in their venue is beneficial for ballet lovers in Amsterdam. The supply of modern ballet is more extensive and, although they can be seen as competitors, giving NDT a stage can be
mutual reinforcing in attracting audiences. Content wise the Nationale Opera & Ballet is responsible for audience contact, they send out e-mails on behalf of NDT and ticket selling runs through their website. Next to that they give some marketing attention in their newsletter and social media accounts. However they don’t invest a great amount in marketing NDT, since they don’t carry the financial risk. Since NDT rents the venue, they have complete insight in the audience data, and although the ticket selling runs through the website of Nationale Opera and Ballet, Nationale Opera & Ballet doesn’t have access to this data. Since NDT rents the Nationale Opera & Ballet and have thus access to the audience data, and do their own marketing, they have seen their ticket selling grow from 60% to selling out.
Analytical strategy
All semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded with permission and transcribed in order to analyse the data and provide conclusions. All interviews and data were collected in a so called case study database, as advocated by Yin (1994). In order to follow a process of constant comparison, all transcriptions were analysed and categorized in NVivo (Pope et al., 2000). Both a deductive- and inductive approach were used when coding. First codes derived from the theory, the others derived during the analysing process. Coding was used to find and structure common themes on why venues and PAOs form collaborations, on which factors influence these collaborations and on the outcomes of the collaborations, enabling to organize and group similarly coded data into categories (Saldana, 2012). The coding guide can be found in appendix 3. The following process was conducted: The transcripts were first uploaded in Nvivo, which created a new project. Next all transcripts were read thoroughly. Thereafter passages on coding words which were developed out of theory and inspiring and interesting passages that emerged were coded. In this way the
similarities and differences of the cases were ordered. To count occurrences of codes and to perform text searches the software was used. All this resulted in a reduction of the data, and summarizing and interpreting of the data could be proceeded.
When analyzing the data the explanation building technique was used. This technique is a special type of pattern matching and is a suitable technique within this thesis since explanation building seeks explanations of phenomenon, process tracing and it is a useful technique to develop ideas for further study (Yin, 2003). Explanation building is used to explain why something happens. After the coding process several statements per case were made, concerning why venues and PAOs enter in collaborations, what they collaborate upon and what influences this collaborations. An iterative process has then taken place, to compare the different statements within the different cases. In the end proving these patterns in why collaboration takes place, what influences this collaborations and what the collaborative activities include will lead to the answer of the main research question and will eventually result in building new theory.
RESULTS
This section will present the results derived from the collected data in order to answer the research question: How do venues and subsidized performing arts organizations collaborate in order to attract/engage audiences and what factors influences this collaboration? This section starts with an explanation why collaborations are needed in and a description of activities regarding reaching and attracting audience, to provide a better understanding of this main concept. After that the factors influencing the collaboration will be discussed. Taken together this results in a theoretical framework for understanding collaborations between venues and PAOs in order to reach and attract audience. To take anonymity into account, the quotes given are not referenced.
Why collaborate
All PAOs emphasize challenges when it comes to attracting and reaching audience. In all interviews with PAOs it is mentioned that they experience a lack in marketing attention from venues, resulting in difficulties regarding attracting audience. PAOs have the idea that venues program too many productions, and therefore are unable to promote all of the performances since they don’t want to bombard their audience. PAOs have the idea that venues more often choose to put their marketing time and effort in promoting commercial performances like musicals, because these performances hold a higher financial risk since they are more expensive to program. Next to that they generate more profit because the ticket prices are higher.
“Look, the commercial things are more expensive, so they just need to invest a lot to try to get as many audience as possible to this commercial productions, because that makes money”
These speculations of the PAOs are recognized in a statement from the venue side:
“Do we, for a performance which already has sold for example 300 tickets, need to try to make it 400/500 tickets. Because it may be easier than try to lift the ticket sale of a performance which has sold 50 tickets to 200. Unfortunately, the Netherlands is judged on quantity. You only have X possibilities, so you need to choose sometimes. And is than a smarter choice to focus on the one of 300 than the one of 50. That is accepting that a performance who actually deserves it more artistically, gets the worst of it.”
The most important challenge, when it comes to reaching audience, lies in the fact that the venue has the ownership of the audience data since ticket selling goes via the venue. This challenge is mentioned by every PAO. Because the PAOs do not have insight in the audience data, they do not know who their actual audience is and are therefore not able to reach their audience.
“The complicated thing of the relation between producer and venue, is that the venue has the ownership of all the audience data. So they do our ticket sales. Therefore it is complicated for us to know who our audience is.”
“"While you are ultimately playing for that audience and that audience is in the box office of the theater. They are also on top of that, now completely in the context of privacy legislation. We do not really know who our customers are. We play an evening, get applause in Groningen, but yes, you just miss that contact. "
Viewing this challenge from the venue side, there are two main reasons why they are not keen on sharing this data with the PAOs. First they state that they are not allowed to share this data because of privacy regulation. Second, they are cautious when it comes to their audience, when they share audience data like e-mail addresses, they fear that every PAO will contact their audience, resulting
in an overload of e-mails. In this sense they want to control the information towards their audience and want to protect them from being bombarded by PAOs.
"Well, I mean you have to protect the people. People who say, we think this is a nice theater, I want to share my name and address. This also means that you have a duty that you take good care of the name and address data, it is your audience and thus you also have to protect it a bit. Also because it is actually your gold of your organization, if it is good. "
"Because if I give the address to the Noord Nederlands Toneel, that one customer of mine, then he is out of sight. Then it may be that the Noord Nederlands Toneel will spam him every week. And I do not want that, because it is my customer in origin. So that's it. "
Reaching and attracting audience
Collaborations provide solutions regarding the above mentioned challenges. When collaborating the goals and the interests of the particular PAOs and venues become more aligned, resulting in collaborative activities regarding reaching and attracting audience. The interview data showed seven collaborative activities in order to reach and attract audience: (1) advertising, (2) unconditional programming, (3) premières, (4) series performances, (5) organizing special events around a performance, (6) participation projects, (7) moving in one building. These activities will be further explained below.
Advertising
Advertising in the performing arts industry mostly is about internet marketing (for example google analytics, search engine optimization) and creating content. Creating content is necessary to provide potential audience with an image of what they can expect. Especially since subsidized
PAOs sell art, they sell something unknown. Through content creation they try to make their performance as transparent as possible. This content then varies from imageries like trailers, teasers, photos, posters, program books to written/spoken content often in the form of free publicity like interviews, pre-articles reviews. When collaboration takes place regarding traditional marketing activities, this means that venues put more effort in marketing then only using the by the PAOs distributed publicity materials. This means that they together target the most important target group. PAOs need venues when it comes to targeting the right target group, since the venue knows their audience the best and has the ownership of the audience data.
“We also see that with our own productions while traveling. You can deliver a lot, but the cities that invite you to come and play your performance, if it's good they know their city the best. In other words, you also need them.”
The PAO is the one who creates the content, since they have ownership of the product to sell, however collaboration can mean that the venue has an advising role in the creation of the content. In this advising role they use their knowledge of the audience and provide advice on how the audience will receive the created content.
"And what we do is that the marketing department tests images with the department there, how do you see it at as a stage? That is very much tested against each other. So that is also very valuable, that you can use the knowledge and viewing mode of a stage, who you just really trust, in your own choices. "
Unconditional programming
Unconditional programming means that venues program a certain PAO no matter what, for example when a PAO has a performance with an unknown title, the venue will still program them.
This means that the PAO is able to develop more experimental and new work, since they have assurance that those venues will buy these ‘harder to understand’ performances.
"There is a lot of confidence in that, if only once you come up with a production that looks more experimental, or that is more exciting, that they say okay, we support you through thick and thin.”
This is important, since subsidized PAO has to produce newer and more experimental art, since that is one of the reasons they obtain subsidy. However this more experimental work is most often harder to sell, since there is no demand for. This means more uncertainty regarding ticket sales and a greater financial risk for venues when they program this type of performances. For the audience this new, experimental work is harder to understand compared to commercial performances like for example musicals or cabaret. However more experienced audiences tend to be more benevolent towards this more difficult performances. So unconditional programming in the end also contributes to the development of more experienced audiences, which can be advantageous for the whole subsidized performing arts industry, since experienced audience are likely to visit performances more often.
"Yes and the development of the audience also plays a part in this. I mean by showing what we think is relevant and what is perhaps not completely finished, or sometimes still unpolished but what does show future and new lines, the audience is also included in the development of performing arts and we often get back from groups that the audience looks so benevolently here. But actually they are generally quite used to seeing new things, so a kind of open-minded attitude and not something that is neatly cut and ready-made. But that actually curiosity is the main motivation to come and see things."
Premières
PAOs often choose the venue which they have the strongest collaboration with for their premières. Premièring at the same venue contributes in creating an image for the venue towards their audience, they state that this PAO is connected with their venue, it shows a certain loyalty and gives the audience a way to find their way back.
"More specifically, Arnhem, where we bring all our productions, we have 4 productions per year, which we all premiere in Arnhem. So that is a more special collaboration. "
Next to that premières can serve as a special opportunity to reach and attract a new type of audience which can contribute to the image and proposition of the venue.
"That at the premiere more than half is filled with audiences of non-Dutch origin. Where many Moroccan women celebrate. That is not a nostalgic show about Moroccan culture, which is just a very fierce emancipators show with Moroccan food and music and dancing. That involves a year and a half of work, but it fits within our goal. We want to break this house and make more people come out of the city, as if it is a reflection of society. "
Series performances
A collaboration between a PAO and venue often results in series performances, meaning that the PAO is able to perform a particular show multiple times in a row in a certain venue.
"We have a few theaters where, when we talk about stage productions, they take all the performances and program more days by default. So there is real, that is just commitment. "
Series performances have advantages for both the venue, the PAO and the audience. For the venue programming a certain performance multiple times can contribute to the profile of the venue. With series performances the venue shows that they think that particular performance is worth seeing.
