Theatre tickets should be subsidised for lower income and underrepresented people in the theatre audiences

• The average theatre tickets are £49.25 in the West end, £27.10 in the UK and $124.00 on Broadway
• These prices, particularly West End and Broadway tickets are unaffordable for many
• Theatre has a wealth of benefits such as a positive impact on both mental and physical health, improved social cohesion and improved educational performance. In fact Theatre saves the NHS an estimated £102m a year
• These benefits should be available to all regardless of background, by subsidising tickets lower income people can afford to attend the Theatre
• The biggest barrier to the Theatre is cost thus by subsidising them this make tickets more accessible for lower income people
• However other accessibility issues must also be addressed such as location inequalities, lack of childcare and lack of arts education

What does the subsidy aim to accomplish?

Theatre and cinema have taken a severe blow in the midst of the pandemic, while ticket sales in the United States and Canada were reportedly already declining. There are a few reasons for this, not all of which can be targeted through a subsidy:

• Theatre declined during the pandemic due to lockdowns and other restrictions on gatherings, as well as the self-governed choice to minimise exposure by the cautious. Price was arguably a minimal factor; a subsidy would not improve the conditions of the in-person theatre industry as a response to the pandemic-associated decline.

• Why have ticket sales declined in previous ('normal') years? According to Bloomberg, a blend of "sequel fatigue, a weak lineup of films and diversions like Netflix" is a strong candidate for a cause. While this highlights the important consideration that specific line-ups will influence standalone statistics, there has been a general downward trend since the early 2000s that suggests there may be more to the situation. In that case, even Netflix and other streaming platforms might not have been the incipient causes.

Instead, according to a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducted in 2014, price and convenience were the standout barriers to purchasing movie tickets. This may be reflecting a decline in the value ascribed to the cinema experience, or an increase in the value ascribed to alternative ways to spend one's money (e.g. dinner). Regardless, price was reportedly the primary concern based on the survey's results.

Do we want the subsidy to 'save' theatre? For this to be effective, price has to be a primary barrier to visiting the cinema. While the PwC report supports this, the survey was conducted in a different social climate. After the pandemic, the value ascribed to theatre-going may have increased. Will a subsidy still be relevant when everything goes back to normal?

A subsidy could also be purposed to make theatre more accessible to lower-income communities. In this case, we would not be 'saving' theatre, so much as decreasing socioeconomic barriers to visiting the theatre. There have been charitable initiatives in the past that recognise this barrier, such as the MOME Movie Matinees program, "providing free opportunities for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents to attend a feature film currently in theaters." A subsidy may be a long-term, sustainable approach to increasing access to the cinema experience.

Do these arguments change if we isolate live theatre from cinema?

• Live theatre is more expensive than cinema, and generally viewed as less popular for several possible reasons.

• In the UK, theatre is supported by various grants, lotteries, and Arts Council England. While this financial support must be a significant source of sustenance for the industry, the price comparison remains stark between cinema and theatre. A subsidy does appear to be a valuable avenue in this case.

Overall, there are multiple factors contributing to the decline and/or accessibility of theatre and cinema, and assessing the effectiveness of a subsidy becomes more complicated given the unprecedented social climate in the wake of the pandemic.

What are we intending to achieve with this subsidy?

'Saving' Cinema
Theatre and cinema have experienced a severe blow in the wake of the pandemic, but declines in ticket sales have been underway since the early 2000s. Assuming we want to prevent this decline, whether a subsidy would be the effective approach depends on whether price is a primary barrier.

• Ticket declines due to the pandemic occurred as a result of lockdowns and other restrictions, as well as the self-governed decision to avoid unnecessary exposure. Price does not seem to be a major factor.
• Why have ticket sales declined prior to the pandemic? According to a 2014 survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc), price and several notions regarding convenience are standout factors. While Bloomberg describes "Sequel fatigue, a weak lineup of films and diversions like Netflix" to be the blend of causes for drastically low sales in 2017 - the lowest since 1992 - the overall trend hints at the influence of more incipient causes. Netflix, for one, was not a significant competitor in the 2000s.
• Given that price appears to be a strong factor, a ticket subsidy may help 'save' cinema - though reasons such as "Movies are not as interesting", and "Prefer movies “on my own schedule", are not addressed.

If price truly is a barrier to cinema-going, it must imply that the value we ascribe to the experience has decreased relative to how much we're asked to spend on it. In the wake of the pandemic and the unprecedented social and economic landscape that came with it, is it possible that we will begin to value cinema more than before? In this case, will a subsidy still be a relevant consideration?

Accessibility
A subsidy could also be purposed to make theatre more accessible to lower income communities. In this case, we would not be 'saving' theatre, so much as decreasing socioeconomic barriers to visitng the theatre. There have been charitable initiatives in the past that recognise this barrier, such as the MOME Movie Matinees program "providing free opportunities for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents to attend a feature film currently in theaters." A subsidy may be a long-term, sustainable approach to increasing access to the cinema experience.

Do these arguments change if we consider live theatre?

• Live theatre is more expensive than cinema. In the UK, for example, theatre is supported by various grants, lotteries, and Arts Council England. Yet, the price comparison remains stark between cinema and theatre, in which case a subsidy may be effective in increasing theatre popularity. The price comparison, however, may also be due to the perceived sophistication of the theatre experience, and a subsidy cannot target potentially more influential reasons why people choose cinema or streaming over theatre, e.g. the different story-telling experiences possible with cinema that are not possible with theatre.

Overall, since there are numerous factors contributing to the decline and/or accessibility of theatre and cinema, assessing the effectiveness of a subsidy becomes complicated - particularly given that the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to drastically alter our social choices and activities.

Theatre tickets should be subsidised for people with lower incomes, but not at the expense of the cast and crew

• Schemes that reduce the price of theatre tickets have already been introduced in some theatres in the UK. Incentives like [Young Barbican] (https://www.barbican.org.uk/join-support/young-barbican) and many others like this implemented by theatres to attract young people and help eliminate barriers preventing social cohesion.
• According to this article, 44% of London teenagers have never visited a theatre. Therefore, subsidising this could help reduce the inequalities between rich and poor and hopefully contribute to social mobility.
• However, the cast and crew should still be paid a fair amount.

The pandemic has reminded us of the value of the arts, and arts subsidisation should be a nuanced but varied principle

Subsidising theatre tickets should not be done without meaning. Many of the people who currently attend performances are those who can afford the often exorbitant prices – as Mark Gatiss said, ‘the West End is pricing itself to death’. But subsidising theatre tickets – in a calculated way – could encourage a host of new fans to appreciate the arts in a way they would never have been able to experience otherwise.

Theatre tickets being subsidised could have several benefits:

• Subsidised theatre enables risk-laden productions to evolve into enormous successes, as James Corden’s Tony award and the ever-revived War Horse shows
• Subsidies allow our national heritage to thrive, beyond STEM organisations
• Outreach programmes – that are truly dedicated to securing opportunities for underprivileged people – can not only bring theatre to those who would never have thought it possible before, but also inspire new talent that would have never been sparked

Theatre suffers in more ways than one without subsidised tickets...

• Yes, theatre production is very expensive and labour intensive as Andrew Lloyd Webber was keen to point out in his defense of the West End's 'incredibly reasonable' ticket prices. However, while cast and creatives should not suffer, something has got to change in order to make theatre more accessible.

• Particularly successful shows can become huge money-making machines, charging as much as they can get away with. Dynamic pricing software on websites raise prices when activity is high, pushing people to their limits. It is surely not always the case that astronomical prices are needed to keep a show viable.

• Theatre suffers in two ways without enough subsidised tickets:

1. The business model is not sustainable. Director Robert Icke thinks theatre will be 'dead in 50 years' if prices are not more affordable for young people. Millenials and Gen Z are facing difficult economic conditions and will not be able to afford what baby boomers and older generations are currently paying.

2. Theatre is missing out without the voices and talents of a huge portion of society. Most theatergoers in the UK (and the US) are white and middle class. It seems painfully ironic that tickets to Hamilton, a show which celebrates diversity, cost a minimum of $150 one month into its broadway run. How can people from low income backgrounds be inspired to work in an industry with which they have had no contact?

• Many West End shows already offer limited £10 tickets available from the theatre on the morning of a production, however these are only accessible for knowledgable theatre fans who either live nearby or who have already budgeted for a trip to central London, rather than low-income families who need to plan and budget ahead of time.

• More tickets need to be subsidised to make theatre accessible and sustainable.