Routinisation for Programme Development

The second phenomenon that results from the eclectic nature of programming at arts centres is that programmers tend to establish some patterns and mechanisms to minimise uncertainty of choosing what is difficult to specify in concrete terms and before the final execution. At this point it is helpful to refer to the explanations given about commercial cultural industries for us to better understand arts centre programmers. It must be noted that the ultimate purpose of cultural industries is profit-maximisation, different from the goal of loss-minimisation commonly held by not-for-profit arts centres. However, the reference is valid insofar as they are both in the business of ‘editing’, as has been referred to in the Research Methodology. DiMaggio (1977) observes that:

...managers of [cultural industry] organizations place a high value on predictability. Certainty that the performance of similar tasks in similar ways will lead consistently to a desired outcome...facilitates the establishment of stable procedures, routines, communication channels, and interpersonal relationships that ensure continued performances and minimize risk, administrative overload, and interpersonal and intergroup conflict over goals and means. Research on individual psychology and organizational behavior alike indicates that individuals, including managers of firms, find uncertainty stressful and will go to great lengths to minimize it. (p438)

Hirsch (1972) provides a similar conclusion in his argument on cross-functional relationships in the industries of popular music, film and publishing in the US. He asserts that all of these industries involve a certain degree of unpredictability in the quality of source material to be transformed into consumer products and their market potential. Therefore they have adopted systems to minimise risks, such as to forge a link between the market of raw material suppliers (eg musicians, script writers and authors) and the editing organisations (eg record manufacturers, film studios and publishing houses). It is also important to build bridges with the distribution channels (eg radio stations, film distributors and book shops) so as to boost sales.

The sociology of culture literature has analysed more specific strategies of risk minimisation practised in the media. Tuchman (1973) and Golding and Elliott (1979) on news reporting find news highly dependent on scheduling predictable events and routinising the flow of information. Unpredicted events, in contrast, are covered only to the extent organisational arrangements (eg staffing) can respond. Bielby and Bielby (1994) on programmers in American television network discuss the use of ‘reputation’, ‘imitation’ and ‘genre’ as rhetorical strategies to justify their choice. Television programmers in explaining their expensive and uncertain choices to their executives and advertisers tend to reduce the details of projects by classifying them into easily recognisable genres (eg sit-coms and light entertainment shows), and resorting to a discourse which emphasises the reputation of artists involved (eg the script writer) and similarity to hit programmes (eg of the plot).

In our case, it is possible to identify at least three such mechanisms. The first mechanism of introducing order to programme planning is to identify high-profile events and build other things around them. The autumn is the most important season for most venues and the year should start off with some high-profile, popular, ‘sexy’, artistically prestigious or highly saleable events. Not only the beginning of a season but each ‘diary season’, so to speak, needs to have some highlight. To identify high-flyers and assemble others around them is a common way. A piece of work commissioned by the venue may be staged to mark the beginning of its season.

In practice the identification of high-flyers or good sell-outs does not contribute to reducing the number of events to book or the pressure of bringing other things in. Or this may not always work in such a chronological order. The programmer might come across a high flyer at a later stage of planning. Psychologically at least, however, this mechanism gives a focal point, or a foundation for programme development.

The second pattern seen in programme planning is to ensure the regular return of some key companies and projects. It offers a great deal of benefit to venue programmers to establish relationships with specific companies in two respects. One is that it reduces the task of research, which contributes to cost efficiency and time saving. The other is that it reduces the uncertainty inevitably involved in this business. With the regulars, the quality of the product is, albeit to varying degrees depending upon the consistency of the companies, reliable. The sales figure is also reasonably predictable as long as proper marketing is done as previously, and marketing is easier to do because the venue knows what the visiting company can provide. Both would have a good understanding about the other in relation to artistic orientations and managerial (marketing especially) capabilities and would talk the same language.

They can have realistic expectations of each other which reduce the possibilities of conflict and strain. The regular return of the same companies can also help to develop audiences and nurture their expectations of the venues.

Despite these various benefits for both parties, arts centres are aware that there is danger of ghettoisation and over-routinisation on both sides. Therefore they make no permanent commitment to specific companies, and their official position, explicitly or implicitly, is that the regular companies have no right to return each time. Arts centres which rent studios out to arts organisations and artists are also careful not to give an expectation that they have better access to public performance/exhibition than those who are not resident.

The third mechanism for stability in programme planning is similar to the second. Arts centres build up partnerships with a number of external organisations to which they partly delegate programme decision-making, and/or have regular strands of programme co-planned with them. Collaboration with annual festivals in the same city or nearby, for example, work for mutual interest and convenience. Festival organisers are looking for spaces with marketing capabilities. Venues are equally happy, as long as the kinds of performances festivals invite would fit in with them both physically and artistically, to offer slots to festival organisers. In addition to the effect of reducing the task of research and uncertainty on the part of venues, specialist focuses attached to festivals can lend a theme or regular feature to the venue. Moreover, financial costs and risks may be shared with the event organisers.

Not only festivals but also other external bodies such as development agencies for specific art forms and music promoters are often co-presenters with venues. The effects and benefits are the same as those mentioned already.