Show Me The Money: How Theatre Can Profit from

The Convergence of Sports and Entertainment

By: Neo Sibiya

BA PVA IV Research Paper in ‘Text in Theatre and Performance’

University of the Witwatersrand

2015

Abstract: Although both sport and theatre qualify as play cultural phenomenon, sport is perceived as more economically viable ad profitable. This paper explores how similar sport and theatre are in their modus operandi as well as how theatre can capitalise on these similarities to contribute positively to the creative industry.

1

Show Me The Money: How Theatre Can Profit from the Convergence of Sports and

Entertainment

There appears to be a universal agreement on what is pleasing to an audience. Whether it is

the pleasure of seeing your favourite live band improvising the latest song, or seeing your

favourite sports team score that impossible try…or even better, watching a cast of actors

spontaneously responding to a unique moment with the audience. Across genre and

performance styles, the same vital elements create an engaging and enjoyable theatrical

experience. This substratum of expression through live games is also an experience spectators

are willing to pay for, whether in an arena or a theatre. However, the economic benefits and

potential fiscal benefits of the theatre to society and its’ key role-players have not been

sufficiently dealt with in theatre academia.

This paper aims to discuss how team sports and ensemble-based improvisation operate using

the same principles of play. Play and spontaneity are essential elements of performance that

are critical to understanding the works of Viola Spolin, Keith Johnstone and Suzuki Tadashi;

seminal acting teachers and writers that I refer to throughout the paper. Furthermore, by

drawing parallels between sport and theatre; this paper will discuss the potential of

transposing lucrative sports marketing tactics garnered from Ellis Cashmore’s Making Sense

of Sport (1990) and Stanford University’s David M. Carter’s Money Games (2011), that have

gone on to make sport a billion dollar business, on to theatre without tarnishing the integrity

of theatrical works and their makers.

Too often, young artists and drama school graduates feel the compulsion to assert pseudo

avant-garde re-inventions of the wheel that is theatre. It is not only unnecessary, but also

destructive to disregard the foundation laid by those who have come before you. However,

the wheel does not need to be re-invented; it just needs to turn faster.

Overwhelmed by theory that is disconnected from the discourse of contemporary South

African life; the rebel without a cause sees an artistic crisis, whereas in reality the crisis is one

of sustaining a creative industry in a creative manner. As a young theatre-maker I feel it is my

responsibility to draw on past work in order to critique current models and propose a way

forward for future generations participating in this creative industry. The biggest obstacle that

my generation faces after graduation is not racial oppression like the generation before us.

Our struggle is an economic one and top of the agenda is the modification of the current

economic model of theatre in South Africa in order to secure our livelihood and ensure our

2

passion yields fiscal rewards for our continued survival, in a manner that contributes

positively to all theatre stakeholders involved.

Part I: Theories on Play

At the core of this continued survival is play. Cultural theorist and Dutch sociologist Johan

Huizinga‘s seminal paper “Nature and the Significance of Play as Cultural Phenomenon”

highlights play’s centrality to the human narrative. In his introduction he contends that: “Play

is older than culture… even its simplest forms on the animal level, play is more than a mere

physiological phenomenon or a psychological reflex… It is a significant function- that is to

say, there is some sense to it. In play there is something ‘at play’ which transcends the

immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action.” (Huizenga in Scechner, 1976:

46). He goes on to outline the key characteristics of play; play is free, it is outside of real and

ordinary life, it is an integral part of life, it functions culturally to satisfy communal ideals, it

belongs to the sphere of festival and ritual, it functions as a sacred activity, it has a set

duration, all play moves within a designated playing ground, play creates order, all play has

an element of tension, all play has its rules and finally ‘the player who trespasses against the

rules or ignores them is a ‘spoil-sport’.” (Huizenga in Scechner, 1976: 46-54).

Significantly, Huizenga notes that play functions in society either “as a contest for something

or a representation of something.” (Huizenga in Scechner, 1976: 55). Sport is the former -

manifestation of play as contest and theatre the manifestation of play as representation of

something. However, at the root of both is play as a cultural phenomenon. It is my belief that

both can learn from each other’s methods of playing but it is my intention to show how

sport’s status in society as a critical contest/play-function is infinitely more profitable than

the economic space that theatre occupies.

Human beings are essentially communal beings who survive and thrive through collective

group experiences. Theatre is a classic example of a collaborative industry; “an artistic group

relationship demanding the energy and talents of many people- from the first thought of a

play or scene to the last echo of applause.” (Spolin, 1963: 9). Group play facilitates the

creation of an intimate and dynamic relationship between players, text and the theatrical

environment. This storytelling and performance aesthetic is accessed through spontaneity and

release in players. Whether on the field or on the stage; “A healthy group relationship

3

demands a number of individuals working interdependently to complete a given project with

full individual participation and personal contribution.” (Spolin, 1963: 9).

Viola Spolin was an American drama supervisor and teacher at the Chicago WPA

Recreational project working mainly children and amateur adult actors in the 1930s (Spolin,

1963: ix). Using sociological theories on play garnered from sociologist Neva L. Boyd from

1924-1927, she received from her; “an extraordinary training in the use of games, story-

telling, folk dance, and dramatics as tools for stimulating creative expression in both children

and adults, through self-discovery and personal experiencing.” (Spolin, 1963: vii). Using

uncomplicated game structures as a basis for training in theatre she was able to “free the child

and the so-called amateur from mechanical, stilted stage behaviour.” (Spolin, 1963: ix).

According to Robert Gordon, author of “The Purpose of Playing” (2006): “Viola Spolin’s

Improvisation for the Theatre has probably done more than any other book to popularize

improvisation as a theatrical aitivity and as a basis for actor training in the Unisted States.

Notions of spontaneity, chance and the overlap between everyday reality and performance

animated Spolin’s use of improvisation… her emphasis on the game-playing aspect of

improvisation was very different” (194). Inspired by the sociological experiments and

writings of Neva Boyd, Spolin saw the value of using games to encourage creativity in both

children and adults through experiential learning (ibid.). As Spolin says: “Playing a game is

pshycologically different in degree but not in kind from dramatic acting….the games thus

constituted models of social and pshychological interaction that provided a kind of rehearsal

for life.” (ibid.)

Spolin believed that the education system neglected personal intuition and that playing

games was a way of reversing the process that left so many actors blocked and incapable of

spontaneity in unfamiliar situations (Gordon, 2006: 195). Learning through games engages

players on three distinct levels; intuitively, intellectually and physically as “We learn through

experience and experiencing, and no-one teaches anyone anything…Experiencing is

penetration into the environment, total organic involvement with it” (Spolin, 1963: 3).

Spolin’s methods effectively achieved the following outcomes; players acquired necessary

techniques through playing the games, rather than being taught specific techniques,

individuals learned to collaborate within a group, playing by the rules of the game negated

the need for authoritarian discipline, the teacher-director learns from the games alongside

students, games were always played with the goal of communicating with the audience,

4

players learnt to appreciate sensory perception and lastly players learnt to express

relationships clearly (ibid.).

Spolin’s work and theories speaks back to that of British legend Keith Johnstone; Gordon

asserts that “His Impro has had an impact on the teaching of drama in Britain comparable to

that which Viola Spolin’s book had in the United States… both are dedicated to fostering the

individual’s creative imagination, encouraging originality and freedom from social

conformity by any means” (Gordon, 2006: 198).

Originally trained as a teacher, thinking it would improve his social and communication

skills, Johnstone discovered that the opposite was actually happening in education through

repressive and outdated models of interacting with and educating students. As Gordon

elaborates; “His intense awareness of the manner in which social conformity is reinforced by

the education system leads him to devise games that both mimic and transgress the

hierarchical structures of society in order to enable the performer to rediscover the

spontaneity of the child.” (ibid.). In his introduction to Impro, Irving Wardle emphasizes

Johnstone’s theories on an open and childlike willingness to play in relation to ensemble-

based improvisation and the “rediscovery of the imaginative response in the [atrophying]

adult.” (Johnstone, 1979: 9).

Johnstone observed how, when asked to improvise, actors would recreate unnatural scenes

that lacked the vitality of real life. This was when he discovered status games and

transactions- presenting “social interaction as a function of the different ways in which

individuals enact their perception of the position they occupy in the social hierarchy.”

(Gordon, 2006: 199). Through the playing of minimal status differences between actors to

create concrete stage relationships, characters are more realistically realised through played

action versus through psychological motivation (ibid.). As Gordon points out, the invaluable

insight of Johnstone changed the way drama was taught and thought of in Britain; “Playing

status focuses the attention of the audience on power and the way it is negotiated within the

social hierarchy, and, by contrast with American approaches to improvisation that

concentrate on the psychological aspects of behaviour, it foregrounds social relationships.”

(Gordon, 2006: 200).

Tadashi Suzuki is a Japanese director, philosopher and writer whose collaboration with Anne

Bogart influenced his inclusion into the American movement training system (Gordon, 2006:

342). His inter-cultural approach to performance combines Noh and Kabuki theatrical

5

vocabulary with canonical Western texts to create a syncretic Japanese theatre (ibid.). He

declares that “the main purpose of my method is to uncover and bring to the surface the

physically perceptive sensibility which actors had originally, before theatre acquired its

various codified performance styles, and to heighten their innate expressive abilities.”

(Gordon, 2006: 369).

Suzuki further elaborates on the rightful place of play in theatre; “Often we hear acting

referred to as a form of play. But we must be careful how we define ‘play’ in theatre. For me

this ‘play’ is not simply an attempt to amuse oneself or others, but a way to make people

think critically of the world we live in and struggle to ponder the ways in which we might

improve it.” (Suzuki, 1984:3). Suzuki brings us to the convergence of theatre and sport by

comparing the actor’s training to an athlete’s: performance. Both require a willingness to play

for the audience as well as take risks that locate the actor in a vulnerable space of possible

failure while playing the game (ibid).

Part II: The Rules of Play

Ultimately, centre stage and on the field, the body contains both the visual and sonic

possibilities that imaginative play foregrounds. And ultimately, it is the body, the performer

and his performance that draws audiences into the game; “the actual sporting performance.

The moment when competitive humans bring to an end their preparations and make visible

their self-willed mastery of a particular set of skills.” (Cashmore, 1990: 13). The body is the

only necessary entity a performance needs to ignite open and unique communication to any

number of interested viewers; “our sights [are] on the performer, whose actions take presence

over all other events… we watch bodies move.” (ibid.).

Sport is the perfect example of millions watching the human body perform at optimal and

extraordinary levels; “it spellbinds audiences with activities that have no apparent rhyme, less

still reason. It reminds us that one of the oldest preoccupations in the world is that of

challenge; attempting to surmount obstacles- natural or artificial- has provided people with

endless episodes of triumph or folly and, sometimes, disaster… it has challenge,

confrontation, and the climactic finality of a result.” (Cashmore, 1990: vii). This could be the

description of a good tragedy but this is not where the similarities end, essentially successful

6

and effective sport teams (particulary soccer) works with the same principles of ensemble-

based improvisation and play as outlined by Spolin, Johnstone and Suzuki.

Below are ten of the basic rules of playing, simplified as parallels of both sports and theatre

performance.

1. Rehearsals/ Practice

Playing games and exercises in rehearsals is a direct process that enters the world of play.

Rehearsals and team practices are an opportunity for the players to edit their best game-

plan choices into a seamless game. In this regard, the rehearsal process can be paralleled

to the sports practise necessary for athletes to attend in order to hone their skills through

play; “The game is a natural group form providing the involvement and personal freedom

necessary to develop personal techniques and skills necessary for the game itself, through

playing.” (Spolin, 1963: 4). The rehearsal and practice are also perfect times for group

improvisations, forcing the explorations to take place on a physical level and making the

team solve problems directly rather distancing themselves from playing.

2. Over-accepting

Keith Johnstone’s “observations of the way in which social inhibitions tend to prevent

adults from accepting invitations to allow free reign to their fantasies in improvised

actions leads Johnstone to devise games in which one performer makes an ‘offer’ to

another one who can accept or block it.” (Gordon, 2006: 200). An offer can be action or

speech initiated by a player which can then corroborate the imagined situation or curtail

it. The aim of course is not to simply say yes to everything the player offers but to keep

action developing by accepting what they have set up. Over-accepting is a means of

building the ensemble by receiving and amplifying the offers they have made in a way

that makes both the initiator and the receiver look good.

In sport we see this physically represented through passing the ball to another player.

Accepting the pass reaffirms the other players and keeps the game moving.

3. Presence

Presence in the space works on three levels according to Spolin, physically, mentally and

intuitively (as previously mentioned). This means not only showing up to play but also

being mentally aware and efficient as well as intuitively filling gaps and solving problems

7

in the space intuitively. It is a presence for fellow players that allows impulsive, open and

generous interactions within the game. It is about space-holding in a way that creates a

pleasant playground for all involved.

4. Generosity

Giving everything you have to give in a moment creates dynamic experiences that push

the mind, body and spirit of performers to an extraordinary realm. It is about not cheating

the moment, because the audience will know, but instead giving fellow players the space

to play and the audience an experience based on truth, commitment and vulnerability.

5. Re-Acting

Playing relational intention comes second to character. Instead, as Johnstone asserts;

relationships are what players should be emphasizing and out of actions in relation to

others will character materialize. Playing relationships means communicating the story

effectively. It is about making informed reactions to the theatrical world by being aware

of the games being played around you.

6. Timing

There is a precision in timing that is rewarding for audience members to watch. Too soon

or too late and you’ve missed the moment. Because is play is limited in duration, every

moment counts and playing the game in such a way maximises the time you have with

fellow players and the audience.

7. Focus

In theatre, focus is the equivalent of having your eye on the goal. When a player is

focused, he will do exactly what he needs to be doing. There is a group focus, or what

Spolin calls a Point of Concentration where every member of the group knows the

objective of the performance and an individual level of focus where players contribute

interdependently to realize a common goal. Both are necessary. You can’t serve the team

without watching, listening and paying attention to what is happening.

8. Audience

It is important to interact with audiences in a way that is genuine and truthful in relation

to present reality by addressing the issue of who the audience is in the world you’ve

8

invited them to. The audience can be involved on a real level through clocking,

complicity, openness and identifying which games the audiences want to play. Adjusting

with the audience in mind also cleans up transitions and sustains the relationship.

9. Correctness

There is no right or wrong in an improvisation because no-one knows the answer. Instead

of self-preoccupation and self-censorship, each player is only required to play as best as

they can rather than being ‘right’. The team will not let you down or punish you for a

‘wrong’ decision because everyone is much more interesting than you are! By letting go

of Johnstone’s ‘gatekeeper of the mind’ you allow yourself to come out of yourself and

just play.

10. Play!!!

After you know the words/games/ given circumstances all that is left to do is play. Forget

everything, believe in noting but the moment and play as hard as you can because you are

not playing for yourself but are playing for the team. Playing the game is about

supporting and caring for your fellow players in a way that always makes them look

good, creates trust and complicity and a positive space to play in.

To quote Barney Simon: “What matters most is the interaction between human beings,

and the surprises that can happen when you explore them with care, when you risk things

and see where this combination or that will take you… the dynamics between the

performers and their text and the performers and their audience.” (Simon, ).

Part III: Money Games

There is a lot to learn from sports on the field but there is even more to learn from behind

the scenes; the lesson of making money from bodies in play. There are three ways in

which sports benefits from a relationship with multi-national brands; product placement,

corporate sponsorship and lastly At-Venue convergence- all strategies I will be discussing

in the last part of this paper and how they can be transposed to theatre.

In Chapter Seven of Ellis Cashmore’s “Making Sense of Sport: The Business”, we are

given a glimpse into the commercial lucrativity of sport; “Sport, or at least vast areas of it,

9

have become the prey of commercial interests and these have transformed sheer

competitive activity into high-yield business.” (1990: 132) Why? “People enjoy watching

and appreciating a contest and, in some circumstances, are willing to pay to do so. The

trend has been that they are prepared to pay more and more.” (ibid.).

How is it then then that the numbers in theatre indicate the opposite when the premise of

a play is the same as a sports game- “a perfect invention because it has challenge,

confrontation, and the climactic finality of a result.” ? (Cashmore, 1990: vii). The answer

lies in how differently the two areas have developed in the last two centuries and more

importantly, their attitudes to industrialization, globalization and the digital age.

At the turn of the nineteenth century “the factory system issued its demands, which were

a workforce ready to labour for s set amount of time at a specific time. During that time

workers operated under virtual compulsion; outside that time they were free to pursue

whatever they wished (and could afford).” (Cashmore, 1990: 62). Leisure time became

associated with the tax bracket in which workers navigated and sports and theatre were

two of the ways in which brief leisure times could be filled with exciting moments of

uncertainty. According to John Hargreaves’ 1986 book “Sport, Power and Culture”; both

sport and theatre also had political implications in their organization, first thought of as

mindless and devilish then later intergrated by ruling classes and religuous organizations

as a way of intergrating “the working class into respectable ‘bourgeois culture’ rather

than struggle against it.” (ibid.)

Essentially, this worked economically to create new patterns of order in leisure time as

well as commercial potential in public gatherings attracting an industrializing working

class; “As the nineteenth century drew to an end, most [leisure activity] took on a much

more orderly character: both participants and spectators came to realise the legitamacy of

governing organizations… the whole direction and rhythm of [leisure activities] reflected

the growing significance of industrial society.” (Cashmore, 1990: 63). In sport this meant

the phasing out of amateur leagues in favour of bigger, more commercial and organized

leaugues backed by multi-national corporations such as Barclays Bank and Rothman’s

ciggarettes. In Theatre, an upper middle-class consciousness burgeoned and theatre

became an elistist organization that privelaged the Western cannonical texts and private

patrons with money to spare.

10

By as early as the English FA Cup Final in 1923, promoters, club agents and clob owners

had realised the value of audiences in soccer with up to 200 000 people being squeezed

into the Wembley Stadium- “by this time soccer had become totally professional, top

clubs having charged admission sice 1870.” (138). Eventually promoters, sponsers and

savvy marketing executives realised how to fully transform sport into a commercial

enterprise without compromising its essential form and unpredictability; the mass media

and its funding mechanisms- multi-nationals. Cashmore notes that common sponsers

include motoring companies, banks beer companies and tobacco companies; even though

most of these products hinder sporting ability the mere corporaste partnership has yielded

billions of dollars for the teams and unexploited marketing scapes for the brands- a

mutually beneficial relationship (Cashmore, 1990: 152).

Ultimately, ‘in the case of the convergance of sports and entertainment, the ‘common

points’ or, perhaps more accurately, the desrired outcomes, are to build brands and

generate revenue and, by extension, increase value for myriad stakeholders in the

process.” (Carter, 2011: 1). As brands are perpetually looking to extend their reach to

market and find new spaces of publicisation, the model I am proposing is not far off the

mark of the convergance of sport and entertainment. It is a model, to rephrase Carter’s

argurement; ‘in the case of the convergance of [theatre] and [corporate marketing], the

‘common points’ or, perhaps more accurately, the desrired outcomes, are to build brands

and generate revenue and, by extension, increase value for myriad stakeholders in the

process.”. In this case the stakeholders are the theatre owners, theatremakers and

patrons/audiences of the theatre.

Models and Strategies

Product Placement

Product placement is the most recognizable of the three strategies of incorporating brands

into existing media texts. Popularized by, and unofficially producing, television since its

conception. The definition of product placement I will be using is from Riku

Kaijansinkko’s masters thesis “Product Placement in Integrated

Marketing Communications Strategy Product placement” ; “The term product placement

refers to the potentially compensated (in the form of money or other promotional service)

inclusion of consumer brand name products, packages, signs, logos or other trademark

merchandise, services, a verbal mentioning or an advertisement of the product within

11

motion picture, television show, music video, commercial, video / computer game, book

or theatre play.” (2001:16).

The trend has now emerged in theatre as a form of financially savvy 21st century

marketing as “the theatre's economics puts increasing pressure on producers, artistic

directors, development directors, and marketing folk to make the most of their cash, an

even more "aggressive mixing" of entertainment and marketing is a possibility that will

continue to grow. (Jacobs, 2004; 1).

In a 2007 article published by entrepreneur.com, titled “Product Placement Takes the

Stage”, Rich Mintzer debates the benefits and disadvantages of large-scale Broadway

shows using product placement for financial reasons. He asserts:

“Product placement, long a staple in TV and movies, has in recent years become a growing part of the

theater world. From Van Heusen shirts in Thoroughly Modern Millie, to a mention of Jose Cuervo in Neil

Simon's revival of Sweet Charity and Tiffany necklaces in the stage production of Legally Blonde,

Broadway is finding a role for products in shows. The placements are helping offset the rising cost of

producing a musical, which now can top $12 million.” (Mintzer, 2007: 1).

Amy Willstatter, founder of corporate marketing firm Bridge to Hollywood and

Broadway and brainchild behind the product placement of international tequila brand Jose

Cuervo into the 2007 run of ‘Sweet Charity’ states that "Broadway is absolutely a viable

platform for sponsors. It's still a work in progress, but it's growing in popularity,"

(Mintzer, 2007: 2). The playwright, Neil Simon, agreed to the product placement and

tweaking of one line, which mentions the tequila brand, and Jose Cuervo logo decorates

the set (economist.com, 2005: 1). This historic move came not long after Yahoo! and

Hormel Foods, maker of Spam, sponsored the Monty Python musical, “Spamalot” (ibid.).

Another successful example of product placement was done by popular film and theatre

director Baz Luhrmann, “who posted billboard-style ads for Montblanc pens and Piper-

Heidsieck Champagne in his 2003 Broadway production of Puccini's La Boheme.

Brought to contemporary times, the ads enhanced the set in what turned out to be an

award-winning production.” (ibid.)

On the other side if the Atlantic, the West End has adopted similar strategies. One key

example occurred in 2007 when “McCain Oven Chips paid £12,500 as a donation to the

24 Hour Plays Celebrity Gala at the Old Vic, for which its chips appeared on stage in one

12

of the resulting pieces (Aschlin Ditta’s An Act of Love) and were served at the VIP post-

show party” (West End Editorial Staff, 2007: 1)

Contemporary corporate marketing trends are now leaning towards soft-sell approaches,

which has increased the importance of strategies such as product placement (PPL)

because

“product placement does not provide benefits for the entertainment industry alone. One of the cornerstones

in PPL’s vitality is the mutually beneficial nature of the practice, that along with realism and cost-reduction

benefits to entertainment production side, also benefits the other main party in the arrangement, i.e. the

product marketer that provides the props for the use in the production. With PPL the product / brand in

question receives exposure in an entertainment context, which in turn enhances awareness of the product

among the audience.” (Kaijansinkko, 2001: 83).

However when it comes to theatre, Stewart Lane has this to add; “placement isn't always

applicable… subtlety also is important when using product placement. There's a fine line

between subtlety and blatant commercialism." (Mintzer, 2007: 3).

The integration of popular brands whose products are strategically embedded in the

overall theatre show can create a stream of revenue previously unavailable to producers;

‘"It can be an excellent way to raise money," says Stewart Lane, whose latest hit musical,

Legally Blonde, which is contemporary and incorporates products that are around us

everyday, includes Red Bull energy drink and a UPS express delivery. "If used correctly,

it can have an impact in the show."’ (Mintzer, 2007: 1).

Sponsorship

Red Bull is no stranger to sponsorship and integrative marketing, having pulled off a

successful sporting version of this tactic in Austria and America. David M. Carter

recounts their case study in Money Games (241: 2011); “Product refinement and

aggressive marketing techniques, commonly involving novel approaches to sports

marketing, have enabled the company to… post impressive annual growth rates, in excess

of 45%.”. According to then Red Bull CEO Robert Hollander, Red Bull has been able to

invest up to $500 million in sports marketing per annum whilst extending “a particular

lifestyle for consumers” that presents Red Bull as “edgier, wilder. And more extreme than

the other major players in the beverage industry.” (ibid.).

13

Sponsorship differs slightly from Product placement and “Although the ultimate objective

for sponsorship is to contribute an increase in sales, its main task is to increase brand

awareness and enhance corporate or brand image” (Kaijansinkko, 2001: 90).

In 1995, Red Bull created a corporate partnership with one of Austria’s strongest soccer

teams, SV Austria Salzburg, in their highest-level soccer leagues; the Bundesliga. Red

Bull rebranded the team’s name to FC Red Bull Salzburg, changed their colours to the

Red Bull red, yellow and blue and added a pair of wings to their logo (ibid.). In 2003 the

team further benefitted from Red Bull’s decision to purchase an arena on their behalf to

house FC Red Bull Salzburg’s home games (ibid.). The corporate partnership yielded

financial support from Red Bull, new uniforms as well as property that eventually went

on to accommodate 31 895 soccer fans during the 2008 European Football Championship

(ibid.).

The vertical integration of Red Bull as a visible product placed within the realm of FC

Red Bull Salzburg’s games was a critical moment in the convergence of sport and

entertainment with corporate marketing as the go-between a performer-centred structure

and a brand seeking to extend its reach.

In theatre, this type of corporate relationship is mutually beneficial because of the

logistics of putting a show up and the infinite audience reach of the brand associated with

the show. Sponsorship in the form of scenography for example, can be returned as

programme mention or even on-stage branding. Costumes can have clear brand logos

without infringing on the integrity of the show. For example a scene set in a gym benefits

from actors dressed head to toe in brand name sports gear because of active lifestyle

associations with brand x. In the American theatre it is has a long since been an

established practice in both the commercial and amateur as well as NGO theatre, “for

corporations and manufacturers to donate such items as props, set pieces, and even

costumes in exchange for a credit or acknowledgement in the program.” (Jacobs, 2004:

1). However, as a sponsorship deal, the visibility of the branding increases the investors

opportunity for audience recognition.

Like the FC Red Bull Salzburg soccer team, after the stage/field and the actor/player have

been dressed. The acquisition of property is key to housing a company/team. However,

the loose structure of a talented and interdependent group of people organizing

performances as well as performing is not something a bank can write a cheque for. Red

14

Bull’s purchase of the arena to house FC Red Bull Salzburg’s home games is something a

bank can underwrite though. Contrary to popular belief; the real money-maker in property

deals connected to marketing strategies are naming rights. Red Bull’s capital comes from

it’s named association with a venue of performance but more importantly, thee name.

Although it is the soccer team utilising the actual venue for practices and games, Red Bull

finances and maintains the venue to allow the team to do what it does best; play. Every

time someone refers to the venue; they are effectively exercising word of mouth

advertising for Red Bull, free of charge.

A big brand purchasing property to have its name on the building and on maps is the

physicalization of advertising space. A theatre company could run like a ballet company;

rehearsing everyday with the aim of creating work without the stress of making rent. With

the added benefit of a performance space for shows and the brands’ loyalists as potential

bums on seats. In South Africa, The Auto & General Theatre’s name, the ex-FNB

Stadium are moderate examples of this model in practice.

At- Venue Convergence

The last strategy combines the first two, but off stage. Brands offer physical products or

marketing tools at the venue of the performance. This includes paraphenalia relating to

the play, refreshments, stalls, posters and sampling stands in order to engage in direct

consumer contact. The Sponsor’s products are in the auditorium of the venue for

consumers to interact with. So if Red Bull is sponsoring the show, there are promoters

with samples of Red Bull or the Red Bull sponsored gear featured in the show.

David M. Carter characterizes it as follows; “Historically, stadiums and arenas were built soley so

fans could attend sporting and entertainment events… however in our modrrn technological world, this is

not enough, as fans demand an experiential outing, a convenient and complete game-day experience that

trandsfrorms mere games into memorable events. By enhancing the fan experience with just the right

mix… and delivering the optimal blend of marketing and promotion, those that invest in, manage, or own

venues can prosper.” (Carter, 2011: 173).

The idea behind it is that meeting consumers face to face and creating a positive pre- and

post- show experience of the brand will create positive assosications with the show as

well the brand. The interface is usually uniquely tailored to the show and creates a bonus

one-on-one experience for consumers. This model also creates incentive for theatre

companies to own property whilst maximising every square metre through corporate

15

brand partnerships. Restuarants, Wi-fi networks, bars and on-site video games are all

examples of at-venue experiences and activities that ensure fans have a value-added day

out at the theatre, whilst extending their time and capital at the venue as much as possible

(Carter, 2011; 176). At the end of the day, theatre, property, sports and entertainment

converge to create the ultimate experience at the the theatre.

Conclusion

Sport has converged with entertainment and mass media in the 21st century to create a

lucrative game of money. Product placement, vertical brand integration and at-venue

convergence strategies have allowed large-scale continental sports leagues to survive

economic recessions as well as to rival other leisure time activities, for example theatre.

Given that theatre-making is a collaborative industry premised on the same principles of

the unpredictability of games, liveness, performance and spectatorship as sport; it is not

difficult to deduce the financial benefits of adopting and adapting sport’s corporate

marketing strategies.

The subsidisation of scenography, props, costumes and furniture as well as financial

stimulation from brands will result in the accumulation of fiscal and cultural capital for

theatre. Theatre’s gains will be most visible in regards to increased budgets for marketing

and a key exchange of networks introduced to theatre through the brands consumers

identify with in everyday life. In exchange brands acquire moving billboards and soft-sell

advertising space that introduces new consumers to their brands whilst being positively

positioned as patrons of the arts.

With multi-national companies controlling the flow of financial and cultural capital

globally, the integration of theatre and marketing will inject much needed money into a

performer-centred structure and allow theatre to survive beyond the digital age. As the old

evolutionary adage goes: “Adapt or Die.”. Perhaps Theatre’s new maxim should be

“Show me the money… or Die.”

16

Bibliography

Carter, M. D. 2011. Money Games: Profiting from the Convergence of Sports and

Entertainment. Stanford University Press: Stanford.

Cashmore, E. 1990. Making Sense of Sport. Routledge: London.

Gordon, R. 2006. The Purpose of Playing: Modern Acting Theories in Perspective. The

University of Michigan Press: Michigan.

Huizenga, J. 1955. ‘Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon’ in

Schechner, R. 1976. Ritual, Play and Performance: Readings in The Social

Sciences/Theatre. Seabury Press: New York.

Jacobs, L. 2004. ‘Product Placement Possible?’ on

http://www.backstage.com/news/product-placement-possible/. Accessed on 3 September

2015. (Online Article).

Johnstone, K. 1981. Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre. Routledge: London.

Mintzer, R. 2007. Product Placement Takes the Stage on

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/184830. Accessed on 3 September 2015. (Online

article).

Multiple Authors. 2005. Product Placement On Broadway: How to Hedge a Toe-tapping,

Finger-snapping, Big-budget Gamble on http://www.economist.com/node/4232361.

Accessed on 1 September 2015. (Online article).

Multiple Authors. 2007. Stage PR Stage Product Placement: A Chip off the Old Block???

on http://www.whatsonstage.com/west-end-theatre/news/11-2007/stage-product-

placement-a-chip-off-the-old-block_20254.html. Accessed on 3 September 2015.

(Online Article).

Riku Kaijansinkko. 2001. Product Placement in Integrated Marketing Communications Strategy. Lappeenranta University Of Technology: Lappeenranta. (Masters Thesis).

Spolin, V. 1963. Improvisation for the Theatre. Northwestern University Press:

Evanston.

17

Suzuki, T. 1984. The Way of Acting - The Theatre Writings of Tadashi Suzuki. Theatre

Communications Group: New York.

18