Introduction
The practice of theatre, as opposed to drama, is necessarily inscribed in a tradition, because the institution within which it develops is the sum of material constraints and the locus of influences by other theatres past and present. It is during the age in which technical reproducibility is nearing perfection that one becomes aware of the non-reproducible and ephemeral nature of theatre, and the futility of trying to reproduce the score so as to repeat the performance (Morris & Pankratz 2003). Theatre not only inherits scraps of information churned out daily by the media or banal everyday discourse, but also lends itself to borrowing, association, inheritance. It has an implacable but short memory. One could write a chronological history of inventions in the media, showing their connections and technical improvements. It would be possible to situate theatre in relation to these technical stages, before the advent of the media and afterwards, in reaction to technological development. Theatre tends towards simplification, minimalization, fundamental reduction to a direct exchange between actor and spectator. If theatre relationships are to take place, however, the performance cannot tolerate more than a limited number of spectators or even performances because theatre repeated too often deteriorates or at least changes. As a result, theatre is in essence an art of limited range (Morris & Pankratz 2003). Live theatre industry offers artist a way to tell a story. The live theatre industry combines performing arts with the visual arts. This industry makes use of the arts of speech, gesture, music, dance, and spectacle in telling a certain story. This industry is not that popular due to the advent of other media such as television and radio. This paper intends to discuss the live theatre industry in Australia and its external issues.
Background of the industry
Theatre economics are formidable. A major musical, for example, costs from million to million in production costs. With opening night closings all too common, investors risk a great deal; often they lose their entire investment. Most musicals and plays depend heavily on instant success and immediate critical acclaim. Theatre owners and producers often seek additional backers for shows to supplement their own financing (Moran 2004). Outside investors, however, have changed in character over the years. Largely gone are the individuals who invest large amounts in a show. The overwhelming majority of Broadway shows are presented through the efforts of limited partnerships. A general partner proposes the scheme, raises the money necessary, to float the venture by obtaining limited partners, and makes the business decisions, including when to fold the operation. The limited partners are just that--limited. To retain the protections of a limited partner, mainly liability limited to the amount of one's investment, the business decisions must remain solely with the general partner. In turn, the limited partner is protected somewhat by requirements imposed on theatrical organizers by federal and state laws. One who deals in theatrical ventures and seeks to obtain investments from others must consult these regulations carefully (Moran 2004).
To move from a discussion of the early relationship between theatre and television to an examination of the current situation of live performance is to confront the irony that whereas television initially sought to replicate and, implicitly, to replace live theatre, live performance itself has developed since that time toward the replication of the discourse of mediatization. Live theatre does not benefit from advancing technologies to the same extent as films, television, and music. No technological cost saving devices enhances theatres and other stages. The theatre is still a labor intensive operation, requiring the same hours of devotion as was true 50 years ago. New technologies may produce more dazzling lights and intricate staging, but these improvements add to costs rather than reduce them. Disputes in the legitimate theatre produce few reported cases. Most disagreements are submitted to arbitration, pursuant to individual contract provisions or under union collective bargaining agreements. The written decisions in such cases are not made public. The governance of the traditional arts is the purest form of input intervention (Chapple & Kattenbelt 2006). Consistent with its comparatively long history, it also exhibits a highly coordinated approach, with one major federal body, the Australia Council, interacting with the various state arts bodies to provide subsidies to a wide field of arts activities, which range from elite flagship national companies in the areas of opera, ballet and theatre to community arts in far-flung regions of the nation. Australians loved music and live theatre and any lack of quality in the plays was not due, it appears, to any banality of taste on the part of the audience. Those who wrote for the theatre had problems. Theatrical productions are risky propositions at best. There was a time where the Australian theatre suffered from conservatism. Commercial theatrical management, despite enthusiastic audiences and fine actors, had not been willing to put Australia in touch with modern drama, much of which was radical in intent (Chapple & Kattenbelt 2006). The live theatre industry in Australia is known to be one of the best in the world. The live theatre industry houses plays, concerts, dances and musicals There are many live theatres in Australia this include Capitol Theatre, Princess Theatre, Sydney Opera House and many others
Competitive forces
The television industry
Paradoxically, the more naturalistic’ the genre, the more the techniques and tools of the television industry must be kept out of sight, and not interfere with the audience’s perception of the program. Television drama and many documentaries depend on the illusion that the action is taking place without the visible mediation of a television crew. The television industry is changing rapidly. The old, well-tried boundaries in the industry-based training are breaking down. This new fluidity, like so many other changes, is due partly to the increasing cheapness and accessibility of television and video technology, and partly to a fragmentation of the television institutions (Florida & Kenney 2004). A more market-based system means that neither television nor education enjoys the security it did in the past, but at the same time they are both far more open to a wider spectrum of the population. The television industry built upon the pre–World War II radio industry and grew quickly in the postwar period, but by the early 1970s it had become a relatively mature industry. The end-users for the products of this industry are household consumers, and brands are extremely important for its success. Given their long histories and the development of powerful interest groups, the television industry and its competitors are far more subject to government intervention in the form of tariffs, duties, quotas, and various other trade restraints (Florida & Kenney 2004).
The television industry, like many of the other industries has faced brutal price competition and has constant overcapacity. In contrast to PC there has been no dramatic curve of improving functionality: there has been a constant increase in screen size for the same price. In response to these changes, firms continually adjusted and readjusted their divisions of labor, globally and regionally. Put differently, the value chain at any moment appeared fixed, but when seen dynamically, change was the rule. When the television was introduced immediately after World War II, it was a leading edge, high-technology product. However, resembling other electronics products, each new model, even if it incorporated significant new technology, swiftly became a commodity (Holland 2000). As the assembly process was routinized and simplified, the value of a television became increasingly embodied in a few components, particularly the picture tube, which is produced by a capital-intensive manufacturing production process. The television industry was a harbinger of developments in other traditional assembly-intensive manufacturing industries. The global television industry can be divided into six major markets: the United States, Europe, Japan, China, the rest of Asia, and the rest of the world. All the significant firms operate globally. The United States, Japanese, and Western European markets were largely saturated, and purchases were confined to replacement and upgrading. The most important growth markets were in the developing countries of Asia, especially China and India, and they were the locus of new investment (Holland 2000). The television industry is a fierce competitor of the live theatre industry. Compared to the live theatre industry, it is free and can be edited unless a live feed is happening. Both the live theatre industry and television industry tries to depict life and the story of a certain individual. The television industry gives the live theatre industry in Australia the loss of clients especially the younger generation who prefers to watch foreign or local shows than go and view a musical or a play.
The film industry
The past thirty years have seen large-scale transformations in the film industry, film technologies, and government philosophy and policy, not to mention the conceptual terrain within which film policy is research. Films may not have changed, in that their audiences still find the same kind of pleasure in them that they always have; but the industry has change (Turner 1999). Once a small-scale business run by enthusiastic entrepreneurs, it became concentrated into an oligopoly run by film studios. Now they, too, have had to sell out to other interests so film is now simply another result of the large conglomerates’ need to diversify. While the activities on the sound stages and the locations may still be those of the craftsperson, the economic practices of the industry are those of big business. This has alienated a number of film-makers, and fostered rhetoric about the death of the film industry. The film industry now depends on pleasing a certain age group. Going to the cinema should still be a regular and highly valued leisure activity for this group, while the older middle-class audience, are probably key contributors to the expansion of video and cable television. Market segmentation is the new premise; films are either aimed at a particular segment of the market or are designed to contain within them attractions for a number of different market segments. The mass market has broken into smaller units, and the trend towards housing multiple cinemas under the one roof reflects this (Turner 1999).
No longer can one film please the whole family nor can one location expect to meet high overheads from the proceeds of exhibiting one film. Australia was one of the early participants in the development of a film industry. Australian film-makers responded quickly to various overseas developments and for the first twenty years of this century enjoyed significant local success. However with the arrival of sound, the industry languished. The professional quality of the local films gradually declined, vertical integration of the industry froze out all but British and American imports, and by the end of the Second World War Australia had lost its last feature production company. For the next twenty years almost without exception, Australia was a cheap location for foreign productions (Moran 1996). Attempts to keep feature production alive dwindled into an attempt to keep the local newsreel industry alive, but when television arrived even the newsreel began to disappear. It is worth noting that encapsulated accounts like the one above make historical processes sound inevitable. They are not, and the failure of the various Australian governments to protect their film industry from foreign competition, or from the discriminatory practices of foreign-owned exhibition and distribution. However some interest was expressed at government level in determining if a film industry would be viable in Australia. History can be changed, if those in power can be convinced that the change is in their interests. The arrival of TV in Australia had highlighted the need for the policing of foreign content on Australian screens, as well as revealing the importance of a film industry in supplying the infrastructure and the work force for developments in TV and theatrical drama. Both areas were just beginning to grow at the time (Moran 1996). The film industry is another heavy competition for Australia’s live theatre industry. The film industry provides various kinds of stories which has specialized genre ranging from comedy to drama to horror. The film industry offers modern storytelling but can still use the traditional storytelling used by the live theatre industry.
Music industry
There is still little recognition that music is possibly a much more important component of youth experience with mass media than television, for instance, which has been the subject of intense and wide-ranging research for decades. This lack of interest in popular music by the academy is strongly contrasted by the enthusiasm shown by non-academics (Burnett 1996). The problem is that most works on popular music and the music industry simply offer a fan’s account of the major performers or the most popular songs, although there are also a number of serious works including biographies of major figures, considerations of aspects of the music business or analyses of various styles. None of these, however, give a coherent picture of both the industry and the commercial factors that lie behind the music. The music industry has also at least partially provided the foundation for many of today’s transnational, diversified communication conglomerates. Thus, despite the continuous introduction of new forms of entertainment and communications technology, the music industry remains an important component of the expanding information and entertainment sector. It is especially important to remember that popular music has developed as a commodity which is produced, distributed and consumed under market conditions that inevitably influence the types of phonograms made, who make them, and how they are distributed to the public (Burnett 1996).
The music industry, like others, constantly tries to develop new ways to control both supply and demand. The system of production attempts to smooth the process of supply. The system of consumption seeks to ensure that demand is of a sort the companies are set up to satisfy. The entertainment industry thrives on producing global stars to expose across a wide range of media: film, music, videos, television, books, magazines and advertising included. The music industry is obviously an important link in this process as nothing crosses borders and cultural boundaries easier than music. In fact, one could argue quite persuasively that music is perhaps the essential component in linking the different sectors of the global entertainment industry. The entertainment industry has undergone tremendous changes in at least three readily defined areas: integration, concentration and internationalization (Talbot 2002). The music business can be defined as the ensemble or complex of practices and institutions that make possible and regulate the production, distribution and consumption of music. Since music is generally situated in the sphere of the communicative, this definition has the merit of being structurally homologous with the tripartite and venerable model of communication that posits a linear relay between sender, message and receiver. All business in capitalist societies is dependent, of course, on the law: on enforceable contracts and on markets whose freedom is a matter of regulation. But the music industry is especially dependent on the law (Talbot 2002). The music industry just like the live theatre industry provides entertainment to its clients. The music industry focuses on the need for a music based showcase of emotion or idea while the live theater industry focuses on using music to narrate a story. The music industry creates competition to the live theatre industry in terms of the method used to convey their message. Both industries make use of music to convey their message. The music from the music industry is transferred to disks thus it is portable; the music from the live theatre industry cannot be transported from one place to another.
Porter’s five forces
Potential Entrants
The influence of potential entrants to the live theatre industry is not that strong. The live theatre industry has established itself in Australia amidst the different competitors. It has its own loyal subscribers and has acquired a certain part of the viewing market. The creation of a new entrant would be difficult since competition is already crowded but if a new entrant would be made the live theater industry will survive its onslaught and maintain its clients. Any new entrant should be able to combine the characteristics of the live theatre industry and its competitors to survive in the Australian market. The live theatre industry should survive any new entrant because it has created its own niche that is unique.
Competitive rivalry
Competitive rivalry greatly influences the live theatre industry. Competitor rivalry has given challenges to the live theatre industry; it forced the industry to think of new ways to attract the viewers. Competitor rivalry has forced the live theatre industry to make use of newer concepts and ideologies in presenting its views and messages. The competition of the live theatre industry is unique in its own way. Some competitors of the live theatre industry are more advanced than the live theater industry but the live theater industry provides a different kind of experience to clients. The live theater industry makes sure that the viewers would feel that they are part of the story being told. It gives a firsthand foresight to the viewer of the story being told. The live theatre industry survives amidst competition because it gives a better idea of what a character feels as he/she tells a part of his/her story.
Substitutes
The substitutes to the live theatre industry are also its competitors. It highly influences the industry and the decisions it make. The substitutes control the decisions on what type of performance will be shown, what will be the time and what will be the cost of tickets. The substitutes force the live theatre industry to perform at optimum levels. The film industry forces the live theatre industry to make use of advanced props or technologies to attract viewers. The television industry forces the live theatre industry to make sure that they have interesting plot or story lines. The music industry forces the live theatre industry to create catchy or attractive songs for musicals. The substitutes cannot be ignored by the live theatre industry if it wants to maintain its survival in the Australian market.
Bargaining power of buyers
The buyers in the live theatre industry are those who watch the different performances. They are the ones that pay for the musical, play or any other performance shown. The buyers have a high bargaining power. They should be satisfied at all times. The buyers should be given satisfaction by making sure that all performance would be worth their finances and their time. The buyers can affect the prices of tickets, if there are many viewers who reserved for tickets then the industry can hike its prices otherwise prices remain at an affordable levels. The number of clients and the income they provide is a measuring stick for the success of the industry. With more clients comes more income for the industry. Lesser clients mean that the performance has not been enjoyed by the viewers.
Bargaining power of sellers
The sellers are those who provide the performances shown by the live theatre industries. The performances are made by production companies or studios. The seller has a high bargaining power. They can dictate the percentage of share in profits and the cost of rent through the ability of a theatre to attract clients. The seller can force a theatre to reduce cost of rent and percentage in profits if there is low attendance or there are negative comments about the facilities by the theatre.
Conclusion
The live theatre industry in Australia is known to be one of the best in the world. The live theatre industry houses plays, concerts, dances and musicals. The television industry is a fierce competitor of the live theatre industry. Compared to the live theatre industry, it is free and can be edited unless a live feed is happening. The film industry is another heavy competition for Australia’s live theatre industry. The film industry provides various kinds of stories which has specialized genre ranging from comedy to drama to horror. The film industry offers modern storytelling but can still use the traditional storytelling used by the live theatre industry. The music industry just like the live theatre industry provides entertainment to its clients. The music industry focuses on the need for a music based showcase of emotion or idea while the live theater industry focuses on using music to narrate a story. The live theatre industry has survived its competitors and made sure that it maintains a considerable client base. The live theatre needs to make sure that it will maintain its survival by devising of better means to show its performance products.
References
Burnett, R 1996, The global Jukebox: The international music
industry, Routledge, New York.
Chapple, F & Kattenbelt, C (eds.) 2006, Intermediality in
theatre and performance, Rodopi, Amsterdam.
Florida, R & Kenney, M (eds.) 2004, Locating global advantage:
Industry dynamics in the international economy, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Holland, P 2000, The television handbook, Routledge, London.
Moran, A 2004, Australia: Nation, belonging, and globalization,
Routledge, New York.
Moran, A (ed.) 1996, Film policy: International, national, and
regional perspectives, Routledge, London.
Morris, VB & Pankratz, DB (eds.) 2003, The arts in a new
millennium: Research and the arts sector, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Talbot, M (ed.) 2002, The business of music, Liverpool
University Press, Liverpool, England.
Turner, G 1999, Film as social practice, Routledge, London.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment