The Industry Partners’ Perceptions

Part of the Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education book series (LAAE, volume 12)


This chapter reflects on the research questions from the perspectives of our industry partners. Although the partners had varying policies and programs in place for young people several common findings emerged. In most cases the education programs of these companies brought in a significantly more diverse young audience than did the general public and subscriber programs. As such these programs had the potential to engage and build new audiences and this was clearly recognised by those who steered and managed them. Yet the extent to which the expertise of these staff members was used in artistic and management decision-making was uneven and in some cases was under-utilised. This is explored in the chapter. The chapter also discusses evident tensions between artistic and educational imperatives from the perspective of the theatre makers, highlighting concern that curriculum requirements intrude on the experience of young audiences in negative ways. The chapter will further explore some related contradictions, particularly about notions of preparedness, theatre etiquette and theatre literacy.


Marketing Expense Arena 


  1. Bell Shakespeare. (2010). Bell Shakespeare’s vision. Accessed 25 Sept 2010.
  2. Bent, E. (2012). Tweet seats? Really?! American Theatre. Accessed 9 Apr 2013.
  3. Blake, E. (2010, July 10). Geeks, tweets and bums on seats. Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed 14 Apr 2013.
  4. Butsch, R. (2000). The making of American audiences: From stage to television, 1750–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colmar Brunton. (2004). Youth audience research: Motivations and barriers to attendance amongst 12–17 year olds. Melbourne: Arts Victoria.Google Scholar
  6. Harvey, M. L., & Miles, D. (2009). And then they came for me: The effectiveness of a theatrical performance and study guide on middle-school students’ Holocaust knowledge and empathic concern. Youth Theatre Journal, 23(2), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunter, M. A. (2000). Contemporary Australian youth-specific performance and the negotiation of change. NJ – Journal of Drama Australia, 24(1), 25–35.Google Scholar
  8. Instinct and Reason. (2010). More than bums on seats: Australian participation in the arts. Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, J. (1997). Elementary teachers’ evaluations of university performances for young audiences. Youth Theatre Journal, 11(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolb, B. (1997). Pricing as the key to attracting students to the performing arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 21, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: From the mass audience to the interactive media user [online]. London: LSE Research Online from Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  12. Reason, M. (2006). Young audiences and live theatre, Part 2: Perceptions of liveness in performance. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 26(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Taylor, P., Owen, E., Bell, H., & Withnall, S. (2001). Increasing young people’s attendances at the theatre: A case study in Sheffield, UK. Managing Leisure, 6, 141–153.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations