What is the future for the Presenter Driven model of Programming?

When I first started working in Arts Administration in Australia I was intrigued by the complex theatre touring landscape and the reliance on what is referred to as the Presenter driven model of programming. I was amazed to discover that large numbers of venue managers got together two or three times a year to collectively choose work to put on their stages.

In my previous experience in a small regional venue in the UK, my only involvement with theatre touring was answering the phone to someone who wanted to book my venue! However, working in the Theatre Touring unit at Regional Arts Victoria, I quickly learnt all about the Presenter driven model, and the role of Regional Arts Australia and the Blue Heeler Network in facilitating this system. I was also exposed to the intricacies of the various touring funding agencies and their inconsistencies in grant administration and deadlines.

In a country like Australia where there is a small population spread out across a massive continent, it is expensive and time consuming enough to tour to the major capital cities, let alone regional areas. Touring consortia are well established in many countries and they work because the venues involved have shared needs and interests. There are some successful consortia  in Australia, particularly between the large scale venues. But, for smaller and regional areas, the Presenter driven model provides a broad consortium-like grouping of like minded venues.

The Presenter driven model has obvious benefits but also some disadvantages. Not least the potential perception that venues can all end up presenting the same work and that they tend to stick to safe decision making. See my post on Is Arts Centre Programming Really Failing? for some more discussion on this issue!

Last year, however, The Australia Council released a detailed paper on the National Touring Framework. For many years there has been increasing dissatisfaction with the current models of theatre touring in Australia, so it was timely that this paper was developed to look at how the theatre touring model might be simplified (amongst many other issues). In response, PATA (the Performing Arts Touring Alliance) is already addressing some of these recommendations and actively looking at ways to improve touring by removing duplication, increasing transparency and improving professional development within the sector.

For anyone interested in understanding the detailed specifics of how theatre touring works in Australia, the best starting point is the PATA Introductory Guide to Touring. This is a really extensive guide which outlines all the components involved in touring successfully. It also steps through the complex environment and defines various stakeholder involvements.

There is no doubt that the dominance of the Presenter driven model is decreasing. Not least because we are all getting so much better at collaborating with and engaging artists, co-commissioning and working with them much earlier in the creative process. However, there will always be a need for venues to work together to share the costs to make touring viable. In the meantime I look forward to seeing what changes take place to the Presenter driven model in response to the National Touring Framework.