Evaluation of Australian performing arts market 2014-2018: Year Four Interim Report, July 2017

In the awarding of the tender for APAM by the Australia Council to Brisbane Powerhouse for the delivery of the market in 2014-2018, a requirement is that a formal evaluation of the three iterations of APAM be undertaken by the Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty, under the leadership of Associate Professor Sandra Gattenhof. The agreed research model delivers reporting on outcomes not only in the year in which APAM is delivered (2014, 2016, 2018) but also in the years between (2015, 2017). APAM sits within a context of other Markets internationally. Other Markets include International Performing Arts for Youth (IPAY) and American Performing Arts Presenters (APAP), both annual showcases/conferences held in the United States of America; Performing Arts Market in Seoul (PAMS), held yearly in October; and International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA), which holds two Congresses every year – one in New York and one in a different region of the world. Unlike other Markets, which welcome the inclusion from outside the country in which the Market takes place, the focus of APAM is solely on the presentation of Australian and near-neighbour country (New Zealand) performance works, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, that are ready for national and international touring. This report provides an analysis of data for the period January to June 2017. It also draws on and extends comparative data from five previous reports developed in 2014, 2015 and 2016. As such it falls into phase 3 of the research process outlined on page 8 of this document. This report concentrates on outcomes for the case study companies and artists selected for longditudinal tracking by APAM staff. Data for this analysis has been drawn from the following two sources: 1. Online survey delivered to all APAM Case Study companies and artists. 2. Interviews with APAM Case Study companies and artists or their representative such as producers engaged by the artist or company to promote their artistic product. The outcomes of the analysis are delivered through a listing of success outcomes post-presentation at APAM 2014 and 2016, as well as a set of consolidated narratives about the impact of APAM and its outputs, the activities that are enabling it to have this impact, and any barriers that may be preventing it from having the anticipated impact for each company or artist. A key throughline that has become resounding within this interview cycle is that the experience of APAM for those established companies who receive operational funding is significantly different to those independent companies and artists who garner project funding only: it is this difference of interface with the APAM experience that is dominant underpinning for the case study interpretations at this point, along with the manner in which the opportunities, ability to successfully navigate, network and exploit the Market differ. There are five key themes emergent from the interview and survey data. Detailed analysis is available on page 42 of this report: 1. Respondents remain confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities. 2. The level of expense incurred by small arts companies and independent artists to present work at APAM remains an issue. 3. Respondents remain confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities. Relationships and presentation opportunities build exponentially when a company or artists tour their work. 4. Respondents support the notion that APAM assists artists and companies to successful profile their artistic product and position their company as a leading Australian arts company. 5. The central reason for attending remains to be the networking opportunities the Market affords. Respondents note that a key benefit of attendance and presenting at APAM ensures that they are part of the national arts conversation