The Influence of Expert-Reviewers on the Consumption of High-Culture and Popular Culture Theatre

The Influence of Expert-Reviewers on the

Consumption of High-Culture and Popular

Culture Theatre

Master thesis

Written by

Marieke Tiesinga Mlitt

Student Number: 1618415

First supervisor: Dr. Noseleit

Second supervisor: Dr. Broekhuizen

MSc BA Strategy and Innovation

Faculty of Economics and Business

1

Abstract

This research examines the way expert-reviews influence the consumption of popular culture and high-culture theatre. The findings of the research are based on a comparative case study of a show from a high-culture producer and a show from a popular culture producer. Reviews of these shows were analysed and interviews were held with the two producers and with an industry expert. The findings indicate that the number and visibility of reviews influence ticket sales of both high-culture and popular culture theatre, but that the favourableness of reviews solely influences ticket sales of high-culture shows. Popular culture visitors generally read reviews before visiting a performance and use the descriptive information in reviews for their selection decisions. They tend to read reviews after a performance in order to relive the experience. High-culture theatre visitors mainly read reviews after visiting a performance in order to test their own judgment which influences how the reader formulates the experience. This influences the nature of word-of-mouth and the adoption of future shows. The influence of reviews is stronger for high-culture shows since they contain more credence attributes and less related search and experience attributes that can signal the quality of the credence attributes. Other moderators are the degree to which the reader values a certain reviewer and the extent to which different reviewers agree.

2

Table of Contents

1.3 Structure of the Research………-6-

2. Literature Review……….-7-

2.1 Search, Experience and Credence Goods………..-7-

2.2 Quality of Credence Goods...-8-

2.3 Gatekeepers………...………...-10- 2.4 Gatekeepers in Theatre...…...……….-18- 3. Methodology………...-28- 3.1 Research Approach...………...-28- 3.2 Case Study…….………...-29- 3.3 Data Collection..………...-30- 3.4 Data Analysis………-32- 4. Findings………...-33- 4.1 Elements of Reviews …….………...-33- 4.2 Interview Categories……….-36- 4.3 Roles of Reviewers………..………...-40- 5. Discussion………...-42-

5.1 Modified Research Model...……… ………...-42-

5.2 Types of Influence of Reviews………...-43-

5.3 Moderators………...-48-

5.4 Theoretical and Managerial Implications……….……...………...-52-

5.5 Limitations and Future Research………..………-54-

3

Bibliography………...-58-

Appendixes………...-66-

Appendix 1. Backgrounds of Reviewers………..………-66-

Appendix 2. Elements in Reviews of “Medea” and “Zorro”..………...-67-

4

"All art is quite useless."

1. Introduction

The recent funding cuts in the arts sector have caused debate on whether arts organisations are able to survive without subsidy. In the Netherlands, high-culture art used to rely on subsidy. Popular culture arts, which can be described as less complex and for which less cultural knowledge is required for consumption (Caves, 2000), generally do not need subsidy since they attract a larger audience (Tobias, 2004). One of the ways of coping with funding cuts for high-culture arts is by attracting more visitors. In order to do so, arts organisations need to be aware of the factors that influence the adoption of their goods. This research focuses on one of these factors: the influence of gatekeepers on the adoption of cultural credence goods. The influence of one type of gatekeeper, the expert-reviewer, is examined for the theatre sector. A comparative case study of a high-culture show and a popular culture show is carried out in order to identify similarities and differences in the influence of reviews on these different types of theatre.

1.1. Relevance

Due to recent funding cuts in the Dutch arts sector, research that provides insights in factors that influence the adoption of credence goods is especially relevant for current providers of credence goods in the creative industries since the decrease in subsidy has caused these organisations to be more dependent on audience numbers for their income. Furthermore, gatekeepers such as reviewers are likely to also play a role in the adoption of goods outside the creative industries. Therefore, not only managers supplying credence goods within the creative industries, but also managers providing other goods for which reviews and opinions of experts play a role in adoption decisions can benefit from the findings of this research. Since almost all products will constitute at least some credence qualities, research on credence goods could provide insights for producers of all types of goods (Hahn, 2004). Furthermore, new product adoption literature has mainly focused on technological products (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, research on the adoption of credence goods will contribute to the relatively small knowledge base on this topic and may stimulate further research in this area. While most research on theatre reviews (e.g. Boerner et al., 2011; Boerner and Jobst, 2008; Boerner and Renz, 2008; Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003) has used consumers as the primary data source, this research focuses on the supply-side of theatre and on the products or services supplied by gatekeepers themselves. By using these different data

5 sources this research may lead to new insights. In addition, while much of the research that focused on the influence of expert-reviews on theatre was quantitative (e.g. Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003; Shrum, 1991), this qualitative research will provide more in-depth information on the relationships that were identified by existing research. Thus, this research is a response to the call of Hesmondhalgh and Pratt (2005) for more qualitative research on cultural organizations. Hesmondalgh and Pratt explain that while the existing quantitative research on the cultural industries are suitable for market making, qualitative research is needed in order to completely understand the organizational and institutional context of this industry. In addition, qualitative research is useful for the development of hypotheses which is especially important since it was earlier mentioned that the knowledge base on the adoption of non-technological credence goods is relatively less developed. Finally, this research follows the recommendation of Gemser et al. (2007), who researched the influence of reviews on high-culture and popular culture films, to carry out similar research in other cultural fields.

1.2 Research Question

The objective of this research is to provide insights in how gatekeepers influence the adoption of credence goods amongst consumers. Credence goods are goods of which the value is difficult to determine even after consumption (Darby and Karni, 1973).

This has led to the following research question: “In what ways do expert-reviews influence the consumption of high-culture and popular culture theatre?”

The research question is divided into the following sub questions:

1. What types of influence do expert-reviews of theatre have on consumer demand directly? 2. In what way do expert-reviews of theatre influence consumer demand indirectly by

influencing the show itself?

6

1.3 Structure of the Research

7

“The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.”

2. Literature Review

This literature review starts with discussing the concept of credence goods and how their quality can be determined. Then, the concept of gatekeepers is introduced and their influence on the demand for cultural credence goods is discussed. Finally, the influence of one type of gatekeeper, expert-reviewers of theatre, is described more elaborately and possible differences of this influence on the adoption of high-culture theatre and popular culture theatre are discussed.

2.1 Search, Experience and Credence Goods Nelson (1970) describes two ways in which consumers can judge the quality of goods. First, consumers can search for information about different options before purchasing a good. The second way is by purchasing several goods and assessing quality by experiencing the good. The consumer’s approach depends on the relative costs of the search and experience approaches. Nelson (1970) explains this by stating that when the costs of experimenting are low, the consumer is less willing to undertake a search that involves high search costs. Darby and Karni (1973) were the first to add the term credence attributes to the existing literature about search and experience attributes. The three types of attributes can be defined as: “search qualities which are known before purchase, experience qualities which are known costlessly only after purchase, and credence qualities which are expensive to judge even after purchase” (Darby and Karni, 1973: 69). Goods are almost never complete credence goods since consumers will always be able to judge at least some extent of the quality of a good after consumption (Hahn, 2004). On the other hand, Hahn explains that many goods contain credence attributes since it is often difficult to determine what the value of goods will be after some time has passed. This is in line with Grolleau’s and Caswell’s (2005) description of goods as bundles of different attributes. However, while a good never consists of attributes from solely one category it is often possible to distinguish one dominant category. Thus, for the purpose of this research, credence goods are defined as goods of which the dominant category is credence attributes, even though search and experience attributes might also be present.Hahn (2004) breaks with the traditional view of considering all consumers of credence goods as non-experts by acknowledging that consumers differ in the extent to which

8 they are able to judge the quality of credence goods. Thus, for some consumers the costs of assessing the quality of credence goods may be relatively lower.

For search goods the value is often reflected in the price of the good, while this value is less directly represented in the prices of experience and credence goods (Dolfsma, forthcoming). However, the price for both search and experience goods is influenced by whether the good is produced for a mass market or for a niche market (Bergemann and Välimäki, 2006). For credence goods, since value is difficult to determine in general, consumers can make assumptions about the quality of the good based on its price (Grolleau and Caswell, 2005). The idea that a higher price may indicate a higher quality of a good is in line with the concept of giffen goods. For giffen goods the relationship between price and demand is positive over a certain interval (Dougan, 1982). Cespa (2005) explains that this is due to information asymmetries, where an increase in price signals an increase in value of the good. Since consumers of credence goods possess a lack of information on a good, some credence goods could be characterised as giffen goods. However, since price is just one of the many factors that could help to explain the value of credence goods, we expect that knowing the price will not be sufficient for determining the value of a credence good. Thus, whether a certain credence good can be regarded as a giffen good depends on the importance of price in indicating quality relative to other possible quality signals. The next paragraph will elaborate on how quality of credence goods can be determined.

2.2 Quality of Credence Goods

9 When determining quality, consumers rely on intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Grolleau and Caswell, 2005; Zeithaml, 1988). While “intrinsic cues involve the physical composition of the product”, “extrinsic cues are product-related but not part of the physical product itself” (Zeithaml, 1988: 6). Information about intrinsic attributes can have a search, experience or credence character while information on extrinsic attributes, such as labels, certification, brand name, packaging and price, always contains a search character since they convey information available before consumption (Grolleau and Caswell, 2005). According to Grolleau and Caswell, consumers generally use a combination of these different information sources for assessing the quality of goods.

10 Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of search, experience and credence goods described in this literature review

Characteristics Search goods Experience goods Credence goods

Dominant category of attributes

Search attributes Experience attributes Credence attributes Quality can be

determined…

Prior consumption After consumption Difficult to determine prior and after consumption Influence of price Value reflected in

price, but price depends on type of market

Value less clear from price, price depends on type of market

Value difficult to determine, price only small impact on value determination Extrinsic or intrinsic

attributes

Extrinsic and intrinsic attributes

Intrinsic attributes Intrinsic attributes

2.3 Gatekeepers

2.3.1 Definition of gatekeepers

11 Selectors often have much influence on the demand for cultural goods (Mol and Wijnberg, 2007). This is because many cultural goods are credence goods. Therefore, their value is difficult to determine which causes the value of expertise to increase. With regard to cultural credence goods, the degree to which consumers are able to make a decision about purchasing or consuming a good without the help of experts or of certain peers depends not particularly on the amount of technological knowledge, but rather on the amount of cultural capital they possess. Experts possess a high amount of cultural capital, which involves the amount of knowledge an individual possesses about cultural goods (Bourdieu, 1993). In addition, the influence of an expert generally increases when the expert also possesses symbolic capital which means that the person has high-status and/or is well-known in the field (Bourdieu, 1993). According to Townley et al. (2009) both cultural and symbolic capital are crucial for experts to credibly determine the significance of a cultural good. Moreover, these types of capital help to create the identity of the expert (Townley et al., 2009). Bourdieu (1993) explains that while it is possible for the possession of cultural or symbolic capital to lead to an increase in economic capital this is not necessarily the case. An inverse relationship can also be present when economic success impedes the acquisition of symbolic capital. This happens when a good is seen as too commercial to be regarded as “real art”. Townley et al. (2009) propose that legitimacy consists of two principles; symbolic and economic capital. While for successful cultural goods the possession of symbolic capital is sufficient, for goods to be economically viable a balance between the two types of capital must be found. Expert selectors possessing cultural and symbolic capital are often referred to as gatekeepers (Caves, 2000; Hirsch, 1972; Towse, 2003; Velthuis, 2003). These gatekeepers can be regarded as “surrogate consumers” since they preselect goods for consumers (Hirsch, 1972). In other words, they choose from an oversupply of cultural goods which goods will be put on the market (Towse, 2003). This oversupply is due to considerable demand uncertainty present in the creative industries, which can be distinguished from other industries according to Hartley (2005) by the importance of creative individuals as labour inputs and of which the performing arts sector forms a part. This demand uncertainty causes producers of cultural goods to produce an abundant amount of goods rather than putting all their eggs in one basket by producing and promoting only a few goods (Hirsch, 1972).

12 market selection. Even though the definition of gatekeepers in this research ascribes a pre-selection function to them, this pre-pre-selection only applies to goods that were already internally selected to be put on the market. Therefore, this research will focus on market selection, rather than on internal selection even though the two concepts may influence each other, for example when producers adjust their products to the preferences of gatekeepers. Internal selection can also influence market selection, for example when producers influence the preferences of gatekeepers.

Another field in which the term gatekeeper is used is in research on networks. In network literature gatekeepers are the actors in a network that have access to external information and external partners and therefore play an important role in diffusing this information throughout the network (Graf, 2011). A similarity between this definition and the definition used in this research is that gatekeepers intermediate between different parties. However, while expert knowledge is an important function of the gatekeepers in this research, the network definition of gatekeeper does not refer to this expert knowledge, but only refers to having access to information from a party that other actors of the network do not have. Thus, network gatekeepers intermediate between actors because they have access to information from several parties. Gatekeepers of cultural credence goods mediate between consumers and producers who do have access to each other and to each other’s information. However, these gatekeepers fulfil an additional role by providing consumers with expert opinions that cannot be obtained by simply contacting the other party.

13 Thus, for the purpose of this research, gatekeepers can be placed on a continuum of a pre-selection role and an influencing role and their place on this continuum depends on the influence they have on consumers and on the number of other ways for a cultural good to reach an audience.

2.3.2 Roles of gatekeepers

Mol and Wijnberg (2011) distinguish two main roles for gatekeepers. First, by scanning the environment gatekeepers determine which producers are regarded as “the set of legitimate competitors”. Second, from this set of competitors gatekeepers select certain producers and make comparisons. Howells (2006) divides the function of intermediaries into ten specific roles:

1. “Foresight and diagnostics” involves identifying new needs.

2. “Scanning and information processing” involves the gathering of information.

3. “Knowledge processing and combination/recombination”. In this role intermediaries combine knowledge of different parties and modify and transfer knowledge to the client. 4. “Gatekeeping and brokering” entails mediation in deal making between the different

parties.

5. “Testing and validation” comprises of testing, creating prototypes, the validation of used methods and training.

6. “Accreditation” involves the setting of standards.

7. “Validation and regulation” deals with creating both informal and formal regulation and mediating in conflicts between parties.

8. “Protecting the results” entails recommendations about intellectual property and intellectual property management.

9. “Commercialisation” involves marketing and sales activities. 10. “Evaluation of outcomes” comprises of a performance evaluation.

14 could be regarded as an indication that experts create value. If experts would not create any value these specialised organisations would not be able to survive. According to de Roeper (2008) gatekeepers can add value to three different parties. First, a gatekeeper adds value to artists when they remain true to the artist’s purpose and help the artist to tell his or her story. Second, the gatekeeper adds value to the audience when they give the audience access to an experience they will enjoy. Third, gatekeepers can contribute to profits for investors. De Roeper demonstrates that the roles of gatekeepers differ for each type of gatekeeper by stating that predicting future trends, similar to role one of Howells, is especially important for commercial gatekeepers (e.g. publishers and commercial film directors) and less important for gatekeepers who work for organizations that are partially or completely funded by the government. While de Roeper distinguishes between commercial and subsidised gatekeepers, a distinction can also be made between the roles of gatekeepers who express their opinion about subsidised, high-culture goods and those who discuss commercial, popular culture goods. The roles of these gatekeepers are likely to be different as well. These possible differences are discussed in paragraph 2.4.4.

2.3.3 Influence on cultural credence goods

Darby and Karni (1973) propose that the frequency of purchase influences the extent to which consumers are led by gatekeepers. While consumers generally rely on their own knowledge when it comes to frequently purchased goods, for experience and credence goods that are infrequently purchased consumers often find it cheaper to depend on the expertise of others. Furthermore, for frequently purchased goods it is easier for consumers to use search and experience attributes as indicators of credence attributes which reduces the dependence on information from third-parties (Grolleau and Caswell, 2005). Thus, gatekeepers possess more influence over consumer-decisions in case of infrequently purchased goods. Generally, theatre performances are infrequently purchased goods since research in 2007 indicated that average Dutch consumers go to the theatre only one to four times a year (www.moose.nl). This number is relatively small compared to the consumption of other cultural credence goods such as watching films and listening to music which are much more often consumed by average consumers. Listening to music can even be said to be consumed on a daily basis. This implies that the dependence on gatekeepers in the theatre sector may be higher than in other sectors.

15 gatekeepers as “regulators of innovation”. Thus, the extent to which innovativeness is valued increases the influence of experts.

Nelson (1970) describes that consumers use prior information, obtained from for example friends, consumer magazines and advertisements, before they start a search or experience process. He refers to the use of prior information as guided sampling and uses the term unguided sampling for sampling processes not led by any prior information searches. Nelson states that unguided sampling is cheaper for search goods than for experience goods, which indicates a larger role for gatekeepers for non-search goods. The consumption of cultural goods is often regarded as a way of increasing the consumer’s status and creating or demonstrating a person’s identity (Bourdieu, 1993; Holbrook, 1999; Mol and Wijnberg, 2007). Furthermore, the amount of leisure time people have has decreased which causes consumers to expect more from their scarce moments of leisure time (Slater, 2007). That cultural goods are connected to a person’s social status and identity and that leisure time has become scarce will lead to a higher (psychological) risk when choosing for a cultural good. This may explain why gatekeepers play a very visible role in the creative industries. When there is much at stake when a wrong good is chosen, consumers may have the tendency to seek the security of relying on expert opinions.

2.3.4 Relationships with gatekeepers

16 producers could try to persuade the selectors who prefer goods of competitors to change their preferences. This would require extensive relations management with gatekeepers.

Third, producers can ally with selectors who prefer their products and support these selectors in the competition with other selectors. Since expert selectors compete with other experts and since producers try to satisfy different experts it is advantageous for both parties when the number of experts is limited (Dolfsma, forthcoming). The competition amongst selectors is strongest when expert selection is dominant since experts are the only selectors who earn a living with this role (Mol and Wijnberg, 2007). According to Mol and Wijnberg, the changing alliances between selectors and selected might even explain the durability and mortality rates of industries. However, alliances between gatekeepers and producers are a precarious matter since the two parties can have conflicting goals (Hirsch, 1972). Independence of judgment is crucial for gatekeepers’ credibility and job security. This conflicts with simply promoting goods of certain producers. Furthermore, many gatekeepers work for commercial mass-media organisations such as radio, television and magazines. Those organisations earn their money with advertising rather than with promoting certain cultural goods. Examples of collaboration between producers and gatekeepers are: ownership relations, revenue-sharing schemes and bribes (Caves, 2000). Such bribes of gatekeepers are also referred to as payola. While there are cases of payola in different types of industries, Caves explains that the creative industries are especially susceptible to payola due to three reasons. First, cultural goods can be differentiated both vertically and horizontally in many different ways which leads to an “infinite variety” of goods trying to reach an audience. Second, there is large uncertainty about for which goods there will be a high demand and finally the costs of these goods are generally fixed and sunk. A well-known example of payola is the bribe of radio DJ’s to play certain songs. Another example is providing reviewers with gifts, free travel or even with job opportunities. Thus, payola is not restricted to financial bribes. Generally, the more influence gatekeepers have on the adoption of cultural goods, the higher the incentives for producers to collaborate in illegal ways (Hirsch, 1972).

17 Next to relationships between producers and gatekeepers, other relationships are possible. First, gatekeepers perform an intermediary function between producers and consumers. Via this function, gatekeepers influence consumers. Second, gatekeepers also influence each other because they are guided by the standards set by peers in their field and because they have to compete with other gatekeepers (Bourdieu, 1993). Third, consumers influence gatekeepers because in order to keep their expert position, gatekeepers will have to differentiate their opinions from the opinions of the average consumer (Holbrook, 1999). For the survival of their profession, gatekeepers are dependent on the extent to which consumers rely on gatekeepers, e.g. whether consumers read reviews. Fourth, producers can be influenced by their peers and by consumers. Finally, consumers influence each other, e.g. by word-of-mouth and by the earlier described social pressures that encourage consumers to choose a certain cultural good in order to enhance their status or mark their identity.

2.3.5 Other signals of quality in the creative industries

Gatekeepers are not the only way consumers can be led to belief that the credence good is of high quality. Other factors that can act as signals of quality are awards (Anand and Jones, 2008; Anand and Watson, 2004; Gemser et al., 2008) and the use of famous actors or stars (Boerner and Renz, 2008; Caves, 2000; Ravid, 1999). Other signals of quality can involve certain characteristics of a show such as special effects and elaborate sets (Gemser et al., 2007). Gemser et al. (2007) explain that when the providers of credence goods do not possess such signals of quality, consumers will become even more dependent on the opinions of gatekeepers and reviewers.

18 Townley et al. (2009) it can be possible to possess both economic and cultural and symbolic capital. However, the balance between these different types of capital seems to be a precarious matter.

Grolleau and Caswell (2005) state that producers should not let the signaling of the quality of their goods solely depend on third parties, but should invest in signals of quality that they can control themselves such as search and experience attributes that are related to their credence claim. This might indicate that when it is difficult to make credence attributes searchable, i.e. when there are no appropriate related search and experience attributes to the credence claim, gatekeepers will possess more influence since other ways of signaling quality have become limited. Furthermore, in such a case gatekeepers are needed to determine the value of credence attributes, since without related search and credence attributes, this has become even more difficult for consumers.

2.4 Gatekeepers in Theatre

2.4.1 Expert judgments versus consumer judgments

Of the earlier mentioned examples of gatekeepers two types of gatekeepers play a prominent role within the theatre sector: funders and expert-reviewers. Funders generally determine whether performing arts organisations will be able to exist and thus fulfill a gatekeeping function for organisations as a whole rather than for individual plays. Therefore, this research will focus on expert-reviewers since this type of gatekeeper writes about individual plays and therefore forms a more appropriate focus with regard to researching the adoption of theatre.

19 found that the judgments of experts differ, whether to a small or high extent, from the judgments of non-experts.

First, experts have higher expectations which lead to more critical judgments (Boerner et al., 2011; Boerner and Jobst, 2008; Boerner and Renz, 2008; Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003; Konijn, 1999). Second, non-experts are more selective in the aspects of quality they take into account and tend to focus on their emotions and on the service of the theatre, while experts consider a wider variety of aspects related to the performance itself (Boerner et al., 2011). Experts are able to consider a wider variety of factors since they are better in dealing with information overload than non-experts (Boerner and Renz, 2008). Holbrook et al. (2006) complement this view by stating that experts and non-experts use similar quality standards to some extent, but that experts use additional standards not used by non-experts. Third, the judgments of non-experts will be influenced by others to a higher extent. Two homogenizing forces can be distinguished. First, experts use quality standards accepted by other experts in the field which could lead to judgments more similar to those of other experts (Bourdieu, 1993; Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003). Second, non-experts are influenced by the reactions of other audience members to a higher extent since individuals who are uncertain about their own judgments experience a higher pressure to conform to the group (Boerner and Renz, 2008; Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003). The second homogenising force tends to outweigh the first force (Boerner et al., 2011). Furthermore, the homogenising force of experts using quality standards accepted in the industry is not likely to be very strong since Senior (2004) found that judgments amongst experts differ widely. While one would expect the influence of reviewers to decrease when the judgments of reviewers differ widely from the judgments of the average consumer it was mentioned earlier that experts achieve their special position by distinguishing themselves from the judgments of others. Therefore, at least some difference in expert and non-expert judgments is required for experts to keep their expert position (Holbrook, 1999).

20 extent to which non-experts do not like a cultural good highly valued by experts or like something that is considered of low quality by experts. Since the correlation between expert judgment and audience appeal is very weak, increasing the aesthetic quality of the good will only lead to a higher consumer demand when the increase in quality is very large. A more effective way of increasing demand would be to strengthen the positive correlation between expert judgment and audience judgment by educating consumers about quality standards used by experts (Holbrook et al., 2006). This approach is in line with Cameron (2003) who states that critics help consumers with the development of taste.

2.4.2 Types of influence of reviews

21 Figure 1. Influence of reviews on product adoption

Finally, the function of reviewers could also be considered in a wider context rather than as solely influencing consumer’s purchasing decisions. Reviews can also be used for future advertising purposes, can encourage creators of performances, influence performances and provide a point of reference in conversations about arts and social issues (Shrum, 1991). Furthermore, the importance of reviews might even be higher for the performing arts compared to other sectors such as film and music since Shrum explains that generally in the performing arts, reviews are the only tangible remainders of a performance while films and music are recorded.

2.4.3 Strength of influence of reviews

While reviews could influence product adoption in different ways, there is debate about the strength of this influence and on whether they have influence at all. While Senior (2004) implies that reviews influence consumer demand, only nineteen per cent of the Dutch respondents of the research of Boorsma and van Maanen (2003) stated to use reviews in making decisions and only seven per cent said reviews to be decisive in these decisions. The research explains that this might be due to the fact that in the Netherlands theatre visitors depend very much on a theatre guide, which is sent out before and at the beginning of a new theatre season and from which people often order theatre tickets in one time for the whole of the season. The majority of the respondents (57%) claimed to depend on the relatively neutral information provided in these guides. Therefore, Dutch theatre visitors might be less dependent on reviews and on word-of-mouth, the latter only influences eight per cent of the respondents and was only claimed to be

22 decisive by seven per cent of the respondents. Furthermore, even critics themselves do not believe they have much influence. However, more than half (54%) of the respondents claimed to read reviews of which thirty-five per cent reads the reviews before the play and nineteen per cent reads them after visiting a performance. That only a small percentage of these people state reviews to be decisive in their decisions may be explained by the fact that many respondents claimed to read reviews as a search for background information (Boorsma and van Maanen, 2003; Senior, 2004).

Some authors (Gemser et al. 2007; Hirsch, 1972) claim that the influence of reviews lies not in their favourable or unfavourable judgments, but simply in the number and visibility of reviews. This is in line with Senior’s (2004) claim that favourable reviews do not necessarily lead to commercial success and unfavourable reviews do not have to lead to commercial failure. Boorsma and van Maanen (2003) state that unfavourable reviews have a stronger influence than favourable reviews since negative information is generally less ambiguous. Senior (2004) even claims that basing decisions on positive judgments of reviewers can lead to disappointment since expert judgments differ from non-expert judgments. Another reason why positive reviews could have a negative impact is when consumers regard the judgments of reviewers as elitist and thus as very different from their own opinions (Hirschmann and Pieros, 1985).

23

2.4.4 High-culture versus popular culture

Within arts there exists a “cultural hierarchy” with increasingly refined and more demanding standards for cultural goods placed on top of this hierarchy (Holbrook, 1999). Caves (2000) explains several differences between high-culture and popular culture. Popular culture art generally attracts an audience with more “casual consumers” (i.e. consumers who consume art less frequently and possess less cultural capital) and a relatively small number of buffs (i.e. consumers who frequently consume arts and possess a high level of cultural capital). This differentiation already exists since the 17th century (Shrum, 1991). Popular culture goods are less complex than high-culture goods because they make use of stereotypes and of less ambiguous concepts (Colbert, 2003). Furthermore, popular culture goods provide more direct thrills and often have higher fixed costs and can therefore only exist when they attract a very large audience (Caves, 2000). Fortunately for the survival of popular performances the degree of popular culture is positively related to demand (Tobias, 2004).

25 Reviews can contain five types of elements (Shrum, 1991). First, a review can provide information about the characteristics of the show. These are the descriptive elements. Second, analytic elements of reviews help the reader to understand the performance by providing a context in which interpretation can take place. Furthermore, these elements indicate the aesthetic meaning and importance of the performance. Third, entertainment elements such as humour and outbursts of outrage are entwined with the other elements. Fourth, instruction elements lead reviewers to suggest alternatives and ways to improve the performance. These elements do not occur frequently in an explicit way, but are often implied in the fifth type of elements: the evaluative elements, which form favourable or unfavourable judgments. That visibility has a stronger impact on demand than the favourableness of the review is due to the fact that readers attach more importance to descriptive components than to evaluative components (Shrum, 1991). Considering the earlier described findings that the favourableness of reviews only affects demand for high-culture theatre we could expect more evaluative elements to be present in reviews of that type of theatre. Reviews of popular culture theatre, which are often used for background information, on the other hand, could be expected to place a higher emphasis on descriptive and entertainment elements. Thus, differing weight attached to these five types of elements could indicate the type of influence a review.

26 Figure 2. Research model

The factors that determine the influence of expert-reviews on the ticket sales of high-culture and popular culture theatre are summarized in figure 2. As was shown in figure 1. reviews can influence ticket sales of current shows by stimulating and influencing the nature of word-of-mouth. Furthermore, reviews of earlier shows influence the adoption of current shows due to their influence on the consumer’s perception of his or her own experiences of the show. Based on these own experiences the consumer will decide whether to visit similar shows in the future. Reviews could also influence ticket sales of a show when the producer adjusts the show to the preferences of reviewers, since the nature of the show influences ticket sales. Reviews can also have different types of and different degrees of influence based on the five elements of Shrum (1991) that are present in the review. These elements are likely to differ for high-culture and popular culture shows. Furthermore, literature showed that the visibility and number of reviews influence the ticket sales of both high-culture and popular culture shows, while the favourableness of reviews solely impacts ticket sales of high-culture shows. Finally, a review that was published at the start of a show’s existence is likely to have more influence on ticket sales than a review that was published at a moment when the show will only be performed for a very short while.

Ticket sales of current show Expert-review, influence via:

- Word of mouth

- Own experience/future product adoption - Influence on producer/performance itself - Elements of reviews

- Favourableness

- Visibility and number of reviews - Timing of review

Moderated by:

- Degree of credence attributes

- Degree of related search and experience attributes of

27 The influence of expert-reviews on ticket sales is moderated by two factors. First, when a good contains many credence attributes the influence of reviews is expected to be higher than for goods with a low proportion of credence attributes since when there is a high proportion of credence attributes non-biased expert-knowledge becomes more valuable and information from peers or producers might not be sufficient anymore for determining quality. However, the influence of reviews of goods with a high proportion of credence attributes will decrease to a degree when there are many search and experience attributes related to the credence claim. This is because search and experience attributes can act as quality signals. This way they can to some extent substitute the expert-knowledge required for assessing the quality of credence attributes.

Next to reviews there are other factors that can influence the tickets sales of theatre shows. The most important extrinsic and intrinsic attributes discussed in paragraph 2.3.5 were awards, famous actors and advertising. Awards and advertising are extrinsic attributes. Even though the actual acting of well-known actors should be regarded as an intrinsic attribute, the names of famous actors can serve as an extrinsic attribute. This also applies to the factor of well-known titles of a show. Other important factors mentioned throughout this literature review are price and word-of-mouth. The importance of advertising budget and word-of-mouth for the influence of reviews can be found in the work of Gemser et al. (2007). They explain a stronger impact of film reviews on high-culture film demand by the fact that high-culture films generally have smaller budgets and therefore have less ways of signaling quality. Furthermore, high-culture films have a smaller audience which causes word-of-mouth effects to be less strong. These explanations could also apply to theatre since musicals generally make use of, for example, famous actors and well-known titles to signal quality. This may make them less dependent on reviews. In short, the research model will be tested for the following variables:

• famous actors (intrinsic/extrinsic attribute) • use of famous titles (intrinsic/extrinsic attribute) • awards and nominations for awards (extrinsic attribute) • price (extrinsic attribute)

28

“Art never expresses anything but itself.”

3. Methodology

The empirical section of this interpretivist research that uses a grounded theory approach consists of a comparative case study of a high-culture show and a popular culture show. The first part of the case study consists of an analysis of similarities and differences of reviews of these two shows. Second, semi-structured interviews are conducted with the producers of the two shows and with an industry expert. The interviews are analysed by using theoretical coding.

3.1 Research Approach

In this research it is assumed that rather than that reality is objective, it is socially constructed and therefore people influence the meaning of this reality. Thus, the ontology used in this research is nominalism (Easterby-Smith, et al., 2008). In line with the ontology, the epistemology used in this research is interpretivism which focuses on comprehending different perspectives and interpretations of a concept (Fisher, 2010). A grounded theory approach is adopted in this research since such a research approach will contribute to gaining a better understanding of different aspects of the influence of reviews. Grounded theory can be defined as: “a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 24). Advantages of a grounded theory approach are that it is suitable for interpretivist research and that it offers a thorough method of testing, developing and fine-tuning ideas (Charmaz, 2004). A disadvantage of grounded theory is that its emphasis on keeping an open mind implies that the researcher should commence the research process with as little predefined assumptions as possible (Birks and Mills, 2011). However, Birks and Mills (2011) explain that prior knowledge of a subject facilitates the generation of theory because it will help the researcher to recognise concepts.

Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) explain that within grounded theory there are different opinions about the best approach. The approach of Glaser (1978) is connected to the earlier mentioned disadvantage of grounded theory since it requires the researcher to be free of predefined assumptions. The second approach, the approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998) allows the researcher to have prior knowledge on the research topic and thus to review literature before starting field work. Using the approach of Strauss and Corbin would therefore overcome the

29 aforementioned disadvantage of grounded theory described by Birks and Mills (2010). Furthermore, Glaser’s (1978) approach regards reality as objective while Strauss and Corbin regard reality as subjective. Using the latter approach would be more in line with the ontology of this research. Finally, while Glaser (1978) believes that theory emerges directly from the data, Corbin and Strauss acknowledge the role the researcher plays when collecting and interpreting data, which seems more realistic. For these reasons, the approach of Strauss and Corbin seems best suited to this research.

3.2. Case Study

Charmaz (2004: 497) describes the process of grounded theory as “you start with individual cases, incidents or experiences and develop progressively more abstract conceptual categories to synthesize, to explain, and to understand your data and to identify patterned relationships within it.” Basing the generation of theory on cases indicates the suitability of a case study approach for a grounded theory research. In order to shed light on the ways in which expert-reviewers influence the adoption of different types of theatre a comparative case study of the influence of reviewers for a musical and for a high-culture theatre performance is carried out. The main advantage of a case study approach is that it provides a comprehensive picture of all the different elements and their relationships within a process (Gummesson, 1991). Thus, rather than leading to perfect generalisibility, a case study approach fits with the research aim of acquiring a better understanding of certain concepts (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, comparing two cases, which can be referred to as constant comparison, can steer the development of theory within grounded theory research (Holton, 2007). By examining differences and similarities, concepts and patterns can be distinguished (Goulding, 2002). Even though cases were selected that are considered to be representative for high-culture theatre and popular culture theatre, the focus in constant comparison is on the comparison rather than on the cases themselves, which makes the representativeness of the cases less crucial (Thomas, 2011).

30 non-established actors build a reputation by the television audition show “Op zoek naar Zorro”. In this show, ten actors audition every week for the lead part of “Zorro” and based on votes of the public and on the opinion of a musical expert, every week a candidate has to leave the show. This way the lead player, Tommie Christiaan, has already obtained many fans and high popularity before the show’s first performance.

The high-culture show that was selected is “Medea” from the “Noord Nederlands Toneel” (NNT). The NNT is one of the six largest professional theatre companies in the Netherlands (www.nnt.nl). While the show was performed in Groningen in 2009, in 2010 it has been touring through the Netherlands from the 24th of March until the 14th of May. This Greek tragedy directed by Ola Mafaalani is based on the play of Euripedes and adapted by Ko van den Bosch. In short, the story is about Medea, the mother who, when she is abandoned by her lover, murders her two children. The leading role was played by Malou Gorter, member of the NNT cast. Next to NNT actors, a politician (Max van den Berg) and a news presenter (Noraly Beyer) participated in the show. Since both “Medea” and “Zorro” tour through the Netherlands, the research on the influence of reviews will be on a national scale.

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Review Analysis

31

3.3.2 Interviews

During the interviews with the producers and industry-expert all three sub questions are addressed. Furthermore, in the interview with the industry-expert the findings from the review analysis are discussed and since this expert possesses knowledge about the general ways of working of high-culture and popular culture producers, the interview will help to check whether the findings from the case study are generalisable to the Dutch theatre sector as a whole. Thus, this interview provides information on whether the practices of the producers that are interviewed are also common for other theatre producers. The expert to be interviewed is Ms. Van Heteren who works as a researcher and professor in the field of theatre studies at the University of Groningen. She is specialised in research on theatre criticism. The first producer-interviewee is Rein Bish who works at the marketing and publicity department of the NNT. Maarten van Nispen who is corporate communications director at Stage Entertainment is the other producer-interviewee.

32 3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Analysis of interviews

The data obtained by interviews will be analysed by using Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) data-analysis method of theoretical coding. This approach to data-data-analysis that is in line with a grounded theory approach, is chosen because it provides a thorough way of analysing data that is particularly suitable for gaining a complete understanding (Flick, 2006). This method consists of three stages; open coding, axial coding and selective coding. In the first phase categories and concepts are identified (Flick, 2006) and codes are compared (Birks and Mills, 2011). According to Flick (2006) the second phase, axial coding, is involved with the selection of the most important categories and with defining relationships between them. He describes that in selective coding, the third phase, one central category to which all subcategories are connected, is identified. While originally the focus was on identifying one category, Birks and Mills (2011) explain that later approaches to selective coding can also involve identifying more than one central category. The coding process is finished when theoretical saturation is achieved which means that with regard to the identified categories no new codes are found during further data collection or analysis, provided that the categories are theoretically well developed (Birks and Mills, 2011).

3.4.2 Analysis of reviews

33

“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and

that is not being talked about.”

4. Findings

This section presents the findings of the comparative case study of the high-culture play “Medea” and the popular culture show “Zorro”. The case study was carried out in order to find out in what ways gatekeepers influence the adoption of high-culture and popular culture credence goods amongst consumers. The presence of different elements in the reviews and the favourableness of the evaluations are described and presented in table 2. and discussed with an industry-expert. Then, the main categories and their concepts found in interviews with two producers and an industry-expert are presented. Finally, the main roles of reviewers are identified.

4.1 Elements of Reviews

As was explained in the literature review, theatre reviews can contain five different types of elements and the dominant elements in a review can indicate the kind of influence of the review. The five elements identified by Shrum (1991) are: descriptive, analytic, entertainment, instruction and evaluative elements. For a more elaborate definition of the five elements please see paragraph 2.4.4. Examples of how the elements influence the adoption of a show are that the influence of the visibility of reviews on ticket sales increases when readers value descriptive elements in reviews and that the influence of the favourableness of reviews increases when readers value evaluative elements (Shrum, 1991). In order to provide a context, a short description of the reviewers is attached in appendix 1. The strength of the presence of these elements is represented in table 2. For a closer look at the indicators of the presence of the different elements please see appendix 2.

34 Table 2. Presence of elements in reviews of “Medea” and “Zorro” 5

Element Medea Zorro

Review and newspaper Review 1 (Volkskrant) Review 2 (AD) Review 3 (Trouw) Review 4 (NRC) Review 1 (Volkskrant) Review 2 (AD) Review 3 (Telegraaf) Review 4 (Trouw) Descriptive ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ Analytic + ++ ++ + - - - +/- Entertainment +/- +/- +/- +/- + +/- + +/- Instruction ++ - + - - + - - Evaluative ++ + + ++ + + + + Miscellaneous: Favourableness - + +/- ++ +/- ++ ++ +/- 4.1.1 Presence of elements

In all “Medea” and “Zorro” reviews the director, main actors and the elements that can be expected from the play are described. While many reviews also describe the story line of the play, this is more common and done more extensively in the reviews of “Zorro”. In all “Medea” reviews analytic elements are present. For example, all reviews explain in what way this performance is different from the “Medea” performed by other theatre companies and three reviewers explain what the director attempted to present as Medea’s motives for murdering her children. Furthermore, one review explains the meaning behind the flamenco dancing performance in “Medea”. All of these examples help the audience to understand the aesthetic significance of the show. Analytic elements are only found in one of the “Zorro” reviews. The reviewer states that even though the story is predictable and even though the lyrics are simplistic, the show will probably attract a mass audience that will enjoy the show because of its “show elements” such as music and dance. However, this is a rather indirect analytic element since it does not directly determine the aesthetic value of the show but explains that the value of the show depends on the expectations of the audience. Not many entertainment elements are found in the “Medea” reviews except for a pleasant writing style, using words that appeal to emotions and describing scenes of the play in a visual way. In the reviews of “Zorro” emotional or visual language is complemented with a simpler writing style and an occasional joke. In two of the “Medea” reviews instruction elements are found. While one reviewer explicitly states that more

35 order is required in the play, another reviewer provides instruction in a more implicit way by identifying distracting factors that make it difficult for the audience to emphasise with Medea. This implies that these factors should be removed from the show. An instruction element is found in only one of the “Zorro” reviews when the reviewer indicates that he would have liked to see more nuances in the characters of Zorro and his brother. While all reviews include evaluative elements, these elements are present to a higher extent in the “Medea” reviews. Also, while evaluations of “Medea” take into account a wide variety of factors, evaluations of “Zorro” focus on acting, music and dance. Furthermore, in their evaluations of “Zorro”, reviewers anticipated on whether they expect potential visitors to like the show. They stated for example that “you will get carried away” and that “the show will enhance your mood”. One reviewer of “Zorro” made the distinction between her own opinion and the opinion of the mass audience by claiming that even though the story is predictable, the mass-audience will probably enjoy the show. Reviewers of “Medea”, on the other hand, did not write about whether “you” or “the audience” will enjoy the show. They also did not discuss possible differences between the opinion of the reviewer and opinions of others such as the opinions of a mass-audience.

While the favourableness of the evaluations is not a separate element of Shrum (1991), this factor is included in the analysis because it might indicate the importance of the evaluative element. For example, when the evaluative element is considered to be less important by the reviewers, they may see less reason to be very critical. More generally, including the favourableness of reviews can give an indication of the type of influence the review might have. Overall, “Zorro” reviews are more positive than reviews of “Medea”. While differences in the favourableness between “Medea” and “Zorro” reviews could simply mean that one show is of higher quality than the other show, this is not likely considering the differing evaluations per show. The evaluations of “Medea” showed the widest variety since the favourableness of the evaluations ranged from (-) to (++). The opinions of the reviewers of “Zorro” ranged from (-/+) to (++).

4.1.2 Opinion of industry-expert

36 message or making people think. Thus, the purpose of a show influences the extent to which certain elements are present in reviews. Ms. van Heteren also explains that for review analyses it is important to look at which newspapers the reviews are from. Since each newspaper publishes reviews for different purposes this influences the content of the reviews. An example of this is that the newspaper “de Telegraaf” has many readers who like to go to musicals:

“So reviewers who write for “de Telegraaf” are instructed by this newspaper to describe what the musical is about and to not immediately give a negative judgment about the show. Reviewers who write for the “NRC” or for “de Volkskrant” have more freedom so therefore they are also more critical.” (Lucia van Heteren)

Three of the four reviews that were written on each show in this review analysis were from the same newspaper, which makes the findings more valid. The differences between newspapers mentioned by Ms. van Heteren are partly in line with the findings of the review analysis. The newspaper “de Telegraaf” published one of the most positive reviews about “Zorro” while the reviews of “de Volkskrant” were the least positive about both “Medea” and “Zorro”. However, the review on “Zorro” was more favourable than the review on “Medea” and also contained less evaluative elements which could mean that “de Volkskrant” adjusts its reviews to the purposes of the type of show. Even though Ms. van Heteren mentioned reviewers of “NRC” as being more critical, the “Medea” review of the “NRC” was very positive. However, this review contains a very high degree of evaluative elements as well so this positive judgment is likely to have occurred despite the high criticalness of “NRC’ reviewers.

4.2 Interview Categories

37

4.2.1. Influence on and characteristics of show

The category influence on, and characteristics of, the show contains four concepts: • Symbolic capital

• Package

• Intrinsic motivation • Exclusivity

While producers claim that reviews that are written about the première of the show influence their shows and future shows, this influence depends on how much value the producer attaches to a certain reviewer. So a reviewer who does not have much symbolic capital in the eyes of the producer is not likely to cause the producer to adjust a show:

“Sometimes it does not affect you because you know the review was written by a certain reviewer.” (Rein Bish)

38 “Live entertainment is a form of luxury, you can live without it. So people are willing to pay for it. If people receive a ticket for free they are even less inclined to like the show.” (Maarten van Nispen)

With regard to high-culture shows this concept of exclusivity is not mentioned as a marketing tool. While at Stage Entertainment they believe that raising their prices will not necessarily lead to a decrease in ticket sales at the NNT they are not sure of this. Rein Bish believes that many people regard art as a luxury good too, but this is not necessarily beneficial for ticket sales:

“Theatre visits are decreasing. This has to do with the huge competition on the leisure market amongst others. Price and the economic crisis probably also play a role. Unfortunately, a lot of people regard art as a luxury good.” (Rein Bish)

4.2.2 Influence on ticket sales

With regard to the influence of reviews on ticket sales six main concepts are identified: • Package • Visibility • Unpredictability • Purpose of use • Homogeneity of reviews • Symbolic capital

39 how the different elements are timed the influence of a review is difficult to separate from this package.

“So if, in addition to a review in a newspaper, there are other newspaper articles about the show or there is a certain commercial on television or in other forms such as posters, this can help if the timing is right. (…) The poster raised your interest and then when you read a review that confirms the image that the show is good, this will provide you with a double impulse to buy a ticket.” (Maarten van Nispen)

Regardless of the favourableness of the review, by paying attention to a show, a review makes that show visible. Especially reviews with a big picture and positive headline give free publicity to a show. The influence of the favourableness of reviews is claimed by both producers to be unpredictable. They explain that sometimes a positive review increases ticket sales, but that sometimes reviews do not have effect at all. Mr. van Nispen even describes that an inverse relationship between the favourableness of reviews and ticket sales can exist when negative reviews make the audience curious about a show. What contributes to this unpredictability is that according to Ms. van Heteren reviews can have three different purposes for the audience. First, reading reviews before visiting a performance can help consumers in selecting to which show to go. Second, reading a show after visiting a performance helps the theatregoer to test his or her own judgment by comparing it with the judgment of the reviewer. This is often done by people who visit the theatre more frequently. Third, reading a review after attending a show helps to preserve the main ideas of a show. Since reviews are often the only remainders of a theatre performance reading a review becomes a way of remembering the experience. The purpose for which a review is used by the consumer determines how much the review will affect ticket sales and in what way the review has influence.

40 “And then “de Volkskrant” and the “NRC” are the most influential newspapers. They are read by the type of people who go to these types of performances.” (Lucia van Heteren)

4.2.3 Influence on investors

Two main concepts were found for the influence of reviews on investors:

• Package

• Symbolic capital

Both producers stated that reviews can influence funding. For the NNT this means that the Board of Culture who advices the minister of Culture with regard to subsidy decisions is influenced by what they read in the newspapers. Ms. van Heteren describes this as an invisible role of reviews since it is difficult to measure explicitly to what extent the ideas of a minister or other policy makers about a producer were influenced by reading reviews. For Stage Entertainment, positive reviews contribute to the image of the company which facilitates in attracting sponsors. However, the specific influence of reviews on investors is difficult to pinpoint since reviews are part of a package that can signal quality:

“Everything affects everything. And the net result always influences how people think, what they talk about, what they decide and the way they make decisions.” (Rein Bish)

Finally, similar to that consumers attach different values to the opinions of different reviewers, the extent to which investors are influenced by a certain review depends on how much faith they have in the judgment of that specific reviewer.

4.3 Roles of Reviewers