JUST
THE
TICKET!



IS
FREE
TICKETING
THE
ANSWER
TO
DEVELOPING
YOUNG
AUDIENCES
FOR
UK
SUBSIDISED

THEATRE?




A
Management
Research
Paper
submitted
in
partial
fulfilment
of
the
degree
of
BA
(Hons)

Music,
Theatre
and
Entertainment
Management



©
AYSHA
POWELL,
May
2009




The
Liverpool
Institute
of
Performing
Arts




 


Acknowledgements


I
would
like
to
thank
all
the
people
who
gave
their
time
to
be
interviewed
for
this

Management
Research
Paper.




My
friends
for
their
ongoing
support.



Mr.
Pursehouse.




My
family.



All
the
Management
Lecturers
at
LIPA
for
their
knowledge
and
guidance
over
the
past
three

years.



 


Contents


Abstract


1. Introduction



2. Literature
Review


2.1
Introduction


2.2
Subsidised
Theatre


2.3
Pricing


2.4
Audience
Development


2.5
Young
People


2.6
A
Night
Less
Ordinary


2.7
Value


2.8
Test
Drive
the
Arts


2.8.1
The
Value
of
the
Offer


2.8.2
The
Value
of
the
Relationship


2.8.3
The
Value
of
the
Brand


2.8.4
The
Value
of
the
Experience


2.9
The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing


3.
Methodology


3.1
Research
philosophy

 


3.2
Research
Approach


3.3
Research
Strategy


3.4
Research
Choice


3.5
Data
Collection


3.5.1
Interviews


3.5.2
Observation


3.6
Data
Analysis


3.7
Data
Quality


4.
Findings
and
Analysis


4.1
Pricing
and
Audience
Development


4.1.1
How
important
is
price
in
audience
development
strategies?


4.1.2
What
are
the
other
key
tools
used
in
developing
audiences?


4.2
Young
People


4.2.1
What
are
the
perceived
barriers
in
attracting
young
people
to
the
theatre?


4.2.1.1
Price


4.2.1.2
Value


4.3
A
Night
Less
Ordinary


4.3.1
Approaches
to
the
scheme


4.3.2
Negatives
of
the
scheme

 


4.3.3
Positives
of
the
scheme



 4.3.4
Evaluation
of
the
scheme


4.4
The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing


4.4.1
When
Developing
young
audiences
of
the
future
where
does
the
importance

lie:
The
Value
of
the
Offer?
The
Value
of
Relationship?
The
Value
of
the
Brand?



 4.4.2
Future
Pricing
Strategies


4.4.3
Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
younger
audiences
for
UK
subsidised

theatre?


4.5
Summary


5.
Conclusion


6.
Bibliography


7.
Appendices




 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Abstract


This
paper
intends
to
answer
the
following
question:
Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to

developing
audiences
in
UK
subsidised
theatre?


The
literature
review
presents
the
results
of
secondary
research.
Firstly,
it
introduces

the
concept
of
pricing
within
subsidised
theatre
by
defining
the
term
and
presenting

current
pricing
strategies.
This
is
followed
by
criticisms
of
how
price
is
used
within

the
arts,
including
comments
on
the
recent
use
of
pricing
within
audience

development.



Subsequently,
audience
development
within
young
people
will
be
discussed,

particularly
focusing
on
the
recent
free
ticket
scheme,
an
idea
that
was
initiated
by

the
Department
for
Media
Culture
and
Sport
(DCMS)
and
administered
by
Arts

Council
England
(ACE).
Following
this,
the
paper
looks
at
analysing
an
audience

development
initiative
and
comparing
it
against
that
of
its
current
replacement,

covering
both
issues
of
their
value
and
viability.



The
methodology
then
builds
the
framework
for
the
primary
research.
It
covers

areas
such
as
research
philosophy,
approach,
strategy,
data
collection
methods,
data

analysis
and
data
quality
issues.
The
objective
of
the
research
paper
is
to
collect
in‐
depth
perspectives
from
key
arts
sector
professionals
and
young
people
targeted
by

the
scheme
through
interviews
and
observation.


Key
findings
from
the
research
reveal
the
following
significant
reservations

surrounding
the
scheme:
uncertainty
over
the
extent
to
which
young
people
will

continue
to
attend
the
theatre
once
the
free
ticket
scheme
has
ran
it’s
course.

Inconsistencies
between
the
approaches
taken
by
different
theatres,
with
some

feeling
that
the
funding
could
be
applied
in
a
different
way;
and
a
possibility
that
the

offer
of
free
tickets
could
ultimately
de‐value
theatre.


In
conclusion,
details
are
given
on
whether
free
tickets
are
a
successful
way
of

developing
young
audiences
in
UK
subsidised
theatres,
and
an
explanation
of
why

this
is
so.


 6

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




1.
Introduction


Research
shows
that
every
year,
there
are
over
6
million
unsold
seats
in
theatres
in

the
UK.
(Morris
et
al.,
1999,
p.
1)
Ten
years
on,
theatre
attendance
figures
still

remain
to
be
a
problem.
To
overcome
this,
theatres
are
competing
with
other
forms

of
entertainment
to
attract
new
audiences,
as
unfortunately
it
is
not
a
statutory

requirement
in
the
UK
for
all
citizens
over
the
aged
of
18
to
attend
one
arts
event

per
week.
But
in
the
case
of
young
audiences
as
Coleman
acknowledges,
they
are

competing
like
never
before.




A
big
issue
for
a
lot
of
theatre
companies
right
now
is
looking
to
the
future,

and
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
can
build
new
audiences,
specifically
younger

audiences


(Coleman,
2009)


A
passion
for
the
theatre
and
an
anxiety
concerning
the
lack
of
young
people
within

theatre
audiences
are
the
issues
that
have
prompted
this
Management
Research

Paper.
In
this
fight
for
the
development
of
a
younger
audience,
the
question

regarding
the
best
method
to
achieve
the
goal
of
growing
attendances
has

challenged
the
arts
sector
since
ACE
saw
theatre
audiences
decline
and
the
end
of

the
last
decade
(Arts
Council
England,
2000).
One
particular
method
that
has

attracted
much
debate
and
discussion
has
been
‘price’.



In
this
research
paper
I
hope
to
look
at
the
role‐pricing
can
and
has
played
in

audience
development.
Analysing
the
key
drivers
in
young
people’s
attendance
and

lack
of
attendance
at
arts
venues.
I
will
critically
examine
ACE’s
free‐ticket
initiative

set
up
specifically
to
solve
this
problem
–
‘A
Night
Less
Ordinary’
and
finally
propose

an
answer
that
knits
three
key
elements
of
value
within
audience
development

together
to
create
a
sustainable
free
ticket
initiative
for
attracting
and
keeping

young
audiences
towards
theatre.


 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




2.1
Literature
Review


2.1
Introduction


Between
the
years
of
2009
and
2011
more
than
200
subsidised
venues
will
be

offering
618,000
free
tickets
to
under
26
years
olds.
ACE
inform
us
that:



We
want
all
children
and
young
people*in
England
to
have
contact
with
the

arts
–
as
participants
and
audience
members.
When
children
and
young

people
experience
high‐quality
arts,
it
helps
them
to
develop
not
only
their

own
artistic
skills
and
cultural
understanding,
but
also
encourages
the

development
of
their
talents
in
other
aspects
of
their
lives.


*
The
Arts
Council
includes
young
people
up
to
25
years
old
in
its
definition
of

children
and
young
people.



(Arts
Council
England,
2008)


2.2
Subsidised
theatre


Throughout
this
research
paper,
the
term
‘subsidised
’
refers
to
theatres
and
venues

that
receive
subsidy
from
the
funding
body
ACE
(also
known
as
public
funding).
ACE

is
the
National
Development
Agency
for
the
arts.
They
are
an
independent,
non‐
political
body,
who
distribute
public
funds,
including
National
Lottery
funding;

commission
research;
promote
innovation
in
the
arts;
and
provide
advice
and

information
to
artists
and
arts
organisations
(Arts
Council
England,
2004).
They
will

be
the
main
organisation
discussed
within
this
research
paper.



2.3
Pricing


Pricing
is
seen
as
‘part
of
the
problem,
at
least
in
the
subsidised
sector’
(Ings
cited
in

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
13).
Arts
Consultant
Richard
Ings
states
that
this

problem
is
due
to
arts
organisations
not
using
pricing
as
part
of
their
broad
strategy

or
to
maximise
their
revenue
in
fear
of
having
their
subsidy
removed.
However,
ACE

policy
now
supports
arts
organisations
to
‘thrive,
not
just
survive’
(ibid.)
and
in
an

attempt
to
further
tackle
the
issues
of
pricing,
2007
saw
ACE
launch
a
publication

entitled
‘Call
It
A
Tenner:
The
Role
of
Pricing
in
the
Arts’
(CIAT)
(Arts
Council
England,

2007).


The
word
‘pricing’
referred
to
in
this
research
paper
means
the:



Method
adopted
[…]
to
set
[…]
price.
It
usually
depends
on
[…]
average
costs,

and
on
the
customer's
perceived
value
of
the
product
in
comparison
to
his
or

her
perceived
value
of
the
competing
products.
Different
pricing
methods

place
varying
degree
of
emphasis
on
selection,
estimation,
and
evaluation
of

costs,
comparative
analysis,
and
market
situation.



(Business
Dictionary,
2009)


Until
CIAT
there
has
been
very
little
detailed
research
into
pricing’s
role
in
the
arts.

Consequently,
arts
managers
have
had
very
few
resources
available
to
appreciate

that
pricing
can
be
a
strategy
(Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
14).


However,
there
are
two
main
strategies
currently
being
used
within
the
subsidised

sector.
The
first
being
cost‐based
pricing.
Authors
of
Creative
Arts
Marketing
Hill
et

al.
defines
this
as
‘set
prices
sufficient
at
least
to
cover
costs’
(2003,
p.
165).
The

second
approach
being
demand‐based
pricing.
This
is
‘assessing
the
value
that
the

customer
places
on
a
product
or
service,
a
demand
based
approach
attempts
to
set

prices
according
to
what
the
market
will
bear’
(ibid.).


Angela
Galvin
ex‐chief
executive
of
Sheffield
Theatres
believes
using
these
pricing

strategies,
theatres
can
‘exercise
some
control
over
where
we
position
ourselves
and

the
impact
this
has
on
our
artistic
vision,
on
public
perceptions
of
value
for
money

and
on
our
future’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
41).


Another
element
of
this
‘control’
is
to
set
a
price
in
order
to
secure
theatre

audiences
of
the
future.
Doing
this
is
not
a
simple
task,
as
it
is
believed
‘pricing
plays



 9

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




a
complex
role
which
links
many
other
marketing
mix
decisions
being
made
in
an

organization’
(Hill
et
al.
2003,
p.156).


Authors
of
Standing
Room
Only:
Strategies
for
Marketing
the
Performing
Arts
Kotler

and
Scheff
define
the
marketing
mix
as
‘one
of
the
key
concepts
in
modern

marketing
theory’
(2007,
p.
42).


The
maketing
mix
consists
of:


• Product

• Price

• Place

• Promotion


Setting
a
price
for
a
theatre
ticket
therefore
becomes
more
than
a
transactional

decision;
it
sets
in
motion
a
complex
engagement
with
a
customer.
Professor
Robert

Hewison
describes
this
in
the
following
way:
‘when
an
arts
organisation
sells
you
a

ticket,
it
is
the
beginning
of
a
personal
relationship’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,

2007,
p.
25).
This
personal
relationship
places
price
in
the
role
of
just
one
catalyst

within
the
wider
activity
of
attracting
audiences.
This
is
sometimes
implemented
on

a
large
scale,
known
as
audience
development.


If
price,
is
only
one
element
of
the
marketing
mix
when
developing
audiences,
it

raises
the
question:
To
what
extent
does
price
play
in
audience
development

strategies?


2.4
Audience
Development


The
term
‘audience
development’
used
throughout
this
research
paper
refers
to:


The
organisational
culture
embraces
collaborative
working
to
create
an

environment
where
existing
supporters
are
cherished
and
taken
on
a
journey

to
extend
and
deepen
their
engagement,
while
new
people
are
welcomed

and
encouraged
to
build
a
relationship
with
the
organisation.




 10

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




(Kaynes
cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
86)



Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
this
paper
when
audience
development
is
discussed,
it

will
refer
to
the
notion:
‘new
people
are
welcomed
and
encouraged
to
build
a

relationship
with
the
organisation’
(ibid.).


In
Galvins
opinion
‘pricing
strategies
should
be
informed
by
[…]
audience

development
plans’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
42),
implying
audience

development
should
be
considered
before
pricing
strategies
are
implemented.


In
spite
of
this,
the
arts
sector
allows
the
relationship
between
pricing
and
audience

development
to
be
ran
on
the
‘assumption
that
arts
audiences
are
particularly
price‐
sensitive
and
will
appreciate
a
price
tailored
for
them’
(Ings
cited
in:
Arts
Council

England,
2007,
p.
19).



Paul
Kaynes
West
Midlands
Creative
Programmer
for
the
Cultural
Olympiad

highlights:


There’s
a
popular
belief
that
high
ticket
prices
are
the
reason
that
our
arts

venues
are
perceived
by
the
majority
of
the
UK
as
‘not
for
them’
–
and
that

lowering
prices
would
lead
to
larger
audiences


(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
86)


Although
discount‐pricing
strategies
may
have
been
successful
for
some
arts

organisations,
this
does
not
necessarily
mean
the
complex
purchasing
process
that

consumers
undertake
can
be
ignored.
This
process
includes
considering
all
non‐
financial
factors
affecting
perceptions
of
price,
as
shown
in
the
diagram

below.


 11

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Fig
1.
Non‐financial
factors
affecting
perceptions
of
price
(Hill
et
al.
2003,
p.
167)




This
is
a
limitation
identified
by
Kaynes,
as
he
believes
that
‘price
alone
can
never

achieve
audience
development
goals’.
He
then
goes
on
to
state
‘price
has
a
role
to

play
in
supporting
audience
development
programmes,
but
that
needn’t
necessarily

mean
lower
prices’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
87).



To
further
support
this
theory
figures
have
been
compiled
by
ACE
as
part
of
their

Taking
Part
Survey
in
2005‐6
that
demonstrates
that
price
is
not
the
only
reason

people
do
not
attend
arts
event.
In
fact,
only
6%
of
the
people
questioned
stated
it

cost
too
much
to
(Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
88).


However,
in
recognising
the
importance
of
price,
and
if
used
appropriately,
alongside



 12

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




a
range
of
other
methods,
it
can
be
crucial
part
of
the
offer
–
‘a
way
[…]
of
reaching
a

specific
group
such
as
young
people
[…]
but
[…]
can
never
work
in
isolation’
(Kaynes

cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.890.)


When
developing
audiences
within
the
arts
sector,
2003
saw
ACE
turn
their
focus
to

young
people
when
they
declared
‘we
have
devised
initiatives
to
encourage
young

people
to
get
involved’
(Arts
Council
England,
2003,
p.65).


To
fully
understand
and
develop
these
young
audiences,
the
barriers
and
attitudes

that
motivate
and
prevent
them
attending
the
arts
were
investigated,
which
raises

the
question,
what
are
the
barriers
that
hinder
developing
younger
audiences?


2.5
Young
People


Throughout
this
research
paper,
the
term
‘young
people’
refers
to
people
who
are

post‐compulsory
education
and
under
the
age
of
twenty‐six.


ACE
along
with
the
DCMS
launched
the
New
Audiences
Programme
in
1998
that

funded
arts
organisations
to
reach
new
people
until
2003.
ACE
members
Johnson
et

al.
explained
a
sum
of
£5,733,298
went
to
408
projects
that
focused
on
young

people.




The
projects
targeted
at
young
people
were
built
around:


• Addressing
barriers
to
attendance
and
participation

• New
marketing
approaches

• Encouraging
participation


(2004)


Once
completed
the
findings
from
these
projects
revealed:



 13

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




• Attendance
at
arts
events
is
correlated
with
socio‐economic
factors

• Although
the
physical
barriers
to
attendance
of
cost,
travel
and
lack
of
time

are
significant,
psychological
barriers
are
paramount
and
are
best

summarised
as
a
general
feeling
amongst
some
young
people
that
the
arts

are
irrelevant
to
them
and
culturally
exclusive



(ibid.)


Theatre
critic
Lyn
Gardner
recognises
these
psychological
barriers
and
declares

theatre
as
a
habit,
and
a
habit
that
‘that
many
lose
as
soon
as
they
leave
school’

(2008).


Despite
this
being
a
psychological
barrier
stopping
young
people
attending
the

theatre,
but
there
also
worries
surrounding
the
physical
barriers
stopping
their

attendance.
Managing
Director
of
the
English
National
Ballet
Craig
Hassal
highlights

‘We
are
now
in
a
competititive
market
where
a
night
at
the
ballet
competes
with

cinema,
cable
television,
football,
YouTube
and
a
great
meal
out’
(cited
in:
Arts

Council
England,
2007,
p.
7).


Here
he
shows,
if
the
current
barriers
preventing
young
people
attending
the
theatre

continue
to
increase,
it
is
necessary
for
the
theatres
as
Ings
states
to
understand
the

‘wider
cultural
trends
that
affect
how
people
are
choosing
to
spend
their
money,

time
and
energy’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.20).



The
results
of
the
New
Audiences
Programme
indicate
that
price
is
not
the
only

obstacle
theatres
face
when
attracting
young
people,
an
issues
that
Kaynes

highlights:
‘projects
that
focused
on
price
alone
were
not
[…]
successful,
while
those

that
took
a
broader
approach,
looking
at
price
alongside
a
range
of
issues
or

perceived
barriers,
fared
better’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
86).


To
tackle
this
the
CIAT
report
recommends
that
theatres
‘keep
a
careful
eye
on
the

people’s
perceptions
of
value,
[they]
do
not
remain
static
as
culture
shifts’
(Ings
cited

in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
20).


However,
Howard
Raynor,
Managing
Director
of
World
Class
Service
Ltd
(2009)
sets

out
an
audiences
core
needs
as
follows:



 14

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




We
have
to
act
and
focus
on
the
issues
and
situations
that
our
audiences
will

connect
with.
They
still
want
treats,
they
still
want
to
escape,
they
still
want

to
socialise,
and
they
want
quality
and
integrity
more
than
ever.


If
these
are
the
barriers
facing
young
people
have
been
identified,
a
question
now

occurs
surrounding
how
theatres
and
arts
organisations
are
attempting
to
reduce

these
barriers?


2.6
A
Night
Less
Ordinary


Six
years
on,
however,
and
regardless
of
their
research
in
CIAT
(more
recently
in

2007)
and
the
New
Audience
Programme
(in
2003),
ACE
have
decided
that
price
is

the
major
barrier
to
increasing
the
number
of
young
people
attending
the
theatres.

Sir
Brian
McMaster’s
initial
idea
to
dispose
of
this
barrier
was
an
‘annual
free
week’.

In
his
Excellence
in
the
Arts
Review
he
states:




Engaging
new
audiences
and
deepening
their
experiences
has
long
been
a
goal


of
funding
bodies,
cultural
organisations,
artists
and
practitioners
alike.

One
of


the
biggest
barriers
to
audience
engagement
is
the
notion
held
by
many
that

the
arts
are
simply
not
for
them.

The
‘it’s
not
for
me’
syndrome
is
endemic

and
conspires
to
exclude
people
from
experiences
that
could
transform
their

lives.
To
help
overcome
this
and
building
on
the
experience
of
free
admission

to
museums
and
galleries,
all
admission
prices
should
be
removed
from

publicly
funded
cultural
organisations
for
one
week.




(2008,
p.
17)




This
idea
was
ill
advised
as
there
was
a
danger
there
was
nothing
to
stop
regular

theatre‐goers
from
‘nabbing
all
the
free
seats’
as
reported
by
Alistair
Smith
reporter

for
the
Stage
(2008).



So
in
light
of
ACE
securing
an
extra
£2.5
million
for
audience
development
and
the

DCMS
committing
this
new
money
to
extend
young
people’s
access
to
the
arts.
2009



 15

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




saw
a
new
Government‐backed
free
ticket
scheme
called
‘A
Night
Less
Ordinary’

(ANLO).




At
the
heart
of
the
scheme
is
a
commitment
by
‘more
than
200
venues
in
England
to

distribute
618,000
free
tickets
to
people
aged
under
26’
(McIntyre,
2008).


Arts
Professional
(2008)
described
the
scheme
as
follows:


Young
people
will
be
able
to
book
up
to
six
free
tickets
at
a
time,
and
there

will
be
no
limit
on
how
often
any
one
person
may
attend.
Theatre
will
set

their
own
weekly
or
annual
targets
for
ticket
giveaways,
and
can
implement

their
own
policy
on
whether
under‐16’s
should
be
accompanied
by
an
adult



These
theatres
will
receive
payouts
of
four
different
amounts:


• Multi
Award
‐
£300,000

• Premium
Award
‐
£50,000

• Standard
Award
‐
£30,00

• Flexible
Award
‐
£10,000


Once
launched
in
February
2009,
the
scheme
was
initially
viewed
in
a
positive
light.


With
Andrew
McIntyre
of
Morris
Hargreaves
McIntyre
creative
and
intelligent

consultancy
(2008)
believing
the
‘eye‐catching
offer
will
undoubtedly
result
in
more

young
people
attending
more
performances’.
Similarly
Jayne
Edwards,
theatre
editor

of
Time
Out
London
stated
‘Cost
is
always
a
huge
issue
when
going
to
the
theatre.

When
the
price
goes
down,
I’m
sure
more
people
will
go’
(cited
in:
Koole,
2008).


However,
Gardner
questioned
‘whether
free
theatre
seats
alone
will
be
enough
to

convince
this
age
group
to
go
to
the
theatre?’
(Smith,
2008).
Her
continuing

skepticism
for
this
scheme
is
further
highlighted
when
she
states
‘price
is
not
the

only
factor.
Large
numbers
of
young
people
simply
don’t
think
theatres
is
for
them.’

(2009).
This
comment
echoes
the
psychological
barrier
theory
discussed
above.



But
is
price
is
still
the
barrier
preventing
young
people
attending
the
theatre?




McIntyre
argues
not:



 16

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




The
vast
majority
of
young
people
already
buy
tickets
for
other
live
events

(clubs,
festivals,
gigs,
sport)
that
are
considerably
more
expensive
than
the

prices
being
offered
by
theatres
[…]
for
them,
it’s
not
about
the
actual
price,

it’s
about
the
perceived
value‐for‐money
being
offered.
Why?
Because
we

haven’t
convinced
them
it
will
give
them
what
they
want
and
need.
Reducing

the
price,
even
as
low
as
zero,
will
certainly
match
their
low
valuation
of

theatre
but
in
doing
so,
it
validates
this
low
valuation.



(2008)


The
main
issue
raised
within
this
comment
is
the
perceived
value
young
people
may

place
on
a
free
theatre
ticket.
Eleanor
Turvey
of
Arts
Professional
highlights
the

worrying
possibility
that
young
people
‘will
see
a
free
ticket
as
without
value’
(2008)

with
Theatre
Consultant
Crispin
Raymond
agreeing
that
‘dropping
prices,
in
effect

having
a
‘sale’,
can
all
too
easily
send
the
signal
that
the
production
is
not
worth

seeing’
(1999,
p.23).


These
comments
imply
that
ACE
in
setting
up
ANLO
has
failed
to
cover
the
complex
–

or
even
the
key
–
elements
in
a
young
persons
decision‐making
process
when
buying

entertainment.


This
above
statement
from
Raymond
–
supported
by
the
principle
that
‘price
is

considered
by
consumers
to
be
a
strong
indicator
of
quality’
(Kotler
and
Scheff,

1997,
p.
236)
–
suggests
that
ACE
could
not
be
realising
the
potential
negative

consequences
of
their
actions,
by
undermining
the
real
and
full
value
of
theatre

through
simply
giving
it
away
for
free,
that
could
have
other
wise
been
avoided,

some
may
say
this
is
shooting
oneself
in
the
foot.


According
to
Tim
Baker
and
Liz
Palles‐Clarke
of
Baker
Richard’s
Consulting
Ltd

theatres
need
to
understand
that

‘the
difference
between
cost,
price,
and
value
is

fundamental’
(2007,
p.5).


They
explain:


In
the
arts,
we
frequently
underestimate
the
value
that
we
offer.
Simply

offering
bigger
discounts
is
not
the
solution
to
selling
more
tickets,
since

discounting
is
irrelevant
if
absolutely
no
value
is
recognised
by
a
potential



 17

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




customer
[…]
Furthermore,
discounting
can
also
impact
negatively
on

prevailing
perceptions
of
value.


(ibid.)



It
appears
that
by
offering
free
tickets
ACE
have
failed
to
consider
the
psychological

barriers
effecting
young
people
attending
the
theatre.
Caroline
Brader,
head
of

Activ8,
at
the
Bolton
Octagon
Theatre
reinforces
lower
prices
don’t
always
result
in

larger
audiences:
‘we
have
a
special
ticket
for
£4
for
young
people
for
any
show
and

we
hardly
sell
any
of
them’
(cited
in:
Koole,
2008)


These
views
imply
the
ANLO
scheme
could
be
devaluing
the
product
of
theatre
in

the
eyes
of
the
young
people
–
and
by
doing
so
the
long‐term
sustainability
of

theatres.
McIntyre
warns
if
ACE
are
‘not
concerned
if
the
same
people
are

repeatedly
given
free
tickets:
we
may
create
a
culture
of
non‐payment’
(2008)
with

business
model
expert
Chris
Anderson
warning
that
a
culture
of
non‐payment
may

be
approaching,
‘when
free
will
be
seen
as
the
norm’
(2008)


To
prevent
this,
a
relationship
between
price
and
value
has
to
be
created
and
Brader

believes
this
relationship
is
achievable
by
‘encouraging
young
people
to
get
involved,

explaining
to
them
what
theatre
is
all
about’
(cited
in:
Koole,
2008).


2.7
Value


In
order
to
achieve
this
a
relationship
between
price,
value
and
audience

development,
theatres
need
to
communicate
three
core
elements
of
value:


• The
value
of
the
offer

• The
value
of
the
relationship


• The
value
of
the
brand.




 18

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Combined
these
three
factors
result
in
the
value
of
the
experience
–
the
most

valuable
‘value’
of
all.



Fig
2:
Value
Model


Baker
summarises
the
importance
of
value
and
how
a
free
ticket
may
not
necessarily

be
needed
to
attract
young
people
to
the
theatre:
‘People
are
looking
for
the
value

they
will
get
for
their
money,
and
if
they
think
they
will
get
it,
they
will
pay’
(2007,
p.

5).



Rick
Bond,
Director
of
The
Complete
Works
(UK)
Ltd
(cited
in:
Turvey,
2009)
also

believes
there
are
more
effective
ways
to
inspire
young
people
and
market
our

theatres
than
a
free
ticket.
This
is
ensuring
the
‘value
of
the
experience’
is

communicated
(See
model
above.)
Doing
this
results
in
taking
a
more
rounded,

holistic
approach
to
developing
young
audiences,
explained
in
following
statement

from
Gardener
(2008):
‘If
young
people
are
going
to
engage
with
theatre,
it’s
not
just

the
price
that
has
to
be
right.
It
has
to
be
the
programming,
then
environment
and
a

culture
that
makes
them
feel
comfortable
and
welcome.’



Doing
this
can
result
in
young
people
wanting
to
pay
for
their
ticket
due
to

understanding
the
value
it
holds.
This
point
is
reiterated
by
Ings:
‘both
first
time
and

regular
attenders
are
more
likely
to
be
attracted
by
the
offered
experience
than
by



 19

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




price
alone:
the
tickets
cost
me
a
fortune,
but
it
was
worth
it’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council

England,
2007,
p.
19).


Theatres
have
been
using
various
strategies
to
successfully
encourage
new
attenders

for
a
long
time
that
has
not
affected
the
perceived
value
of
theatre.
For
a
further

insight
into
this
and
how
a
successful
relationship
between
can
be
built
between

price
and
value
within
the
arts
I
will
now
look
into
a
previous
ACE
initiative.


2.8
Test
Drive
the
Arts


In
CIAT
Galvin
recommends:


If
pricing
is
vital
in
promoting
institutional
value,
in
an
age
when
many

products,
from
cars
to
computers,
are
valued
as
enhancing
experiences
[…]

then
arts
organisations
and
venues
clearly
need
to
take
it
seriously
[…]

making
it
part
of
their
overall
strategy
and
vision


(cited
in:
Arts
Council,
2007,
p.
40)


ACE
did
this
prior
to
the
CIAT
publication
through
a
scheme
they
named
Test
Drive

The
Arts
(TDTA).
A
programme
set
up
for
overcoming
barriers
to
first‐time

attendance.
This
scheme
will
now
be
discussed,
using
the
value
model
(Fig.
1)
to

compare
it
to
that
of
the
ANLO
scheme.


TDTA
was
a
very
carefully
thought
out
and
tested
approach
that
did
encourage
ticket

buying,
administered
by
Arts
About
Manchester,
in
1998.
The
programme
has
been

deemed
hugely
successful,
using
a
product
taster
i.e.
a
Test
Drive
to
‘give
potential

attenders
a
‘taste’
of
the
product
in
order
to
stimulate
repeat
attendance’
(Morris
et

al.,
1999.
p.
1).
McIntyre
observes
‘It’s
a
simple
concept
[…]:
you
wouldn’t
buy
a
car

without
test
driving
it
first
[…]
so
why
do
we
expect
non‐arts
attenders
to
take
a

punt
on
the
arts?’
(cited
in:
McNaughton,
2008).



 20

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




The
scheme
resulted
in
reaching
over
20,000
new
attenders
and
persuading
‘35%
to

come
back
and
pay
within
a
year’
whilst
also
making
profit.
According
to
McIntyre

‘Test
Drive
avoids
devaluing
‘free’
tickets
by
offering
them
as
‘guest
tickets’
and
‘VIP

invitations’
(2008).



This
scheme
is
comparable
to
Anderson’s
successful
‘Freemium’
business
model

used
all
over
the
world
to
engage
their
customers.
In
an
article
for
the
BBC

‘Anderson
refers
to
the
spray
of
perfume
given
away
free
in
the
department
store
to

encourage
customers
to
buy
a
whole
bottle.
One
per
cent
of
the
product
is
given

away
free
in
order
to
sell
99%’
(cited
in:
Bayley,
2009).



2.8.1
The
Value
of
the
Offer


The
first
element
within
TDTA
is
the
value
of
the
offer:


Fig
3:
Value
Model
‐
Offer


The
offer
being
a
free
Test
Drive.
Author
James
Williams
explains
‘Many
car
sales

people
urge
prospective
buyers
to
take
a
test
drive
to
‘feel
the
excitement’
of
the



 21

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




new
car’
(2003,
p.
22).
The
Test
Drive
(The
offer)
is
free,
emotive
and
powerful,
but

in
no
ways
suggests
that
the
final
and
future
product
will
be
free.
The
tactic
being
to

prove
the
value
of
final
purchased
product.


ANLO
fails
to
do
this
by
simply
stating
the
offer
as
a
‘free
ticket’,
there
are
no

comparisons
to
previous
free
trial
initiatives
buy
one
get
one
free
marketing
tactics

or
no
emphasis
of
programming
productions
targeted
at
young
people,
therefore

ACE
are
simply
giving
away
free
tickets
and
allowing
the
theatres
the
freedom
to

convey
this
offer
however
they
choose.


2.8.2
The
Value
of
the
Relationship


The
second
element
of
TDTA
is
the
value
of
the
relationship:


Fig
4:
Value
Model
‐
Relationship


At
the
heart
of
the
TDTA
scheme
is
the
objective
of
creating
consistent
attendees

out
of
the
samplers
or
as
Kaynes
succinctly
puts
it,
the
aim
is
to
convert



 22

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




‘respondents
to
become
full
–price
ticket
payers,
weaning
them
off
the
need
for

reductions
or
free
offers’
(cited
in:
Arts
Council
England,
2007,
p.
91).



This
highlights
the
value
of
the
relationship.
Using
the
example
from
car
sales

Williams
further
explains
car
manufacturers
‘know
that
a
test
drive
bonds
people

emotionally
to
the
car,
making
it
harder
to
walk
away
from
the
purchase’
(2003,
p.

22).
Frequently
resulting
in
the
customer
purchasing
the
car
after
the
Test
Drive.
In

the
case
of
theatre,
people
buying
a
full
price
ticket
after
testing
out
a
free
one.


This
responsibility
of
forming
a
lasting
relationship
with
the
young
people
has
been

handed
to
the
theatres
running
the
scheme
as
Alan
Davey
acknowledges
‘giving

away
free
tickets
alone
would
not
be
enough
to
develop
new
audiences’
He

continues
‘a
lot
depends
on
what
you
do
around
it
and
how
you
grab
and
nurture

the
people
that
you
get
hold
of,
so
they
don’t
become
people
who
are
just
addicted

to
free
tickets’
(cited
in:
Smith,
2009)
It
could
be
further
argued
that
ANLO
fails
to

develop
a
relationship
between
young
people
and
the
theatre
as
McIntyre
worries:

‘The
free
tickets
scheme
has
no
exit
strategy’
and
that
‘there’s
no
plan
to
wean
these

young
attenders
off
the
discount
and
into
the
box
office.’
(2008).



2.8.3
The
Value
of
the
Brand


Finally
to
attract
young
people
to
the
theatre
with
a
free
ticket
and
then
create
a

lasting
relationship
with
them,
to
ensure
they
buy
theatre
tickets
in
the
future,
can

be
helped
by
communicating
the
value
of
the
brand.
This
is
the
third
element
of

TDTA:



 23

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Fig
5:
Value
Model
‐
Brand


When
looking
at
the
value
of
the
brand
communicated
by
TDTA,
you
have
to
go
no

further
than
the
title
of
the
scheme.
By
using
the
recognisable
concept
of
a
Test

Drive
customers
can
easily
identify
what
the
offer
entails,
emphasising
the
power
of

a
brand
–
an
example
of
this
within
the
arts
sector
is
the
relationship
created

between
a
cinema
chain
(Odeon)
and
mobile
phone
company
(Orange)
called

‘Orange
Wednesdays’
a
popular
buy
one
get
one
free
initiative.


Some
theatres
who
are
implementing
the
scheme
are
tackling
this
barrier,
by

building
on
their
existing
student
on
young
people’s
deals
they
have
branded

individually
to
ensure
the
overall
brand
of
theatre
in
its
broadest
sense
is
made

stronger,
but
ACE
have
failed
to
create
an
overall
durable
brand
by
simply
calling
the

scheme
ANLO,
a
name
that
promotes
‘isolation’,
to
an
audience
who
already
retain

barriers
towards
a
form
of
entertainment
they
see
as
‘not
for
them’.


2.8.4
The
Value
of
the
Experience




 24

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




All
three
of
the
elements
discussed
above
result
in
the
value
of
the
experience:


Fig
6:
Value
Model
‐
Experience


To
gain
young
people’s
attention
and
win
their
loyalty,
ACE
and
theatres
will
have
to

improve
their
free
based
initiatives,
to
ensure
they
are
value
based
initiatives
rather

than
continuing
to
offer
theatre
simply
for
‘free’,
as
ANLO
does
at
present.


However,
despite
this
success
TDTA
was
not
taken
forward.
In
McIntyre’s
words:


It’s
all
been
forgotten
in
the
UK
and
by
the
very
Arts
Council
that
funded
it’s

development.
Research
(ironically
also
funded
by
ACE)
shows
that
it’s
a

success
is
because
it’s
not
a
free
ticket
scheme.
It
works
because
the

persuasive,
personal
invitation
buts
through
recipients’
inertia
and
creates
a

compelling
high‐value
proposition
and
a
value
chain
that
leads
directly
to
re‐
purchase


(2008)


2.9
The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing



 25

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




An
inherent
indication
between
the
successes
of
TDTA
and
the
reservations

surrounding
ANLO
when
comparing
the
two
is
the
lack
of
research,
or
adopted

research
concerning
young
people
in
the
arts
when
setting
up
ANLO.
Researchers

Morton
Smyth
Limited
recommend
a
solution
to
this:
‘stepping
in
your
customer’s

shoes’
suggesting
its
‘a
good
way
to
define
the
most
appropriate
benefit’s
to
offer
to

different
target
groups’
(2004,
p.
37).


A
quote
from
Charlotte
Jones
of
the
Independent
Theatre
Council
proves
ACE
have

not
done
this,
and
her
comments
have
provoked
the
research
question
for
this

paper.
She
told
The
Stage:



There’s
a
feeling
[ANLO]
shows
a
lack
of
understanding
of
how
the
industry

works
and
how
you
develop
audiences
for
theatre.
It’s
a
short‐term
solution
to

a
long‐term
problem
and
it’s
unsustainable


(cited
in:
Smith,
2009)


The
TDTA
scheme
discussed
above
was
effective,
and
the
reasons
behind
this

success
were
its
three‐fringed
leverage
of
value
delivered
through
its
branding,
offer

construction
and
on‐going
customer
relationship.
It
must
be
noted,
however,
that

theatres
now
operate
in
an
environment
where
the
public
is
being
increasingly

supplied
with
‘free’
products
or
dramatically
reduced‐price
products
as
Anderson

stated
earlier.


The
literature
review
established
that
by
not
recognising
fully
the
role
value
(through

brand,
offer
and
relationship)
plays
in
overall
pricing
and
audience
development

strategies;
there
is
a
danger
that
schemes
such
as
ANLO
will
not
sustain
long‐term

growth
in
the
number
of
young
people
attending
theatre.



Therefore
the
research
question
asks:
Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing

young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?


 26

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




3.
Methodology


The
objective
of
this
research
methodology
is
to
gather
primary
data
in
order
to

answer
the
proposed
research
question.
This
data
will
build
on
the
research

collected
within
the
literature
review.
This
methodology
will
now
discuss
the
style
of

research
and
the
techniques
deemed
most
appropriate
for
this
empirical
research.



3.1
Research
Philosophy


The
research
philosophy
adopted
is
the
concept
of
interpretism,
which
derives
from

the
intellectual
tradition
of
phenomenology.



This
philosophy
is
succinctly
explained
in
the
following
quotation:
‘Phenomenology

refers
to
the
way
in
which
we
as
humans
make
sense
of
the
world
around
us’

(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
107).
Choosing
this
philosophy
means
that
‘the
researcher

has
to
adopt
an
empathetic
stance
[…and]
enter
the
social
world
of
our
research

subjects
and
understand
their
world
from
their
point
of
view’
(ibid.).
This
approach
is

followed
and
ahdered
to
continuously
throughout
the
research
process
by
the

commitment
of
the
researcher
to
take
an
active
part
in
the
scheme
(ANLO)
being

discussed
throughout
this
research
paper.


This
research
philosophy
has
been
adopted
as
‘an
interpretivist
perspective
is
highly

appropriate
in
the
case
of
business
and
management
research’
(ibid.).


3.2
Research
Approach


An
inductive
approach
will
be
taken
when
carrying
out
this
research.


 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




According
to
Saunders
et
al.
a
researcher
who
chooses
a
deductive
approach

‘develop[s]
a
theory
and
hypothesis
(or
hypotheses)
and
design
a
research
strategy

to
test
the
hypothesis’
whereas
a
researcher
who
chooses
an
inductive
approach

‘collect[s]
data
and
develop[s]
theory
as
a
result
of
[…]
data
analysis’
(2007,
p.
117).


To
choose
an
appropriate
research
approach,
Saunders
et
al’s
advises
‘attaching

these
research
approaches
to
the
different
research
philosophies’
(ibid.).
They

further
explain,

‘deduction
owes
more
to
positivism
induction
to
interpretism’

(ibid.).



According
to
Easterby‐Smith
et
al.
cited
in:
Saunders
et
al.
(2002),
the
inductive

approach
is
suitable
if
the
researcher
is
‘interested
in
understanding
why
something

is
happening
[...]
and
enables
to
adapt
your
research
design
to
cater
for
constraints’.

Practical
constraints
include
limited
access
to
data.
This
may
occur
during
this

research
due
to
the
novel
subject
the
paper
discusses.
For
these
reasons,
it
was

found
that
an
inductive
approach
was
the
most
appropriate
for
the
purpose
of
this

research.


3.3
Research
Strategy


The
research
strategy
used
will
be
to
conduct
qualitative
research.
Denzin
and

Lincoln
determine
this
research
as:


A
situated
activity
that
locates
the
observer
in
the
world.
It
consists
of
a
set
of

interpretive,
material
practices
that
make
the
world
visible.
The
practices

transform
the
world.
They
turn
the
world
into
a
series
of
representations,

including
field
notes,
interviews,
conversations,
photographs,
recordings
and

memos
to
the
self.
Qualitative
research
involves
an
interpretive,
naturalistic

approach.
This
means
that
qualitative
researchers
study
things
in
their
natural

setting
attempting
to
make
sense
of,
or
to
interpret,
phenomena
in
terms
of

the
meanings
people
bring
to
them



(1998,
p.
4)



 28

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




An
‘interpretive’
approach
when
carrying
out
research
for
this
paper
seems
most

appropriate
due
to
the
nature
of
the
question,
as
surrounding
the
behaviour
and

attitudes
of
young
people
towards
‘free’
tickets.
Interpreting
what
is
said
by
industry

professionals
on
the
subject
and
the
young
people
involved
will
allow
structuring
the

data
collected
in
a
way
that
succinctly
answers
the
research
question.


3.4
Research
Choice


This
research
uses
a
multi‐method
qualitative
approach
that
will
‘use
more
than
one

data
collection
technique
and
analysis
procedures
to
answer
your
research
question’

(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
145).
The
reasoning
behind
this
choice
is
acquiring
a
large

enough
sample
of
opinions
from
young
people
on
the
research
question
was
not

feasble
in
the
time‐scale
allocated
for
this

research.
Therefore
opinions
will
be

retrieved
through
the
following
two
data
collection
methods.
Firstly,
observation

and
assesment
of
young
people’s
comments
using
a
social
networking
site,
and

secondly
conducting
interviews
with
people
affected
by
the
issues
raised
within
the

literature
review.



Reasons
behind
choosing
these
data
collection
methods
is
that
it
is
deemed
the

validity
of
opinions
gained
through
multi‐method
research
more
accurate
results
for

the
research
being
carried
out.
As
Tashakkori
and
Teddie
(2003)
cited
in
Saunders
et

al.
states:
‘multi
methods
are
useful
if
they
provide
better
opportunities
for
you
to

answer
your
research
questions’
(2007,
p.
146).


Using
these
methods
will
allow
the
researcher
to
obtain
legitimate
opinions
on
the

existing
‘free’
ticket
scheme
and
whether
it
is
the
answer
to
developing
younger

audiences.
To
do
this
analysis
of
the
data
collected
through
interviews,
observation

and
the
information
found
in
the
literature
review
will
be
conducted.




 29

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




3.5
Data
Collection


3.5.1
Interviews


In
consideration
of
the
above
it
was
decided
that
face‐to‐face
interviewing
should
be

used.
Other
options
were
considered,
but
the
need
to
control
the
samples
suggested

that
only
personal
interviewing
would
be
rigorous
enough
when
taking
an

interpretive
approach.
Burgess
(1982)
cited
in:
Easterby‐Smith
et
al.
supports
this

view
believing
that
interviews
gives:


The
opportunity
for
the
researcher
to
probe
deeply,
uncover
new
clues,
open

up
new
dimensions
of
a
problem,
and
to
secure
vivid,
accurate
inclusive

accounts
that
are
based
on
personal
experience



(2002,
p.
86)




In
order
to
gather
valid
and
reliable
data
the
researcher
deemed
it
appropriate
to

carry
out
semi‐structured
interviews.
Conducting
semi‐structured
interviews
will

mean
the
researcher
can
design
interview
questions
around
‘specific
organisational

context
that
is
encountered
in
relation
to
the
research
topic’
(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,

p.
312)
whilst
also
adding
additional
questions
that
may
be
vital
in
answering
the

research
question.
Semi‐strutured
interviews
were
chosen
due
to
the
interviews

questions
being
open
ended.
Doing
this
allows
the
researcher
to
explore

interviewees
opinions,
adding
significance
and
depth
to
the
data
collected.
Sanders

et
al.
believes
using
semi
‐
structured
interviews
will
‘[…]
reveal
and
understand
the

‘what’
and
the
‘how’
but
also
to
place
more
emphasis
on
exploring
the
‘why’’
(2007,

p.
313).

This
indicates
that
the
data
collection
methods
selected
is
a
viable
way
of

obtaining
the
information
desired
whilst
also
allowing
for
other
opinions

surrounding
the
subject
to
be
discussed.




Interviews
structure
around
themes
discussed
within
the
literature
review
reflecting:



 30

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




• Pricing


• Young
People

• A
Night
Less
Ordinary

• Value

• The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing


Interviews
will
be
carried
out
with
a
chosen
representative
sample
of
six
different

people
working
within
the
UK
theatre
and
arts
sector
and
three
young
people.



The
interviewees
are
affected
by
or
have
an
association
to
the
research
question.

They
consist
of
audience
development
and
pricing
specialists,
an
ACE
member
are

who
is
involved
in
audience
development
and
the
ANLO
scheme,
theatres
that

implement
the
ANLO
scheme,
and
young
people
who
are
targeted
by
the
ANLO

scheme.
Using
this
method
and
selecting
interviewees
in
this
way
it
is
intended
to

obtain
a
variety
of
perspectives.
These
perspectives
will
then
be
analysed
to
provide

conclusions
to
the
research
question.
Short
profiles
of
the
interviewees
can
be
found

in
the
appendix
(7.1).


All
interviewees
will
be
briefed
via
e‐mail
before
interviews
take
place.
This
brief
will

state
the
area
of
research,
anticipated
length
of
the
interview
and
contain
interview

questions.
Supplying
a
brief
promotes
validity
and
reliability
of
an
interview
as
it

allows
the
interviewee
time
to
prepare.
Allowing
preparation
time
results
in
building

trust
between
the
interviewer
and
the
interviewee.
This
trust
is
an
important
factor

when
conducting
interviews
as
‘failure
to
develop
trust
may
well
result
in

interviewees
simply
resorting
to
telling
the
research
exactly
what
they
think
she

wants
to
know.’
(Easterby‐Smith
et
al.,
2002,
p.
90).
The
supplied
brief
will
further

develop
confidence
and
trust
within
the
interviewee
as
they
have
time
to
review

questions,
prepare
for
the
interview,
form
opinions
and
in
certain
cases
supply

supporting
organisational
documentation.





However,
It
should
be
noted,
that
this
time
to
prepare
for
the
interview
could
also



 31

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




affect
data
being
collected
in
a
negative
way.
Allowing
the
interviewee
access
to

questions
prior
to
the
interview
will
allow
the
interviewee
to
form
opinions
and
not

respond
on
impulse,
despite
this
briefs
were
still
supplied
as
Saunders
et
al.
believes

‘the
key
to
a
successful
interview
is
careful
preparation
[…]
providing
participants

with
a
list
of
interview
themes
before
the
event,
[…]
should
help
this’
(2007,
p.320)




The
overall
aim
and
design
of
the
interview
will
be
to
provide
and
establish
industry

opinions
on
the
future
of
pricing
and
audience
development
within
the
theatre

sectors.
In
addition,
the
interview
will
extract
qualitative
data
surrounding

interviewee’s
thoughts
on
‘free’
tickets
to
the
theatre.



In
choosing
this
research
method,
setting
out
the
framework
for
the
interviews

seemed
simple,
but
difficulties
arose
when
changing
the
interview
questions
to
suit

each
type
of
individual
being
interviewed.
These
difficulties
were
overcome
by

ensuring
all
questions
for
all
interviewees
covered
the
themes
discussed
within
the

literature
review.
Interview
questions
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.2‐7.5)



A
consideration
when
carrying
out
interviews
will
be
maintaining
objectivity.
Certain

methods
ensure
the
researcher
is
entirely
objective
during
the
interview,
one
being

to
take
Saunders
et
al.’s
advice
and
‘avoid
over‐zealous
questioning
and
pressing

your
participant
for
a
response’
(2007,
p.
189).
Another
way
is
to
make
certain
the

interviewer,
when
conducting
interviews,
appears
professional,
confident
and

enthusiastic
upon
the
subject
of
research
rather
than
intrusive
and
demanding.
This

will
ensure
interviewees
will
feel
relaxed
resulting
in
openly
discussing
the
subject
of

the
interview.


Difficulties
when
conducting
semi‐structured
interviews
concerns
the
time
frame
in

which
research
has
to
be
obtained,
the
geographical
location
of
interviewees
in

relation
to
the
interviewer
and
the
danger
of
interviewees
restricting
the
time

allowed
for
conduction
of
interviews.


The
completed
interviews
will
be
digitally
recorded,
and
then
transcribed
containing

contextual
data
based
upon
the
semiotics
of
the
interview.
This
will
form
a
basis
for



 32

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




establishing
the
data
that
will
then
be
analysed
to
form
conclusions,
which,
in
tern,

answer
the
research
question.
A
copy
of
interview
transcriptions
can
be
found
in
the

appendix.
(7.6‐7.15)


3.5.2
Observation


In
order
to
retrieve
a
sample
of
young
people’s
opinions
surrounding
research

question,
it
was
decided
that
observations
of
the
discussions
that
were
taking
place

on
a
social
networking
site
(Facebook)
regarding
the
ANLO
scheme
could
be
used
to

support
the
data
collected
through
interviews.
This
method
is
known
as
‘indirect

observation’
(Hewison
et
al.,
2003
cited
in
Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
296).



It
is
noted
that
‘using
the
Internet
for
structured
observation
offers
researchers
the

advantage
of
non‐intrusiveness
and
the
removal
of
possible
observer
bias’
(ibid.)


All
observations
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.16)


3.6
Data
Analysis


In
order
to
analyse
the
data
collected
through
these
chosen
methods
this
research

will
adopt
the
data
display
and
analysis
approach
based
on
the
work
of
Miles
and

Huberman.
This
approach
was
chosen
as
it
is
‘suited
to
an
inductive
strategy’

(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
496).
A
diagram
for
this
method
can
be
found
in
the

appendix
(7.17).
Miles
and
Huberman
(2004)
cited
in
Saunders
et
al.
explain
that
the

process
of
analysis
is
composed
of
three
concurrent
subprocesses:



• data
reduction;

• data
display;
[and]



 33

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




• drawing
and
verifying
conclusions.




 (2007,
p.
493)



I
will
apply
this
approach
in
the
following
way:



• Data
reduction:
‘summarising
and
simplifying
data’
(ibid.)
‐
Transcription
of

audio
recordings

• Data
display:
‘organising
and
assembling
your
reduced
or
selected
data’
(ibid.)
‐

Colour
code
key
quotes,
that
highlight
themes
rising
from
the
literature

review.

• Drawing
and
verifying
conclusions:
Comment
on
themes,
analyse
and

discussion
of
findings


After
analysing
this
collected
qualitative
data,
this
paper
will
then
supply
conclusions

of
which
will
answer
the
research
question.



3.7
Data
Quality


Saunders
et
al.
suggest:
‘attention
has
to
be
paid
to
two
particular
emphasises
on

research
design,
reliability
and
validity’
(2007,
p.
149).
They
then
establish
that

‘reliability
refers
to
the
extent
to
which
your
data
collection
techniques
or
analysis

procedures
will
yield
consistent
results’
(ibid.)


An
initial
constraint
of
this
research
method
is
participant
bias.
Participant
bias

refers
to
the
situation
when
interviewees
may
say
what
their
superiors
or

institutions
want
them
to
say.
This
problem
occurs
particularly
‘in
organisations
that

are
characterised
by
an
authoritarian
management
style’
(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.

149).
In
the
context
of
this
research
this
may
occur
when
interviewing
ACE
regarding

ANLO,
as
it
is
the
organisation
which
administers
the
scheme
and
may
therefore
not



 34

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




take
an
objective
view
point.



There
may
also
be
an
occurrence
of
observer
bias.
Saunders
et
al.
states
that
this
is:

‘when
observers
give
inaccurate
responses
in
order
to
distort
the
results
of
the

research’
(2007,
p.
605).
This
will
be
avoided
by
ensuring
audio
recordings
of
all

interviews
are
fully
transcribed.


Ethical
considerations
of
this
research
paper
are
to
reflect
on
‘the
extent
to
which

you
should
collect
data
from
a
research
population
that
is
unaware
of
the
fact
they

are
the
subject
of
research
and
so
have
not
consented’
(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p

153).
This
is
a
concern
when
obtaining
data
from
Facebook,
as
the
discussions
taking

place
on
the
social
networking
site
were
not
instigated
by
the
researcher,
and
once

selected
only
then
were
the
consents
of
the
contributors
requested.
All
comments

observed
will
not
be
used
within
this
research
without
the
contributors
consent.
A

copy
of
the
consent
request
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.18)


Saunders
et
al.
also
suggests
that
interviewer
bias
may
also
be
a
risk
surrounding

data
quality
issues.
Saunders
et
al.
established
that
there
are
dangers
surrounding

‘comments,
tone
or
non‐verbal
behaviour’
(2007,
p.
318)
used
during
the
interview

that
can
create
bias
in
the
way
interviewees
may
answer
certain
questions.
The

researcher
is
aware
of
this
danger
and
will
ensure
that
personal
beliefs
and
opinions

will
not
surface
when
conducting
interviews.
To
do
this
interviewer’s
questions
will

be
‘phrased
clearly,
so
that
the
interviewee
can
understand
them,
and
[asked…]
in
a

neutral
tone
of
voice’
(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
324).


Finally,
a
limitation
to
the
availability
of
primary
data
on
the
subject
of
this
research

paper
is
the
restricted
physical
access
to
information
desired.
Saunders
et
al.

identifies
that
‘organisations
or
individuals
may
not
be
prepared
to
an
engage
in

additional
[interviews]
because
of
the
time
and
resources
required’
(2007,
p.
163).

Gaining
physical
access
can
also
be
an
issue
for
the
same
reasons
as
participant
bias.

As
Saunders
et
al.
explains
the
reasons
for
not
accessing
the
data
required
can
be

due
to
‘the
nature
of
the
topic
because
of
its
potential
sensitivity,
or
because
of

concerns
about
the
confidentiality
of
the
information
required’
(2007,
p.
164).




 35

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




In
order
to
ensure
physical
access
is
gained,
a
clear
brief
as
discussed
earlier
will
be

provided
to
all
interview
candidates
to
warrant
the
researcher’s
‘competence
and

integrity’
(Saunders
et
al.,
2007,
p.
166).


 36

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




4.
Findings
and
Analysis:


The
following
interviews
were
realised:



• Clare
Simpson


• Sarah
Ogle

• Tom
Robertson

• Tim
Baker

• Angela
Galvin

• Rob
Marshall

• Jenifer
Kitchen

• Jessica
Samuel

• Alison
Carter



Telephone
and
e‐mail
were
used
where
face‐to‐face
interviews
were
unattainable.



An
individual
who
declined
to
be
interviewed
is
a
member
of
the
DCMS.
Their
refusal

is
interesting
as
they
represent
a
funding
body
and
initiators
of
the
ANLO
scheme.



Theatres
contacted
were
chosen
as
examples
of
the
three
different
strands
of
the

ANLO
scheme:
The
Royal
Exchange
Theatre,
Manchester;
Liverpool
Everyman
and

Playhouse;
and
The
National
Theatre,
London.



The
findings
will
be
analysed
in
four
sections:


1. Pricing
and
Audience
Development

2. Young
People

3. A
Night
Less
Ordinary

4. The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing


4.1
Pricing
and
Audience
Development


4.1.1
How
Important
is
Price
in
Audience
Development
Strategies?

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




As
discussed
in
the
literature
review,
pricing
is
a
high‐regarded
subject
within
the

arts,
and
interviewees
concurred.
Tom
Robertson
feels
it
is
‘pretty
much
integral

[and
ensures
the
National
Theatre]
keep
tickets
as
cheap
as
possible
so
that
[they]

can
do
audience
development’
(Powell,
2009i).
Approaches
include
£10
tickets

available
for
each
production.


Similarly,
Clare
Simpson
acknowledges
pricing’s
role
as
‘huge’
(Powell,
2009a)
in

their
audience
development
strategy.
Sarah
Ogle,
also
feels
it
plays
a
‘significant

part’
(Powell,
2009b)
and
is
the
‘key’
(ibid.)
tool
in
audience
development.



Price
also
has
a
role
alongside
other
audience
development
tools.
Angela
Galvin,

notes
it
is
‘a
component
of
audience
development
strategy,
[…]
it
shouldn’t
lead
the

strategy
but,
[…]
can
be
quite
a
useful
tool’
(Powell,
2009d).
Tim
Baker
agrees,

suggesting
that
pricing
has
a
‘role’
(Powell,
2009e)
in
audience
development

strategies
but
is
not
the
only
factor.
Similarly
Rob
Marshall
states
that
pricing
is

instrumental
in
all
areas
of
an
audience
development
strategy
and
has
a
‘key

strategic
function’
(Powell,
2009f).


Young
interviewees
expressed
that
price
plays
a
part
to
‘some
extent’
(Powell,

2009c)
in
choosing
to
attend
the
theatre,
but
it
could
be
argued
that
other
factors

such
as
‘travel,
perceived
quality
or
interest
of
production’
are
more
important

(ibid).
Jessica
Samuel,
contends
that
‘pricing
is
the
biggest
factor’
(Powell,
2009h)

implying
it
should
play
a
significant
part
in
a
theatre’s
audience
development

strategy,
particularly
when
targeting
young
people.
Jenifer
Kitchen
disagrees
feeling

that
there
should
not
be
more
emphasis
on
pricing
to
attract
younger
audiences.


4.1.2
What
are
the
other
key
tools
used
in
Developing
Audiences?


The
suggestion
that
price
plays
a
role
in
audience
development
alongside
other
tools

is
a
concept
adapted
by
the
theatres
interviewed.
Robertson
explains
to
develop

audiences
the
Royal
National
Theatre
uses
‘online,
[…]
advertising
in
the



 38

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




broadsheets,
[…and]
direct
mail
to
our
membership’
(Powell,
2009i).
Simpson
states

that
similar
tools
were
used,
such
as
the
‘internet’
(Powell,
2009a)
and
specifically
a

‘different
leaflet
that’s
just
for
[…]
under
26's
and
student
[…]
because
[…]
they
will

respond
to
something
different’
(ibid.).
Ogle’s
opinion
differs
as
she
states

‘programming’
(Powell,
2009b)
should
be
another
tool
for
audience
development.



These
are
practical
tools
to
develop
audiences,
but
Galvin
argues:


Understand
your
audience,
[…]
see
whether
it’s
price
sensitive
or
not,
[…]

working
with
people
to
get
[…]
them
to
feel
comfortable
with
coming
to
the

theatre,
[…]
understand
what
they
perceive
their
barriers
to
be,
one
of
those

might
be
price
but
other
things,
[…]
like
[…]
not
feeling
that
their
part
of
a

core
audience,
not
knowing
what
the
sort
of
etiquette
is
[…],
maybe
even
just

not
knowing
what’s
on,
so
the
pricing
[…]
forms
part
of
that
but
[…]
it’s
[…]

often
not
the
key
element



(Powell,
2009d)


Marshall
agrees
successful
audience
development
is
when
‘organisations
[…]
know

who
their
audiences
are,
[…]
pricing
is
just
an
element
in
those,
rather
than
a
[…]

separate
tactic
[…]
within
itself’
(Powell,
2009f).



He
then
emphasises
the
importance
of
‘understanding
[…]
the
context
in
which

people
are
making
that
decision’
(Powell,
2009e).
Furthermore
he
highlights
the

issue
of
value
vs.
price
raised
within
the
literature
review.
He
states:



I
don’t
think
it
is
about
price
it
is
about
value,
[…]
when
people
are
making

decisions
[…]
about
whether
a
price
is
a
fair
price
to
pay
for
something,
their

weighing
it
up
against
what
they
perceive
to
be
the
value
that
is
offered,
[…]

you
have
options,
you
can
either
reduce
the
price
or
you
increase
the
value



(ibid.)


In
the
case
of
ANLO
ACE
have
reduced
the
price.
Baker
suggests
ACE
should
question

the
importance
of
social
context
in
consumer
decision‐making.
He
explains:


Are
they
looking
for
a
night
out
with
friends,
[…]
a
special
night
out,
[…]
a

date,
or
a
family
night
out
[…]
that
is
what
sets
the
context
for
the
value
of

their
ticket
and
the
price
they
are
willing
to
pay
for
it
[…],
it
is
then
creating

the
relevant
value,
[…]
if
you
follow
the
argument
that
the
social
context
is
a

critical
part
[...]
of
the
value
[…]
you’re
offering
[…],
then
the
value
you
need

to
offer
[…]
is
about
much
more
than
simply
what’s
on
stage,
it
is
about



 39

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




eating
and
drinking,
the
foyer,
parking,
[…]
opportunity
to
go
with
friends,
[…]

then
[you
ensure
you
are]
communicating
that
value,
[…]
it
seems
[…]
really

obvious
[…]
but
value
not
communicated
is
value‐less



(ibid.)



An
inherent
worry
amongst
the
critics
of
the
ANLO
scheme.


The
young
interviewees
acknowledged
that
when
making
decisions
on
value,
they

are
more
inclined
to
see
shows
with
good
reputations,
featuring
famous
actors
and

or
receiving
good
reviews.
These
elements
increase
the
value
of
a
theatre
ticket

therefore
enhancing
audience
development.
Carter
highlights:
‘If
a
show
has
a
great

reputation
or
review
I
think
then
you
can
safely
bet
that
the
ticket
price
will
be

worth
it’
(Powell,
2009g).
Examples
of
current
audience
development
scheme
can
be

found
in
the
appendix.
(7.19)


4.2
Young
People


4.2.1
What
are
the
perceived
barriers
in
attracting
young
people
to
the
theatre?


4.2.1.1
Price


Various
barriers
discussed
within
the
literature
review
revealed
alternative
factors

that
stop
young
people
attending
the
theatre.
An
interviewee
stated
her
biggest

barrier
was
‘price’
(Powell,
2009i),
with
another
young
person
agreeing
they
‘would

be
more
inclined
to
go
and
see
a
production
if
the
ticket
price
was
£5’
(Powell,

2009g).


Robertson
believes
focus
should
lie
on
‘integrating
theatre
into
the
thought

processes
of
[…]
what
a
young
person
chooses
to
do
with
their
spare
time’
(ibid.).
He

states
‘when
you
leave
school
you
stop
going
to
[the]
theatre’
(ibid.)



Simpson
agrees
that
‘price
is
a
big
barrier
for
[young
people],
particularly
[the]

student
market’
(Powell,
2009a).
In
addition,
she
concurs
with
Robertson
that



 40

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




theatre
should
be
a
thought
process
for
young
people
that
comes
after
formal

education.
She
states:


It
is
to
do
with
culture,
[…]
they
may
have
come
as
school
kids
[…]
if
they

haven’t
had
particularly
good
experiences
[…]
they
don’t
see
coming
to
the

theatre
as
an
entertainment
option,
they
see
it
as
something
they
did
as
part

of
their
education
so
why
would
they
choose
to
do
it
now,
[…]
that
can
cause

a
lot
of
problems



(ibid.)


Ogle
also
agrees:
‘art
is
more
likely
to
happen
later
in
life
if
you’ve
had
an
arts

experience
when
you’ve
been
younger
or
when
you’ve
been
taken
as
a
child
or
[…]

as
a
school
group’
(Powell,
2009b).



4.2.1.2
Value


A
discussion
taken
place
within
the
literature
review
is
highlighted.
Ogle
argues
that

perceived
value
of
the
experience
is
key
in
the
decision‐making
process:
‘young

people,
are
spending
a
ridiculous
amount
of
money
to
go
to
a
club
or
see
a
band,
[…]

it
about
value
of
the
experience,
they
don’t
value
the
experience
of
[theatre]
at
the

moment’
(Powell,
2009b).


This
suggestion
that
young
people
are
not
communicating
with
the
wider
value
of
a

theatre
experience
is
seen
as
a
responsibility
for
the
arts
sector.
Baker
argues:


This
is
the
area
[…]
I
think
the
arts
are
still
[…]
bad
at,
[…]
actually

communicating
[…]
value,
[…]
my
contention
is
[…]
that
it
is
not
[…]
price
that

is
the
problem
for
young
people,
it
is
[…]
lack
of
understanding
of
the
value

[…]
being
offered
[…]
you
can
just
see
everyday
that
young
people
have

money
to
spend!
[…]
They
spend
it
on
going
to
pub,
going
to
gigs,
[…]
so
the

thought
[…]
is
that
they
don’t
equate
the
money
their
being
asked
for
with

the
value
[…]
their
being
offered,
because
they
don’t
understand
the
value.


(Powell,
2009e)


Galvin
acknowledges
that
‘not
all
young
people
are
the
same’
and
that
their
‘lives

tend
to
be
rather
chaotic
and
last
minute’
(Powell,
2009d).
This
is
where
value
plays



 41

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




a
vital
role
in
decision‐making,
she
questions
‘whether
people
feel
it
is
relevant
to

them
[…]
whether
they’re
going
to
get
anything
out
of
it’
(ibid.)
in
their
busy

lifestyles.


This
proposes
the
idea
that
if
the
value
of
a
theatre
ticket
is
not
emphasised,
a
young

person
may
not
value
the
‘experience’
and
choose
to
spend
their
time
investing
in

another
form
of
entertainment.
(That
ironically
may
not
necessarily
be
cheaper)


Other
perceived
barriers
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.20)


Ways
in
which
you
can
reduce
these
barriers
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.21)


4.3
A
Night
Less
Ordinary


We
were
approached
[…]
when
'A
Night
Less
Ordinary'
was
first
[…]

announced
by
the
Arts
Council,
it
was
going
to
be
an
initiative
[…]
for
the
ten

[…]
main
producing
theatres
in
the
country,
it
wasn’t
going
to
be
[…]
anybody

who
applies
so
we
were
quite
heavily
involved
in
the
whole
deciding
how
it

was
going
to
work,
[…]
it
actually
was
going
to
be
one
free
week
of
theatre

[…]
we
argued
that
that
was
crap
idea
because
[…]what
happens
if
people

don’t
come,
we
couldn’t
deliver
the
number
of
free
tickets
[…]
that
the
DCMS

needed
to
[…]
make
it
into
a
story,
[…]that
was
when
they
came
up
with
[…]

the
application
process


(Powell,
2009a)


Simpson
explained
by
not
applying
to
be
part
of
the
scheme
‘we
would
of
been

conspicuous
in
our
absence,
and
[…]
would
have
appeared
to
say
more
about
our

attitude
towards
young
people,
that
we
are
not
interested
in
young
people
coming

to
the
theatre’
(Powell,
2009a).
Robertson
concurs:


We’re
the
National
Theatre
it
is
our
[…]
responsibility
more
than
any
other

theatre
in
the
country
to
do
all
that
we
can
to
make
it
as
easy
as
possible
for

everybody
and
that
includes
young
people,
to
come
to
the
theatre,
so
it

would
have
been
crazy
and
inappropriate
for
us
to
not
to
take
part.


(Powell,
2009i)



 42

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




4.3.1
Approaches
to
the
scheme.


The
theatres
then
discussed
how
they
have
approached
the
scheme.



The
Royal
Exchange
chose
not
adapt
a
blanket
approach
as
they:
‘
didn’t
want
to
[…]

jepordise
what
we’re
already
doing
with
young
people
[…]
so
we
decided
to

approach
it
[…]
in
three
different
ways’
(Powell,
2009a).
Simpson
expresses
how

integrating
the
scheme
into
audience
development
work
already
being
done
‘turned

out
to
be
complete
nightmare’
(ibid.).
She
then
explains
their
three‐strand
approach.

This
approach
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.22)


Integrating
the
scheme
within
established
audience
development
work
with
young

people
is
highlighted
by
Ogle:
‘we’ve
had
to
[…]
us[e]
the
tickets
in
a
targeted
way

[…]
because
of
the
work
we’re
doing
with
people
in
north
Liverpool’
(Powell,
2009b).


Robertson
echoes:
‘because
we
had
Entry
Pass
in
place
and
it
was
year
[…]
old,[…]
it

was
a
challenge
for
us,
[…]
we
didn’t
want
to
undermine
all
the
work
we
had
done

and
[…]
wanted
to
be
able
to
include
those
people
who
had
signed
up
to
Entry
Pass’

(Powell,
2009i).
Making
sure
this
integration
ran
smoothly
was
an
important
part
of

administering
the
Scheme.



Robertson
argues
‘whilst
the
message
is
very
simple,
free
tickets
to
the
theatre
if

your
under
26,
[…]
realistically
it
is
not
that
simple
[…],
it
is
very
complicated
to
set

[…]
up
especially
when
we
already
have
something
in
place
like
Entry
Pass’
(ibid.).
He

then
explains
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
Entry
Pass
(after
joining
for
free),
the
first

ticket
to
the
theatre
is
free
and
every
subsequent
ticket
is
£5.


Baker
suggests
this
can
be
the
‘start
of
the
relationship’
(Powell,
2009e).
All
theatres

should
plan
and
implement
this
approach,
ensuring
there
is
a
strategy
for

maintaining
a
relationship
with
the
young
person
once
they
have
had
their
free

ticket.



 43

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?





Galvin
declares
theatres
should
approach
the
scheme
‘with
caution’
(Powell,

2009d),
implying
there
could
be
negative
outcomes
of
issuing
free
tickets.
She
offers

the
following
advice:


Managing
expectations,
[…]
the
promise
and
ensuring
that
there’s
something

else
for
the
young
people
to
go
onto
once
the
scheme
has
dried
up
as
it
will

do,[…]
it
is
[…]
welcoming
the
young
people
when
they
arrive,
keeping
in

touch
with
them
after
they’ve
left
and
[…]
make
sure
that
the
programme

has
other
[..]
opportunities
for
them
to
come
and
enjoy
theatre
again.


(ibid.)


4.3.2
Negatives
of
the
Scheme


An
emerging
theme
is
the
damaging
effect
a
free
ticket
has
on
the
perceived
value
of

the
product.
Simpson
states
‘the
major
flaw
of
the
whole
scheme
is
[…]
to
do
with

[the]
value
that
is
attached
to
the
ticket’
(Powell,
2009a).
Baker
echoes
this
and

believes
communication
is
a
catalyst:
‘if
you
don’t
communicate
[the
offer
fully]
you

end
up
telling
young
people
[…]
that
theatre
is
actually
valueless’
(Powell,
2009e).



In
agreement
Samuel
declares
free
tickets
‘totally
de‐values
theatre’
(Powell,
2009h).


Worryingly
Marshall
declared
that
‘we
at
the
Arts
Council
and
[other]
arts

organisations
think
it
might,
and
don’t
want
it
to
[…]
belittle
the
[…]
concept
of
what

theatre
is’
(Powell,
2009f)
He
further
highlights
a
worry
that
it
will
not
be
the
value

of
theatre
in
it
is
broadest
sense
that
will
be
affected,
but
the
value
of
specific

theatre
venues
or
certain
productions.


Marshall
concurs,
stating
there
has
to
be
an
understanding
in
‘the
difference

between
[…]
value
and
price’
(Powell,
2009f).
He
further
states
the
‘biggest
problem

[…]
is
that
if
you
give
someone
[…]
a
free
ticket,
it
doesn’t
[…]
mean
that
they
will
[…]

go
or
[…]
go
again’
(ibid.).
He
worries
young
people
engaged
by
the
scheme
will

expect
continuous
free
tickets
or
simply
not
attend.
Robertson
concurs:



 44

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




[Tickets
with
no]
monetary
value
[…]
does
[…]
weaken
the
integral
value,

[young
people
need
to]
understand
they
have
to
pay
for
things
[…]
if
you
just

give
away
the
tickets
for
free
then
people
don’t
necessarily
take
the

responsibility
of
actually
turning
up


(Powell,
2009i)


Ogle
highlights
this
evident
worry
and
its
implications:
‘People
who
had
been
paying

£5
to
come
on
a
stand
by
ticket,
are
now
coming
in
for
free
and
actually
whether
it
is

engaging
people
who
weren’t
attending’
(Powell,
2009b).
Kitchen
deems
the
scheme

successful
due
to
it
having
been
widely
taken
up,
but
also
questions
how
many
of

these
were
not
already
regular
theatre‐goers?
She
reveals:




I'm
22
and
amongst
my
social
group
I'm
not
seeing
people
who
wouldn't

otherwise
go
to
the
theatre
taking
advantage
of
the
scheme,
just
those
of
us

who
love
the
theatre
(and
hence
would
probably
pay
if
we
had
to)


(Powell,
2009c)


Another
inherent
problem,
summed
up
by
Robertson,
is
that
you
cannot
access

tickets
online.
He
highlights
the
process
of
signing
up
to
Entry
Pass
is
a
‘pain
in
the

arse’
(ibid.).
Robertson
explains
reasoning
behind
this
curt
statement:


Everybody
who
signs
up
has
to
send
in
[…]
an
application
form
that
they’ve

either
downloaded
or
picked
up,
[…]
you
have
to
send
in
proof
of
age
so
that

is
a
photocopy
of
a
passport
or
drivers
license




(Powell,
2009i)


See
appendix
for
application
form.
(7.23)


Young
interviewees
also
acknowledged
this
as
a
problem.
Nicki
Wilkes
believes
not

accessing
tickets
online
is
a
‘hassel.
(sic.)’(Facebook,
2009)
and
states
‘I
LOVE
going

to
the
theatre,
but
even
i
can't
be
bothered
to
[…]
phone
the
theatres
to
book
the

tickets
and
then
do
all
the
picking
tickets
up
thing’
(ibid.).
Shanine
Salmon
concurs:


Extend
[the
scheme]
to
booking
online
[…]
I
think
if
it
really
wants
to
appeal

to
young
people
surely
the
most
convinient
(sic.)
way
is
to
book
online
and
if

you
cannot
commit
to
a
performace
(sic.)
to
cancel
the
ticket
quickly
and

easily
via
an
online
system.’



(Facebook,
2009)


Within
the
current
scheme
there
is
no
solution
to
this
at
this
time.




 45

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




A
final
criticism
is
the
apparent
lack
of
research
committed
by
ACE
and
the
DCMS

when
creating
the
scheme.
Simpson
states:



Research
[…]
in
the
arts
[…]
always
[…]
goes
on
the
back
burner
[…]
the
DCMS

went
into
this
because
[…]
they
wanted
a
good
news
story,
[…]
the
Arts

Council
have
done
[…]
a
good
as
job
[…]
considering
[...]
the
DCMS
wanting
to

give
away
a
million
tickets
and
the
theatres
going
'why
the
hell
should
we
[…]

?’
[…]
I
think
[if]
the
Arts
Council
[…]
had
more
time,
they
should
have,
made

us
go
into
more
detail
about
[…]
what
we
were
going
to
with
those
audience

afterwards,
because
[…]
it
looks
like
they
don’t
[…]
care,
they
just
wanted
to

make
a
splash
and
I
don’t
think
that
is
them,
I
think
that
is
the
DCMS


(Powell,
2009a)


Gavin
highlights
the
schemes
criticisms:
‘people
weren’t
given
a
huge
amount
of

preparation
time’
(Powell,
2009d).
The
scheme
was,
‘parachuted
into
theatres’

implying
a
lack
of
research
surrounding
evaluation
and
planned
maintenance
of

relationships
with
young
people
after
the
scheme
has
ended.


Simpson
feels
ACE
are
delivering
the
false
message
of
‘aren’t
these
theatres
lucky

because
they’ve
got
the
awards
to
spend
on
[…]
marketing
to
young
people
whereas

actually
[…]
there
is
not
[…]
any
money
to
spend
on
marketing’
(Powell,
2009a).
The

award
money
only
stretches
to
subsidise
the
free
tickets.


4.3.3
Positives
of
the
Scheme


The
main
success
is
the
national
coverage
received,
portraying
participating
theatres

as
wanting
to
encourage
younger
audiences.
Ogle
appreciates
the
scheme
has
given

theatres
additional
profile
that
‘set
us
apart
from
some
of
other
theatres
in
the
city

who
aren’t
able
to
offer
cheaper
tickets’
(Powell,
2009b).
Robertson
concurs
that

‘we
have
benefited
from
the
coverage
[…]
it
is
good
to
be
part
of
a
[…]
nationwide

incentive’
(Powell,
2009i).



Recognition
of
developing
younger
audiences
is
also
seen
as
positive.
Ogle
believes

the
scheme
‘does
support
the
work
we’ve
been
doing
with
young
people’
(ibid)
and



 46

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




hopes
that
it
will
help
reduce
some
of
the
barriers
young
people
hold
towards

theatre.



The
benefits
include
‘people
talking
about
the
issue
of
young
people
and
the
theatre

and
recognising
cost
is
a
factor’
(Powell,
2009c).
Marshall
agrees
it
is
a
positive

‘opportunity
for
young
people
who
[…]
would
have
thought
about
theatre
before

[but]
wouldn’t
have
thought
to
go’
(Powell,
2009f)


Simpson
believes
the
scheme
has
been
‘really
successful’
(Powell,
2009a)
so
far.

However,
she
states
it
is
‘difficult
to
tell
yet’
(ibid.)
whether
there
have
been
any

improvements
in
young
audience
figures
and
again
stresses
‘I
do
seriously
think
that

there
is
no
value
to
the
ticket
[...]
therefore
people
might
not
see
value
in
theatre’

(ibid).
This
is
the
fundamental
concern
of
this
management
research
paper.


4.3.4
Evaluation
of
the
Scheme


Robertson
explains
to
evaluate
the
scheme
a
‘specific
form’
(Powell,
2009i)
has
to
be

filled
in,
capturing
details
about
marketing
activity
and
results.
Simpson
feels
this

system
is
‘pretty
robust’
(Powell,
2009a).
However,
the
Royal
Exchange
has
its
own

evaluation
scheme
as
they
‘don’t
envisage
spending
the
next
two
years
doing
[…]
the

same
thing.
If
it
stopped
working
[…]
we’ll
do
it
in
a
different
way
(ibid.).


Marshall
confirms
the
scheme
is
being
evaluated
through
a
‘network
[of]
audience

development
agencies
in
England’
(Powell,
2009f).
Worryingly,
he
could
not
discuss

the
process
in
detail
as
it
is
not
public
information,
but
assures
it
covers
the

questions
‘did
it
get
the
amount
of
young
people
it
was
expecting,
and
is
it
likely
to

[…]
sustain
those
audiences
[…]
involvement
and
attendance
in
theatre’
(ibid.).


Galvin
suggests
a
longitudinal
study
is
needed.
She
believes
the
scheme
needs
to

evaluate
if
people
consider
theatre
as
something
that
is
for
them
and
something

they
want
to
participate
in.
Ogle
offers
her
preferred
initiative:



 47

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




If
the
Arts
Council
had
given
us
the
money
to
do
what
we
wanted
to
do,
with

a
brief
that
it
was
aimed
at
young
people,
I
think
[…]
regional
theatres
would

have
been
a
lot
happier,
because
you
could
have
used
it
to
develop
and

enhance
the
work
you
were
already
doing,
where
as
this
has
[…]
plonked

itself
right
in
the
middle
of
everything
and
is
kind
of
distracting
to
what
your

trying
to
achieve,
[…]
if
we’d
been
given
the
money
[…]
come
up
with
a

strategy
that
works,
[…]
that
develops
what
you’re
already
doing
with
young

people,
[…]
come
up
with
a
proposal,
make
it
happen,
do
some
research,

monitor
it,
[…]
I
think
it
would
have
helped
all
the
organisation’s
more
longer

term,
where
as
this
feels
a
bit
hit
and
run.


(Powell,
2009b)


Attention
is
also
drawn
to
how
the
DCMS
funding
ought
to
have
been
distributed.

Consensus
being,
theatres
would
prefer
to
receive
the
money
directly
to
develop

their
younger
audiences,
rather
than
having
to
‘implement’
a
national
free
ticket

scheme.
Galvin
concurs:


If
you
were
giving
them
[…]
£30,000
[…]
to
spend
on
developing
young

audiences,
[…]
not
all
theatres
[…]
would
chose
to
spend
that
on
free
tickets,

they
might
choose
to
spend
it
on
activities
that
encourage
young
people
into

the
theatre
in
different
ways
[A.P:
Yeah]
rather
than
it
being
entirely
price
led


(Powell,
2009d)


However,
Marshall
explains:


[He]
would
be
interested
to
know
and
to
what
extent
[…]
a
clearly
sensible

properly
worked
through
pricing
strategy
is
being
[…]
connected
to
the

evaluations
that
the
organisations
are
doing
from
[…]
the
information
they

get
from
[ANLO]


(Powell,
2009f)


When
asked
about
whether
free
tickets
will
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
future

pricing
strategies:



It
is
difficult
to
say
until
we
get
the
evaluation,
my
hunch
is,
[…]
having
done

all
the
research
we
did
before
and
having
looked
at
a
number
of
arts

organisation
who
did
[…]
free
ticket
pricing
approaches
previously
[…]

without
big
national
campaigns
behind
it
[…]
they
haven’t
been
able
to

sustain
[…]
and
[…]
continue
to
attract
[…]
audiences
in
that
way
[…]
the

danger
being
that
[…]
a
continual
[…]
approach
of
giving
away
free
tickets

[…]wont
have
much
an
effect
on
the
strategy
and
[…]
the
expectation
is
that

they
will
continue
to
give
away
more
free
tickets


(ibid.)



 48

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




Suggested
improvements
of
the
scheme
can
be
found
in
the
appendix.
(7.24)


4.4
The
Future
of
Free
Ticketing


4.4.1
When
developing
young
theatre
audiences
of
the
future
where
does
the

importance
lie:
The
Value
of
the
Brand?
The
Value
of
the
Offer?
The
Value
of
the

Relationship?


Ogle
believes
it
lies
in
the
‘value
of
the
offer’
(Powell,
2009b).
However,
there
are

concerns
that
‘not
all
the
tickets
are
being
taken
up
for
every
show,
so
how
much

are
they
valuing
the
actual
free‐ness
of
it?
Comes
back
to
them
actually
valuing
the

experience’
(ibid.).
Young
interviewees
fundamentally
feel
it
is
‘the
offer’
(Powell,

2009g).


Simpson
concurs
the
initial
importance
is
the
value
of
the
offer.
She
believes
‘that
is

what
bring
them
in
first
of
all’
(Powell
2009a).
She
comments
on
the
theatre’s

approach
hoping
that
the
value
of
the
relationship
‘will
become
important
enough

[…]
after
the
scheme
finishes’
(ibid.)
and
then
argues
the
brand
of
ANLO
has
no

mileage.



However,
she
highlights
that
she
does
not
know
what
the
cross
over
is.



Baker
concurs
‘it’s
mostly
about
the
offer’
(Powell
2009e)
and
criticises
the
value
of

the
relationship
stating
‘I’d
be
very
surprised,
[…]
I
think
only
a
tiny
proportion
of

anybody
who
goes
to
the
theatre
is
interested
in
the
relationship,
it
is
just
having
a

good
night
out’
(ibid.).


However,
Robertson
disagrees:
‘it’s
really
[…]
difficult
through
marketing
alone
to

get
young
people
[…]
to
come
to
the
theatre
[…]
the
best
way
and
the
most

successful
way
[is]
to
develop
relationships’
(Powell,
2009i).


Marshall
believes
the
answer
to
this
will
not
occur
until
full
evaluation
of
the
scheme

has
taken
place.
He
believes
‘you
can
make
theatre
completely
free
and
people
wont



 49

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




go
unless
it
is
relevant
[…]
so
really
it
ultimately
comes
down
to
[…]
whether
you

value
it’
(Powell,
2009f).
It
is
a
balance
between
price
and
value
of
the
experience,

with
Galvin
reasoning
‘that
over
arching
is
the
value
of
the
experience,
what
are
they

gonna
get
for
their
night
out’
(Powell,
2009a).


4.4.2
Future
Pricing
Strategies


When
discussing
the
detrimental
effect
of
free
tickets,
Carter
states:
‘It’s
ok
whilst

[ACE]
gives
them
money
but
as
soon
as
they
take
it
away,
young
people
might
not
go

back
to
the
theatre
if
the
have
to
pay
for
their
ticket
[…]
people
will
get
too
used
to

not
paying’
(Powell,
2009g).
Ogle
shares
this
concern
asking
whether
‘when
the
free

tickets
are
gone,
will
people
still
actually
value
the
experience,
and
want
to
come

along
[…]?
(Powell,
2009b)
Furthermore,
her
concerns
for
the
future
are
that
people

who
do
not
attend
the
theatre
‘aren’t
having
that
experience
earlier
on’
(ibid.).
Ogle

welcomes
in
broad
terms
the
idea
of
the
scheme,
and
maintains
‘hopefully
it
will

help’
(Powell,
2009c),
but
then
questions:



If
we’re
gonna
try
and
have
any
impact
on
a
generation
of
young
people
and

engage
them
with
the
arts,
then
maybe
this
is
the
way
to
do
it,
but
I
don’t

know
[what]
the
long
term,
[is]
going
to
bring,
by
the
time
everyone
gets
to

26,
they’ll
all
just
go
‘Well
that
is
alright,
I
got
a
few
good
nights
out,
but
you

know,
it’s
gonna
cost
me
£20
the
next
time
[…],
I’m
not
gonna
bother’,
I
don’t

know?



(ibid.)


Galvin
highlights
future
strategies
should
centre
on
‘how
theatres
are
able
to

maintain
the
relationships’
(Powell,
2009d).
Once
more
the
importance
of
value
is

considered.
Galvin
notes:



Anything
that
is
free
has
an
associated
value,
[…]
if
you
get
something
for

nothing
you
put
less
value
on
it,
[the
scheme]
doesn’t
do
anything
to
make

people
aware
[…]
the
value
of
what
they
are
seeing
is,
[…]
also
[…]
if
there

are
things
[…]
people
genuinely
want
to
do,
[…],
they
find
that
money

somehow,
so
price
is
not
always
a
barrier
[…]
the
issues
with
theatre
is,



 50

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




getting
young
people
to
think
that
it
is
something
that
is
exciting
enough
[…]

to
do,
and
[…]
that
it
is
considerably
cheaper
than
a
lot
of
[…]
nights
out
[…]

on
offer.


(ibid.)


She
believes
that
the
experience
for
young
people
is
the
key
factor,
regardless
of

pricing.
Baker
highlights
that
it
is
the
theatre
management
‘who
can
create
an

experience
that
fix[es]
the
people
who
later
seems
to
be
coming’
(Powell,
2009e).


4.4.3
Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
younger
audiences
for
UK

subsidised
theatre?


All
interviewees
concurred,
a
definitive
‘No’.



Robertson
believes
‘not
on
it
is
own
by
any
means
[…]
free
ticketing
is
never
going
to

be
viable’
outside
of
a
scheme
like
ANLO
(Powell,
2009i).
He
states
it
will
help
to:



get
a
relationship
with
young
people,
you
get
them
in
young
[…]
from
a

marketing
point
of
view,
[…]
then
they
have
a
relationship
with
the
National

Theatre
that
will
endure
for
their
lifetime
[…]
we
do
these
things
for
inherent

value


(ibid.)


He
states
a
free
ticket
scheme
‘wouldn’t
work
on
its
own
[...]
were
really
pleased
to

be
taking
part,
it
is
been
a
benefit
to
Entry
Pass
but
it
is
been
a
real
challenge
as
well’

(ibid.).



Marshall
agrees
believing
it
is
‘one
small
part
[but]
price
is
really
[...]
under
thought

about
but
incredibly
important
but
only
when
you’re
thinking
about
it
in
relation
to

value’
(Powell,
2009f).



Galvin
stated
‘it
is
not
the
answer’
(Powell,
2009d)
and
suggests:


It
is
for
us
all
to
look
on,
[…]
there
are
something’s
we
do,
something’s
that

we’d
like
to
do
but
don’t
get
round
to,
and
something’s
that
we
wouldn’t

dream
of
doing,
[…]
if
you
offered
me
a
ticket
for
the
first
two
that
was
free

[…],
it
might
motivate
me,
if
you
offered
me
a
ticket
for
a
thing
I’d
never



 51

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




dream
of
doing
whether
it
is
free
or
not
I’d
still
wouldn’t,
[…]
a
free
ticket
still

would
not
make
me
want
to
go
to
a
bullfight,
[…]
it
is
a
lot
more
complex

than
just
[…]
price,
[…]
people
[…]
have
other
things
going
on
in
their
decision

making
process
and
you
need

to
acknowledge
that
in
any
[…]
schemes
that

are
happening.


(ibid.)


Baker
emphasises
free
ticketing
is
not
the
answer
‘on
it
is
own’
(Powell,
2009e).
He

recommends:



Making
sure
people
connect
[with]
the
value
and
[…]
making
sure
that
is
not

the
one
and
only
attention,
that
you’re
taking
people
on
a
journey
from
there

[…].
Pricing
never
works
in
isolation,
it
has
to
be
in
with
the
rest
of
the

marketing
mix.
[…]
it
is
not
about
price
it
is
about
value.


(ibid.)


Agreement
appears
to
be
ensuring
value
of
the
experience
is
communicated.


Carter
concludes
that
‘on
the
one
hand
it
is
great
that
the
Arts
Council
are
helping

young
people
financially,
on
the
other
hand
it
can
seem
like
begging
the
audiences

to
come.’
(Powell,
2009g)
Then
questions
‘what
fundamental
thing
happened
which

led
to
[ACE]
giving
out
free
tickets?’
(ibid.).






4.5
Summary:

• Pricing
is
important
when
concerning
audience
development
but
can
be
used

in
conjunction
with
other
tools
as
a
strategic
function.

• Price
is
not
the
only
barrier
stopping
young
people
attending
the
theatre,
other

factors
need
to
be
considered.

• More
understanding
of
and
communication
with
young
people
can
help
reduce

barriers

• Attracting
young
people
must
centre
on
communicating
the
value
of
theatre
as

an
experience.

• People
interviewed
felt
the
scheme
was
rushed
and
‘parachuted’
into
theatres

and
would
have
preferred
the
funding
to
be
executed
in
a
way
which
would

improve
the
audience
development
work
already
being
pursued
with
young



 52

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




people.

• The
interviewee
consensus
was
that
a
free
ticket
scheme
is
not
the
answer
to

developing
young
audiences
within
UK
subsidised
theatre.





 53

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




5.0
Conclusion


Since
beginning
this
research,
media
attention
and
political
statements
have

continued
to
circulate
around
the
arts
sector
regarding
the
idea
of
a
free
ticket

scheme.
This
has
made
researching
this
topic
both
intriguing
and
frustrating.




The
grounds
on
which
I
suggest
this
research
was
frustrating
is
due
to
the

scheme
having
only
been
recently
developed
within
the
arts
sector
‐
with

progress
and
evaluations
happening
on
a
constant
basis.
This
could
have
resulted

in
requested
interviewees
declining
interviews
due
to
the
scheme
being
so

current.
Additionally,
a
questionnaire
regarding
a
larger
sample
of
young

people’s
opinions
would
have
been
desirable.
Despite
those
concerns,
both

valuable
and
interesting
qualitative
data
has
been
gathered.



Interviews
with
ACE
member
Marshall,
pricing
specialists
Galvin
and
Baker,

young
people,
and
also
the
opportunity
to
interview
Simpson,
Ogle
and

Robertson
from
theatres
implementing
the
scheme
in
its
three
different
funding

strands,
despite
the
scheme
being
so
new,
allowed
me
to
discover
a
range
of

varied
opinions.




These
opinions
come
from
people
who
are
actively
involved
in
implementing
the

scheme
(Simpson,
Ogle
and
Robertson);
some
who
have
a
dual
perspective
of

the
scheme
(Galvin
and
Baker);
some
who
have
bias
on
the
scheme
(Marshall);

and
some
who
are
targeted
the
scheme
(Young
People).




This
paper
set
out
to
determine
whether
free
ticketing
could
be
the
answer
to

developing
young
audiences
within
UK
subsidised
theatre.
Through
the
literature

reviewed
along
with
interviews
and
observations,
it
has
been
shown
that
free

tickets
are
not
the
single
answer
in
developing
younger
audiences
but
is
still
seen

as
a
key
method
throughout
the
arts
that
could
be
the
answer.



Research
has
confirmed
that
initiatives
that
use
pricing
to
develop
theatre

audiences
can
be
successful,
for
example
TDTA.
However,
failure
to
include
the

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




complex
decisions
young
people
make
between
price
and
value
should
not
be

overlooked
and
other
audience
development
tools
need
to
be
considered.




The
main
concern
identified
within
this
research
is
that
the
current
scheme,

ANLO,
does
not
tackle
the
issue
of
perceived
value
when
applied
to
a
free

product,
resulting
in
young
people
not
valuing
the
opportunity
of
a
free
ticket
to

the
theatre.
Ultimately
failing
to
achieve
the
schemes
goal
of
developing
young

audiences.



ANLO
was
viewed
as
a
good
start
to
developing
young
audiences.
However,

during
my
research,
it
would
appear
people
interviewed
showed
a
surprising

consensus
that
the
DCMS
and
ACE
‐
who
are
administering
and
evaluating
the

scheme
‐
failed
to
notice
the
inherent
lack
of
value
a
free
ticket
would
place
on

theatres
equity,
and
that
research
previously
carried
out
by
these
funding
bodies

could
have
prevented
this
from
occurring.
ACE
also
made
no
attempt
in
ensuring

the
scheme
was
approached
in
a
consistent
way
by
the
theatres
involved.



One
thing
that
has
surprised
me
throughout
producing
this
document
is
the

DCMS
declining
an
interview
(See
appendix
for
E‐mail
–
7.25).
As
one
of
the

major
funders
of
the
scheme,
one
would
have
thought
they
would
want
their

opinions
heard,
surely
the
threat
that
this
poses
surrounding
their
lack
of

interest
in
the
scheme
has
a
detrimental
effect
on
the
organisation.



My
personal
opinion
regarding
the
research
question
concurs
with
that
of
the

interviewees,
who
said
both
‘No’
and
‘Not
on
its
own’.
I
personally
believe
this

scheme
can
be
a
catalyst
in
initially
attracting
young
people
to
the
theatre
but

can
only
be
sustainable
if
the
value
model
is
implemented:





 55

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?






Fig.
6
–
Value
Model



The
value
of
the
offer
must
be
communicated
sufficiently
so
that
young
people
feel

they
are
receiving
more
than
a
free
ticket,
suggestions
being
programming
and

emphasising
the
overall
experience
of
a
night
at
the
theatre.
The
value
of
the

relationship
must
then
be
implemented
after
a
young
person’s
initial
visit
by

ensuring
theatre
staff
welcome
young
people
and
encourage
them
to
re‐attend,

ultimately
paying
for
their
ticket.
Finally,
the
interviewees
have
least
appreciated
the

value
of
the
brand,
and
recommendations
are
that
the
brand
should
be
consistent

across
the
whole
scheme
from
its
initial
construction
and
communicated
using
the

language
and
tone
adopted
by
young
people.



As
I
stated
before
my
research
question
has
been
answered
with
a
unanimous
‘no’.
I

believe
the
opinions
put
forward
in
the
literature
review
and
findings
and
analysis

sections
of
this
paper
are
accurate
and
could
help
limit
the
potential
damage
that

free
theatre
could
do
to
the
overall
value
of
theatre
in
its
broadest
sense.




The
actual
answer
is
still
open
to
debate,
as
the
scheme
will
not
end
and
be
fully

evaluated
until
2011.
The
ACE
evaluation
of
the
ANLO
scheme
will
be
published
in

2011/2012
once
the
scheme
has
run
its
course
and
could
contain
the
answer
to
my

research
question.
I
believe
this
evaluation
document
will
discuss
the
figures



 56

 Is
free
ticketing
the
answer
to
developing
young
audiences
for
UK
subsidised
theatre?




surrounding
the
sum
of
young
people
who
attended
the
theatre
during
the
scheme

but
will
unfortunately
fail
to
mention
the
inherent
issues
surrounding
value
or

suggest
a
more
effective
scheme.




Free
ticketing
has
been
viewed
as
an
unsustainable
way
of
developing
young

audiences
throughout
this
research
and
a
simple
solution
would
have
been
to

distribute
the
funding
in
order
to
expand
existing
audience
development
work.

However,
this
is
not
the
case,
yes
‐
price
may
be
one
barrier
to
theatre
attendance,

but
‘free’
is
not
the
future,
as
Chris
Anderson
suggests,
for
the
arts.




Theatre
is
just
one
entertainment
option
amongst
many
available
for
the
younger

generation,
but
not
one
that
currently
sits
within
their
thought
process
and
simply

doling
out
free
tickets
could
create
more
harm
than
good.
Young
people
need
to
be

enlightened
by
the
thought
of
theatre;
they
need
to
see
it
as
an
experience.
They

need
to
appreciate
the
creative
environment,
be
captured
by
the
artistic

atmosphere,
escape
in
the
writers’
stories,
and
be
inspired
by
the
actors
adventures

which
all
takes
place
on
the
stages
of
the
UK.
Once
they
are
welcomed,
charmed
and

valued
their
relationship
with
theatre
could
last
a
lifetime,
with
no
free
tickets
in

sight.



 57