Potential Threats to the Future of the Edinburgh Festival

Journalists rely to a degree on storylines that can be revisited every year, as they help to bulk out the content of a newspaper or magazine. You know the sort of thing … will Christmas trading be bad for the retail sector this year … in August (in the UK) will this year’s A level and GCSE examination results be even better than last year, and if so are the exams getting easier? … and so on.

Around July time it is Edinburgh ’s turn to get the treatment. “Are we witnessing the decline of the Edinburgh Festival?” is a common media cry. Themes of the general hacks, as opposed to the usually more measured words of the critics, include:

• It does not hold the same appeal anymore. Ticket sales do not bear this out at all nor does my own experience. I often wonder if it is the London-based editor or bean counters who are fed up with the cost of sending staff to Edinburgh to cover the event

• The Fringe is simply too big, leading to a dilution of the artistic content of the overall festival

• Rival festivals, e.g. Manchester in the UK , are seriously challenging Edinburgh ’s pre-eminence.

These themes are usually supplemented by highlighting any perceived infighting between the individual festivals, usually between the International Festival and the Fringe or occasionally between Edinburgh City Council and everybody else.

I thought that for once I would “put in my own twopenneth” on some of the dangers that Edinburgh faces although I have tried to keep it brief. Finance is a common thread, like it or not.

Complacency

When viewed over the 60+ years that the festival has been in existence it is reasonable to say that the authorities, particularly Edinburgh City Council, have on the whole been complacent. In the early years when tourism was not recognised as such an important part of the economy there was a certain ambivalence as to whether it wanted visitors or not. Latterly the assumption appears to be that we will simply keep coming. The only time that I can remember Edinburgh City Council sitting up and taking notice was when Glasgow was awarded European City of Culture in 1990 after Edinburgh had made a very half-hearted attempt to compete.

This complacency takes various forms, including: inadequate financial support, poor infrastructure, particularly with respect to temporary accommodation and travel, and a lack of effective communication with the individual festivals and venues.

Thundering Hooves, a recent study that was commissioned by the Scottish Arts Council, politely, arguably too politely, tried to get across the dangers of complacency, relying largely on the perceived threats posed by increased competition from other festivals around the world.

The response to the findings of this study has so far been limited to short term cash injections from Edinburgh City Council, the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Executive, but there are no concrete signs of any long term strategy that I can see. This action is consistent with a view that the risk of Edinburgh being rivalled by any other UK or international festival is considered to be very low, and therefore that the "powers that be" can afford to sit on their hands to a large degree. I am not sure that I share their optimism or naivety. While any attempt to tackle Edinburgh with its comprehensive range of festivals head on may be doomed I can see the use of single art form festivals having much more of a chance of challenging Edinburgh's domination in the longer term.

Political Interference

The Edinburgh International Festival (EIF) has been the main sufferer here over the years, often being used as a political football in return for financial support. I wonder if matters are likely to be exacerbated now that the Scottish Executive wants to restructure cultural policy across the country, as outlined in its Draft Culture Bill. My cynical mind considers that this is simply a political euphemism for more direct control of funding. It plans to handle national performing arts companies directly while amalgamating the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen as part of their “Creative Scotland” initiative. The devil will no doubt be in the detail which we have yet to hear. Meanwhile, the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen have issued their initial response to the draft proposals.

Funding

It is a common and justifiable cry that the festival should receive more funding, and indeed the Thundering Hooves report recommended that Edinburgh City Council should increase its funding to bring it in line with other festival cities.

Whatever funding is made available the City Council tends to give with one hand and in part take it away with the other. It owns the majority of the major venues and no doubt relies to a large extent on the revenue that it can charge the organisations which take them over at festival time to help cover the annual costs of maintaining them. Fringe venues such as the Assembly Rooms come off particularly badly in this equation as they do not receive any public funding.

While it may be right (not to say easy) to criticise public bodies such as the City Council, there is a strong case for business, particularly the leisure sector, to contribute more to the festival because they are after all significant beneficiaries. One study back in 2004 estimated that the summer and winter festivals generated £184m revenue of which £135m directly accrued to Edinburgh and the Lothians. Periodic sponsorship arrangements, while obviously welcome, represent a poor overall return on the benefits that the festivals bring to the economy.

Balance of Arts

It is one of the strengths of what I call the August Feast that a comprehensive range of quality art forms are available across the individual festivals. However, there is a degree of duplication. Drama is arguably the most obvious example, being covered by both the EIF and the Fringe. It has been very much of a curate’s egg over the years at the EIF, many routine productions being interspersed with the occasional tour de force. Given the ever-increasing financial pressures that the EIF faces, particular with the costs of putting on music and opera, I often wonder if it should leave this art form to the Fringe, ideally with the Traverse Theatre, the premier venue for drama, leading the way.

The Fringe continues to grow inexorably. From a marketing perspective the organisation seems to consider that big is good and bigger is even better. To state the obvious increased size almost always results in reduced quality. It is comedy that is responsible for the vast majority of the current growth; it is set to become the major art form in 2008. I fear that this trend is not good for the feast as a whole.

Indeed, since I first penned this page four of the super Fringe venues (Assembly, Pleasance, Gilded Balloon and Underbelly) have flexed their muscles by announcing an "Edinburgh Comedy Festival", a festival within the 2008 Fringe. While they protest that this is merely a marketing tool to attract sponsorship, some speculate that this presages a complete breakaway from the Fringe as early as 2009. If this were to come to pass I can envisage that drama and other non-comedy shows at these venues would gradually decrease. Perhaps that may not be a bad thing. Perhaps it will offer opportunities to other organisations who can demonstrate to us punters that they are determined to maintain the spirit of the festival. And, of course, it may make the "comedy gang of 4", as the headline in the Scotsman called them, more of an open target to some of these wannabe festival cities such as Manchester.

The Cost of Visiting the Festival

A significant danger is that Edinburgh may ultimately price itself out of the market. A visit to the festival has never been cheap … unless you are prepared to sleep on floors, exist on pizza and baked potatoes, and wherever possible limit yourself to free or cheap shows.  Free Fringe shows which have been around for the last 10 years or so may sound appealing but they are largely limited to comedy.

Unfortunately, the creation of the Scottish Parliament has made Edinburgh a more expensive city to live in, and this has led to increased costs in accommodation, restaurant prices (particularly noticeable in 2007) and the price of shows.

We should not forget the costs incurred by performers and production staff, particularly on the Fringe. In fact reading some of their experiences is quite sobering. I sometimes wonder why so many of them are prepared to lose money on their Fringe ventures … but of course I know that appearing on the Fringe is a rite of passage, alluringly mixed with a dash of hope that recognition and perhaps a smidgen of fame may come their way.  

So What Would Make Me Stop Coming?

As I say elsewhere on these web pages, the overall experience is a glorious mixture of wide-ranging performing and visual arts, street theatre, friendship and festival atmosphere all housed in a beautiful city.  Hopefully I will keep coming until I drop despite the various issues that I have in part outlined.

However, I perceive two dangers. The first is any significant dilution in the variety of arts that are on offer. The film festival has already moved to June, a decision that was understandable. A separate comedy festival, if it ever comes about, and / or the movement of any of the festivals away from August will disturb the balance that helps to make festival time so appealing, particularly to visitors such as myself, and may destroy "the spirit of the festival"; although I appreciate that some of the locals may prefer to have the events spread out over the summer months. The second danger is that my "annual fix" will simply become too expensive.