105 Theatre how can we get as many supporters as football?

Convener: Leila Crerar

Participants: Nigel Richards, Josh Neicho, Hugh Hayes, Chris Wootton, Sam Sampson, Jen Pearcy- Edwards, Jo Turner, (didn’t get all names, if you attended could you add them)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Q. How can we get the same support for theatre in this country as we do for football?
Q. Do we need to change the mold of theatre how can it be more competitive with Film/Sport/Television.
Q. How do we get bums on seats, without sacrificing our artist integrity?
Q. How to make shows without stars that pay for themselves?


The discussion:

We began by discussing football v theatre:

What is the thrill we get when watching our football team play? The unpredictability of not knowing whether they will Win or Loose. The live event.
It was suggested Football is shorter 90 min; there was a discussion about the length of theatre perhaps being too long. Most other forms of entertainment that Theatre competes with Film/TV/sport are shorter than the conventional theatre piece.

We talk about the culture of football in our society. Being bred into football from a young age. Meaning that you have an unbreakable loyalty towards a team. Wouldn’t it be great if theatre could achieve this?

Football has a permanence that theatre doesn’t have, live event sense of belonging, supporters for life. You know when you go to a match you might be the one to see that special goal, that you can talk about, a moment that can’t be repeated.

The group discussed that theatre could make more of the live element

Rehearsed in mistakes, the audience love to witness something going wrong, assurance that’s a live unique event.

It’s more human; it makes us feel like life.
Playful/improvisation, element of risk and danger. Theatre could imbrace this risk.

People should feel they could walk out of the theatre if they want to.

It’s a good thing if they do walk out, at least they are not passive, and they feel moved enough to walk out.

We use to have that sense of consistency in Rep where people would go and see the same actors in different parts. This creates a feeling of supporting the actors like you would a football team. You have a loyalty towards the cast and you invest more in the actor’s performance.

You have to build this over years; the National theatre’s main objective is selling seats. Complicity, Improbable, Frantic Assembly have built up an audience, because of the consistent quality of their work.

Quality matters

This led us onto a discussion on how to get new audiences, selling shows and marketing:

Marketing needs a new fashionable/modern slant, using the Internet more and maximizing the using of social networking.

Taking the irreverence out of theatre, it needs to be more inclusive.

Theatre needs to be more of an event, rather than a performance, not just sitting in silence in the dark. We talked about the rise of interactive/physical theatre, Punch Drunk with record ticket sales.

They also have a massive queue outside, great marketing tool, like a trendy nightclub. The overall experience of punch Drunk is very different to your average theatre experience/environment audience seem to be very responsive to this. As shown by the general increase of site-specific physical theatre.

Another area that could improve the theatre experience is making the theatre bar more accessible, turn it into somewhere you would want to hang out even if you weren’t going to the theatre. Like the Royal Court. This goes back to the point about theatre being inclusive. It’s important that the theatre building is not just the play. It has to be inclusive/welcoming for a younger audience.

The group then discussed Films v Theatre
With films you get a package. The audience knows what they’re going to get. Risk keeps people away from theatre; generally they don’t like the unknown. This is why we have seen a rise in Hollywood stars in the West end.

It’s about branding, you either need a star, a well-known play, or a reputation as a company, which has been built up over years.

Making films back into theatre,
Shawshank Redemption, On the Waterfront. For the theatre producers they already know that these films have a proven audience that they will be able to sell tickets to. This is the exact opposite of new writing. The group did discuss that the UK needed more new writing theatre's.

Ticket prices are too expensive, especially for a younger audience. The fact that ticket prices are so high means that a lot of theatre will always remain for the middle classes. This again went back to how exclusive theatre is at the moment.

To sum up, we need to offer a unique high quality experience that neither film, TV, Internet, nor football can satisfy.

Where’s society heading and what is it interested in?

We live in a time of Roman theatre rather than Greek, the sensory rather than the idea.

Physical theatre needs a good story line, merging story telling with spectacular, the middle ground between pure text and pure visual.

Having a good story is something people will always come back to.

Yes I can watch spectacular physical/incilation piece and be moved in the moment, but not take anything away with me.

Yes like a big Mac, emidiate fill, but now I would like to go to a proper restraunt please.

Circus de Soliel without language speaks to everyone, sensory experience, unique, they cry because the beautiful possibility transcends things. To be reminded of angels. And its and experience you cannot get anywhere else.

Saturated community, compatition for attention, how do you generate a buzz?

Theatre needs to be true to itself, not become an extention of tv, a language that is complete, what can language provide that nothing else can. To find a theatrical language that is in its owe right, we find a vocabulary that is not competing with television/film.

102 Social networking systems as a marketing tool

Convener: David Johnston

Participants: David and Lindsey Hope Pearlman

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Very brief session-both agreed that we needed to get more exercise and have a stretch, rather than talk too much

David runs Tangere Arts in Derbyshire, a small theatre company, mainly presenting shows and workshops for children and families,

With a very small budget-

(company operates out of David’s back office in the village of Tansley, near Matlock, and survives on unpredictable project grants)

Tangere, however, has had remarkable success, with some of its plays, mostly by recently deceased playwright, Noel Greig, being performed nationally and internationally at festivals and in well-known theatres, from the Meyerhold in Moscow to the Unicorn in London

The problem for Tangere remains how to spread the word re our work even further abroad, with even further reduced administration and marketing budgets, and a growing portfolio of excellent work

Lindsey’s company in New York, Horse Trade, faces similar, if different problems, being unfunded and comprised of young performers and artists

They have solved this in a range of ways using networking systems, especially Facebook

Recommendations

1 use a page on Facebook -upload photos, company information, plans events, audition information etc

2 organise events on Facebook to advertise coming performances

3 enroll interns/volunteers who understand the technology and want to support

E.g. Tangere has a relationship with Derby University students of performing arts, which currently consists of sharing our work with them, but could be taken much further

4 invite people to become a fan of Tangere, and offer them something special

5 get a small number of regular fans to champion the company and keep reminding the network

Keep the fans updated

Lindsey had a number of other recommendations from the New York experience

Which we will now try out in deepest Derbyshire

I will update the ning etc on any interesting developments

David Johnston

dj at tangere-arts.co.uk

www.tangere-arts.co.uk

Tel 0845 3298013

052 International touring: looking for some good advice

Convener: Gemma Paintin

Participants: Gemma, Matt, Tom and some others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

• The venue should pay for all costs
• You could pay the costs then invoice them with receipts
• Money to be found in coproductions with different venues
• Go to the IETM incognito!
• Use BC rates but break the costs down
• Its not a problem to show the same show all over one country- premiere is not so important
• Local BC offices can help with arranging a tour, as can the first venue, cuts their travel costs
• In France: Office Nationale de Diffusion Artistique
• Some keys festivals to visit, to see work and meet promoters: Dublin, Under the Radar, Kunsten, FTA in Montreal, Push in Vancouver, festivals in Graz, Bogota, Rio, Buenas Ares, Avignon, Barcelona, Salamanca, APAM in Australia
• Propose a package of shows to a venue!
• Don’t need to have your own technician if tech is simple
• Its about a personal relationship with promoters, don’t cold call them.
• Invite people to your shows
• Have a nice, clear pitch ready and appropriate marketing materials that reflect your work
• Could just be the manner in which you give the flyer that counts- charming
• There’s eu funding available for tours to more than one country- hard to apply for?
• Use e-marketing, facebook, twitter.
• THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A FACE TO FACE MEETING!!!

041 “I’d rather be down the pub” – The problem with audiences

Convener: Sam Sampson

Participants: Varied (please write your name below if you were there!)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Following several recent attempts to attract new audience members to events and workshops by removing practical barriers (cost, transport, timing) all of which pretty much failed, I was left with the question: Why don’t people consider the theatre as an option for something to do? What can we do to overcome this?

We decided quickly that the main barrier is a cultural one – theatre is thought of as difficult/worthy/expensive without an individual piece necessarily being any of those things. When theatre works, when it focuses on and exploits its ‘theatreness’ and liveness, it can provide amazing experiences. How to communicate this to people who haven’t had a similar experience? It becomes a bit chicken and egg – getting people over the threshold is key.

Lyn pointed out that amateur theatre has never had a problem with audiences – perhaps we should (re)think taking theatre to people rather than trying to force them into buildings or through box offices. How can this inform professional theatre? Why is the divide between them thought of as so sharp?

Or we could take more care to craft the whole theatre experience, from the first marketing contact through to beyond seeing the show? Integrated offerings like A Play, a Pie and a Pint possibly offer some beginnings for this alongside larger-scale pervasive efforts/theatre phenomena?

Could we reintroduce or emphasise the social nature/social contract of the audience? Should we? Would allowing/encouraging audiences to be more verbal give them the ownership and engagement to be passionate about theatre?

Theatre lives by its audience and the theatre making community, ie by people. Encouraging growth, diversity and flux in this body of people must (?) be good for the future of theatre.

There was some fun discussion of why we should(n’t) be trying to convert new audiences. Something we need to say every day: Theatre is not a panacea! Not everyone needs/should go to the theatre every day or every other day BUT – theatre should be ‘on the menu’ for everyone, so how can we communicate what it is and does well to first-time audiences?

Why is it that people see a bad play and write off theatre as a whole? (Is this even true, and what proof do we have?). A bad film or a bad book doesn’t stop people watching or reading. Possible link to ubiquity, marketing muscle, cultural status. Cultural status is a weird one - to change it would necessarily take years of focused work/lobbying/pressure, but think of the benefits! Obviously it poses all kinds of problems and raises questions way beyond theatre, but are those the terms that we need to think in?

Why target new audiences? Surely a theatre maker would prefer informed/experienced theatre goers to evaluate/experience their piece of art? Well, this isn’t always the case (cf children’s theatre, where the lack of a predictable/experience audience has to be woven into the work). And due to the wider theatre ecology, some plays need first time audiences or there’s no sustainability.

Theatre needs audiences more than vice versa.

036 How does Deaf and Disabled theatre attract a mainstream audience?

Convener: Martin McLean

Participants: Susanna, Shawn, Kerry, Tim, Amanda, Jean, Emily, Kempson, Sharan Kean, Garry Housman (Theatre Venture), Lisa Hammond, Ali Tomkinson

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

• [We need to] speak in the language of the media.

• Consider how to interest the press?

• What language should we use to talk to the media?

• As a disabled person, I get angry how I’m described – the physical is described first. If, at the end of a critique, serious consideration/criticism is made – then I am very pleased.

• Language has changed from phrases formerly used: deaf and dumb, deaf mute, a world of silence. Now, a capital D is used for the word Deaf.

• [When talking to the press] it’s silly not to say wheelchair user but how to do it so that it’s not twisted?

• Infiltrate from the inside…

• However much you try to write the killer press release, you’re stuck with whether or not the press will turn up. As soon as you say ‘disabled’ the press are off.

• What if we don’t tell them [the press/audience] in advance?


• Producers are starting to think of creative ways to attract particular audiences.

• Why is disabled art hampered? Don’t perpetuate difficulties by producing bad work.

• We’re all about accessibility but not all work can be accessible.

• If it’s good work – then it is. Why keep saying it is?

• Some work needs experimentation – it needs time. Do we need to decide when experimentation ends?

• With Counting the Ways, a research and development project, attempting to achieve inclusion almost damaged its ability to communicate.

• [With one production] with a cast of 2 (?), in terms of modes of communication, there was signing, audio description and speech – the resulting work was only partially successful.

• Sometimes watching signing can be a fixation [for hearing audiences?]

• Nonetheless, if the work is good enough audiences’ attention will stay with the work itself. [It was noted when considering a French language film] With Un Prophet, English speaking audiences will still go to see it because of its quality, despite the use of captions.

• How do we meet the brief of making amazing theatre?

• Investment in a piece so that it has the time to develop into being as good a piece as it can be.

• Using audio description, signing and so on are artistic considerations that need to be addressed creatively (money is not always the issue).

• Is the attempt to communicate – to speak – getting in the way of making theatre?

• Working with Graeae [it was noted from experience] could be frustrating when working with a number of specialist support assistants in the same small space as [one’s] fellow actors.

• One research panel asked [of a theatre maker when assessing their experience of making work]: did you have a remit to prove yourself or be more accessible?

• Q:
With regard to casting, is the same rigour applied in disabled contexts as it is in the mainstream?

• A:
It’s such a new area – people are so afraid of saying the wrong thing.

• There was a situation in one play when a deaf actor was cast who wasn’t up to the job (which she subsequently acknowledged and the role was recast with a more skilled hearing actor).

• There is a dilemma though: if deaf actors aren’t cast then how well they develop and improve, but where are the jobs?

• We [performer’s experience] can be stuck just with disability theatre – you end up caught within the same small circuit.

• With street-theatre, you can attract audiences with work on its own merit – the response is immediate.

• Whatever you say about Cast-offs, it did attract a mainstream audience.

• However, it was in the wrong way. The remit was to produce a spoof documentary but due to the poor quality of the writing etc, the result was just a piece [lacking in irony] that resembled a Channel 5 thing.

• Queer as Folk showed mainstream audiences aspects of gay life that challenged [perceptions]. Cast-offs didn’t meet expectation. It shot itself in the foot. From the start it marginalised its subject.

• Question:
How do we help to develop the quality of our product?

• Responses:
(A programming specialist’s view] Book only quality – people of quality.

• Commission work

• [Martin asked] Why do hearing audiences attend work with Deaf / disabled / and or a particular focus? [Conversely] Why do they not attend? [He is] looking for ideas.

• If you need a mainstream audience, can you cater for a deaf audience too?

• Signed songs / signing as gestural language in dance theatre can be an appealing feature of the work for mainstream audiences [as well as disabled audiences], though not necessarily – depending upon taste.

• In Israel, Nalagat produced a piece – Not by bread alone with twelve (?) disabled actors. The work, always intended for a mainstream audience, has played to good houses for two years (the work will be coming to Britain this year).

022 How can we use web technologies to help generate communities that love theatre?

Convener: Gavin O’Carroll

Participants: Greg Wohead, Caroline Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Jennifer Peary-Edwards, Sharon Seager, Matthew Uayd, Rachel McGill, Amanda Kelleher.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We talked about whether or not theatre can use online tech to enable audiences to find the theatre they know they’ll like more easily. Frustrated by the blanket emailing promotion that currently exists. We wondered if a more targeted promotion from theatre companies could be done, or indeed if audiences could use online channels to ‘pull’ recommendations for shows they’d like to see to them.

We wondered if the audience of a show were in fact a interest community. And thinking about Last.fm as a model (where people with the same musical ‘taste’ could easily connect and recommend each other music). Would this work in theatre?

We discussed how recommendations from people who don’t have a vested interest in a show were so much more powerful in getting people to go. In other industries people are find people online via Twitter etc and finding people who’s taste they trust, and then trust their recommendations for things to do, see, go and experience.

We talked about what were the best tools for theatre companies to use to market themselves and create communities around their work. Rather than the tools, it was more important to explain the point of their work, so that people who had an emotional connection to that mission would then congregate around whatever tools they used to promote with work. Explaining this point being the core requirement to generating a community and cutting through the information overload that audiences experience in the web.

We discussed the need to compliment a kind of last.fm for theatre with real life meetups, so that people could congregate around shared interests (that the theatre companies organizing the drinks might be exploring) face to face. We had examples of where this worked well in other industries such as the design world (‘Service design drinks’ were mentioned as a meetup example – very vibrant).

We wondered though it people really cared enough about theatre to tell other people?

We discussed how the properties of the internet were pro transparency and authenticity – we then wondered it the fear of technology that many theatre companies display was actually a fear of being found out? Was this justified? It was asked – in the current method of promotion – were theatre companies being dishonest in raising expectations before many shows are even finished rehearsing? Should theatre companies use video more, and not as a trailer, but as a film of aspects of performance – members of the groups felt it was hard to hide behind video. If they could move audiences with a 3 min video against a white wall then they would come to the show. Examples of where companies are involving audiences in early rehearsal footage etc already. Management of expectations was an important element.

We spoke about the possibility of having an online community for theatre audiences, where it’s ok to say they liked a show or didn’t like it and to give permission to discuss it. And give a space for the family element of celebration of when something was really good.

We felt the heart of our conversation so far was that we felt there was no support for audiences. That we needed to give audiences a focussed support network. A place where they could validate in a non-intimidating way, their thoughts of ‘that was shit wasn’t it? Am I mad for thinking that?’ or ‘the critics said that was shit, but I though it was the best thing I’ve ever seen. Am I mad? Or do I have shit taste?’ A place where they would find out they are part of a group of people who felt the same. We discussed the possibility of laptops outside shows where people should vote thumbs up and thumbs down about the show they’d just seen, and a place for them to vote again in a month once they’ve reflected on it. Awesome info for arts council funding applications for the company no? (possibly!).

009 Theatre, Film, Television, Digital Media, (Radio!): What do we have to learn from each other- Do we want to?

Convener: Sam Howey Nunn

Participants: Tom Mansfield, Annette Mees, Andrea Kantor, Barry Wilson, Jo Faith, Amy Powell-Yates, Becky Owen, Leanne Cosby, Darren Bolton and lots of other bees and butterflies


Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- My own agenda (and plug!) is that I run a Stellar Network (which is an events programme and online community) which works to support people working in theatre, film, tv and digital media. We’ve not yet done enough to corral dialogue, events, resources about issues of crossover between these industries and we’re beginning to in 2010. We’ll start with events and an advisory board all asking the same thing- what can we learn from each other? Any more info- www.stellarnetwork.com or contact me sam at stellarnetwork.com.

- We can learn from the dramaturgies of film. Focussed stories, defined genres- all particularly useful in marketing speak. Theatre is such an unknown quantity. However too reductive?
- In a theatre and in a company the Artistic Director and the Playwright etc can all try to influence the marketing of a show. Can be damaging. Film is marketed by marketers who know best how to sell their product.
- Theatre marketing can fall into clichés. Physical, devised, participatory etc. people think they know what you’re offering. How to convey the spectrum of work? Again, back to asking people to take a risk on the unknown.
- In film festivals the marketing is often more for other film-makers- there are references to style etc. In theatre are we marketing to our friends and colleagues? This led to a discussion about a lot of theatre audiences being theatre-makers. Are we all self perpetuating. When does a show break out of that circle and really become successful.
- Learning how to write screenplays can be great for a playwright. The formulas can be great if you can knowledgeably reject them (but also a lot of newish playwrights could do with remembering some of the formulas of structure!). Then again, how time unfolds, transitions etc are non transferable.
- Can TV learn from theatre on any level? Maybe on how shows are developed? Eg devising, teams of writers. It comes down to money. TV has more to lose so is necessarily more cautious.
- What does theatre offer that film & TV don’t? the event, the live experience. Why do people go to see Dirty Dancing on stage?
- Exciting things can happen in crossover especially as theatre starts to use more technological tools- well. Using headphones in theatre has some reference to radio. We’re seeing film devices onstage.
- Theatre can also find more audience in the people who watch arthouse films. How do we access this crowd? More of them should be going to the theatre.
- In US Broadway is starting to advertise on TV. We’re seeing more trailers here on Youtube, theatre websites etc. Broadwayworld.com is a central place for trailers, clips of extended scenes etc. We need that here! We might do it!
- People are getting more creative about their marketing and using film tools to do it- backstage access, rehearsal room diaries, documentaries. Sky Arts did a great example with Cate Blanchett as Hedda Gabbler. Artichoke has a deal with SkyArts that is developing their audience. More US examples of good marketing- downstagecenter.com has great podcasts showcasing people, shows.
- Moving away from marketing, can Directors cross over- they do, but is there a hierarchy- do they move freely back and forth between (eg) theatre and film? Completely different skillsets. The only real constant is the ability to tell the story and perhaps a particular sensibility. What about actors? Drama schools tend to spend 3 years on stage acting and 3 weeks on film. Its easier for actors to move from stage to film rather than vice versa. Easier to tone down than build up. Discussion of directors using film terms ‘editing’ ‘montage’ in the rehearsal room and the usefulness. We need to remember that theatregoers have seen more films than theatre in their lifetimes- they come to our shows with that perspective. Can we do something more with this?
- Discussion about training vs process in discovery in both theatre and film. But my hand was getting tired!