We already thought something was wrong when Mark Rutte in his forceful performance applauded by many in Buitenhof spoke of "all those empty halls with 10 people in the front row". Ok, he hadn't been himself for years, but according to his State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra, at least in The Hague, the emptiness was distressing, Rutte managed to report. After all, in 'all those edition newspapers', 30 performances per evening per city are announced, all of which have only 10 people in the front row and the rest of the auditorium is empty.
We asked on this site and on Facebook for further details, and got them. Talk about crowdsourcing. Thanks Lene Grooten, Anne Reinders and Robbert van Heuven, who took a moment to look in their bookshelves and came up with the requested figures.
Now then. In a publication of the ministry of OCW, from 2008, contains all the numbers on the 127 institutions and initiatives subsidised by the ministry. Knowing that in 2009 there was another major 'efficiency drive' with the introduction of the Basic Infrastructure, the figures speak volumes.
To clear up the first misunderstanding. With an average auditorium occupancy of over a hundred people per performance across the Netherlands, it is already difficult to let in a maximum of ten spectators anywhere, but since a statistician usually drowns in water an average of a metre deep, we wanted more. And we got more. Details. Significant details, especially.
For example, the average number of visitors per genre turns out to be even much larger than we first thought. Rutte can put at least a factor of 20 behind his initial estimate. The sector that plays the most in small venues still easily achieves 454 visitors per performance. We are talking here about the dance sector, headed by the Dutch National Ballet, which attracts an average of 1139 visitors per performance. Put one performance with ten visitors in between, and to reach that average, you already need a couple of sold-out Arenas. Even subsidised youth theatre, which usually plays in classrooms with a capacity of 30 seats, still achieves an audience average of 117. Talk about bigger classrooms.
When we look at the own income generated by the subsidised institutions, it is really startling. Halbe Zijlstra, the new change manager/Secretary of State for Culture, finds himself already going quite far when he sets the requirement that subsidised arts institutions must start drawing 17.5 % of income from audiences and other own sources by the end of the arts plan. We can reassure him that this own revenue standard is already being met everywhere. The theatre sector stands at 30%, the youth theatre sector even at 36 per cent, but that is all still nothing compared to the Production Houses (those of those supposedly empty theatres) which stand at 61 per cent own income, or the development institutions which come in at 109%.
These are figures found in the Ministry of Oc&W's own library. We suggest Mr Zijlstra and Mr Rutte do some homework.
Oh, yes, another nice statistic: the most subsidy from the state goes to Amsterdam. The subsidy-addicted capital draws 120 million tax money from the hard-working Dutch, who on the other hand, however, also buy 4.5 million tickets in that city. So a quick calculation brings us to €30 subsidy on every visit to a subsidised institution. That seems a lot, but is nothing compared to the figures of the deep region. Region South, which therefore includes Brabant and Limburg, receives hardly any subsidy compared to Amsterdam: around €25 million. But then again, why spend money there, the VVD might say, if barely 200,000 tickets are sold either. As a result, the art-going hard-working southerner gets €72 euros from Zijlstra on each ticket bought. More than twice as much as the 'pampered' hard-working Amsterdammer.
So more subsidies are already going to regions and institutions that attract more visitors. The art world rightly feels cornered by not only the tone of the government, but also the content of the policy.
We would like to see Zijlstra and Rutte quizzed on this soon by Nieuwsuur.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
It is precisely because figures say so much ("it's the economy stupid") that the arts sector has mostly been averse to them. Because what should the Council for Culture and politicians do with the facts, known for years, that per visitor, more subsidy goes to small-scale theatre than to youth theatre (organisations of comparable size), that more subsidy per visitor goes to the region than to the Randstad (which will only get worse given the demographic exodus in the North, South and Southwest), that large theatres are more exploitable than small ones, that the greatest density of (better) actors is in the Randstad in connection with the fact that roles are distributed there (film, television, advertising, role-playing etc.)?? Should they choose against the region because the subsidy euros are better spent in the Randstad? Should they opt for large-scale because it is cheaper than small-scale, should they opt against permanent employment of orchestral musicians because that is the solution to prevent orchestras from going out of business (NAPK Facts and figures 2005-2008: on average 102% of the subsidy to orchestras is spent on salaries which, with a slowly declining audience, will lead to a benefit factory with no activities as in Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece etc.). Or are they going for barrenness in the Randstad because the regional politek will not allow interventions? Are they going for job security or employment?
It is the facts that make this kind of dilemma clear.
Jaap Jong
Figures and Figures...I just calculated for the record how much 'Subsidy' goes to car-driving netherlands..per km driven, roughly 0.05 cents is invested in the road network. That's 1400 euros per car. Now a car driver says he/she also pays for it in the form of road tax excise etc...But just as if the cultural sector does not pay taxes (payroll tax). Think of culture as necessary infrastructure that needs to be invested in. How much? that is a political choice..but let's take Culture as a necessary economic good as a starting point and not as some kind of hobby...because then you can call a motorway a hobby too.
The comment about youth theatre seems incorrect to me. Youth theatre is also performed in classrooms, yet mainly in larger-capacity gymnasiums or in sports halls, community centres and small venues is my experience.
Thanks. That explains the large number of spectators.
Have these details also been sent to the two gentlemen politicians?
good work by the way! hard facts we need
Tomorrow we will try to get an interview out of it. Would help if a few media publishers would support us. No interest so far, there.
In a public response to Mr Rutte's remarks, the chairman of the board of the Netherlands Association for the Performing Arts stated the following:
For the second time in a short time, we note that the prime minister is making statements in the media that are not based on facts and are harmful to the cultural sector in general, and to the performing arts in particular. In the Buitenhof broadcast of 16 January last, the prime minister remarked that in cities like Amsterdam or The Hague, `every evening in 30 theatres, ten people sit in the front row and the rest of the auditorium is empty', basing his remarks on the - as he describes it - `out-of-town newspapers'. This is a very badinating statement towards professional organisations with which the government has a cooperative relationship. Moreover, the statement is incorrect: in 2009, in the cities of The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht, not a single performance by institutions affiliated to the Netherlands Association for Performing Arts was played where only ten people sat in the front row and the rest of the auditorium was empty. Indeed, the average audience occupancy in all venues (large, medium and small) in the four largest municipalities was 60% or higher.
The prime minister is therefore asked to guard the nuance in the debate and not to further trouble a sector that (if the coalition agreement is implemented as it should be) will face enormous hardship in the coming years by proclaiming inaccuracies. The performing arts sector is a fully-fledged, professional industry and considers it of the utmost importance, especially in these times, to cooperate as such with the various stakeholders.
"The sector that plays most in small venues still easily achieves 454 visitors per performance. "
So suddenly this is about the number of playing nights added together? Because a small venue is not that big, it seems to me. A bit of an unfair comparison with the "10 people in the front row" mentioned. Suppose a show plays 15-20 times, then it is still quite likely, on some nights, in some cities.
As we reported, a statistician drowns in a river an average of one metre deep. But if you read the figures in the OCW report, you may see that in the case of the subsidised theatre sector it is 459,670 visitors to 2,422 performances. How many 10-person plays that includes will be of interest to arithmeticians, tomorrow we will have hard figures for The Hague, the city Rutte reported on TV that it is rife there. Our editor was exclusively concerned with checking power, in this case: is Rutte telling the truth. It seems strongly that he should have prepared better. The rest of the article and figures also speak for themselves in this case.
Wijbrand Schaap,
Editor-in-chief
While I agree with the thrust of this article, the prime minister and the secretary of state should indeed go and do their homework soon before releasing any more nonsense about the arts sector into the world, I do think the article takes on a somewhat annoying tenor at the end. Are we now comparing regions in a rather negative way? This article was most probably written by a Randstad (I think even Amsterdammer) who let his value judgement shine through. I find that unfortunate and it makes it a weaker story as a result.
Those 4.5 million tickets in Amsterdam are not only bought by hardworking Amsterdammers who therefore only get/cost €30 subsidy per visit (the southerner €72), but by people from all over the country. This is because Amsterdam is mainly home to many producing cultural institutions that have a national task and function. In the regions, on the contrary, there are more institutions with a regional or local task. The comparison in this way, as if Southerners get more than Amsterdammers, therefore goes a bit awry and does not exactly contribute to the discussion about the cuts, and what should be spent in which region and on what. These cuts affect the entire national system and performing arts lovers and we should fight against this, with all regions, without letting ourselves be pitted or played off against each other with some negative tenor. I therefore expect objective reporting from the Cultural Press Agency, value judgements are better left at home.
Good luck with your work!
Serge Wetzels
independent cultural entrepreneur
Dear Mr Wetzels. The Cultural Press Agency is precisely committed to newsgathering and providing news about culture in the 'region'. We are not based in Amsterdam for nothing precisely. If the atmosphere was created that we spoke with disdain about 'the region', that was not our intention. In this case, it was precisely a reaction to the Limburg-based PVV's statement that 'this Amsterdam canal belt should get a lesson', or something along those lines. So there was a layer of irony underneath, which perhaps we could have made clearer. As non-Amsterdammers, we thought we could get away with that. Not so. In any case, for us it is clear that the difference between city and region when it comes to subsidies and culture has only been illustrated more clearly again. Hoping to have reassured you sufficiently with this.
Kind regards,
Wijbrand Schaap
Editor-in-chief
Comments are closed.