Arts and cultural touring co-design

What the research has found

Audiences are essential to the purpose and finances of touring. For most research participants, audiences for touring are below what they were pre-Covid, although recovery is growing, particularly for parts of the festivals sector.

People often describe what we call the 'Netflix challenge': audiences have already paid subscriptions for high-quality at-home entertainment and, particularly with the high cost of living, going out for entertainment is less appealing or essential than perhaps it used to be. 

In addition, people describe challenges related to late audience booking patterns (leading to financial risks and cancellations), and that audiences are opting for more low-risk performances (known acts, familiar formats), partly because costs of attendance are high.

Some sectors, e.g. Rural Touring, describe ageing audiences and the difficulty of engaging younger people. Outdoor arts are particularly successful at engaging younger audiences, often attending for social as much as cultural reasons, but these, generally free performances, rely on subsidy.

What the research has found

With significant decreases in local authority funding over recent years, maybe as much as 45% since 2020, Arts Council England has become the main funder for much subsidised touring.

Local authority cuts have had particular impact on the work that has historically been LA-funded, especially outdoor arts, much of which is unticketed and free-to-access but with funding.

Most of the smaller-scale touring ecosystem operates on hairline or zero margins: much of it cannot survive without subsidy and support. That subsidy is now hugely competitive.

In this environment, the demands and scheduling of grant applications can have a big impact. People describe the difficulty of applying for touring grants that require a confirmed itinerary, when venues sometimes need tour certainty (i.e. funding) to confirm bookings.

Other income sources for touring include food and beverage, sponsorship, local economic development funding, merchandise and philanthropy. Many touring producers have mixed income portfolios, aside from touring.

 

What the research has found

Smaller-scale touring has a special up-close intimacy, and often a community connection, that is not found in larger-scale work. And many people highlight the importance of working with communities, audiences and venues to shape shows that have local fit.

In a world of always-on entertainment, where many households have streaming subscriptions and are opting for fewer outings to bigger events, and where risk-averse audiences opt for safer-bet shows, smaller-scale touring works well when the wider experience for audiences (not just the show) is well developed, and well marketed.

Some domains, particularly rural touring and outdoor arts, report that early career artists are not aware of the potential for work in these areas. 

For many artists, the financial and other challenges mean that their touring work has reduced, or stopped altogether: some have sadly left touring; others continue to find a way.

What the research has found

The costs of touring have risen significantly, and across the board, over recent years: travel, accommodation, rates, insurances, utilities, artist fees etc. But the incomes have not risen by the same amount, if at all, meaning that the economics of touring are very difficult. 

Just under half of artists and venues report that touring breaks even but almost as many report it makes a loss; only a minority make a profit or surplus from touring.

In much of the ecosystem there is more supply (artists producing work) than demand (audiences in venues), resulting in an imbalance between producers and bookers. This, along with tight venue margins, means more box office splits and fewer guaranteed fees in deals with artists/producers. This leads to a financial risk, and often a loss, that artists cannot afford to sustain.

Tour itineraries are resource-intensive to organise and often end up being disjointed, with bigger gaps and increased travel, which increases tour costs, and artist burn-out, significantly. 

What the research has found

Many (though by no means all) venues and festivals report challenges, uncertainties and even closures, driven largely by increasing costs and changing audience behaviours.

The operating margins for venues, as with other stakeholders, are often extremely tight; two years at a loss often means closure.

Promoters - the glue that often makes tours happen - often bear the financial risk of tours and, like venues, cannot afford successive losses.

The biggest venues and festivals, and their conglomerates, can afford to buy 'verticals', such as ticketing retailers and food & beverage companies, which gives them an economic advantage. Smaller and middle-sized venues and festivals seldom have the capacity or capital to do this.

Some report that a preference for place-based funding priorities over recent years has had a negative impact on touring, compounded by local authority funding cuts because LA funding normally funds in-authority activity, rather than from-authority.

There's a mixed picture for accessibility: many respondents say there are no or few accessibility barriers; many others cite physical, attitudinal and funding barriers to making opportunities more accessible for artists and audiences.