Towards defining a successful run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe

Towards defining a successful run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe

Management Research Paper

LPAEM3006

Music, Theatre and Entertainment Management

Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts

June 2010

Andrew Girvan

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in the research and writing of this paper, particularly those who agreed to be interviewed.

Many thanks go to Maria Barrett who has patiently supervised me through the process and to the team of LIPA management lecturers who have enabled and encouraged me throughout three fantastic years.

Thanks also go to all those who I have worked with and met at the Fringe during the years I have attended. Each have played a role in inspiring my love of Edinburgh in August and form part of my motivation for this paper.

Management Research Paper LPAEM3006! Andrew Girvan

2

ContentsAbstract! 5

1.0 Introduction! 6

2.0 Literature Review! 72.1 Defining the Edinburgh Festival Fringe! 8

2.2 Festivalisation and Edinburgh in a Global Festival Marketplace! 10

2.3 Examining Why 2008 Was an Atypical Year for the Fringe! 11

2.4 Potential Outcomes From an Edinburgh Fringe Run! 11

2.4.1 Future Touring! 12

2.4.2 Exposure! 12

2.4.3 Financial! 13

2.4.4 Awards! 15

2.5 Definitions of Commonly Used Terms in the Fringe Environment! 16

2.6 Defining The Role of a Producer! 16

2.7 Examining the Concept of a Semi-Professional Theatre Company! 17

3.0 Methodology ! 18

3.1 Research Philosophy! 18

3.2 Research Approach! 19

3.3 Research Base! 19

3.4 Research Themes! 22

3.5 Research Methods! 24

3.6 Interview Style! 25

3.7 Interview Process! 26

3.8 Interpretation of Data! 27

4.0 Findings and Analysis ! 294.1 Future Touring! 29

4.2 Exposure! 30

4.2.1 Exposure to the Fringe Audience! 30


3

4.2.2 Benefits to Professional Reputation! 31

4.2.3 Exposure to Industry Peers! 31

4.3 Financial! 32

4.4 Awards! 33

4.5 Alternative Definitions of Success to those Proposed! 34

4.6 Developing Pieces Specifically for Edinburgh! 34

4.7 Identifying a Specific Time at which Success was Achieved! 35

4.8 Comparative Success Beyond the Edinburgh Fringe! 37

4.9 Success Regardless of Accomplishment of Potential Outcomes! 38

5.0 Conclusions ! 40

5.1 General Remarks! 40

5.2 Development of Work! 40

5.3 Financial Success Enables Companies! 41

5.4 The Success of Exposure! 42

5.5 Recommendations for Companies Producing Work at Edinburgh! 43

5.6 Recommendations for Further Research! 44

6.0 Bibliography! 45

7.0 Appendices! 507.1 Biographies of Interviewees! 50


4

Abstract

The Edinburgh Festival Fringe is the world’s largest arts festival, an event with a 60 year history which remains three times bigger than its nearest competitor. This paper examines a number of semi-professional companies presenting shows at the 2008 Fringe, their work competing against 2,100 other shows for the attention of audience members, press and promoters.

As an open access arts festival any show can be produced at Edinburgh under the auspices of the Fringe. The charity responsible for the co-ordination of the event, the Edinburgh Fringe Society, publish a yearly guide briefing participants on what to expect from their Edinburgh experience. Using that document and the possible outcomes from a Fringe run it proposes as a framework, this paper seeks to better understand how producers in semi-professional companies define and measure success. The remainder of the literature review examines the unique arts marketplace that exists in Edinburgh during the Fringe, the increased competition the Fringe faces for visitors and companies from other festival cities and highlights the box office problems which marred the 2008 Fringe.

Research was undertaken through a series of interviews with the producers who presented work at C venues during the 2008 Fringe. Although each of the companies interviewed approached the Fringe in different ways, with particular contrast in dedications to commercial and artistic objectives, it has been established that there were a number of common factors in how the companies defined their success.

Through this paper’s research it was discovered that developing a piece specifically for presentation at the Fringe was of key importance. Whether committed to artistic or commercial success, it was clear that for all of the companies interviewed financial success was signified by managing to cover production costs, generation of further profits being rare. It became clear that a successful Edinburgh Fringe for the semi-professional companies examined was one which allowed them to build relationships with audiences and promoters and take their work to the next stage of professional development such as a regional tour or a London fringe engagement.


5

1.0 IntroductionThe Edinburgh Festival Fringe is the world’s largest performing arts festival. It is an event with a 60 years history and a lifelong commitment to the principle that it should remain an open access festival, with no kind of curation dictating what work is presented under its auspices.

The Fringe is a topic which I have long been personally and academically interested in. As a festival it has played an important part in my development as a performing arts manager, having grown up in Edinburgh and worked my first Fringe at age 15 I have watched company after company strive to find success amongst the largest and most competitive performing arts marketplace in the world.

In this paper I will seek to better understand what motivates companies to bring work to Edinburgh, and examine in detail what defines a successful outcome. This paper will examine the activities of producers within semi-professional companies who presented work at C venues during the 2008 Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Having worked within the management team of C venues for the past two summers and closely observed these companies it was clear that the producers were concerned just as much with the number of tickets sold or whether their show was profitable as they were with measuring their success against a far less tangible set of criteria. To be able to meaningfully compare the companies it was necessary to develop a framework of the potential outcomes of a Fringe run. With this framework it was hoped comparison would be possible between a disparate group of producers, each of whom had a different understanding what success meant in the context of their own company.

Having taken over the Artistic Directorship of the Old Vic, Kevin Spacey was quoted as saying “the creative process is not an exact science” (2006) a concept which I am sure is familiar to all arts managers, however I hope through the detailed examinations of companies in this paper, I will have gone some way to better understand the creative process and how producers define success when they take their productions to “the greatest show on earth” (Bain, 1996).

Andrew Girvan


6

2.0 Literature Review

In this literature review I shall seek to contextualise and define concepts which shall be discussed throughout the rest of the paper. This will be achieved through the evaluation of content in previously published works.

It should be noted that around the topic of defining artistic success of specific companies at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, little academic literature has been published. The majority of the books published on the subject of the Fringe, many in the late 1990’s, around the time of its 50th anniversary, form retrospective examinations at the artistic output of companies at the Fringe and detail the formalisation process from self organised festival through the formation of the Edinburgh Fringe Society to the organisation we see today (Bain, 1996; Miller, 1996; Dale, 1988).

There is also a growing body of work examining the Fringe as an event combined with the other Edinburgh Festivals as a whole, in an increasingly crowded global market place. These have mainly been studies commissioned by funding and tourism bodies.

This perspective is supported by Beatriz García, Director of Liverpool’s Impacts 08 research programme into the impacts of Liverpool’s year as European Capital of Culture, who states work published around “major cultural festivals mostly take the form of evaluations carried out for organisers or funding bodies, which seem to function primarily as evidence of the positive economic value of the events” (Garcia & Langen, 2009).

In order to study the idea of success from the perspective of specific companies, and indeed the interpretations of such success by individual producers, I shall examine the broader academic writings on the Edinburgh Festivals and particularly the Edinburgh Fringe Society’s own published material. In order to contextualise these documents I shall take references from newspapers which both commentate on the performing arts industry and maintain a strong presence in Edinburgh during August, such as The Guardian, The Herald and The Scotsman. I shall also be using quotations from the theatrical trade press, mainly The Stage. These publications offer analysis of news stories concerning the Fringe, as well as editorial pieces on broader issues which effect the Fringe environment.


7

2.1 Defining the Edinburgh Festival Fringe

To begin defining a successful run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, it is important to understand how the Fringe, its companies and productions fit into the Festival environment which encompasses Edinburgh each August.

The Edinburgh Festivals, as they are collectively know, are 11 festivals which occur in Edinburgh annually. These include the Edinburgh International Festival, Edinburgh International Book Festival, Edinburgh International Film Festival and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe (AEA Consulting, 2006 p. 3-4).

This paper shall be looking specifically at companies presenting work at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, the world’s largest open access arts festival (Lathan, 2008). The first Edinburgh Festival Fringe occurred in 1947 when eight companies performed in Edinburgh out with the auspices of the Edinburgh International Festival which was also established in that year.

The Edinburgh Festival Fringe take place for a three week period in August each year and, as part of the wider Edinburgh Festivals, helps attract roughly 2.5m visitors to the city. AEA Consulting affirmed Edinburgh’s position as the current global leader in the cultural events sector stating: “the growth in the scale and number of Edinburgh’s family of festivals has made the city a pre-eminent cultural destination” (2006 p. 6).

Within the Edinburgh Festivals, the Fringe is the largest single event, both in terms of tickets sold and the impact it has on the local economy. AEA Consulting (2006) suggest that of the £135m generated for Edinburgh and the Lothians’ economy by the Festivals, some £75m could be directly attributed to the Fringe. In 2008, the Fringe sold 1,535,000 tickets, the third consecutive year the total number of tickets sold crossed 1.5 million (Lathan, 2008).

Ticket sales have continued to grow since those 2008 figures, with the total number of tickets sold for 2009 standing at 1,859,000 (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010a). This confirms the Fringe’s position as the world’s largest performing arts festival, with dramatically more ticket sales than its nearest competitor, the Adelaide Fringe. In contrast,


8

in 2009 it sold just 187,000 tickets (Adelaide Fringe Inc, 2009). The Adelaide Fringe also exists as an open access Fringe alternative to the city’s curated biennial festival.

Comparing Edinburgh’s 2,088 shows at the 2008 Fringe with Adelaide’s 700 shows for the same year could also suggest that the Edinburgh Fringe is three times the size of its nearest competitor by certain metrics (Cornwell, 2010a).

The open access concept is key to the definition of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. The event is in no way artistically curated and the Edinburgh Fringe Society states its commitment to this policy, saying: “no single individual or committee determines who can or cannot perform on the Fringe” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010b). Indeed, any shows can be listed in the official Fringe Programme and sell tickets through the centralised Fringe box office by paying the universal Fringe registration fee of £328.

The make up of events within the Edinburgh Fringe is therefore dictated by the companies who wish to perform, and to an extent, the venues which programme work for their stages. Lathan (2008) in the British Theatre Guide states that the make up of the 2008 programme, the year which this paper will be examining, was 32% comedy, 29% theatre, 17% music, 5% musicals and opera, 5% dance and physical theatre, 4% children’s shows, 4% standalone events and 3% exhibitions. It is noted by Dibden (2008a) that this year is significant for the Fringe as the year “comedy forms the largest sector at this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe, overtaking theatre for the first time in the event’s 62 year history.”

The open access programming model greatly contrasts with the Edinburgh International Festival (EIF) where all productions are invited to perform by the Festival Director and subsequently promoted and funded by the Festival (EIF, 2010).

King (2009) states that any feeling of competition between the Fringe and the EIF was reduced during the 1992 to 2006 Artistic Directorship of Sir Brian McMaster who greatly reduced the EIF’s drama programming, moving it instead to a core offering of high quality, large scale opera.


9

2.2 Festivalisation and Edinburgh in a Global Festival Marketplace

In the last decade it has become apparent that as competition in the global festivals market increases, there could be a negative impact on the visitor numbers to the Edinburgh Festivals.

To evaluate the scale of the potential threat a group of funding bodies led by the Scottish Arts Council commissioned a report from AEA Consulting, titled ‘Thundering Hooves: Maintaining the Global Competitive Edge of Edinburgh’s Festivals’.

The report examined the approaches of cities across the United Kingdom, including Manchester with its new International Festival and Liverpool, at that point still to host the European Capital of Culture and suggested that “the impressive levels of start-up investment that Liverpool, Manchester... are spending on establishing their presence will [require Edinburgh to] take sustained political and financial capital to maintain [its position]. (AEA Consulting, 2006 p. 5).

This phenomenon, described as “festivalisation” is a concept which has become a particular focus of evaluative research undertaken following major cultural events and festivals. It is not only concerned with the sheer number of festivals being produced globally, but also with the political determination with which “a large number of cities around the world” are using festivals as “[an] important catalysts for renewal and image-making, linked with an increasing pre-occupation with the realisable impact of festivals in hard economic terms” (AEA Consulting, 2006 p. 16)

This trend towards festivalisation continues to present events which compete directly for the attention of Edinburgh Fringe companies and audience members. Brighton Festival Fringe is an open access arts festival held in the city every May, as an adjunct to that city’s curated International Festival. Holly Payton, Brighton Fringe’s manager until June 2008, describes the key objective of her role with the Fringe being to help it become the “world’s fastest growing open access arts festival” (Payton, 2009).

Competition to the Edinburgh Fringe has also recently been presented by a proposed a London Festival Fringe to be held in August and in direct competition with Edinburgh (Lee, 2009). Although many commentators appear sceptical of how much of an impact the event


10

is likely to have on the Edinburgh Fringe, it reinforces the idea that Edinburgh could be a festival under threat, with some producers and venue owners disenfranchised at the associated costs, overly competitive marketplace and lack of representation at Fringe Society board level, which could lead to them considering Edinburgh Fringe alternatives (Miller, 2009).

2.3 Examining Why 2008 Was an Atypical Year for the Fringe

This paper will examine companies who produced work at the Fringe in 2008. This choice will be justified in the Methodology section of this paper however it should be noted that the 2008 Fringe was an atypical year in the recent history of the Fringe.

Faced with the continual growth of its box office sales, the Edinburgh Fringe Society implemented a new bespoke box office system which “went live on 9 June and immediately failed” (Scott-Moncrieff, 2009 p. 17) with implications for venues and companies across the Fringe. The problems were widespread: “sales had to be suspended several times, the Fringe [Society] missed a crucial deadline for sending out pre-booked tickets, and venues had to bring in extra staff to sell tickets” (Ferguson, 2008).

The Scotsman also reported that the Fringe Society missed the agreed date for reconciling its box office takings to venues and promoters by the end of September, with some complaining they were “still out of pocket” in December (Fergusson, 2008).

The overall effect of the box office fiasco was a 10% drop in overall ticket sales compared to previous years (Fisher, 2008) as well as the “shock” resignation of the Fringe Director, Jon Morgan, on the last day of the Fringe (Dibden, 2008b). The Fringe Society survived the event only through financial support from the City of Edinburgh Council in the form of £250,000 in emergency funding (Carrell, 2009).

2.4 Potential Outcomes From an Edinburgh Fringe Run

In striving to define a successful run at the Edinburgh Fringe it is first necessary to establish what potential outcomes are available to companies that present work in that context.


11

Particularly pertinent to this section is the annually published The Fringe Guide To Doing A Show published by the Fringe Society (2010c). It sets out in realistic terms what should be expected by companies looking to perform at Edinburgh. I shall use this document as the basis from which to develop the framework for my research.

By examining what importance companies placed on achieving certain outcomes, and the level to which those outcomes were achieved, a framework will be established, against which to test an Edinburgh Fringe run for success.

2.4.1 Future Touring

When answering the question “why come to the Fringe?” the Edinburgh Fringe Society suggests that a key factor could be the potential for future touring opportunities of work presented by participating companies (2010c p. 4). Due to the volume and variety of work presented in one place, the Fringe is ideally placed to attract an audience of “producers, promoters, scouts and venue operators poised to take… talent to the next level professionally” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p. 45).

The Fringe Society also put in place staff to help facilitate the building of relationships between companies and potential future promoters. Recently renamed as the Arts Industry Office, the team exists to “support all arts professionals who visit the Fringe seeking to discover and book new work or talent” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010d).

2.4.2 Exposure

Through presenting work at the Fringe companies are warned by the Fringe Society that they place themselves in one of the biggest, most diverse and most competitive arts markets in the world.

This presents both opportunities and risks to companies. The main risk is that companies are competing for ticket sales against 2100 shows, indeed as reported by Toms in her Guardian piece (2008) it is a commonly held misconception that the average attendance of a show in Edinburgh is only six people. By calculating the number of tickets sold against the number of performances published by the Fringe Society, a more realistic figure would be nearer 50 audience members, however the distribution of this audience is likely to be


12

hugely skewed between the Fringe’s 247 venues, the largest of which has a theatre with a capacity of over 1000 (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010e p. 18; Cornwell, 2010b) and an infinitely higher marketing budget to attract audiences to the venue itself, regardless of which show they attend when they arrive.

With regards to attracting an audience however, the Fringe Society suggests that the “average audience member at the Edinburgh Fringe attends 11 performances” (2010c p. 36) and that in the Fringe setting that audience is likely to be “willing to take risks and experience new and challenging productions” (2010c p. 45). As such, a production at the Edinburgh Fringe may find it possible to attract an audience to its work where in more traditional theatre setting it may be completely over looked. In this respect, there is a great degree of democratisation in the ability to attract an audience to Fringe work.

In the Fringe environment great importance is put on receiving a positive word of mouth response. The Fringe Society suggest that “If [audiences have] had a good time, they pass it on, and eventually the media hear about it”. This word of mouth marketing can then potentially be formalised through the numerous opportunities for press coverage with “local, national and international publications and broadcasters... raring to fill their pages and airtime with content about the Fringe and its shows” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010e p. 21).

There is a generally held belief within Fringe circles that as access to audiences and therefore the potential to attract them is uniform across the Fringe. This idea is supported by the fact that every company performs once a day within a tight geographical location and charges reasonably similar ticket prices. The belief is, that if a show is of a quality that deserves to attract an audience, then there is nothing to stop it doing so.

2.4.3 Financial

In some respects the easiest of the potential outcomes proposed to measure, financial success is a notorious area at the Edinburgh Fringe. It should first be stated that production costs “vary greatly from company to company, depending on factors like the size and genre of your show” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p. 10) however whether a production breaks even or not is a comparable measure across any scale of company or production.


13

There are a number of production costs familiar to all Fringe productions, and the major consideration for most companies is their deal with the venue. Actor and producer Richard Wray (2007) states in the Guardian:

There are ways of doing Edinburgh on the cheap. Picking a prestigious venue, however, is not one of them. Venues charge an up-front deposit, then ask you to guarantee a certain level of ticket sales or take [up to] a 40% slice of all tickets sold.

A recent comment piece in the Guardian estimated the “average cost of a show is currently around £6,000, and that even an amateur production could easily cost more than £10,000” (Turney, 2010) however these figures are perhaps conservative and may more accurately reflect costs in a smaller venue. They appear particularly small when compared to figures presented by the Fringe Society which places a typical Fringe budget for a production in a 100 seat venue at £15,000 (2010c p. 12).

There are a number of contributing factors to the overall cost of a run. The Fringe Society, in the guide examined, suggest the main factors to consider would be the length of run, size of auditorium, cast accommodation costs and company transport to Edinburgh (2010c p. 17).

There are certainly advantages to longer running shows, in that the “longer your run, the more chance you have to build up word of mouth about your show and maximise the impact of any reviews” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p. 19). There are also a number of fixed costs to consider such as publicity and transport costs which mean “it is not true to say that performing for one week will cost you a third of performing for a full three week run” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p. 19).

The primary source of income for all companies performing in Edinburgh is box office revenue (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p.19). In this respect there is no differentiation between companies who would define themselves as commercially or artistically motivated. Some commentators have complained that this is the case stating “It has become a grim fight for tickets” (Judd, 2000) however it remains the case that a successful Fringe run for many companies, particularly out with the ‘big four’ venues, will simply be one where they break even. The Fringe Society is quite up front about the realities of bringing shows to the Fringe. It states: “Most performers consider themselves lucky to


14

break even; losing money is more likely” (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010c p. 11) indeed Judd continued in her piece on Fringe finances: “performers can find themselves thousands of pounds in debt when the promoters' bill for promotion far exceeds their takings” (2000).

The deal which the producer negotiates with their venue, particularly what percentage of payment will be upfront, and therefore the risk of the project, is a particularly important factor for Fringe producers. The costs which the venues look to cover with their guarantees and box office splits cannot be easily ascertained within the competitive venue market, however venue owners such as Tomek Borkowy of Universal Arts have publicly stated “the cost of running two venues with four stages comes to around £250,000 a year” (Miller, 2009).

2.4.4 Awards

There are a number of awards which which companies can be awarded at the Fringe. A fuller list of awards, as well as details on their consideration criteria are listed in the appendices of this paper. Edinburgh awards are mainly prizes presented by the various media publications that feature the Fringe. It could be argued that to this end they serve simply as advertising extensions for the print media brands, however there can be a tangible benefit for the winning companies in terms of exposure and reputation depending on the prestige of the award.

The most prestigious awards at the Fringe are The Scotsman newspaper’s Fringe Firsts which were first awarded in 1973 (Eaton, 2009; Ideas Tap, 2009; Birmingham Rep, 2009). Awarded by The Scotsman’s critics, they are a sign of quality in new writing and are given weekly, allowing shows to exploit the marketing potential of their accolade for the remainder of their runs.

Other awards presented at Edinburgh tend to emulate the Fringe First model, and include The Herald newspaper’s Herald Angels awards which have been awarded since 1996 (Bruce, 2009). The broadsheet press have also been joined by trade publication The Stage which awards both shows and individual performers. Fringe-centric publications such as Three Weeks also present awards for Fringe work, with far broader criteria than those examples listed above. This appears to be reflective of Three Week’s wish to


15

support work perhaps not only in the artistic sense. The Three Weeks Editor’s Awards have previously been awarded to entities such as the Five Pound Fringe, simply because they are a “well needed addition to the Edinburgh Fringe” (Cooke, 2009).

2.5 Definitions of Commonly Used Terms in the Fringe Environment

There are a number of terms specific to the Edinburgh Fringe which I feel should be properly defined, contextualising their use throughout the rest of the paper.

The Fringe Society officially recognised 247 venues at Edinburgh in 2008 (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010e) however the landscape is dominated by four venues: Underbelly, Pleasance, Assembly, and the Gilded Balloon. These four venues mainly programme comedy and other professional companies, dominating the market (Carrell, 2008). Collectively they are referred to as ‘the big four’. C venues is the biggest venue chain out with ‘the big four’ and is unlikely ever to join the group, given their commitment to new writing and student theatre programme (C venues, 2010).

In an Edinburgh Fringe context the term Promoter is broadly used. The Edinburgh Fringe Society in their glossary of terms for companies describe a promoter as “A person or company in the business of marketing and promoting entertainers, shows and live events” (2010c p. 50). Fringe promoters generally tend to be directors of year round venues looking for Fringe shows to programme in their venues. Promoters are accredited by the Fringe Society, allowing them access to complimentary tickets to shows (Edinburgh Fringe Society, 2010d).

2.6 Defining The Role of a Producer

Throughout this paper I shall be seeking to define the concept of a successful Edinburgh run through discussion with the producers of Fringe productions. It is therefore important to define the role of a producer in this context.

D Michael Rose, an entertainment law consultant and legal contributor to The Stage newspaper, advises that “the role of the producer is manifold and diverse” and although the actual job roles may vary somewhat between productions, it is expected that in the Fringe context being examined, the producer would be expected to “be responsible for


16

making arrangements for every aspect of the production in order to prepare it for presentation to the public on stage, subsequently managing it during the course of its production run” (Rose, 2009).

We may also derive a greater understanding of the financial aspect of the role from an Arts Council England publication which states: “the producer is responsible for finding the finance, spending the money to best effect, and achieving the best outcome for all the risk-takers” (Tyndall, 2007).

2.7 Examining the Concept of a Semi-Professional Theatre Company

Within the context of this paper, I shall be using the term semi-professional to describe both individual producers and theatre companies as a whole. Although not specifically an authoritative source of definitions within the performing arts, The Oxford English dictionary defines a semi-professional as someone “receiving payment for an activity but not relying entirely on it for a living”.

The term being used is actually one more often found in the world of sports, which has been adopted for more general usage. The key differentiation being given by the use of the term in this context is between those undertaking an activity as a hobby and those who are able to support themselves entirely through that activity.

The above definition is particularly relevant to companies working in a Fringe environment as, although they may strive to support themselves entirely from their artistic endeavours, many support themselves by other means year round or out with Festival engagements.


17

3.0 Methodology

In this methodology I shall outline the philosophy, approach and methods of research I will be using to examine producer’s attitudes towards success in a Fringe environment. Building on the background research carried out in my literature review, I shall seek to establish a strong and reasoned approach to the research I undertake.

3.1 Research Philosophy

This Management Research Paper will seek to take a phenomenological approach to examining the topic. This is opposed to adopting a positivist approach which Saunders et al suggest would seek to generate “law-like generalisations” about the topic under scrutiny (2007 p. 103).

Saunders et al, instead describe a subjectivist approach as one which takes the view “social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors” going onto state that “social actors… may place different interpretations on the situations in which they find themselves” (2007 p. 108).

This paper will seek to examine the contrasting opinions of individual producers, with regards to the success of their artistic endeavours in a Fringe environment. Whilst examining their projects in purely financial or attendance terms would have led to a more positivist approach, those two metrics being easily quantifiable and reasonably comparable in a performing arts context, it would in no way allow for examination of the disparate and constantly changing expectations of producers or the array of aims and objectives with which a company can embark on a Fringe project. Saunders et al term non definitive entities such as these expectations as ‘social phenomena’, suggesting that as such they are “in a constant state of revision” and and go on to cite Remenyi et al in saying that it is necessary to study “the details of the situation to understand the reality or perhaps a reality working behind them” (2007 p. 108).


18

3.2 Research Approach

I shall seek to employ an inductive approach with this paper. This reflects that given the question being posed, thorough examination of the topic may conclude in the formulation of a theory. Conversely, a deductive approach would have expected the testing of an existing hypothesis, with quantitative data allowing for the comparison of variables (Saunders et al, 2007 p. 117).

As outlined above this paper will seek to examine less tangible elements of the producer’s process, elements which I believe can only be examined in a qualitative sense, and cannot be adequately investigated with a quantitative approach. Saunders et al suggest that “follower[s] of induction would also criticise deduction because of its tendency to construct a rigid methodology that does not permit alternative explanations of what is going on.” (2007 p. 119) I feel this approach would not allow the flexibility to examine fully the ways in which producers define success of their Fringe projects.

My research will take the form of examinations of organisations presenting work at the Fringe. Swetnam (1997 p. 37) defines such examination as “a study concerning one particular happening, or case, examining events and facets of the focused area in a meticulous and systematic fashion”, going on to say that they are “qualitative by definition”. He warns against allowing the use of specific examples to “make universal theories out of trivia” and as such it is important that this paper establishes a strong framework upon which to pin the detailed examinations undertaken.

The inductive approach allows this paper to use the examples of a small number of sample companies. Saunders et al reinforce this idea, stating: “a study of a small sample of subjects might be more appropriate than a large number as with the deductive approach” (2007 p. 119).

3.3 Research Base

This paper will set out to examine theatre companies who produced work at the 2008 Edinburgh Fringe. By taking a snap shot, examining the work which was produced in this year specifically, adequate time will have been allowed for work to have been exploited to


19

its full extent post Fringe, through opportunities such as further touring, and reflect on them by the time of interview.

As outlined in Section 2.3 of this paper, the 2008 Fringe was an atypical year, marred by controversy caused by the failure of the central box office system. As such it may have adversely effected the companies involved, particularly in a financial sense. I believe two years on from that event, the companies be able to contextualise their 2008 experience against more recent Fringe and producing experiences, with those potentially negative experiences adding value to their understanding of success at the Fringe.

It was felt that examining the 2008 Fringe in particular was most appropriate, as although adequate time has elapsed for productions presented to have reached the end of their production cycles, it was still a relatively recent event for the producers concerned. It was felt that examining productions which had taken place during the 2007 Fringe or before would be less well remembered by interviewees and therefore hold less value. Any approach examining events prior to 2008 was therefore disregarded.

By looking at the results of a specific time period, in effect taking a snapshot of the Fringe in the year examined, this paper will take a cross-sectional approach. Saunders et al describe a cross-sectional approach as “describ[ing] the incidence of a phenomenon.”

With regards to choosing the sample group of companies to be studied, when planning this paper, it was understood that there was an ‘opportunity’ aspect to sampling companies who had presented work within the C venues chain of venues at the Fringe. I was aware my previous employment with the venue would allow me greater access to the companies, with fewer barriers to overcome to gain the trust and establish relationships with the companies in advance of interview.

It is realised that the group sampled had been selected in a somewhat purposive fashion. The sample was not selected to represent the entire population of companies at the Fringe in Edinburgh 2008, a total of 2,088 shows having been presented at the Fringe that year (Lathan, 2008). However, the sample selected can be seen as a ‘typical case’ -described by Saunders et al (2007 p. 232) as “a sample [which] enables you to provide an illustration of what is ‘typical’” - representing the majority of semi-professional companies performing at venues out with the comedy-centric, commercial ‘big four’ venues.


20

Within the groups performing with C venues at the Fringe in 2008, the decision was made to take a selection of matched samples. Swetnam (1997 p. 41) defines matched samples as those “found as alike as possible” and as such it was hoped that a selection of semi-professional companies, all of whom had presented work at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2008 and whose company members had previous experience of working in a Fringe environment, giving them a more experienced perspective on their work, could be sought for interview. In establishing which companies should be approached for interview, background research into the producers concerned would be undertaken, establishing a matched sample of companies, operating at similar levels of experience and scale within the Fringe.

By selecting C venues companies there was a degree of standardisation in the support available to the companies in achieving their objectives, in this respect the companies were all very well ‘matched’ samples. As the largest venue chain out with the comedy centric ‘big four’ venues, C venues companies enjoy a level of inherent endorsement from audiences, promoters and press simply because they have been programmed to appear at the venue. This would not be the case with smaller shows appearing with smaller venue chains or independent venues. As such, the companies selected may not be representative their experiences.

The decision was also taken to select only companies presenting theatre work. This was taken in its broadest sense, and the sample group could have including physical theatre, musical theatre and children’s theatre. The companies sampled however were not intended to yield results representative of the Fringe’s large comedy offering where it is suspected comedians and promoters would define success differently.

A list of all of the companies defining the work that they presented as theatre, is included in the appendices of this document. It establishes that there is a small core of semi-professional companies presenting work, and rules out of the potential sample population companies who are students groups, professional companies, amateur, based overseas or were companies formed specifically for their 2008 Fringe project. It was felt that the remaining group, were ‘matched’ samples and may be in some way representative of other semi-professional companies performing with independent venues at the Fringe. This paper could not attempt to form a full cross section of groups performing at the Fringe however. The number of variables which would have to be accounted for to create a


21

sample group representative to even just all other theatre companies at the Fringe were understood to be too vast.

In spite of this purposive sampling, it was expected that the interpretations of the phenomena encountered by the companies, the way in which each of the companies viewed their success, would be quite disparate. It was clear from background research into the companies approached for interview, and through personal interactions with those companies through my C venues employment, that their perspectives on their own practices and work were very different. In many ways this actually presented a sample group with ‘deviant’ opinions on the matter under examination. As explained by Patton (2002) cited by Saunders et al (2007 p. 232) the “findings from extreme cases will be relevant in understanding or explaining more typical cases”. And so, an approach of interviewing a ‘purposively’ selected group of samples all of whom were ‘matched’ semi-professional companies performing at C venues, but who it was expected would present ‘deviant’ opinions on the subject, was adopted.

3.4 Research Themes

It is accepted that although the number of interviewees would be relatively small, selected through the purposive approach outlined above. Questions will be put to them around defined themes and formalised into an interview guide. A copy of the interview guide can be found in the appendices of this paper. Saunders et al describe an interview guide as a document which formalises the list of topics to be covered through interview (2007 p. 321).

It was hoped that the results of the interviews would present a reasonable level of generalisability. Saunders et al suggest that qualitative data, even of relatively small samples, may provide insight where a “single case may in fact encompass a number of settings” (2007 p. 327).

The interview guide would be built around examining the potential outcomes for a Fringe run outlined in the literature review section of the paper, supported by the research outlined in the literature review of this paper. Saunders et al suggest that an interview guide should allow for an initial broad focus followed by more specific examination of specific variables later in the interview (2007, p. 321).


22

The interview guide was established to examine the four potential outcomes of a Fringe run, as outlined in the literature review. To achieve this, following general introductory questions, contextualising the interviewee’s role within the company, main purpose of the interview would seek to ascertain which of the outcomes proposed in the literature review the companies involved were working towards. These potential outcomes were identified as:

• Future touring• Financial success• Exposure• Awards

The interview would initially pose broad, high level questions about the company’s approach to taking a show to the Fringe and why the company felt that Edinburgh was the correct place to present their work. At an early stage it would also establish interviewees as relevant to the sample population of semi-professional companies with members who had been to the Fringe previously.

Building on basic ideas of success for their specific company, the second stage of the interview would develop to pursue how successful they felt their company was in achieving the outcomes they were working towards. At this stage, questions would also be posed to establish if any outcomes which the interviewee did not identify in the initial section were being achieved indirectly because of the company’s activities.

Finally, to contextualise their achievements, questions would focus on whether what had been achieved by the company through their Fringe run could have been achieved by other means. Using these questions, it was hoped that the interviewee would analyse both their own activities in the Fringe environment, as well as their activities in a broader context.

It was accepted that if at any stage of the interview process an interviewee proposed another outcome they feel their company was working towards achieving, if such an outcome is felt broad enough to merit further investigation, it would be included as a potential outcome for success in further interviews.


23

3.5 Research Methods

As outlined above, this paper will take a qualitative approach. The form of the primary research undertaken will be semi-structured interviews with producers of 2008 Fringe productions.

It was felt that semi-structured interviews were the most appropriate method of ascertaining information in this area, as the content of the interviews was expected to vary between interviewees, based mainly on their personal opinions and experiences baring on the phenomena being examined: the concept of their run’s success. The interviews were conducted along a prepared series of themes, allowing consistency of topics covered between interviews, however moving away from a structured, or quantitative research interview, allowing further follow up and probing questions, based on the initial answers given. The purpose of this paper is not to impose a measure of success, but to evaluate how the companies measure themselves.

Consideration was given to conducting unstructured interviews “where the interviewee talks freely without interruption or intervention (Easterby-Smith et al 1996 p. 75) however it felt that the data recorded from such an interview would be difficult to interpret and most likely allow the interviewee fewer opportunities to present comparable opinions on specific factors of their project.

Another interview structure considered during the planning stage of this paper was a group discussion around the topic of success at the Edinburgh Fringe. There were a number of difficulties surrounding this approach, mainly that the anticipated participants in the research for this paper were geographically spread across the country, coming together only for the Fringe in Edinburgh each August. As such, a group method could not feasibly have been completed. A more quantitative approach through the use of methods such as survey or questionnaire were also considered during the planning stages of this paper, however it was felt that the sample group would not have been able to produce a statistically significant response within any quantitative approach and as such this method was disregarded.

An important factor in the success of the interview, particularly ensuring that the the interviewee did not “resort to telling the researcher what they think the researcher wants to


24

know” (Easterby-Smith et al 1996 p. 77) was obtaining the trust and access to the interviewee. This was greatly aided by the use of contacts which I had established during my time working for C venues in previous years. As Saunders et al (2007 p. 169) observe, “there will clearly be a high level of convenience in terms of gaining access through contacts who are already familiar.” It is also suggested that approaching contacts with whom you have already developed a professional relationship may “help your credibility”.

Consideration was also given to potential bias which could be introduced into the interview process, mainly as the interviewees were aware of my relationship with C venues, of whom they continued to be commercial clients. To overcome this potential bias, at the time of interview it was made clear that my previous employment with C venues had been only temporary and that it had no baring on the academic interview process in which they were participating. When consent for interview was given, it was with the understanding that responses would be held in reasonable confidence, and that information would in no way be passed back to C venues in way which could endanger the commercial relationship between producer and venue owner.

3.6 Interview Style

It was realistic to assume that the majority of the semi-structured interviews would be conducted by telephone. This was not the most ideal situation, which would have been face to face interviews allowing for the most appreciation of an interviewee’s verbal and non verbal reaction to the questions. Due to time restraints on the participants, the period during which this primary research was conducted coinciding with the programming deadline for the 2010 Edinburgh Fringe, some participants were unable to commit to visits and face to face interviews.

It was expected that the flow of telephone interviews would differ to some degree to that of face to face interviews. Whereas in a face to face interview the researcher can engage techniques such as a silent probe, which Easterby-Smith et al (1996 p. 80) describe as simply waiting for the interviewee to break the silence, thus giving more of an answer than they had perhaps intended, following a pause. During telephone interviews it was realised that a pattern of positive encouragement on the part of the researcher would be necessary to show engagement in the conversation, and would replace the use of the silent probe. It was noted that this could be interpreted by the interviewee as a level of agreement with


25

the views expressed. This may have the impact of introducing mild bias into interviews held over the telephone.

It was felt that telephone interviews were preferable to the use of other electronic mediums, such as email conversations. Due to the staggered nature of conversations by email, participants can spend an extended period of time considering answers. This may again raise the concerns outlined earlier in this methodology, where the interviewee presents the answer they feel the researcher wishes to hear, as opposed to the truest version of their own opinion. Other electronic means, such as instant messenger clients, completely remove the nuances from the conversation, reducing any opportunity for the appreciation of subtext or sarcasm, making it unsuitable for a qualitative interview.

At all times, the consistency of the objectives of the interview were maintained, across both interview types. In both interview types, the conversations were recorded and intelligently transcribed. This resulted in full transcripts of the conversations being available after the interview, reducing the burden of note taking on the researcher. Notes were taken throughout the interview to augment the interview schedule and list of topics to cover during the discussion, ensure that accurate observations were made of all non verbal responses, and as an aide mémoire for specific topics to be developed further in the discussion.

3.7 Interview Process

Semi structured Interviews were conducted with the following people:• Heather Young of Dumbshow (telephone interview)• Brian Hook & Louis Hartshorn of Hartshorn Hook Productions (face to face

interview)• Jethro Compton of Belt Up Theatre (telephone interview)

Efforts were made to conduct all interviews face to face, however due to the availability of two of the interviewees, they were instead conducted by phone. Full biographies of those interviewed are included in the appendices of this paper.

In preparation for the interviews thorough background research will be undertaken into each of the companies and producers. To contextualise the work presented by the


26

interviewees, a full list of their 2008 Edinburgh Fringe productions is included in the appendices of this paper. When conducting research particular attention was also be given to the company’s activity out with the Fringe in 2008, as well as brief investigation of the company’s activities since. This included factors such as further touring opportunities, relationships with venues and apparent funding availability.

All interviewees were approached by email when asked to participate. A copy of the introductory email sent to Louis Hartshorn is included in the appendices of this paper, it is indicative of the emails sent to all interviewees. It was made clear at the introductory stage that the session would be recorded, and that because of the semi-structured nature of the interview a finalised list of questions would not be provided in advance. Instead, interviewees were given a list of key themes from the interview guide and told that certain topics of interest may be probed further.

At this point it was key not to outline the researcher’s own opinions on the topic at hand, which may have bias the interviewee's response to the questions. As Easterby-Smith et al highlight, “there is a very real concern about interviewers imposing their own reference frame on the interviewees, both when the questions are asked and as the answers are interpreted.” (1996 p. 79) It is acknowledged that this leads researchers to ask ‘open’ questions, followed by ‘probing’ follow up questions. These considerations were taken into preparing for the interview and can be observed in the interview guide.

3.8 Interpretation of Data

Transcriptions of the interviews will be taken as source data and interpreted using the grounded theory approach. This, defined by Saunders et al seeks to develop a theory which is “developed from data generated by a series of observations” (2007 p.142).

Easterby-Smith et al (1996 p. 108) suggest that quantitative data lends itself to analysis against a larger, external model, whilst qualitative data requires analysis to “tease out the themes, patterns and categories”. It is this grounded theory approach which will be undertaken using the process to analyse qualitative data suggested by Easter-Smith et al (1996 p. 108-110). The process is broken into seven steps by Easter-Smith et al and includes familiarisation, reflection, conceptualisation, cataloguing, recoding, linking and the re-evaluation of data.


27

Content analysis, also proposed as an interpretation method by Easterby-Smith et al is based on the frequency with which certain terms appear within the base data. As such it was not felt well suited to the analysis of the phenomenological research outlined and was disregarded in favour of grounded theory.

The aim of the data interpretation will be to establish patterns in the answers given. Such patterns will then be related back to the framework of potential outcomes from a Fringe run, developed throughout the literature review and upon which the interview guide was based.


28

4.0 Findings and Analysis

There were four areas of potential outcomes from an Edinburgh Fringe run which were examined through the interview process:

• Future touring• Exposure• Financial• Awards

4.1 Future Touring

Each of the interview respondents were asked about presenting work with the aim of exploiting it after the Fringe through touring. Also key to discussion were questions of whether the regional and London based engagements could have been achieved without promoters being present at Edinburgh Fringe shows.

Heather Young stated that her production ‘Clockheart Boy’ had “further lives as it were. Both of which came out of Edinburgh… [‘Clockheart Boy’] went to the Cochrane Theatre at Holborn and that was entirely from the Artistic Director seeing it in Edinburgh and liking it” (2010a). When questioned as to whether the production could have been staged at the prestigious Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester without having previously been seen by a promoter at the Fringe, the respondent very clearly stated:

No. I mean absolutely not. I mean in this case it was entirely from the fact that… the Fringe was supposed to get that work seen. Both in 2007 and 2008, you know, it had been the first point of making contact with venues.

Young in Girvan, 2010a

Hartshorn Hook Productions suggested that productions could only become successful in some cases, due to the post Fringe touring opportunities they were able to take advantage of stating:

‘Boys of the Empire’ and ‘What’s Wrong with Angry?’ Both co-productions. Both didn’t make us a profit in Edinburgh. Both of them transferred to London and then made us


29

money overall, but they were covered [financially] at the Fringe by the ‘Rat Pack’ and the other shows that we had running at the same time.

Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b

Jethro Compton highlighted some of the difficulties of taking work to other locations in comparison to their large and engaged audiences at the Fringe. He suggested that touring pieces in his audience-centric style to London had exposed him to greater competition than anticipated.

There was a suggestion that in spite of the huge amount of competition in the Edinburgh Fringe environment, Belt Up Theatre had come up against London companies “doing something similar, not exactly the same as us, but more similar to us. So we didn’t have the element of surprise.” He continued, “[London audiences] were more sceptical and were less easily impressed” (Compton in Girvan, 2010c), suggesting that perhaps Edinburgh audiences have different expectations of the quality of work presented at Edinburgh in comparison to London.

The idea that taking work from an Edinburgh run onto future touring requires another round of development and reworking is supported by Heather Young who stated the need to adapt her piece for the larger, proscenium arch theatre they were booked at in London (Girvan, 2010).

4.2 Exposure

Perhaps the most frequently recorded response from the respondents about their Edinburgh runs was the idea that producing work at Edinburgh could offer exposure for companies, shows and company members to audiences, press and other members of the industry in a way almost unobtainable in an environment other than the Fringe.

4.2.1 Exposure to the Fringe Audience

The idea of being able to present work in front of the Edinburgh audience was especially important. Heather Young placed importance in the fact that a Fringe run was an opportunity to showcase material in front of “a slightly different audience” (Girvan, 2010a)


30

to that her company normally attracted. Jethro Compton also placed great importance on the reaction of the Fringe audience, stating:

I think the success for us was the fact that there were lots of audiences saying they enjoyed what we were doing and were interested in what we were doing… there’s actually a future in that kind of [audience-centric] theatre… The feedback that we were getting on a daily basis was very useful and I think that month helped us learn what we like and what other people like about what we do.

Girvan, 2010c

4.2.2 Benefits to Professional Reputation

When asked about the opportunities that performing at Edinburgh presented to companies the concept of “making a name for yourself” was frequently outlined as something which the companies wanted to achieve. This mainly appeared to be a concern relating to the profile of the companies as a whole amongst promoters and particularly the press. Jethro Compton believed that his multiple performance strategy raised the profile of the company dramatically stating “it got our name out there [in a way that] just doing one show at the Fringe couldn’t ever do” (Girvan, 2010c). When asked what his commercial co-production clients sought most commonly from their Fringe runs Louis Hartshorn advised:

A lot of people are there for exposure. I think that’s probably the most common answer. They want to get their name or get their show or get their company, those three things, out there.


4.2.3 Exposure to Industry Peers

There was also an appreciation amongst all respondents that by taking a show to Edinburgh, a producer was allowing their entire cast and crew to participate in one of the world’s great performing arts networking opportunities. Louis Hartshorn suggested that when he asked his company members or co-production partners what they wished to get out of an Edinburgh run “a lot of people say that they want to network, have career kind of development opportunities” (Girvan, 2010b).


31

4.3 Financial

Some companies placed a greater emphasis on the financial success of their projects than others. Overall one thing was clear, operating as semi-professional companies each of the respondents acknowledged that the commercial success of their projects was important to some extent, even if it was simply that they cover their costs and therefore enable their next project.

The company to place the greatest importance on the financial success of their Edinburgh run was Hartshorn Hook, who identify themselves as commercial producers. When asked to what extent a production was a success without breaking even Louis Hartshorn responded:

For us it’s either about commercial success, financially success there and then or about building a platform for a later financial success… one show making a certain amount of money might not be a success in some years, but provided that have kind of an overall campaign that does make money, then we’re alright”

Girvan, 2010b

The other respondents took a very different view on the financial aspects of their productions, with both Jethro Compton and Heather Young suggesting that just a project breaking even was preferable as it allowed them to pursue their next productions. Compton stated very clearly that he would never adopt the approach suggested by Hartshorn Hook, saying “there’s no point in us producing work that we don’t want to produce for the sake of finance” (Girvan, 2010c) however he did realise the economic imperative of producing work in Edinburgh, going on to say “There is a careful balancing act between business and theatre... we’ve never had to forfeit any artistic principles based on budget or finance” (Girvan, 2010c).

Heather Young believed that her production had underachieved financially because the show only ran for 16 shows out of the three week Fringe. She stated that her fixed costs, including transportation to Edinburgh, venue and accommodation costs would have “gone up a bit if we’d done the full run, but probably not doubled” (Girvan, 2010a). She went on to highlight that her revenue had suffered because with the part run they could not take advantage of increased word of mouth or positive press.


32

Hartshorn Hook Productions take steps to minimise their fixed costs by sharing performers such as musicians between shows and leveraging the fact they are producing multiple shows to negotiate deals with key suppliers. Louis Hartshorn acknowledged that “part of the model for our commercial success is as a result of taking several shows and it does mean that we can take some loss leaders” (Girvan, 2010b). 4.4 Awards

Although one of the most publicly visible signs of success, and certainly an important part of many shows’ marketing strategies, the idea that winning an award would automatically signal a successful run did not resonate with the respondents.

Jethro Compton’s 2008 Fringe productions won both the Edinburgh International Festival Award and a Three Weeks Editors’ Award but when asked whether their Fringe run would have been as successful without winning the awards, he replied: “It would have been less successful, because our ticket sales weren’t as good as we’d hoped they would be,” however he did not see the winning of awards as the most important indicator of a successful Fringe run, stating later in the interview:

If we’d won the International Festival award, but had had, you know audiences throughout the month saying, “Yeah, it’s not great. We’re not particularly interested in this.” Then it wouldn’t have been a success. So I think the success for us was the fact that there were lots of audiences saying they enjoyed what we were doing and were interested in what we were doing.

Compton in Girvan, 2010c

Hartshorn Hook Productions did give some emphasis to the value of awards at the Fringe, with references to some of their co-production partners being engaged on the basis that it was thought they would win awards for their work (Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b). The greatest benefit to gaining award recognition appeared to be as part of a wider marketing campaign. All respondents marketing material carries wreaths signifying their award winning status as an endorsement of quality however Heather Young downplayed the specific value of awards, instead suggesting “certainly being able to present someone with a… touring pack… that contains the whole bunch of quotes and some decent publications is not gonna do anyone any harm” (Girvan, 2010a).


33

4.5 Alternative Definitions of Success to those Proposed

In addition to the themes which were developed through the literature review, there were a number of topics raised which were found to relevant and worthy of examination, as they each played a part in the interviewee’s definition of their own success. Those areas were:

• The concept that a piece would not be able to achieve success at the Fringe unless it was developed specifically for that purpose.

• Examining whether there was a discreet moment at which a piece became successful in the eyes of the producer.

• The question of whether success achieved at Edinburgh Fringe could be achieved anywhere else.

• An examination of the idea that the act of producing at Edinburgh for some companies was success in itself.

4.6 Developing Pieces Specifically for Edinburgh

The initial area of discussion during the interview process with all four interviewees was their motivation for embarking on an Edinburgh project. All respondents highlighted their previous Fringe experiences and their wish to replicate projects which in their opinions had been successful.

The first respondent, Heather Young, raised the topic of developing work specifically for the Edinburgh Fringe, presenting her belief that only a piece which was developed specifically for that marketplace could possibly be successful. She stressed her previous experience allowed her to know “what had worked the previous year”, advising that the company’s shows over both years “were sort of redeveloped [from their original student theatre genesis] specifically for the purpose of going to Edinburgh” (Girvan, 2010a).

The concept of work being specifically designed for the Edinburgh Fringe was, endorsed by Brian Hook and Louis Hartshorn. On the subject of which shows to produce, Louis Hartshorn stated: “our aim has always been to produce entertainment that can pay for itself, because it’s that popular and it’s that high quality” (Girvan, 2010b). He suggested when choosing productions to go to Edinburgh he was mindful that “we know there’s a high percentage of people at the venue are quite keen to see something that’s just plain fun” (Girvan, 2010b).


34

In answer to the question of whether co-produced shows had to be developed specifically for a Fringe marketplace Hartshorn Hook were non specific, however Brian Hook did state: “there’s no reason I can think of that I would take on a show that I didn’t believe in either the people or the show” (Girvan, 2010b). They identified the need for a development process within the life cycles of their own pieces, saying: “we decide that a show is right for the Fringe, if either we want to trial is as an opportunity or a way of seeing if we can get it further to a bigger stage” (Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b)

Jethro Compton spoke out directly against the co-production activities of companies such as Hartshorn Hook, asserting that Belt Up Theatre’s productions were all developed with the same artistic vision, “not just like a production company, you know, who bring a load of shows together” (Girvan, 2010c).

Belt Up Theatre’s programme of audience centric performances took place in a non standard venue space about which Compton said, “we knew that whatever we wanted to do we wanted to have a space that we were in charge of and we could run and we could design and dress however we wanted to do that” (Girvan, 2010c).

4.7 Identifying a Specific Time at which Success was Achieved

During the initial interview with Heather Young questions were raised as to whether there was a specific time at which the producer felt that their production had become successful. This belief was obviously tied to which outcomes the producer was pursuing, however it the concept of their being a discreet event which defined success was then investigated with the other respondents.

With Heather Young, it was understood that the future touring opportunities played a major part in the aspirations of the company. For Dumbshow, it was therefore felt that success could have been realised when they were first approached by the Artistic Director of the Cochrane Theatre in Holborn, shortly before the end of their Fringe run (Young in Girvan, 2010). Positive reviews in the press and a positive public reaction were also major factors for the company. Although positive public reaction is now hard to judge, Dumbshow’s Clockheart boy received very favourable reviews from The Scotsman on 8 August and Three Weeks on 2 August, which would put both events very early in the production’s run.


35

The measure of success for commercially minded Hartshorn Hook can actually be applied even earlier still. As a company who describe themselves as “innately commercial” (Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b) the company place an incredible importance on their financial success. With their commercial success tied so closely to their box office revenue, great attention is paid when the Fringe Box office opens in June, normally a month and a half before the start of the Fringe. On the subject of when it is possible to judge financial success specifically the respondent stated:

We know as soon as people pick up the Fringe programme on the 10th of June, they’re gonna start buying tickets and we found that half of our tickets were sold through the Fringe Box Office. Almost exactly 50% and half of them are sold through the venue box office. And that is a much higher proportion of kind of distance booking through the Fringe Box Office, and a much higher proportion of advance sales than most people get at the Fringe. That’s what our success is.


It was difficult to define a discreet event during which Belt Up Theatre felt that their productions had become successful, in spite of the obvious validation the presentation of the awards must have provided to the company. On the matter of defining a timeframe for success, Jethro Compton was far broader with his definition. He stated:

We spent a lot of time also then talking to [audience members]... they [would] come to the shows and then start talking to you afterwards. You’d end up sat with [them in] a bar until six in the morning and for us that was incredibly useful and the feedback that we were getting on a daily basis was very useful and I think that month helped us learn what we like and what other people like about what we do.

Compton in Girvan, 2010c

In this respect it could be suggested that the success of the company was not dictated by a single event, but by a series of conversations and interactions with audience members which validated their work.


36

4.8 Comparative Success Beyond the Edinburgh Fringe

When questioning interviewees about what defined success at the Edinburgh Fringe it appeared logical to query the comparisons between their successes there and other environments where they had presented work. Through background research it had become clear that these semi-professional companies presenting at the Fringe were building on a range of experiences, and the differences between them were examined.

As commercial producers Hartshorn Hook have presented work at the Brighton Festival Fringe. When asked about the key differences between success at Edinburgh and Brighton, Louis Hartshorn stated:

I think the innate success in Edinburgh is that it is worldwide in terms of its reputation. If you were to speak to somebody in America about the Brighton Fringe they’d have to ask you what it was. I think the majority of people who are interested in the arts in America hold the Edinburgh Fringe in very high esteem.

Girvan, A. 2010b

Brian Hook developed the idea that it is the Edinburgh Fringe’s global reputation, and therefore the universal acceptance of accomplishments made there, that differentiates Edinburgh from events such as Brighton or Adelaide Fringes stating:

When it boils down to Brighton. It’s a good enough festival for the UK to have. I’m proud that it exists... But it’s small in comparison and that’s by no means belittling Brighton. I think it serves its purpose, but Louis said it perfectly, I think Edinburgh is global.

Girvan, A. 2010b

Before bringing their first shows to Edinburgh as a company, Belt Up Theatre had presented work at the National Student Drama Festival (NSDF) in Scarborough. Jethro Compton believed that there were actually many similarities between the experience they gained at NSDF in comparison to their Edinburgh work. He said “Edinburgh and NSDF for us were very similar. It’s lots of people of a similar age. A similar place in their career and we were received very well.” He then went on to suggest that although the experience of his company had been similar in both environments, there was a difference in the


37

marketplace they were presenting work in, saying “In Edinburgh there are loads of show, loads of projects that are completely different from anything else that you would normally get” (Compton in Girvan, 2010c).

4.9 Success Regardless of Accomplishment of Potential Outcomes

The final factor in the success of a project was one which was in no way accounted for when planning the interviews, however there was one universal response when asking companies what they were looking to achieve from performing at the Fringe. That response was that the company should look to have fun. Each of the companies included the idea that the Fringe was an enjoyable experience in their answers to questions. The most explicit statement about the connection between enjoying the Fringe and the success of a Fringe project was made by Heather Young. She stated:

It’s a... you know a fun thing to do… So yeah, I think the happiness of the company and kind of the team spirit, as it were, not only is really important, but I think is probably a big factor in the success of the show.

Girvan, 2010a

The concept of achieving a successful run at the Edinburgh Fringe, regardless of whether any of the proposed outcomes for a successful run had been achieved was also presented throughout the interview process.

This idea was proposed most clearly by Louis Hartshorn who suggested that “there is a certain element of just being at the Fringe is a success on its own” (Girvan, 2010b). He supported the idea that a company could have achieved success just by staging an Edinburgh run mainly because of the number of performing artists globally who “have visited or heard about the Fringe for a couple of decades before they make it there themselves” (Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b). He also acknowledged that simply being able to perform at Edinburgh should not be innately successful because of the Fringe’s open access nature. His final thoughts on the topic were that for many people, the element of success may in fact be more of a question of personal satisfaction:

I think that even though it’s not an achievement to get to Edinburgh, all you need to do is pay a certain amount of money to be in the programme, it is deemed a


38

success… it’s saying “performed at the Edinburgh Fringe” on their CV… having been there and fulfilled your dream of getting to do a show there is a big part of it as well. So it’s not just having your name in the programme. Actually doing it I’m sure is something that gives a lot of people a lot of personal satisfaction as well.



39

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 General Remarks

When approaching companies for interview about the topic of success at the Edinburgh Fringe, a concerted effort was made to select companies with disparate approaches to producing at the Fringe. These differentiating factors dictated not only the type of work the companies were producing, but their relationships with the venues, the business models they adopted and, it was initially suspected, their internal definitions of what a would constitute a successful run at the Fringe.

Upon interview however it became clear that although the methods used by the three companies were fundamentally different, their definitions of success could be viewed as very similar when examined in broad terms.

I believe that a major contributing factor in this was that this paper sought to investigate the practices of semi-professional companies. Each of the companies examined were led by producers in their early 20’s, striving to make their artistic endeavours their primary employment, as such, although they were perhaps committed to concepts such as artistic integrity to very differing degrees, the all realised that there was an economic imperative to the work that they were producing, and an implied responsibility to their company and its members to expose them to the opportunities presented by the Fringe environment.

5.2 Development of Work

I believe that the most pronounced common theme to all of the companies examined was that a successful Edinburgh run was one during which the Fringe could be used as a means of developing both the companies and their methods of work.

All respondents interviewed suggested that for work to be successful it has to be developed specifically for the Fringe as a cultural market place. All the companies interviewed also advised that they had tailored their choices of work, or in many cases redeveloped work specifically for the Fringe. The understanding of what developments


40

needed to be made were specific to each company, however they were each motivated by previous experience in a Fringe environment.

There was then an expectation that a successful Fringe show would attract attention from a promoter of a regional or London based receiving theatre. Each of the companies suggested that the although there had already been a development process leading to the work being at a level that it could be successful in the Fringe environment, there was then another stage of development required upon achieving regional or London transfer. At each point of the development process there appears to be a need for the work to be adapted to match the expectations of the audience it is being presented to.

The most coherent definition for a successful Fringe production, within the semi-professional companies which have been examined, would appear to be a run which plays a meaningful part in the development of a company and its work. Companies such as Hartshorn Hook layout quite objectively that they aspire to be producing commercial theatre on a West End scale within five years. The Edinburgh Fringe is a step on this development process, allowing them to have shows transfer from the Edinburgh Fringe to small theatres in London, at all stages increasing the size and scale of their work, enabled by their appearance at Edinburgh.

These aspirations for development as a company were found to be uniform across the companies interviewed, however it is not expected that this would be accepted as the definition of a successful run for all companies at the Edinburgh Fringe. It could be suggested that the group sampled are more representative of semi-professional companies working at the top end of the independent venue structure, out with the comedy-centric ‘big four’ venues.

5.3 Financial Success Enables Companies

For all of the companies interviewed there was also an acceptance that a production breaking even was not necessarily an assurance that a production had been a success. The more commercially motivated producers Hartshorn Hook, believed that it played a major part in their expectations for a production, however even they accepted that the Fringe could serve its purpose as a development platform for work, with their multiple


41

production model allowing them to make losses on certain productions but consider themselves successful over all.

Each of the companies interviewed acknowledged that there was a need for their productions not to attract large losses for them to be able to be defined as successful. As artistically motivated producers, Belt Up Theatre suggested that they would never embark on work specifically for financial motives, however they did acknowledge that with aspirations to be a professional company, their work had to be self supporting or else they would not be able to continue producing.

Each of the companies spoke in some way about the steps that they took to minimise their costs, therefore increasing their chances of a financial success. With two of the companies producing multiple shows, there was a suggestion that companies should take steps to share resources between productions and leverage suppliers because of the scale of their operations.

5.4 The Success of Exposure

The Edinburgh Fringe provides a unique market place for producers to showcase their work. As a festival it is three times larger than its nearest competitor in terms of number of shows. This attracts a vast and varied audience of both general public, national press and promoters. The idea that a Fringe run was a means of “making a name for yourself” (Hartshorn in Girvan, 2010b) amongst this audience was a common theme.

Two of the companies examined were presenting multiple shows as one entity. They were approaching this method of work in very different ways, with Hartshorn Hook presenting a series of co-productions across a number of genres whilst Belt Up Theatre took pride in producing a number of shows all with the same artistic vision and production values. Both companies felt that they were able to make a far larger impression amongst their target audiences because of the scale of programme they were delivering. Belt Up Theatre attracted awards because of the ambition of their programme, whilst Hartshorn Hook are now in a position where companies are seeking them out for co-productions simply so that their own reputations may be boosted by association.

There was a suggestion that Dumbshow was not able to take advantage of such exposure


42

as they produced only one part run production, however the company garnered very positive press early in its run and attracted the necessary promoters for a regional and London tour the following Easter.

The definition of a successful Fringe run for each of the companies examined would in this respect appear to be one where their profiles are lifted within the press and promoter community and where they are able to engage with a supportive Fringe audience.

5.5 Recommendations for Companies Producing Work at Edinburgh

There are a number of recommendations generated from this paper which could be made to a semi-professional company considering producing work at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

The first and possibly most important point which has emerged from this paper is that a production should only be taken to the Fringe if it is specifically developed for that purpose. There is a difference in expectations from Fringe audiences to those in more traditional theatre circumstances, but there is also a need for work to progress if it is transferred following the Fringe.

From a financial perspective, all of the companies interviewed recognised that a breaking even would be a benchmark for success. Companies producing multiple shows may be able to balance out losses across their portfolios. Although the companies differed in their commitments to the bottom line, it was understood that heavy losses on any production could jeopardise the company’s next projects.

Part run shows were found to under-perform both financially and in terms of the exposure which can be gained for the company and show. Whilst each of the companies acknowledged that the Fringe is a unique place to network, showcase work and build an audience, the winning of awards was not felt to be a high priority as perhaps generating positive word of mouth and strong reviews. Far more important to companies was establishing a reputation, enabling a company to compete in the world’s biggest performing arts marketplace.


43

5.6 Recommendations for Further Research

Taking into account the limitations in terms of time and resources, further research could be undertaken into how much of an impact the box office fiasco of 2008 was to the companies it effected and wether it impacted their long term progress. Research could also be undertaken which builds a broader cross section, more representative of all companies at the Fringe and how their success can be defined, for exampled, it is suspected that success is defined very differently by comedy promoters.

Introduction to conclusion word count: 12,909


44

6.0 BibliographyAdelaide Fringe Inc. (2009), Fringe 2009 - It's a Winner! Press Release [Online] http://www.adelaidefringe.com.au/Media/News/Fringe-2009---It-s-a-Winner!.aspx Published: 23 March 2009. Accessed: 29 May 2010

AEA Consulting (2006), Thundering Hooves: Maintaining the Global Competitive Edge of Edinburgh’s Festivals, [PDF] http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/DownloadPublication.aspx?pub=11279 Accessed: 20 November 2009

Bain, A. (1996), The Fringe: 50 Years of the Greatest Show on Earth, Edinburgh: The Scotsman Publications Ltd

Birmingham Rep (2009), Orphans wins prestigious Fringe First award, Brimingham Rep News [Online] http://www.birmingham-rep.co.uk/news/orphans-wins-fringe-first/ Published: 14 August 2009. Accessed: 31 May 2010

Bruce, K. (2009), Hark! the Herald Angels reward glorious harmonies Quartet grace awards ceremony as The Enlightenments are singled out for commendation by Keith Bruce, The Herald [Online] http://www.theheraldangels.co.uk/awards.html Published: 7 September 2009. Accessed 31 May 2010

C venues (2010), C venues Show Application Information, [PDF] http://cvenues.com/venues/downloads/info/Cappinfo.pdf Published: January 2010

Carrell, S. (2008), Edinburgh Fringe: Fringe Director’s Shock Departure, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/aug/28/edinburghfestival.festivals Published: 28 August 2008. Accessed: 3 June 2010

Carrell, S. (2009), Edinburgh Fringe May Seek £600,000 Bail-out, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jan/10/edinburgh-festival-fringe-box-office Published: 10 January 2009. Accessed: 22 February 2010

Cooke, C. (2009), Three Weeks Editors’ Awards 2009, Three Weeks [Online] http://threeweeks.co.uk/awards/ Published: 30 August 2009. Accessed: 27 May 2010

Cornwell, T. (2010), Edinburgh Fringe graduates to grandest stage of all, The Scotsman [Online] http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/edinburghfestivalfringe/Edinburgh-Fringe-graduates-to-grandest.6126351.jp Published: 5 March 2010. Accessed: 27 May 2010

Cornwell, T. (2010a), The Adelaide Fringe: Parallel Performers, The Scotsman [Online] http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/edinburghfestivalfringe/The-Adelaide-Fringe-Parallel-performers.6113917.jp Published: 3 March 2010. Accessed: 30 May 2010

Dale, M. (1988), Sore Throats and Overdrafts: An illustrated story of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Edinburgh: Precedent Publications

Dibden, T. (2008a), Comedy overtakes theatre in Edinburgh Festival Fringe first, The Stage [Online] http://thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/20913/comedy-overtakes-theatre-in-edinburgh Published: 5 June 2008. Accessed: 29 May 2010


45

Dibden, T. (2008b), Shock as Edinburgh Festival Fringe director Morgan resigns, The Stage [Online] http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/21667/shock-as-edinburgh-festival-fringe-director Published: 28 August 2008. Accessed: 30 May 2010

Dibden, T. (2009), Edinburgh’s ‘weak’ Festival Fringe Society blamed for box office chaos, The Stage [Online] http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/23364/edinburghs-weak-festival-fringe-society Published: 4 February 2009. Accessed: 14 March 2009

Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R. Lowe, A. (1996), Management Research, An Introduction, London: Sage Publications

Eaton, A. (2009), Fringe Firsts: First and Foremost, Edinburgh Festivals from Scotsman.com [Online] http://www.edinburgh-festivals.com/viewpreview.aspx?id=408 Published: 14 August 2009. Accessed: 31 May 2010

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2009), General Information: Participants Fact sheet, Fringe Society [Doc] http://www.edfringe.com/sites/default/files/Participants%20factsheet%20(19%20November%202009).doc Published: 19 November 2009

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2010a), Fringe 2009, [Online] http://www.edfringe.com/about/2009 Accessed: 29 May 2010

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2010b), The Festival Fringe Society, [Online] http://www.edfringe.com/society Accessed: 29 May 2010

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2010c), The Edinburgh Festival Fringe Guide to Doing a Show, Fringe Society [PDF] http://edfringerenewal.wordpress.com/files/2010/01/fringe-guide-to-doing-a-show.pdf Published: January 2010

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2010d), Arts Industry Office, [Online] http://www.edfringe.com/takepart/artsindustry Accessed: 31 May 2010

Edinburgh Fringe Society (2010e), The Fringe Guide To Selling A Show, Fringe Society [PDF] http://edfringerenewal.wordpress.com/files/2010/01/fringe-guide-to-selling-a-show.pdf Published: February 2010

Edinburgh Guide (2009), Winners of Edinburgh International Festival Fringe Prize 2009 announced, Edinburgh Guide [Online] http://www.edinburghguide.com/story/edinburghfringe/4227 Published: 31 August 2009. Accessed: 20 May 2010

Edinburgh International Festival (2010), About Us, [Online] http://www.eif.co.uk/about-festival/about-festival Accessed: 29 May 2010

Fisher, M. (2008), The Edinburgh Fringe Will Survive The Box-Office Fiasco, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2008/dec/16/edinburgh-fringe-debts Published: 16 December 2008. Accessed 30 May 2010


46

Garcia, B. & Langen, F. (2009), Measuring the Impacts of Large Scale Cultural Events: A Literature Review, [PDF] http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/Papers/Impacts08-FLangen_and_BGarcia_May_2009_Events_Review.pdf Published: May 2009

Girvan, A. (2010a), Interview with Heather Young of Dumbshow, [Transcript of audio recording] Interview conducted: 22 May 2010

Girvan, A. (2010b), Interview with Brian Hook and Louis Hartshorn of Hartshorn Hook Productions, [Transcript of audio recording] Interview conducted: 24 May 2010

Girvan, A. (2010c), Interview with Jethro Compton of Belt Up Theatre Theatre Company, [Transcript of audio recording] Interview conducted: 29 May 2010

Ideas Tap, 2009. Edinburgh Fringe Festival Awards, [Online] http://www.ideastap.com/knowledgedetail.aspx?articleid=592 Published: 22 July 2009. Accessed: 11 November 2009

Judd, T. (2000), Fringe now 'a feeding frenzy of commerce', The Independent [Online] http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/fringe-now-a-feeding-frenzy-of-commerce-715667.html Published: 17 July 2000. Accessed: 3 June 2010

King, B. (2009), A History of the Edinburgh Festivals, An Edinburgh Festival Punter [Online] http://www.edinburghfestivalpunter.co.uk/HistoryOfFestivals.html Accessed: 22 May 2010

Lathan, P. (2008), Fringe Facts 2008, British Theatre Guide [Online] http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/news/edfringe08facts.htm Published: 26 August 2008. Accessed: 26 May 2010

Lee, V. (2009), A London Fringe Festival? I Don’t Think So, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/nov/24/london-fringe-festival-edinburgh Published: 24 November 2009. Accessed: 21 May 2010

McAveety, F. (2004), Cited by Scott, K. (2004), Ragged end to record-breaking fringe, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/31/arts.edinburgh04 Published: 31 August 2004. Accessed: 20 May 2010

Miller, E. (1996), The Edinburgh International Festival, 1947-1996, Aldershot: Scolar Press

Miller, P. (2009) Edinburgh Fringe Warned 'Modernise or Die', The Herald [Online] http://www.heraldscotland.com/edinburgh-fringe-warned-modernise-or-die-1.916256 Published: 8 August 2010. Accessed: 30 May 2010

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, (3rd edn) cited in Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, (4th edn), Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education


47

Payton, H. (2009) Holly Payton: Resume & Employment, [Online] http://www.hollypayton.com/page1004.html Published: September 2009. Accessed 30 May 2010

Remenyi, D. Williams, B. Money, A. Swartz, E. (1998), Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, cited in Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, (4th edn), Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education

Rose, D.M. (2009), So, You Wanna Be A Producer?! Stage One [PDF] http://www.stageone.uk.com/cms/referenceguidefile/4 Published: March 2010

Sanford, T. (2010), Contributing in the comment thread on Turney, E. 2010. Who can afford to perform at the Edinburgh festival? The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/apr/26/edinburgh-festival-funding-london Published: 26 April 2010. Accessed: 26 April 2010

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students,(4th edn), Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education

Scott-Moncrieff (2009), Festival Fringe Society Limited: Review of the Box Office System Project, [PDF] http://www.fringereport.com/1233686210Scott-MoncrieffFringeReportFinal.pdf Accessed: 19 February 2009

Scott, K. (2004), Ragged end to record-breaking fringe, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/31/arts.edinburgh04 Published: 31 August 2004. Accessed: 20 May 2010

Smith, A. (2010a), How do you measure theatre success? The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/apr/09/theatre-industry-success Published: 9 April 2010. Accessed: 9 April 2010

Smith, A. (2010b), Theatre Managers Offered ‘Toolkit’ to Monitor Audience Emotions, The Stage [Online] http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/27793/theatre-managers-offered-toolkit-to-monitor Published: 11 March 2010. Accessed 11 March 2010

Smith, A. (2010c), Menier’s Model For Broadway Success, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/may/10/menier-chocolate-factory-west-end-broadway Published: 10 May 2010. Accessed: 11 May 2010

Spacey, K. (2006), Quoted by Hastings, C. 2006. Spacey sets the stage for nine years at the Old Vic, The Telegraph [Online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528483/Spacey-sets-the-stage-for-nine-years-at-the-Old-Vic.html Published: 10 September 2006. Accessed: 20 May 2010

Swetnam, D. (1997), Writing Your Dissertation: How to plan, prepare and present your work successfully, (2nd edn), Oxford: How To Books Ltd


48

Toms, K. (2008), Edinburgh Festival: When (audience) size matters, The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/theatreblog/2008/aug/14/edinburghfestivalwhenaudien Published: 14 August 2008. Accessed: 27 May 2010

Turney, E. (2010), Who can afford to perform at the Edinburgh festival? The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/apr/26/edinburgh-festival-funding-london Published: 26 April 2010. Accessed: 26 April 2010

Tyndall, K. (2007), The Producers: The Alchemists of the Impossible, London: Arts Council England and The Jerwood Charitable Foundation

Wray, R. (2007), The show must go on (even if it bankrupts the lot of us), The Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jul/07/theatre.arts Published: 7 July 2007. Accessed: 20 April 2010


49

7.0 Appendices7.1 Biographies of Interviewees

Listed in alphabetical order.

Jethro Compton

Belt Up Theatre Theatre was set up in 2008 by Dominic J Allen, Jethro Compton, James Wilkes and Alexander Wright. Over the past two years, as well as receiving numerous awards including the Edinburgh International Festival Award in 2008, the company have received critical acclaim for their original work and adaptations of classic texts. Belt Up Theatre Theatre is committed to producing fearless, adventurous and playful work that places its audience at the centre of the wholly encompassing world of the production.

Jethro Compton, Co-Artistic Director of the company, works as a producer, lighting designer, director and actor within Belt Up Theatre Theatre. Producing credits include work at the York Theatre Royal, Edinburgh Festival Fringe, the National Student Drama Festival and Southwark Playhouse.

Jethro Compton’s performance work includes many Belt Up Theatre Theatre productions as well as the role of Peter [Mandleson] in Tony! The Blair Musical at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2007 and its national tour. http://beltuptheatre.blogspot.com

Louis Hartshorn

Louis Hartshorn is Company Director and Lead Producer of Hartshorn-Hook Productions - which last year took a record 12 shows to Edinburgh Fringe ranging from 'Hamlet' to 'Facebook the Musical'. Having produced and/or provided production services to over 50 shows at the Edinburgh and Brighton Fringe Festivals since 2006, as well as producing, Hartshorn-Hook Productions also offer a consultancy service to enable others to make the most of their festival experiences.http://www.hartshornhook.com

Brian Hook

Informally trained at the Lee Strasberg school LA, Brian Hook leads a successful career as both actor and lead producer at Hartshorn - Hook Productions Ltd, having produced, consulted and housed more than 80 shows across the UK and worked in nearly every aspect of theatre imaginable. Brian is proud to make commercial theatre production accessible to all audiences whilst retaining the highest possible production values. Having managed award winning rescue operations of Fringe venues and achieved sell-out status every year he has produced shows at the Fringe, his work from a young age has set a standard for producers aspiring to mix good business with good ethics.http://www.hartshornhook.com

Heather Young

Heather is a freelance stage manager and arts administrator, currently working as General Manager for C venues at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. She has been involved in the


50

Fringe since 2003 in various capacities: Producer, 'The Erl King' (Underbelly 2003), Production Adviser, 'Love and Other Human Tragedy' (Cowgate Central 2004), Producer, 'Putting it Together' (C venues 2006), Producer 'To the End of the World' (C venues 2007),'Clockheart Boy' (C venues 2008), C venues box office management (2005 - 2007). She produces for Dumbshow whose work includes To the End of the World (Fringe 2007) and Clockheart Boy (Fringe 2008, Cochrane Theatre, Royal Exchange Manchester, Stafford Gatehouse Theatre).

Heather was involved in the creation of the Warwick Student Arts Festival at the University of Warwick, a weeklong campus-wide festival, co-ordinating the event in its second and third year. Producing includes: Hansel and Gretel (Bloomsbury Opera), Home (SJC Productions).http://www.dumbshow.org

Sources:

All biographies, with the exception of Louis Hartshorn, were provided by the interviewees by email at the request of the interviewer.

Biography for Louis Hartshorn: Performing Arts Network & Development Agency (PANDA) (2010), PANDA Creative Conversation Tuesday, June 01, 2010 from 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM Eventbrite Invitation [Online] http://creativeconversationjune.eventbrite.com Accessed: 20 May 2010


51

Towards defining a successful run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe

Documents

Transcript of Towards defining a successful run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe